Generated by All in One SEO Pro v5.0.1.1, this is an llms-full.txt file, used by LLMs to index the site.
# FSNS
A Certified Group Company
## Posts
### [SQF Audit | How to Obtain SQF Certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/)
**Published:** May 14, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
SQF audits are one of the most frequent that our [Certification & Audit team](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) performs at food facilities of all sizes and in all markets. It’s an ideal [GFSI-benchmarked certification](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) for sites that are new to food safety certification and those with years of certification experience. Let’s dive into SQF audit basics for those who are new to SQF certification.
## SQF Meaning Explained
Let’s start with a basic question: What does SQF stand for?
**SQF is an acronym for “Safe Quality Food”.**
Overseen by the [Safe Quality Food Institute](https://www.sqfi.com/), SQF is a global food safety program whose goal is to ensure food safety.
It is based on [Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP)](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) and is recognized by the [Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)](https://mygfsi.com/). Many retailers and manufacturers worldwide require SQF certification or similar before purchasing food products from other companies. Doing so provides reassurance that your facility has been evaluated by a [third party food safety audit company](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), showing your commitment to food safety.
*Obtaining SQF certification is a way to show your customers that your organization is committed to food safety, helping you reach new markets.*## What is SQF Certification?
That raises the next question: What is SQF certification?
**SQF certification is an independent, third-party validation that your product, process, or service complies with the standards outlined in the SQF code** (currently [SQF edition 9](https://www.sqfi.com/the-sqf-code/choose-your-code/code-selector/); however, [SQF edition 10 was released in 2026](https://fsns.com/sqf-edition-10-is-here-how-to-prepare-your-site/ "SQF Edition 10 is Here: How to Prepare Your Site") and audits against the new edition will begin in 2027). This is done through an SQF audit, which is the formal evaluation process used to verify that your facility meets SQF standards.
## What are the Benefits of SQF Certification?
Passing an audit and achieving SQF certification provides your company with several benefits, including…
- Establishment of a robust [food safety management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/).
- Assurance for retailers and other distributors that your products have been produced and prepared according to globally recognized standards.
- Access to top retailers, helping you expand your sales.
- Decreased risk.
- Stronger brand image.
Successfully passing an SQF Audit builds trust with customers and demonstrates your facility’s commitment to excellence in food safety and quality.
## What are the Different SQF Programs?
To get started on your way to SQF certification, you first need to select the appropriate food safety program.
The Safe Quality Food Institute offers [5 different SQF programs](https://www.sqfi.com/our-program/certification-programs) from which to choose for your facility. This offers the flexibility to use the program that best fits your company’s size and needs.
Here’s a glance at them:
**Program** **Who’s It For?** **Prerequisites** **GFSI-Benchmarked?** Food Safety Program All food producers None Yes Fundamentals Program Small & medium companies None Yes Quality Program Sites with robust food safety plans SQF food safety plan or similar Yes Foodservice Program Foodservice businesses None No Food Retail Program Food retailers None No ## How Much Does SQF Certification Cost?
SQF certification cost will depend on the steps your facility must take to ensure your product, processes, or service comply with the standards defined in the SQF code. Some facilities have food safety programs in place and may be ready to pass an SQF audit today. Other facilities may require quite a bit of work before being able to pass an audit.
No matter where your facility falls on the spectrum, you need to schedule and pass an SQF audit from a licensed certification body, such as [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
> **A 2-day SQF certification audit from FSNS C&A typically costs under $6,000**.
Again, audit cost can vary depending on length and complexity. View it as an investment in your facility’s food safety program and quality goals. Certification is also required to access many retailers, which helps you recoup the cost of the SQF audit and boost revenue.
Bear in mind that FSNS Certification & Audit offers 15% off an SQF audit for new customers. [Reach out here if you’re interested.](https://info.fsns.com/15-off-certification-audit-services-2023)
[](https://info.fsns.com/15-off-certification-audit-services-2023)## How Long Does an SQF Audit Take?
An SQF certification audit typically takes no more than two days to complete. Understand that this includes only the on-site portion of the audit process during which the auditor will visit the site to talk to staff, review documents, evaluate your production area, and perform other audit duties.
This does not include pre-audit administrative work, such as onboarding, scheduling, preparing the final report, and delivering the report.
While we’ve had some customers tell us that previous Certification Bodies have taken up to four months to deliver a final report, FSNS C&A provides a final report in an average of 35 days.
In one instance, [our team stepped up to help Hilmar obtain an SQF audit and preliminary report in just two business days](https://fsns.com/short-notice-sqf-audit-keeps-hilmars-certification-plans-on-track/) after their previous CB cancelled two audits on them.
## Who Performs an SQF Audit?
Only SQFI-licensed Certification Bodies (CBs) are approved to conduct SQF audits and issue certificates. These CBs are accredited to the international standard ISO/IEC 17065. All SQF CBs are held to standards and annual assessments to meet requirements for SQFI.
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) is an SQFI-licensed certification body.
## What Happens During an SQF Audit?
An SQF Audit typically includes a document review, facility inspection, employee interviews, and verification of [food safety and quality systems](https://fsns.com/air-quality-production-facilities/). The SQF audit is conducted by a Certification Body, such as FSNS Certification & Audit, and follows a detailed checklist based on the SQF Code.
## How Do I Get SQF Certified?
Since an SQF certification involves the public’s health and safety, the process of earning it is deliberately designed to be robust and meticulous. It includes the education, implementation, auditing, and maintaining of safety standards within your facilities.
Here is a simple outline of the steps you will need to take to earn SQF certification.
1. **Site Registration**
- To be considered for SQF certification, register your facility on the [SQFI assessment database](https://www.sqfi.com/assessment-database/). Note that there is a fee for registration and annual renewals. You need to register your site with SQFI prior to the start of the initial certification audit.
2. **Designate an SQF Practitioner**
- Appoint a full-time employee to act as your SQF practitioner. This person will need to complete a [HACCP-based training course](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/) and, ultimately, gain a working knowledge of SQF code, and meet the requirements outlined below.
- You need to designate a primary and substitute practitioner who meet the following requirements:
- Must be employed by your site.
- Hold a position of responsibility to managing an SQF program.
- Have completed a HACCP/PCQI training course.
- Be competent to implement and maintain HACCP-based plans.
- Understand the SQF code (FSNS offers an [SQF practitioner training course](https://fsns.com/product/implementing-sqf-systems-ed-10-training-course/)).
- You may have more than one SQF practitioner within your team so you can efficiently oversee the development and implementation of the SQF food safety program in your facility. Having a “substitute” at minimum is required.
3. **Determine the Scope of SQF Certification**
- Next, you must determine the scope of certification for your SQF audit, meaning the food sector categories, products, and processes that will be included in your system.
- The scope determines what elements of the SQF code are applicable to your SQF certification. There are several [Food Sector Categories to review to determine where your products fit](https://www.sqfi.com/the-sqf-code/choose-your-code/code-selector/), such as for egg processing; dairy food processing; slaughtering, boning, and butchering; and more.
- Once you identify your Food Sector Categories, you will be responsible for implementing the system elements and your relevant GMP module based upon your scope.
4. **Document & Implement Your SQF System**
- This step requires the most time and resources. It requires documenting and implementing the requirements of the SQF code and developing your own SQF system.
- Programs, policies, procedures, work instructions, and specifications need to be developed and implemented to meet the requirements of the SQF code.
- Here a just a few examples of what must be implemented in your SQF food safety program:
- Records of all investigations, root cause analyses, and resolution of non-conformities, their corrections, and the implementation.
- Annual review and validation of critical food safety limits.
- Cleaning and sanitation activities and records.
- Proper handling and storage of food.
- Internal audits and inspections.
- Our auditors documented the [top 10 reasons they find for SQF audit non-conformities here](https://fsns.com/top-10-reasons-for-an-sqf-audit-non-conformity-data/). Review the list to understand the common areas where facilities come up short.
5. **Pre-Assessment SQF Audit (Optional)**
- A pre-assessment SQF audit is not required but is an excellent way to determine if your facility is on the right track before completing the certification audit. There may be onsite and remote review of your SQF system to help identify gaps in your implementation.
- [Contact FSNS Certification & Audit to schedule a pre-assessment SQF audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
- [Get tips for preparing for your SQF certification audit here.](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-an-sqf-certification-audit/)
6. **Select a Certification Body**
- Once selected, you and the CB will begin the set up to schedule your SQF audit, including confirming scope and required SQF code sections with your FSC.
- [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) is a licensed Certification Body.
7. **Initial Certification Audit**
- A qualified and registered food safety auditor (or team) will check that your documentation meets the SQF code and that your activities are conducted according to your documented policies, procedures, and specifications.
8. **Audit Reporting and Closeout**
- The auditor(s) gather evidence of compliance or non-compliance with the appropriate SQF code by reviewing documentation, interviewing staff, observing operations, and other tactics. You are given a score in your audit report based on the findings.
9. **Grant Certification**
- The Certification Body will determine based on evidence gathered during its SQF audit whether you receive certification or not. If your site meets requirements, you will receive a copy of your site’s certification within 10 days.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0a3a5a3d-2981-4a33-b05a-0eb3f1709097)## How Long Does SQF Certification Last?
Your site’s SQF certification is valid for **12 months**. To maintain it, you must complete a re-certification audit every year within 30 days before or after the anniversary of your initial certification.
If your site receives a “C – Complies” rating during a certification audit (rather than “E – Excellent” or “G – Good”), a surveillance audit is required six months after certification to verify corrective actions.
At least **once every three certification cycles**, your regular annual audit will be conducted as an **unannounced audit** instead of a scheduled one. This unannounced audit fulfills the yearly recertification requirement for that year — it is not an additional audit.
## What are the Most Common SQF Audit Non-Conformities?
Our auditors have performed hundreds of SQF audits, and here are the most common non-conformities that they find:
1. Failure to have senior site management review the SQF system each year.
2. Failure to identify and document corrective and preventative actions.
3. Failure to validate each element defined in GMPs.
4. Failure to follow manufacturer procedures for cleaning and sanitation.
5. Improper food handling and processing.
[View the full list of SQF audit non-conformities here.](https://fsns.com/top-10-reasons-for-an-sqf-audit-non-conformity-data/)
## Use an SQF Audit Checklist to Prepare
Download our SQF Audit Checklists to help prepare for your audit. We have two checklists available, depending on your Food Sector Category:
[**SQF Audit Checklist for Food Sector Categories 10-22, 25, & 33**](https://info.fsns.com/sqf-audit-checklist-download)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/1c216274-b691-4d60-b5df-e409e5d00683)[**SQF Audit Checklist for Food Sector Categories 7-9**](https://info.fsns.com/sqf-animal-product-audit-checklist-download)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/1ff47086-428a-4178-8e38-3daa4814c747)## How Long Does it Take to Get SQF Certified?
The SQF audit duration is no less than two days, including document reviews and facility assessments. However, the whole process of having your site evaluated for SQF certification can take anywhere from 6 months to a year or more.
Here are some of the factors that can speed up or slow down your SQF certification process:
- Existing certifications.
- Correct implementation and documentation from proper training.
- The scope of the audit.
- The number and complexity of processes to be assessed.
- The ease of communication with on-site personnel.
*The auditor(s) will observe all aspects of your production process relevant to the scope of your SQF certification during the audit. Conducting a pre-assessment audit is a great way to prepare.* ## Questions about an SQF Audit or Certification?
We understand that an SQF audit and certification is crucial to your success, and we’re here to help make the process more efficient for you.
FSNS Certification & Audit (FSNS C&A) is an independent and accredited [food safety audit company](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/). Through our objective assessment process, we ensure that your site meets global standards and stays ahead of the competition.
[Contact FSNS C&A if you need help securing an SQF certification for your facility](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)## SQF Certification FAQs
### **What is SQF Certification?**
SQF certification is a globally recognized food safety certification that proves your facility follows rigorous food safety and quality standards. It’s issued by a licensed Certification Body after a formal SQF audit.
This certification can open the door to new markets, improve brand trust, and reduce food safety risks.
### **How Much Does SQF Certification Cost?**
A typical 2-day SQF certification audit from [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) costs under $6,000. However, your site may need to invest in upgrading your food safety management system to be able to pass an audit. Those costs vary depending on the state of your current system.
### **Who Can Perform an SQF Audit?**
Only an SQFI-licensed Certification Body, such as [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), can perform an SQF audit.
### **What is the Difference Between SQF and HACCP?**
HACCP is a preventive food safety system that identifies and controls biological, chemical, and physical hazards in production, while SQF is a certification program that incorporates HACCP principles into a broader, GFSI-benchmarked quality management system. In short, HACCP is a method, and SQF is a formal certification that verifies a facility follows HACCP-based and other quality standards.
### **What Does SQF Stand For?**
SQF is an acronym for “Safe Quality Food”. Overseen by the [Safe Quality Food Institute](https://www.sqfi.com/), SQF is a global food safety program whose goal is to ensure food safety.
### **How Do I Pass an SQF Audit?**
It depends on the current state of your food safety management system. For sites with robust, mature systems, passing an audit may require few changes to your current system. For sites new to food safety certification, several additional processes may need to be added to your management system before you can pass. Our blog provides details on how to get SQF certified.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** Certification and audit, food and beverage, Food safety, GFSI, SQF
---
### [What is HACCP?](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/)
**Published:** February 10, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
> What is HACCP? HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) is an **internationally recognized systematic method of identifying, managing, and controlling significant hazards associated with the manufacture of food, including [biological](https://fsns.com/unmasking-biological-food-hazards-guide-to-understanding-and-preventing-risks/), chemical, and [physical](https://fsns.com/how-to-help-prevent-physical-hazards-in-food-a-guide-for-qc-teams/)**.
As part of a properly managed [food safety management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/), a HACCP plan offers regulators, customers, and the public assurance of your commitment to food safety. Many food safety certifications require you to develop and implement a HACCP plan based on *Codex Alimentarius* HACCP principles.
## What Does HACCP Stand For?
- HACCP stands for **Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points**
The HACCP system focuses on [prevention rather than reaction to hazards](https://fsns.com/how-to-help-prevent-physical-hazards-in-food-a-guide-for-qc-teams/). This method is widely used in food manufacturing and is the basis for prestigious standards such as the [Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and related benchmarked certifications](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/), including [SQF certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), and [FSSC 22000 certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/).
Many large retailers and quick-service restaurants require a GFSI-benchmarked food safety certification to supply them.
So, if you want to sell your products to large companies, writing a HACCP plan is one of the key [steps in a robust food safety system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/e3d863ef-b1b9-4e21-9eb9-d962af94d536)## What is a HACCP Plan?
The [National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF)](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/advisory-committees/national-advisory-committee-microbiological-criteria-foods-nacmcf) defines a HACCP Plan as, “The written document which is based upon the 7 principles of HACCP and which delineates the procedures to be followed.”
As you complete the steps needed to develop a HACCP plan (which we explain below), you will need to document your products and processes, hazard analysis, critical control points, critical limits, and relevant procedures and justifications.
The written document that results from this work is your HACCP plan. It is a vital component of an effective HACCP food safety program.
## Regulatory Basis for HACCP
In the United States, HACCP requirements are codified in [9 CFR Part 417](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-E/part-417), mandating that meat, poultry, and egg product processors develop and implement a written HACCP plan for each product type. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) enforces these rules, requiring hazard analysis and identification of critical control points. The FDA also mandates [HACCP for juice (21 CFR Part 120)](https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-juice-hazard-analysis-critical-control-point-hazards-and-controls-guidance-first) and [seafood (21 CFR Part 123)](https://www.fda.gov/food/hazard-analysis-critical-control-point-haccp/seafood-haccp) producers.
Globally, HACCP is embedded in international standards. The Codex Alimentarius Commission, established by the FAO and WHO, sets out the foundational HACCP principles that influence food safety laws worldwide. ISO 22000 integrates HACCP with prerequisite programs like Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOP), forming a comprehensive food safety management system recognized by major retailers and international buyers.
Certification schemes benchmarked by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), including [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), and [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/), require documented HACCP plans as part of their audit process. These standards ensure that food safety controls meet global expectations and support international trade.
HACCP training is often required for certification and regulatory compliance. [FSNS](https://fsns.com/) offers virtual (live, instructor-led) [HACCP Training](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/) as well as [Advanced HACCP Training](https://fsns.com/product/advanced-haccp-preventive-controls/) for food safety professionals, along with a [full range of food industry training courses](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/ "Food Industry Training Built for the Plant Floor").
## What is HACCP Certification?
While people often inquire about “HACCP certification”, a site does not obtain HACCP certification in a standalone audit.
Rather, review of a site’s HACCP plan may be part of a regulatory assessment, [third-party GMP audit](https://fsns.com/gmp-audits-food-industry-guide/), or third-party GFSI audit. An individual person could choose to take a HACCP training course and obtain a certificate upon completion to indicate they have become “HACCP Certified”, but your site cannot achieve HACCP certification.
*One of the biggest benefits of implementing a HACCP plan is gaining access to new markets and retailers that require a HACCP-based food safety certification.* ## What are the Benefits of Implementing a HACCP Plan?
Maintaining the highest standards for food safety practices benefits not only your company, but your customers as well. These are a few benefits of implementing a HACCP plan that you can expect:
- Where applicable, **meet regulatory requirements** to produce products for distribution in interstate commerce.
- Adhering to internationally recognized HACCP food safety standards will help your company **grow market share, increase business, and access new markets**.
- Trusted, safe products coming from reputable companies **inspire brand loyalty**.
- When reviewing your facilities and procedures, you can find opportunities to **increase efficiency**, helping streamline production.
- Maintaining strict standards provides a service in **bolstering public health** as well as **increased trust in your products**.
- Your HACCP plan **reduces risks** to your employees, equipment, and customers.
- Wasted product and shrink are **exponentially reduced**.
- Implementing a good HACCP plan **reduces the likelihood of customer complaints and costly recalls**.
## What are the Preliminary Tasks to Writing a HACCP Plan?
Now, let’s talk about how to make a HACCP plan.
There are several steps to writing an effective HACCP plan. Each must be carefully considered and thoroughly studied. Start with these preliminary tasks to help develop the best possible plan.
1. **Create a HACCP Team:** When assembling and training your HACCP team, choosing the right people is essential. Ensure that the team is diverse in knowledge and experience, and that the team is reflective of the size and complexity of your company.
2. **Compile List of Products and Ingredients:** Assemble a detailed list of all the products and ingredients (and sub ingredients) your company is, or will be, handling. This helps isolate high-risk substances that will need to be treated with care. In addition, identify how it will be packaged and the packaging materials that will be used.
3. **Identify Intended Customers/Consumers and Distribution:** Keeping the intended user in mind can help your team consider what, if any, special steps or procedures are required, particularly for immunocompromised groups. It helps to visualize satisfied customers when assembling the plan that is intended to keep them safe. How will this product be shipped? Is there any food safety labeling required?
4. **Create and Verify a Flowchart:** All inputs and outputs of the process should be included to allow for hazard evaluation. Beginning with the purchase of raw materials from a supplier, fully chart the progression of the [production process, making note of key control process](https://fsns.com/process-validation/) steps. This flowchart shall be verified by the HACCP team in real-time to ensure its accuracy to the process.
Completing these steps helps you execute a robust Hazard Analysis, which is the foundation of the development of your HACCP plan.
Check out our blog on [5 tips for successfully implementing your HACCP plan](https://fsns.com/5-tips-for-successful-implementation-of-haccp/).
## What are the 7 Principle Steps of HACCP?
There are 7 principle steps that must be taken when creating your HACCP plan:
1. **Conduct a hazard analysis**
2. **Determine critical control points (CCPs)**
3. **Establish critical limits**
4. **Establish monitoring procedures**
5. **Establish corrective actions**
6. **Establish verification procedures**
7. **Establish record-keeping and documentation procedures**
Let’s look at each step more closely.
### HACCP Principle 1: Conduct a Hazard Analysis
The first step in developing a HACCP plan is to conduct a **hazard analysis**.
- Gather and evaluate information about hazards exposed to food products to determine significant hazards to include in the HACCP plan.
- Conduct a thorough walkthrough and comprehensive study of raw materials, ingredients, and production processes.
- Consider unconventional risks, including surfaces, equipment, and placement of hazardous materials.
- Assess [biological](https://fsns.com/unmasking-biological-food-hazards-guide-to-understanding-and-preventing-risks/), chemical, and [physical](https://fsns.com/how-to-help-prevent-physical-hazards-in-food-a-guide-for-qc-teams/) hazards posed to products.
- Identify significant hazards requiring control measures.
- Represent every ingredient and process step in the documented hazard analysis from the flow diagram.
- Describe in the HACCP plan the potential hazard, its severity, and likelihood of occurrence in products and processes.
- Demonstrate complete understanding of production processes and potential hazard points in developing a HACCP plan.
- Include all steps from accepting raw materials to packaging finished products.
- Involve a diverse cross-section of organizational personnel in the HACCP team for a comprehensive grasp of each process step.
- Ensure successful hazard analysis through inclusive team representation.
*The first step in developing a HACCP plan is conducting a hazard analysis to identify potential hazards to which your food products may be exposed, including each ingredient.* ### HACCP Principle 2: Determine the Critical Control Points (CCPs)
What is a critical control point in HACCP? **It is a step in your production process at which control can be applied to help prevent, eliminate, or reduce to an acceptable level a significant food safety hazard.**
Once you understand the definition, it’s time to identify the CCPs in your HACCP plan. The critical control points must address the potential hazards that are reasonably likely to cause injury or illness in their absence. This is where expert knowledge is indispensable, which underscores the need to assemble an expert HACCP team.
Identify any step in the production process where hazards can be prevented, eliminated, or reduced to acceptable levels as a critical control point. Examples of CCPs include the following:
- Cooking
- Chilling
- Cold storage
- Hot holding
- Product formulation
Heating a product to a specified temperature for a specified minimum time to kill microorganisms could be a critical control point. Similarly, refrigeration to prevent [microbial growth could be another critical control](https://fsns.com/fattom-a-key-to-microbial-control-and-food-safety/) point. The CCPs will vary depending on the food you are producing, and they can even vary between facilities that produce the same food.
Ensure that your HACCP team carefully documents each critical control point in your HACCP plan. Depending on your regulatory agency, establish your critical control points using [USDA-FSIS HACCP guidelines](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/compliance-guidance/haccp) or [FDA (Fruit/Vegetable Juice, Seafood) HACCP guidelines](https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/hazard-analysis-critical-control-point-haccp).
### HACCP Principle 3: Establish Critical Limits for Each Critical Control Point (CCP)
According to NACMCF, a critical limit in a HACCP program is **the maximum and/or minimum value to which a biological, chemical, or physical parameter must be controlled at a CCP to prevent, eliminate, or reduce to an acceptable level the occurrence of a food safety hazard**.
Move through the list of CCPs and establish specific, detailed critical limits that scientifically control the identified hazards.
For example, if your company processes and uses raw chicken, your critical control point may include cooking the chicken to eliminate significant hazards such as *Salmonella*. The critical limit for that CCP may be 165ºF internal product temperature, derived from published scientific literature.
### HACCP Principle 4: Monitor each Critical Control Point
Once the CCPs and critical limits are established, follow through. Monitoring (identifying the What, How, When, and Who) ensure your critical limits are being met.
Critical limits are ideally measurable and observable. Preferably, it should be possible to monitor critical limits continuously via physical or chemical methods, such as monitoring the temperature of food products using calibrated equipment.
Any deviation could result in foodborne illness and harm to customers, which underscores the importance of effective monitoring of critical limits.
Personnel assigned to monitor critical limits should be properly trained and demonstrate an understanding of the process, including what to do in the event of a deviation.
*Ideally, critical limits should be monitored continuously and in real time to provide the best data for your HACCP system.* ### HACCP Principle 5: Establish Corrective Action Procedures
Corrective actions are the responses taken when critical limits or monitoring procedures are not met. Corrective actions should include the following:
- Identify and correct the deviation; get the CCP back in control.
- Investigate the root cause of the deviation and implement preventive measures.
- Evaluate the product disposition.
- Record the corrective actions taken.
Corrective actions should be conducted, where appropriate, to the regulatory requirements for correcting deviations of CCPs. Additionally, develop corrective actions for each critical limit in advance and document them as a training mechanism for personnel involved as a preparation activity. At minimum, include actions to be taken when a deviation occurs, the person in charge, and the information to be documented.
Defining corrective actions in advance – like longer cooking times or discarding food that doesn’t meet the proper temperature – helps employees know what to do in certain situations.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/56cd1387-3858-49b1-90d2-68eb6a0df65c)### HACCP Principle 6: Establish Verification Procedures
**This is arguably the most important part of your HACCP plan.**
Verification procedures are the activities, not counting monitoring, that answer the question, “Are we doing what we said we were going to do?” Verification activities may be related to verifying the totality of the HACCP system, or verification activities for each individual CCP.
This can include frequent review of your HACCP plan, verification that it is being followed, and review of critical control points and critical limits. Examples of verification activities for CCPs may include the following:
- Calibration of monitoring device
- Direct observation (FSIS)
- Record review
- Pre-shipment review (FSIS)
- CCP adequacy review
It is also a good idea to consult a [qualified third-party organization, such as EAS Consulting Group, to verify your HAACP plan procedures](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/auditing/), for example through internal audits or gap assessments. This can uncover potential problems your team may have missed and provide independent information that helps you develop a robust and effective HACCP food safety system.
Your plan can be re-worked accordingly based on the performance and results of verification activities.
### HACCP Principle 7: Establish Effective Documentation and Recordkeeping
“If it was not written down, it did not happen.” Records are the evidence of your HACCP plan.
Use your data to help you understand if your HACCP plan is working as intended. Documented evidence may be a combination of documents (developed programs, Standard Operating Procedures, Good Manufacturing Practices, policies, work instructions) as well as real-time records (data documented into/onto paper or digital forms). Records may include the following:
- HACCP team members and their responsibilities
- Description of the food, its distribution, intended use, and target consumer
- Flowchart
- Hazard analysis summary, including rationale for a decision
- Critical control points
- Critical limits
- Corrective actions
- Verification procedures and schedule
- Any support documents such as scientific studies
- Prerequisite programs
- Realtime Authentic HACCP and operational records
## Which Special Process Requires a HACCP Plan?
Some facilities may prepare or preserve food using non-thermal methods, such as brining or curing. Some special processes require a HACCP plan and/or variance to be used at your facility. The information contained in your plan is the same as for non-special processes covered above.
Some examples of special processes that require a HACCP plan include the following:
- Curing through use of nitrites or nitrates
- Using vinegar to preserve fruit or vegetables
- Reduced oxygen packaging
- Smoking meat, fish, or other food
- Curing meat or other food
- Acidification
- Using a live holding tank for shellfish
Check your local regulations for guidance.
## Is HACCP a Codified System?
Yes, HACCP is a codified system in that it is located in the Code of Federal Regulations:
- USDA: [Title 9 Part 416](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-E/part-416) and [417](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-E/part-417)
- FDA: [Title 21 Part 120](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-120) for juice, [Part 123 for fish and fishery products](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-123/subpart-A/section-123.6)
9 CFR Part 417 requires establishments to conduct a hazard analysis and develop a written HACCP plan that covers each product produced to promote food safety.
21 CFR Part 120 mandates that any processor of juice sold as such or used as an ingredient implement a HACCP plan, while Part 123 outlines the same requirements for processors of fish and fishery products.
## Prepare Your Team With HACCP Training
Since its adoption in the 1990s, HACCP has marked a significant advance in food safety management. However, knowing how to make a HACCP plan for your facility can be complex. Whether you’re developing a plan to meet regulatory obligations or to enhance food safety voluntarily, completing a HACCP training course equips your team with the knowledge and skills to write an effective and comprehensive HACCP plan.
[FSNS ](https://fsns.com/)offers [in-person and online HACCP training courses](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/) throughout the year at locations around the United States. Our [food industry training instructors](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/food-industry-training-instructors/ "Food Industry Training Instructors") offer decades of experience in food safety to help prepare you for success.
Our labs provide a full range of [food safety testing](https://fsns.com/industries/) to support your safety program.
---
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/e3d863ef-b1b9-4e21-9eb9-d962af94d536)
---
### **What is HACCP?**
HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) is an internationally recognized systematic method of identifying, managing, and controlling significant hazards associated with the manufacture of food, including [biological](https://fsns.com/unmasking-biological-food-hazards-guide-to-understanding-and-preventing-risks/), chemical, and [physical](https://fsns.com/how-to-help-prevent-physical-hazards-in-food-a-guide-for-qc-teams/).
### **What does HACCP stand for?**
HACCP stands for **Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points**. It is a systematic, science-based approach to identifying, evaluating, and controlling hazards that can affect food safety throughout the supply chain.
### **What is the purpose of HACCP?**
The purpose of HACCP is to prevent food safety hazards before they occur by identifying potential risks and implementing control measures at critical points in the production process. This proactive system helps ensure safe food handling, protect public health, and support regulatory and industry compliance.
### **What are the 7 principles of HACCP?**
The seven principles of HACCP are:
1\. Conduct a hazard analysis
2\. Determine critical control points (CCPs)
3\. Establish critical limits
4\. Establish monitoring procedures
5\. Establish corrective actions
6\. Establish verification procedures
7\. Establish record-keeping and documentation procedures
These steps form the foundation of a robust food safety plan.
### **Who needs to follow HACCP?**
HACCP is used by food manufacturers, processors, distributors, and service providers across the entire food industry. It is especially important in high-risk sectors like meat, poultry, seafood, dairy, and ready-to-eat foods, but it is applicable to any organization involved in food production or handling.
### **Is HACCP required by law?**
In the United States, HACCP is legally required for certain sectors such as meat and poultry (regulated by USDA), seafood and juice (regulated by FDA). While not mandatory for all food businesses, HACCP is widely adopted as a best practice and is often required by major retailers, foodservice providers, and global food safety certification programs.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety, HACCP
---
### [FATTOM (FAT TOM): The Six Factors That Drive Microbial Growth in Food](https://fsns.com/fattom-a-key-to-microbial-control-and-food-safety/)
**Published:** June 21, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Ryan Welsh, M.S., Corporate Operations Support, Certified Group*
### 1-Minute Summary
- The FATTOM acronym (also referred to as FAT TOM) helps food safety & quality assurance personnel know how to control microbial growth in food.
- FATTOM stands for Food, Acidity, Temperature, Time, Oxygen, and Moisture – the six factors that affect microbial growth in food.
- Managing these factors helps reduce risks of contamination and safeguards public safety.
---
## FATTOM: A Helpful Food Safety Tool
When it comes to [food safety testing](https://fsns.com/industries/), controlling potentially harmful and costly microorganisms is crucial for ensuring food safety and quality. The FATTOM acronym – Food, Acidity, Temperature, Time, Oxygen, and Moisture – helps you understand and manage the factors that influence microbial growth. You’ll also see this written as FAT TOM in food safety manuals and training materials; it refers to the same six-factor framework.
This article delves into the meaning and importance of the FATTOM acronym, offering expert insights for food safety & quality assurance professionals on how to effectively control these variables to maintain high standards in food production.
Learn more about the FATTOM acronym in our [Microbiology and Food Safety 101 course](https://fsns.com/product/microbiology-and-food-safety-101-course/), one of our [many food industry training courses](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/ "Food Industry Training Built for the Plant Floor").
## FATTOM Meaning
The acronym FATTOM (aka FAT TOM) represents the six factors that are crucial in determining the growth and survival of microorganisms in food:
- **Food:** Microorganisms need nutrients to grow, which they get from the food itself.
- **Acidity:** The pH level of food affects microbial growth, with most pathogens preferring neutral to slightly acidic environments.
- **Temperature:** Microorganisms grow best at certain temperatures, often within the “Danger Zone” of 40°F to 140°F (4°C to 60°C).
- **Time:** The longer food is exposed to optimal growth conditions, the more microorganisms can multiply.
- **Oxygen:** Some microorganisms require oxygen to grow, while others thrive in its absence.
- **Moisture:** Water activity (Aw) in food determines the availability of water for microbial growth.
The FATTOM acronym is useful because it helps food safety professionals remember and control the conditions that allow harmful microorganisms to thrive. By managing these six factors, food manufacturers can significantly reduce the risk of foodborne illnesses and spoilage, ensuring safer and higher-quality products.
Let’s take a closer look at each letter of the FATTOM acronym:
## F – Food (Nutrients for Microbes)
Microorganisms require nutrients to grow, and they obtain these from the food they contaminate. The key nutrients include:
- **Energy sources:** Sugars and proteins are primary energy sources for microbial growth.
- **Sources of nitrogen:** Proteins provide essential nitrogen that microbes need to multiply.
- **Vitamins and minerals:** These micronutrients support various metabolic activities in microorganisms.
The biological structure of food also plays a significant role. Plants have outer skins that naturally protect against microbial invasion. However, when these skins are damaged or cut, such as when slicing a cantaloupe and “dragging” bacteria onto the flesh of the fruit, the interior becomes exposed and more susceptible to contamination.
Understanding the nutrient needs of microorganisms helps food safety professionals design effective interventions. By controlling nutrient availability through tactics like ingredient selection, preservatives, processing techniques, packaging, and ideal storage conditions, you can minimize the growth of harmful microbes.
## A – Acidity (pH)
The acidity, or pH level, of food significantly affects microbial growth. Most microorganisms grow best in neutral to slightly acidic conditions, around pH 7.0. Many pathogens struggle to grow in highly acidic environments.
- Microorganisms thrive at a pH near 7.0. As pH decreases, their growth rate slows.
- Most pathogens do not grow well at pH levels below 4.6, which is why acidic foods like pickles and citrus fruits are less susceptible to contamination. Despite this, some pathogens may survive for a short period at low pH levels.
- Yeasts, molds, and certain spoilage bacteria can grow at lower pH levels, below 4.6, which necessitates additional control measures in acidic foods.
By adjusting the pH level of food, either through natural means (e.g., fermentation) or by adding acids (e.g., vinegar, citric acid), food safety professionals can create environments that inhibit pathogen growth. This approach, combined with other FATTOM factors, helps maintain food safety and extend [shelf life](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/).
## T – Temperature
Temperature is a critical factor in microbial growth, influencing the rate at which microorganisms multiply. Controlling temperature is essential to prevent the proliferation of harmful microbes.
### Bacterial Classification by Temperature
- **Thermophiles:** Thrive in very hot environments.
- **Mesophiles:** Grow best in moderate temperatures, typically between 20°C to 45°C (68°F to 113°F). These include many pathogens.
- **Psychrotrophs:** Can grow in cold or warm environments, often found in refrigerated foods.
- **Psychrophiles:** Prefer cold environments, growing well below 20°C (68°F).
### Temperature Control
- **Refrigeration (< 41°F):** Slows or stops the growth of most pathogens. However, psychrotrophs like *Listeria monocytogenes*, *Yersinia enterocolitica*, *Aeromonas hydrophila*, and *Clostridium botulinum* Type E can still grow slowly.
- **Freezing:** Inhibits microbial growth but does not kill bacteria. Some bacteria, such as *Campylobacter*, do not tolerate freezing well and may die.
- **Heating:** Cooking food to an internal temperature of ≥ 165°F kills most pathogens. Maintaining food at ≥ 140°F prevents the growth and toxin production of remaining microbes.
###
FATTOM (FAT TOM): Stay Out of the Danger Zone
As mentioned, the temperature range between 40°F and 140°F (4°C to 60°C) is known as the “Danger Zone,” where bacteria can grow rapidly. Minimizing the time food spends in this range is crucial for safety.
When food is heated (cooked) to 165°F and then held at or above 140°F, only spores survive. However, spores can become vegetative cells again if food isn’t cooled quickly enough. Vegetative cells multiply and can produce toxins.
Many bacterial pathogens need time to grow to high enough levels to produce enough toxin to cause disease (i.e. at least four hours in the “Danger Zone”). Some of most common factors leading to foodborne illness are…
1. Improper cooling of leftover foods.
2. Improper holding temperatures of hot foods, such as hot food buffets.
## T – Time
Time is a critical factor in microbial growth, affecting how long microorganisms have to multiply under favorable conditions. Controlling the duration that food spends in optimal growth environments is essential for food safety.
Under ideal conditions, **some bacteria can double in number every 15-30 minutes**. This rapid multiplication can lead to significant contamination in a short period.
### Bacterial Growth Curve
1. **Lag Phase:** Initial period where bacteria adapt to their environment, with little to no cell division.
2. **Log Phase:** Exponential growth phase where bacteria divide rapidly.
3. **Stationary Phase:** Growth rate slows as resources become limited, and the number of new cells equals the number of dying cells.
4. **Death Phase:** Decline in the number of viable bacteria as conditions become unfavorable.
The longer food remains in the “Danger Zone” (40°F – 140°F), the higher the risk of bacterial growth and contamination. Reducing the time food spends in this range is crucial for safety.
### Practical Applications for Slowing Bacterial Growth
- After cooking, food should be cooled quickly to below 40°F to minimize time in the Danger Zone.
- Keep cooked food at or above 140°F to prevent bacterial growth.
## O – Oxygen (Oxidation-Reduction Potential)
Different microbes have varying oxygen requirements, and controlling oxygen levels helps manage microbial growth.
- **Obligate Aerobes:** Require oxygen to grow. Examples include *Pseudomonas* spp. and molds.
- **Facultative Anaerobes:** Can grow with or without oxygen. Examples include many [foodborne pathogens](https://fsns.com/listeria-dairy-products/) like *E. coli* and *Salmonella*.
- **Aerotolerant Anaerobes:** Do not use oxygen but can tolerate its presence. Lactic acid bacteria fall into this category.
- **Obligate Anaerobes:** Only grow in the absence of oxygen. Examples include *Clostridium* spp., which can cause food spoilage and illness.
Practical examples of controlling oxygen levels in food environments include the following:
- **Packaging:** Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) and vacuum packaging adjust the gas composition or remove air to reduce oxygen levels, slowing the growth of aerobic microorganisms and extending shelf-life.
- **Storage:** Use airtight containers to limit oxygen exposure during storage, reducing the risk of contamination and spoilage.
- **Processing:** Techniques like canning create anaerobic environments that inhibit aerobic microorganisms but may require additional measures to control anaerobes.
## M – Moisture (Water)
Water activity (Aw) measures the availability of water for microbial use, directly affecting their ability to thrive.
**Water Availability** is broken down into two terms:
- **Bound Water:** Water that is chemically bound within food and unavailable for microbial growth.
- **Free Water:** Water that is not bound and is available for microbial use, promoting microbial growth.
**Water Activity** is defined as the ratio of the vapor pressure of water in the food to the vapor pressure of pure water at the same temperature, ranging from 0.00 (no free water) to 1.00 (all free water).
Lower Aw inhibits microbial growth. Most bacteria require Aw of 0.91 or higher, while molds and yeasts can grow at lower Aw levels.
### Food Groups by Water Activity
- 0.98 and above: Fresh meats, fruits, vegetables.
- 0.80 to 0.93: Evaporated milk, tomato paste, bread.
- 0.60 to 0.85: Dried fruits, flour, cereals.
- Below 0.60: Confectionery, chocolate, honey.
Some practical applications for controlling water activity include the following:
- **Drying and Dehydration:** Reducing the water content in food to lower Aw and inhibit microbial growth. Examples include dried fruits and jerky.
- **Addition of Solutes:** Adding sugar or salt to food to bind free water and lower Aw, preserving products like jams, jellies, and salted meats.
- **Packaging:** Using moisture-proof packaging to maintain low Aw levels and prevent moisture ingress.
## Safeguarding Public Health through FATTOM Principles
Understanding and applying the FATTOM acronym is essential for food safety & quality assurance professionals. By controlling the factors of Food, Acidity, Temperature, Time, Oxygen, and Moisture, food manufacturers can effectively manage microbial risks.
Implementing FATTOM principles helps deter microbial contamination, enhances food safety, and extends product shelf-life, ultimately safeguarding [public health](https://fsns.com/a-brief-history-of-governmental-oversight-of-food-safety-protection-of-public-health/) and maintaining industry standards. [FSNS](https://fsns.com/) offers a [full range of microbiology assays](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) to support your safety programs.
### What Does FAT TOM Stand For?
FAT TOM stands for Food, Acidity, Temperature, Time, Oxygen, and Moisture – the six factors that affect microbial growth in food.
### What are the Six FAT TOM Conditions?
The six FAT TOM conditions are: Food, Acidity, Temperature, Time, Oxygen, and Moisture.
### What is the Danger Zone for FAT TOM?
The Danger Zone for FATTOM is the temperature range between 40°F and 140°F (4°C to 60°C), where bacteria can grow rapidly. Minimizing the time food spends in this range is crucial for safety.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) Guide for Food Safety](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/)
**Published:** July 28, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
Looking to help prevent costly recalls or audit failures? A well-designed and implemented Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) is your frontline defense against contamination from dangerous pathogens such as *Salmonella*, *Listeria monocytogenes*, *E. coli*, and other pathogens.
Guided by regulations like the [Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)](https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma), an EMP is designed to proactively identify potential safety issues, enhance sanitary conditions, and ensure regulatory compliance, thereby safeguarding consumers and protecting brands.
This guide delves into the regulatory influences on your EMP, details the design and implementation process, and explores tools for automation, reinforcing your EMP as a crucial component of a [comprehensive food safety management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/).
Let’s get started.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/56cd1387-3858-49b1-90d2-68eb6a0df65c)[](https://info.fsns.com/emp-ebook)
## What is an Environmental Monitoring Program?
An Environmental Monitoring Program (EMPs) is integral in ensuring product safety and regulatory compliance for food manufacturers.
They involve the **systematic sampling and testing of the production environment for potential sources of contamination**, such as pathogens, allergens, and other contaminants. Essentially, an EMP is a scientific method of validating the effectiveness of food safety systems.
## What is the Purpose of an EMP?
The primary objective of EMPs is to **prevent outbreaks of foodborne illnesses**, which account for 48 million illnesses and 3,000 deaths annually, according to the CDC.
Environmental Monitoring Programs for food safety also facilitate compliance with regulatory requirements set by agencies like the FDA and USDA, align with the standards of [GFSI-benchmarked food safety certification platforms](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/), and help maintain product quality and brand reputation.
*An Environmental Monitoring Program is a systematic way of testing the food production environment, including all food contact surfaces, for potential contamination, such as pathogens, to verify the effectiveness of your food safety programs.*## What are the Benefits of an EMP?
Implementing an effective Environmental Monitoring Program in your food manufacturing facility can yield several advantages:
- **Contaminant Identification:** EMPs can identify potential contaminants, such as pathogens or spoilage organisms, in the production environment, helping you direct your sanitation efforts and ensure product safety.
- **Sanitation Verification:** They can validate the efficacy of your sanitation processes and training programs, making sure these crucial safety measures are working as intended.
- **Root-Cause Analysis:** An EMP can help identify root-cause issues, leading to improved process controls and cost reductions.
- **Hygiene Data Collection:** They provide valuable data about the overall hygiene of your production facility, offering insights to inform further improvements.
- **Equipment Maintenance:** EMPs can uncover issues with equipment that require maintenance, helping your team address minor problems before they escalate into major challenges.
## EMP Regulatory Requirements & Recommendations for Food Product Companies
There are several industry regulations, guidance documents, and best practices to consider when designing an Environmental Monitoring Program for food safety. Let’s look at a few of the most important.
### FDA Compliance
Food and beverage manufacturers need to comply with the [Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)](https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma) and current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs), with a focus on risk-based preventive controls. An Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) is a pivotal tool to validate these controls and ensure cleanliness in various processing stages.
### USDA Guidelines
For ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, USDA-FSIS guidelines, including 9 CFR part 430, the “*Listeria* Rule,” [recommend EMPs as a means to verify sanitation processes](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/import/Controlling-Lm-RTE-Guideline.pdf), crucial for controlling pathogens like *Listeria monocytogenes*.
### Almond Board of California Recommendations
The Almond Board of California, addressing concerns of *Salmonella* in almonds, [advocates for an “aggressive” EMP](https://www.almonds.com/sites/default/files/pem_book.pdf) as an effective verification tool for *Salmonella* controls.
### GFSI Requirements
A [Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)-benchmarked food safety certification](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) is a significant demonstration of commitment to food safety. GFSI standards, including the [Safe Quality Food (SQF)](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) and [BRCGS Food Safety](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/) codes, mandate EMPs, emphasizing its significance in the food manufacturing industry.
BRCGS and SQF specifically require documented EMP sampling plans, corrective actions, and trending data, which are critical components of audit readiness.
## How EMPs Support HARPC Compliance
A well-designed Environmental Monitoring Program is a key element of your facility’s HARPC (Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls) plan. The data from EMPs helps identify contamination risks and provides documentation to validate your preventive controls. By demonstrating that you’re actively monitoring for pathogens and taking corrective actions, you build a strong case for compliance with FSMA requirements.
## Seek & Destroy: Identifying Potential Hazards with Your EMP
Effective Environmental Monitoring Programs should be designed to monitor and control potential sources of contamination, such as pathogens and other microorganisms.
### Monitoring Pathogens
Pathogens like *Salmonella*, [*Listeria* spp](https://fsns.com/control-listeria-monocytogenes-ready-eat-foods/)., *E.coli* O157:H7, and *Cronobacter* spp. are crucial targets. These pathogens have a significant potential to cause foodborne illnesses and should be closely monitored, especially in ready-to-eat (RTE) food facilities. Identifying potential harborage sites allows targeted sanitation efforts, reducing contamination risks.
RTE facilities face greater scrutiny under USDA FSIS and FDA regulations due to their higher risk profiles. EMPs in these environments must prioritize *Listeria* spp., use aggressive zone 1–4 testing, and follow FSIS guidance under [9 CFR part 430, the *Listeria* Rule](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-E/part-430/section-430.4).
*Monitoring for spoilage organisms in your production environment can help direct your sanitation efforts so your products achieve their maximum shelf-life, helping reduce waste and meet your customer’s expectations.*
### Spoilage Organisms
Monitoring spoilage organisms like Yeasts, Molds, and Lactic acid bacteria can prevent food spoilage, which can damage your brand and lead to waste. Regular monitoring can help identify sources of contamination and refine sanitation processes.
### Indicator Organisms
Tracking indicator organisms such as Coliforms, Enterobacteriaceae, and *Staphylococcus* provides information about the hygienic state of your production facility, helping verify sanitation effectiveness.
### Allergens
As food allergen-related recalls continue to rise, robust [allergen testing](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/) is essential, especially if your facility handles raw materials that contain allergens.
Both the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) standards require documented [allergen controls](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/the-complex-world-of-allergen-cross-contact-controls). To meet these expectations, your EMP should include testing for the FDA’s “Big 9” allergens:
- Milk
- Egg
- Peanut
- Soybeans
- Wheat
- Tree Nut
- Fish
- Crustacean Shellfish
- Sesame
A practical and reliable method for [detecting allergens is ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay)](https://fsns.com/the-growing-importance-of-allergen-testing-how-certified-group-ensures-food-safety-with-elisa/). This testing method offers high sensitivity and specificity at a cost-effective price point, making it a preferred tool in routine allergen verification.
[FSNS ](https://fsns.com/)also offers [PCR testing (polymerase chain reaction) for allergens](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/), which is ideal for baked goods and extruded snacks where proteins may be denatured or degraded.
Incorporating allergen swabbing into your EMP alongside pathogen and hygiene monitoring helps verify that cleaning procedures are effective at removing allergen residues. Focus swabbing efforts on high-risk areas like shared equipment, hard-to-clean surfaces, and transition points between allergen and non-allergen production runs.
By validating your sanitation practices with targeted allergen testing, you reduce the risk of cross-contact, support accurate labeling, and protect your brand from costly recalls.
## Designing an Effective Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP)
An EMP is a systematic, science-based approach informed by risk assessment, aimed at early detection of product contamination. To ensure effectiveness, the program should adhere to FDA regulations and guidelines, consider potential contamination, risk, and entry points. Critical to this is the development of facility maps and sampling plans based on risk assessment.
### Assembling a Team
Construct a diverse team of experts from departments such as Quality, Facilities, Production, and Microbiology. These members should have the capability to identify potential risks within their respective areas.
### Regulatory Guidelines
Gather relevant regulations, guidance, and statutes applicable to your products and facilities, such as the Food Safety Modernization Act and industry-specific controls for pathogens like *Listeria* and *Salmonella*.
### Conducting Risk Assessment
Assess potential contaminants in your production process. Tools like FMEA, [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/), or Ishikawa tables can be used to identify contamination points, such as cross-contamination areas, raw food processing areas, potential harborage sites, high-traffic areas, and difficult-to-clean zones.
### Designating Hygienic Zones
Divide production areas into four hygienic zones, each representing a different level of risk. This zoning influences sampling frequency and testing methods. Mapping these zones aids in identifying contamination sources and allows for the strategic implementation of an EMP.
[Our free Environmental Monitoring Program eBook provides more information about establishing hygienic zones.](https://info.fsns.com/emp-ebook)
### Create an Effective Sampling Schedule
The efficiency of your Environmental Monitoring Program for food safety depends on the precision of your sampling schedule.
Your schedule should consider risk of contamination, facility complexity, and budget. To maximize the chances of detecting contamination, you should sample all zones of your facility frequently and adjust according to your observations. Random and discretionary sampling are both necessary for accurate results.
### EMPs: When to Sample and Why
**Pre-Operation****When:** After cleaning & before sanitation **Why:** Verify cleaning efficacy**First Shift****When:** 3-4 hours into production **Why:** Verify that GMPs are effective; verify absence of embedded bacteria in equipment not reached by cleaning and sanitation that are exposed by the movement of equipment during production.**Second Shift****When:** Prior to clean-up **Why:** Verify GMPs are effective; verify equipment does not have embedded bacteria that are exposed by the movement of equipment during production.**Investigation****When:** Before cleaning and sanitation to identify harborage sites and determine how they are spreading via vector sample collection. **Why:** Usually done in response to multiple positives in a given area and when you need to determine the origin of contamination.### Appropriate Sampling Tools & Techniques
The accuracy of your test results depends on proper sample collection. Large surfaces require sponges, while hard-to-reach areas require cotton-tip swabs. The collection method should neutralize chemical disinfectants on the sampling surface to preserve bacteria for accurate microbiology test results.
We compiled some [environmental sampling best practices into this handy article](https://fsns.com/environmental-sampling-best-practices/). Here is a quick rundown:
- Use the appropriate swabbing tool
- Use the right swabbing technique
- Ensure adequate coverage area
- Incorporate neutralizing agents
- Identify critical areas to swab
- Use proper handing during sampling
- Maintain clean-to-dirty order
### Selecting the Right Testing Methods
The choice of assays to perform depends on the applicable regulations and guidance for your products. Testing for pathogens, indicator organisms, and spoilage organisms can provide insights about the cleanliness and safety of your facility and its products.
When choosing between rapid tests like ATP and culture-based methods like APC or TPC, consider the trade-off between speed and microbial specificity. Many processors use ATP pre-operationally and plate counts for post-production trending.
The following provides a brief description of the common assays used by food and beverage processors for Environmental Monitoring Program testing:
- **ATP (adenosine triphosphate):** Effective for quickly monitoring general sanitation before production. Detects residual organic material remaining on surfaces following cleaning. Results are obtained in a matter of seconds.
- **Coliforms and Enterobacteriaceae:** Indicators of overall cleanliness. Include a wide range of microorganisms, including some that are pathogenic, making them effective indicator tests. Coliforms are often used as an indicator of potential presence of pathogenic *E. coli*, while Enterobacteriaceae are often used as an indicator of potential presence of *Salmonella*.
- **Total Plate Count (TPC) and Aerobic Plate Count (APC):** Provide an indication of the total microbial population on the test surface (both bacteria and fungi). Serve as excellent indicators of overall hygiene and the effectiveness of sanitation practices.
- **Yeast & Mold:** Indicates the presence of fungal spoilage organisms. Often used with TPC and APC to verify overall effectiveness of sanitation processes.
- ***Listeria* spp. & *Listeria monocytogenes:*** The most common assays performed for ready-to-eat food and beverage EMPs. Processors of many RTE foods must monitor for *Listeria* spp. to meet regulatory requirements. Both approaches are used, but monitoring for *Listeria* spp. casts a wider net than *Listeria* *monocytogenes* testing and may allow a producer to avoid dispositioning product until repeat positives are obtained, whereas an food contact surface that tests positive for *Listeria monocytogenes* will normally require a producer to automatically disposition the product.
- ***Salmonella:*** Facilities that process products susceptible to *Salmonella* contamination, such as low water activity foods like almonds and tree nuts, dry cereals, and peanut butter, as well as poultry, eggs, etc., should make this assay part of their EMP.
- ***Cronobacter:*** Processors of infant formula and other dried milk products are advised to monitor for this pathogen due to the high risk of contamination.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/56cd1387-3858-49b1-90d2-68eb6a0df65c)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/56cd1387-3858-49b1-90d2-68eb6a0df65c)### Setting Limits & Corrective Actions
Limits and corrective actions are determined based on the risk posed by each test result. The detection of pathogens should trigger immediate corrective action. The response to contamination varies depending on the Zone of detection and could range from halting production to deep cleaning procedures.
If you get a positive result for pathogen testing in your Environmental Monitoring Program, here are the steps you should take:
- Determine the minimum number of vector samples to be collected after an initial positive.
- Pathogen positives require immediate, structured responses. Regulatory bodies expect detailed corrective actions to minimize contamination spread.
- Select vector sampling sites that represent areas and sites that could be the source of the initial positive findings.
- Follow-up samples should include the positive site and at least three surrounding sites, which could include food-contact surfaces (FCS) and non-FCS.
- Conduct vector sampling to determine the extent of contamination and establish potential root causes.
- Vector: 30 feet, 360°, high, and low.
- Use a “starburst” pattern when swabbing.
- Use deep cleaning procedures in follow-up to a positive test result.
- Resample the area around the original positive site daily to assess the effectiveness of the control measures.
- Obtaining **three consecutive negative results** as soon as possible from the day of presumptive positive detection is advised. This approach can help in promptly identifying whether the pathogen has spread beyond the initial detection site.
- Document the process and ensure proper disposition of any potentially contaminated product.
- Reconvene the risk assessment team to conduct a root cause investigation and uncover any unresolved issues that could lead to repeat positive findings.
### Establishing a Baseline
Developing a baseline for your EMP involves determining the amount of microbial contamination in your facility. To establish a baseline, analyze swab results taken at different stages of the production process. Document all changes in real time to inform corrective actions and improvements to your EMP.
### Trending EMP Data for Continuous Improvement
Once a baseline is established, use control charts or trend analyses to detect changes over time. GFSI schemes like SQF require trend analysis as proof of ongoing sanitation efficacy.
## Using Predictive Analytics & Smart Monitoring
As digital EMP tools evolve, leading food safety teams are using EMP data and AI to predict where contamination might occur before it happens. By tracking swab trends over time and applying predictive analytics, you can anticipate risks and refine your sanitation schedule accordingly.
[Check out some ways that AI is reshaping food safety in this complimentary on-demand webinar](https://easconsultinggroup.com/transforming-your-food-safety-and-regulatory-compliance-programs-with-artificial-intelligence/) from our regulatory consulting arm, [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), a [Certified Group](https://certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=CG&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company.
## Preparing for EMP-Related Audits
Beyond regular monitoring, your EMP should prepare you for audits, whether from the FDA, USDA, or a certification body performing a [GFSI](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/)-benchmarked [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS Food Safety](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/), or other audit. Key items to have on hand include:
- Sampling plans and zone maps
- Test results and trend analysis
- Corrective action records
- Training logs
- Pathogen testing protocols
A strong paper trail supports compliance and shows auditors you’re proactively managing food safety. [We provide several tips to stay prepared for an unannounced GFSI-benchmarked audit here.](https://fsns.com/preparing-for-unannounced-audits/)
## How to Implement an Effective Environmental Monitoring Program for Food Safety
Implementing an effective Environmental Monitoring Program necessitates a dynamic approach, continually evolving based on data analysis, modifications to production, and updates in regulations.
### Ongoing EMP Team Training
Training should not be a one-off event but an ongoing commitment. It equips your EMP team with the necessary knowledge about your program, its purpose, and various technicalities.
Topics should cover…
- Suitable swabbing tools
- Neutralizer use
- Zones 1-4 swabbing strategy and technique, including vector swabbing
- Proper swab storage
- Documentation procedures
- Understanding of FSMA and GFSI environmental monitoring expectations
[Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) offers training courses for your EMP team](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/ "Food Industry Training Built for the Plant Floor").
### Importance of Comprehensive Documentation
Thorough documentation is a fundamental aspect of your EMP. Keep records of all facets, including…
- Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs)
- Corrective actions
- Target organisms
- Sampling methods
- Training records
These documents underpin your program’s effectiveness and ensure compliance with food certification audit platforms.
### Periodic Review and Continual Improvement
Regular review and continuous improvement are crucial for your EMP’s effectiveness. The process should involve analyzing EMP results, staying updated with relevant regulatory changes, engaging employees in the review process, and creating improvement plans based on these inputs.
After implementing improvements, monitor their impact on your Environmental Monitoring Program. Analyze results to identify whether changes have reduced the incidence of contaminants, and use this data to further refine your EMP. The objective is consistent enhancement and adaptation to maintain optimal effectiveness.
## Tools to Take Your Environmental Monitoring Program to New Heights
Your EMP will go a long way toward supporting [food safety testing](https://fsns.com/industries/) in your organization. Here are a few Certified Group resources that can help you get more out of your EMP:
- [FSNS](https://fsns.com) and [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) provide **accurate [microbiology ](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/)and [chemistry testing](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) with competitive turnaround times**.
- Your EMP will generate a lot of information that must be stored. Rather than using outdated binders and spreadsheets, our [Environmental Monitoring and Mapping Application (emma®)](https://fsns.com/emma/) provides **real-time data visualization, customizable swabbing plans, and efficient remediation management**.
- Improve EMP team performance with [specialized training courses](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/ "Food Industry Training Built for the Plant Floor") available throughout the year covering topics like **Microbiology**, **Food Safety**, and **Sanitation**.
- **Design an efficient EMP** with help from experts at [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/). Assistance includes determining sampling frequency, target organisms, and understanding relevant regulations.
- In case of persistent contamination, our [contract research team can provide an **on-site assessment** and assist in identifying the source of contamination via microbial strain typing](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/).
Your EMP will help your Quality Unit identify contamination and take corrective action before a small issue has a chance to become a big problem. It will also help you meet regulatory requirements and meet the requirements of food safety certification platforms, demonstrating your commitment to food safety.
Certified Group companies not only provide fast, accurate microbiology and chemistry testing in support of your EMP, we offer expertise and value-added solutions that help you manage and implement your EMP more effectively.
[View all our EMP services and let us know how we can help you here.](https://info.fsns.com/emp-services)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [What Is BRCGS Certification?](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/)
**Published:** March 6, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
BRCGS certification is a third-party audit and certification program for food manufacturers that verifies your food safety and quality management system meets the BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety (currently Issue 9). Many retailers and brand owners require BRC certification (commonly used as a shorthand term) as a supplier-approval requirement.
This article answers several questions for food sites:
- What is BRCGS certification (or BRC certification)?
- What are the steps toward achieving BRCGS certification?
- How much does BRCGS certification cost (and how much does a BRCGS audit cost)?
- What should I expect during a BRCGS audit?
Let’s dive in.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/8cdce96e-285a-45de-9a15-28ce47baf0a7)## What Does BRCGS Mean?
People often use the acronyms “BRCGS” and “BRC” interchangeably to refer to BRCGS food safety certification. What does BRC mean? And what does BRCGS mean?
- **BRC** originally referred to the **British Retail Consortium**, the UK retail trade association that developed the early food standard.
- **BRCGS** uses the brand message **“Brand Reputation through Compliance”** and is commonly expanded as **Brand Reputation through Compliance Global Standards**.
Today, BRCGS certification is one of the most widely recognized GFSI food safety schemes and is often required by major global retailers, quick-service restaurants, and brand owners.
## What is BRCGS Certification (BRC Certification)?
**BRCGS certification** is a third-party, accredited certification program that verifies your facility’s [food safety and quality management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) meets the **BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety (Issue 9)**. As said earlier, “**BRC certification**” is common shorthand for the same certification.
You earn certification by completing a formal BRCGS certification audit performed by a registered Certification Body, such as [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/). The auditor evaluates whether your programs are implemented effectively, documented appropriately, and consistently followed in daily operations. If your site meets the requirements and achieves the required grade, you are awarded certification and can be listed in the BRCGS Directory (depending on program settings).
BRCGS is also a **[GFSI-recognized](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/)** scheme, alongside **[FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/)** and **[SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/)**, which share core food safety foundations (risk-based controls, HACCP principles, prerequisite programs, and verification). BRCGS often stands out for its explicit expectations around:
- Brand protection and senior management commitment.
- Traceability and mass balance readiness.
- [Food safety culture](https://fsns.com/food-safety-and-quality-culture-what-is-the-auditor-looking-for/) and continuous improvement.
- Operational discipline, where written procedures match real practices.
For many manufacturers, BRCGS certification is not just an audit outcome – it is a structured way to demonstrate control of food safety and quality to customers, auditors, and global supply chains.
## Access the BRCGS Directory
The [BRCGS directory](https://directory.brcgs.com/) lists all audits conducted against a BRC standard.
It’s worth noting that the BRCGS Global Standard is the first standard to introduce food safety culture requirements and the first to be GFSI benchmarked. Today, it is accepted by 70% of the top 10 retailers worldwide, 60% of the top 10 quick-service restaurants, and is adopted by more than 22,000 sites in 130 countries.
The BRCGS platform contains rigorous and detailed requirements, but they are made easy for you to understand. On top of that, they’re also designed to be efficient and help you improve your processes so you can eliminate the need for multiple audits.
*Achieving BRCGS certification requires passing a third-party audit from a registered Certification Body.*
## What is the Difference Between GFSI and BRCGS?
Now that we’ve mentioned the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), let’s answer another common question: What is the difference between GFSI and BRCGS?
While GFSI is a *benchmarking* organization that sets standards for food safety certification schemes, it does not *offer* certifications itself. In contrast, BRCGS is one of the certification schemes recognized by GFSI.
As an analogy, think of GFSI like a coach who sets the rules but does not play the game. Meanwhile, BRCGS is like someone who plays the actual game.
## How Do I Get BRCGS Certification?
Let’s look at how to apply for BRCGS certification. It’s a multi-step process that begins with some research:
### Step 1: Review the BRCGS Standard
Visit the BRCGS website to [download and review the BRCGS Version 9 PDF](https://www.brcgs.com/store/). It’s helpful to download the BRCGS Issue 9 Interpretation Guide PDF to aid in understanding the standard while you’re there.
### Step 2: Define Scope and Take a Training Course
Identify the scope and requirements of the Standard as they pertain to your facility. Attending a [BRCGS educational course](https://fsns.com/product/brcgs-food-issue-9-sites-training-and-internal-auditing/), like those offered by FSNS, will help provide clarity and direction.
### Step 3: Perform a Self-Assessment or Pre-Audit
Perform a self assessment against the requirements of the Standard to determine if your organization is ready for a formal BRCGS audit. [BRGCS has a self-assessment tool on its website](https://www.brcgs.com/our-standards/food-safety/help-and-guidance/). In addition, [FSNS Certification & Audit performs BRCGS pre-audits](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) to help organizations prepare for their BRCGS audit.
[We provide tips on how to prepare for a BRCGS Food Safety audit here.](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-a-brcgs-food-safety-audit/)
### Step 4: Schedule and Undergo the BRC Audit
Schedule a BRCGS audit with a [registered Certification Body, such as FSNS C&A](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), which is a 2X BRC Certification Body of the Year award winner.
### Step 5: Correct Non-Conformities and Achieve Certification
The Certification Body performs the BRCGS audit at your facility to verify if your operations are undertaken in accordance with the Standard. Afterward, you will receive a BRCGS audit report that shows any non-conformities.
If your facility successfully completes the audit, addresses any non-conformities (if needed), and achieves the required grade, you will be awarded BRCGS certification, and your company will be added to the [BRCGS directory](https://directory.brcgs.com/).
Check out this blog post to [discover the 10 most common BRCGS audit non-conformities our auditors find](https://fsns.com/top-10-reasons-for-a-brc-audit-non-conformity-data/). And in the article, [we reveal the top five BRCGS audit findings for mature vs. new sites](https://fsns.com/top-5-brcgs-audit-findings-mature-vs-new-sites/).
## How Much Does BRCGS Certification Cost?
While BRCGS Food Safety certification costs can vary by facility size and readiness, here’s a general estimate of what to expect, starting with acquiring the Global Standard and supporting documents.
BRCGS asks you to purchase the [current BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety, which is Version 9](https://www.brcgs.com/product/global-standard-food-safety-(issue-9)/p-13279/) as of this writing. The standard costs $177.12 (U.S.) on the BRCGS website. However, if you select “Free PDF” from the dropdown menu, you can download a copy for free, as shown in the image.
*Select “Free PDF” in your cart on the BRCGS website to download the current Global Standard for free.*
The [BRCGS Issue 9 Interpretation Guidelines](https://www.brcgs.com/product/global-standard-food-safety-(issue-9)-interpretation-guideline/p-12227/), which are not necessary but are a helpful resource, currently cost $236.99 (U.S.).
In addition, you will need to pay a registered Certification Body to perform the audit, which varies depending on the Certification Body, but typically costs around $7,000 (U.S.), plus travel expenses for the auditor. It’s also a good idea to perform a pre-audit to ensure your facility and employees are ready, which can cost about $6,000.
**All totaled, the cost of BRCGS certification can be around $13,000.**
These costs not only reflect audit and training fees, but also represent an investment in continuous improvement, reduced product recalls, and access to new markets—benefits that far outweigh the initial expense.
Also, FSNS Certification & Audit offers a 15% discount for new customers, [so contact us for a quote for your BRCGS certification audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
[](https://info.fsns.com/15-off-certification-audit-services-2023)## What Certification Bodies Audit to the BRCGS Global Standard?
The process of earning a food safety certificate and getting the benefits of BRCGS certification is a straightforward one. However, you need to find a BRCGS registered Certification Body to successfully perform a BRCGS audit and earn your certification.
FSNS Certification & Audit (FSNS C&A) is a legal entity accredited under ISO 17065 to conduct certification audits according to the BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety. [We provide third-party certification and audit services](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) with consistency, impartiality, and integrity. In addition, FSNS C&A is a 2X BRC Certification Body of the Year award winner.
[For inquiries about BRCGS audits, contact one of our specialists](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
*It takes company-wide commitment to achieve BRCGS certification, but many of the top retailers require it before you can do business with them.*
## What are the Benefits of BRCGS Certification?
If you’ve been interested in earning a GFSI food safety certification such as BRCGS but have not taken concrete steps toward it, here are five benefits of BRCGS certification to consider:
### Protect Your Customers With a GFSI Food Safety Certification
- Complying with BRCGS’s food safety and quality standards is crucial for protecting customers from health risks.
- The BRCGS framework aids in implementing best practices in food preparation, personal hygiene, and facility cleanliness.
- Adherence to the standards teaches methods to safeguard consumers from food poisoning, allergic reactions, and risks from contaminated food.
### Enhance Brand Image and Market Credibility
- BRCGS Global Standard certification is an internationally recognized mark of food quality and safety, enhancing trust and reputation.
### Achieve a Strong ROI With BRCGS Certification (BRC Certification)
Earning BRCGS certification will not be easy; you may need to invest time and resources into [food safety training](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/ "Food Industry Training Built for the Plant Floor") and other Food Safety Certificate requirements. However, diligently going through the certification process enables you to do the following:
- Implement the best methods of product safety management on your site.
- Avoid expensive fines caused by food safety failures.
- Reduce food waste, meal comps, and their accompanying costs.
- Avert scandals brought about by customer complaints or negative reviews.
### Expand into Top Retailers
- Holding a GFSI food safety certification such as BRCGS opens markets limited to certified manufacturers.
- Major retailers and quick-service restaurants require suppliers to maintain [GFSI certification](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/).
### Grow Your Business
Throughout the BRCGS certification process, you will need to be hands-on with how your facility has been complying with the BRCGS’s food safety guidelines. Once you’ve passed the assessment and earned your BRCGS certification, you can reap the following benefits:
- Assurance of a robust food safety system.
- Confidence in having competent staff.
- Focus on core tasks and long-term business growth strategies.
*A BRCGS audit involves many steps that encompass your entire production process, but preparing ahead of time will help you know what to expect and be ready for a successful audit.*
## What to Expect During a BRCGS Audit
The current BRCGS Global Standard (issue 9) includes the following requirements for a BRCGS audit:
- **Senior management commitment:** Company leaders should promote the implementation and continuous improvement of your food safety program.
- **HACCP (food safety plan):** You need a [HACCP plan](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) to help guide your food safety program.
- [**Food safety and quality management systems**](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/)**:** This includes thorough documentation of your processes to ensure personnel are trained to safely manage food production.
- **Site standards:** Food production sites must meet appropriate safety standards.
- **Product controls:** Your organization must establish controls for areas such as allergen management and product testing.
- **Process controls:** This ensures your organization follows your HACCP plan.
- **Personnel:** Your personnel must be properly trained, use proper hygiene, and wear PPE.
- **High Risk, High Care, and Ambient High Care Production Risk Zones:** You must enact controls over products at risk for pathogen contamination to maximize safety.
- **Traded Products:** Facilities that buy and sell food products must follow processes to avoid contamination.
Preparing for a BRCGS audit requires cross-functional team involvement and a thorough understanding of the Standard. A pre-assessment audit can help identify gaps and ensure your documentation, site practices, and personnel are ready.
## Download Our BRCGS Audit Checklist to Prepare
The BRCGS audit itself will typically take 2-3 days to complete. While it can be stressful, preparing your team beforehand with a pre-assessment audit will help ensure your organization is ready to meet the requirements for a successful audit. Our [free BRCGS Audit Checklist](https://info.fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-brcgs-checklist) helps you prepare.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/8cdce96e-285a-45de-9a15-28ce47baf0a7)Here is an outline of how a BRCGS audit will usually take place:
### BRCGS Audit Opening Meeting
The auditor and your team will discuss the scope of the audit and agree on an agenda. It’s also the ideal opportunity for the auditor to meet anyone on your team who will be involved with the audit.
- Confirm scope of audit
- Outline the agenda
- Gain understanding of the roles of your team members
- Explain audit methodology
### Conduct Site Audit
The auditor will evaluate your production processes to identify whether they comply with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs). They will focus on all areas of your organization that are pertinent to the BRCGS Global Standard, such as manufacturing, storage, production equipment, and site safety.
The auditor will walk through your facility to evaluate any discrepancies between your documented processes and daily operations. They may interview personnel to ensure compliance. It’s a good idea to have a senior staff member available to explain their areas of expertise to the auditor to aid in understanding.
A BRCGS site audit will typically include a product changeover so the auditor can evaluate if personnel follow documented procedures to adequately clean equipment, change PPE, and follow any other required processes.
### Review Documented Processes
The auditor may review your standard operating procedures (SOPs), processes, and other policy documents during a desk audit or during the site audit. They will compare written records with the relevant sections of the Standard against which you are being audited.
They want to ensure that what is documented is followed during daily operations. For example, there should be no discrepancy between a HACCP flow chart and the activity of production personnel. The auditor is looking for consistency and conformity with all documented processes.
### Interview Senior Personnel
At some point during a BRCGS audit, the auditor will talk to key personnel to identify their role and, possibly, observe them performing a routine activity to ensure it conforms with documented procedures. This provides the auditor insight into whether staff have been properly trained.
This step is also an opportunity for senior staff to demonstrate a commitment to food safety throughout the organization.
### Equipment Evaluation
The auditor will inspect some production equipment and observe cleaning practices to determine if they are consistent with documented procedures. They may request that the equipment be disassembled so they can observe more closely and possibly ask for swab results.
### Traceability Audit
This can be the most challenging aspect of a BRCGS audit since it requires that your team demonstrate complete control over your production process, from accepting raw materials to shipping finished products.
The auditor will select a product made on a particular day. Your team will then need to demonstrate complete traceability, which includes the following:
- Trace each raw material to its supplier.
- Show the number of units manufactured in the batch.
- Show each point along the supply chain.
- Identify where each product was shipped.
Demonstrating traceability takes complete commitment from your team and requires that you have an effective management system in place.
### Mass Balance Audit
Part of the traceability audit includes the auditor checking the quantity of incoming raw materials to the quantity used in your finished products, known as a “mass balance”. The auditor will choose an ingredient and ask you to show where it has been used in production. You must be able to account for where all ingredients of the chosen batch number have been used.
If all ingredients haven’t been used, you must provide explanation that proves you understand the nature of the variance. For example, if your facility uses sugar in a finished product, you must be able to say the balance hasn’t yet been used and is stored in a particular area of the facility.
The BRCGS Global Standard allows from some variance in mass balance due to waste, portion variances, and other factors, but be prepared to account for all your raw materials.
### BRCGS Audit Label Review
Typically, during the traceability portion of the audit, the auditor will select a finished product and perform a label review. They will ensure the nutritional information, ingredients, allergen declaration, or other pertinent information is consistent with your documented product specifications.
### Closing Meeting
Finally, the auditor will hold a closing meeting with the same team that participated in the opening meeting. They will discuss the audit results, including any non-conformities. The auditor will also provide final results/grades. In the event of a non-conformity, your team must submit corrective actions for each one prior to submission of the overall report to BRCGS to receive certification.
If your organization passes the BRCGS audit, you will receive a certificate to verify your achievement.
## Why Choose FSNS Certification & Audit?
If you’re looking for a [third-party food safety audit company](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), FSNS C&A has you covered.
- Our auditors have an **average of 14 years of experience in food manufacturing**, helping them provide exceptional service.
- **99%** of our clients are satisfied with our responsiveness to calls and email.
- **99%** of our clients are satisfied or extremely satisfied with our auditors.
- **2X BRC Certification Body** of the Year Award Winner.
If you have questions, are ready to schedule a BRCGS audit, or anything in between, [contact our Certification & Audit specialists for help](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)### What is BRCGS certification?
BRCGS certification is a third-party certification that verifies a site meets the requirements of the BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety through an accredited audit.
### How long does it take to get BRCGS certification?
Timelines depend on readiness. Many sites need weeks to months to close gaps, train personnel, and finalize documentation before scheduling the certification audit. The BRCGS audit itself will take 2-3 days.
### How much does a BRCGS audit cost?
Audit cost depends on the Certification Body, but typically runs around $7,000 (U.S.), plus travel expenses for the auditor. It’s also a good idea to perform a pre-audit to ensure your facility and employees are ready, which can cost about $6,000. So, budget >$13,000 for your BRCGS audit. FSNS Certification & Audit offers 15% off a BRCGS audit for first-time customers.
### What is the purpose of BRCGS?
BRCGS provides a structured standard for managing food safety and quality so manufacturers can demonstrate control of hazards, traceability, and compliance to customers.
### What’s the difference between BRC and BRCGS?
BRC historically refers to the British Retail Consortium, while BRCGS refers to the global standards and certification program developed from that origin.
### What does BRCGS stand for?
BRCGS is commonly expanded as **Brand Reputation through Compliance Global Standards**.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** BRC, BRCGS, food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [Remote Audits, AI, and Risk Take Center Stage in ISO 19011:2026 ](https://fsns.com/iso-19011/)
**Published:** August 19, 2026
**Author:** Certified Group
**Content:**
*Reviewed By Reviewed and Approved by Kaci Foote, Accreditation Manager, FSNS Certification & Audit*
### 1-Minute Summary
- ISO 19011:2026 replaces the 2018 edition and updates international guidance for auditing management systems.
- Guidance for remote and hybrid audits and virtual locations has been expanded to reflect current auditing practices.
- Artificial intelligence is now addressed, while auditor-competence guidance places greater emphasis on digital and emerging technologies.
- Risk-based auditing and information-security guidance have been strengthened, but the update does not change food safety certification requirements.
---
## ISO 19011:2026 is Here – What Does it Mean for Your Site?
Published on May 27, 2026, [ISO 19011:2026](https://www.iso.org/standard/19011) is the fourth edition of the international guidance for auditing management systems. It replaces ISO 19011:2018 and updates the guidance to reflect the growing use of remote audits, digital systems, virtual locations, and artificial intelligence.
While not a certification standard, ISO 19011 provides a common framework for managing audit programs, conducting audits, and evaluating auditor competence.
Let’s look at the key changes to ISO 19011:2026 compared to its predecessor and what it means for your site.
**ISO 19011:2026 vs ISO 19011:2018** **Guidance Action** Remote and hybrid audits Expanded Virtual locations Expanded Artificial intelligence Newly addressed Auditor competence Strengthened Risk-based planning Strengthened Information security Strengthened ## What Changed From ISO 19011:2018 to ISO 19011:2026?
The ISO 19011 update modernizes the guidance in several important areas:
- Remote and hybrid audit methods
- Auditing of virtual locations
- Artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies
- Auditor competence in digital environments
- Risk-based audit planning
- Digital evidence and information security
If you detect a theme, you’re right – **the updates largely encompass how digital [technology should be used during the audit](https://fsns.com/blending-audits-with-technology/) process**.
## How Has the Guidance for Remote and Hybrid Audits Changed?
For many, [remote and hybrid audits emerged during the Covid pandemic](https://fsns.com/use-of-remote-audits-during-the-pandemic-part-2/). But remote auditing had already been addressed in the 2018 edition. ISO 19011:2026 provides even more detailed guidance for deciding when audit activities should be conducted remotely, on-site, or through a combination of both methods.
The selected approach must allow the auditor to obtain sufficient and reliable evidence. Relevant considerations include:
- Audit scope
- Processes being evaluated
- Technology capabilities
- Access to records and personnel
- Need to observe physical conditions
The new edition also gives more attention to practical issues such as technology checks, connection failures, secure access, screenshots, recordings, and confidentiality.
Remote methods are treated as an established part of auditing, not simply an alternative used when an on-site audit is unavailable. However, they should not replace physical observation when an auditor cannot reach a reliable conclusion remotely.
## What Does ISO 19011:2026 Say About Virtual Locations?
The 2026 ISO 19011 revision gives greater recognition to activities performed through digital environments rather than at a traditional physical site.
A virtual location may include processes conducted through cloud-based systems, online platforms, or distributed teams. Audit planning should account for where the activity occurs, who performs it, and how the auditor can access the necessary systems and evidence.
## How Does ISO 19011:2026 Address Artificial Intelligence?
AI is continuing to reshape nearly everything in our society, including [food safety and other audits](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
ISO 19011:2026 does not require auditors or audited organizations to use AI. It recognizes, however, that **AI-based evaluation tools may be used to analyze information or support audit activities**.
When these tools are used, auditors should understand:
- Whether the technology is appropriate for the audit activity
- Its limitations and potential biases
- The reliability and relevance of its output
- How its use could affect audit conclusions
- The confidentiality and security implications
The main takeaway regarding AI is that, while it may support an audit, **it does not replace professional judgment**. The auditor remains responsible for evaluating the evidence and supporting the conclusions.
## How Have Auditor-Competence Expectations Evolved?
With the rise of artificial intelligence and other digital innovations, you can imagine that auditors must now have the necessary technical proficiency to effectively use these tools.
Depending on the audit, an auditor may need competence related to:
- Electronic records
- Remote communication platforms
- Digital evidence
- Information-security risks
- AI-based evaluation tools
These capabilities are effective supplements to auditor competence. But auditors must still understand the applicable audit criteria, the organization and its processes, and the technical context of the activities being evaluated.
## How Has the Risk-Based Approach Been Strengthened?
Risk-based auditing is not new. It was already one of the seven auditing principles in ISO 19011:2018.
ISO 19011:2026 strengthens this principle by providing more practical guidance on how risk should influence:
- Audit-program priorities
- Objectives
- Scope
- Methods
- Resource allocation
- Sampling
The revised guidance also recognizes that an audit plan may need to change as new information emerges. Audit effort should remain responsive to the risks, changes, and performance issues identified during the audit.
## What Has Changed Around Digital Evidence and Information Security?
Continuing with the theme of digital technology, ISO 19011:2026 recognizes that more audit evidence is created, stored, accessed, and shared electronically.
This may include:
- Cloud-based records
- Electronic monitoring data
- Shared screens
- Digital images and video
- Automated reports
- Information generated or analyzed using AI
The updated guidance places greater emphasis on protecting this information. Auditors must consider authorized access, confidentiality, secure technology, data reliability, and agreed controls for recording or retaining information.
## Does ISO 19011:2026 Change Food Safety Certification Requirements?
No. ISO 19011:2026 does not change the requirements of [BRCGS Food Safety](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/), [GMP programs](https://fsns.com/gmp-audits-food-industry-guide/), customer standards, or food safety regulations.
Nor does it determine certification decisions, nonconformity grades, audit scores, corrective-action deadlines, or required food safety records. Those requirements continue to come from the applicable certification program, regulation, customer standard, or other audit criteria.
## What Should You Do Next?
Review your internal [audit procedures and auditor training](https://fsns.com/trust-but-verify-livestock-audit-services-approach-to-hiring-and-training/) to determine whether they reflect the updated guidance on risk, remote methods, digital tools, and information security. For certification audits, continue preparing against the requirements of your applicable food safety standard, which ISO 19011:2026 does not change.
If you have questions about the update or an upcoming food safety certification audit, [contact our Certification & Audit team](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** Certification and audit, food and beverage
---
### [Secretary of Agriculture Names Certified Group Board Member John Bellinger as Senior Advisor for New World Screwworm Preparedness ](https://fsns.com/secretary-of-agriculture-names-certified-group-board-member-john-bellinger-as-senior-advisor-for-new-world-screwworm-preparedness/)
**Published:** June 22, 2026
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
## *Appointment brings proven food safety, beef industry, and animal agriculture leadership to a national effort to protect U.S. livestock and the protein supply chain*
**SAN ANTONIO, Texas, June 22, 2026 –** John Bellinger, co-founder and CEO of Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) and former CEO of [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=fsns&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), has been appointed Senior Advisor for New World Screwworm Preparedness as USDA advances efforts to protect U.S. livestock, producers, and the protein supply chain.
The appointment was announced by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins as USDA advances preparedness efforts related to New World screwworm, a pest that can cause serious harm to cattle and other warm-blooded animals.
“On behalf of Certified Group, I want to congratulate John on this important appointment for our industry,” said [David Morgan, CEO of Certified Group](https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-l-morgan-ai/). “John has spent his career applying practical science and industry leadership to some of the beef industry’s most important challenges. His appointment reflects the trust he has earned across the industry and the broader food safety community.”
Bellinger co-founded FSNS with his wife, Gina, and helped build the company into a trusted laboratory [testing and food safety partner for the food](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and agriculture industries. FSNS is part of Certified Group, where Bellinger continues to serve as a Board Member.
“John understands the beef industry from multiple angles – cattle production, meat export, laboratory testing, and [food safety systems,”](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) Morgan said. “His strategic, global protein experience and steady leadership will be invaluable as USDA works to protect livestock, producers, and the beef supply chain.”
In his new advisory role, Bellinger will support USDA efforts to evaluate and advance available technologies, testing, detection, and response tools to help combat New World screwworm and protect U.S. livestock.
[Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=fsns&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) supports the livestock and protein industries through key industry memberships, [animal welfare and livestock audit programs](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), laboratory testing for food safety and quality, and [custom research projects for manufacturers](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/).
[Visit Certified Group’s website for details.](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=fsns&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks)
### **About Certified Group**
Certified Group partners with customers to deliver innovative scientific solutions and expertise – *So The World Can Trust In What It Consumes®*. As a leading North American provider of laboratory testing, regulatory consulting, certification, and audit services, Certified Group encompasses Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=fsns&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), and [Labstat International Inc.](https://labstat.com/?utm_source=fsns&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) The company serves a wide range of industries, including food & beverage, dietary supplements & NHP, cosmetics, OTC, personal care, tobacco, nicotine, cannabis, and hemp.
[**Read the Press Release on PR Newswire**](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/secretary-of-agriculture-names-certified-group-board-member-john-bellinger-as-senior-advisor-for-new-world-screwworm-preparedness-302806445.html?tc=eml_cleartime)
**Categories:** Press Release
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [Modernizing Classical Analysis: Rapid, Sustainable Technologies for Moisture, Fat, & Ash Testing in Food & Pet Food](https://fsns.com/rapid-moisture-fat-ash-testing/)
**Published:** February 16, 2026
**Author:** Jayaraj Alappat
**Content:**
Jayaraj Alappat Chief Scientific Officer
Chemistry expert leading innovative solutions in food safety and analysis. [See Full Bio](https://certified-laboratories.com/jay-alappat-author/) [ ](https://certified-laboratories.com/jay-alappat-author/)
### 1-Minute Summary
- Rapid moisture, fat, and ash testing reduces turnaround from hours to minutes.
- AOAC-validated methods ensure full regulatory defensibility.
- Solvent-free [NMR fat analysis](https://fsns.com/modernizing-fat-analysis-transitioning-from-classical-extraction-to-nmr-based-methods/) supports sustainability goals.
- Equivalent accuracy to classical methods with higher throughput
---
## Rapid Moisture, Fat, and Ash Testing for Modern Food Laboratories
At [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), innovation meets responsibility. Our vision for rapid moisture, fat, and ash testing of food matrices is to combine speed, sustainability, and science.
To that end, we are proud to integrate [CEM Corporation’s](https://cem.com/) [Oracle™](https://cem.com/oracle), [SMART 6™](https://cem.com/smart-6), and [Phoenix Black™](https://cem.com/phoenix-black) instruments into our analytical workflows to drive **faster turnaround**, **sustainable lab operations**, and **scientifically validated performance**.
Traditional AOAC methods for moisture, fat, and ash are robust but labor-intensive. Our goal was to modernize these classical techniques without compromising accuracy, especially as our clients increasingly demand rapid, reliable data to meet regulatory and market needs.
Our validation efforts have demonstrated that CEM’s microwave and NMR-based systems are not only **faster** but also **scientifically equivalent** to AOAC-approved methods, making them a viable path to operational efficiency and green innovation.
## Rapid Ash Testing with Phoenix™ Black Technology
Ash content was determined using the [CEM Phoenix Black™](https://cem.com/phoenix-black), a rapid muffle furnace system designed for high-throughput ash analysis.
- Samples were weighed into ceramic crucibles and placed into the furnace, where they were subjected to controlled, high-temperature combustion (typically 550–600°C).
- The Phoenix system uses a microwave-assisted muffle furnace that significantly reduces ashing time – often completing the process in under two hours compared to the 6–8 hours required by conventional muffle furnaces.
- The instrument’s precise temperature ramping and active airflow control ensured consistent oxidation across diverse sample types, including pet food and animal feed.
- Results from the Phoenix system were benchmarked against traditional dry ashing methods, confirming method equivalency in accuracy while offering significant time savings and improved operational sustainability.
## Rapid Moisture and Fat Testing with SMART 6™ and Oracle™
Samples were prepared and analyzed for fat and moisture using a two-step rapid analytical workflow combining the [Smart 6™](https://cem.com/smart-6) and [Oracle™](https://cem.com/oracle) systems.
- Moisture was determined first using the Smart 6, which uses a hybrid drying technology (infrared and microwave energy) to achieve uniform moisture removal within 2–3 minutes.
- Following moisture analysis, the same samples were immediately transferred to the Oracle system for fat determination via NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance).
- This method is entirely solvent-free and does not require sample pre-treatment, making it especially suited for a variety of matrices including pet food, animal feeds, and processed foods.
- Fat values were measured non-destructively and independently of moisture, particle size, and sample heterogeneity.
### Table 1: Accuracy of the CEM Oracle method for diverse food matrices (reproduced from CEM Technologies Oracle™ and SMART 6™ Foodstuff Application Note)
**Moisture/Solids****Fat****Sample****SMART 6****Oven****Difference****ORACLE****Solvent Extraction****Difference**Guacamole21.5521.510.049.889.890.01Cheese Dip29.2529.390.1411.4411.480.04Cheese (enzyme modified)46.6546.120.5318.5718.560.01Fake Cream27.0127.030.0216.2716.250.02Pudding15.2215.130.092.72.680.02Beverage Mix18.6218.520.13.253.290.04Chili13.2613.10.163.873.920.05Hot Dog53.0653.660.630.130.090.01Beef67.4867.820.3412.0411.940.1Chicken71.5271.650.137.987.840.14Pork70.1670.080.0810.310.140.16Fish (Salmon)71.4471.630.194.0640.06Potted Meat70.02700.0212.8913.040.15Skim Milk90.7390.740.010.190.180.01Yogurt79.9279.10.180.860.810.05Whole Milk88.0387.880.153.413.410Ice Cream39.1239.070.0513.5113.560.05Processed Cheese46.6346.070.5621.3621.440.08Natural Cheese39.7439.520.2229.8529.90.05Cream Cheese54.654.770.1733.5833.70.12Sour Cream24.9425.230.2917.5417.690.15Average0.210.06### Table 2: Repeatability of the CEM Oracle method for diverse food matrices (reproduced from CEM Technologies Oracle™ and SMART 6™ Foodstuff Application Note)
**Replicates****Sample****1****2****3****4****5****6****7****8****9****10****Average****Range****Std. Dev.**Guacamole9.849.949.939.919.869.859.869.919.819.859.880.040.13Cheese Dip11.4511.5111.4711.4711.3311.4111.4411.511.4811.3511.440.050.18Cheese (enzyme modified)18.6818.5918.6218.6318.4718.618.618.5118.4518.518.570.080.23Fake Cream16.1816.2416.1616.2316.3216.2816.2916.3516.3516.2516.270.070.19Pudding2.722.672.642.672.752.722.772.712.682.652.70.040.13Beverage Mix3.283.293.293.153.283.293.163.253.233.243.250.050.14Chili3.853.913.883.783.883.913.863.863.863.893.870.040.13Hot Dog30.1330.3430.2730.1929.9529.8330.2530.0229.7630.2830.10.20.58Beef12.061212.1812.11212.0411.9312.1711.9911.9712.040.080.25Chicken7.978.057.838.048.048.088.17.488.128.087.980.190.64Pork10.310.2410.2410.4610.3910.2510.2810.2110.3910.2410.30.080.25Fish (Salmon)4.034.14.14.114.124.023.844.094.14.114.060.090.28Potted Meat12.9912.7612.8512.8412.8912.9913.1312.8512.912.7212.890.120.41Skim Milk0.170.190.20.20.210.160.190.210.150.180.190.020.04Yogurt0.840.870.840.890.850.860.890.840.890.880.860.020.06Whole Milk3.433.413.43.423.413.393.413.393.43.413.410.010.03Ice Cream13.5613.4613.5413.4813.5113.4813.5713.5513.5413.4713.510.040.1Processed Cheese21.2221.4721.2721.4121.4521.3421.3421.4121.421.3621.360.110.25Natural Cheese29.8229.8229.8929.929.8229.9329.8830.2329.6829.9629.850.040.08Cream Cheese33.6333.6333.5833.6533.433.7433.6733.6833.533.6733.580.10.25Sour Cream17.417.5817.5617.7117.4517.3617.5517.6817.8317.8317.540.120.31## Why Rapid Moisture, Fat, and Ash Testing Matters for Your Operation
- Reduced analysis time from hours to minutes.
- Lower solvent and energy use – aligning with sustainability goals.
- Better support for high-throughput clients.
- Rigorously validated for diverse matrices: meat, dairy, pet food, seafood, feed.
## Analytical Equivalence Backed by AOAC Validation
CEM methods used at Certified Group have been benchmarked and cross-validated with classical methods, achieving outstanding correlation and precision. Here’s how:
### Fat & Moisture (Oracle™ + SMART 6™)
- **Technology**: NMR for fat, microwave for moisture
- **AOAC Validated**: AOAC 2008.06 (Meats); AOAC PVM 1:2004 (Dairy); AOAC 934.01 (Animal Feed); AOAC 954.02 (Pet Food); AOAC 950.46 (Moisture in Meat)
**NMR Data** **Traditional Method Data** **RPD%** **Moisture %** **Fat %** **Moisture** **Fat** **Moisture** **Fat** Beef 1 57.03 24.46 59.67 23.2 -4.52 5.29 Beef 2 56.75 24.48 59.12 23.69 -4.09 3.28 Beef 3 56.81 24.69 58.98 23.8 -3.75 3.67 **Average** 56.86 24.54 59.26 23.56 **RSD%** 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 1.4% Sausage 1 55.13 24.18 56.51 24.49 -2.47 -1.27 Sausage 2 54.7 25.1 55.02 26.71 -0.58 -6.22 Sausage 3 54.3 25.15 56.98 23.35 -4.82 7.42 **Average** 54.71 24.81 56.17 24.85 **RSD%** 0.8% 2.2% 1.8% 6.9% Kidney 1 82.44 0.79 82.56 1.12 -0.15 -34.55 Kidney 2 82.32 0.73 82.51 1.48 -0.23 -67.87 Kidney 3 82.37 0.74 82.61 1.26 -0.29 -52.00 **Average** 82.38 0.75 82.56 1.29 **RSD%** 0.1% 4.3% 0.1% 14.1%
**Table 3**: Comparison of data between CEM Corporation’s Oracle™, SMART 6™, and Traditional methods for fat and moisture analysis. ### Table Summary
1. RSD% for fat: 0.27%–8.02%
2. Fat detection from 0.86% to 33.58%
3. Better repeatability than wet chemical extraction
## Ash (Phoenix Black™)
- **AOAC validated**: 942.05 (Animal Feed); 923.03 (Flour); 920.153 (Meat); 938.08 (Seafood).
- **Capacity**: 15 samples per run.
- **Flexibility**: Compatible with any crucible normally used in conventional ashing systems.
- **Eco-Efficiency**: Less power, less residue, no muffle furnace wait time.
- **Client Confidence:** We maintain full AOAC defensibility of results for regulatory submissions.
## Driving Adoption with Data
Despite the benefits, some clients are hesitant to switch from long-standing [classical methods](https://fsns.com/modernizing-fat-analysis-transitioning-from-classical-extraction-to-nmr-based-methods/). We understand that change brings uncertainty, so we are:
- Offering side-by-side data studies to compare CEM and classical methods.
- Willing to invest our resources to build tailored equivalency data for your product.
- Promoting method transparency and AOAC compliance in client education.
- Demonstrating performance with real sample trials: [meat](https://fsns.com/industries/protein/), [pet food](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/), [dairy](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/), seafood.
## The Future of Rapid Moisture, Fat, and Ash Testing
The implementation of advanced rapid analysis technologies such as the Oracle™ NMR system, SMART 6™ for moisture and fat, and Phoenix™ Black for ash content, demonstrates a transformative opportunity to modernize operations.
Our comparative studies across diverse matrices, including [pet food and animal feed](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/), confirm the strong agreement between CEM-based methods and conventional reference methods. These technologies not only **reduce turnaround time and manual workload** but also align with Certified Group’s broader **sustainability and innovation goals**.
While customer adoption may be gradual due to longstanding reliance on traditional methods, our commitment to generating comparative validation data positions us to lead this shift with confidence. By embracing fit-for-purpose, high-efficiency instrumentation, we pave the way for more agile, responsive, and environmentally conscious analytical services.
[Contact our team](https://fsns.com/contact-us/) to discuss adding rapid moisture, fat, and ash testing to your safety and quality program.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [Certified Group Announces FDA Acceptance of PFAS Testing Method for Seafood Matrices](https://fsns.com/certified-group-announces-fda-approval-of-pfas-testing-method-for-seafood-matrices/)
**Published:** June 11, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
## *New method supports seafood importers responding to FDA Import Alert 99-48 and detained shipments involving PFAS concerns.*
**[Read on PRNewswir](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/certified-group-announces-fda-approval-of-pfas-testing-method-for-seafood-matrices-302798197.html)**[**e**](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/certified-group-announces-fda-approval-of-pfas-testing-method-for-seafood-matrices-302798197.html)
MELVILLE, N.Y., June 11, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) today announced that FDA has accepted the company’s validated method for the analysis of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) in frozen clams. The method was developed through direct guidance from FDA and is accepted for frozen clams, with broader PFAS testing available for nearly all seafood matrices.
The acceptance addresses a significant challenge for seafood importers affected by [FDA Import Alert 99-48, “Detention without Physical Examination of Foods Due to Chemical Contamination.”](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_1180.html) [FDA has detained](https://fsns.com/what-is-fda-detention-testing/ "What is FDA Detention Testing?") processed clam shipments due to PFAS contamination, including elevated PFOA findings.
“As Certified Laboratories, Certified Group’s flagship specialty chemistry laboratory, celebrates its 100th anniversary, we are proud to carry forward a legacy of scientific innovation and commitment to food safety,” said David Morgan, CEO of Certified Group. “This FDA acceptance reflects the scientific expertise of our team and Certified Group’s investment in specialized analytical capabilities that help customers verify product safety and maintain regulatory compliance.”
With the food industry increasingly focused on emerging contaminants such as PFAS, particularly in seafood and other high-risk matrices, method development requires extensive work in optimization, matrix evaluation, and quality assurance.
“Scientific excellence means being ready to respond when new regulatory and customer needs emerge,” Morgan said. “This achievement demonstrates our ability to solve complex analytical challenges quickly and responsibly while supporting the industries that rely on defensible data.”
While the method is specifically accepted for frozen clams, Certified Group can test nearly all seafood matrices for PFAS. For sample types not already tested at its laboratory, the company will complete verification before proceeding.
“This method was developed in direct response to Import Alert 99-48 and the difficulty importers have faced in finding a laboratory for PFAS testing,” said Annie Hughes, Director, General Manager, FDA Detention at Certified Group. “We are pleased to continue our longstanding support of the import industry by being among the only U.S. laboratories able to perform this testing and by helping importers move forward with defensible data.”
Certified Group thanks the laboratory and FDA Detention teams for their diligent work developing, verifying, and securing FDA approval for this method.
For PFAS testing inquiries involving seafood matrices, or if you have a detained shipment due to Import Alert 99-48, [contact Certified Laboratories, a Certified Group company, for support](https://edge.prnewswire.com/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=4709587-1&h=52716056&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcertified-laboratories.com%2Fcontact-us%2F%3Futm_source%3DPRNewswire%26utm_medium%3Dpress%2520release%26utm_campaign%3DPFAS%2520method&a=contact+Certified+Laboratories%2C+a+Certified+Group+company%2C+for+support).
**About Certified Group**
Certified Group partners with customers to deliver innovative scientific solutions and expertise – *So The World Can Trust In What It Consumes®*. As a leading North American provider of laboratory testing, regulatory consulting, certification, and audit services, Certified Group encompasses [Food Safety Net Services (FSNS)](https://fsns.com), [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), [Certified Laboratories](https://edge.prnewswire.com/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=4709587-1&h=3022196464&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcertified-laboratories.com%2Fcontact-us%2F%3Futm_source%3DPRNewswire%26utm_medium%3Dpress%2520release%26utm_campaign%3DPFAS%2520method&a=Certified+Laboratories), [EAS Consulting Group](https://edge.prnewswire.com/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=4709587-1&h=2630100647&u=https%3A%2F%2Feasconsultinggroup.com%2F&a=EAS+Consulting+Group), and [Labstat International Inc.](https://edge.prnewswire.com/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=4709587-1&h=3804008220&u=https%3A%2F%2Flabstat.com%2F%3Futm_source%3DPRNewswire%26utm_medium%3Dpress%2520release%26utm_campaign%3DPFAS%2520method&a=Labstat+International+Inc.) The company serves a wide range of industries, including food & beverage, dietary supplements & NHP, cosmetics, OTC, personal care, tobacco, nicotine, cannabis, and hemp.
**Contact**
Annie Hughes
Certified Group Director, General Manager FDA Detention
**Categories:** Press Release
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [Modernizing Fat Analysis: Transitioning from Classical Extraction to NMR-Based Methods](https://fsns.com/modernizing-fat-analysis-transitioning-from-classical-extraction-to-nmr-based-methods/)
**Published:** July 14, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Traditional fat analysis methods such as [Soxhlet and Mojonnier](https://www.scribd.com/doc/203587765/Lab-Food-Analaysis-fat) remain scientifically robust, but they can also create **practical limitations** for modern food, feed, and pet food testing programs – including **long turnaround times**, **solvent use**, **manual workflows**, and **limited scalability**.
This webinar explains how CPMG TD-NMR and rapid compositional analysis workflows can help laboratories and manufacturers generate **accurate**, **defensible data** while improving **speed**, **sustainability**, and **operational efficiency**.
Designed for QA, QC, R&D, laboratory, and regulatory professionals, the session connects the science behind NMR-based fat analysis with the practical decisions teams need to make when evaluating faster, more sustainable testing approaches.
Watch our panel of speakers, [Alicia Stell, Ph.D.](https://www.linkedin.com/in/alicia-stell/) (Market Development Manager, [CEM Corporation](https://cem.com/)), [Eileen Stochl](https://www.linkedin.com/in/eileenstochl/) (Process Product Manager, [CEM Corporation](https://cem.com/)), [Jay Alappat, Ph.D.](https://certified-laboratories.com/jay-alappat-author/?utm_source=fsns&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) (Chief Science Officer for Chemistry, [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=fsns&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks)) and [Michelle Kelly](https://www.linkedin.com/in/michellelouisekelly/) (Business Development Executive, [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=fsns&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks)) discuss rapid fat analysis for fast results. and read the transcript below.
## Why is Fat Analysis Important? (Alicia Stell, Ph.D.)
Okay, so we are talking about fat analysis. And fat analysis is important because it is directly related to [nutritional labeling](https://fsns.com/nutritional-labeling-testing-decoding-a-nutritional-label/ "Nutritional Labeling & Testing: Decoding A Nutritional Label"), product quality, regulatory compliance, process control. So they’re all really important things. And at the end of the day, the [food industry’s pet food feed](https://fsns.com/safe-feed-safe-food-certification/) to optimize your manufacturing process, that’s what’s going to be the biggest savings at the end of the day.
And so we want to be able to achieve that, that this modern method, to be able to do that and used to be accurate and defensible data operational efficiency, speed, sustainability. Okay. So this is really what I want you guys to take away as we talk through this to come back and say, okay, yeah, they did that. They presented something that is an optimized method \[and\] that is meeting these needs.
For what I have pictured there is the AOC food triangle, right? So it breaks up the different components in food from fat to protein to carbohydrates and the different percentages. And essentially our food feed, pet food is going to fall in this. And we’re going to be able to run all of this. So we have a very optimized method for regardless of the sample that you’re looking at.
So our goal is to show you that method.
[](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/modernizing-fat-analysis-white-paper)## What is the History of the Soxhlet and Mojonnier Methods of Fat Analysis? (Alicia Stell, Ph.D.)
All right so with that we’re going to talk a little bit about the history of fat testing to kind of bring us up to speed and where we’re at today. And it’s always staggering to me when I look at the fact that Soxhlet was developed in 1879, and we’re still running that in our labs today, right? If we think about where our world was in 1879 and where we are now, and the fact that we’re running a, you know, methodology that was run then today is, like, kind of mind blowing. But we are, so that says a lot to that method! Says a lot to how, you know? That method gave us what we needed. And amongst time we developed some other methods for fat testing: the Babcock test, the Gerber test, and then, as normal with history, we started getting some more rapid methods. So you had an FTIR method, and NIR method, and NMR method.
So, I’m going to reference these a little bit in the next slide in a little bit more detail. But if we move over to the next slide, what I really want to talk about is the future of fat testing, right? We’re not going to talk about the past anymore. Let’s not do a method that is over 150 years old at this point. We’re going to talk about the [Oracle system](https://cem.com/oracle), which I hopefully can convince you guys that \[it\] really does answer all the needs within the industry. So let’s move forward.
Okay! So we talked about some of the different methodologies, these reference methods and rapid methods. So eventually it falls into these two areas right. The general fat methods that are out there right now you’ve got reference methods.
Those \[reference methods\] are going to be your Soxhlet your Mojonnier that type of thing. They are reliable accurate accredited, right? This is why we’re running them still today. But there’s a lot of cons with them to, you know. They’re antiquated methods. They use hazardous chemicals. They are difficult to run. They’re expensive to run. So that’s why people started developing these rapid methods.
## What are the Benefits of NIR, FTIR, and TD NMR Methods for Fat Analysis? (Alicia Stell, Ph.D.)
And so with methods like NIR and FTIR and TD NMR, they are more rapid. So and they’re easier and they cost less. But the big catch here is \[that testing\] still requires calibration with these reference methods. So the reference methods don’t go away. You still need them. You maybe just don’t have to run them as often, but you still have to calibrate back to it.
They can be variable because of this calibration. They can be high maintenance and they’re giving you \[an\] indirect analysis. You’re not directly getting the value of the fat that you can in these reference methods. So, with that, \[there\] really is a need to bridge these two.
We need a reference method that is also rapid. That’s the goal at the end of the day.
And we’re going to achieve that with the Oracle system that I’ll be talking about here today! And, go to the next slide… Okay! So before I get into the actual technology, so it’s \[called\] Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill (CPMG) Pulsed Time-Domain Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (TD-NMR) — okay that’s a mouthful! All right. We’re going to get into all of that in a moment. On the details I’m going to talk about the benefits first and really \[about\] how it does, indeed, create that bridge there that we were talking about.
- It is reliable, so it gives us this reliability to the reference methods. But it doesn’t require any calibrations. It doesn’t require the maintenance. It’s accurate. And, later down the road, obviously, data is important and Jay is going to cover a lot of that to really bring that point across.
- \[The technology is\] green. I think for a modern world that’s so important, it does not require these solvents that some of these other methods.
- And most importantly, it is accredited! So it is a reference method. We do have an ISO approval that’s listed there for this methodology. So it gives all the benefits of the reference technology as well as that rapid technology without the cons. So let’s move on and watch a quick video on how this works.
## How Does the CEM Oracle System Work for Fat Analysis? (Alicia Stell, Ph.D.)
Okay. So in the Oracle is an NMR. So you’re going to drop your sample into the magnet. This is going to cause your protons to align up and down, okay? So, when those protons were specifically looking so you see the sample kind of going in there. And I’ll cover how to put the sample together in a moment. So, basically, magnetic field going to line up and down. We’re specifically looking at the protons on the hydrogen molecules of the lipid molecules themselves. So it’s a direct technology. And so those protons on those hydrogen atoms when we apply a specific radio frequency it’s going to cause those to invert. When that inverts it’s then going to relax. And that relaxation energy, which is kind of visualized by those dots going out right here.
That’s what we measure. And that is directly related to the fat content in your sample. So, again, we’re looking at the proton on the hydrogen atoms on the specific lipid molecules themselves as a direct technique requires no calibration. And you get rapid total fat determination. Now that was really fast. So let’s dig in a little bit more to that technology on the next slide.
Okay. So, again, this is CP TD NMR at the end of the day, right? And so that’s what’s going to allow us to get that direct measurement. So what that’s using is a specific pulse frequency that you see pictured here the 90 degrees followed by the echo of 180 degrees. That kind of goes one after another and kind of a train of those echoes.
And that is specifically going to with that specific radio frequency that we have, we can hone in on the lipid molecules. So how do we do that, right? If you’re like “Okay, well, you talked about these protons. Where are the protons in a sample?” Well, the sample is going to have protons in moisture, fat, protein, \[and\] carbohydrates, right? How are we separating this out?
We’ll cover this in exact moment: We are going to remove the moisture from the sample, okay? So the moisture goes away. We still have proteins and carbohydrates that could interfere. Well, the proteins and carbohydrates, when looking at this specific CPM TD NMR, are going to relax at a slower pace than those carbohydrates and those proteins. We’re able to separate them out and specifically look at the fat molecules.
But then people are like “Well, there’s a lot of fat molecules! You got your fatty acids, your poly saturated, unsaturated, so forth.” Well, within this we normalize that effect. And so we are getting a total fat value of all the fat specifically in a sample.
Okay. So let’s move on and talk a little bit about the workflow.
## What is the Lab Workflow When Using the Oracle System for Fat Analysis? (Alicia Stell, Ph.D.)
So, we mentioned that we are going to remove the moisture. You see that kind of pictured there with a standard oven. So you remove the moisture, you draw your sample, and then you do need to prepare it. You saw that in the video, where you had your little tube that you put into the Oracle system. And basically you draw your sample on a sample pad. Just kind of fold it up. We’ve got a little station that you see there that helps you prepare that sample together. It goes together very quickly, in a matter of seconds. And then it does need to be conditioned at a proper temperature. That is important, so that we have a conditioning block to quickly do that. And then you drop in the Oracle. In a matter of seconds, you have the total fat value.
Now, not picture here, for those who have a high throughput laboratory, we do have a row pot! We’ll essentially take it and put from that conditioner block and drop it into the oracle itself. So it’s basically going to do that for you. So it does have automation as a possibility for those high throughput labs.
If we go on to the next slide, we can see another option for moisture, okay? So, in the previous picture we saw that oven and standard technique. We’re just going to do a loss on drying to get our moisture analysis. Well, here, the CM Smart system is a microwave infrared loss on drying system. And all the benefits we talked about with the Oracle where it was rapid, easy and compliant? They apply here as well! The Smart 6™ System is *ten times faster* than traditional drying methods. It’s very flexible. You can use it without any of the products we’re talking about. You can use with the smart system, and it pairs directly with that oracle. So they kind of talk to each other. It’s a nice little setup! So you’re getting your drawing in a matter of minutes and you’re fat in the matter of seconds. So, in a very fast time frame you can achieve this entire process.
We move on. Okay, I am going to let Jay cover the data in general, right? So he’s going to take a deeper dive. But I can say all of these wonderful things about the Oracle system and what it does. And if you don’t have the data to support that doesn’t really mean much.
## How Accurate is the Oracle System for Fat Analysis Compared to Reference Methods? (Alicia Stell, Ph.D.)
So here’s just kind of a very high level snapshot of some data. This is thousands of samples that were studied, from CRM to outsourcing data — a variety of different samples, from zero to all the way up to total percent fat. And what you see here is the Oracle \[captured\] percent fat, graphed around the reference \[captured\] percent fat. And you see that R-squared value of 0.995. It is *really* accurate, right? And this is what led us to be able to get that ISO approval. Right?
So, it is a reference technology. It is very accurate data. And again Jay is going to talk more to that and through the reproducibility as well. So we move on to the next slide. And so I said I’d reference this AC food triangle again because as I started my portion of this talk I talked about how we want to be able to have a universal method for all of these different types, a very optimized method.
And I hope I’ve shown you how optimized the Oracle is for a both rapid and. Gets rapid and reference methodology. But Jay’s going to dig in deeper here to cover sample types throughout this triangle. So whether it’s food, feed, pet food you can run it and you don’t have to do the calibration. It’s universal. Just move on to the next slide.
So I just wanted to talk a bit about some of the savings that you get here before I pass it over to Jay. And so here it kind of walks you through a chemical extraction versus a oracle extraction. And again, no hazardous solvents at all. Very rapid. Doesn’t require a lot of bench space. It has less consumable cost. And you’re going to get very reproducible data. So, well, yeah there’s a little bit upfront cost for the instrumentation itself. You’re very quickly going to get your return on investment there with running this type of methodology.
## How Does Ash Testing Work Using the Phoenix Black System? (Alicia Stell, Ph.D.)
Go next slide. So I’d be remiss if I didn’t make just a quick moment and talk about the [Phoenix Black system](https://cem.com/phoenix-black). So up till now we’ve talked about total fat and moisture.
But most of you in your lab probably have a muffle furnace. It’s kind of a commodity, right? And you’re probably doing ashing for some sort of application. And you may not know that CM has a next generation muffle furnace. And all the benefits that you’ve just seen for the Smart and the Oracle system ring true here as well.
So it’s rapid. It’s 90% faster than traditional methods. It brings a lot to the table as far as safety is concerned. And, like everything else, \[it is\] compliant. So you can drop this right into having reference methods and compliant data so we can move forward. All right. So, full circle, I hope that I’ve convinced you that this oracle system sits as that bridge between reference technology and rapid technology. It is a reference technology. It has ISO approval. It is universal regardless of sample size. No calibration, no maintenance. But it’s also a simple workflow. You get rapid results, you don’t have to use harmful chemicals, and it’s easy to use. So, with that, I’m going to pass it over to Jay to really dive deep into the data and prove this concept even further.
## How Much Faster is Fat Analysis Compared to Traditional Methods? (Jay Alappat, Ph.D.)
Thanks a lot, Alicia. Thanks a lot. Michelle.
So, I’m Jay Alappat. I’m the Chief Science Officer for Chemistry for Certified Group. Now, I would like to shift the discussion from the science, which Alicia talked about, to the business or the operational aspects of this analysis. Now as scientists, we are trained to focus on analytical performance, the accuracy, the precision, repeatability.
But when we are making decision about a technology investments, we also have to think about the throughput, the labor, the safety, the sustainability and the return of investment, of course. Now if you compare Soxhlet with Mojonnier you’ll see that, in the TDNMR, the difference is striking! **Traditional methods typically require anywhere from two hours to up to 18 hours, depending on the matrix.**
**Oracle, on the other hand, can generate results in approximately 3 to 5 minutes.** That is one of the greatest advantage I see in this, and you will see a lot of data proving my point.
## How Does the Oracle System Reduce Solvent Use? (Jay Alappat, Ph.D.)
The next one is that this also has a sustainability advantage over a traditional solvent extraction method. Sources consume significant quantities of hazardous solvents that require storage, handling, disposal, and regulatory oversight. The Oracle eliminates the solvent completely and improving laboratory safety while supporting corporate initiatives like our organization.
Now, Alicia mentioned the initial investment is a little higher. So, as I said, it’s a fully validated method. You see the data to prove that it is fast, it’s level friendly, no is generated, and customers are seeking more sustainable green solutions. Then one of the cons is growing in the adoption. I will say why people are a little concerned on this technology, and I will show you how we can dispel those myths on why this is a primary technology or secondary technology.
Is it compared to the reference method? We see a lot of data later. Next slide please.
## How Does Oracle Compare to Reference Methods for Fat Analysis? (Jay Alappat, Ph.D.)
Now one main concern we hear from our customers is whether moving this newer technology means sacrifice regulatory acceptance. **The answer is a solid no.** At certified group, our philosophy has always been that scientific innovation should complement, not replace, validated analytical method. That’s exactly the reason we resort to this technology and the method. Now, you can slide a few more points.
Yes. Next one. Yes. So as you can see the modern technologies are now available for moisture. For in the table you see CM smart replaces not complement the machine analysis. Then the Phoenix back which Alicia mentioned about ash. Then for [rapid NMR and modern technologies](https://fsns.com/rapid-moisture-fat-ash-testing/) are now available for all of these. And there are other analytes we can do with modern technologies.
Now let us look into this actual data. The slide compares Oracle Smart against reference method for raw chicken as well as for beef blend. The first observation is that remarkable agreement between the modern method and the reference, where they can see the error is 0.06 for chicken fat and moisture 0.23 then beef blend it is one and moisture 0.05.
So for again the average difference only only about 1/600 of a percentage. And that’s very insignificant. So those differences are essentially whether it’s a fat or moisture is insignificant. So what we we are not talking about a rapid screening technology. We are talking about a validated analytical method capable of producing results that agree extremely well with established reference procedure.
We’ll go to one more data on the fat and moisture. Next slide please.
So in the previous slide what we saw was raw materials here. What you see is some finished products. So finished product producers are analytically challenging because they contain complex mixtures of proteins carbohydrates, fats and minerals. So by the way I’ll be talking a lot of pet food matrices. We have done a lot of work on food and other matrices.
But here. Our focus is on the pet food. Yet again there is an excellent agreement in the fat between the reference method and the moisture reference method for Cantwell food, as well as the can’t the finished kibble. So the point here is see this level of agreement across different product types provides confidence that I require I need before we release the results to the customers.
Next slide please.
Now accuracy that is what you have seen in the previous two slides is only part of the one part of the story. The the one is the method performance. And the critical part in the method is precision. What does that mean? If I do the analysis ten times, I should get expect essentially the same answer every time. That’s exactly what precision is.
## Precision and Repeatability Across Product Types (Jay Alappat, Ph.D.)
That is what the slide demonstrates across a wide range of products, including cheeses, meat or snacks, bakery products, beverages and dairy. The repeatability is excellent. Low standard deviation. What you see on the last column a 0.130118, 0123, etc. indicates that the instrument produces highly consistent results. The more producible the result, the greater the confidence me and our team and the lab has before we release the data to the customers.
So we see excellent repeatability for the Oracle fat analysis. Let’s see what is going on with the repeatability for moisture. Next slide please. So the moisture the same story. Whether we are looking at cheese sausage putting beverage meets data products. The repeatability remains consistently strong. Most analysts often serves as the first analytical results. Any manufacturer’s need for the releasing.
The products and operators make processing decisions based on the moisture content if those results fluctuate between because between the analysis, that means the poor repeatability and products in production decisions become less reliable. Consistent moisturizers measurements translate directly into more consistent manufacturing, more consistent results to support our customers. Next slide please. Now, what you have seen so far is the accuracy of the method.
## Accuracy, Precision, and Method Validation (Jay Alappat, Ph.D.)
How accurate are the results are with what is actually present in the matrix. Then we saw the the precision how repeatable these tests are. So we also we also do intermediate position or reproducibility etc. etc. in the lab. This slide particularly shows how it is comparing with the reference materials. But remember certified reference material provides one of the highest level of confidence in analytical chemistry because the acetate values have been carefully established.
So that is how when we develop a validated method, first thing is accuracy precision, robustness, repeatability, reproducibility. That’s the. Then the next one is compare with a reference material across a broad spectrum of products, including we flour mill, milk powder, dairy products, processing meats, seafood, infant formula, pet food. The smart results are closely matched with the certified values.
This tells us that the technology performs well not only with the routine production samples that we’ve seen in the previous slides, but also against internationally recognized reference material. Now we will go to so you can see the numbers are how close they are and see the standard deviation very small. That is the one you see in the last column in the slide.
Next slide please. Now, again, this one is a kind of educational slide for me and our team. So what you see here is the compare the the directly the traditional chemistry across multiple food matrices. Overall you will see excellent agreement between the two methods. But there are some differences, particularly in products such as cheese, milk powder and liquid.
I mean, these differences are actually very educational. So when I do the animal analysis then we do the traditional vacuum analysis, use of differences, the difference for dry milk as well as for milk one and two and three is pretty high. So that is a that’s how we work with our team to figure out what’s going on is as a systemic bias.
Or is there anything with the sample preparation? In most of the cases, it’s about the sample preparation, which I will show you in one of the later slides. So now Alicia mentioned that the sock slit as well as many dimensions, the total fat inside. But here in the master we are measuring the NMR, which is the total hydrogen associated with fat.
So depending on the matrix sample preparation, extraction efficiency there may be some systematic differences, systemic differences. But it is also is possible to find out to bring these data closer and closer. That means higher accurate numbers by using our sample preparation protocol protocol. So the important point here is the consistency Oracle method provides reproducible results by eliminating many of the variables associated with the solvent extraction.
Next slide please. Again this shows the this slide expands the previous slides of additional products including breakfast sandwiches as well as a pet food. Again the agreement between the methods are really high. And for pet food especially, the average difference is essentially negligible. This is important because, as I mentioned before, pet food represent one of the fastest growing analytical markets.
That is the reason we focused pet food in this presentation. So as I mentioned before, the manufacturer, near the rapid releases of the products while maintaining nutritional label accuracy technology is what we discussing here. Oracle helps laboratories to meet both objectives. Next slide please.
All right. Now Alicia mentioned that these methods, Oracle as well as Smart 6™, are validated against the reference method. So these slides next slides necessary for slides. What I’m going to show you is is how these methods compare with the reference method. Whether the application is a meat as you see in the ingredients are oat is a raw material, deboned chicken, a rice brand.
The workflow remains essentially the same and the measure of the moisture rapidly. With the smart as well as with Oracle, you see how comparable the numbers and as you can see, the references are written below. For example, the oat. The moisture was done using AUC 930 401. Then fat was done using AUC 950 402. So the point here is whether we are using a reference method or the Oracle or the CM technology is a very accurate, precise method data.
So go to the next slide please. In this case it is the treats that you can treat Patriots Chicken strip biscuit as well as the same. And you can see the average between these two the reference and the Oracle Smart 6™ methods are very close. And you can also see the range. In the case of a moisture for chicken strip still .08.
It is, as I mentioned, negligible. That’s what we see across for other matrices. Biscuit Sam and Jackie next slide please.
Again here we did. So we did the raw materials. We did the the treats. We did the wet pet foods. Chicken Philomena on prime rib. Go to the next one.
This is dry pet foods finished pet for a different pet food. So we did the finished once dry dry matrix. So you can see that how comparable these numbers are with the reference methods. Go to the next slide please. Now as I mentioned, I would like to finish what I consider one of the most important scientific message in this presentation.
## Sample Preparation Drives Analytical Variability (Jay Alappat, Ph.D.)
And be always the less. And the scientists often talk about the instrument performance. In reality, sample preparation frequently contributes more analytical variability than the instrument itself. The study demonstrates exactly that. So on the left side you see homogenized separately. What does that mean? As we have the sample sent to the lab which did the majority in salt slit, and we do the other lab doing the other location, all of the lab doing the NMR.
That was one case. The other case is where we homogenized in one location and split between the labs. So when bacon samples were thoroughly common and then split between analysis, both slit and oracle produced excellent precision. However, when separate portions are homogeneous independently, variability increased substantially for both methods. So the the lesson is straightforward. Good sample preparation is fundamental regardless of which analytical technology you’re going to use.
So no instrument can compensate for the non representative sample. That’s the message here. So we instead of a group we make extreme care to make sure the samples are prepared in a homogeneous way so that the results we are producing are accurate and precise. As analytical scientists we should always remember that quality of the results begins with the quality of the sample.
So there’s a garbage in, garbage out. So if you don’t put the right sample inside the sample preparation inside, we are not going to get the right process. So next slide please. So I will close with a few three 1 or 2 key takeaways. First, as you have seen, the modern analytical technologies have matured to a point where they can deliver reference quality data well, dramatically improving laboratory productivity.
Second, laboratories no longer have to choose or compromise between speed and scientific differentiability with validated methods like I was in those slides. With the data, we can achieve both. Finally, the future of the food and list analysis is in about replacing good science. As I said, the good science always complement the traditional chemistry methods. It is about using better tools to strengthen high quality, faster data sustainably and at lower overall cost.
So it’s all about turnaround time, the cost as well as the sustainability. And with that will end the presentation today. Thank you for joining us. And we’ll be more than happy to answer any of the questions. So Michelle can look into the questions being addressed in the chat. Then we can answer one by one. Absolutely.
---
## Q&A on Rapid Analysis for Fat, Moisture, and Ash in Food Testing
## Michelle Kelly
Thank you, Dr. Jay and Dr. Alicia. That was very informative.
We do have a few questions in the Q&A section, and we also received several questions prior to today’s presentation. If we don’t get to your question today, please know that we will follow up with a personalized response afterward.
The first question is:
**“The NMR analysis time is listed as three to five minutes. Does that include the drying step?”**
---
## Eileen Stochl
I’ll take that question.
Yes, the three-to-five-minute analysis time does include the drying step if you’re using the Smart 6 moisture analyzer.
If you’re using a conventional drying oven, the drying portion would take significantly longer. However, when Smart 6 and Oracle are used together, the total time for both moisture and fat analysis falls within that three-to-five-minute window.
---
## Michelle Kelly
Thank you.
I have a few questions regarding the cost of the instrument. While pricing is typically discussed on an individual basis, could you explain the first step for someone interested in acquiring this equipment?
---
## Eileen Stochl
Absolutely.
If you’re interested in pricing information, please contact me directly at CEM. I can connect you with the appropriate regional representative who can provide pricing, configuration options, and any additional information you need regarding acquisition and implementation.
---
## Michelle Kelly
I have another question regarding implementation.
**“What is the projected lead time to get the system installed and operational?”**
---
## Eileen Stochl
For the moisture and fat analyzer systems, our typical lead time is approximately six weeks.
One of the advantages of Oracle is that it does not require calibration development or ongoing calibration maintenance. As soon as the system is installed and verified, it’s ready to run samples.
Installation generally takes about two days.
---
## Dr. Jay Alappat
I can add to that from the laboratory side.
When we installed the technology in our laboratory, the practical installation process was completed very quickly.
What typically takes additional time is our internal validation process. Before implementing any new method for customer testing, we perform comparison studies between traditional methods such as Soxhlet and Mojonnier and the Oracle method.
We want to understand any relative percent differences and confirm performance for each customer matrix before using it routinely.
Most customers have historical data generated using traditional methods, so generating comparison data is extremely important to ensure confidence in the transition.
---
## Michelle Kelly
Thank you, Jay.
We have several questions regarding maintenance of the Oracle system.
One attendee mentioned that they purchased an Oracle last year and would like to know when preventative maintenance should begin and what the maintenance process involves.
---
## Eileen Stochl
Typically, preventative maintenance begins about one year after installation, around the time the warranty period expires.
One of our service engineers will visit the site and perform preventative maintenance procedures that include:
- Cleaning the system
- Reviewing software performance
- Evaluating instrument history and system diagnostics
- Verifying proper functionality
The goal is to ensure that everything continues operating as expected and to identify any potential issues before they become problems.
---
## Michelle Kelly
I have a question regarding sample matrices.
**“Are there any sample matrices or additives that can interfere with the NMR measurement and skew results?”**
---
## Eileen Stochl
Generally speaking, no.
Because Oracle is a primary method and directly measures hydrogen associated with lipid molecules, we are specifically targeting the fat signal.
Over the years, we’ve become very good at isolating that signal, and we generally do not see additives causing significant interference in normal food, feed, or pet food applications.
---
## Dr. Jay Alappat
I actually have a related question of my own.
Have you observed any issues with matrices that contain paramagnetic ions or elevated concentrations of metals? Would those affect the measurement or require modifications to the pulse sequence?
---
## Eileen Stochl
We really haven’t seen issues associated with those types of materials.
If there were an unusually high concentration of magnetic materials or heavy metals, it could theoretically become a consideration, but we haven’t encountered significant problems with that in routine applications.
---
## Michelle Kelly
Another attendee asks:
**“Have you ever seen underestimation of fat content in dry milk samples?”**
---
## Dr. Jay Alappat
Yes, and that’s actually one of the examples I discussed during the presentation.
When we investigated those differences, we found that most were related to sample preparation and storage conditions.
If the NMR analysis and the traditional chemical extraction analysis are performed close together in time, the results are very comparable.
However, if the powder has been stored for an extended period, moisture uptake or moisture loss can occur, potentially affecting results.
That’s why we recommend performing comparison studies as closely together as possible to minimize additional sources of variability.
---
## Michelle Kelly
Another question concerns sweetened condensed milk.
**“How long does it take to obtain solids and fat results for sweetened condensed milk?”**
---
## Dr. Jay Alappat
The analysis time is the same.
The workflow remains unchanged, so you can expect total moisture and fat results within approximately three to five minutes.
---
## Michelle Kelly
I have a procedural question.
**“How long does the sample need to remain in the conditioning block? Is conditioning required when the Smart 6 is being used?”**
---
## Eileen Stochl
If you’re using Smart 6, additional conditioning in a heater block typically isn’t necessary.
Our Smart 6 methods are designed so that samples exit the instrument at the appropriate temperature for subsequent Oracle analysis.
Additionally, Oracle includes a QuickPrep heating station that can be used if needed.
If a traditional drying oven is used instead of Smart 6, then conditioning becomes necessary. We need to ensure that the sample enters the magnet at an appropriate and consistent temperature because temperature consistency is important for NMR measurements.
---
## Michelle Kelly
Another attendee asks:
**“How can users periodically verify calibration?”**
---
## Eileen Stochl
We typically recommend using certified reference materials to verify system performance.
---
## Dr. Jay Alappat
That’s exactly what we do in our laboratory.
We maintain certified reference materials that represent different portions of the AOAC food triangle. We use those materials routinely to verify instrument performance.
I also noticed a related question asking about expected standard deviation.
Generally speaking, the standard deviation depends on concentration. For most samples, we’ve observed repeatability corresponding to approximately 2% to 5% relative variation.
At very low concentrations, variability can be somewhat higher, occasionally reaching around 15%.
---
## Michelle Kelly
Another simple question:
**“How should used sample pads be disposed of?”**
---
## Eileen Stochl
The dried sample pads can simply be discarded.
---
## Michelle Kelly
We have a question about method development.
**“Can the method be adjusted or calibrated differently for specific product types?”**
---
## Eileen Stochl
No adjustment is necessary on the Oracle side.
Oracle uses a universal method because it directly measures fat. No calibrations, product-specific adjustments, or ongoing method maintenance are required.
The only customization that may occur involves the Smart 6 drying method to ensure the sample reaches the appropriate temperature before entering the Oracle.
But for Oracle itself, there is no matrix-specific calibration development.
---
## Michelle Kelly
A follow-up question asks about the significance of the Smart 6 cooling step and the settings used when Smart 6 is paired with Oracle.
---
## Eileen Stochl
The cooling step is primarily intended to bring the sample to the appropriate handling and measurement temperature.
Once the sample exits the Smart 6, it is prepared and transferred directly into Oracle.
The cooling process simply helps optimize sample temperature before measurement.
As for specific instrument settings, I would probably need additional clarification from the attendee because the Smart 6 and Oracle perform different functions. Smart 6 determines moisture, while Oracle determines fat.
---
## Michelle Kelly
Dr. Alicia, this next question is for you.
One attendee asks about sample placement on the Smart 6 pad.
They were originally trained to place sample dots in a swirl pattern without touching. However, they’ve also seen people place all of the sample in the center.
What do you recommend?
---
## Dr. Alicia Douglas Stell
With earlier systems, there were several accepted placement techniques.
For Smart 6 specifically, we recommend puddling the sample into the center of the pad.
This placement works best with the infrared temperature sensor and allows the system to control temperature most effectively throughout the drying process.
---
## Michelle Kelly
Another question:
**“Can the Oracle distinguish between saturated and unsaturated fats?”**
---
## Dr. Jay Alappat
No.
Oracle provides a total fat measurement only.
If you’re interested in saturated fat, unsaturated fat, CLA, or individual fatty acid profiles, those analyses still require gas chromatography.
The Oracle reports total fat content, not fatty acid composition.
---
## Michelle Kelly
Another attendee asks:
**“If we switch from our historical method to Oracle, how much difference should we expect compared to historical data?”**
---
## Dr. Jay Alappat
That’s an excellent question.
If historical testing was performed correctly using AOAC-compliant Soxhlet or Mojonnier methods, I would not expect major differences.
Typically, the relative percent difference may fall somewhere in the range of approximately 5% to 10%.
The exact value depends on the sample type, how the historical analyses were performed, and sample-preparation practices.
The key is to conduct side-by-side comparison studies during implementation so that any differences are fully understood.
---
## Dr. Alicia Douglas Stell
Hey Michelle, I just wanted to add one quick comment.
I’ve mostly stayed quiet during the Q&A because Eileen is our product manager and works directly with these systems every day. She’s truly the expert regarding operation and technical details.
I’m commonly the person customers meet at conferences and industry events, and I’m always happy to serve as a resource. But for detailed technical questions, Eileen is definitely the best person to answer them.
---
## Michelle Kelly
Thank you for clarifying that.
For our final question, I’d like both organizations to answer.
**“What differentiates you from your competitors?”**
---
## Eileen Stochl
From the CEM perspective, the biggest differentiator is the technology itself.
Many competing rapid methods rely on indirect technologies such as NIR. Oracle uses TD-NMR and specifically the CPMG pulse sequence to perform direct fat measurement.
That allows Oracle to function as a primary analytical method rather than an indirect calibrated method.
Another major differentiator is our service organization. We maintain support personnel around the world and focus heavily on customer accessibility and technical support.
---
## Dr. Jay Alappat
From the Certified Group perspective, our primary differentiator is our commitment to innovation while maintaining scientific rigor.
We believe advanced technologies should complement traditional analytical science.
We focus on:
- Automation
- Innovation
- Reduced turnaround times
- Improved sustainability
- Accurate and precise results
Most importantly, we devote substantial effort to understanding each customer’s specific products and methods.
Our laboratory teams perform comparison studies, optimize workflows, and validate performance before implementation.
Unlike many organizations, the scientists who generate the validation data are available to interact directly with customers and answer technical questions.
We don’t simply generate data and release results. We work closely with customers to ensure the methods are optimized and fully understood.
That’s a major differentiator for us.
---
## Michelle Kelly
Thank you both for those comments.
That brings us to the end of our webinar.
I’d like to thank everyone for attending today and for participating with so many excellent questions.
Don’t forget to [download the white paper](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/modernizing-fat-analysis-white-paper) available in the chat.
We hope this collaborative presentation provided useful insights that you can apply to the important work you do every day.
Have a wonderful afternoon, everyone.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [ISO 22002:2025 PRP Updates Explained for FSSC 22000 Version 6 Sites](https://fsns.com/iso-220022025-prp-updates-explained-for-fssc-22000-version-6-sites/)
**Published:** April 28, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed By Kaci Foote, Accreditation Manager, FSNS Certification & Audit*
### 1-Minute Summary
- FSSC certified sites should review the ISO 22002:2025 PRP updates ahead of the release of FSSC 22000 Version 7.
- The biggest change is structural: ISO 22002-100:2025 now holds the common PRPs, while ISO 22002-1:2025 and ISO 22002-4:2025 hold sector-specific requirements.
- Many requirements were moved, not removed, but some controls are now more explicit for allergen control, zoning, CIP, drainage, migration, set-off, incoming materials, sharps, and rework.
- For Version 6 sites, the value now is preparation: early clause mapping should make Version 7 easier to read and implement once published.
---
## Preparing for FSSC 22000 Version 7 Starts with the New ISO 22002 PRPs
FSSC 22000 Version 7 is expected soon, and the new ISO 22002:2025 PRP documents already show where important changes are taking shape.
[FSSC has said Version 7 is being developed in part to incorporate the new ISO 22002-x:2025 series](https://www.fssc.com/insights/fssc-22000-version-7/), while Version 6 continues using the current ISO/TS 22002-X documents until the transition begins.
That makes the PRPs worth reviewing now because they reveal the new structure, show which requirements moved, and highlight the controls most likely to affect transition planning.
Let’s look at what’s changed in ISO 22002-1:2025 and ISO 22002-4:2025, which most [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) customers will use for their [FSSC 22000 certification audit](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/).
## The Biggest Change: A Common PRP Backbone
Under the older model, the sector PRP documents were more self-contained. In the 2025 model, ISO split the common requirements into a new shared backbone: **ISO 22002-100:2025**. The sector documents now add only the requirements specific to those operations.
**What This Means**
- Read ISO 22002-1:2025 with ISO 22002-100 for food manufacturing.
- Read ISO 22002-4:2025 with ISO 22002-100 for packaging manufacturing.
- Note missing clauses carefully, because some were relocated rather than removed.
## What Moved into ISO 22002-100:2025
ISO 22002-100:2025 covers the shared PRP foundation across sectors. Its contents include:
- Buildings and workspace layout
- Utilities
- Pest control
- Waste, FLW management, and recycling
- Equipment suitability and maintenance
- Purchased materials management
- Storage, dispatch, and transport
- Cleaning and disinfection
- Personal hygiene and employee facilities
- Product and consumer information
- [Food defense and food fraud](https://fsns.com/food-fraud-vs-food-defense-a-5-minute-guide/)
### Language Changes to Note
The terminology is more current than in the older standards. Examples include:
- “Cleaning and disinfection” instead of “cleaning and sanitizing”.
- “Waste, FLW management and recycling” instead of “waste disposal”.
- “[Food defense and food fraud](https://fsns.com/food-fraud-vs-food-defense-a-5-minute-guide/)” instead of “food defense, biovigilance, and bioterrorism”.
## What Food Manufacturing Sites Should Focus On
ISO 22002-1:2025 adds the food-manufacturing-specific controls that augment Part 100.
### Key Updates
- Drainage: Drains cannot pass over processing lines, and drainage cannot flow from contaminated areas to clean areas.
- Bulk Receiving: Access points to bulk receiving lines must be identified, capped, and locked.
- Zoning: Microbiological zoning must address segregation, traffic, access, workwear, and air differentials.
- Allergen Control: Allergen control is now a distinct clause. It covers cleaning, changeover, sequencing, tools, rework, training, and labeling considerations, heightening the important of [allergen testing](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/).
- Contamination Controls: Physical and chemical contamination controls are more explicit.
- CIP: Cleaning programs now include clearer expectations around inspection and CIP parameters.
- Rework: Rework controls are more detailed for segregation, traceability, use conditions, and method of addition.
## What Packaging Manufacturing Sites Should Focus On
ISO 22002-4:2025 keeps the packaging-specific requirements and relies on Part 100 for the common PRPs.
### Key Updates
- Incoming Materials: The standard adds clearer controls for tamper-evident seals, recycled-source materials, nano materials, plant-based materials, and out-of-spec inputs.
- Set-Off: Set-off is addressed directly for printed and coated materials.
- Migration: Migration is now a distinct clause requiring hazard-based controls.
- Sharps: Sharps and brittle-material controls are more explicit, and snap-off blade knives are prohibited.
- Rework: Rework controls are tied more clearly to regulatory and customer compliance.
## What Changed Structurally
Some differences are about document design, not just operational detail.
### Food Manufacturing
Compared with ISO/TS 22002-1:2009:
- Shared PRPs moved into Part 100.
- Rework remains in Part 1.
- Product recall procedures no longer appear as a standalone Part 1 clause.
### Packaging Manufacturing
Compared with ISO/TS 22002-4:2013:
- Shared PRPs moved into Part 100.
- [Food fraud](https://fsns.com/what-is-food-fraud/) now appears alongside [food defense](https://fsns.com/how-to-create-a-food-defense-plan/).
- Withdrawal procedures no longer appear as a standalone clause.
- Annex A is no longer present.
## How FSSC Version 6 Sites Can Prepare Now
Sites that are certified to [FSSC 22000 Version 6](https://fsns.com/6-key-changes-in-fssc-22000-version-6/) can start practical preparation before Version 7 is released.
- Identify the applicable 2025 PRP document and review it alongside ISO 22002-100:2025.
- Map current procedures to the new PRP structure and identify gaps.
- Update your internal audit tools and training plans. Our [food industry training courses](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/ "Food Industry Training Built for the Plant Floor") are a good resource for training your team.
- Review the final FSSC 22000 Version 7 scheme once published and perform a gap analysis. Then, map out a plan to close gaps before audits against Version 7 begin.
## Understand ISO 22002:2025 PRPs Now to Begin Your Site’s Preparation
The ISO 22002:2025 revision does two things at once. It creates a shared PRP backbone in ISO 22002-100 and it sharpens several sector-specific controls for food and packaging manufacturers.
For [FSSC 22000 Version 6](https://fsns.com/6-key-changes-in-fssc-22000-version-6/) sites, that makes now the right time to begin clause mapping and internal review in preparation for your full FSSC 22000 Version 7 gap analysis once the update is released.
[Contact our Certification & Audit team with any questions.](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, FSSC 22000, GFSI
---
### [Food Fraud vs Food Defense: A 5-Minute Guide](https://fsns.com/food-fraud-vs-food-defense-a-5-minute-guide/)
**Published:** January 2, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Tim Lombardo, Senior Director, Food Consulting Services,* [*EAS Consulting Group*](https://easconsultinggroup.com/)*, a* [*Certified Group*](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) *Company.*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Food fraud seeks economic gain; food defense helps prevents intentional harm.
- Fraud focuses on supply chains; defense secures facilities.
- Both require different assessment tools and mitigation strategies for food safety and brand protection.
---
## Food Fraud vs. Food Defense: Understanding the Differences
In food safety, [food fraud](https://fsns.com/what-is-food-fraud/) vs food defense are two critical concepts with distinct goals.
While both aim to protect the food supply, they differ in intent, focus, and regulatory frameworks. Understanding these differences ensures your [food safety management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) is robust and compliant.
Let’s explore how food defense vs food fraud compare and the tools needed to address them.
## What is Food Fraud?
**Food fraud is the intentional deception of consumers for economic gain, often at the expense of product authenticity and safety.**
While not designed to harm, its consequences can pose public health risks. Examples include…
- Diluting honey with cheaper syrups.
- Treating lower-quality food to mimic premium products, like the [“Vitamin Tuna” scandal.](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/vitamin-tuna-lab-testing-to-verify-the-integrity-of-your-supply-chain/)
- Falsely labeling conventional food as organic.
Food fraud is regulated under frameworks like FSMA’s Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF) and the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP). Additionally, GFSI standards (e.g., [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/)) mandate [food fraud vulnerability assessments](https://fsns.com/how-to-conduct-a-food-fraud-vulnerability-assessment-free-checklist/).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/774cea55-6189-45c3-8de2-f7c4e08e7ffc)## What is Food Defense?
**Food defense focuses on protecting food from intentional acts intended to harm consumers or disrupt supply chains**.
Although rare, deliberate contamination incidents can have catastrophic consequences. Notable cases include…
- [UK Baby Food (2020)](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/tesco-blackmail-trial-farmer-nigel-wright-convicted-spiking-baby-food-blackmail-plot): A man placed metal shards in baby food during an extortion attempt, prompting recalls and a 14-year prison sentence.
- [Australian Strawberries (2018)](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-14/safety-response-to-strawberry-tampered-with-needles-not-enough/10242700): Sewing needles were found in strawberries, causing widespread panic and financial losses.
In today’s interconnected global food system, vulnerabilities are heightened. The FSMA Intentional Adulteration (IA) Rule was implemented to safeguard against such threats.
## Key Differences: Food Fraud vs Food Defense
Here’s a simple matrix summarizing the distinctions between these two concepts:
**Aspect** **Food Defense** **Food Fraud** **Primary Intent** Cause harm to consumers or supply chain disruption Gain economic advantage **Focus** Facility security and operational safety Supply chain integrity and ingredient authenticity **Examples** Tampering, sabotage, terrorism Adulteration, mislabeling, counterfeiting **Regulatory Frameworks** FSMA Intentional Adulteration (IA) Rule FSMA Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF), Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP); GFSI-benchmarked certifications **Assessment Tool** Food Defense Plan Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment **Mitigation Strategies** Physical security, monitoring, access controls Supplier audits, traceability systems ## Mitigation: Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment vs. Food Defense Plan
Addressing these threats requires tailored tools: a [Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment](https://fsns.com/how-to-conduct-a-food-fraud-vulnerability-assessment-free-checklist/) and a [Food Defense Plan](https://fsns.com/how-to-create-a-food-defense-plan/).
### Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment
This assessment evaluates risks across the supply chain to identify opportunities for fraud and help close gaps. [Discover how to perform a Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment here.](https://fsns.com/how-to-conduct-a-food-fraud-vulnerability-assessment-free-checklist/) Steps include…
- **Analyzing Ingredients:** Assess the history of fraud, supply chain complexity, and traceability.
- **Scoring Risks:** Use metrics like geographic sourcing risks or supplier reliability.
- **Implementing Controls:** Perform supplier audits, verify authenticity through testing, and establish robust traceability.
For example, turmeric, which has a history of adulteration with lead chromate, may require stricter supplier controls and regular testing to ensure its authenticity compared to other ingredients.
### Food Defense Plan
This plan focuses on facility security to prevent intentional contamination. [We explain how to create a Food Defense Plan here.](https://fsns.com/how-to-create-a-food-defense-plan/) Key steps include…
- **Vulnerability Assessments:** Use tools like CARVER + Shock to evaluate risks in areas like loading docks and storage.
- **Mitigation Strategies:** Examples include biometric access controls, tamper-evident packaging, and surveillance.
- **Monitoring and Verification:** Conduct regular audits and use automated systems to monitor controls.
For example, a facility might secure its loading dock with CCTV cameras and keycard access to prevent unauthorized access, minimizing risks of sabotage.
## Food Defense vs Food Fraud – The Final Word
While food defense and food fraud plans address different threats, both are equally important to your food safety program, including [food safety testing](https://fsns.com/industries/):
- Food defense protects against malicious harm.
- Food fraud ensures product authenticity and supply chain integrity.
Recent incidents, such as tampering with baby food and fraudulent tuna treatments, emphasize the need for robust safety measures. By implementing both food fraud vulnerability assessments and food defense plans, organizations can safeguard consumers, operations, and brand reputation.
Need guidance? Contact [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) company, to ensure your strategies meet regulatory and industry standards.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, food fraud, Food safety
---
### [Environmental Monitoring Programs in Food Manufacturing Facilities – A Strategic Approach](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-in-food-manufacturing-facilities/)
**Published:** August 11, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Effective [environmental monitoring programs](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/ "Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) Guide for Food Safety") are key drivers for ensuring food safety, reducing the risk of foodborne illness and maintaining the integrity of the food supply. Through established sampling plans, harmful contaminants are identified early so that rapid response corrective actions can be initiated.
A critical component to food manufacturing operations, environmental monitoring programs can be cumbersome to implement. Factors such as the location, frequency, and quantity of samples taken need to be addressed. Then, you need results – fast. Any delay when you get positive results for dangerous pathogens such as *Listeria*, *Salmonella* and *L. monocytogenes* costs time, money, reputation, and possibly lives.
FSNS, a Certified Group Company, developed a proprietary software solution to help when performing environmental testing in food manufacturing facilities.
Named *emma***®**, it simplifies environmental monitoring while increasing food safety. Through automation, efficiencies are gained in zoning, scheduling, and sampling, at both routine and random intervals, eliminating the guesswork as to when testing is due.
Shipping labels for environmental monitoring samples are automatically printed along with the sampling plan, allowing for expedited return results, displayed via a customized dashboard that offers real-time detailed analytics of swab results. Emma**®** provides confidence that you environmental monitoring program is working as it should and quickly identifies any need for corrective action.
Emma source tracking is made easy with playback mode. See pass and fail results over time and track the performance of your plant.## **Why Do I Need an Environmental Monitoring Program?**
As an early warning system, an [environmental monitoring sampling program](https://www.fda.gov/food/sampling-protect-food-supply/environmental-sampling) is required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of a food facility’s Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) [to prevent contamination in food processing environments](https://www.fda.gov/food/sampling-protect-food-supply/environmental-sampling#how). FSMA requires establishments to develop [Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls](https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/draft-guidance-industry-hazard-analysis-and-risk-based-preventive-controls-human-food) that identify potential hazards, their likelihood of occurrence and control procedures as part of a concerted effort to keep risks at bay. When hazards are identified, [corrective actions](https://fsns.com/verifying-the-corrective-action-effectiveness/) are implemented immediately, eliminating the contaminant and confirming it is no longer a threat.
## **Introducing emma®, a Game-Changing Proprietary Solution**
Emma® is a powerful software solution that efficiently manages all components of an environmental monitoring program, from facility mapping, to sample scheduling, to automatic printing of labels that direct test samples to your trusted partner for environmental testing in food manufacturing, FSNS.
As an environmental monitoring tool, emma® is a one-stop shop. But, its game changing value is its enhanced, real-time reporting via customized dashboards, particularly when early indicators show warning signs of contamination.
With the click of a button, emma® prints customized labels based on your sampling plan and shipping labels that expedite shipping straight to our laboratories.## **How Does emma® Work?**
- Food manufacturing plants can use their own facility maps to create diagrams overlaid with unique sample points and environmental testing parameters as determined by the firm’s quality team.
- Routine and random sampling is scheduled, with automatic reminders sent when swabbing at a particular location is due.
- Appropriate labels are formatted and printed with the touch of a button, and sample results are returned via a proprietary customized user dashboard.
Environmental monitoring program results are clearly articulated via our user-friendly interface, delivering easy to visualize pass (green) or fail (red) locations on the facility map. A variety of filters enable an understanding of performance trends over time through a historic playback view.
The result is a safer, FSMA-compliant production facility thanks to an automated environmental monitoring system that provides accurate results quickly.
Our customized dashboard helps your environmental monitoring and sampling program stay on track.## **Key Benefits of emma®**
**User Friendly:** emma**®** is easy to use and provides multiple benefits over standard environmental monitoring programs. With customizable plans, swab sites and frequencies, your facility’s personalized environmental monitoring program can be created without the use of spreadsheets.
Once emma**®** is online in a facility, it begins working immediately, alerting to swabbing by zone, logging samples seamlessly into the FSNS LIMS system and uploading quantitative and qualitative results to the user dashboard upon testing completion. A live-action playback mode shows trends, early warning signs and where [corrective action](https://fsns.com/verifying-the-corrective-action-effectiveness/) is necessary.
**Saves Time and Money:** All data, tasks and scheduling are kept securely online allowing for easy collection of attributes such as sample point names, zone, rooms and customizable categories. This allows for easier data retrieval analytics via AdHoc reporting features. Our customizable features present your data in meaningful ways.
**Simplifies Remediation Management:** emma**®** simplifies remediation management when positive results are returned. Through easy creation of vector sites and [corrective actions](https://fsns.com/verifying-the-corrective-action-effectiveness/) for failed swab sites, documentation is easily retained in one place. Organizations can pull critical [corrective action](https://fsns.com/verifying-the-corrective-action-effectiveness/) information for comparison and resolution. There is no limit to uploading supporting documents.
emma**®** is a powerful ally, particularly during FDA inspections, through a physical demonstration of a robust environmental monitoring and remediation program.
When you are ready to take your environmental monitoring program to the next level, we welcome the opportunity to provide a demo of our proprietary software, emma**®**. You will experience the effectiveness and efficiency this powerful tool can offer.
[Schedule A Demo](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
**Categories:** News
---
### [Presence of Listeria in Food and Associated Risk](https://fsns.com/presence-of-listeria-in-food-and-associated-risk/)
**Published:** February 1, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Listeria monocytogenes* is a gram-positive, facultative anaerobic foodborne pathogen. Eating food contaminated with *Listeria* can cause Listeriosis, a life-threatening infection that mostly affects older adults, immunocompromised people, and pregnant women and their newborns.¹ The psychrotrophic pathogen has resulted in some major foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States in recent years.² As *Listeria monocytogenes* is ubiquitously present in nature, its presence in fresh produce, as well as raw food ingredients, cannot be avoided. These ingredients when used for food manufacturing purposes may lead to *Listeria* cross-contamination in the manufacturing facilities and eventually end up contaminating the food items. Hence, [environmental *Listeria* control in the food manufacturing](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-in-food-manufacturing-facilities/) plants has been a topic of great importance for food safety managers. A typical food manufacturing process consists of multiple steps and uses different temperature and processing conditions such as cold and moist operational settings. Some of these conditions may turn out to be conducive for *Listeria* growth.
[View our on-demand webinar: The *Listeria*-Control Toolbox.](https://fsns.com/vod-the-listeria-control-toolbox/)
Also, the pathogen can exhibit various stress responses and forms biofilm under unfavorable environmental conditions,³ which makes it much more difficult to control as these conditions make bacteria more resistant and tolerant to physical and chemical treatments. Hence, to [control *listeria*](https://fsns.com/control-listeria-monocytogenes-ready-eat-foods/) cross-contamination issues, it is important to not only understand the ever-evolving characteristics of this pathogen but to also focus on the influence of various treatments and conditions on its survival during processing and post-processing stages.
Over the years, several foods have been linked to outbreaks and multiple cases of Listeriosis4, including [*Listeria* in dairy products](https://fsns.com/listeria-dairy-products/). Since most of these products had extended shelf-lives, the sporadic outbreaks have drawn attention to the importance of time-temperature monitoring during processing, transportation, and storage of ready to eat food products.5 It is well known that *Listeria* can enter into an injured state when exposed to several processing treatments such as sublethal heating and freezing, drying, or exposure to chemicals.6 Also, several reports in the past have indicated that *Listeria monocytogenes* could potentially survive minimal thermal processes if present in high numbers or if the background flora in the product is high enough to bypass the thermal treatment. Besse,7 in his review, stated that it was not possible to eliminate all bacteria with minimal heat treatment, as it could lead to a physiological stress state within cells, leaving them injured. Upon reversal to the favorable conditions, the injured cells could repair themselves and pose a threat to product safety and quality. Hence, a failed attempt to consider their recovery potential in a particular food can lead to underestimation of their true incidences.6
As a part of my doctoral dissertation, I evaluated the potential presence of heat-injured cells in ice cream matrix when exposed to minimum heat treatment, by employing direct plating as well as FDA- approved enrichment protocol. For the ice cream challenge studies, the direct plating on Modified Oxford Agar did not pick up any survivors, however, when these heat-treated samples were passed through BLEB enrichment step,8 random heat-injured cells were detected at the highest dose level of 4+log. Hence, through this study, the level of cross-contamination (dose) emerged as a predictor of the potential presence of heat-injured cells of *Listeria.9* The study also highlighted the significance of using enrichment protocol to enumerate any random presence of heat-injured cells. In continuation, I evaluated the possible protective role of the ice cream mix matrix to explain the random presence of potentially heat-injured cells. The scanning electron micrographs of the heat-treated ice cream mix samples showed cells entrapped within the larger air pockets of ice cream mixes (Fig. 1) suggesting that *Listeria* cells can be entrapped within the larger air pockets of ice cream mix and may receive an inadequate thermal effect, resulting in their detection as potentially heat-injured cells.10 I further accessed the recovery potential of heat-injured cells of *Listeria* innocua within the ice cream mix matrix itself under the mix aging and storage conditions. It was interesting to note that none of the pasteurized ice cream samples showed recovery of any heat-injured cells, under the experimental conditions.
Yet another important aspect related to injured cells of *Listeria* in a product is their potential recovery in the host’s GI tract. As upon consumption of food containing injured cells, there is a potential that these cells can withstand the host’s barriers. Hence, I further investigated the recovery potential of injured cells of *Listeria* innocua using simulated gastrointestinal fluids.11 The ice cream samples containing potentially injured cells of *Listeria* innocua were sequentially passed through simulated gastric and intestinal fluids. The direct plating in this case, again, did not detect any cells however, the injured cells were detected by the BLEB enrichment protocol after the exposure to gastric fluid. This confirmed the inability of injured cells to recover during exposure to gastrointestinal fluid. However, the potentially injured cells were still present in the gastric fluids.
The potentially heat injured cells did not recover in the ice cream mix as well upon exposure to gastrointestinal fluids under the conditions of the challenge studies their mere presence in ice cream mix and gastric fluid may pose a risk to immunocompromised and high-risk group people if recovered under any circumstances.
Fig. 1: Scanning electron microscopy image depicting heat injured cells of Listeria innocua entrapped in a large pocket of spiked ice cream mix (Source: )
**References**
¹ Roberts, B. N., Chakravarty, D., Gardner, J. C., 3rd, Ricke, S. C., & Donaldson, J. R. (2020). Listeria monocytogenes Response to Anaerobic Environments. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 9(3), 210.
² Listeria Outbreaks. (2020, October 23). Retrieved February 01, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/index.html
³ Colagiorgi, A., Di Ciccio, P., Zanardi, E., Ghidini, S., & Ianieri, A. (2016). A Look inside the Listeria monocytogenes Biofilms Extracellular Matrix. Microorganisms, 4(3), 22.
4 Robert L. Buchanan, Leon G.M. Gorris, Melinda M. Hayman, Timothy C. Jackson, Richard C. Whiting, A review of Listeria monocytogenes: An update on outbreaks, virulence, dose- response, ecology, and risk assessments, Food Control, Volume 75, 2017.
5 Jeffrey M. Farber, Gosia K. Kozak, Suzanne Duquette, Changing regulation: Canada’s new thinking on Listeria, Food Control, Volume 22, Issue 9, 2011
6 Donnelly C. W. (2002). Detection and isolation of Listeria monocytogenes from food samples: implications of sublethal injury. Journal of AOAC International, 85(2), 495–500.
7 Besse, N. (2002). Influence of various environmental parameters and of detection procedures on the recovery of stressed L. monocytogenes: A review. Food Microbiol. 19:221–234.
8 FDA. 2017. Detection of Listeria monocytogenes in foods and environmental samples, and enumeration of listeria monocyto- genes in foods. Chapter 10 in Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM). Accessed Aug. 15, 2018. https://www.fda.gov/food/ foodscienceresearch/laboratorymethods/ucm071400.htm.
*9* Neha N, Anand S, Djira G, Kraus B, Sutariya S. Listeria cross-contamination levels in raw ice cream mix can serve as a predictor of their potential presence as heat-injured cells. J Dairy Sci. 2018 Nov;101(11):9659-9669.
10 Neha, N., & Anand, S. (2019). Short communication: Entrapment of Listeria cells within air pockets of ice cream mix matrix may lead to potentially heat-injured cells. Journal of dairy science, 102(11), 9721–9726.
11 Singh, N., Anand, S., Kraus, B., & Sutariya, S. (2021). Short communication: Evaluating the recovery potential of injured cells of Listeria innocua under product temperature-abuse conditions and passage through simulated gastrointestinal fluids. Journal of dairy science, S0022-0302(21)00068-0.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Parasites Relevant in Food Safety](https://fsns.com/parasites-relevant-in-food-safety/)
**Published:** November 3, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Bacteria are the stars of the show when it comes to [food safety microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/ "Food Microbiology Testing"). You can’t have a conversation about food safety, and not bring up bacteria. The average consumer has at least heard of *E. coli* and probably knows it has something to do with food safety. Parasites on the other hand, are kind of overlooked and forgotten about (which I think is a shame, because they are some of the most interesting organisms!). Let’s first start with some basic definitions to wrap our heads around this complicated group.
Parasites are organisms that live on or inside of a host, and gain nutrition at the expense of the host. Hosts can be a variety of organisms: humans, animals, and even plants. There are three main classes of parasites that can cause disease in humans: protozoa, helminths, and ectoparasites (CDC, 2020). We won’t get into ectoparasites (organisms like ticks) because they aren’t really responsible for foodborne infections. Protozoa are eukaryotic single celled organisms (not to be confused with bacteria, which are prokaryotes). Protozoa can be parasitic or free-living, and have the ability to reproduce in the host. Protozoa are classified on how they move (or don’t move). Helminths are worms, and are multicellular organisms. Flat worms and round worms are the helminths of food safety significance. You can see some worms with the naked eye, but you need a microscope to see protozoa. Some parasites require only one host, while other parasites might require multiple hosts to complete their full life cycle.
**Common Foodborne Parasites**:
*Giardia duodenalis*: Protozoan
Infective Stage: Cyst
Hosts: Humans, animals
Vehicle of Transmission: Contaminated water and rarely undercooked meat
*Cryptosporidium parvum*: Protozoan
Infective Stage: Oocyst
Hosts: Humans, other vertebrate animals
Vehicle of Transmission: Contaminated food, soil, water, or surfaces
*Cyclospora cayetenensis*: Protozoan
Infective Stage: Sporulated Oocyst
Host: Humans
Vehicle of Transmission: Contaminated food (Commonly Raspberries, Cilantro, and Basil) or water
*Toxoplasma gondii*: Protozoan
Infective Stage: Sporulated Oocyst
Definitive Host: Family Felidae (Domestic Cats)
Intermediate Host: Birds and Rodents
End Stage Host: Humans
Vehicle of Transmission: Undercooked meat containing cysts, food or water contaminated by environmental samples, blood transfusion, and transplacental
*Trichinella spiralis*: Helminth
Infective Stage: Encysted larva in striated muscle
Domestic Cycle: Pigs and Rodents
Sylvatic Cycle: Bear, Moose, Boar, and other animals
Vehicle of Transmission: Undercooked meat containing cysts
*Taenia saginata*: Helminth
Infective Stage: Eggs or gravid proglottids
Intermediate Host: Cattle
Definitive Host: Humans
Vehicle of Transmission: Undercooked meat containing oncospheres
*Taenia solium*: Helminth
Infective Stage: Eggs or gravid proglottids
Intermediate Host: Swine
Definitive Host: Humans
Vehicle of Transmission: Undercooked meat containing oncospheres
As you can probably see, what all of these organisms have in common is the complexity in their life cycles. This complexity makes it challenging to cultivate parasites. Bacteria (and even yeasts and molds) are easier to enumerate and isolate compared to parasites. A nutrient broth can be mixed with a sample, incubated at the appropriate temperature, and then there is exponential growth of the bacterial organisms. Growing specific strains of bacteria is also very easy. A strain is struck to the appropriate agar from freezer storage, and there is growth on the agar plate after incubation. Parasites require a host for reproduction and survival. If we were to incubate a sample that had *Giardia* spores with a nutrient agar, there would be no reproduction of the *Giardia.* In order to cultivate parasites, you have to replicate their lifecycles in nature, which all involve an animal host. These parasites have complex life-cycles, sometimes with multiple hosts (that can be warm blooded and cold blooded!). Parasites have different morphological life stages required for infection. There are many other variables once inside the host required for replication, including host temperature, host site, host immune response, parasite strains, and parasite forms (Ahmed, 2014). All of these factors make cultivation and testing of parasites in food products more difficult than testing for bacterial organisms. Testing is available for these parasitic organisms, but isn’t used as commonly as bacterial testing (this is also related prevalence and risk of parasitic contamination in food products). The complexity of parasitic life cycles also makes performing [challenge studies or validation studies](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/) a little difficult. Where do you obtain the parasitic organism from? How do you then cultivate the organism to ensure that there is enough for inoculation of the product? Will there be enough of the parasite in the food product for detection? The complexity of parasites makes them very intriguing, but in turn makes them more challenging to work with in a lab setting.
If you enjoyed reading about parasites today, please be on the lookout for the newsletter next quarter where we dive deeper into some protozoan parasites!
**References**
Ahmed N. H. (2014). Cultivation of parasites. *Tropical parasitology*, *4*(2), 80–89.
CDC – DPDx – Parasites A-Z Index. (2019, November 20). Retrieved October 30, 2020, from
CDC – Parasites – About Parasites. (2020, September 18). Retrieved October 29, 2020, from
**Categories:** News
---
### [Cyclospora cayetanensis](https://fsns.com/cyclospora-cayetanensis/)
**Published:** February 1, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Cyclospora cayetanensis* is a protozoan organism that is classified as a Coccidian parasite. Coccidian parasites are single-celled, obligate intracellular parasites, and spore-forming. The infection caused by *Cyclospora* is called Cyclosporiasis, and results in an intestinal illness, with the most common symptom being diarrhea. Cyclospora invades the small intestine, specifically the jejunum (Ortega and Sanchez, 2010). In the United States, it is estimated that there are 14,638 cases annually of Cyclosporiasis from food-borne contamination (Mead, 1999). The foods most commonly associated with *Cyclospora* contamination are raspberries, basil, snow peas, mesclun lettuce, and cilantro (CDC, 2018). An interesting, and important characteristic, is this a parasite of humans, and no infections have been described in other animals (Colley 1996). Humans are the only known host that the parasite is able to replicate in, which means that food and water contamination is directly, or indirectly, from infected humans shedding the parasite in their feces. The first documented cases of Cyclosporiasis were during the 1980s. *Cyclospora* was found to be an opportunist infection in AIDS patients. The parasite has probably been around for much longer than this, but the organism was not discovered until more recently in history.
*Cyclospora* is a parasite, which means that it relies on a host for replication. The infection begins when a human ingests food or water contaminated with a sporulated oocyst (an unsporulated oocyst will not cause an infection). The parasite invades the small intestine epithelium via excystation of the oocyst into sporozoites. Within the epithelial cells in the intestine, type 1 and type 2 Meronts produce asexually. Merozoites are produced, and some of these replicate via sexual reproduction (still in the epithelium), and these stages are called macrogametocytes and microgametocytes. The gametocytes reproduce to form a zygote. The zygote exits the host in the form of an unsporulated oocyst. Once the unsporulated oocyst is excreted, it takes 7 to 15 days to sporulate in order to be infectious (CDC, 2019; Ortega and Sanchez, 2010). The ideal temperatures for sporulation are 23-27°C. Direct fecal-oral transmission does not occur because the oocyst is not immediately infective. Symptoms of infection are watery diarrhea, nausea, flatulence, cramping, bloating, fatigue, and weight loss (CDC, 2018).
Cyclosporiasis is most commonly found in tropical and subtropical regions (CDC, 2018). In the United States outbreaks have been associated with imported fresh produce. Other infections in the United States have been from travelers to endemic areas of the world. In the United States, and other countries where there is not endemic infection, most people are susceptible to infection. In endemic countries, only the very young and old are susceptible (Ortega and Sanchez, 2010). No other animals have been found to be reservoirs of the parasite, and all attempts to infect other animals have been unsuccessful (Eberhard, 2000). Because there are no animal models for this disease, it has been more challenging to study the disease and the interesting life cycle. There are still many questions researchers are trying to answer about this parasite. Parasites are not as easy to study in a laboratory setting because they do not readily multiply like bacteria or fungi. Researchers must obtain spores from the environment, contaminated foods, or stool samples (there’s no way to create more cells in the laboratory setting due to the lifecycle!).
*Cyclospora* are infective as an oocyst. Oocysts (like bacterial spores) are able to protect themselves from their environment. *Cyclospora* are resistant to disinfectants used in water and food processing, as well as freezing and some hotter temperatures (Ortega and Sanchez, 2010). Rinsing and washing [food is not likely to remove the parasite](https://fsns.com/parasites-relevant-in-food-safety/). The food most commonly implicated in *Cyclospora* infections is not normally cooked prior to consumption. Interestingly, the small hairs on raspberries actually allow for the parasite to stick to the berry easier! It is hypothesized that contamination of the fresh produce could be from agricultural water in some cases. The food is not always identified during an outbreak. The parasite may be present in such small numbers that a diagnostic test might not be able to identify the parasite. Recently, an outbreak that took place from May to August 2020 has been implicated to a bagged salad mix. There were 1,241 laboratory confirmed cases (CDC, 2020). Most cases in the United States are linked to contaminated imported foods produced in endemic regions. At a wedding in Pennsylvania in 1997, there was a *Cyclospora* outbreak. The raspberry filling in the cake was contaminated with the parasite (and the filling had been frozen prior to serving) (Ho, 2002). There was a waterborne case of infection that was caused by oral siphoning of a saltwater aquarium (Wurtz, 1993).
Early laboratory detection methods were limited to direct microscopy and staining methods. This is not a perfect method, since there is no way to increase the concentration of the parasite in the sample to “detectable levels”. It can be challenging to differentiate *Cyclospora* from other Coccidian parasites in a sample. There has been a new development in PCR testing for *Cyclospora* identification. This new method has an enhanced produce washing solution and a species-specific probe in the RT PCR reaction (Murphy, 2018). This new method will be very beneficial for laboratory identification of contaminated foods.
***References***
CDC – Parasites – Cyclosporiasis (Cyclospora Infection). (2020, March 12). Retrieved January 29, 2021, from
Colley D. G. (1996). Widespread foodborne cyclosporiasis outbreaks present major challenges. *Emerging infectious diseases*, *2*(4), 354–356.
Eberhard, M. L., Ortega, Y. R., Hanes, D. E., Nace, E. K., Do, R. Q., Robl, M. G., Won, K. Y., Gavidia, C., Sass, N. L., Mansfield, K., Gozalo, A., Griffiths, J., Gilman, R., Sterling, C. R., & Arrowood, M. J. (2000). Attempts to establish experimental Cyclospora cayetanensis infection in laboratory animals. *The Journal of parasitology*, *86*(3), 577–582. [https://doi.org/10.1645/0022-3395(2000)086\[0577:ATEECC\]2.0.CO;2](https://doi.org/10.1645/0022-3395(2000)086%5b0577:ATEECC%5d2.0.CO;2)
Ho, A. Y., Lopez, A. S., Eberhart, M. G., Levenson, R., Finkel, B. S., da Silva, A. J., Roberts, J. M., Orlandi, P. A., Johnson, C. C., & Herwaldt, B. L. (2002). Outbreak of cyclosporiasis associated with imported raspberries, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2000. *Emerging infectious diseases*, *8*(8), 783–788. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid0808.020012
Mead, P. S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L. F., Bresee, J. S., Shapiro, C., Griffin, P. M., & Tauxe, R. V. (1999). Food-related illness and death in the United States. *Emerging infectious diseases*, *5*(5), 607–625.
Murphy, H. R., Cinar, H. N., Gopinath, G., Noe, K. E., Chatman, L. D., Miranda, N. E., Wetherington, J. H., Neal-McKinney, J., Pires, G. S., Sachs, E., Stanya, K. J., Johnson, C. L., Nascimento, F. S., Santin, M., Molokin, A., Samadpour, M., Janagama, H., Kahler, A., Miller, C., & da Silva, A. J. (2018). Interlaboratory validation of an improved method for detection of Cyclospora cayetanensis in produce using a real-time PCR assay. *Food microbiology*, *69*, 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2017.08.008
Ortega, Y. R., & Sanchez, R. (2010). Update on Cyclospora cayetanensis, a food-borne and waterborne parasite. *Clinical microbiology reviews*, *23*(1), 218–234.
Wurtz, R. M., Kocka, F. E., Peters, C. S., Weldon-Linne, C. M., Kuritza, A., & Yungbluth, P. (1993). Clinical characteristics of seven cases of diarrhea associated with a novel acid-fast organism in the stool. *Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America*, *16*(1), 136–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/16.1.136
**Categories:** News
---
### [Weighing your Options with NIST Handbook 133](https://fsns.com/weighing-your-options-with-nist-handbook-133/)
**Published:** February 18, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
[BRC](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/ "What Is BRCGS Certification?") and [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/ "SQF Audit | How to Obtain SQF Certification") include provisions for determining weight declaration compliance with respect to applicable regulations. For most, that means establishing a sampling program for packaging tare and product contents based on [National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 133](https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/nist-handbook-133-current-edition).
As stated in the document’s forward, the NIST Handbook 133 was prepared as a procedural guide for compliance testing of net content statements primarily for government officials including the USDA, FDA, FTC, EPA, and TTB. However, the handbook is also referenced in regulatory requirements, and is a national standard for evaluating accuracy of the content packaging process. For example, Title 9 CFR 317 describes [labeling requirements for USDA products,](https://fsns.com/6-steps-to-ensure-correct-product-labeling-and-prevent-recalls/) including content statements. No manufacturing process is perfect. There will be variances, but how much of a variance is acceptable?
Title 9 CFR 317.2(h)(2) states: “The statement as it is shown on a label shall not be false or misleading and shall express an accurate statement of the quantity of contents of the container. Reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practices or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practices will be recognized. **Variations from stated quantity of contents shall be as provided in §317.19…..”** Title 9 CFR 317.19 references the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 133 to define allowable reasonable variations.
Developing a net weight verification program using the over 250 page NIST Handbook 133 can seem like a daunting task. The handbook includes provisions for multiple products including food, alcohol, beverages, cosmetics, and even landscaping supplies like mulch and rock. One needs to first identify the sections of this handbook applicable to one’s business to avoid information overload. There is a sufficiently detailed Table of Contents on page ix in the beginning of the handbook to help guide your way. One could supplement research using the “Find” function within the PDF version of the NIST Handbook 133. Simply hold the Ctrl and F keys on your keyboard. A Navigation Window should appear on your screen. Type any word in search bar to help identify applicable sections of the handbook.
For USDA regulated products, Table 2-2 Sample Plans for Category B is a place to start. Column 1 defines the Inspection Lot Size as either 250 units or fewer or 251 units or more. A lot is a production lot with a common net content per packaging line. For example, if a facility manufactures 1 and 5 pound tubes, also known as chubs, of packaged ground beef in a single product lot on a single line for manufacturing purposes, those products are actually two separate lots for net weight sampling. All the 1 pound packages are one lot, and all the 5 pound packages are a separate lot.
Once a lot is determined, Column 2 states the minimum sample size required for content verification per lot, and Column 3 states the minimum sample size required for packaging tare samples per net weight lot.
Column 4 references Table 2-9 to determine the maximum allowable variance of net contents. Table 2-9 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Meat and Poultry Groups and Lower Limits for Individual Packages (Maximum Allowable Variations \[MAVs}) can be found on page 153 of the NIST Handbook 133. This table establishes the lower limit for individual packages sampled. This does not establish the lower limit of a lot average. The lot average still needs to be at or above the declared content.
Let’s go back to the 5lb packages of ground beef. According to Table 2-9 a 5lb (or 80oz) package can have an MAV of 0.094lb (1.5oz). 5lb – 0.94lb = 4.906lb. Therefore, a single 5lb package of ground beef can have a net weight as low as 4.906lbs and still be in acceptable. However, the average net weight of all the samples must still weight 5lbs or more.
If the facility produced 250 five pound packages of ground beef, the facility would then sample 10 of those package for declare net weight. If all 10 packages had a net weight of 4.906lbs or between 4.906lbs and 4.999lbs the product lot would not be an acceptable net weight because the average would be less than the 5lb declared net weight.
What if the facility makes ice glazed frozen chicken breasts? Does the ice count toward the declared net weight? There’s a sampling plan for this as well. NIST Handbook 133 2.6 Net Weight of Encased-in-Ice and Ice Glazed Products includes provisions to account for ice glazing. Special procedures are also defined for Fresh and Frozen Chitterlings (NIST Handbook 133 Section 2.7.2) due to purge. If you procedure liquid items like beer, spirits, or FDA regulated foods like bottle water pay close attention to chapter 3 of the NIST Handbook 133. As aforementioned, NIST Handbook 133 has something for almost all product types.
**Categories:** News
---
### [3 Reasons Food Producers Should Perform Pesticide Testing](https://fsns.com/reasons-to-perform-pesticide-testing/)
**Published:** November 8, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Alex Brandt, Ph.D., Chief Science Officer, Food Safety Net Services*
In 2016, it was reported that United States food producers used more than [320 million pounds](https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-019-0488-0) of pesticides, many of which were already banned in the EU. Since major producers rely on pesticides to keep their crops free from pests, pesticide testing becomes crucial. This testing helps maintain allowable levels of pesticides in food, ensuring they are low enough to not pose a risk to human health and emphasizing the welfare of consumers.
## The Growing Use of Pesticides in Agriculture: The Benefits and Risks They Pose
Pesticide use in agriculture can be traced back to the ancient Sumerians with their use of elemental sulfur in their crops as protection against various insects. As technology continues to evolve, new chemical compounds have been discovered and developed for use in modern agriculture.
Despite the widespread recognition that pesticides have adverse effects on human health and the environment, they continue to be used in the modern industrial system.
## Why Do We Use Pesticides?
Farmers today use a wide variety of pesticides specifically developed to be safer, more effective and targeted in controlling pests and the diseases they cause. Using these pesticides, farmers can maximize yield while also ensuring that consumers get quality, disease-free food and food products.
These are the most common pesticides used in the modern agricultural system:
- **Algaecides:** Control algal growth
- **Antimicrobials:** Prevent the growth of bacteria, viruses and other microbes
- **Disinfectants:** Prevent the growth of bacteria, viruses and other microbes
- **Fungicides:** Control fungal problems like molds, mildew and rust
- **Herbicides:** Control the growth of weeds that compete with plants for nutrients
- **Insecticides:** Kill insect pests
- **Insect Growth Regulators:** Hinder the growth and reproduction of insect pests
- **Rodenticides:** Kill rodent pests like rats, mice and gophers
## What are the Risks Posed by Pesticides?
Without pesticides, more than half of crops grown today would eventually be lost due to pests and disease. But, despite their benefits, most pesticides also have the capacity to harm consumers upon inhalation, skin contact or ingestion of pesticide residue on food. These could lead to adverse effects on consumer health, which include the following:
### **Acute (Immediate) Effects of Pesticides**
- Burning, stinging or itching on eyes, throat or skin
- Blister formation
- Nausea
- Dizziness
- Diarrhea
- Flu-like symptoms
### Chronic (Long-Term) Effects of Pesticides
- Brain and nervous-system damage
- Congenital disabilities and fertility issues
- Lymphoma, leukemia and other forms of cancer
- Reproductive issues
- Liver and kidney problems
## **Determining the “Safe” Levels of Pesticides in Our Food**
Several government agencies, of which three are federal agencies, share responsibility in the [regulation and enforcement of guidelines relating to pesticide residue](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/) in food. These guidelines include the following:
- **The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):** Establishes [tolerances](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-180?toc=1) \[maximum residue levels (MRLs)\] on specific pesticide chemicals used on human or animal food.
- **The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA):** Enforces tolerances on both import and domestic foods by conducting testing activities to determine whether residues are within these residue limits. These do not include meat, poultry, dairy and some fish and egg products. Inspection of imports may result in Detention Without Physical Examination (DWPE) action and a possible [Import Alert](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/fda-import-alerts-how-to-get-off-a-red-list).
- **The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA):** Tests meat, poultry, dairy and fish products under the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
- State enforcement agencies may also check domestically produced foods.
But, among those agencies, the U.S. EPA is the primary agency responsible for setting standards on pesticide residues allowed to remain on food. When determining these tolerances, the EPA considers the following factors:
- The level of toxicity in the pesticide and its break-down products
- The amount used and frequency of application
- The amount of residue that remains in the food by the time it is marketed and prepared
- All possible routes of exposure to the pesticide
The agency then performs dietary risk assessments and combines the results with information about the potential harm posed by pesticide residues to determine the risks. If these risks are deemed unacceptable, then the tolerances won’t be approved. Foods containing a measurable amount of an unallowed residue are in violation and subject to detention and legal action.
But, when determined to *not* cause harm to consumers, the tolerances are approved, and the pesticide can be used under specific conditions. These [tolerances](https://www.fas.usda.gov/maximum-residue-limits-mrl-database) vary depending on the commodity and the type of pesticide used.
According to U.S. EPA guidelines, allowed pesticides for use should be applied only according to label directions to allow residue levels to remain within the MRL. Tested foods with residue levels exceeding the MRL will be subject to seizure by the government.
## What is Pesticide Testing?
[Pesticide testing](https://fsns.com/fsns-begins-pesticide-testing-in-2021/ "FSNS Begins Pesticide Testing In 2021"), or [pesticide residue testing](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/ "Pesticide Residue Testing: MRLs, Methods, Labs, & Regulations Explained"), is an analytical process used to identify and quantify the levels of pesticides in food and food products. In doing so, food producers and manufacturers are able to comply with government regulations on food safety and gain confidence that their products pose no threat to consumer health and safety.
## How is Pesticide Testing Performed?
- The pesticides test procedure begins with the collection of representative samples and the extraction of residues from the samples
- Sample extracts are cleaned up to ensure accurate detection of the residues
- Either gas or liquid chromatography is used to analyze volatile or non-volatile compounds, respectively
At [Food Safety Net Services (FSNS)](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/), we apply [thorough pesticides testing methods](https://fsns.com/fsns-begins-pesticide-testing-in-2021/) to accurately determine pesticide residues in food to ensure compliance within MRLs set by the U.S. EPA. We have a network of certified laboratories fully equipped to serve your pesticide testing needs. FSNS also works with the FDA directly in submitting required documents.
## Advantages of Pesticide Testing
By conducting a pesticides test on your food products, you will be able to comply with U.S. EPA and FDA regulations. But, aside from compliance, pesticide testing also offers several advantages for your business:
- **Complete Product Confidence:** Pesticides test results on the residue levels in food confirm whether the food is safe for human and animal consumption. With this confirmation, food producers and manufacturers can ship out their products with complete confidence in the quality.
- **Consumer Safety:** Continued compliance with U.S. EPA and FDA regulations through repeat pesticide testing ensures consumers can get high-quality food products that are free from harmful chemicals left by pesticide residue.
- **Brand Stability:** As you continue to supply the market with safe, high-quality food products, you can secure your brand’s reputation from negative publicity that arises when government agencies seize your products due to the presence of harmful chemicals.
## Why Choose FSNS as Your Pesticide Residue Testing Lab?
Pesticide testing is crucial in ensuring that produce and food products are free from pesticides or at least possess low levels of pesticide residue that are considered safe as mandated by the U.S. EPA. When higher levels are detected, necessary corrective measures can be taken to address the issue and ensure compliance.
FSNS is your partner when looking for a pesticide residue testing lab. We use accurate pesticide testing methods that align with industry standards in the detection and testing of more than 400 pesticides from foods with low fat content such as fruits, vegetables and grains.
The [FSNS method for detection](https://fsns.com/fsns-begins-pesticide-testing-in-2021/) uses QuEChERS (Quick Easy Cheap Effective Rugged Safe), a protocol developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) during the extraction and clean-up of food samples and special salts for the complete collection of pesticide residues in food. We combine this method with GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS detection to accurately measure and confirm the presence of detected pesticides in submitted food samples. In addition, test results will also include the MRLs as set by U.S. guidelines as well as in other major countries of interest.
**[See Our Chemistry Testing Capabilities](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-Chemistry-Testing-Sheet.pdf)**
## **Reliable Pesticide Testing for Proper Food Safety**
FSNS is a network of ISO-17025- and A2LA-accredited operating laboratories that use the highest standards in pesticide testing to ensure accurate results. When it comes to pesticide testing, we follow strict U.S. FDA guidelines and lab-quality procedures while implementing fully validated and robust methodology. Further, our state-of-the-art testing equipment, such as GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS, accurately detect pesticides even at trace amounts.
Our tests are available at competitive prices, with options for rush testing as well. For any inquiries or questions about our pesticide testing methods, or if you would like more information, contact us [here](https://fsns.com/contact-us/), email customerservice@fsns.com or call 888-525-9788.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Pesticide Residue Testing: MRLs, Methods, Labs, & Regulations Explained](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/)
**Published:** October 10, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Steven Rogers, Chemistry Manager, Certified Laboratories*
*Updated June 25, 2026*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) define allowable pesticide concentrations in food, aligned with national and international safety standards.
- In the U.S., FDA and USDA enforce pesticide regulations in coordination with the EPA; non-compliance risks legal action and market exclusion.
- The USDA provides a Pesticide MRL Database to check specific pesticide limits by commodity, available online with both free and premium options.
- Pesticide residue testing labs use a combination of advanced techniques for comprehensive pesticide residue analysis, including GC-FPD, LC-MS/MS, and GC-MS/MS.
- When choosing a testing lab, it’s vital to consider ISO 17025 accreditation, expertise, technology, and customer service.
---
## Why Include Pesticide Residue Testing in Your Food Safety Program
Pesticide residue testing is an essential aspect of maintaining food safety and quality. An [increasing number of consumers want “clean” products](https://fsns.com/green-real-and-clean-as-food-descriptors/); many consumers associate “clean” products with fewer unwanted residues and greater transparency. In fact, [a 2025 International Food Information Council (IFIC) survey](https://ific.org/research/2025-food-health-survey/) revealed that 46% of Americans ranked pesticides or pesticide residues among their top three food safety issues.
This means food safety professionals need to understand Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs), how to choose a testing laboratory, analytical methods used for pesticide residue analysis, and more.
This guide is designed to equip you with the knowledge you need to understand [pesticide testing](https://fsns.com/fsns-begins-pesticide-testing-in-2021/) and ensure compliance with regulations while satisfying consumer demands.
## Understanding MRLs: Definition, Importance, and Compliance
Pesticides are an important tool in agriculture, helping growers protect crops, improve yields, and support a stable food supply. At the same time, many consumers are concerned about pesticide residues on food and expect manufacturers, importers, and retailers to verify that products meet applicable safety standards.
A key concept in pesticide residue control is the **Maximum Residue Limit**, or **MRL**. In the U.S., these limits are commonly referred to as **pesticide tolerances**.
**MRLs signify the highest allowable concentration of [pesticide residues in food](https://fsns.com/reasons-to-perform-pesticide-testing/) products.**
They are established by regulatory authorities based on pesticide use patterns, residue data, toxicology, and dietary exposure assessments. When properly applied and enforced, MRLs help protect public health, support regulatory compliance, and maintain confidence in the food supply.
## Importance of adhering to MRLs in Pesticide Residue Testing
Products that exceed an applicable MRL, or contain residues of a pesticide with no established tolerance or exemption, may be subject to regulatory action, shipment delays, rejection, detention, or loss of customer approval.
In the U.S., the **[EPA establishes pesticide tolerances](https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-tolerances/setting-tolerances-pesticide-residues-foods)** for food. The **FDA enforces those tolerances for most domestic and imported foods**, while **USDA FSIS enforces them for meat, poultry, Siluriformes/catfish, and certain egg products**.
[USDA’s Pesticide Data Program](https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp) also plays an important role by collecting national pesticide residue data on selected foods. This data supports dietary exposure assessments, regulatory decision-making, and a broader understanding of pesticide residue trends in the food supply.
Because MRLs can vary by country, commodity, pesticide, and residue definition, compliance programs should be built around the product’s intended market. A residue level that is compliant in one country may not meet the requirements of another. For companies selling across borders, pesticide residue testing helps verify that products meet the applicable regulatory, customer, and market requirements before they enter commerce.
## Using the Pesticide MRL Database
The USDA provides access to a helpful database that allows you to search for the Maximum Residue Limits of specific pesticides by commodity, such as almonds, lettuce, or different types of berries.
[Access the USDA MRLs database list here.](https://www.fas.usda.gov/maximum-residue-limits-mrl-database)
You will need to establish a free account to use the database. Premium subscriptions are also available for a fee. The image below shows how to use the MRLs database.
1. Once logged it, choose “Pesticide MRLs” at the top of the screen.
2. Select the market (the U.S. in this case).
3. Choose the commodity. Here, we chose “Nut, almond”.
4. Choose which pesticide you want to search (“Diazinon” in this example).
5. Select “Run MRL Report” to discover the MRL in ppm.
## International Regulations on Pesticide Residue Testing
Navigating international regulations on pesticide residue testing is a complex task, as standards can vary widely across different regions.
The *Codex Alimentarius*, European Union, U.S. EPA, and other international regulatory bodies have varying Maximum Residue Limits for pesticides. European standards are often more numerous and stringent, covering a wider range of substances and setting lower allowable MRLs.
MRLs can vary by pesticide, commodity, residue definition, and enforcement approach. A pesticide residue that is compliant in the U.S. may not meet the MRL of the EU, Japan, Canada, or another destination market. For exporters, testing should be aligned to the market where the product will be sold, not only the country where it was grown.
Default MRL rules vary by market. For example, [the EU generally applies a default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg when no specific MRL is listed](https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/maximum-residue-levels/qas-pesticides_en). In the U.S., if EPA has not established a tolerance or exemption for a pesticide-commodity pair, FDA may treat a detected residue as a no-tolerance violation.
In these cases, choosing a pesticide testing laboratory that can work within any regulation can help you cut through the confusion.
## Pesticide Residue Analysis Methods: An In-Depth Look
Laboratories predominantly use a combination of advanced techniques for comprehensive pesticide residue analysis. These techniques often include the following:
- Gas Chromatography with Flame Photometric Detection (GC-FPD)
- Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)
- Gas Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS/MS)
### Gas Chromatography with Flame Photometric Detection (GC-FPD)
GC-FPD is particularly useful for the analysis of specific pesticides that contain phosphorus or sulfur bonds, such as Chlorpyrifos. This method is generally used for a targeted approach to isolate unique pesticides and is not commonly used for full-scan testing.
### Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and Gas Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS/MS)
For broader analyses covering a more extensive range of pesticides, LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS are typically used. These methods leverage the power of mass spectrometry to separate and quantify multiple pesticides that might co-elute or interfere with each other in traditional HPLC or GC methods.
The dual mass spectrometry (MS/MS) systems allow for greater specificity and sensitivity, making them suitable for capturing a larger number of pesticides. While HPLC or GC methods can often measure only dozens of pesticides, MS/MS-based methods have the capability to measure hundreds.
The use of both LC and GC MS/MS systems is often necessary to capture a comprehensive range of pesticides that can’t be adequately measured by either system alone.
By focusing on these advanced methods, laboratories can offer more precise and extensive pesticide residue analysis, better adhering to regulatory requirements and ensuring the highest level of consumer safety.
## FDA Modernizes Its Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program
[In 2026, FDA updated its pesticide residue monitoring program for domestic and imported human foods](https://www.fda.gov/food/hfp-constituent-updates/fda-announces-updates-modernize-strengthen-pesticide-monitoring-compliance-program). The update does not change the basic regulatory structure: EPA sets pesticide tolerances, and FDA enforces them for most human foods.
The updated program places greater emphasis on risk-based sampling, including foods highly consumed by infants and children. It also updates FDA laboratory procedures to reflect the agency’s transition to a harmonized, multi-analyte approach using gas- and liquid-chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.
In practice, this means FDA regulatory laboratories are moving away from separate, analyte-specific methods and toward broader LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS methods that improve throughput and support more consistent results.
## Challenges in Pesticide Residue Analysis
Despite the advanced technology and methods used in the laboratory, pesticide residue analysis can still be complex due to several challenges, including:
- **Complexity of Food Matrices:** Different food items may contain numerous interacting compounds, making isolation of specific residues difficult.
- **Detection of Low-Level Residues:** Detecting residues at very low levels requires increasingly sophisticated equipment and expertise. With so much attention on pesticide residue today, MRLs could grow stricter over time, requiring even lower tolerances.
- **Confusing Regulations:** Understanding domestic and international regulations requires vigilance and flexibility in adapting testing protocols. The pesticides of interest and MRLs can differ depending on where you do business.
Pesticide residue analysis is a multifaceted field that requires deep understanding, technological prowess, and adherence to regulatory standards. That’s why it’s critical that you choose a laboratory testing partner capable of providing the pesticide residue analysis services you need.
That said, let’s look at how that’s done.
## Pesticide Residue Testing Labs: A Look Inside
Consider these factors when selecting a lab for food pesticide residue testing to ensure that it meets your needs:
- **ISO 17025 Accreditation:** Pesticide residue testing labs must hold ISO 17025 accreditation, demonstrating competence and adherence to standardized procedures. This ensures the lab follows globally accepted testing methodologies, ensuring accuracy and reliability.
- **Expertise:** Assess the lab’s experience and technical proficiency in conducting pesticide residue analysis, including [the lab’s scope of accreditation](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/ "ISO 17025 Accredited Labs"), matrices, analytes, and reporting limits.
- **Technology:** Evaluate the lab’s equipment and methodologies, such as the use of advanced techniques like GC-FPD, LC-MS/MS, and GC-MS/MS.
- **Customer Service:** Consider the lab’s responsiveness, reporting capabilities, and overall approach to customer support.
Choosing the right pesticide residue analysis laboratory is a complex decision that demands thorough evaluation and understanding of the lab’s capabilities, accreditations, and alignment with regulatory requirements.
[Contact FSNS if you need pesticide residue testing for your products or raw materials.](https://fsns.com/contact-us/ "FSNS Locations | Contact Us")
**Categories:** General
---
### [Chemophobia is at a Crossroad](https://fsns.com/chemophobia-is-at-a-crossroad/)
**Published:** June 3, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*By Gary Smith and Keith Belk, Colorado State University*
“Chemophobia” is “an irrational persistent fear that consumption of certain chemicals will cause illness or death”.1 A “crossroad” is “a critical point where a decision must be made”.1 The questions at this juncture are:
1. Which chemicals?
2. At what dose?
3. How can we prove they cause illness or early death?
---
## The Delaney Clause: A Regulatory Turning Point
Heightened consumer concern about the toxicity of [chemicals entering our food and beverage supply](https://fsns.com/are-there-chemicals-in-my-food/) resulted in Congress updating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by including a Food Additives amendment (called the “Delaney Clause”), which stated that, “If a synthetic, but not natural, chemical – at any dose – can be shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals, the chemical must be banned”.2
## Why Chemicals Are Added – and How Some Sneak In
Some chemicals are added to foods/beverages for nutritional benefits (like milk fortified with vitamins A, D, or E); to improve flavor or color (like nitrate); to protect food from oxidizing, decaying, or spoiling (like BHA); and/or to mitigate risk of containing pathogenic microorganisms (like lactic acid).3,4,5
There are some chemicals, like contaminants in the environment (e.g., toxic chemicals from the air, soil, and water – or from chemicals applied to plants and animals) that enter our food unintentionally; some dangerous chemicals can form when raw foods are cooked and/or are processed.3,4,5,6
## The Ames Test and the Rise of Cancer Concerns
Between 1938 and 1958, the Delaney Clause was enacted sparingly by the FDA, USDA, and EPA, yet many consumers were fixated on possible linkages of synthetic chemicals (e.g., [pesticides](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/)) to human cancer.7 After passage of the Delaney Clause, Dr. Bruce Ames (University of California-Berkeley) pioneered a laboratory procedure to determine which chemicals might cause cancer.8
Every plant (e.g., tomato, potato, bean) naturally makes 50 to 100 chemicals (i.e., pesticides) to kill its predators (e.g., insects, fungi); we eat tens of thousands of them – at much higher doses than in man-made chemicals.8 The Ames Test showed that 50% of the naturally occurring pesticides also test positive as causes of cancer.8
## Cranberries, DDT, and the Birth of Public Chemophobia
And then, on Sept. 6, 1958, the “Natural” food movement and the “Chemophobia” craze were born.9 It became publicly known that a weed-killer (aminotriazole), which had not passed the “Ames Test”, was being used by cranberry growers. No one got sick or died after eating them, but sales of cranberries plummeted.9
The cranberry episode, Rachel Carson’s book (“Silent Spring”) about songbirds and DDT, and Alar® on apples fueled the flames, causing consumers and activist groups to urge increased governmental oversight regarding the effects of extraneous chemicals in food on human health.9,10
## Scientific Evidence Challenges the Additive-Cancer Link
Three things in 1987, 1990, and 1991 attacked the premise that additives are major players in causing human cancer. In 1987, a National Academy of Sciences study concluded that, if a person ate food throughout their life that contained [residues of all 28 known oncogenic pesticides](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/) combined, his/her risk of having a fatal cancer would increase by less than 1% (0.584%).11
In 1990, a Food and Drug Administration study determined that the risk of having a fatal cancer would be increased by consuming foods that contained:
1. Spices and flavorings (by 0.0757%)
2. Industrial chemicals (by 0.0122%)
3. Pesticides and environmental contaminants (by 0.0007%)
4. Antibiotics, hormones, and drugs (by 0.0007%)
5. Charring during cooking (by 0.0007%)
6. Mycotoxins (by 0.0001%)12
## Reconsidering the Ames Test’s Role in Chemical Policy
Because the Ames Test used small numbers of test rodents, it administered very high doses; by 1991, 50% of the tens of thousands of natural (inherent in all plants) pesticides, synthetic pesticides, food additives, and industrial chemicals tested positive and were banned by the FDA.8 For example, aminotriazole did sometimes cause thyroid cancer in rats, but a rat had to consume 15,000 pounds of cranberries, every day, for its entire life.9
Bruce Ames was the biggest critic of the government’s use of his test, saying it was not “scientifically justified” because it grossly overestimated the carcinogenicity risk of something that would be consumed by humans in much lower quantities.13 In late 1991, the U.S. Congress required the FDA to no longer use the Ames Test but to continue to use the Delaney Clause to test for, or regulate, carcinogenicity of synthetic chemicals.14
## The Sheer Volume of Chemicals in Our Food Supply
Only recently have we realized just how many different chemicals there are in the things we drink and eat. In 2020, the Environmental Defense Fund filed a citizen’s petition saying the FDA had not been doing the job Congress intended when it passed the Food Additives amendment.15 EDF claimed, “The food you eat contains one or more of some 10,000 chemicals allowed to be added to foods – some of which have been linked to developmental, cognitive, and other health problems in babies and adults.15 Both plastics and chemical additives in plastics can be toxic. Plastic films and containers can contain from 9,93616 to >10,00017 unique chemicals used to make plastic (of which more than 2,40017 are of potential human-health concern) plus more than 240,00018 microplastic fragments – all of which can leach into the food/beverage it is protecting.19,20,21
## The Expanding List of Suspected Health Risks
It is nearly impossible to isolate when, how, or even if, chemical exposures are or are not responsible for human health problems.22 This information vacuum has given rise to a network of consumer advocates, non-profits, independent scientific laboratories, university scientists, and State governments dedicated to informing the public about potential hazards lurking in consumer products.22,23,24,25,26,27
And they’ve moved on from just claiming that toxic chemicals cause cancer – critics now claim they cause…
1. High blood pressure
2. Reduced immune response
3. Parkinson’s Disease
4. Dementia
5. Neurobehavioral issues
6. Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma
7. Birth defects
8. Developmental inhibition
9. Leukemia
10. Hyperactivity
11. Hormone disruption
12. Fertility
13. Reproduction problems28,29,30,31,32,33
## Chemophobia Goes to Court
As a result, personal-injury lawyers have made billions of dollars filing individual or class-action suits against Federal/State/local governments, manufacturers, or wholesalers of environmental contaminants (e.g., air pollution, microplastics, PFAS, paraquat, glyphosate); and food/beverages (e.g., coffee, bottled water, red dye #2, movie-theater popcorn, Chinese food).9,18,22,34,35,36
It seems that public skepticism and chemophobia cause someone to claim the need to ban a chemical “at the drop of a rat”.9 A once exciting scientific journey is now filled with complex and challenging litigious situations that are stifling new ideas and products.37
## Which Chemicals Are Under Scrutiny Today?
Which chemicals? In addition to FSIS, FDA, and EPA, there are five States (California, Illinois, Washington, New York, and Missouri) with Food Safety Acts that identify toxic chemicals that could potentially be in our food/beverage supply.27,47 There are currently 30 specific toxic chemicals under scrutiny; those are:
- Food colorant dyes (blue #1 and #2; red #3 and #40; green #3; and yellow #5 and #6)
- Halogen compounds (potassium bromate, brominated vegetable oil, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, polychlorinated biphenyls, per- and poly-fluoralkyl substances, and cetylpyridine chloride)
- Antioxidants (butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene)
- Propylparaben
- Titanium oxide
- Bis-phenol A
- Phthalates
- Formaldehyde
- Microplastics
- Sodium aluminum phosphate
- Sodium nitrite
- Acrylamide
- Sulfuric acid
- Lead
- Pesticides (glyphosate, dicamba, acephate, and paraquat).3,5,15,16,18,22,27,28,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52
## The Problem of Ubiquity and Exposure
Government Agencies do not analyze every product that appears in the food marketplace – let alone how they will affect human health after years of regular consumption.22 Somewhat like “herding cats”, how do we sort out the culprits when there are 10,000 to 20,000 suspects?
It becomes much more complicated when you consider what’s in the consumer’s market-basket:
1. Water in a plastic bottle that contains macro-, micro-, or nano-plastic particles
2. Tomatoes in a plastic bag that contains PFAS
3. Vegetable soup in a tin-can with a liner containing bisphenol-A
4. A stack of beef patties separated by interleaving paper containing phthalates
## Assessing Risk: How Much Is Too Much?
At what dose? To assess the safety of chemicals in food, scientists at FSIS, FDA, and EPA, plus others worldwide (e.g., World Health Organization, FAO-United Nations, European Food Safety Authority), evaluate existing peer-reviewed scientific evidence about the chemical’s safety, as well as how much of a chemical is in the food, and how much a person eats or drinks.39,46,53,54 The EPA sets the tolerances for all pesticides in all foods/beverages.55 The FDA oversees classification for all other chemical adulterants in both FDA- and FSIS-regulated foods, categorizing them as:
1. [Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS)](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/decoding-fdas-gras-and-fap-rules-for-food-beverages/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks)
2. Regulated
3. Banned41
States can pass legislation asking the FDA to reconsider the status of additives on its category lists or they can unilaterally ban specific additives.27,56
## What It Means to Be GRAS, Regulated, or Banned
To gain recognition as GRAS, a food additive must meet some or all of:
1. Used by industry prior to 1958 with no evidence of toxicity
2. Considered to be safe by the expert scientific community
3. Results of research studies generally available to the public in peer-reviewed scientific journals
4. Approved by the FDA’s Human Foods Program3,74
If an additive is not GRAS, it can be used by food manufacturers if the FDA agrees to authorize and regulate it (using dosage constraints). Conversely, the FDA recently revoked its Regulatory status for a certain food additive that was originally GRAS, moved to Regulatory status based on some earlier research findings, and now banned based on recent research evidence that shows “the potential for adverse health effects to humans.”56 If the decision is made to Regulate, data are needed to support ADI and MRL dosage constraints.
## The Dose Makes the Poison – But Only If We Measure It
Any chemical has the potential to be harmful if consumed at an unsafe level.4 Hippocrates, “The Father of Human Medicine”, in about 400 BC, is believed to have said “The Dose Makes The Poison”.57
If it’s the dose that makes the poison, we must be exceptionally precise in the quantifying how much of each food additive must be avoided.9 To do that, the EPA and FDA determine an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), the amount of a chemical that can be ingested by a person on a daily basis over a lifetime without any appreciable health risk, and a Maximum Residue Level (MRL), the maximum concentration of a chemical residue that is acceptable for consumption.3,30
## How Risk Assessments Are Conducted
Decisions on categorization (i.e., GRAS, Regulated, Banned) or on dosages (i.e., ADIs and MRLs) are made by the EPA and FDA using peer-reviewed scientific information and results of test-animal studies.3,56 Dose-effect studies involve use of laboratory animals (e.g., mice, rats, dogs, swine, microswine, monkeys) to collect health information generated from toxicological, [microbiological](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/), and pharmacological studies.58 These tests look at growth, developmental, behavioral, physical, reproduction, cardiovascular measures, plus genotoxicity via one-, two-, and/or three-generation studies.30,56,58,59
## Can We Ever Prove Chemicals Cause Harm?
How can we prove they cause illness or early death? Perhaps we will never know. The science of developing new pesticides, veterinary drugs, food additives, and plastics has vastly outpaced our ability to determine whether these synthetic chemicals affect the health of those who consume them. We can’t prove they don’t because we can’t prove a “negative”; it is impossible to prove that something will never happen.60 We can’t prove they do because we can’t use humans as test-animals.
## Scientific Limits and Ethical Barriers
The EPA and FDA do the best they can, given the hand they are dealt. Of the three kinds of risk-determination:
1. Observational data (i.e., epidemiological studies) can only help identify “associations” and “hypotheses”.61
2. Laboratory test-animal results are nebulous because rats are not “little people”; humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas yet bananas aren’t used to identify doses and create bans.9
3. Randomized, controlled, clinical trials (RCCTs) – the only way cause-and-effect relationships can be determined – using human subjects are “out-of-bounds” and violate obvious Human Use regulatory ethical considerations.62
## A Cautious Approach – But Still No Proof of Harm
The public should feel comfortable with the fact that the government has used a “just-in-case”, “abundance-of-caution”, and “better-safe-than-sorry” ideology in exercising its jurisprudence.52
And, we do know that two of the world’s leading scientists on the subject have said there is no proof (i.e., no scientific evidence) that any chemical consumed in the amount that is present in food has ever caused an injury, illness, or mortality.13,16,34 Despite this, because we can’t find a way to prove otherwise, the blame-game field of Chemophobia has broadened substantially to include many more human ailments and concerned citizens, activists, and public-safety lawyers/litigators have seized the moment.43
## Innovations in Testing: A Role for Humanized Animal Models?
But help may be on the way. Biological drug developments are getting an upgrade by using “humanized animal models” (HAMs). Human-specific protein-receptor (HSPR) interactions and HAMs are being used in development of new biological therapeutics (i.e., remedies for diseases) rather than depending on anticipated challenges posed by the inadequacy of traditional rodent, canine, and non-human primates in predicting the toxicity of specific chemicals.65 Perhaps HAMs could replace laboratory test-animal experiments for predicting the toxicity of the chemicals in our food.
## The Case of Red Dye #3 – An Example of Policy Lag
On its way out, in January 2025, Biden’s FDA [banned red dye #3](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/faq-the-fdas-revocation-of-red-dye-3-for-food-and-ingestible-drug-use/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) using the Delaney Clause and the results of a flawed study that had been conducted in the 1980s.66 The FDA admitted that there is no scientific evidence which proves that the dye causes hyperactivity or any other neurobehavioral effects in children, as is claimed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), U.S. Congress members, and the State of California.67,68 The Delaney Clause needs to be reworded to take into consideration dosage and portion of the diet to replace “any” and “must be banned” in the wording of the Delaney Clause.66 If not, it appears likely that the FDA will consider banning many more food additives that are presently allowed on its GRAS list.68
## Regulatory Differences Between the U.S. and Europe
McDonald’sTM sells French fries in the U.S. that contain 14 ingredients, while their French fries in Europe contain 3 (potatoes, oil, and salt).69 Why? The FDA allows companies to use additives (e.g., TBHQ) that the European Union has banned.69 The FDA operates on a reactive model – ingredients are allowed until they are definitively proved dangerous.70 This is the opposite of the EU’s “Precautionary Principle”, where potentially harmful substances are banned until they are proven safe.70
## Policy Shifts on the Horizon
Prior to the installation of the new administration, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now the Secretary of DHHS, reportedly said he intended to take a wrecking ball to the Entitlements (e.g., SNAP, WIC), the Dietary Guidelines For Americans, and the FDA’s GRAS list.71,72,73
### REFERENCES
1. Webster’s New Explorer Dictionary. 1999. Merriam-Webster Inc. Springfield MA.
2. Campbell, Hank. 2018. Food Quality & Safety. November Edition.
3. FDA-USDHHS. 2024. usfda@public.govdelivery.com. Accessed on 4/15/2024.
4. FDA-USDHHS. 2024. usfda@public.govdelivery.com. Accessed on 4/3/2024.
5. Hetter, Katia. 2024. CNN. May 11 Issue.
6. Schulz, Claudia. 2012. Food Quality. March Edition.
7. Smith, G. and K. Belk. 2025. Certified Group FSNS Newsletter. February Edition.
8. Carroll, Vincent. 1991. Rocky Mountain News. January 27 Issue.
9. Campbell, Hank. 2018. Food Quality & Safety. November Edition.
10. Stier, Richard. 2018. Food Quality & Safety. July Edition.
11. National Academy of Sciences. 1987. Press Release on 9/12/1987.
12. Scheuplein et al. 1990. Food and Drug Administration. May 15 Issue.
13. Ames, Bruce. 1991. University of California-Berkeley. January 27 Issue.
14. Smith, Gary. 1992. Colorado State University. February 11 Issue.
15. LaMotte, Sandee. 2020. CNN. September 23 Issue.
16. Tilley, Caitlin. 2024. Dailymail.com. Accessed on 4/26/2024.
17. Parker, Laura. 2023. National Geographic. May 13 Issue.
18. Winters, Joseph. 2024. The Grist. May 20 Issue.
19. Grey, Jaina. 2024. Wired. April 22 Issue.
20. Dhanesha, Neal. 2022. VOX. May 6 Issue.
21. Leslie et al. 2022. Environmental International. 13:58-67.
22. Duchorme, Jamie. 2024. TIME. May 9 Issue.
23. University of Florida. 2023. Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database. December 15 Issue.
24. Shike, Jennifer. 2024. PORK. May 20 Issue.
25. Johnston, Tom. 2019. Meatingplace. December 16 Issue.
26. McKie, Robin. 2024. The Guardian. May 25 Issue.
27. Henderson, Bailee. 2024. Food Safety Magazine. March 6 Issue.
28. Laca, Anna-Lisa. 2019. Milk Business. November 4 Issue.
29. Smith, Gary. 2024. Texas A&M University. April 10 Issue.
30. Erpelding, Dennis. 2015. FSNS Newsletter. December Edition.
31. FDA-USDHHS. 2022. usfda@public.govdelivery.com. Accessed on 7/6/2022.
32. Environmental Working Group. 2020. The Packer. July 22 Issue.
33. Bendix, Aria. 2024. NBC News. April 10 Issue.
34. Reuters. 2021. Press Release. August 16 Issue.
35. Welsh et al. 2024. Food Safety Magazine. May Edition.
36. Rentschler and Lenova. 2022. World Bank Blogs. May 18 Issue.
37. Orr et al. 2024. Genetic Engineering News. July 5 Issue.
38. EPA. 2024. www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol. Accessed on 8/12/2024.
39. Boyette et al. 2023. CNN. October 12 Issue.
40. Gabriel, Jesse. 2024. Food Safety Magazine. March 18 Issue.
41. FDA-USDHHS. 2024. http:www.fda.gov/Food/Chemicals-Metals-Pesticides. Accessed on 8/10/2024.
42. Scott, Chris. 2024. Meatingplace. March 11 Issue.
43. Scott, Dylan. 2024. VOX. April 8 Issue.
44. Prepared Foods. 2014. Press Release. June Edition.
45. European Food Safety Authority. 2024. Food Safety Magazine. May 28 Issue.
46. Clayton, Chris. 2017. Progressive Farmer. Winter Edition.
47. Henderson, Bailee. 2024. Food Safety Magazine. March 19 Issue.
48. Joshu, Emily. 2024. Daily Mail. May 10 Issue.
49. Horn-Muller, Agurella. 2024. National Geographic. February 10 Issue.
50. Brooks, Rhonda. 2024. AG·WEB. February 7 Issue.
51. Eckelkamp, Margy. 2024. The Daily Scoop. May 9 Issue.
52. FDA-USDHHS. 2024. usfda@public.govdelivery.com. Accessed on 5/17/2024.
53. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. usfda@public.govdelivery.com. Accessed on 11/14/2023.
54. Surak, John. 2024. Food Safety Magazine. May Edition.
55. EPA. 2024. http://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol. Accessed on 6/23/2024.
56. Morgan, Claire. 2024. Food Safety Magazine. July 2 Issue.
57. Dorland’s Illustrated Dictionary. 1988. W.B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia PA.
58. Arcella et al. 2016. EFSA Journal. August 31 Issue.
59. Surak, John. 2024. Food Safety Magazine. May Edition.
60. Fauci, Anthony. 2024. CSPAN. June 3 Issue.
61. Gerstein et al. 2019. The Lancet. January 19 Issue.
62. Teicholz, Nina. 2014. The Big Fat Surprise. Simon & Schuster. New York NY.
63. Willett, Walter. 2024. Harvard University. July 31 Issue.
64. Safe, Stephen. 2020. Texas A&M University. June 2 Issue.
65. Rose, Aaron. 2024. Genetic Engineering News. May 15 Issue.
66. Brashears, Mindy. 2025. Meatingplace. February 3 Issue.
67. Henderson, Bailee. 2024. Food Safety Magazine. September 23 Issue.
68. Jones, Jim. 2025. Food Safety Magazine. January 15 Issue.
69. Watters, Jesse. 2025. Fox News. February 7 Issue.
70. Bloom, Gregory. 2024. Meatingplace. October 3 Issue.
71. Wiesemeyer, Jim. 2024. Pork Business. November 14 Issue.
72. Brueck, Hilary. 2024. Business Insider. November 14 Issue.
73. Ingraham, Laura. 2024. Fox News. November 14 Issue.
74. FDA Human Foods Program. 2025. https://www.fda.gov/food. Accessed on May 21, 2025.
**Categories:** General
---
### [What Is Food Fraud?](https://fsns.com/what-is-food-fraud/)
**Published:** June 8, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Food fraud is the **act of purposely altering, misrepresenting, mislabeling, substituting or tampering with any food product at any point along the farm–to–table food supply chain**. Fraud can occur in the raw material, in an ingredient, in the final product, or in the food’s packaging.
Fraudulent and intentional substitution, dilution, or addition to a raw material or food product, or misrepresentation of the material or product for financial gain (by increasing its apparent value or reducing its cost of production) or to cause harm to others (by malicious contamination), is food fraud.
Food fraud is the deception of consumers through intentional food adulteration.
[](https://info.fsns.com/food-fraud-checklist)## **What is Food Adulteration?**
Food adulteration is the intentional addition or modification of a food product with inferior, cheaper, or non-authentic substances, often to increase volume or weight, or to improve appearance, which can compromise the product’s quality, safety, and nutritional value.
Food adulteration often takes the form of the following:
- Substituting one product for another.
- Using unapproved enhancements or additives.
- Misrepresenting something (e.g., country of origin).
- Misbranding or counterfeiting.
- Stolen food shipments.
- Intentional contamination with a variety of chemicals, biological agents, or other substances harmful to private or public health.
A discussion of food fraud and food adulteration must include:
- Economic motivation.
- Unintended private and public health consequences.
- Ethical/religious concerns.
- Intended harm.
- Criminal liability.
[](https://easconsultinggroup.com/food-fraud-mitigations-and-testing/)## **Historical Perspective and Contemporary Challenges of Food Fraud**
Since the 13th Century during the reign of King John, England has had food fraud laws against diluting wine with water, adding ash to pepper, and packing flour with chalk.
Food fraud and adulteration were first addressed in the U.S. by food laws as far back as 1784. The U.S. FDA, in the 19th Century, began protecting consumers from snake oil salesman and other charlatans that preyed on the susceptible public with their alchemy–spiked tonic and elixirs.
## **Food Fraud Detection and Prevention**
To help counter this, FDA has several hundred agents deployed worldwide as part of its chemical investigations division to investigate food fraud.
One of the main reasons that food fraud doesn’t get as much attention as it deserves is because the effects on the human body usually go unnoticed, or the connection between illness and fraudulent–food consumption is not clear.
## **What are the Most Adulterated Foods?**
The [Food Authenticity Network reports the following as the top 5 most adulterated foods](https://www.foodauthenticity.global/foods-most-reported-as-fraudulent), based on 2022 data:
1. Seafood
2. Meat/poultry
3. Dairy products
4. Herbs/spices
5. Alcoholic beverages
## **Economic Motivation and Public Health Consequences of Food Fraud**
Food fraud is a global business worth in excess of $50 billion annually. As of 2024, the U.S. FDA estimates the global cost of food fraud to be between $10 billion to $40 billion per year.
Economically motivated adulteration can result in public health consequences, like these infamous cases:
- Melamine in dairy products (China): Hundreds of thousands of illnesses and at least 6 infant deaths.
- Industrial–grade rapeseed oil, sold as olive oil (Spain): 20,000 illnesses and at least 300 deaths.
- Mislabeled fish could have come from polluted water; if eaten by pregnant women, mercury or cadmium could affect health of an unborn child.
## **Preventive Controls and Hazard Analysis in Food Industry**
In the Preventive Controls for Human Food, during Hazard Analysis, economically motivated adulteration is limited to “only those agents that can cause illness or injury.” For example:
- Melamine in infant milk formula.
- Lead–containing dyes in spices and candy.
- Sudan 1, a carcinogen, in chili powder.
The regulation states, “Do not include horsemeat for beef, corn syrup for honey, or peanuts for cumin”. When a Preventive Control is needed, a Supply Chain Preventive Control program is typically used.
### **Global Issues with Fraudulent Blending of Food Products**
Fraudulent blending of food products with meats from undeclared species…
- Is a problem on a global scale, as exemplified by the European horsemeat scandal in 2013.
- Affects consumer rights from the economic point of view.
- Might be a significant problem for people with ethical or religious concerns regarding the consumption of meat from species such as horse or pork.
## **Instances of Meat-Species Substitution Food Fraud**
In the late 1970s, a well–known case of “meat–species substitution fraud” involved representation of kangaroo meat and horsemeat as frozen beef trimmings. Purchased from an Australian meat broker, it was used by grinders to produce “ground beef” patties for a fast–food franchise operation.
In 2011, a suit was filed in a state district court, by a private citizen, against another quick–service operator, claiming that the company’s Mexican–style foods did not contain “enough beef.”
In both cases, a qualitative and quantitative analysis system (i.e., ELISA) was used to speciate the meat samples with a level of detection down to 0.5% of the matrix.
Since then, new analytical systems (using combinations of DNA barcoding, PCR, HPLC and/or MS) have been developed with a level of detection down to 0.1% of the matrix. One of the world’s largest beef–burger restaurant chains recently reported it requires grinders to randomly sample and [perform meat speciation tests](https://fsns.com/industries/protein/) of incoming raw materials throughout its global supply chain.
## **Research on Meat Mislabeling**
Chapman University in California tested ground meat and exotic game meats for presence of beef, chicken, lamb, turkey, pork, and horsemeat and reported that…
- 38 of 48 ground meat samples were labeled correctly.
- 1 sample was mislabeled in its entirety and 9 samples contained additional species.
- Meat from online distributors, local butchers, and supermarkets, respectively, was mislabeled 35%, 18%, and 6% of the time.
- Exotic game meat from online distributors was mislabeled 18.5% of the time.
The researchers concluded that, although mislabeling could have occurred from cross–contamination in facilities that process meat from multiple species, over half of species substitutions may have been economically motivated.
## **Food Fraud Cases and their Impact**
A firestorm of cases involving food fraud, stoked by greed and economical gains, is growing by the year both domestically and worldwide. For example:
- China (2008) melamine in baby food; (2015) “zombie” frozen meat.
- Russia (2015) palm oil in milk.
- Italy (2011) illegal organic produce; (2014) hydrogen peroxide on seafood.
- England (2013) beef burgers containing pork and horsemeat.
- Australia (2013) free–range eggs from caged hens.
- Mexico (2005–present) meat from undeclared species.
- USA (2009–present) *Salmonella* in peanuts, honey–laundering, meat from undeclared species.
While usually harmless, some food fraud incidents have resulted in serious public health consequences and, thus, illustrate vulnerabilities in regulatory and quality assurance systems that could be exploited for malicious intentional harm.
## **Food Safety Management Systems and Food Fraud**
The [Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) highlights the importance of tackling food fraud in its guidance documents and has been increasingly emphasizing its significance in [food safety management systems](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/). GFSI requires food companies to have a [food fraud vulnerability assessment](https://fsns.com/how-to-conduct-a-food-fraud-vulnerability-assessment-free-checklist/) in place and a mitigation plan to address the identified vulnerabilities.
Specifically, GFSI has recognized three different aspects of potential adulteration in the food supply chain:
1. **Food Safety**: Handled via the [Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/), which is designed to prevent unintentional adulteration.
2. **Food Defense**: Managed via Threat Assessment Critical Control Points (TACCP), which focuses on the prevention of intentional adulteration due to ideological or behavioral motivations.
3. **Food Fraud**: Addressed via Vulnerability Assessment and Critical Control Points (VACCP), which focuses on economically motivated adulteration.
The detailed requirements or suggestions may vary according to the specific GFSI-recognized schemes, such as [BRCGS Food Safety](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), [SQF certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), and [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/).
## **Instances of Malicious Intentional Adulteration**
Examples of malicious intentional adulteration include:
- September 1984: A religious sect intent on disrupting local elections in The Dalles, Oregon contaminated restaurant salad bars, creating ‘a large community outbreak of Salmonellosis.
- September 2002: A snack–bar owner in Nanjing China spread lethal rat poison into the food of his business rival, killing 38 people and leaving hundreds seriously ill.
- May 2016: Kyle Bessemer, in Michigan, sprayed mouse poison on food in snack bars.
## **Operation Opson VIII: Interpol and Europol’s Crackdown on Food Fraud**
Operation Opson VIII (December 2018 to April 2019 in 78 countries by Interpol and Europol) found $118 million worth of potentially dangerous food and drink.
It found tampered expiration dates on cheese and chicken, controlled medicines added to drinks, and meat stored in unsanitary conditions.
Europol says, “This shows that criminals will take advantage of any opportunity to make a profit. Food fraud deceives consumers, hurts their wallets, makes them pay for something they do not get, and can result in serious harm to the public’s health.”
Operation Opson VIII identified these food fraud incidents:
- Counterfeit honey (Eritrea).
- Forged documentation of apples (Belarus).
- Counterfeit vodka (Russia).
- Alcoholic beverages for export sold domestically (South Africa).
- Counterfeit candy (Lithuania)
- Extra virgin olive oil that was actually sunflower oil
- Products claimed to be “Organic” that were not (16 EU member states).
In 2019, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency stopped the import of >28,000 pounds of EMA honey.
## **The Most Fraudulent Food Products in the USA**
In a 2019 report, the most fraudulent food products in the U.S. were identified as…
- Organic
- Free-range
- Wild-caught
- Halal
Particularly, the USDA’s National Organic Program was exploited due to gaps in its verification system. Consequently, conventionally grown crops from countries such as Turkey and Ukraine were falsely labeled as “Organic”, massively inflating their value.
Notably, one study found that 37% of [tested Chinese “Organic” products contained pesticide residues](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/). The issue also persists domestically; for example, a fraudulent scheme involving five farmers/brokers in Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa resulted in selling $142 million worth of conventionally grown grain as “Organic”.
## **Seafood Fraud: A Major Issue**
One sector particularly susceptible to food fraud is seafood.
A large-scale investigation by Oceania™ revealed that a third of sampled seafood products were not as they were purported to be. Additionally, two cases of fraud related to beef products were recorded in September 2019, involving conspiracy to defraud the United States, selling uninspected or misbranded meat, and altering meat grades.
## **Misbranding of Plant-Based Foods**
Controversy emerges as numerous companies “misbrand” plant-based food products, using names historically limited to traditional dairy and meat products.
Although the FDA is responsible for preventing such misrepresentation, the agency has been somewhat lax in enforcing these regulations, leading to the prevalence of plant-based products like “Almond Milk,” “Peanut Butter,” and “Beyond Beef”.
### **Findings from the 2019 Food Safety Insights Survey**
In a 2019 survey, approximately 36% of US/Canada (US/C) and 33% of International (INT) food processors considered economically motivated adulteration to be a significant issue. For combined US/C and INT food producers, 15% reported detecting food fraud in their supply chains, and 29% use [analytical testing for detection](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/).
EMA was considered a significant issue for various commodities including…
- [Spices](https://certified-laboratories.com/nuts-spice-analysis/?__hstc=187690167.40f942fd254d7bf7adc0fea5960c389d.1686329846311.1689464465993.1689624081235.57&__hssc=187690167.15.1689624081235&__hsfp=2924083047) (56%)
- [Seafood](https://certified-laboratories.com/seafood/?__hstc=187690167.40f942fd254d7bf7adc0fea5960c389d.1686329846311.1689464465993.1689624081235.57&__hssc=187690167.15.1689624081235&__hsfp=2924083047) (44%)
- [Beverages](https://fsns.com/industries/beverages/) (42%)
- [Meat ](https://fsns.com/industries/protein/)(36%)
- [Dairy products](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/) (35%)
- Fruits/vegetables (31%)
- Grains and milled products (24%)
### **Food Defense Plans and Regulation**
[Several entities in the USA are actively combatting food fraud](https://fsns.com/taking-on-food-fraud/), including…
- Food Protection and Defense Institute
- US Pharmacopeia
- Food Fraud Initiative
- NSF International
- FDA
- Food Safety and Inspection Service
- Global Food Safety Initiative
- SSAFE
These organizations use various strategies including maintaining databases of food fraud incidents, enhancing detection methods, inspection, laboratory testing, developing early warning systems, promoting corporate integrity, and fostering international cooperation.
Additionally, they push for increased regulatory action, [stronger food safety culture](https://fsns.com/developing-a-strong-food-safety-culture/) and personnel training, and the development of comprehensive food defense plans that assess vulnerabilities, implement preventive controls, and maintain rigorous recordkeeping and verification processes.
[Discover how to perform a food fraud vulnerability assessment for your facility in this free webinar](https://easconsultinggroup.com/food-fraud-mitigations-and-testing/?__hstc=187690167.40f942fd254d7bf7adc0fea5960c389d.1686329846311.1689464465993.1689624081235.57&__hssc=187690167.15.1689624081235&__hsfp=2924083047) presented by our regulatory partners at EAS Consulting Group, A [Certified Group](https://certifiedgroup.com) Company.
## **Whistleblowing in the Food Industry**
Some food fraud experts say that the best way to prevent adulteration is for food industry employees to speak up when they see wrongdoing. NSF International recommends encouraging whistle–blowing by company employees based on a COSO study indicating that “a tip” was the most successful source of initially detecting occupational fraud.
## **Suspect Personality Traits**
The Food Standards Agency in the UK suspects that fellow employees should be alert for people of certain personality traits who might develop into malicious attackers. The FSA has characterized such persons as “extortionists”, “opportunists”, “extremists”, “irrational individuals”, “disgruntled individuals”, “hacktivists”, or “professional criminals”.
## **Detection and Prevention of Food Fraud**
That being said, food fraud detection through consumer vigilance is often impractical; testing is the best solution to this problem. However, it raises a concern that untested contaminants, substances, and additives may go unnoticed, indicating a gap in the current testing approach.
## **Legal Considerations in Food Fraud**
In criminal law, the infraction must be *mens rea* (latin for ‘with intent’) to lead to a felony conviction. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act:
- The standard for a misdemeanor is “strict criminal liability” and not “criminal intent”.
- Executives can be convicted of a misdemeanor for “holding a position of authority and having had the ability to prevent a food safety violation”.
- Officials do not need proof of criminal (or, fraudulent) intent to pursue a misdemeanor conviction, which could lead up to a year in jail and a fine up to $250,000.
The FDA’s power to bring charges against corporate executives was solidified in 1975, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the president of a major grocery chain.
## **Case Studies in Food Fraud Prosecution**
In that case, the president was found criminally liable for the unsanitary conditions of a warehouse, notwithstanding his argument that he had delegated the responsibility for maintaining the cleanliness of the warehouse to his subordinates. The Supreme Court concluded that if a company unknowingly ships adulterated food, the management can be charged, under the Park Doctrine, without knowledge, intent, or even negligence. In each case, FDA will consider the individual’s position within the company, their relationship to the violation, and whether they were in a position (or, had the authority) to correct the violation. An executive cannot use “ignorance of the violation” as a defense.
Midamar Corporation and Islamic Services of America have been ordered to forfeit $600,000 in the US District Court. Three defendants, William, Jalel, and Yahya Aossey, admitted to a scheme involving falsification of export certificates to ship Halal beef to customers in Malaysia and Indonesia. They face up to 5 years in jail plus a $250,000 fine for a felony conspiracy violation plus 1 year and $100,000 for each misdemeanor charge.
Stewart Parnell (Peanut Corporation of America) was sentenced to 28 years in prison based on a felony: “Intent to defraud based on emails and fabricated certificates of analysis of his peanut product shipments”.’ The sentence was historic, marking the first sentence of significant jail time for causing foodborne illness. US prosecutors have won convictions in 4 other foodborne outbreak cases in the last 3 years (e.g., the DeCosters and the Jensens).
[Contact us to find out how our North American network of 30+ ISO 17025 accredited labs can help combat food fraud and safeguard your supply chain](https://fsns.com/contact-us/).
### References:
- COSO Study, Analysis of US Public Companies. 1998
- Dybunco *et al.* 2013. Journal of Food Science.
- eNewsletter. 2016 http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com (accessed 2016)
- Everstine *et al.* 2013. Food Safety & Quality. 4:14–15.
- FDA. 2016. Preventive Controls for Human Food.
- Focused Mitigation Strategies To Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration. FDA Proposed Rule, Code of Federal Regulations. 2016
- Food Fraud Mitigation Guidance. US Pharmacopeial Convention. 2015
- Food Standards Agency. 2016. food.gov.UK
- Gabbett, Rita Jane. 2015. Meatingplace. (October Issue)
- GFSI Position on Mitigating the Public Health Risk of Food Fraud. MyGFSI. 2014
- Labs, Wayne. 2016. Food Engineering. (February Issue)
- Labs, Wayne. 2016. Food Engineering. (March Issue)
- Maday, John. 2015. Bovine Veterinarian. (August Issue)
- Murano, Elsa. 2016. personal communication.
- National Center for Food Protection and Defense. 2013
- NSF International. 2014
- Sayer, Steve. 2015. Meatingplace. (September Issue)
- Schug, Debra. 2016. Food Engineering. (January Issue)
- Sifferlin, Alexandra. 2015. TIME. (September Issue)
- SSAFE, www. ssafe–food.org. (accessed 2016)
- Stevens, Shawn. 2015. Meatingplace. (July Issue)
- The Food Fraud Initiative, http://foodfraud.msu.edu (accessed 2016)
- Theno, Dave. 2015. personal communication
- von Bargen *et al.* 2014. J. Agr. Food Chemistry.
- Zoroya, Gregg. 2015. USA Today. (June Issue)
**Categories:** News
---
### [Petfood Forum 2025: Navigating FDA Detention with Confidence](https://fsns.com/petfood-forum-2025-navigating-fda-detention-with-confidence/)
**Published:** April 23, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*By Jay Alappat, PhD, Chief Science Officer – Chemistry,* [*Certified Group*](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/)
As the pet food industry gathers at [Petfood Forum 2025](https://www.petfoodforumevents.com/) in Kansas City from April 28-30, the spotlight will be on innovation, safety, and regulatory resilience. At Certified Laboratories, we’re proud to be a trusted partner to pet food manufacturers, importers, and ingredient suppliers — especially when the stakes are high.
## Get Help Releasing Your Products from FDA Detention
One of our standout capabilities is [expert testing](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/) and resolution support for [FDA-detained shipments](https://certified-laboratories.com/import/).
Whether it’s a product detained at the border due to [pesticide residues,](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/) microbiological findings, or labeling concerns, our experienced scientific and regulatory teams step in quickly to provide the precision sampling & testing, method validation, and compliance documentation required to get your product moving again.
Our teams have successfully…
- Stood at the forefront among laboratories in dealing with the Detention Without Physical examination (DWPE) FDA program.
- Conducted in-depth method optimization for challenging matrices, enabling release from [FDA Red List status](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/fda-import-alerts-how-to-get-off-a-red-list/).
- Delivered rapid turnaround testing using validated FDA methods (including pesticide residues, melamine, and mycotoxins).
- Supported clients with detailed lab packages, sampling proposals and extension letters for FDA appeals to bring articles to compliance.
- Partnered with regulatory consultants (e.g., [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) company) to provide expertise across regulatory and industry functions including [Red List removals from Import Alerts](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/fda-import-alerts-how-to-get-off-a-red-list/).
## Let’s Meet at Petfood Forum 2025
When it comes to FDA detention, every day counts — and so does trust in your lab partner. With evolving trade and tariff policies, FDA scrutiny may shift toward new sourcing regions and import volumes, making FDA detention testing more critical than ever.
Certified Laboratories’ deep expertise ensures you are prepared no matter how global trade dynamics change.
If you’re attending Petfood Forum in Kansas City, [we would love to connect](https://certified-laboratories.com/contact-us/). Meet us in Booth #1819 to talk about how Certified Laboratories can help safeguard your supply chain, protect your brand, and keep your business moving forward — no matter the challenge.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [FSNS Begins Pesticide Testing In 2021](https://fsns.com/fsns-begins-pesticide-testing-in-2021/)
**Published:** May 4, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
FSNS is ramping up to test for over 400 pesticides in low-fat foods such as vegetables, fruits, and grains. The FSNS validated method employs QuEChERS with GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS detection to assure the presence of each detected pesticide is confirmed and accurately measured. As an add-on, each measured residue will include the US allowable Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) and of major countries of interest.
**FSNS Method Summary**
The FSNS pesticide screen uses QuEChERS with GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS detection. QuEChERS (Quick Easy Cheap Effective Rugged Safe) is an extraction and clean-up protocol developed by a USDA research group that uses special solvents with cleaning salts to collect all pesticide residues present in the food. That extract is then further cleaned using a dSPE procedure. The pesticides are then detected and quantified by using both Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and Gas Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS/MS). Our state-of-the-art mass spectrometers are highly sensitive so the [method has precise quantification capabilities of pesticides](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/) at levels down to 0.010 ppm to support regulatory compliance.
**Regulatory Oversight**
The U.S. government defined pesticides in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as “any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, \[and\] any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant.”1
For pesticides that are allowed to be applied to specific foods being grown, transported, or stored, EPA/FDA has set MRLs for specific pesticide-food combinations.2 For example, in the US, linuron is allowed to be used on carrots with an MRL of 1 ppm and chlorpyrifos on wheat at 0.5 ppm. If an allowed pesticide is detected above its MRL, the food is considered adulterated and subject to seizure.
If a pesticide found in a food does not have an allowable MRL, the food is also considered adulterated and subject to seizure. No regulatory agency has an official “default acceptable level” for pesticides without MRLs but generally, a limit of 0.010 ppm is considered the typical value such occurrences are compared against. It should be noted that regulatory agencies reserve the option to evaluate each occurrence on a case-by-case basis which may result in different interpretations.
For international trade, CODEX has established MRLs for each food group.3 Each country also has its own MRL allowances such as the EU4 so it is recommended their regulations be reviewed to reduce the risk of detention.
**A Short Testing History**
Pesticide residue analytical methods historically tested for single residues to determine if the levels of allowed pesticides were below acceptable levels. These analytical methods then evolved into multi-residue screens where groups of pesticides were analyzed at the same time. These groups were Organochlorides (OC), Organonitrogens (ON), Organophosphorous (OP) and methyl-carbamates with each group requiring different instruments to detect the group-specific molecular components.
The current industry norm is a broader multi-residue screen simultaneously testing for all the pesticide groups. This approach is commonly referred to as “QuEChERS with GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS detection” and is now the prevalent protocol to simultaneously analyze for the presence and amounts of hundreds of pesticides in food and foodstuffs. The MS/MS detection also confirms the identity of the detected pesticides to prove they are present at the measured levels. While the Limit of Detection for each pesticide in different foods does vary, the target LOD of 0.010 ppm is included in the FSNS method.
1
2
3
4[https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-db\_en](https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-db_en)
**Categories:** News
---
### [An Update On Food Fraud](https://fsns.com/an-update-on-food-fraud/)
**Published:** January 31, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Food Fraud, or what the FDA calls “Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA),” is the intentional sale of food products that are not up to recognized standards for economic gain. The ramifications of Food Fraud can range from damage to brand reputations, damage to revenue for food retail businesses and processing establishments, to health complications for the consumer due to its impact on food safety. Food Fraud is a global business worth in excess of $50 billion annually; Grocery Manufacturers of America estimates that the annual cost of EMA in the United States is between $10 and $15 billion. By 2017, four sets of data had been compiled and meta-analyzed with results revealing that the most frequent *global* Food Fraud incidents by food-product category were: (1) fish/seafood, (2) dairy products, (3) meat products, (4) alcoholic beverages, and (5) oils/fats, while most frequently adulterated foods in the *USA* were: (1) olive oil, (2) milk, (3) honey, (4) saffron, and (5) orange juice.
Previous history of Food Fraud cases in the USA include: kangaroo and horse meat sold as beef; melamine in pet food; substitution of species in domesticated animal and game-animal ground meat; substitution of pork rectum for squid in calamari; *Salmonella* in peanuts and eggs; honey laundering; meat from undeclared species; and falsification of export certificates for Halal beef. Two cases of Food Defense violations are noteworthy: a religious sect contaminated restaurant salad bars and an individual sprayed mouse poison on food in snack bars. The single largest Food-Fraud crime ever prosecuted in the USA was honey laundering; over 7 years, a smuggling-ring moved $80 million worth of banned–and often Chinese–honey into the US.
EMA incidents are challenging for industry and regulators to prevent because the adulterants are usually innocuous and the adulteration is designed specifically not to be detected. 2017 through 2019 will long be remembered for the number of Food Fraud incidents. Specific Food-Fraud incidents included: sunflower oil substituted with mineral oil; swapping an intact product such as a fish filet; use of hydrolyzed leather protein in milk; poultry injected with hormones to conceal disease; use of antibiotics to reduce bacterial load or mask deterioration; use of undeclared, unapproved, or banned biocides; use of coloring agents on fruit to improve appearance; falsification of expiration dates; sale of Japanese star anise (which is toxic) as Chinese anise (which is a different species); sale of cooking oil recovered from waste streams; production and sale of products through unregulated channels; and “gray market” diversion involving intellectual-property infringement and production outside of regulatory control.
Operation Opson VIII (December 2018 to April 2019 in 78 countries by Interpol and Europol) found $118 million worth of potentially dangerous food and drink. It found tampered expiration dates on cheese and chicken, controlled medicines added to drinks, and meat stored in unsanitary conditions. Europol says, “This shows that criminals will take advantage of any opportunity to make a profit. Food Fraud deceives consumers, hurts their wallets, makes them pay for something they do not get, and can result in serious harm to the public’s health. Operation Opson VIII identified these Food-Fraud incidents: (1) counterfeit honey (Eritrea); (2) forged documentation of apples (Belarus); (3) counterfeit vodka (Russia); (4) alcoholic beverages for export sold domestically (South Africa); (5) counterfeit candy (Lithuania); (6) extra virgin olive oil that was actually sunflower oil; and (7) products claimed to be “Organic” that were not (16 EU member states). In 2019, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency stopped the import of >28,000 pounds of EMA honey.
The most fraudulent food products in the USA in 2018 were: (1) Organic, (2) Free-Range, (3) Wild Caught, and (4) Halal. An investigation by a publishing company revealed “how easy it was to fake Organic products because the USDA’s National Organic Program still has some gaps that can be exploited. Millions of pounds of soybeans and corn grown “Conventionally” in Turkey and Ukraine magically turned “Organic” and boosted the value of those products by millions of dollars. Products from China are even more susceptible to being mislabeled “Organic”; one study found that 37% of Chinese “Organic” products that it [tested contained pesticide residues](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/). But we also have problems generated by US farmers. Five farmers/brokers in Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa conspired to sell $142 million worth of “Conventionally” grown grain as “Organic”.
One food category that is particularly susceptible is seafood. Oceania™ conducted the largest seafood fraud investigation to date, collecting more than 1,200 samples from hundreds of retail locations throughout the US. DNA testing revealed that one-third of the samples were not what they were purported to be. In September 2019, two cases of Food Fraud related to beef products occurred: (1) Officials at a provisions company pleaded guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States. The defendants admitted to selling more than 775 thousand pounds of uninspected, misbranded, or altered meat to 32 prisons in 18 states; they processed cow hearts and added it to the ground beef on nights and weekends when inspectors were not present. (2) Two executives at a meat wholesaling company were arrested on charges of federal conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The defendants have been accused of selling US Choice beef as US Prime beef; between 2011 and 2014, they ordered their employees to systematically slice the US Choice stamp off of their cuts and restamp them with counterfeit US Prime stamps.
In the minds of those in animal agriculture, a Food-Fraud threat looms as numerous companies “misbrand” plant-based food products using nomenclature historically limited to beef, pork, poultry, butter, milk, cheese, yogurt, and cheese. “Imitation” is defined as a thing intended to simulate or copy something else. It has many synonyms: Fake, Forgery, Reproduction, and Impersonation. FDA has the responsibility under the Federal Food, Drug, And Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to deem a food “misbranded” if its labeling is false or misleading, if it is offered for sale under the name of another food, or if it is an imitation of another food. FDA dictates that certain foods should be deemed “Imitation” if that food resembles another but is nutritionally inferior or fails to meet established characterizing-ingredient requirements. FDA is supposed to prohibit a food from being sold under the name of a different food, as well as imitations of another food, unless it bears the label “Imitation”. FDA has had, for decades, a “Standard Of Identity” (federal statutes codifying labels) for things like “meat,” “milk,” “cheese,” “butter,” and “yogurt” yet has allowed companies to market plant-based products like “Almond Milk,” “Peanut Butter,” and “Beyond Beef”–unimpeded.
A 2019 Food Safety Insights survey revealed that 36% of US/Canada (US/C) and 33% of International (INT) food processors “considered EMA to be a significant issue I have to deal with”. For combined US/C and INT food producers, 15% reported “having detected Food Fraud in our supply chain” and 29% “currently use analytical testing to detect Food Fraud”. Food commodities for which EMA was “considered to be a significant issue I have to deal with” were: 56% for spices, 44% for seafood, 42% for beverages, 36% for meat, 35% for dairy products, 31% for fruits/vegetables, and 24% for grains and milled products.
REFERENCES:
American Society of Animal Science. 2019. February 24, 2019.
Bechtel, Wyatt. 2019. Drovers. May 17, 2019.
Bonds, Missy. 2019. Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association. August 12, 2019.
Everstine, Karen. 2019. https://foodsafetytech.com/. January 15, 2019.
Everstine, Karen. 2019. https://foodsafetytech.com/. February 12, 2019.
Feedstuffs. 2018. October 4, 2018.
Ferguson, Bob. 2019. Food Safety Magazine. November Edition.
Food Quality & Safety. 2013. April Edition.
Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 2019. September 26, 2019.
Lyons, Jack. 2018. https://www.rentokil.com/. April 6, 2018.
Maday, John. 2015. Bovine Veterinarian. August Edition.
National Farmers Union. 2018. Morning Ag Clips. September 26, 2018.
National Public Radio. 2013. November 4, 2013.
New York Post. 2019. September 26, 2019.
Olmstead, Larry. 2018. Forbes. April 12, 2018.
Sherman, Elisabeth. 2017. Food & Wine. May 15, 2017.
Smith, Gary. 2017. Texas A&M University. July 29, 2017.
Smith, Gary. 2018. FSNS Quarterly Newsletter. Spring 2018.
Smith, Gary. 2019. Texas A&M University. July 30, 2019.
Stevens, Shawn. 2019. Meatingplace. May 27, 2019.
Washington Post. 2017. May 13, 2017.
Whitworth, Joe. 2019. https://foodsafetynews.com/. June 22, 2019.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Challenge Studies in Foods and Beverages: Your Complete Guide](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/)
**Published:** January 3, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Alex Brandt, Ph.D., FSNS Chief Science Officer*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Conducting microbial challenge studies, or inoculated pack studies, is crucial to understanding how microorganisms behave in products during shelf life.
- Two primary types are **spoilage** studies for quality assurance and **pathogen** studies for food safety, focusing on organisms like molds, yeasts, *Listeria*, and *Salmonella*.
- Challenge studies involve inoculating food products with specific microorganisms to monitor growth and assess safety and quality over time.
- These studies are vital for product development, quality assurance, and regulatory compliance, providing insights into potential risks and the effectiveness of preservation methods.
## Understanding the Role of Challenge Studies in Food and Beverage Safety
Food products are populated with diverse types of microorganisms. Some are good, some are bad, and some are just plain ugly.
- Probiotics = Good
- Pathogens = Bad
- Spoilage = Ugly
Some of the bad and ugly microorganisms can grow in food and beverage products during their shelf life. The bad ones can reach levels that can cause illness when an individual consumes the food or beverage. The ugly ones can cause spoilage and render the product unacceptable to consumers.
In addition to adverse effects on public health, both illness and spoilage can lead to brand damage and significant monetary loss for the producer.
Thus, it is important to understand how these organisms behave in food and beverage products during their shelf life, and conducting a microbial challenge study, also called an “inoculated pack study”, in your product is one of the best tools to gain that understanding.
In this post, we will cover all you need to know about challenge studies in foods and beverages. Let’s get started.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/3f88ffa1-b3a4-4ff2-a5a6-4577a6da8bd3)## What is a Challenge Study for Food Products?
A microbial challenge study is an experiment that seeks to understand the fate of a specific set of organisms when introduced into a food or beverage product and stored under a particular set of conditions.
## What is the Purpose of Challenge Studies in Foods and Beverages?
The primary purpose of a challenge study in a food or beverage is to see if a particular type of organism will grow in the product when stored under its normal conditions for a period of time.
The idea is that the product’s **intrinsic** and **extrinsic factors** will inhibit the growth of the organism(s) of interest during the product’s recommended shelf life, thereby resisting issues related to spoilage or pathogen outgrowth.
Intrinsic [factors that inhibit growth](https://fsns.com/fattom-a-key-to-microbial-control-and-food-safety/) of organisms include the following:
- pH
- Water activity
- Moisture
- Antimicrobials
- Salt content
Extrinsic factors that inhibit growth of organisms include the following:
- Packaging material
- Atmosphere
- Storage temperature
- Humidity
- Customer handling
A challenge study is like a [shelf life study](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/), but the primary difference is that you inoculate the product with the target organism to track its growth over time. In contrast, the product is not inoculated for a [food shelf life testing](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/).
A challenge study may also be referred to as an “inoculated pack” study.
*In a challenge study, you inoculate the product with the target organism to track its growth and
help determine if the product will be safe for consumers.*## Different Types of Microbial Challenge Studies for Food
There are two basic types of microbial challenge studies for food:
- Spoilage studies (quality assurance)
- Pathogen studies (food safety)
It helps to think of spoilage studies as being conducted for **quality assurance** purposes, and [pathogen studies as being conducted for **food**](https://fsns.com/pathogen-testing/) safety purposes.
In a spoilage challenge study, the food product is inoculated with organisms known to cause spoilage, including the following:
- Molds
- Yeasts
- *Pseudomonas*
- Lactic acid bacteria
Think of this type of study as pertaining to the product’s “Best Before” date. While most foods and beverages can be safely consumed after this date, it’s best to consume them prior to the “Best Before” date to ensure their appearance, flavor, texture, and odor are still at acceptable levels.
In a pathogen challenge study, the food product is inoculated with pathogens that can grow in the product, including the following:
- *Listeria*
- *Salmonella*
- *Clostridium*
- *Staphylococcus*
Think of this type of study as pertaining to the product’s “Use By” date. Foods and beverages should not be consumed after this date due to the elevated risk for pathogens to be present at high concentrations, which could cause foodborne illness in the individual who consumes the product.
Your production processes and [HACCP food safety plan](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) should include measures to reduce the risk of spoilage-organism or pathogen contamination; inoculating product for a challenge study helps to test the efficacy of those measures that are in place.
*A spoilage challenge study pertains to the food’s “Best Before” date and a pathogen challenge*
*study pertains to its “Use By” date.*## Conducting a Spoilage Challenge Study in Food
Spoilage challenge studies are commonly used when the natural incidence rate of a spoilage organism in a product is too low to observe its impact on product quality with a standard shelf life study (i.e. a study where no inoculation is done and the naturally present organisms are allowed to grow).
However, because it is still possible for that spoilage organism to be present in the packaged product (albeit at a low incidence rate), one must perform an inoculated pack challenge study to see what would happen if it were present.
Spoilage challenge studies are typically conducted over the course of the normal shelf life of a product and often have an initial inoculation level of 100-1000 CFU/g (102 -103 CFU/g).
## How to Set Up a Spoilage Challenge Study for Food
The steps to set up a spoilage challenge study in a food or beverage are similar to that of a [shelf life study](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/).
- Begin the risk assessment with a review of the intrinsic and extrinsic factors of the product, discussed above.
- Identify the types of organisms that may potentially cause spoilage in the product.
If a particular type of organism that can cause spoilage prior to the coded shelf life date is not expected to exist in the product at a high frequency under normal processing conditions, but is expected to occasionally be present, a spoilage challenge may be the best means of assessing spoilage potential.
For example, a heat-resistant mold may be present in a very low number of units of a thermally treated beverage but may present a high risk of early shelf life spoilage in the units that actually have it. If the incidence rate of the organism is, say, 1% on a per-bottle basis, and the time to reach visible levels of spoilage, if present, is two months, it is possible that a shelf life evaluation may see zero defective sample replicates if analyzed biweekly with 3 replicates per analysis point.
In this case, if understanding the risk associated with heat-resistant mold is desired, it would be more prudent to introduce the organism into the product via inoculation.
*It’s a good idea to conduct a spoilage challenge study whenever a food product’s formulation,*
*packaging, or storage conditions change.*## When to Conduct a Spoilage Challenge Study for Food
Spoilage challenge studies are often conducted when a formulation, packaging system, and/or storage conditions are altered to either address a spoilage vulnerability or to achieve some commercial purpose (e.g. supply chain considerations, production efficiencies, etc.).
In this case, the purpose is to determine whether there will be additional risk taken, or assurance afforded, from the proposed change with respect to the organisms of interest.
An example of this is evaluating the viability of spoilage yeasts in a salad dressing when the manufacturer is changing the levels of, substituting, or removing sodium benzoate as a preservative.
In these types of evaluations, it is advisable to do a side-by-side challenge study on a previous iteration of the product, and on the proposed new version, to better understand the effect of the formulation change (e.g. the concentration/source of sodium benzoate).
## Types of Pathogen Challenge Studies in Food
As mentioned above, certain spoilage organisms have such low natural incidence rates that they require inoculated pack challenge studies to evaluate their behavior in products. Pathogens, on the other hand, are expected to have even lower natural incidence rates in finished goods. Thus, it is almost guaranteed that one must perform an inoculated pack challenge study if one desires to observe the behavior of a pathogen in a food or beverage product during its shelf life.
Pathogen challenge studies can be categorized into two types (growth and reduction) based on the anticipated performance of the organism in the product and the objective of the study.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/361c1d56-2db2-426c-9dd4-88a2a4117d0b)## Pathogen Growth Challenge Studies
For challenge studies where the primary concern is the rate of proliferation of a foodborne pathogen, an inoculation target in the 100-1000 CFU/g (102 -103 CFU/g) range is common. The product is usually evaluated over the course of its shelf life or until the increase in concentration of the organism passes a critical threshold.
This approach is used in situations where there is both a reasonable risk of the presence, and subsequent growth of, the pathogen in the packaged product.
Pathogens that are frequent subjects of this type of challenge study are *Listeria monocytogenes* (e.g. [deli meat](https://fsns.com/industries/protein/), [cheese](https://fsns.com/industries/cheese/), and other [refrigerated ready-to-eat foods)](https://fsns.com/industries/frozen-foods/), *Clostridium botulinum* (e.g. reduced oxygen, low acid food), and *Staphylococcus* *aureus* (e.g. bakery goods of a sufficiently high water activity).
Listeria monocytogenes *and other dangerous contaminants are frequently the subjects of pathogen growth challenge studies.*### Pathogen Reduction Challenge Studies
The intent of pathogen reduction challenge studies is different than that of pathogen growth challenge studies because the pathogen of interest is actually expected to die over time in the product rather than grow.
This type of study is commonly used to determine the hold time required to achieve the required reduction of a pathogen in conjunction with a food safety plan. It differs from a pathogen growth investigation in that the inoculation level is higher (106 – 108 CFU/g), the duration of the study is usually shorter (until target reduction value is achieved and confirmed to be maintained), and it tends to focus on vegetative pathogens.
The higher inoculation level is necessary for a pathogen reduction challenge study to quantify the full extent of the reduction that can be achieved with the conditions of the product. The duration of the evaluation is also shortened to ensure that the minimal post-packaging hold time that provides a sufficient reduction can be observed via laboratory analysis.
Vegetative pathogens are frequently the subject of this type of investigation since they are more susceptible to inactivation via the intrinsic properties of certain food products.
## Do I Need a Challenge Study?
Microbial challenge studies are excellent tools to strengthen your food safety program for a variety of food-industry personnel in multiple situations, including the following:
**Product Development Teams**
- New products that are susceptible to pathogen growth over time almost always undergo a challenge study during the development process.
- Challenge studies are often done when switching from conventional to natural antimicrobial sources to create a “clean label”.
- Challenge studies may be done when reformulating due to cost or supply chain issues.
- The inclusion of newly developed antimicrobials can be evaluated via challenge studies.
**Quality Assurance Managers**
- Providing data for regulatory purposes, such as [USDA FSIS Listeria Guidelines](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/guidelines/2014-0001) – Alternative 1 and Alternative 2b.
- Validating the effectiveness of your HACCP system if product intrinsic and extrinsic factors are considered to be critical control points.
**Restaurants/Retailers**
- Demonstrating to local or state health departments the safety of holding your product at room temperature when they state it must be refrigerated (a.k.a. product assessment as stated in the FDA Food Code).
**Operations Teams**
- Installing gas flush (MAP) equipment.
- Including oxygen scavengers.
- Use of new packaging material or packaging machines.
The following are helpful questions to ask when determining if you need a challenge study for your food products:
- Do I have any new products that need to be tested to determine the potential outgrowth of certain microorganisms?
- Am I currently reformulating any products or changing any of our processing/packaging systems?
- Am I changing any processes that will affect my product’s ability to inhibit pathogen growth or spoilage?
- Do I need to have a product assessment to show that my products will not support growth of microorganisms under certain storage conditions?
## How is a Challenge Study in Food Conducted?
Challenge study protocols are as varied as the products and conditions being tested, but they do share similarities. [At FSNS Lab+, the contract research division of Certified Group](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), we conduct challenge studies according to the following general guidelines:
- **Receive product samples in bulk** **(or already portioned in packages if special packaging** **systems are required):**
o Bulk format samples are weighed in portions and inoculated.
o Special packaging systems may require septum inoculation.
- **Create a culture/cocktail of the target organism and adjust to the correct concentration:**
o [Refrigerated Food Association (RFA)](https://www.refrigeratedfoods.org/) guidelines suggest three-to-five strain cocktail of the target microorganism.
o Use strains that have a history with the food product (i.e. certain *Salmonella* serotypes with outbreak history).
o Ideally, use strains that have been isolated from the product.
o Concentration needs to be a specific range, generally 2-3 log CFU/g.
- **Inoculate the product and homogenize:**
o Must account for product attributes like moisture when inoculating – the analyst may need to use less volume of a higher concentration of inoculum so that the moisture of the product is not greatly affected. Moisture introduced from the inoculum may artificially provide better growth conditions that would not normally be present.
o Need to inoculate and homogenize in a way that mimics the location that the contamination would be present in real-life. For instance, if a hot dog is being tested, then contamination would be naturally present on the exterior after cooking is done; thus, surface inoculation would be most appropriate. However, for a sour cream-based dip, the contamination could be mixed throughout the product, so inoculating and using a mixer to mix the inoculum into the product would make the most sense.
- **Portion into packages and provide correct atmosphere:**
o Ambient air
o Vacuum packaging
o Modified atmosphere packaging
- **Store the product under normal storage conditions:** o Frozen
o Refrigerated
o Room temperature
o Temperature abuse
- **Pull replicate samples at various time points to enumerate:**
o RFA guidelines recommend five to seven time points of analysis.
o Recommended to analyze at least duplicate (ideally triplicate) samples at each time
point of analysis in order to account for the level of variability at each time point.
- **Track counts over time in a graph:**
o Raw counts
o Reductions/outgrowth compared to Day 0
- **Stop at a certain point if counts are too high and after consultation with client:**
o Generally, a 1 log CFU/g outgrowth signals a need to stop the study.
o May be able to tolerate up to 2 log CFU/g outgrowth as in USDA FSIS Listeria Guidelines.
- **Will often run [chemistry tests](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) on the samples:**
o Monitor intrinsic factors like pH, water activity, moisture, salt, etc.
## Points to Consider When Designing a Challenge Study in Foods and Beverages
Best practices for challenge studies include the following:
- **Extend the test duration** 10-25% beyond the intended shelf life **to have evidence that there is a buffer zone in case there is a real-life product or process deviation.**
o The intended shelf life should still be used in practice, but this provides extra assurance that there is no negative effect of product or process variations.
- **Inoculate with multiple strains of the subject organism.**
- **Determine the number of samples needed based on the number of target organisms that will be evaluated.**
o It is best not to co-inoculate samples, meaning you need a separate set of samples for each organism.
- **Determine the number of time points during the study:**
o More time points increase cost, but give you more frequent data points to fall back on when the study meets a failure point. This will help conserve precious shelf life time.
o Less time points decrease cost, but there will be a longer interval of time between a failure point and the “last good check.” This risks losing precious shelf life time.
- **Identify any special storage or packaging conditions required and ensure that the laboratory performing the study can properly execute the requisite conditions.**
- **Define the number of replicates per time point:**
o More replicates are more expensive but provide a better measure of the variability from one sample to another.
o Fewer replicates mean less accounting for variability and may cause you to prematurely end the study if there is an outlier.
- **Determine which chemistry tests to run:**
o RFA guidelines suggest water activity, titratable acidity, and pH be monitored over time in order to see if there are any changes in intrinsic factors that would affect microorganism viability.
o May also want to run salt, protein, fat, sugar, etc. at the beginning of the study to document the composition of the product for inclusion in a final report.
- **Conduct a shelf life evaluation alongside the inoculated product:**
o This will help determine the activity of the microorganisms that are naturally present in the product and will help evaluate whether they have an impact on the viability of the target microorganism.
- **Establish pass/fail criteria before the study:**
o The laboratory and client should always know when results should trigger a discussion about whether the study should be concluded.
o May help save money by avoiding unnecessary analysis at future planned time points if a failure point has already been observed.
- **Should always re-evaluate the stability of the subject organisms after major changes to formulation, processes, or packaging.**
## Why Choose FSNS Lab+ for Your Challenge Study?
Properly conducting a challenge study requires expertise. For instance, the individuals conducting the study need to know how to choose the right microorganisms to inoculate with and the correct cocktail of strains that are known to cause issues with your product.
Also, the laboratory conducting the study typically needs to be equipped with special equipment needed to attain the correct concentration of inoculum, to package the product in the correct conditions, and to provide the correct plating media and methods.
Additionally, for pathogen challenge studies, the laboratory should have the proper biosafety procedures and biocontainment equipment in place to handle the microorganisms that are being used.
Last, but not least, you want a laboratory staffed with people who will communicate with you at your level throughout the process. The FSNS Lab+ team has an extensive team of experienced scientists who are well-versed in conducting spoilage and pathogen challenge studies for food, beverage, and consumer product manufacturers. [Please contact us with any questions you have about designing a challenge study for your products. ](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/)
You can also complete our [short questionnaire to start the process of getting a quote for your challenge study.](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/challenge-study-questionnaire?__hstc=187690167.40f942fd254d7bf7adc0fea5960c389d.1686329846311.1689624081235.1689637079376.58&__hssc=187690167.2.1689637079376&__hsfp=2924083047)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/3f88ffa1-b3a4-4ff2-a5a6-4577a6da8bd3)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** challenge studies, food and beverage
---
### [The Role of HVAC Systems in the Food Industry: Ensuring Air Quality and Product Safety](https://fsns.com/air-quality-production-facilities/)
**Published:** March 12, 2018
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
The development and evolution of Food Safety Plans for each individual food production facility has included the implementation and upgrading of [environmental monitoring programs (EMP)](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/). A key part of this is understanding the role of the HVAC system in food industry settings, where it significantly impacts air quality and microbial control.
The goal of an EMP is to gauge and monitor the presence of microorganisms within the manufacturing site. This includes the testing of food contact and non-food contact surfaces with particular focus on high-traffic areas, niche harborage sites, worn structural sites, and wet areas where condensation may have occurred. The sampling for a standard EMP predominantly focuses on surfaces (e.g. belts, floors, drains, floor-wall junctures, doors, posts, bins, pallets, etc.). In addition to testing surfaces in a standard EMP, it is pivotal to consider the role of air quality.
## Environmental Monitoring and the Hidden Risks of Airborne Contaminants
The management of air quality can mitigate the incidental introduction of yeast, mold, and bacteria in the production stream or in finished product, post-processing but pre-packaging. Standard sanitation procedures are designed with the treatment of processing equipment and the physical area within the production area in mind. However, if there were a contamination event within an air handling system, re-introduction and contamination of the production area would occur while the air handling system is running.
As such, insight into the quality of air and managing the direction of air flow is pivotal for Food Safety and Food Quality Plans at any manufacturing site. This is important insight to have as it can allow for the prevention of product contamination as well as allow for the troubleshooting and halting of any on-going contamination events associated with poor air quality due to microbial presence, first indicated by spoiled packages.
A well-maintained HVAC system in food industry environments acts as a frontline defense, helping maintain controlled airflow and minimize the spread of airborne microorganisms.
Learn more in our [Sanitary Design Course](https://fsns.com/product/sanitation-design-course/).
### Air Sampling Methods: Settle Plates and Device-Aided
When considering air quality at a production facility, one of the first steps to take is to assess what the quality is. This can be performed several different ways, dependent on available resources. The two most popular and easiest to perform are…
- Traditional methods (settle plates)
- Device-Aided Traditional Methods (AES active air sampling, CAMTU compressed-air testing)
Traditional settle plates rely on capturing airborne microorganisms that naturally fall out of the environment. They are inexpensive and simple to use, but don’t provide quantitative data. For that reason, they’re suited for offering a practical snapshot of air quality.
Device-aided traditional methods pull a defined volume of air across an agar plate or hydrated sponge, depending on the unit, which provides quantitative data. They provide precise data for high-risk or compressed-air applications. While more costly and technical, they are part of a robust air-sampling program for your environmental monitoring program when used in tandem with settle plates.
This article provides details about these different [air sampling in food manufacturing methods](https://fsns.com/air-sampling-in-food-manufacturing-which-methods-to-use-and-when/), including when to use each.
### The Critical Role of HVAC Systems in Food Industry Settings
In addition to measuring and observing the presence of microorganisms, additional steps can and should be taken to further minimize the potential for product contamination. This includes, but is not limited to, two approaches.
The first approach is the use and upkeep of a proper HVAC system in the food industry, including air filtration and environmental control across the plant. The HVAC system allows for the management of temperature and humidity within the production facility, as well as air flow direction and pressurization.
### Managing Temperature, Humidity, and Airflow to Reduce Microbial Growth
By controlling temperature and humidity, microbial growth is mitigated – especially when temperature is kept lower than that considered ideal for most microorganisms. Controlling humidity provides moisture control. Managing humidity and air moisture helps avoid reaching the dew point, the temperature at which moisture condenses from a gaseous to a liquid state and onto a surface.
Lower moisture availability reduces [microbial viability and growth](https://fsns.com/fattom-a-key-to-microbial-control-and-food-safety/). Moreover, high air moisture levels can also skew measurement techniques by altering particle density and collection reliability.
### Pressure Differentials and Contamination Control
The second approach to managing further contamination is the use of air pressure gradients. These gradients help prevent cross-contamination between the raw ingredient area, production zone, packaging, and warehouse.
A pressure gradient is established because air naturally flows from higher pressure areas into lower pressure ones. In food production facilities, this means creating positive air pressure in clean areas such as packaging rooms, so air only flows outward from these spaces.
This air gradient strategy depends entirely on a well-functioning HVAC system in food industry environments, which must maintain proper room-to-room pressure zones.
### Avoiding the Risks of Negative Air Pressure in Older Facilities
While keeping the positive air pressure strategy in mind, it is equally important to monitor for negative pressure zones – particularly in older buildings. These are often caused by excessive exhaust fans or poor unit placement. Negative air pressure allows unfiltered air from outside the facility to enter, introducing water, dust, microbes, and other contaminants.
Any time unfiltered air is introduced into the production area without prior filtration, the risk of contamination significantly increases.
### Routine HVAC Maintenance for Food Facilities
To maintain consistent air quality and minimize contamination risks, routine HVAC maintenance is essential. Filters should be changed regularly, ducts should be inspected for microbial buildup, and pressure systems recalibrated based on room function and traffic levels.
Monitoring differential pressure, airflow rates, and humidity levels on a scheduled basis helps ensure the HVAC system continues to support food safety initiatives. Investing in a robust HVAC maintenance plan also reduces the likelihood of sudden failures or contamination events caused by unnoticed system degradation.
### Final Thoughts: Air Quality as a Key Food Safety Strategy
Overall, it is important to understand the state of air flow and quality within each production facility. In measuring at predetermined frequencies, QA/QC staff can maintain a pulse on the presence of yeast, mold, and bacteria that are airborne and translocating throughout the facility.
Furthermore, by understanding the management and flow of the air, preventive measures can be put in place (i.e. air flow gradients) to minimize product contamination. By minimizing contamination, the goal of providing a safe and high-quality product to the consumer is attained without the presence of harmful microorganisms or spoilage organisms.
Ultimately, a reliable HVAC system in food industry facilities is not just a comfort measure – it’s a crucial safeguard for public health and product integrity.
[Contact our Customer Service Team](https://fsns.com/contact-us/) if you need air sampling for your food facility. We offer settle plates, rental device-aided traditional air samplers, and [microbiology testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) to support your food safety program.
**Categories:** News
---
### [What is Process Validation for Food Products?](https://fsns.com/process-validation/)
**Published:** December 11, 2024
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
Discovering ways to develop great-tasting foods and beverages can be an invigorating and gratifying process. However, once discovery has been achieved, you must verify that your production process renders foods or beverages that are safe for consumption.
For many food manufacturers, this entails not only meeting minimum regulatory requirements but also establishing processes that meet even higher internal or customer-driven standards. This blog focuses on process validation and why it’s essential to your food establishment.
[](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/download-our-5-step-process-validation-checklist-here)[Download our process validation checklist](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/download-our-5-step-process-validation-checklist-here) so you know what to expect when planning for a process validation.
## What Is Process Validation?
What is process validation for foods and beverages?
Process validation is a **means of providing evidence that proper food-processing methods are implemented from production to distribution**.
Validating a process requires collecting documentation and data, whether from scientific literature, internal studies, or regulatory resources, that…
- Describe the measures you take to safely produce a product.
- Identify potential hazards and concerns.
- Enumerate the tools and metrics to monitor and control these hazards and concerns.
- Prove your ability to control these food-safety hazards through preventive means (validation step).
- Confirm your ability to produce high-quality products consistently (verification step).
## What are the Steps in Process Validation and Verification?
Once you’ve drafted the production procedures and processing parameters, there are two steps to take to ensure you’re up to acceptable standards: validation and verification.
- **Process validation** is the enterprise of generating data to support the efficacy of your process in achieving its intended effect.
- **Process verification** is the enterprise of continuously monitoring the critical parameters for the purpose of confirming that they have been implemented as designed and validated via the process validation.
## Process Validation Examples
It helps to visualize an example when learning a new concept, so let’s look at a process validation example.
Imagine you [produce ready-to-eat almonds for retail sale](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/your-complete-guide-to-process-validation-for-almonds/). Regulations require you to implement a treatment process that results in a minimum 4-log reduction in *Salmonella* bacteria prior to being shipped. You can achieve this through a variety of processes, including oil roasting, blanching, or steaming. Whichever process you choose, you must validate through a process validation study that it achieves the required *Salmonella* reduction.
A process validation study involves inoculating almonds with a surrogate organism, running them through your treatment process, and then verifying the required outcome.
Given the complexity, it’s best to hire a testing organization to undertake a process validation study. For some products, using a certified organization is required. [FSNS Lab+ conducts process validation studies for several industries.](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/)
## Why You Must Demonstrate the Efficacy of a Kill Step
While successful completion of a process validation is an important milestone on the road to compliance, the journey continues past the point of generating data to demonstrating the efficacy of a kill step in the inactivation of pertinent pathogens.
**Verification is a continuous process by which data are collected and analyzed throughout production**; it is a critical component in the larger feedback loop of the food-quality and safety program.
These data may prompt calls for process alterations, both minor and major, and on some occasions revisiting a process validation if aspects of a production process change significantly, such as the ingredients, packaging configuration, processing parameters and/or food-safety objectives.
## What are the Regulatory Requirements for Process Validation of Food Products?
The [Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)](https://fsns.com/fsma-update/) mandates a regular review of your food safety plan, including process validations, every three years ([21 CFR 117.170](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-117.170)). This review may also prompt a re-analysis of safety requirements, which in turn can lead to a new process-validation procedure that replaces the initial validation.
FSMA, the most comprehensive U.S. food-safety-law reform in the modern age, was enacted to shift the focus from managing food-safety failures to preventing foodborne illnesses. Moreover, it mandated that the FDA ensure compliance among various food-production establishments and across all phases of the food-supply chain.
With this, businesses producing FDA-regulated food, including co-manufacturers, producers, processors, packers, and re-packers, are required to develop and verify food-safety plans and conduct food-safety tests, which may then require process validation.
Specific regulatory requirements vary depending on the industry. Contact [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), our regulatory consulting department under the [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) banner, for help deciphering your regulatory requirements.
## What if I Fail to Comply with FSMA?
There are consequences for failing to comply with FSMA regulations.
For example, if contamination is identified in a food-production facility, potentially affected products can be detained, a food recall issued, and/or fines levied. In worst-case scenarios, facility production can be suspended until sufficient evidence has been generated to demonstrate that control has been reestablished.
Besides fulfilling the necessary legal requirements, diligently undergoing process validation makes sense for a business. A well-designed process validation and robust verification program increase confidence that the process will reliably produce product in a manner that mitigates hazards that could endanger consumers, brand reputation, the company, and its employees.
## How Do I Overcome the Regulatory Challenges of FSMA?
It can be challenging to keep up with regulatory and industry requirements. Most establishments are familiar with FSMA and [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) guidelines, but many need additional guidance to upgrade their [Food Safety Management System](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/).
Given the relatively infrequent need to conduct full-scale process validations, the technical nuance associated with validation study design and the laboratory facilities required for execution, most companies need external support when embarking on process validation activities.
## Why Enlist a Testing and Consulting Company to Help?
Selecting a reputable and accredited food-safety testing and consulting firm is crucial for a successful validation workflow. Here are the key benefits an experienced process-validation expert can provide:
- Provides value from initial project management through to completion.
- Offers expertise in designing studies that are both cost-effective and data-rich.
- Provides assistance and oversight during the data collection phase.
- Generates an interpretative final report, simplifying what can be a complex and resource-intensive process.
With all of that in mind, consider enlisting the expertise of [FSNS Lab+](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) for your next process validation. With a network of ISO 17025 accredited laboratories, FSNS works with [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/food-beverage-services/), our fellow [Certified Group company](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/), to provide comprehensive [microbiological](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) projects and [shelf-life testing](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/). We also offer [auditing and consulting services](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) to ensure your food-safety management systems meet industry standards.
If you want a quote, [submit details using our Process Validation Questionnaire](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/process-validation-questionnaire).
[](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/process-validation-questionnaire)
**Categories:** General
---
### [FSNS Certification & Audit Approved to Perform Sodexo Supplier Audits](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-approved-to-perform-sodexo-supplier-audits/)
**Published:** June 17, 2026
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
## *Approval expands FSNS C&A’s audit services to include GMP, warehouse, beef, turkey, and chicken welfare audits for applicable Sodexo suppliers*
**SAN ANTONIO, Texas, June 17, 2026 –** [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=press%20release&utm_campaign=sodexo%20audits) company, announced today that it has been approved to perform select supplier audits for food and beverage manufacturers that provide products to [Sodexo](https://www.sodexo.com/).
The approved audit scope includes GMP and warehouse audits, in addition to beef, turkey, and chicken animal welfare audits. These audits support Sodexo’s supplier oversight process by helping verify that manufacturers and supply chain partners are periodically assessed against applicable Sodexo standards.
Third-party Certification Bodies must be approved to conduct these audits for Sodexo suppliers. With this approval, FSNS C&A can now support manufacturers that sell, or plan to sell, applicable food and beverage products to Sodexo.
“Achieving approval to perform Sodexo audits is an important expansion of our audit service offerings,” said Lori Ernst, Sr. VP of Audit Services at FSNS Certification & Audit. “Many manufacturers already work with us for certification and audit services. This approval gives those customers a more efficient option when Sodexo audit requirements apply to their business.”
The new approval allows eligible suppliers to work with FSNS C&A for Sodexo audit needs rather than engaging a separate Certification Body. For manufacturers managing multiple customer, certification, and supplier requirements, this can help simplify audit planning, reduce administrative burden, and support more consistent communication throughout the audit process.
“Our goal is to make the audit process clear, consistent, and well-supported,” said Justin Derington, Director of Auditing Services at FSNS Certification & Audit. “This approval allows us to help manufacturers meet Sodexo requirements while keeping their audit relationship with a Certification Body they already know and trust.”
FSNS C&A provides third-party certification and audit services for the food, beverage, dietary supplement, and related industries. The organization is known for experienced auditors, responsive communication, and a service-focused approach that helps companies navigate audit requirements with confidence.
[Contact FSNS C&A about scheduling your Sodexo audit.](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
---
### About Certified Group
Certified Group is committed to delivering innovative scientific solutions and expertise – *So The World Can Trust In What It Consumes®*. As a leading North American provider of laboratory testing, regulatory consulting, certification, and audit services, Certified Group encompasses [Food Safety Net Services (FSNS)](https://fsns.com/), [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=press%20release&utm_campaign=sodexo%20audits), [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), and [Labstat International Inc.](https://labstat.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=press%20release&utm_campaign=sodexo%20audits) The company serves a wide range of industries, including food & beverage, dietary supplements & NHP, cosmetics, OTC, personal care, tobacco, nicotine, cannabis, and hemp.
**Categories:** Press Release
**Tags:** Certification and audit, food and beverage
---
### [FSNS Green Bay Laboratory Completes A2LA ISO/IEC 17025 Audit with Zero Deficiencies](https://fsns.com/fsns-green-bay-laboratory-completes-a2la-iso-iec-17025-audit-with-zero-deficiencies/)
**Published:** June 8, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
## *Achievement reinforces the lab’s commitment to quality, reliable results, and customer confidence in food and beverage testing*
**GREEN BAY, Wis., June 8, 2026 –** Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company, today announced that its Green Bay food and beverage laboratory successfully completed its [A2LA](https://a2la.org/) audit for ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation with zero deficiencies.
The achievement reflects the Green Bay team’s commitment to quality, technical discipline, and reliable laboratory data. For food and beverage manufacturers, that data supports critical decisions about raw materials, product release, product development, audit readiness, and consumer safety.
“Completing an A2LA audit with zero deficiencies is an exceptional achievement,” said Ronald Lulich, Chief Quality and Regulatory Officer at Certified Group. “It reflects a strong quality culture and a team committed to producing results our customers can trust.”
“Our customers make important business and food safety decisions based on our data,” said David Morgan, Chief Executive Officer of Certified Group. “This result reinforces the strength of our Green Bay team locally and our network-wide commitment to helping customers move quickly, protect consumers, and operate with confidence.”
The Green Bay laboratory specializes in [microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/ "Food Microbiology Testing") and [analytical chemistry](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/ "Food Chemistry Testing") testing for dairy, protein, ready-to-eat foods, pet food, beverages, feeds, and similar regulated products. The lab supports product-release testing, raw material evaluation, environmental monitoring programs, troubleshooting, and product development work.
Key capabilities include pathogen and indicator organism testing, environmental swab analysis; and [nutritional analyses](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/ "Nutritional Analysis Testing Labs") such as moisture, fat, protein, salt, pH, and water activity testing. The lab uses validated AOAC, FDA-BAM, ISO, and other recognized reference and rapid methods to help manufacturers generate reliable data for food safety, quality, and production decisions.
The successful audit reflects the preparation, teamwork, and day-to-day focus required to maintain a robust laboratory quality system. It also underscores Certified Group’s continued investment in technical excellence across its North American laboratory network.
View our Green Bay lab’s [Scopes of Accreditation here](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/).
[Contact our team to discuss your lab testing needs.](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
## About Certified Group
Certified Group partners with customers to deliver innovative scientific solutions and expertise – *So The World Can Trust In What It Consumes®*. As a leading North American provider of laboratory testing, regulatory consulting, certification, and audit services, Certified Group encompasses Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), and [Labstat International Inc](https://labstat.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks). The company serves a wide range of industries, including food & beverage, dietary supplements & NHP, cosmetics, OTC, personal care, tobacco, nicotine, cannabis, and hemp.
**Categories:** Press Release
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [What is FDA Detention Testing?](https://fsns.com/what-is-fda-detention-testing/)
**Published:** May 28, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
This is the process of proving that a product is not in violation of any law, regulation, or standard. This process establishes the integrity of a product. If the product was confiscated alongside other products due to classification by ingredient or country, detention testing is the process that will prove that the product is fit for consumption.
At Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), we help with the FDA detention testing process. We have a [network of ISO 17025 certified laboratories](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/) where samples are carried to for tests. FSNS also works with the FDA directly in submitting the required documents.
When [pesticide detection](https://fsns.com/reasons-to-perform-pesticide-testing/) is necessary, we have a team of experts ready to conduct the tests.
## Establish the Integrity of a Product with FDA Detention Testing
Detention testing allows producers to remove themselves from the pack. A product might become detained because of several regulatory factors, but there are ways to show a product is in compliance.
FSNS’ [network of ISO 17025 accredited laboratories](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/) is ready to assist you with FDA detention testing at all of our locations. If you are in need of *Salmonella* or pesticide detection, our expert staff will accurately and thoroughly complete the testing. FSNS will coordinate sampling and shipment to the laboratories for analysis and then will work directly with the FDA in submitting required documents.
Rest with the assurance that FSNS sampling and testing is in full compliance with the FDA Detained Without Physical Examination program (DWPEO) [Contact us](https://fsns.com/contact-us/”) to learn more.
## How to Get FDA Detention Testing
When the FDA detains or confiscates a product, it is often due to the red flags raised. The product might meet all the FDA requirements, but it must be proven before it can be released.
Here are steps to establish the integrity of a product:
### 1. Get Adequate Information about the Detention
The first step is to understand why a product is being detained. Your [FDA Notice of Action will explain the reasons for the detention](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/fda-notice-of-action/). Producers want to be sure they are not in violation of any regulation, standard, or law. The FDA has provided several reasons why food and drug products can be red flagged on its [website](https://www.fda.gov/industry/actions-enforcement/import-alerts). Go through the listed reasons and assess where a violation might exist.
It is helpful to discuss the possibility of a violation with the production team.
If the product meets all the standards, having adequate information about the detention will give producers enough to challenge it. This provides enough data to take to the institution that can conduct detention testing on any product.
### 2. Conduct FDA Detention Testing
This is where the integrity of a product is established. To conduct detention testing, a sample of the product is taken to the laboratory for analysis and examination.
Finding an institution with the right people and resources to conduct detention testing is essential. The reason for this is simple. Not all laboratories meet the standards set by the FDA, and not all institutions can work with the FDA directly. That is where we come in.
At FSNS, we have a network of ISO 17025 certified laboratories, and we can conduct the required tests and analysis to ascertain if a product is in full compliance with all the FDA regulations.
We oversee sampling and shipping to laboratories for analysis. We also work directly with the FDA in submitting the required documents.
### 3. Provide Necessary Documents
To ensure the process goes smoothly, producers should produce the necessary documents. FSNS is recognized by the FDA, and this makes it easy for us to get the required documents across for administrative purposes.
### 4. Outline Ways to Avoid FDA Detention in the Future
An alert by the FDA can last for a year or more, but business must continue. This is vital when a product’s major market is in the United States.
To avoid future confiscation, getting a special permit or adjusting product ingredients may be necessary. A product can even boldly state on the label that it is free of those elements flagged by the FDA.
Then companies can return to the drawing board to find ways to position products better.
## How to Easily Get FDA Detention Testing for Detained Food Products
Years ago, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began to investigate pet food in connection with the rising number of pet deaths. The agency discovered melamine and melamine analogs in certain pet foods and traced the contamination to products labeled as ‘wheat gluten’ and ‘rice protein concentrate’ imported from China.
In response to this discovery, the agency issued Import [Alert #99-29](https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2019/11/import-actions-include-seafood-herbal-tea-vegetable-protein "Alert #99-29"), which authorized “the detention without physical examination of all vegetable protein products from China for animal or human food use, due to melamine and/or melamine analogs.”
Can we accurately say that all vegetable protein products from China contain melamine and/or melamine analogs?
In this type of situation, the solution is for producers to work with a reputable institution to conduct detention testing on their product to establish its integrity.
[Contact FSNS for FDA detention testing](https://fsns.com/contact-us/ "FSNS Locations | Contact Us") if you need help with a detained shipment.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [How To Create a Nutrition Facts Panel for My Product](https://fsns.com/how-to-create-a-nutrition-facts-panel/)
**Published:** May 15, 2026
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Reviewed By Tim Lombardo, Senior Director, Food Consulting Services,* [*EAS Consulting Group*](https://easconsultinggroup.com/)*, a* [*Certified Group*](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) *company*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Most packaged foods sold in the United States need a Nutrition Facts Panel unless a specific exemption applies.
- Start by confirming whether your product is regulated by FDA or USDA, because that determines which labeling rules apply.
- Serving size must follow [FDA’s Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed in 21 CFR 101.12](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-A/section-101.12), not a marketing preference.
- Recipe calculations and database tools can support early development, but [FDA guidance recommends basing final label values on laboratory analysis](https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-guide-developing-and-using-data-bases-nutrition-labeling).
- A Nutrition Facts Panel is only one part of a compliant food label; claims, ingredients, allergens, and other label elements matter, too.
---
## Start With the Right Question
Small businesses and entrepreneurs often ask us how to create a nutrition facts panel for a new product label. The better first question is whether the product needs one at all.
In most cases, the answer is yes. Most packaged foods sold in the United States must include a Nutrition Facts Panel unless a specific exemption applies. Once that question is answered, the next step is deciding how to generate label values you can support with confidence.
## Checklist: Do I Need a Nutrition Facts Panel?
Answer these questions in order before you begin the process of creating a Nutrition Facts Panel for your label.
- **Is my product regulated by FDA or USDA?** *(This determines which labeling rules apply to your product.)*
- **Do I need a Nutrition Facts Panel for this product?** *(Most packaged foods do, unless a specific exemption applies.)*
- **Does any exemption apply right now?** *(Some small businesses, low-volume products, and certain food types may qualify for an exemption.)*
- **Will that exemption still apply as I grow?** *(An exemption can be lost if sales increase, distribution expands, or claims are added.)*
- **What is the correct serving size for my product?** *(Serving size must follow FDA category rules, not marketing preference.)*
- **Am I making claims that need support or substantiation?** *(Claims such as “low sodium” or “good source of fiber” can trigger extra requirements.)*
- **Am I relying on estimates, or do I have final data?** *(Recipe calculations may help early on, but final commercial labels are often better supported by lab testing.)*
- **Does the rest of my label meet regulatory requirements?** *(The Nutrition Facts Panel is only one part of a compliant food label. Other requirements may include allergen declaration, type size requirements, and statement of identity.)*
## Is My Product Regulated by FDA or USDA?
Before you create a label, you need to know which federal agency regulates your product.
In the U.S., most packaged foods are regulated by the **[FDA](https://www.fda.gov/)**. That includes products such as:
- Sauces
- Snacks
- Baked goods
- Candy
- Beverages
- Shelf-stable foods
- Condiments
Some products fall under [USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/) instead, including:
- Meat products
- Poultry products
- Certain processed egg products
For most small food businesses, **FDA will be the correct starting point**. That matters because the labeling rules depend on the product category and who regulates it.
## Do I Need a Nutrition Facts Panel?
Usually, yes.
For most packaged foods, nutrition labeling is required **unless an exemption applies**. Some small businesses may qualify for an exemption, but exemptions are often narrow and can disappear as the business grows.
A Nutrition Facts Panel may still be required if:
- Your sales increase
- Your product no longer qualifies for a small business exemption
- You make a nutrition claim
- You make a health claim
- You do not meet the filing requirements tied to an exemption
Even when an exemption may apply, many businesses still choose to include a Nutrition Facts Panel because **retailers and shoppers expect to see one**. It is often easier to plan for the panel now than to redesign the label later.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/5e860e01-ca8d-439e-8791-840cc211eb7a)## Are There Exemptions to the Nutrition Facts Panel Requirement?
Sometimes, which FDA provides in its [Small Business Nutrition Labeling Exemption Guidance](https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/small-business-nutrition-labeling-exemption-guidance).
For small food businesses, the most common exemptions are:
- **Very small retailers** – annual gross sales to consumers of **$500,000 or less**, or annual sales of food to consumers of **$50,000 or less**. FDA says no notice is required for this exemption.
- **Low-volume products** – businesses with **fewer than 100 full-time equivalent employees** that sell **fewer than 100,000 units** of that product in the U.S. over 12 months. FDA says this exemption requires an annual notice.
- **Foods sold for immediate consumption** – products sold in places like restaurants and similar food service settings are generally exempt from standard Nutrition Facts Panel rules.
- **Raw fruits, vegetables, and fish** – these fall under a **voluntary** nutrition labeling program rather than the standard packaged-food requirement.
**There is one important catch:** exemptions are easy to lose. If you make a nutrient content claim, health claim, or provide other nutrition information in labeling or advertising, a small business exemption generally does not apply.
For many packaged food businesses, the safest assumption is still that a Nutrition Facts Panel will be needed.
## What Does a Nutrition Facts Panel Include?
For most FDA-regulated foods, the Nutrition Facts Panel must include the core nutrition information required under the [Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA)](https://www.fda.gov/nutrition-labeling-and-education-act-nlea-requirements-attachment-1):
- Serving size
- Servings per container
- Calories
- Total fat
- Saturated fat
- Trans fat
- Cholesterol
- Sodium
- Total carbohydrate
- Dietary fiber
- Total sugars
- Added sugars
- Protein
- Vitamin D
- Calcium
- Iron
- Potassium
Not every product will display every nutrient line the same way. If a nutrient is missing or present only in a very small amount, FDA may allow it to be shown as 0, listed as a very small amount, or, in some cases, left off the panel when the rules allow.
For example, a sauce with almost no fat may show **Total Fat 0g**, while a product with only a trace amount of vitamin D may exclude vitamin D completely if FDA allows it.
For more detail, see the [FDA nutrition labeling regulations](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-A/section-101.9).
## Why Serving Size Matters
A Nutrition Facts Panel is built around the serving size – and it’s not arbitrary.
FDA sets standard serving sizes for food categories using **Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed**, or **RACCs**. To find the right serving size for your product, start with [21 CFR 101.12](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-A/section-101.12), then use [21 CFR 101.9](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-A/section-101.9) for the labeling rules that apply to that serving size.
Serving size affects:
- Calories
- Sodium
- Sugars
- Percent Daily Values
- Whether some claims may be used
For example, FDA lists **salsa** under dips and similar products, with a reference amount of **2 tablespoons**. **Snack crackers** are generally based on a reference amount of **30 grams**. Those standard amounts are the starting point for the serving size shown on the label.
## How To Create a Nutrition Facts Panel for My Product?
There are three common ways to create nutrition label values:
- Recipe calculation
- Database analysis
- [Nutritional analysis lab testing](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/)
Recipe calculations and database analysis can be useful in the early stages because they are often faster and less expensive. But they are still estimates. Once you move into production, the finished product may test differently because of:
- Ingredient variation
- Moisture loss
- Oil uptake
- Cooking changes
- Yield differences
- Processing conditions
FDA does **not** require every company to use lab testing, and it does not prescribe a single method for determining nutrient values.
In [FDA’s nutrition labeling guidance](https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-guide-developing-and-using-data-bases-nutrition-labeling), the agency says the source of the data is the **“prerogative of the manufacturer,”** but its policy recommends label values be **“based on product composition, as determined by laboratory analysis of each nutrient.”**
That is why [nutritional lab testing](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/) from an [accredited food testing lab](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/) is preferred. It produces greater precision and increased defensibility.
## What Should I Send to the Lab?
Send the finished product in the form it will actually be sold.
That means your…
- formula
- manufacturing process
- fill weight
- final package form
…should be as close to final as possible before testing begins.
If you test a bench sample and later change the ingredients or process, the results may no longer reflect the final product. That can lead to retesting, relabeling, and extra cost.
Before sending samples, make sure you have decided:
- Final recipe
- Package size
- Product variants that need testing
- Whether you plan to make claims
- Whether the commercial process is locked
## What Should I Ask the Lab to Provide?
Your testing lab should provide:
- The analytical results as a Certificate of Analysis (COA)
- Nutrients needed for the panel
- Analytical test methods used
- Formatted Nutrition Facts Panel for application to your product label
- Added support if nutritional claims are involved
This helps you move from testing to a usable label more efficiently.
Be sure the [lab is ISO 17025 accredited](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/) and uses validated methods that are appropriate for nutrition analysis. [FSNS](https://fsns.com/) and [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), both [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) companies, check those boxes.
## How Claims Can Change the Project
Claims can make nutrition labeling more complicated. Terms such as the following are regulated by FDA and have specific definitions, not just marketing meaning:
- Low sodium
- No added sugar
- Sugar-free
- Good source of fiber
- High in protein
A few simple examples show why this matters:
- **Low sodium** means **140 mg or less of sodium** per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving.
- **Sugar-free** means **less than 0.5 g of sugars per serving** and must meet the other conditions in the regulation.
- **Good source** means **10% to 19% of the Daily Value** per serving.
- **High** or **excellent source** means **20% or more of the Daily Value** per serving.
Some claims also trigger extra requirements. For example, **no added sugar** is only allowed if no sugars, or ingredients that replace added sugars, are added during processing, and some products also need extra disclaimer wording.
That is why claim strategy should be decided before testing and why it’s important to [check the FDA regulations regarding claims and food labeling](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101).
## The Nutrition Facts Panel Is Not the Whole Label
While this article focuses on your Nutrition Facts Panel, we should point out that it doesn’t make the whole label necessarily compliant.
Most packaged foods also need:
- Statement of identity
- Net quantity of contents
- Ingredient list
- Allergen labeling when required
- Name and address of the responsible business
This is where small brands can run into trouble. They focus on the nutrition panel, but the full package still has to meet labeling requirements.
That is why an optional label review can be valuable before commercialization. A full label review from organization’s like [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), the regulatory consulting arm of [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), can help you evaluate whether the full package label meets applicable requirements before you go to print. EAS Consulting Group also conducts regularly scheduled [Food and Dietary Supplement Labeling Compliance Seminars](https://easconsultinggroup.com/events/seminars/food-and-dietary-supplement-labeling-compliance-seminar/).
That type of review can help catch issues with claims, ingredient declarations, allergen statements, and other required label elements before the product enters the market.
## What Influences Cost to Create a Nutrition Facts Panel for a Product?
For [nutritional analysis lab testing](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/), which is FDA’s recommended method per industry guidance, the cost for a single product with no label claims to support is **quite reasonable.**.
However, costs can increase with:
- **Multiple SKUs**
- **Complex product matrix** or many ingredients
- **Additional testing needed to support claims**
- You request **rush turnaround time**
A simple product with one SKU will usually cost less than a product line with multiple flavors, added nutrients, or claim-driven testing needs. That is why it is smart to define your final formula, SKU list, and claim strategy before sending samples to the lab.
[Contact FSNS for a custom quote for laboratory testing for your Nutrition Facts Panel.](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/food-nutrition-testing-labs)
[Contact EAS Consulting Group for a review of your food label, including the Nutrition Facts Panel.](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/foods/food-labeling-and-claims/)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/08cd1f6c-e5aa-4b2d-b34a-ceb8fedae050)## Nutrition Facts Panel FAQs
### **Do I need a Nutrition Facts Panel for my product?**+
In many cases, yes. Most packaged foods sold in the United States need a Nutrition Facts Panel unless a specific exemption applies. Small business exemptions may be available in some cases, but they can be limited and easy to lose.
### **How to create a nutrition facts panel for my product** +
You can get a nutrition panel through recipe calculations, database analysis, or [nutritional analysis lab testing](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/). For many small businesses, lab testing is the strongest option because it is based on the finished product and provides better support for commercial labeling.
### **Can I use recipe calculations instead of lab testing?** +
You can often use recipe calculations during product development. They are useful for early planning, but they may not reflect the final product after processing. That is why many businesses use lab testing before printing the final package.
### **What should I include on my Nutrition Facts Panel?** +
Under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) framework, the answer depends on the product, the serving size category, and whether you make any claims. For most FDA-regulated foods, the panel must include serving size, servings per container, calories, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrate, dietary fiber, total sugars, added sugars, protein, vitamin D, calcium, iron, and potassium. In some cases, a nutrient may be shown as 0, listed as a very small amount, or omitted if FDA allows it based on the amount present and the absence of related claims. That is why the testing scope should be based on the finished product as sold and the exact label strategy you plan to use.
### **Is the Nutrition Facts Panel the only part of the label I need?** +
No. The full package also needs other required elements, such as the product identity, net contents, ingredient list, allergen labeling when required, and the responsible firm’s name and address. An optional [regulatory label review](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/foods/food-labeling-and-claims/) can help reduce risk before commercialization.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [Certified Laboratories Expands Services with Cosmetic, OTC, & Supplement Testing at its Melville, N.Y., Laboratory](https://fsns.com/certified-laboratories-expands-services-with-cosmetic-otc-supplement-testing-at-its-melville-n-y-laboratory/)
**Published:** June 12, 2024
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
[](https://fsns.com/iso-19011/)
## [Remote Audits, AI, and Risk Take Center Stage in ISO 19011:2026 ](https://fsns.com/iso-19011/)
Reviewed By Reviewed and Approved by Kaci Foote, Accreditation Manager, FSNS Certification & Audit 1-Minute Summary ISO 19011:2026...
[read more](https://fsns.com/iso-19011/)
**Categories:** Press Release
**Tags:** cosmetics, OTC, supplements
---
### [How Listeria Strain Typing Supports Faster, Smarter Investigations ](https://fsns.com/listeria-strain-typing/)
**Published:** March 19, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Reviewed By:  Aaron Pleitner  Aaron Pleitner
Director of Microbiology Technical Services, Certified Group | Food safety scientist with deep expertise in microbial risk management, environmental monitoring, sanitation strategy, and product safety.
[See Full Bio](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/) [ ](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/)
### **1-Minute Summary**
- *Listeria* strain typing helps show whether product and environmental isolates are related, supporting faster source tracking and root cause analysis.
- In one case study, a manufacturer of deli meat used strain typing to link the product isolate to the slicer and conveyor, not a utensil positive, which helped them target the harborage site and apply purposeful mitigation efforts.
- In another case study, a manufacturer of ice cream used strain typing to support subtyping without species identification, reducing recall-related concern.
- In both cases, the data helped focus remediation by separating related contamination from unrelated positives, facilitating faster time to regaining hygienic control.
---
## *Listeria* Strain Typing Can Speed Your Investigation
A facility may find *Listeria* positives in several areas at once. But that does not necessarily mean every isolate is part of the same contamination event.
Some isolates may be related. Others may be unrelated background findings constituting different strains and species. Until you get answers, how do you know where to direct your remediation?
## Why *Listeria* Strain Typing Matters
This is where *Listeria* strain typing becomes valuable.
At a high level, *Listeria* strain typing is a source-tracking tool used to compare isolates and determine whether they are related.
That helps investigators move beyond simple detection and begin answering the questions that matter most.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/692bec61-0e8f-4196-ad70-c07f3e659a81)## What *Listeria* Strain Typing Can Help Reveal
Used correctly, *Listeria* strain typing can help determine:
- Whether a product isolate is related to environmental isolates.
- Whether repeat positives reflect one resident strain or several unrelated strains.
- Whether a specific piece of equipment may be acting as the source.
- Whether contamination reflects persistent harborage or transient sources and in-plant migration.
Those answers support more targeted corrective action and a faster return to control.
## A High-Level Look at the Approach
One approach uses the Bruker IR Biotyper®, which compares microbial isolates based on FT-IR spectra-generated fingerprints.
For *Listeria* investigations, that comparison can help facilities evaluate relatedness among isolates and direct remediation more efficiently. It can also be leveraged for historical purposes to understand the relatedness of one event to another.
Let’s look at two examples.
## Case Study One: Ready-to-Eat Sliced Deli Meat
A ready-to-eat sliced deli meat manufacturer faced a costly contamination event.
Multiple *Listeria monocytogenes* positives were found in finished product and on food-contact surfaces from the same production line. Product implicated by those positives, and product that had passed over the positive food-contact surfaces, was destroyed.
Production on the line stopped while the facility worked to identify the source.
The **key question** was whether the isolate found in the product was the same as any of the isolates recovered from the production environment.
## What the Analysis Showed
Purified cultures already confirmed as *Listeria monocytogenes* were prepared and compared.
The analysis revealed…
- Two major clusters (Cluster\_21 and Cluster\_13 in Figure 1).
- Four isolates (A, B, C, D in the image).
- A = the product isolate.
- B & D = environmental sponge samples from a slicer and attached conveyor.
- C = environmental sponge sample from a utensil.
*Listeria* strain typing using the Bruker IR Biotyper showed that isolate C was **not related** to the other three isolates.
### Figure 1. Bruker-Generated Dendrogram
## How the Facility Responded
Without [strain typing](https://fsns.com/strain-typing/), the positive utensil sample could have remained a major suspect, resulting in extended seek-and-destroy efforts and delaying confidence in regaining control.
Instead, the relatedness data pointed to the **slicer as the likely source of contamination** in the finished sliced deli meat.
The facility took the slicer out of commission, cleaned it thoroughly, and prepared it for return to service. After those actions, there were no further product positives for *Listeria monocytogenes*.
In this case, *Listeria* strain typing helped the facility identify the source so they could apply targeted remediation and return to full production in a safe manner.
## Case Study Two: Ice Cream Facility Monitoring *Listeria*-Like Organisms
A second case study involves an ice cream manufacturer conducting routine [environmental monitoring](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/) for ***Listeria* spp.** in its processing environment.
The facility was investigating *Listeria*-like isolates identified from rapid screening and isolation on selective media agar plates. It wanted to begin subtyping those organisms to determine whether it was dealing with one strain or multiple strains and to better understand contamination patterns over time.
## Why the Facility Wanted Subtyping Without Species Identification
Just as importantly, the facility did **not** want to know which *Listeria* species were present.
That distinction mattered for regulatory purposes. The facility wanted strain-level insight that could support source tracking and environmental mapping without moving into species identification that could tie the findings more directly to regulatory consequences.
This made [strain typing](https://fsns.com/strain-typing/) especially useful. It gave the facility a way to compare isolates, study persistence, and track contamination patterns. In doing so, species-identification was not necessary to identify harborage location(s) and apply remediation steps.
## What Strain Typing Revealed for the Ice Cream Manufacturer
The *Listeria*-like organisms collected over time were compared and grouped into **five distinct clusters**.
Those five clusters represented five different strains present in the facility.
Two clusters stood out (the top two orange clusters in Figure 2). The largest contained 19 isolates, and the second largest contained 8 isolates.
Those two larger clusters indicated that the facility had **two major resident strains** that had established harborage over time.
The remaining clusters were much smaller and suggested transient strains rather than long-term residents.
### Figure 2. Bruker-Generated Dendrogram
## Turning Results Into Action
The facility added the [strain typing](https://fsns.com/strain-typing/) information to the facility maps in its [EMP software](https://fsns.com/emma/).
That allowed the team to visualize where each strain was appearing and traveling throughout the plant and to better understand contamination distribution over time.
As more isolates were added, the team could evaluate whether a new positive reflected one of the known resident strains or a newly introduced strain.
### Figure 3. Facility Map Showing *Listeria*-Like Organisms
## What These Two Case Studies Show
These two cases highlight different but equally important applications of *Listeria* strain typing.
In the deli meat case study, [strain typing](https://fsns.com/strain-typing/) linked product and environmental isolates and helped pinpoint the slicer and attached conveyor as the likely contamination source, thus resulting in traceback and targeted remediation.
In the ice cream case study, [strain typing](https://fsns.com/strain-typing/) distinguished major resident strains from transient strains and helped the facility understand contamination patterns over time.
In both situations, the same principle applied:
- Determine which isolates are related.
- Remove uncertainty from the investigation.
- Focus remediation where it is most likely to solve the problem.
- Support a faster return to controlled production.
## Use *Listeria* Strain Typing to Support Faster, Smarter Investigations
*Listeria* strain typing helps facilities move beyond detection and toward real source tracking.
That can make investigations more efficient, remediation more targeted, and food safety programs more effective.
[Contact our Lab+ team](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) to learn how to add [microbial strain typing](https://fsns.com/strain-typing/) to your food safety arsenal.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/56cd1387-3858-49b1-90d2-68eb6a0df65c)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [Microbial Strain Typing: A Powerful Tool for Ensuring Food Safety](https://fsns.com/strain-typing/)
**Published:** May 12, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Reviewed By:  Aaron Pleitner  Aaron Pleitner
Director of Microbiology Technical Services, Certified Group | Food safety scientist with deep expertise in microbial risk management, environmental monitoring, sanitation strategy, and product safety.
[See Full Bio](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/) [ ](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/)
Are you struggling to find the root cause of repeat positives in your food facility’s production environment? Wasting time and money directing sanitation efforts only to keep getting positives? Feeling pressure to get a production line back up and running safely?
Microbial strain typing can help. It’s a powerful tool that food safety professionals use to help identify the root cause of frustrating repeat positives, conduct efficient traceback with informed seek & destroy efforts, and return to producing food products safely.
In this post, you will discover how strain typing differentiates between microbial isolates of pathogens like *Listeria*, *Salmonella*, and *E. coli*, and how it can help you identify the root cause of repeat positives so you can target your remediation efforts accordingly and take your [environmental monitoring program](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/) to the next level.
Let’s get started.
## What is Microbial Strain Typing?
Microbial strain typing is a **laboratory method used to identify and differentiate among microbial isolates**.
Several technologies exist that can identify **species** of microorganisms. However, there are several cases (such as when you get repeat positives) where it is helpful to classify organisms **beyond** the species level and discover whether two isolates of the same species are the **same or different strain**.
This is where strain typing enters the picture.
Microorganisms within the same species (for example, *Listeria monocytogenes* and *E. coli*) can have minor genetic differences, leading to different “strains” with varied characteristics and sources (for example, one *L. monocytogenes* strain may persist in a slicer harborage site while another appears only transiently from incoming raw materials; one *E. coli* strain may be a routine indicator organism while another is a Shiga toxin–producing strain such as *E. coli* O157:H7).
A useful analogy is to think of a species as a family’s shared last name, and individual strains as specific members of that family. They share common characteristics but remain distinguishable individuals.
Strain typing helps distinguish between these strains, aiding in the understanding of diverse microbial populations.
## Why Perform Microbial Source Tracking?
So, how can strain typing help your organization produce food products more safely and in a cost-effective manner?
There are multiple reasons to track a particular microorganism through the food production process, but we’ll look at three of the most common and helpful reasons:
### Identify a Pathogen Source
This is one of the most helpful uses of microbial strain typing. If you continue to get repeat positives from your production environment, you need to quickly identify the source so you can direct your remediation efforts effectively.
Otherwise, you could end up wasting time and money chasing the source without a complete picture of your target.
Strain typing helps decipher the origin of the pathogen and if it is persisting in your environment. It can tell you if the pathogen is **transient** and originates from your raw materials, personnel, or another source, or whether it’s coming from a **harborage site** in your facility.
This is critical information for uncovering the root cause and solving the problem for good.
### Identify a Spoilage Source
Maybe your product is spoiling prior to reaching the end of its normal shelf-life. Microbial strain typing helps identify the source of spoilage organisms, such as unsanitary equipment or contaminated raw materials.
This information helps you target and eliminate the source of the spoilage organisms so your products can achieve their maximum shelf-life. This, of course, helps you control costs while protecting your brand reputation.
### Track a Probiotic Through Your Process
There are also good microorganisms you may want to source-track, such as probiotics. Microbial strain typing allows you to determine if a probiotic starter culture is present in the finished product after packaging, providing insight into the effectiveness of your process.
## The Science Behind Microbial Strain Typing
Now, let’s look at the primary methods laboratories use to perform strain typing. Each has benefits and potential drawbacks for food product manufacturers, so it’s important to choose the right method to suit your goals.
### Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)
This is the gold standard for microbial strain typing. It’s the same technology that was used to sequence the human genome, so it must be right for you, correct?
Not necessarily.
WGS identifies the **complete** DNA sequence of an organism’s genome at a single time. It also allows for the detection of all types of genetic variation in a single experiment, providing the highest resolution for strain differentiation.
For food product manufacturers, however, WGS has significant drawbacks:
- Very expensive.
- Takes several days to weeks to complete.
- Identifies the **species** of the isolate, which is an issue if you identify a pathogen.
The third bullet point is important for food product manufacturers, so let’s take a closer look.
Understanding the *entire* genetic makeup of an isolate and its species allows that information to be tied to regulatory agency databases (FDA, USDA, CDC), which can link you to a foodborne illness outbreak.
Additionally, identifying the species can be an issue if you identify a pathogen and your products are already in commerce – this situation could trigger a recall. Furthermore, this information can be tied to other isolates, revealing all the virulence factors and antibiotic-resistance profiles.
For these reasons, many food product manufacturers choose not to use WGS even though it’s considered the gold standard of strain typing.
### Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE)
PFGE is a tried-and-true method of strain typing that has been around for many years.
It separates large DNA molecules by applying an electrical field through a sample of DNA suspended in place. The DNA, cut into fragments by specific restriction enzymes, migrates differently depending on its size and shape.
The resulting pattern – similar to a barcode (see image below) – is unique to each strain, enabling differentiation. It’s relatively inexpensive, but it takes several days to get results. Also, it can be used with a limited number of organisms.
Importantly, like Whole Genome Sequencing, it requires identifying the species of the microorganism, which has drawbacks as we have discussed.
### Ribotyping
Ribotyping is a genetic “fingerprinting” method used to identify and differentiate bacterial species and strains. It targets the genes that code for the 16S ribosomal RNA in bacteria.
These genes are highly conserved, meaning they remain largely unchanged through evolution. However, they contain certain hypervariable regions that can differ significantly between different strains.
A ribotyping procedure involves extracting DNA, amplifying the 16S rRNA genes, and then comparing the patterns of these genes using a barcode, similar to PFGE.
Ribotyping is a faster, relatively less expensive method compared to WGS and PFGE. However, it can also inadvertently identify the species of the microorganism during the process.
### Phenotypic Fingerprinting
So, how can food product manufacturers perform microbial strain typing in a way that doesn’t identify the species but still provides detailed information at the subspecies level? That leads us to the next method – phenotypic fingerprinting, specifically using the Bruker IR Biotyper®.
This method involves the use of infrared spectroscopy to produce a unique spectral fingerprint of a microbial strain based on its phenotypic properties. Phenotype refers to the observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism.
This allows for the comparison of multiple isolates without identifying the species, which offers benefits to food manufacturers, as we explained earlier.
For example, in a ready-to-eat facility, this technology allows you to make comparisons for “*Listeria*-like” organisms without identifying the species. This is critical for regulatory purposes since *Listeria* spp. may not implicate a product while *Listeria monocytogenes* will.
So, how does phenotypic fingerprinting with the Bruker IR Biotype work?
The data is analyzed with hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and results are displayed as a dendrogram or distance matrix. This allows you to see clusters of isolates and determine relatedness. This is the key to the analysis and allows you to make comparisons to determine if any isolates are related.
### How Strain Typing Data Helps You
Now that you have all this data generated through strain typing, what do you do with it?
- Visualize the relatedness of positives, helping you **direct your sanitation efforts effectively and eliminate the root cause** of the problem. This can be added to any [heat map profiling done with EMP data](https://fsns.com/emma/ "Environmental Monitoring Software for Food Manufacturers ").
- **Determine if isolates from a major contamination event are related** (e.g. an event day for a slaughter facility).
- **Determine if spoilage issues in final products are originating from a particular raw material or manufacturing harborage area** without having to identify the organisms.
The Bruker IR Biotyper® method of microbial strain typing offers several advantages over the other methods discussed, which is why we frequently recommend it to our clients. In addition to providing information at the subspecies level without identifying the species, it produces results in a matter of hoursand is relatively less expensive than other methods. This enables you to run more isolates.
In fact, [one beef slaughter plant ran 68 isolates in under 6 hours using this technology](https://eadn-wc05-2540179.nxedge.io/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Bruker-IR-Case-Study_1122.pdf), which helped them identify the source of *E. coli* O157:H7 in their plant so they could target their decontamination efforts and return to making food products safely.
## Leverage Strain Typing to Improve Your Food Safety Program
Microbial strain typing represents a powerful tool for food manufacturers, helping you get to the bottom of repeat positives once and for all.
By understanding and harnessing this technology, you can improve your ability to detect and mitigate microbial risks, ultimately protecting your consumers and brand. In an industry where consumer trust is paramount, using advanced techniques like microbial strain typing can make all the difference.
[Our strain typing experts are happy to answer your questions and help you discover how this technology can help you](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/#Quote-Form).
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [Safe Feed/Safe Food Version 8: Key Changes for Certified Feed Facilities](https://fsns.com/safe-feed-safe-food-certification/)
**Published:** May 12, 2026
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Kaci Foote, Accreditation Manager, FSNS Certification & Audit*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Safe Feed/Safe Food Version 8 is intended to clarify requirements, eliminate redundancy, and define written procedure expectations more clearly.
- Overall certification requirements are generally the same, but the structure has changed.
- Version 8 includes 12 main categories with 62 clauses, plus a separate category and clause for the Safe Feed/Safe Food seal.
- Version 7.0 had 29 mandatory clauses. Version 8 replaces them with 26 core requirements that carry higher nonconformance scores.
- Facility ratings such as Excellent, Good, and Compliant have been removed, but audit scores still affect certification cycles.
- Minor and major audit findings now have a standardized response time of 40 business days but can depend upon the Certification Body’s internal requirements.
- A new Safe Feed/Safe Food Certified Warehouse, Storage and Distribution certification option is available for non-manufacturing operations.
---
## What Changed in Safe Feed/Safe Food Version 8?
[Safe Feed/Safe Food Version 8 has been released](https://www.safefeedsafefood.org/resources/safe-feed-safe-food-certified-facility-program-update/), with implementation expected by June 1, 2026. Facilities with Safe Feed/Safe Food certification – or those preparing for certification – should review the updated requirements before their next audit.
First, take a sigh of relief – **overall certification requirements remain the same in Version 8**. However, the updated standard does reorganize and clarify the program so facilities can better understand what must be documented, implemented, audited, and maintained.
Our FSNS Certification & Audit team breaks down the key changes below. [FSNS C&A is a Safe Feed/Safe Food Certifying Body](https://www.safefeedsafefood.org/about/safe-feed-safe-food-certification/), so contact us to schedule your audit.
CTA Button: \[[Schedule Your Safe Feed/Safe Food Audit Today](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)\]
## Safe Feed/Safe Food Version 8 At a Glance
**Version 7** **Version 8** 83 clauses 62 clauses 29 mandatory clauses 26 core requirements Ratings assigned Ratings removed Minor/major response times varied 40 business days Guidance included in requirement text Guidance moved to Appendix B ## Guidance Information Moved to Appendix B
Version 8 separates guidance from the requirements text. Guidance information has been removed from the requirements and placed in [Appendix B of the Safe Feed/Safe Food Certified Facility Guidance Document](https://www.afia.org/pub/?id=0c144856-ab2d-d798-b45e-8eb6aed8aae8). This should make the auditable requirements easier for facilities and auditors to identify.
## Key Safe Feed/Safe Food Version 8 Changes – FSC36 Removed
Version 8 now refers to the business seeking certification as the “facility” instead of the “supplier.” It also replaces the term “vendor” with “supplier.” Facilities should update internal documents, supplier packets, audit preparation materials, and customer-facing references as needed.
The update also removes references to FSC36. FSC codes are assigned to SQFI certifications, and Safe Feed/Safe Food is not an SQFI certification. AFIA continues to work closely with SQFI on the registration and certification processes.
## Safe Feed/Safe Food Certification Version 8 Change Map
## Requirements are Reorganized and Streamlined
Version 7.0 included 83 clauses. Version 8 includes 12 main categories with 62 clauses, plus a separate category and clause for the Safe Feed/Safe Food seal. The intent is to clarify the requirements and eliminate redundancy.
The 12 main Version 8 categories are:
1. Management Commitment
2. Quality and Animal Food Safety System
3. Personnel
4. Facility Operations
5. Finished Product Realization
6. Infrastructure and Maintenance
7. Pest Management and Control
8. Verification Activities
9. Internal Audits
10. Suppliers for Materials and Services
11. Animal Food Safety Programs and Requirements
12. Requirements for a Hazard Requiring a Preventive Control
This structure should make the requirements easier to navigate, but sites should update internal audit checklists and gap assessments to match the new organization.
## Safe Feed/Safe Food Version 8 Core Requirements Replace Mandatory Clauses
Version 7.0 had 29 mandatory clauses. Version 8 replaces them with 26 clauses identified as **core requirements**.
Core requirements carry higher nonconformance scores than other clauses:
- Minor nonconformance: 3 points for core requirements vs. 1 point for other clauses.
- Major nonconformance: 10 points for core requirements vs. 7 points for other clauses.
Certified facilities should identify each core requirement and confirm that supporting evidence is ready, including current procedures, complete records, assigned responsibilities, training evidence, and corrective action documentation where applicable.
## Rating Scores No Longer Assigned in Safe Feed/Safe Food Version 8
Version 8 removes facility ratings such as Excellent, Good, and Compliant. SF/SF explains that ratings could discourage facilities and auditors from reporting nonconformities, even though findings should help facilities drive continuous improvement.
Audit scores still matter. Facilities that score above 85 are compliant for two years. Facilities that score 70 to 85 are compliant for one year.
## Surveillance Audits Are Pass/Fail
Surveillance audits are not scored and are recorded as Pass/Fail. During the surveillance audit year, the facility maintains the score obtained during the last on-site audit. Facilities should confirm surveillance audit expectations with their certification body when planning their audit cycle.
## Corrective Action Timelines Have Changed
Version 8 standardizes the response time for minor and major audit findings to **40 business days**.
Certification bodies must make the audit report available to the facility **within 30 days from the last day of the audit**. However, this also depends on the Certification Body’s internal requirements.
These changes are intended to give facilities and certification bodies more time to report and respond effectively. Sites should update corrective action procedures, internal tracking tools, and certification planning timelines.
## Audit Report Timing Has Changed
Version 7 required the certification body to provide the audit report within 14 calendar days from the last day of the audit.
Safe Feed/Safe Food Version 8 changes this to **15 business days**.
Sites should account for this timing when planning customer updates, certification renewals, and management review activities.
## Safe Feed/Safe Food Requires More Written Procedures
Safe Food/Safe Feed Version 8 more clearly defines when written documents, policies, or procedures are required. At least 20 clauses require written documentation if applicable to the facility.
For many facilities, this may be the most important preparation step. If a process is being followed but is not clearly documented, Version 8 may create an audit gap.
## Manufacturing and Warehouse Certification Paths Are Clearer
The guidance more clearly states that Safe Feed/Safe Food Certified Facility certification applies to manufacturing facilities, not warehouses.
Facilities may mark some clauses as not applicable when appropriate. However, if more than 18 clauses, or 30%, are listed as not applicable, the facility is not eligible for certification. Certification bodies are responsible for ensuring the number of N/A clauses does not exceed 18.
Version 8 also introduces a Safe Feed/Safe Food Certified Warehouse, Storage and Distribution certification option. Warehouses, storage facilities, and distribution facilities may use the SFSFv8 program guidance document with the Warehouse, Storage and Distribution audit form, which uses fewer clauses and provides a different certification seal.
## Traceability and Mock Recall Requirements Are Separate
Version 8 clarifies that product traceability is different from a mock recall. A traceability exercise is required annually. A mock recall is also required annually to assess the recall procedure and its effectiveness.
## Supplier Specification Requirements Are Clearer
Specifications for materials used in manufacturing must be provided to suppliers. Facilities must maintain a record of the supplier’s acceptance or approval. A facility may use the supplier’s specifications if it maintains a record noting its acceptance.
## HRPC Corrective Actions Are Separated
Version 8 separates [corrective actions](https://fsns.com/verifying-the-corrective-action-effectiveness/ "Verifying the Corrective Action Effectiveness") for audit nonconformities from corrective actions for hazards requiring a preventive control. Facilities should review their animal food safety plan, hazard analysis, preventive control records, and corrective action procedures to ensure the difference is clear.
## The QFS Leader Role Is More Central
Safe Feed/Safe Food Version 8 replaces the previous standalone PCQI clause with a requirement for the Quality and Food Safety Leader. The QFS Leader must still be a Preventive Controls Qualified Individual.
Facilities should confirm that the QFS Leader is identified, trained, qualified, and involved in the animal food safety system. Our [FSPCA Preventive Controls for Animal Food Course](https://fsns.com/product/fspca-preventive-controls-for-animal-food/) provides FDA-recognized PCQI animal food training.
## How Certified Facilities Should Prepare for Their Next Safe Feed/Safe Food Audit
Sites with Safe Feed/Safe Food certification should focus on a few practical actions before the next audit:
1. Confirm whether your site is eligible as a manufacturing facility or should pursue warehouse/storage/distribution certification.
2. Update internal audit tools to match Version 8 categories and clause numbers.
3. Identify all 26 core requirements.
4. Review written procedures and instructions.
5. Confirm QFS Leader and PCQI documentation.
6. Separate traceability exercise records from mock recall records.
7. Review supplier specification and acceptance records.
8. Update corrective action procedures to reflect the 40-business-day timeline.
9. Plan audit scheduling, report timing, and recertification milestones.
## The Bottom Line on Safe Feed/Safe Food Certification Under Version 8
Safe Feed/Safe Food Version 8 is primarily a clarification and documentation-focused update. The requirements are generally the same, but the structure, terminology, written procedure expectations, scoring approach, and certification options have changed.
For certified facilities, the priority is to understand the new structure, prepare for core requirement scoring, update written procedures, and confirm that the quality and animal [food safety system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/ "Food Safety Management System: 11 Proven Steps") is ready before the next audit.
[Contact our Certification & Audit team with questions or to schedule a Safe Feed/Safe Food certification audit.](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** Certification and audit
---
### [Creating Novel Foods? Know the Microbiological Safety Risks](https://fsns.com/creating-novel-foods-know-the-microbiological-safety-risks/)
**Published:** April 29, 2026
**Author:** Aaron Pleitner
**Content:**
Aaron Pleitner Director of Microbiology Technical Services
Director of Microbiology Technical Services, Certified Group | Food safety scientist with deep expertise in microbial risk management, environmental monitoring, sanitation strategy, and product safety. [See Full Bio](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/) [ ](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/)
[  ](https://www.linkedin.com/in/aaron-pleitner-ph-d-322b8b55/)
New foods introduce fresh flavors, new benefits, and new customers. But novel formulations also raise safety questions that need answers long before a product reaches the shelf. [Aaron Pleitner, PhD, Director of Microbiology Technical Services at Certified Group](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/), shares key considerations for evaluating the safety of emerging ingredients and new food concepts.
## What are the first food safety issues innovators should consider when developing a new or unconventional formulation?
Take it back to the basics! Start with reviewing the known foodborne pathogens and assess their likelihood for prevalence within ingredients and environments pertaining to the new or unconventional formulation.
Understand that you may be developing a new product that no longer uses the longstanding intrinsic or extrinsic factors in more traditional products.
Further, with novel functional ingredients and products, the full lifecycle for generation of those ingredients should be taken into consideration to facilitate an innovator employing “smart design” to manage that hazard.
## Novel Foods Safety Considerations
## How can formulators identify the right microbial hazards for ingredients with limited data, such as emerging botanicals?
Discuss and partner with your ingredient suppliers!
Increasingly, the industry is relying upon supply chain preventive controls to provide multiple hurdles of management for microbiological risk. In understanding the process that goes into making the ingredient as well as the control applied, a more educated approach can be taken to identifying potential hazards of control.
Further, a holistic approach should be taken for both overall microbiological presence as well as targeted pathogens of concern in the ingredients. Hygiene indicators and background microflora testing isn’t just for [environmental samples](https://fsns.com/environmental-sampling-best-practices/ "Environmental Sampling Best Practices"). Collecting historical data around Total Plate Count (TPC), *Enterobacteriaceae*, and Aerobic/Anaerobic Sporeformer testing across multiple production batches from different seasons and geographical regions can provide insight into how abundant the microbiological flora is in the ingredient. This helps define data-driven food microbiology criteria for ingredients/product and will facilitate a right fit for routine [microbiology testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and tolerance limits while helping to predict prevalence and abundance with upper limits from batch to batch.
Lastly, either employ the expertise in-house or leverage existing databases for thorough recall and outbreak history for similar ingredients, including botanicals, as it pertains to sourcing and production, in order to approach things in an educated fashion.
## When is routine testing not enough, and when should teams plan for custom studies like challenge tests or thermal validation?
Overall, routine testing is only a verification of controls and assurance that the finished product design can tolerate the microbiological populations. To define the robustness for the product formulation in-market, a [challenge study](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/) should be conducted for novel formulations to, most importantly, protect the consumer as well as the brand reputation of the company.
Further, a food safety expert and process authority should be leveraged to determine if a thermal process is validated for the formulation in question or if additional process validation work is needed to have confidence in the critical control points in a food safety program.
## How useful is comparing a new ingredient to similar foods when assessing potential hazards and safety expectations?
It can be a great start toward proper risk assessment. Leveraging existing data on like-for-like products facilitates faster and more accurate identification of potential hazards and an understanding of the robustness of interventions.
Having said that, it is critical to partner or employ in-house a seasoned microbiologist who can perform risk assessments and has the wherewithal to apply data from similar products/ingredients to the new ingredient (if possible).
Additionally, applying existing data to new ingredients can be possible and is common; however, verification through testing and monitoring programs is a key pillar to include in programs to constantly confirm these assumptions.
> “Leveraging existing data on like-for-like products facilitates faster and more accurate identification of potential [hazards and an understanding](https://fsns.com/unmasking-biological-food-hazards-guide-to-understanding-and-preventing-risks/) of the robustness of interventions.”
>
> – Aaron Pleitner, PhD | Director of Microbiology Technical Services, Certified Group
## How does understanding the production process, including hot holding and pH shifts, help determine the correct kill step or validation needs?
It is paramount to have a thorough understanding. All intrinsic characteristics of a formulation can have an impact on the adequacy of kill steps.
Specifically, pH; moisture content; starting temperature; and macronutrients of fat, carbohydrates, and protein can all have an impact on both thermal conductivity of the food material as well as bacterial susceptibility or tolerance to mechanisms of inactivation, like thermal treatment. It is critical to assess each of these factors individually as well as synergistically to determine if validation is needed for a new or updated formulation.
## Why do plant‑based or high‑fat beverages require different time and temperature targets for microbial reduction than dairy products?
Plant-based matrices may need adjusted time and temperature targets when compared to dairy products. The reason for this is both microbiological as well as pertaining to quality and sensory.
Starting with quality, the viscosity and thermal conductivity of an almond paste in solution is going to exhibit different behaviors physically when pumping through production lines than a fluid milk that has gone through a homogenizer. With varying viscosities, resultant flow rates and thermal conductivity throughout the material, the time and temperature for either a plate heat exchanger or tube-in-tube process are going to vary to prevent scorching or unwanted caramelization of sugars.
Secondly, speaking specifically to microbiological behavior, differing salts and sugar content, available moisture and fat contents and types (i.e. saturated vs unsaturated) are going to provide either protective insulation against high temperature or provide increased sensitivity based on these factors.
A very clear example of this is [the tolerance that *Salmonella* has exhibited for high temperature in low moisture products](https://fsns.com/presence-persistence-salmonella-dry-conditions/ "How Salmonella Survives in Low Moisture Foods – and What You Can Do About It") compared with a high moisture food matrix. High sugar, low moisture, and high fat matrices are all facilitating similar benefits toward microbiological populations whereupon the limitation of unbound water results in bacterial resilience towards thermal processes.
## How should companies factor real consumer behavior into safety evaluations, especially for products left unrefrigerated or stored after opening?
We live in a fast-paced world where convenience is king. In addition to this, however, consumers are also demanding nutritious options along with this convenience.
Novel formulation is at this intersection of fulfilling consumer expectations. Primary packaging and product artwork is the place to provide succinct yet detailed instructions to the customer, ensuring that at the time of consumption, the product meets both the intended quality and safety.
Advertising and product packaging are the primary vehicles to educate the consumer and bring awareness on how to handle products. There is a reason why package instructions require rigorous review. Product handling and heat/re-heating need to be prescriptive and clearly visible – but not onerous.
This is where an in-depth understanding of how a product formulation will hold up during instances of temperature abuse is crucial as part of product design. Instruction to the consumer for refrigeration after opening or after hydration will facilitate decreasing the likelihood of product decline.
Also, an understanding of the manufacturing site that is producing the product at time of commerciliazation and scaling is paramount to apply either re-heat or cook instructions on the label (based on if the site is an RTE, RTC, or raw facility).
All in all, cross-collaboration and partnership with product formulators, food safety experts, and operations is critical to adequately design, scale, and produce novel products. Strong partnerships protect product quality and safety by pairing [microbiological risk assessment expertise](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/ "Food Microbiology Testing") with verification testing and monitoring across ingredients, formulation, unit operations, and on-shelf conditions.
Talk to our team about designing a [shelf life study](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/), [challenge study](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/), [process validation](https://fsns.com/process-validation/), or other [contract research project to help ensure the safety and quality of your novel foods](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/)!
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [How to Prepare for an SQF Certification Audit ](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-an-sqf-certification-audit/)
**Published:** April 30, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Kaci Foote,* [*FSNS Certification & Audit*](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) *Accreditation Manager*
### 1-Minute Summary
- SQF requires highly detailed procedures with clearly defined responsibilities.
- SOPs must move beyond general statements to outline exactly who does what and how.
- A designated SQF practitioner (and backup) must lead your program.
- Internal audits, employee training, and real-world implementation are key to audit success.
## What to Expect During an SQF Certification Audit
Unlike some [food safety standards](https://fsns.com/food-safety-standards-guide/) that may focus more on policy, SQF emphasizes assigning responsibility, demonstrating control, and maintaining the system over time. Fulfilling these responsibilities is key to preparing for your SQF food safety certification audit.
Don’t be overwhelmed, however – if your site operates with food safety at its core, the audit becomes a formal review of what you already do. With the right preparation and focus, you can approach your [SQF audit](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) with confidence.
We provide steps for preparing for a successful SQF [food safety audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
## Step 1: Choose the Right Code Based on Your Food Sector Category (FSC)
Your first step is determining which [SQF Food Sector Category (FSC)](https://www.sqfi.com/our-program/certification-programs) applies to your facility. SQF divides its standards into industry-specific categories. Most food manufacturers fall under “[Food Manufacturing](https://www.sqfi.com/the-sqf-code/choose-your-code/library-of-codes/food-manufacturing),” but the others include:
- Primary Animal Production
- Primary Plant Production
- Aquaculture
- Animal Product Manufacturing
- Dietary Supplements
- Pet Food
- Animal Feed
- Manufacture of Food Packaging
- Storage & Distribution
- Food Retail
- Foodservice
- Quality
Choosing the FSC for your site determines which [SQF Code](https://www.sqfi.com/the-sqf-code/choose-your-code/code-selector/) you’ll follow, so it’s critical to select the right one before registering (the next step).
## Step 2: Register and Appoint an SQF Practitioner
All sites pursuing [SQF certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) must register in the [SQF database](https://www.sqfi.com/directories/sqf-assessment-database). **This step officially starts your audit process.**
Next, assign an SQF practitioner – a trained internal employee responsible for developing and maintaining your [food safety system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/). You must also designate a backup practitioner. Contractors or consultants cannot fill these roles.
While not mandatory, it’s strongly encouraged that your SQF practitioner complete an [SQF implementation course](https://fsns.com/product/implementing-sqf-systems-ed-9-and-internal-auditing-training-course/) to fully understand the code’s structure, expectations, and audit process. [HACCP training](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/), meanwhile, is a prerequisite and must be completed.
FSNS offers [food safety training courses](https://fsns.com/resources/education/), both virtual (live, instructor-led) and in-person, so check our schedule.
## Step 3: Write Detailed Procedures with Clear Responsibilities
SQF is especially focused on specific, actionable procedures. Every mandatory clause in the code ties methods to responsibilities.
This means that your SOPs must be specific and detail what must be done and by whom. In a cleaning SOP, for example, simply writing “Clean food contact surfaces daily” lacks necessary detail. Add information such as…
- Exact surfaces to be cleaned.
- Specific cleaning agents and tools.
- Frequency and sequence of cleaning.
- The job title(s) responsible for each task.
Some sites use generic templates from third-party programs and simply add their company name and a few other details. These tools are a good start, but your procedures must be tailored to your facility and verified on the production floor. Implementation is just as important as documentation.
## Step 4: Understand SQF Mandatory Clauses and Scoring
SQF includes mandatory clauses, similar in concept to BRCGS’s fundamental clauses, [which we talk about in this article about preparing for a BRCGS audit](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-a-brcgs-food-safety-audit/). These are non-negotiable; failure to comply can result in point deductions and, ultimately, audit failure.
Let’s look at the [SQF Food Safety Code: Food Manufacturing Edition 9](https://www.sqfi.com/the-sqf-code/choose-your-code/library-of-codes/food-manufacturing) as an example. It lists the Mandatory Clauses as follows:
Make sure you read and [understand these clauses prior to your SQF certification audit](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/).
**Note:** SQF Code Edition 10 is on the horizon. We will reach out to our customers with updates once it is implemented.
## Step 5: Conduct a Gap Analysis and Internal Audit
An SQF gap analysis is essential to identify areas that need improvement before the audit. Start with a desk audit of reviewing the standard and comparing your site’s procedures and processes. This is where our [complimentary SQF audit checklist (FSC: Food Manufacturing)](https://info.fsns.com/sqf-audit-checklist-download) can help you.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/1c216274-b691-4d60-b5df-e409e5d00683)We also offer an [SQF checklist for the Animal Product Manufacturing category](https://info.fsns.com/sqf-animal-product-audit-checklist-download).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/1ff47086-428a-4178-8e38-3daa4814c747)Pair this with a full internal audit that mirrors the structure and depth of a formal SQF audit.
- **Walk the facility like an auditor.** Check documentation and observe operations in real time. Are written procedures being followed?
- **Test your documentation.** Are logs, monitoring records, and corrective action reports complete and updated?
- **Ask employees food safety questions.** Can they explain their role in food safety? If not, address these training gaps with them so they are confident and prepared for the real thing.
- **Look for trends in your data.** If you’re monitoring sanitation effectiveness, can you show trending data that proves consistent performance?
Be your own worst critic at this stage. Your goal is to uncover and correct any inconsistencies between what’s written and what’s actually happening. If a deviation is found, document it, implement a corrective action, and verify that it was resolved.
## Step 6: Consider Including the Optional Quality Code
The [SQF Quality Code](https://www.sqfi.com/the-sqf-code/choose-your-code/library-of-codes/quality) is optional but highly recommended for companies aiming for a comprehensive system that includes both food safety and quality.
Adding it:
- Reinforces commitment to continuous improvement.
- Strengthens product quality systems.
- Allows use of the SQF Quality Shield in marketing.
If your products rely on consistent quality as much as safety, the Quality Code is worth pursuing.
## Step 7: Final SQF Certification Audit Readiness Check
In the final week before your SQF certification audit, shift into maintenance mode. You should be verifying systems, not creating them at the last minute.
Here’s your final checklist:
- Are all procedures and records current, accurate, and accessible?
- Can your traceability system track ingredients quickly and completely?
- Have all corrective actions from your internal audit been closed out?
- Are employees prepared for auditor questions and facility walkthroughs?
A facility that’s audit-ready every day doesn’t need to panic the day before.
## Prepare and… Relax!
An SQF certification audit is your opportunity to demonstrate that food safety is embedded in how you work every day. If your documentation is strong, your people are trained, and your procedures are followed on the floor, your SQF certification audit will simply be a way to demonstrate what you already do each day, not a source of anxiety.
For help with SQF readiness checks, internal audits, pre-assessments, or certification services, contact [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/). We’re here to guide you every step of the way.
Need proof? [Find out how we conducted an SQF audit for Hilmar on short notice after their previous CB cancelled.](https://fsns.com/short-notice-sqf-audit-keeps-hilmars-certification-plans-on-track/)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** Certification and audit, GFSI, SQF
---
### [Top 10 Reasons for an SQF Audit Non-Conformity [2025]](https://fsns.com/top-10-reasons-for-an-sqf-audit-non-conformity-data/)
**Published:** September 3, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) performs hundreds of food safety certification audits each year, including for [SQF certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/). We compiled a list of the top 10 reasons for an SQF audit non-conformity that our auditors see to help you prepare for your next audit.
We found that many non-conformities overlap. For example, a non-conformity for improper storage of chemicals is often associated with a non-conformity for improper cleaning or sanitation. This information can help you identify areas that tend to be overlooked so you can ensure your processes are ready to pass your next audit.
Below, we provide the SQF code (edition 9) clause and item for each of the top 10 non-conformities. Here’s the full list:
## 10) Document Control – 2.2.2.1
*The methods and responsibility for maintaining document control and ensuring staff have access to current requirements and instructions shall be documented and implemented.*
*Current SQF System documents and amendments to documents shall be maintained.*
**Common Problems:**
- Lack of identification for controlled documents.
- Incorrect revision date.
- Lack of reasons for revisions.
- Incorrect version of a controlled document in use.
**Considerations:**
- Who has access to edit controlled documents?
- What is the review and approval process? Does this include removing obsolete documents and verifying the accuracy of the log?
- Is a thorough verification process/internal audit in place?
## 9) Internal Audits – 2.5.4.1
*The methods and responsibility for scheduling and conducting internal audits to verify the effectiveness of the SQF System shall be documented and implemented. Internal audits shall be conducted in full and at least annually. The methods applied shall ensure:*
*i. All applicable requirements of the SQF Food Safety Code: Food Manufacturing are audited per the SQF audit checklist or a similar tool;
ii. Objective evidence is recorded to verify compliance and/or non-compliance;
iii. Corrective and preventative actions of deficiencies identified during the internal audits are undertaken; and
iv. Audit results are communicated to relevant management personnel and staff responsible for implementing and verifying corrective and preventative actions.*
**Common Problems:**
- Evidence of conformity not included in internal audit.
- Internal audits not performed at stated frequency.
- Corrective actions not available for non-conformities identified.
**Considerations:**
- Are internal auditors trained on the SQF internal auditor requirements?
- What processes are in place to review/approve internal audits?
Download our SQF Audit Checklists to help prepare for your audit. We have two checklists available, depending on your Food Sector Category:
[**SQF Audit Checklist for Food Sector Categories 10-22, 25, & 33**](https://info.fsns.com/sqf-audit-checklist-download)
[](https://info.fsns.com/sqf-audit-checklist-download)[**SQF Audit Checklist for Food Sector Categories 7-9**](https://info.fsns.com/sqf-animal-product-audit-checklist-download)
[](https://info.fsns.com/sqf-animal-product-audit-checklist-download)## 8) Temporary Repairs – 11.2.1.6
*Temporary repairs, where required, shall not pose a food safety risk and shall be included in routine inspections (refer to 2.5.4.3) and the cleaning program. There shall be a plan in place to address the completion of temporary repairs to ensure they do not become permanent solutions.*
**Common Problems:**
- Lack of documentation for temporary repairs made.
- Unauthorized temporary repairs.
**Considerations:**
- Are employees trained on what constitutes a temporary repair and how they should be handled? All employees?
- Are supervisors trained to continually monitor their areas for temporary repairs?
- Is management informed when temporary repairs are made? Every time?
## 7) Equipment Design and Construction – 11.1.7.2/9.1.7.2
*Equipment and utensils shall be designed, constructed, installed, operated, and maintained to meet any applicable regulatory requirements and to not pose a contamination threat to products.*
**Common Problems:**
- Damaged/rusted equipment.
- Equipment construction or repairs not easily cleanable (welds, stickers, modifications).
- Temporary repairs.
**Considerations:**
- Are sanitation and pre-op personnel trained on equipment condition expectations?
- Does post-maintenance inspection include an inspection for cleanability or damage?
- Is management informed when equipment modifications made?
## 6) Hazard Analysis – 2.4.3.7
Number six on the list of common SQF audit non-conformities involves incomplete hazard analyses for the [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/)/food safety flow diagrams. Number five on the list below is directly related.
*The food safety team shall identify and document all food safety hazards that can reasonably be expected to occur at each step in the processes, including raw materials and other inputs.*
**Common Problems:**
- Hazard analysis did not address each step in the flow diagram.
- Ingredient hazard analysis not completed.
**Considerations:**
- Who is involved in HACCP Reassessment? Is appropriate time devoted to a thorough review?
## 5) HACCP/Food Safety Plan Flow Diagram – 2.4.3.6
*The food safety team shall develop and document a flow diagram covering the scope of each food safety plan. The flow diagram shall include every step in the process, all raw materials, packaging, service inputs (e.g., water, steam, gasses as applicable), scheduled process delays, and all process outputs including waste and rework. Each flow diagram shall be confirmed by the food safety team to cover all stages and hours of operation.*
**Common Problems:**
- Flow charts missing required information, including introduction of processing aids and waste removal and rework.
**Considerations:**
- How often are flow diagrams reviewed? Who is involved in flow diagram review?
[](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/)## 4) Records Maintenance – 2.2.3.2
Number four on our list of top 10 reasons for an SQF audit non-conformity has to do with recordkeeping.
*All records shall be legible and confirmed by those undertaking monitoring activities that demonstrate inspections, analyses, and other essential activities that have been completed.*
**Common Problems:**
- Forms (metal detector, receiving, master sanitation) not filled out, filled out incorrectly/missing information, mark-outs/white-out used.
**Considerations:**
- Is recordkeeping training provided to ALL personnel filling out records? How often is this done?
- Who reviews these records?
- Are records included in periodic internal audits?
## 3) Hazardous Chemicals and Toxic Substances – 9.6.4.1/11.6.4.1
*Hazardous chemicals and toxic substances with the potential for food contamination shall be:*
*i. Clearly labeled, identifying and matching the contents of their containers;
ii. Included in a current register of all hazardous chemicals and toxic substances that are stored on-site; and
iii. Supplemented with current Safety Data Sheets (SDS) made available to all staff.*
**Common Problems:**
- Chemicals not properly labelled.
- Chemicals not included on approved chemical list.
**Considerations:**
- Where are the secondary chemical containers coming from? Is there a process to issue these for use? Are people responsible for handling chemicals properly trained?
- Is chemical storage part of internal audits? Are maintenance staff trained on the importance of chemical storage procedures?
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0a3a5a3d-2981-4a33-b05a-0eb3f1709097)## 2) Walls, Ceilings, and Doors – 11.1.2.4
*Walls, partitions, ceilings, and doors shall be of durable construction. Internal surfaces shall have an even and regular surface and be impervious with a light-colored finish and shall be kept clean (refer to 11.2.5).*
*Wall-to-wall and wall-to-floor junctions shall be designed to be easily cleaned and sealed to prevent the accumulation of food debris.*
**Common Problems:**
- Rust on overheads.
- Peeling paint.
- Wall/floor junctions not properly sealed.
- Pipes passing through walls not sealed.
**Considerations:**
- Is there a process to verify the effectiveness of internal [GMP audits](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-a-gmp-audit-in-the-food-industry/)?
- Are supervisors trained on expectations regarding facility condition?
- Are management personnel involved in auditing/verifying facility condition?
## 1) Cleaning and Sanitation – 9.2.5.1/11.2.5.1
*The methods and responsibility for the effective cleaning of the food handling and processing equipment and environment and storage areas shall be documented and implemented. Consideration shall be given to:*
*i. What is to be cleaned;
ii. How it is to be cleaned;
iii. When it is to be cleaned;
iv. Who is responsible for the cleaning;
v. Validation of the cleaning procedures for food contact surfaces (including CIP);
vi. Methods used to confirm the correct concentrations of detergents and sanitizers; and
vii. The responsibility and methods used to verify the effectiveness of the cleaning and sanitation program.*
**Common Problems:**
- Areas not properly cleaned during sanitation or master sanitation schedule inadequate/not followed.
- Titration kits expired or chemicals not being properly titrated.
**Considerations:**
- Are general staff and supervisors trained on cleanliness expectations? Is a reporting system in place?
- How are staff conducting pre-op inspections trained/verified?
- How often are management involved in pre-op inspections? Is the frequency adequate?
## Unraveling the Top 10 Reasons for an SQF Audit Non-Conformity: Recap
Our exploration of the top 10 reasons for SQF audit non-conformity revealed significant overlaps, emphasizing the importance of systematic preparation and thorough documentation.
To navigate your next audit with confidence, heed these lessons, and continually invest in strengthening your [food safety management](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) system.
[Reach out to our certification and audit experts with questions or to schedule your next SQF audit](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-lp).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** GFSI, SQF
---
### [SQF Edition 10 is Here: How to Prepare Your Site](https://fsns.com/sqf-edition-10-is-here-how-to-prepare-your-site/)
**Published:** April 3, 2026
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Kaci Foote, FSNS Certification & Audit Accreditation Manager*
### 1-Minute Summary
- SQF Edition 10 was published in March 2026 and is now available through SQFI’s digital Code experience.
- Audits to Edition 10 are expected to begin no earlier than Jan. 2, 2027, pending completion of the GFSI benchmarking process.
- Major changes include a revised scoring model with weighted Core Clauses, a required [food safety culture](https://fsns.com/developing-a-strong-food-safety-culture/ "Developing A Strong Food Safety Culture") assessment plan, and a more digital-first Code experience.
- Sites should begin gap assessments, update internal audits, and coordinate with their Certification Body now to prepare for the Edition 10 transition.
---
## SQF Edition 10 FAQs
**When will SQF Edition 10 be released?**
[SQFI](https://www.sqfi.com/) published SQF Edition 10 in March 2026. SQFI’s Food Safety Program page identifies Edition 10 as the latest version, and [SQFI’s March 2 announcement](https://www.sqfi.com/news/blog/view/sqfi-blog/2026/03/02/sqf-edition-10-is-here-and-it-starts-your-digital-experience) confirms the Code is now available.
**When do audits switch to Edition 10?**
SQFI says Edition 10 audits are expected to begin **no earlier than Jan. 2, 2027**. That timing depends on completion of the GFSI benchmarking process, so the effective date could move later into the year. Audits scheduled before the Edition 10 effective date will remain under Edition 9. Audits on or after the go-live date will follow Edition 10.
**What are the main differences between SQF Edition 9 and 10?**
Edition 10 introduces a digital-first Code format, a revised scoring model with weighted Core Clauses, and a formal food safety culture assessment plan. SQFI has also highlighted guidance tied to change management and environmental monitoring as part of the new edition rollout.
**How do I begin to prepare my site for an SQF audit against Edition 10?**
Start with a gap assessment, review high-impact clauses, update your internal audit approach, and coordinate timing with your certification body. SQFI recommends using the transition period to identify and close gaps before Edition 10 audits begin.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/2ad6df82-7d4b-4451-82a0-38272c477c9f)## What’s Changing in SQF Edition 10 (vs. Edition 9)
SQF Edition 10 introduces several changes, but the most notable are increased expectations around core programs and digitization of the Code itself. Here’s what’s new:
- **Weighted Core Clauses:** Edition 10 introduces weighted Core Clauses, so non-conformances in these areas have a greater effect on audit scores than they did in Edition 9. SQFI says a minor non-conformance against a Core Clause is now worth two points instead of one, while a major is worth seven instead of five.
- **Food Safety Culture Assessment Plan:** Sites must now have a formal food safety culture assessment plan. This means [food safety culture](https://fsns.com/developing-a-strong-food-safety-culture/) is no longer just an informal expectation. It must be assessed, documented, and improved over time.
- **Digital-First Code Format:** Edition 10 is delivered through a digital-first format rather than relying only on a static Code document. SQFI says this new format is designed to make requirements easier to navigate and support added tools and translations.
## How SQF Edition 10 Will Affect Typical Plants
The shift to weighted Core Clauses means your audit outcome will be driven more heavily by how well your highest-risk programs perform, not just whether they exist.
For most sites, the focus should be on tightening execution, improving consistency, and making sure your records clearly demonstrate control.
### Focus on Core Clauses First
**Identify your Core Clause programs.**
In food manufacturing, these typically include:
- Management commitment
- Allergen management
- Sanitation
- Food safety plan (HACCP)
- Environmental monitoring
- Approved supplier program
- Product identification and traceability
- Corrective and preventative action (CAPA)
- Foreign material control
**Understand the Scoring Impact**
- Minor non-conformance = **2 points** (previously 1)
- Major non-conformance = **7 points** (previously 5)
A small issue in a Core Clause can now have a much larger impact on your audit score.
**Treat these Programs as Audit Drivers**
While they’ve always been important, these areas are now more likely to determine whether you pass your SQF audit.
### What Strong Execution Looks Like Under Edition 10
**Consistency Across Shifts**
- Programs must be implemented the same way every day, not just during audit prep.
**Clear, Complete Records**
Records should show:
- What was done
- Who performed and verified the activity
- When it occurred
- What happened when something went wrong
**Closed-Loop Corrective Actions**
CAPAs should clearly connect:
- Root cause
- Corrective action taken
- Verification of effectiveness
**Risk-Based Decision Making**
Supplier approval, environmental monitoring, and food safety plans should show clear justification, not just routine completion.
## SQF Edition 10 Prep Checklist
### ☑ Run a targeted gap assessment
Focus specifically on Core Clause programs, not your entire system.
### ☑ Review your last audit and internal findings
Look for repeat issues, downgraded findings, or areas that required clarification.
### ☑ Analyze your data for weak points
Use:
- Environmental monitoring trends
- Customer complaints
- Supplier issues
- CAPA history to show where your system is already under pressure
### ☑ Pressure-test your programs
Ask:
- Would this hold up under detailed auditor review?
- Is this consistently applied across all shifts and teams?
- Does the documentation clearly tell the full story?
### ☑ Strengthen high-impact areas first
**Prioritize improvements in:**
- Allergen controls
- Sanitation verification
- Environmental monitoring
- Supplier approval
- CAPA effectiveness
### ☑ Retrain program owners and supervisors
**Make sure they understand:**
- What the requirement is
- What good evidence looks like
- How their role impacts audit outcomes
### ☑ Use management review to drive action
**Ensure leadership is:**
- Reviewing the right data
- Prioritizing high-risk gaps
- Tracking progress to closure
## Questions About SQF Edition 10 Changes or Your Upcoming Audit?
If you still have questions, our [SQF Edition 10 virtual training course](https://fsns.com/product/implementing-sqf-systems-ed-10-and-internal-auditing-training-course/), taught by an SQF-licensed trainer, will help your site prepare for all these new changes.
We are also an accredited Certification Body for SQF audits and can help you with a mock audit prior to your scheduled SQF Edition 10 audit. [Just reach out to our Certification & Audit team and we’ll be happy to help!](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-lp)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0a3a5a3d-2981-4a33-b05a-0eb3f1709097)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** Certification and audit, food and beverage, GFSI, SQF
---
### [Short-Notice SQF Audit Keeps Hilmar’s Certification Plans on Track](https://fsns.com/short-notice-sqf-audit-keeps-hilmars-certification-plans-on-track/)
**Published:** April 23, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
[Hilmar](https://www.hilmar.com/), a California-based manufacturer of cheese and whey protein, serves customers in more than 50 countries. The company’s strategic vision required expanded capacity, which encouraged Hilmar to construct a new facility in Dodge City, Kan., in 2024.
However, the facility needed [SQF certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) before Hilmar could begin selling to certain customers.
## Previous Certification Body Cancels Two SQF Audits
Hilmar’s Compliance and Quality Team thought they were in good shape with an SQF audit scheduled with another Certification Body. However, that CB ended up canceling two scheduled audits, which threatened to disrupt Hilmar’s timeline.
## FSNS Certification & Audit Answers the Call
Gabriela Araujo, Compliance and Quality Systems Manager at Hilmar, said the company needed a CB that could move quickly and still deliver a thorough audit. [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) stepped in on short notice.
“Everyone was waiting on QA to get a certificate,” Araujo said. “We were under pressure. FSNS C&A responded immediately and worked to find an auditor within a few days.”
FSNS Certification & Audit **scheduled the Dodge City audit within the same week** that Hilmar had expected its previous provider to deliver. According to Araujo, the auditor brought the level of detail and industry knowledge Hilmar needed for an initial [certification audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
“The auditor was very detailed and provided a thorough audit,” Araujo said. “Before leaving, she gave us a draft of the findings so we could start responding right away.”
## FSNS C&A Provides Preliminary Report in Two Business Days
That speed made a measurable difference. The audit took place on a Thursday and Hilmar received the preliminary report by the following Monday, which helped the site stay on its planned timeline and continue moving through the certification process without further delay.
“We were able to complete the audit in the timeline we had planned,” Araujo said. “Sales and Operations were looking forward to getting that audit completed so they could move forward. That was really great news.”
## FSNS C&A Auditors Impress the Hilmar Team
Araujo also noted that FSNS C&A’s model helped set the engagement apart. Because FSNS C&A uses its own auditors rather than contractors, Hilmar experienced greater flexibility and stronger auditor calibration. She said that depth of industry experience helped the audit go more smoothly and gave the company added confidence in the process.
“It’s been a great experience for me,” Araujo said. “Customer service responds on a timely basis, the auditors are knowledgeable, and the FSNS C&A team communicates well with us.”
Thanks to FSNS C&A stepping in on short notice and providing a preliminary report quickly, Hilmar’s Dodge City facility was able to achieve SQF certification and maintain production and profitability, helping everyone breathe easier.
[Contact our team if you’re interested in scheduling an SQF or other food safety certification audit.](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/#contact)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, SQF
---
### [Food Recalls in 2024: Revealing the Statistics ](https://fsns.com/food-recalls-in-2024-revealing-the-statistics/)
**Published:** March 7, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
### 1-Minute Summary
- Hospitalizations and deaths from contaminated food doubled in 2024.
- Undeclared allergens, pathogens (*Listeria*, *Salmonella*, and *E. coli*), and toxic contaminants drove the most recalls.
- Just 13 outbreaks caused 98% of all reported foodborne illnesses in 2024.
- Faster testing, better supplier oversight, and stronger recall plans are critical for 2025.
---
2024 was a wake-up call for food safety professionals.
Hospitalizations and deaths from foodborne illnesses doubled, and food recalls continued to flood the headlines. Every few weeks, a new high-profile recall shook the industry – onions on cheeseburgers, deli meats, cucumbers, even mushroom-infused chocolate bars.
With 2025 underway, it’s time to look back and learn. What caused the most food recalls in 2024? Which foods posed the biggest risks? And, most importantly, what can food safety professionals do to prevent history from repeating itself?
This summary is based on findings from the [Food for Thought 2025](https://pirg.org/edfund/resources/food-for-thought-2025/) report, published by the [U.S. PIRG Education Fund](https://pirg.org/edfund/) in February 2025.
Let’s break it down.
## 2024 Was a Year of High-Profile Food Recalls
The numbers tell the story.
- 296 total recalls (FDA + USDA) in 2024, a slight decrease from 2023.
- 1,392 people sickened by recalled food (up from 1,118 in 2023).
- **Hospitalizations** **more than doubled**, increasing from 230 in 2023 to 487 in 2024.
- **Deaths** **more than doubled**, rising from 8 in 2023 to 19 in 2024.
At first glance, the overall number of 2024 food recalls might seem stable. But the severity of foodborne illness cases increased, proving that it’s not just about quantity, it’s about impact.
Even a single outbreak can send hundreds to the hospital and permanently damage a company’s reputation.
### The Rising Toll of Recalled Food – 2023 vs 2024
## The Worst Offenders: Top Causes of Food Recalls in 2024
Food safety teams work tirelessly to prevent contamination, but in 2024, these were the biggest troublemakers:
- Pathogens (*Listeria*, *Salmonella*, *E. coli*) accounted for 39% of all food recalls.
- Undeclared allergens remained the leading cause, with 101 recalls (34%).
- Excessive lead contamination led to 13 recalls, a sharp increase over previous years.
- Foreign materials, including metal and plastic, triggered 12 recalls.
- Pet food recalls increased from 7 to 11.
The rise in toxic contaminants, like [lead in cinnamon](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/heavy-metals-in-cinnamon-and-the-importance-of-testing/) and muscimol, a psychoactive compound, in mushroom-infused snacks, is particularly concerning. These are not the usual suspects, meaning companies need to expand their risk assessments beyond traditional hazards.
## The Biggest Outbreaks of 2024
Ninety-eight percent of foodborne illnesses in 2024 came from just 13 outbreaks.
The high-profile cases included:
- [Boar’s Head deli meats](https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/delimeats-7-24/index.html): 61 illnesses, 10 deaths (*Listeria*).
- [Cucumbers](https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/outbreaks/africana-06-24/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/africana-06-24/index.html): 551 illnesses, 155 hospitalizations (*Salmonella*).
- [McDonald’s Quarter Pounders (onions)](https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/outbreaks/e-coli-O157.html): 104 illnesses, 1 death (*E. coli*).
- [Mushroom-infused chocolate bars](https://www.cdc.gov/environmental-health-studies/outbreak-investigation-diamond-shruumz-products/index.html): 118 illnesses, 3 deaths (toxic muscimol).
Many recalls involved trusted brands and everyday foods, not just a few regional products.
For food safety teams, this means:
- **Supplier oversight is critical.** Many outbreaks stemmed from contaminated raw ingredients.
- **Pathogen testing must be aggressive.** *Listeria*, *Salmonella*, and *E. coli* remain the industry’s biggest threats. This is a good reminder to audit your [environmental monitoring program (EMP)](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/) and ensure you’re targeting the right organisms and challenging your facility. A good EMP software program, such as [emma®, our Environmental Monitoring and Mapping Application](https://fsns.com/emma/), can help.
- **Speed matters.** Slow responses allow contaminated products to stay in circulation, worsening the effect.
## The Recall Problem: Slow Response Times & Supply Chain Risks
Let’s take a closer look at why “speed matters” when it comes to food recalls. By the time a company issues a recall, the product has often been on the market for weeks or months.
The [2024 *Salmonella* outbreak from cucumbers](https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/outbreaks/africana-06-24/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/africana-06-24/index.html) is a prime example.
- The first illness was reported in March 2024.
- The recall was issued on May 31, 2024.
- People were still getting sick in July 2024.
This two-month delay meant hundreds of consumers unknowingly ate contaminated cucumbers after the recall was issued. Tracing outbreaks remains a major challenge, especially with long, global supply chains, hence a prime reason for the [FSMA 2024 Food Traceability Final Rule](https://fsns.com/scrutiny-on-food-traceability-lists-creates-havoc-for-manufacturers/) set to take effect in January 2026.
To mitigate these risks, companies should tighten supplier controls to ensure ingredient safety and maintain a recall readiness plan that includes a clear, fast response in the event that an outbreak is traced to your products. Even if you are exempt from the new Food Traceability Rule or if your products are not included on the Food Traceability List (FTL), the regulation is a great resource.
## What Food Safety & Quality Teams Can Do Now
If 2024 taught us anything, it’s that proactive food safety measures are more important than ever. Here’s how your team can stay ahead.
**Enhance Testing**
- As mentioned earlier, audit your EMP to ensure you’re targeting the right organisms, collecting sufficient samples, and sampling the correct places in your facility. [Routine microbiology testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) for *Listeria*, *Salmonella*, *E. coli*, and other pathogens is essential.
- Conduct [pathogen challenge studies](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/) to obtain an understanding of how your products stand up to real-world contamination, especially if you use alternative preservatives for “clean” labels. [Our Lab+ group specializes in designing and conducting challenge studies](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) and other scientific studies for food safety.
- Consider [analytical chemistry testing](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) for additional contaminants, depending on your products, such as heavy metals and toxins.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/56cd1387-3858-49b1-90d2-68eb6a0df65c)**Strengthen Supplier Oversight**
- Vet every supplier, both domestic and international. Engage with a consultant to help develop a process for auditing suppliers, such as [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) company.
- Require current certifications and safety documentation before sourcing ingredients.
**Improve Recall Readiness**
- Implement traceability systems to track raw materials and finished products.
- Train employees on rapid recall execution to minimize consumer risk.
**Monitor Undeclared Allergens**
- New allergen regulations, including sesame labeling, require strict compliance.
- [Allergen testing](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/) should be a routine part of food safety protocols if your facility (or your supplier’s facility) handles multiple products on the same line.
**Educate Teams on Emerging Risks**
- Keeping up with new FDA and USDA guidance on food safety best practices is essential.
- Periodic [food safety training](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/ "Food Industry Training Built for the Plant Floor") educates your team and prepares them to successfully fulfill their role in your food safety management system. Engage with a consultant, such as [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), to help conduct training or develop a customized company-specific training deck.
## Stay Vigilant, Stay Ahead
2024 was a challenging year for food safety. While the total number of food recalls slightly decreased, the severity of outbreaks surged, with hospitalizations and deaths doubling compared to 2023.
For food safety professionals, it’s a reminder to stay vigilant and always be looking to improve your food safety and quality programs.
We’re here to help with nationwide [food safety testing](https://fsns.com/industries/) and regulatory consulting from [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/).
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [6 Key Changes in FSSC 22000 Version 6 ](https://fsns.com/6-key-changes-in-fssc-22000-version-6/)
**Published:** March 8, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Justin Derington, Director of Auditing Services, FSNS Certification & Audit*
### 1-Minute Summary
- FSSC 22000 Version 6 introduces stringent labeling, food defense, and fraud mitigation requirements.
- Enhanced allergen management and environmental monitoring protocols are now in effect.
- A robust Food Safety and Quality Culture Plan is mandatory under the new standard.
- Quality control now mirrors CCPs in food safety, emphasizing active management and documentation.
---
## FSSC 22000 Version 6 is Here
FSSC 22000 Version 6 took effect on April 1, 2023. Facilities that audit to the FSSC 22000 standard have a 12-month window to prepare, but all [FSSC 22000 audits](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/) on or after April 1, 2024 must be done against Version 6 of the standard.
While Version 6 is aligned with Version 5.1, it introduces several new requirements for which the auditor will be looking. This added specificity reflects the industry’s ongoing advancements and the growing demand for transparency and accountability.
With that in mind, let’s look at 6 key changes in FSSC 22000 Version 6; [read the entire FSSC 22000 Version 6 standard to be fully prepared.](https://www.fssc.com/schemes/fssc-22000/documents/fssc-22000-version-6/)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/cfff9de0-0057-4811-b471-7814de63e541)## 1) Product Labeling and Printed Materials (2.5.2)
Version 6 labeling requirements are more detailed and robust than in Version 5.1 of the standard. These changes align with consumer needs and regulatory expectations.
Highlights include…
- **Enhanced Specificity:** Version 6 places a stronger emphasis on customer-specific labeling requirements in addition to general statutory and regulatory compliance.
- **Traceability Enhancement:** Detailed traceability information is now required on labels to improve product-origin tracking.
- **Label Claim Verification:** The new version mandates validation and verification of label claims to ensure authenticity and integrity.
- **Artwork and Print Control:** Version 6 introduces specific procedures for managing artwork and print control for food chain category I to meet legal and customer requirements.
*FSSC 22000 v6 mandates validation and verification of label claims.*
## 2) Food Defense and Food Fraud Mitigation (2.5.3 & 2.5.4)
The FSSC 22000 Version 6 clauses related to [food fraud](https://fsns.com/what-is-food-fraud/) mitigation of food defense are more detailed than in Version 5.1.
These changes are a testament to the evolving threats facing the industry. These enhancements serve to shield the supply chain from intentional adulteration and ensure the integrity of food products.
### Food Defense (2.5.3)
- **Documentation and Implementation:** While Version 5.1 required a documented procedure for threat assessment and mitigation, Version 6 specifies that the food defense plan must be reviewed at least annually or more often when significant changes occur or new threats are identified.
- **Scope of the Defense Plan:** Version 6 emphasizes ensuring that suppliers for food chain category FI have a food defense plan in place, extending the responsibility beyond the organization’s immediate operations.
### Food Fraud Mitigation (2.5.4)
- **Vulnerability Assessment Specifics:** Version 6 mandates that the [food fraud vulnerability assessment](https://fsns.com/how-to-conduct-a-food-fraud-vulnerability-assessment-free-checklist/) include both internal and external elements. This comprehensive approach is designed to address the entirety of the supply chain.
- **Implementation of Mitigation Measures:** The updated standard requires not only the development but also the implementation of mitigation measures.
- **Plan Review and Adaptation:** Organizations must now review their food fraud mitigation plan following significant changes or when new vulnerabilities are detected, ensuring that the plan remains current and effective.
### 3) Management of Allergens (2.5.6)
Updates to allergen management highlight the importance of rigorous protocols to prevent [allergen cross-contamination](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/food-allergen-testing-avoiding-allergen-cross-contact) and to safeguard sensitive consumers. These revisions are designed to help reduce allergen-related incidents, which are one of the top reasons for food recalls.
To that end, here are the highlights of FSSC 22000 Version 6:
- **Risk Assessment Scope:** Version 6 expands the risk assessment to ensure validation of control measures, whereas Version 5.1 focused on assessing potential sources of allergen cross-contamination.
- **Cross-Contamination Control Measures:** Version 6 details specific verification of control measures to mitigate cross-contamination.
- **Labeling Requirements:** Version 6 includes additional labeling controls, especially regarding precautionary allergen labeling and its verification.
- **Employee Training:** Explicit training requirements for all personnel in allergen management are introduced in Version 6.
- **Review and Update:** The updated standard calls for an annual review of the allergen management plan and updates as needed, particularly after significant changes.
## 4) Environmental Monitoring (2.5.7)
FSSC 22000 Version 6 introduces nuanced yet powerful changes to your [environmental monitoring program (EMP)](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/), with a clear shift toward more frequent, data-driven reviews and a defined set of triggers for revaluation. Below are the key distinctions:
- **Review Triggers:** Version 6 explicitly defines specific events that necessitate a review of the environmental monitoring program, such as significant operational changes or the detection of pathogens.
- **Review Frequency:** The updated version requires at least an annual review of the environmental monitoring program, promoting regular re-assessment to ensure ongoing effectiveness.
- **Data-Driven Review:** There is a new emphasis on using data trends from environmental monitoring as a basis for reviewing and adjusting the program, enhancing the rigor of the program’s evaluation process.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/56cd1387-3858-49b1-90d2-68eb6a0df65c)## 5) Food Safety and Quality Culture (2.5.8)
The requirements in clause 2.5.8 to develop a robust [Food Safety and Quality Culture (FSQC)](https://fsns.com/developing-a-strong-food-safety-culture/) within organizations may be the most sweeping change to FSSC 22000 Version 6. It promises to have a profound effect on food facilities.
This clause underscores the importance of establishing a foundation of shared values, beliefs, and norms that drive a proactive approach to food safety behaviors and practices, going beyond compliance and procedures to the underlying ethos of how your organization operates.
Under the standard, an FSQC plan must include:
- **Communication:** Open, clear, and ongoing dialogue about food safety practices and expectations at all levels of the organization.
- **Training:** Comprehensive and continuous [food safety training and education](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/ "Food Industry Training Built for the Plant Floor") programs that empower all employees to uphold food safety standards.
- **Employee Feedback:** Mechanisms for staff to voice concerns, contribute ideas, and be an active part of the food safety conversation.
- **Performance Measurement:** Objective metrics to assess and improve food safety activities, ensuring they meet the established goals.
*Open, clear communication must be part of your food safety quality culture under FSSC 22000 v6.*
## 6) Quality Control (2.5.9)
FSSC 22000 version 6 includes a stronger emphasis on Quality Control (QC) within food safety systems. This clause mandates the establishment of rigorous QC measures akin to Critical Control Points for quality, requiring organizations to actively manage and document quality at every stage of the production process.
Key Aspects of Clause 2.5.9 include:
- **Alignment with ISO Standards:** QC is to be integrated with quality policies and objectives as outlined in ISO 22000:2018.
- **Quality Parameters Definition:** Establish, implement, and maintain clear quality parameters, including upper and lower limits, for all products.
- **Calibration and Verification:** Implement quantity control procedures and regularly calibrate and verify equipment used for quality and quantity control.
- **Start-up and Change-over Controls:** Ensure procedures are in place to manage start-up and change-over processes, maintaining product integrity and compliance.
This shift underscores the evolution of FSSC 22000 towards a holistic approach that equally weighs food safety and quality control in food production.
## Additional Important Changes in FSSC 22000 Version 6
FSSC 22000 Version 6 includes additional important updates to understand before your next audit. Here is a rundown of some of them:
### Management of Services and Purchased Materials (2.5.1)
- **Recycled Packaging Criteria:** Version 6 introduces specific criteria for the use of recycled packaging as a raw material input, ensuring it meets the same safety and quality requirements as other materials.
- **Expansion of Requirements for Specific Food Chain Categories:** While both versions require documented procedures for emergency procurement and policies for procurement of animals, fish, and seafood, Version 6 extends these requirements to additional food chain categories and includes the management of raw material and finished product specifications.
### Logo Use (2.5.5)
- Version 6 clarifies that certified organizations must not imply FSSC 22000 approval on their products, labels, or packaging with the logo, which is consistent with version 5.1 but specifies additional contexts like certificates of analysis or conformity and exclusions to the scope of certification.
### Transport, Storage, and Warehousing (2.5.10)
- **Tanker Transport:** Version 6 includes additional requirements for organizations using tankers for transport, requiring a documented risk-based plan for addressing tanker cleaning and cross-contamination measures.
- **Enhanced Specificity in Storage and Warehousing:** The updated version specifies that the stock rotation system must include FEFO (First Expired, First Out) principles in conjunction with FIFO (First In, First Out) requirements.
- **Post-Slaughter Requirements:** There is a new stipulation in Version 6 for food chain category C0, detailing post-slaughter time and temperature requirements to ensure product safety during chilling or freezing.
- **Contamination Prevention in Transport:** Version 6 provides specific guidelines for food chain category FI to ensure that product transport and delivery minimize the potential for contamination.
### Hazard Control and Measures for Preventing Cross-Contamination (2.5.11)
- **Packaging Requirements for Food Chain Category I:** Version 6 maintains the requirement from 5.1 for specific requirements in cases where packaging is used to impart a functional effect on food, such as shelf-life extension.
- **Inspection Process for Food Chain Category CI:** Both versions require specific inspection procedures to ensure animals are fit for human consumption; however, Version 6 elaborates on managing the use of substances with potential adverse animal health effects and includes a broader range of food chain categories.
- **Foreign Matter Management:** Version 6 introduces comprehensive requirements for [managing foreign matter](https://fsns.com/how-these-technological-advancements-in-detection-of-foreign-and-extraneous-material-in-food-can-help-you/), mandating a documented risk assessment, and specifying the type of detection equipment necessary.
### Product Design and Development (2.5.13)
- **Introduction of Shelf-life Verification Process:** FSSC 22000 Version 6 contains a requirement for an ongoing shelf-life verification process.
- **Cooking Instructions Validation:** Version 6 also requires that cooking instructions provided on the label or packaging for ready-to-cook products be validated to ensure food safety.
Our contract research division, FSNS Lab+, can help [design your shelf-life study protocol, conduct shelf-life testing, and perform cooking instruction validations](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/).
### Communication Requirements
FSSC 22000 Version 6 includes rules for communicating serious events to your Certification Body, which is a new addition compared to Version 5.1.
- **Timely Reporting:** Organizations must inform their certification body within 3 working days of events that affect the [Food Safety Management System (FSMS)](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) or the integrity of the certification.
- **Scope of Reportable Events:** Reportable events include serious incidents affecting food safety, legal compliance, or certification integrity due to factors like natural disasters, malicious activities, or serious public food safety events.
- **Risk to Certification Integrity:** Situations that could potentially damage the reputation of the certification, such as public recalls, regulatory actions, or legal issues, must be promptly communicated to the certification body.
## Questions? Ready to Schedule Your FSSC 22000 Audit?
FSSC 22000 Version 6 presents new requirements that affirm an organization’s commitment to food safety and quality. It’s vital for businesses to stay ahead of these changes to ensure compliance and maintain the integrity of their [food safety management systems](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/).
If you have questions about the transition or need to [schedule an FSSC audit to the Version 6 standard, reach out to our certification and audit team](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-lp).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)
**Categories:** General
---
### [How to Help Prevent Physical Hazards in Food: A Guide for QC Teams](https://fsns.com/how-to-help-prevent-physical-hazards-in-food-a-guide-for-qc-teams/)
**Published:** January 11, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Dr. Keith Belk, Professor & Monfort Endowed Chair, Colorado State University*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Physical hazards like metal, plastic, glass, and stones are a top cause of food recalls, highlighting the importance of preventive safety and quality control.
- These hazards include materials that are inadvertently introduced before processing of produce and animals, or during food processing.
- Strategies such as maintaining good manufacturing practices, regularly maintaining equipment, and conducting risk assessments, all supported by a HACCP plan, minimize the risk of physical hazards.
- Examples of new and established technologies for detecting/eliminating physical hazards include advanced imaging, metal detectors, x-ray systems, magnets, riffle boards, and optical sorting equipment.
- Steps to take upon detection of a physical hazard include removing hazards, documenting findings, conducting thorough inspections, and managing the situation proactively. Root Cause Analysis also is important to prevent future physical hazards.
---
## Physical Hazards are a Leading Cause of Recalls
Physical hazards in food [accounted for several recalls in 2024](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls?f%5B0%5D=year%3A606) according to the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. [Stories frequently emerge](https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-recalls/madegood-granola-bars-recalled-due-to-metal-fragment-risk-a1418045838/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) about companies that issue recalls due to physical hazards and contaminants.
These incidents not only [alarm customers and hurt your brand](https://fsns.com/extraneous-foreign-material-in-food-safety-consumer-displeasure/), but they can lead to expensive recalls and even human injury – a FSQC professional’s worst nightmare.
This guide equips you with comprehensive knowledge and practical strategies to identify, mitigate, and manage physical hazards in food. From understanding what constitutes a physical hazard to implementing robust prevention techniques, we aim to help you ensure the highest standards of food safety.
## What is a Physical Hazard in Food?
A physical hazard in food refers to **any foreign object unintentionally present that can pose a risk of illness or injury when ingested**.
[As specifically defined by FDA](https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/biological-chemical-and-physical-contaminants-animal-food/physical-hazards), “Physical hazards are broadly classified as sharp hazards, choking hazards, and conditions of animal food hazards such as size and hardness. Injuries from physical hazards may include oral cavity damage (e.g., tooth damage or laceration of the mouth or throat), laceration or perforation of the gastrointestinal tract, and choking.”
In USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) [*Pathogen Reduction, HACCP Systems Final Rule*](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/93-016F_0.pdf), physical hazards are defined as “any physical material not normally found in a food that can cause illness or injury to a person consuming the product.”
FSIS stipulates that “physical hazards in finished products can arise from several sources, such as contaminated raw materials, poorly designed or maintained facilities and equipment, faulty procedures during processing, and improper employee training and practices”. For meat products, bone and metal or lead shot in comminuted products continues to cause issues.
## What are the Differences Between Physical Hazards and Other Hazards in Food?
These hazards are mostly distinct from [biological hazards](https://fsns.com/unmasking-biological-food-hazards-guide-to-understanding-and-preventing-risks/) and chemical threats, as they reflect contamination with tangible physical materials such as metal shavings, glass fragments, or even personal items like hair or jewelry, inadvertently introduced during food processing or handling. If meat products are contaminated with lead shot, then an exception occurs and the hazard is both a chemical and a physical hazard.
“Filth” (dirt, feces, etc.) [is considered a biological hazard](https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/biological-chemical-and-physical-contaminants-animal-food/physical-hazards#:~:text=Injuries%20from%20physical%20hazards%20may,be%20considered%20a%20physical%20hazard) as they can be a route for a biological pathogen. While not desirable in food products, foreign material such as insects would not be considered a physical hazard as it will not physically harm someone to eat an insect part but would be undesirable and potentially a quality/legality issue.
*Glass pieces and shards are a common physical hazard found in food.*## Examples of Physical Hazards in Food
Physical hazards in food can be varied and unexpected. Here are some common physical hazards in food examples that quality personnel should be aware of:
- **Shot, needles, and darts:** Enters the food chain in live animals but can escape some methods of detection during processing if not diligent.
- **Hair**: Can fall into food from food handlers, posing a choking hazard and a source of contamination.
- **Bandages**: If not properly secured, can detach from a worker and end up in food.
- **Jewelry**: Items like rings or earrings can accidentally fall into food during preparation.
- **Staples**: Sometimes found in packaging materials, they can inadvertently contaminate food products.
- **Metal Shavings**: Can come from the wear and tear of food processing equipment.
- **Bones**: Particularly in processed meats, bones can pose a choking hazard.
- **Plastic Pieces**: Can break off from packaging or utensils and end up in the food.
Each of these hazards can cause harm, such as choking or physical injury, and thus, their prevention and management are essential in any [food safety management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/). Understanding these examples helps in developing more effective strategies to mitigate the risks associated with physical hazards in food.
## Causes of Physical Food Hazards
Physical hazards can enter the food chain at several locations, often due to preharvest exposures of animals to hazards, along with introduction during processing. Being aware of these causes can help FSQA personnel in developing effective prevention strategies:
- **Low-Quality Raw Materials:** Using substandard materials, or raw materials containing foreign object contamination (e.g., animals with embedded metal shot or darts, stones in produce, etc.) can introduce physical hazards to the food chain. Rigorous supplier qualification and material testing, such as [sanitation and filth analysis](https://certified-laboratories.com/filth-testing/), are essential to ensure the quality of raw inputs.
- **Poor Personal Hygiene:** Food handlers play a critical role in preventing physical hazards. Inadequate grooming standards, such as not restraining hair or wearing loose jewelry, can lead to contamination of food products.
- **Faulty or Damaged Processing Equipment:** Wear and tear or malfunctioning equipment can result in physical hazards such as metal shavings or plastic pieces entering the food.
Recognizing these potential sources is the first step in preventing physical hazards in food.
*Wearing loose jewelry can result in a food hazard, such as this earring that was found in a sample of Greek yogurt.* ## How Should Food Workers Prevent Physical Food Hazards from Injuring Customers?
Prevention is always preferable to reaction, especially when the safety of your customers is at risk.
Helping food workers prevent physical hazards from injuring customers starts with a comprehensive, proactive approach that integrates good supply chain management, personal hygiene, equipment maintenance, , and risk assessment, all underpinned by a robust [Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/).
Let’s look at each area more closely.
### Good Personal Hygiene
Good personal hygiene is the first line of defense in preventing physical hazards in food. Key practices include:
- **Trimmed Fingernails:** Keep fingernails short and clean to prevent contamination.
- **No Jewelry:** Avoid jewelry that could fall into food, including rings, bracelets, and earrings.
- **Hair Restraints:** Use hairnets, caps, or other restraints to keep hair away from food.
- **Proper Glove Use:** Wear gloves when handling food and change them regularly to prevent cross-contamination.
- **Clean Uniforms:** Wear clean and appropriate clothing to reduce the risk of introducing contaminants.
- **Handwashing:** Regularly and thoroughly wash your hands, especially after breaks or restroom visits.
- **Avoid Loose Clothing:** Wear well-fitting clothing to prevent items from getting caught in equipment or falling into food.
- **Cover Cuts and Wounds:** Properly cover any cuts or wounds on hands or arms with bandages and wear gloves over them.
### Equipment Maintenance and Facility Upkeep
Regular inspection and maintenance of processing equipment are crucial in preventing the introduction of foreign materials like metal shavings or plastic pieces. This also extends to the overall facility, where potential hazards such as peeling paint or loose ceiling tiles need to be addressed.
In fact, peeling paint, loose caulk, rust, and other potential foreign material is one of the [top non-conformities our auditors identify in BRC food safety certification audits](https://fsns.com/top-10-reasons-for-a-brc-audit-non-conformity-data/).
Regular cleaning and sanitation are essential to ensure that the environment does not contribute to food contamination.
### Implementing a HACCP Plan
Incorporating physical hazard prevention into your HACCP plan is a critical aspect of [food safety management](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/). This involves identifying potential hazards in your process and establishing control measures to manage them effectively.
For example, in a dried fruit packaging facility, the HACCP or preventive controls plan might identify the packaging stage as a critical control point for metal contamination risk from machinery. To mitigate this, the plan might include:
- **Regular Equipment Inspection:** Scheduled checks to identify and fix wear and tear on packaging machinery.
- **Metal Detection:** Use of metal detectors after packaging to identify and remove any contaminated products.
- **Recordkeeping and Monitoring:** Keeping detailed logs of inspections and maintenance, with regular reviews to ensure the effectiveness of these measures.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/e3d863ef-b1b9-4e21-9eb9-d962af94d536)### Regular Risk Assessments
Conducting regular risk assessments helps identify potential areas where physical hazards could be introduced. This proactive approach involves inspecting incoming materials, assessing processes, and ensuring compliance with safety standards.
### Staff Training and Awareness
Educating and training staff via [food safety training courses](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/ "Food Industry Training Built for the Plant Floor") on the importance of maintaining a safe food environment is critical. This includes understanding proper food handling and storage practices, as well as being vigilant in identifying and reporting potential hazards.
### Adherence to Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs)
Following cGMPs, as outlined in regulations such as the [U.S. FDA’s Title 21 CFR Part 110](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-110), is vital for ensuring food safety. These practices cover a wide array of procedures, from handwashing to avoiding cross-contamination, and maintaining clean and sanitary processing areas.
By diligently implementing these measures, food facilities can significantly reduce the occurrence of physical hazards.
It is not just about adhering to regulations but fostering a culture of safety and responsibility among all staff members, thus protecting consumers and upholding the integrity of food products.
*X-ray machine used to detect physical hazards and foreign material in food.*## Advanced Technologies in Detecting Physical Hazards in Food
In the ever-evolving landscape of food safety, [technological advancements play a pivotal role in detecting foreign and extraneous materials (FEM) in food products](https://fsns.com/how-these-technological-advancements-in-detection-of-foreign-and-extraneous-material-in-food-can-help-you/). Here are some of the latest technologies being used:
- **Visual Inspection and Advanced Imaging:** Traditional visual inspections are now augmented with high-definition color-based and x-ray technologies. These methods enhance the detection of low-density FEM, such as plastic items, that are often difficult to identify.
- **Metal Detectors:** A staple in food processing, metal detectors have been improved to identify a wider range of metal types and smaller particles more effectively.
- **X-Ray Equipment:** X-ray technology is widely used for its ability to detect various types of physical hazards, including metal, glass, and certain types of plastics. Its versatility and precision make it invaluable in modern food safety protocols.
- **Optical Sorting Equipment:** Optical sorters use cameras and laser technology to inspect food products at high speeds, efficiently identifying and removing material based on size, shape, color, and structural properties.
- **Sieves and Screen Separation Systems:** Sieves and screens continue to be crucial for physically removing particles from food products, particularly in the processing of grains, powders, and other bulk materials.
- **Magnet-based Separation:** Using magnets is especially effective in extracting ferrous metal contaminants from food products.
- **Other Innovative Techniques:** Additional methods such as fluid-bed technology, flotation chambers, and washing steps are also used in specific contexts to remove or separate physical hazards from food products.
These technological advancements significantly enhance the ability to detect and remove physical hazards, thereby increasing the safety and quality of food products. As technology continues to advance, we can expect even more effective and efficient methods to emerge in the field of food safety.
## Action Steps if Physical Food Hazards are Detected
When physical food hazards are identified, it’s crucial to take immediate and effective action to mitigate the risk and prevent harm to consumers. Here are the steps that should be followed:
- **Immediate Removal of Hazard:** The first step is to safely remove the physical hazard from the food, using appropriate tools like utensils or gloves to avoid further contamination. If the hazard is not easily removable, the affected food should be isolated.
- **Documentation:** Document every detail related to the detected hazard. This includes the type of hazard, how it was discovered, the specific food item or batch it was found in, and the initial actions taken. This documentation is vital for [food traceability](https://fsns.com/scrutiny-on-food-traceability-lists-creates-havoc-for-manufacturers/) and for identifying the root cause to prevent future occurrences.
- **Inspect for Widespread Contamination:** Conduct a thorough examination of related food items or batches to ensure the hazard is not more widespread. This might involve checking similar products, equipment, or areas where the contaminated item was processed or stored.
- **Notify Supervisors and Relevant Personnel:** Reporting the incident to management or quality control personnel is essential. This ensures that the appropriate steps are taken to address the issue and that there’s oversight for any necessary corrective actions.
- **Prevent Distribution of Contaminated Food:** Under no circumstances should contaminated food be distributed or served. If there’s any doubt about the safety of a food item, it’s better to err on the side of caution and not release it for consumption.
- **Investigation and Corrective Action:** A thorough investigation should be conducted to understand how the hazard was introduced and to implement corrective actions to prevent recurrence. This might include revising processes, retraining staff, or making changes to equipment or suppliers.
- **Review and Update Safety Protocols:** Finally, review and update your food safety protocols and HACCP plan in light of the incident to strengthen your preventive measures against physical hazards.
By following these steps, food facilities can effectively manage incidents involving physical hazards, ensuring both consumer safety and compliance with food safety regulations.
## Emphasizing Vigilance in Physical Hazard Prevention
The diligent management of physical hazards is fundamental to ensuring food safety. This encompasses understanding the nature of these hazards, implementing effective prevention strategies, and responding promptly and thoroughly when incidents occur.
By fostering a culture of vigilance and adherence to best practices and regulations, food industry professionals can safeguard consumer health and uphold the quality of their products.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [Unmasking Biological Food Hazards: Guide to Understanding and Preventing Risks](https://fsns.com/unmasking-biological-food-hazards-guide-to-understanding-and-preventing-risks/)
**Published:** September 11, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Reviewed and Approved by Dr. Keith Belk, Professor & Monfort Endowed Chair, Colorado State University
### 1-Minute Summary
- Biological hazards in food, including bacteria and the toxins they produce, viruses, fungi, and parasites, can cause severe health complications.
- Biofilms resist sanitizing, enhancing the ability of pathogens to contaminate food products.
- Food Safety Management Systems like HACCP are essential for monitoring and controlling food safety hazards.
- Regular testing methods are crucial for identifying biological hazards in food.
- Training, audits, and strong traceability systems are key to mitigating biological food safety risks.
---
While food is a vital source of the energy and nutrients our bodies require, it can sometimes pose a risk to our health due to the presence of hazards. The types of hazards that threaten food safety generally fall into three categories:
- Chemical
- Physical
- Biological
This blog post will delve into understanding biological food hazards, providing detailed examples, and exploring preventive measures, particularly for food manufacturing and processing companies.
## What is a Biological Hazard in Food?
Biological food hazards are **living organisms or substances produced by these organisms that pose a threat to human health**.
They are among the most common causes of foodborne illnesses and can result in severe health complications. The dangers of consuming food contaminated with biological hazards can range from mild stomach pain to life-threatening conditions like kidney failure or even death.
## What is a Biological Hazard in Food Example?
Biological hazards in food are categorized into four main types:
- Bacteria and their toxins
- Viruses
- Parasites
- Fungi
Each category represents a different kind of threat and requires a unique approach for prevention and control. To understand what an example of a biological hazard in food looks like, we’ll explore each category in more detail.
Bacteria & Their ToxinsVirusesParasitesFungi## Bacterial Hazards in Food
Bacterial hazards pose one of the most significant risks to food safety. Pathogenic bacteria such as *Salmonella*, *Listeria*, and *E. coli* can multiply rapidly under certain conditions, namely warm temperatures and ample nutrients.
For instance, *Salmonella* can contaminate a wide range of food products, including [poultry](https://fsns.com/industries/poultry-and-eggs/), [eggs](https://fsns.com/industries/poultry-and-eggs/), and even [fruits and vegetables](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/). *E. coli* is often associated with contaminated ground beef but can also be found in [produce](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/), [raw milk](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/), and untreated water. *Listeria*, while less common, has a fair higher mortality rate associated with it and can grow even under refrigeration, making it a notable concern in [ready-to-eat foods](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/).
## Biofilms and their Role in Biological Food Hazards
When discussing bacterial hazards, we need to mention a sanitation issue that is of considerable concern to food safety professionals: biofilms.
Biofilms are organized communities of microorganisms. Microbes within a biofilm produce a protective matrix that enables them to survive in harsh conditions and resist cleaning and disinfection efforts. Pathogenic bacteria like *Listeria monocytogenes* and *Salmonella* are known to form biofilms on a variety of surfaces in food processing environments, enhancing their ability to contaminate food products.
Controlling biofilms involves stringent cleaning and sanitation protocols. Use of surfactants and enzymes, proper sanitizers, and mechanical action can help disrupt biofilms. Furthermore, innovative strategies such as antimicrobial coatings and bacteriophages are being explored for biofilm control.
## Viral Hazards
Viral hazards, while not able to grow in food, can still be transmitted through food and cause foodborne illnesses.
Norovirus, often linked to raw or inadequately cooked shellfish and contaminated water, is the most common causes of foodborne illness.
Hepatitis A, another significant viral hazard, can be associated with many types of food, including berries, shellfish, and raw [produce](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/), and is often a result of contamination from infected food handlers.
*Raw or undercooked shellfish is one of the most common causes of biological food hazards, such as pathogens or norovirus.*## Parasitic Hazards
Parasites in food, though less common than bacterial or viral hazards, can lead to severe health conditions.
Tapeworms, for example, can be present in raw or undercooked fish, pork, and beef and can cause infections in humans when consumed.
Giardia, a microscopic parasite, can contaminate water and any food washed or irrigated with that water. These parasites can survive in the environment for long periods and can cause gastrointestinal illnesses with long-lasting symptoms.
*Giardia can contaminate water and any food it is used to clean or irrigate. It also can survive for long periods, making it especially hazardous to people.*## Fungal Hazards
Fungi, including molds and yeasts, can spoil food and sometimes produce harmful toxins. *Aspergillus*, for instance, can contaminate crops like peanuts, corn, and cottonseed, producing [aflatoxins](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/aflatoxin-testing-a-guide-for-every-almond-producer), which are harmful, even at low concentrations.
Other molds, such as those from the *Penicillium* or *Fusarium* genera, can produce mycotoxins in grains and fruits under certain conditions. These mycotoxins can lead to serious health effects, including immune system suppression and cancer.
## Toxins
Toxins produced by certain bacteria and fungi pose a significant risk because they can cause illness even if the producing organism is no longer present.
Botulinum toxin, produced by *Clostridium* *botulinum*, is one of the most potent neurotoxins known and can lead to botulism, a severe and potentially fatal illness.
*Staphylococcal* enterotoxins, produced by some strains of *Staphylococcus* *aureus*, can cause food poisoning with rapid onset. Unlike many bacteria, the toxins produced by these organisms are resistant to heat and cannot be destroyed by cooking.
## Infamous Outbreaks Due to Biological Food Hazards
Historical instances of biological hazard outbreaks underscore the importance of stringent food safety measures. These outbreaks often lead to a significant number of illnesses, hospitalizations, and sadly, even deaths. Here are a few examples:
- ***E. coli* Outbreak Linked to Slivered Onions (2024):** In one significant outbreak, contaminated onions caused a widespread outbreak of *E. coli* O157:H7 infections across the United States. According to the FDA, this outbreak resulted in 104 illnesses across 14 states, leading to 34 hospitalizations and one death.
- ***Salmonella* Outbreak Linked to Raw Turkey Products (2018-2019**): Another example is a *Salmonella* outbreak associated with raw turkey products. This instance spanned across multiple states in the U.S., resulting in 358 cases, 133 hospitalizations, and one death.
- ***Listeria* Outbreak Linked to Cantaloupes (2011):** This outbreak is one of the deadliest in U.S. history. Contaminated cantaloupes from a farm in Colorado led to a *Listeria monocytogenes* outbreak, resulting in 147 illnesses, 143 hospitalizations, and 33 deaths across 28 states.
- **Hepatitis A Outbreak Linked to Frozen Strawberries (2016):** A multi-state outbreak of Hepatitis A was linked to frozen strawberries imported from Egypt, used in smoothies by a popular chain. This outbreak resulted in 143 cases across nine states, with 56 hospitalizations.
These examples highlight the severe health risks posed by biological hazards in food and the critical need for preventive measures and quick responses to contain these outbreaks.
## Implementing Food Safety Practices in Food Manufacturing and Processing
Understanding biological food hazards is the first step. The subsequent and most crucial step is **implementing measures to prevent these hazards**, especially for food manufacturing and processing companies.
## Role of Food Safety Management Systems
A structured [Food Safety Management System (FSMS)](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) is a strategic asset for food manufacturers and processors.
An FSMS provides a systematic method to identify, monitor, and control food safety hazards within a production cycle. It encompasses everything from raw material procurement to final product distribution.
The primary goal is to ensure the food products are safe for consumption and meet regulatory requirements. With an effective FSMS, companies can not only manage biological hazards in food but also chemical and physical hazards.
## Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)
[HACCP, an internationally recognized food safety system](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/), is designed to control hazards threatening food safety. It operates on seven core principles, including conducting a hazard analysis, identifying critical control points (CCPs), and establishing corrective actions, among others.
Through HACCP, food manufacturing and processing firms can effectively prevent, reduce, or eliminate potential biological food hazards throughout the production process. The HACCP plan is typically customized to fit specific production lines, product types, and biological food hazards.
## Detection and Testing Methods for Biological Food Hazards
Detection and [testing of biological hazards are crucial for food](https://fsns.com/pathogen-testing/) safety assurance. Whether part of your [environmental monitoring program (EMP)](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/) or through raw-material, in-process, or finished-product testing, various methods are used depending on the type of hazard.
- **Microbial Culture Techniques:** Traditional method where samples are cultured on selective media to isolate and identify specific pathogens like *Salmonella* or *E. coli*. These techniques can be time-consuming and require expertise.
- **Rapid Testing Methods:** These include methods such as immunoassays (ELISA) and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) techniques, which are quicker and more sensitive. PCR, for instance, can identify the genetic material of pathogens, providing a high level of accuracy.
- **Next Generation Sequencing (NGS):** NGS allows for the identification and quantification of all microorganisms in a sample, not just those that can be cultured. This method is highly comprehensive but requires sophisticated equipment and expertise.
- **Biosensors:** These provide rapid, real-time detection of pathogens. While still under development, they show great promise for future food safety testing.
[](https://info.fsns.com/emp-ebook)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/56cd1387-3858-49b1-90d2-68eb6a0df65c)## GFSI-Benchmarked Food Safety Platforms
The [Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) provides benchmarked platforms that guide food safety management efforts across the globe. These platforms are based on rigorous standards that tackle food safety from multiple angles, including the prevention of biological hazards. They encourage firms to cultivate a [food safety culture](https://fsns.com/developing-a-strong-food-safety-culture/), integrate food safety into business strategies, and establish robust food safety management systems.
Adopting GFSI-benchmarked platforms like [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), or [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/) can significantly help companies strengthen their defense against biological hazards and achieve [GFSI certification](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) against one of these standards.[](https://certifiedgroup.outgrow.us/c-a-quiz)
## Training and Education
[Staff training and food safety education](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/ "Food Industry Training Built for the Plant Floor") play a critical role in the effective prevention and control of biological hazards. Employees at all levels should understand potential hazards, the importance of following safety protocols, and the consequences of non-compliance.
Training programs should cover proper hygiene practices, cleaning and sanitization processes, temperature control, and more. Regular refresher courses can help keep staff updated on new threats, evolving regulations, and advanced preventive measures. Understanding how microbes grow using the [FATTOM acronym](https://fsns.com/fattom-a-key-to-microbial-control-and-food-safety/) can help, too.
## Regular Audits and Inspections
Regular audits and inspections are fundamental to maintaining a high standard of food safety. They offer a reality check on the effective functioning of the food safety management system, adherence to HACCP principles, and compliance with other food safety protocols.
Audits can help identify potential risk areas, monitor critical control points, and provide insights for continuous improvement. Additionally, [third-party food safety audits](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) can offer an unbiased view of the company’s food safety status, boosting consumer trust.[](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-lp)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)## Traceability and Recall Systems
In an interconnected global food supply chain, a robust traceability and recall system is more crucial than ever.
Traceability systems allow companies to track a product’s path from farm to fork. In case a biological hazard is detected in a product batch, these systems facilitate rapid recall, preventing further spread and consumption. Such a proactive approach not only safeguards public health but also protects the brand reputation by demonstrating the company’s commitment to food safety.
## Biological Food Hazards: Embracing Safety and Taking Action
The journey of understanding biological food hazards doesn’t end with merely identifying them and their potential impact. The most crucial step is to act. For food manufacturing and processing companies, implementing measures to prevent these hazards from entering the food supply chain is an absolute necessity.
By adopting rigorous safety practices and standards such as HACCP, GFSI-benchmarked platforms, and robust Food Safety Management Systems, companies can significantly mitigate risks associated with biological hazards. Emphasizing staff training, conducting regular audits, maintaining strong traceability and recall systems, and rigorously following QA and QC protocols are crucial elements of this preventive approach.
Your commitment to food safety, your vigilance in hazard prevention, and your dedication to quality not only protect consumers but also contribute to a healthier, safer world.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [How to Calculate Shelf Life of Food Using End-of-life Criteria](https://fsns.com/how-to-calculate-shelf-life-of-food-using-end-of-life-criteria/)
**Published:** March 16, 2026
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
Reviewed By:  Aaron Pleitner  Aaron Pleitner
Director of Microbiology Technical Services, Certified Group | Food safety scientist with deep expertise in microbial risk management, environmental monitoring, sanitation strategy, and product safety.
[See Full Bio](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/) [ ](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/)
### 1-Minute Summary
- Define microbiological, chemical, and sensory end-of-life criteria before testing.
- Use shelf life studies to track spoilage, quality changes, and sensory acceptability.
- Identify the earliest data point where any critical limit fails.
- Apply a conservative margin, round to a practical date, and document.
---
## How to Calculate Shelf Life of Food Using End-of-life Criteria
Food scientists must know how to calculate shelf life of food so companies can set an optimal best-by or expiration date. In essence, you’re asking…
**| “At what point is this product no longer safe, high-quality, and acceptable to my customer?”**
[Food shelf life testing](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/) provides microbiological counts, analytical data, and sensory scores over time. To determine the shelf life of food products in a defensible way, you need clear end-of-life criteria and a structured way to interpret that data.
This article explains how food scientists:
- Define end-of-life criteria before testing.
- Use microbiological data to designate spoilage.
- Use chemical and physical data to track quality loss.
- Use sensory panels to reflect real customer experience.
- Combine all three to calculate a realistic, defensible shelf life date.
## How to Determine the Shelf Life of Food Products – Process Diagram
## 1. Define End-of-life Criteria Before You Calculate Food Shelf Life
The first step in how to determine the shelf life of food products is to establish clear criteria for when the product is no longer acceptable.
Create a simple “end-of-life specification” that answers three questions:
- **Microbiological:** When are [total counts and spoilage organisms](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) too high for this product?
- **Chemical/physical:** When do [rancidity, moisture, pH, or nutrient levels](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) move out of range?
- **Sensory:** When would a customer say, “The product quality no longer meets what I expected the day of purchase.”
Include:
- **Micro limits** – maximum acceptable aerobic plate count, yeast and mold, and specific spoilage organisms (e.g., lactic acid bacteria in chilled products).
- **Chemical/physical limits** – maximum rancidity markers, acceptable moisture and water activity ranges, acceptable pH range, minimum % of label claim for key nutrients or actives.
- **Sensory limits** – clear descriptions of unacceptable appearance, odor, flavor, and texture.
If you want to calculate shelf life of food in a way you can defend to customers, auditors, and regulators, this document is your starting point.
If you’re thinking, “I have no idea where to start”, don’t be concerned – [our food shelf life testing team can provide guidance](https://info.fsns.com/labplus).
## 2. Microbiological Data (When Spoilage Says, “Time’s Up”)
In a standard food shelf life study, you track **naturally occurring microflora** and overall hygiene – you are not using pathogens as normal end points.
At each time point, you typically measure:
- Total aerobic plate count (APC)
- Yeast and mold counts
- Sometimes lactic acid bacteria or other known spoilers
When you determine the shelf life of a food product based on micro data, you look at both:
- **Absolute values** – when counts enter your predefined “too high” region.
- **Trends** – rate of change from starting populations; stable counts followed by a sharp rise near the end of storage strongly suggest shelf life is being exhausted.
For some categories, specific spoilage organisms can be more sensitive than generic counts:
- Lactic acid bacteria causing gas or sour off-notes in chilled foods.
- Heat-resistant spoilage organisms driving off-odors in thermally processed beverages.
When these reach your limits or clearly cause visible or sensory spoilage, you have reached microbiological end-of-life.
## 3. Chemical and Physical Changes (Measurable Changes in Quality)
To calculate the shelf life of food, you also need to watch how the product’s chemistry and physical attributes change over time.
Common analytical end-of-life drivers:
- **Oxidative rancidity** – High-fat foods (chips, nuts, granola, oil-based snacks) often reach end of shelf life when rancidity markers (peroxide value, anisidine value, TBA) cross your internal thresholds, resulting in the sensory panel detecting off-flavors.
- **pH drift** – pH decrease in meats and ready-to-eat meals can indicate spoilage metabolism; pH drop in fermented foods can push flavor and texture outside your target range and indicate continued fermentation after product release.
- **Moisture and water activity (aw) changes** – Moisture loss or gain can cause staling, caking, sogginess, or loss of crispness. Water activity shifts can move the product into a higher or lower microbiological risk category as an intrinsic product factor.
- **Nutrient or active degradation** – fortified foods and beverages may reach end-of-life when key nutrients or actives fall below an internal target percentage of label claim.
**Working rule:** Chemical/physical end-of-life is the first time a critical parameter crosses its limit or clearly will cross before reaching the intended shelf life date.
[](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/shelf-life-study-questionnaire)## 4. Sensory Results: The Customer’s Perspective on Shelf Life
Customers may not directly relate to lab data, but they certainly care about how your product looks, smells, and tastes. When you want to know how to determine the shelf life of food products in terms of protecting brand reputation, sensory data is critical.
Panels typically evaluate:
- **Appearance:** color changes, surface drying, separation, visible mold, package bloating.
- **Odor:** rancid, sour, sulfurous, or “stale” notes.
- **Flavor:** loss of character (i.e. bland), development of off-notes, (acidity, bitterness, cardboard).
- **Texture:** staling, sogginess, toughness, loss of crunch or creaminess.
Define in advance:
- The scoring system (e.g., 0–9 for overall acceptability).
- The cut-off for end-of-life (e.g., “end when more than half the panel scores below X on overall acceptability”; “end when the median score is below X on a borderline score designation”).
From a practical standpoint, **sensory end-of-life often drives your final decision**, because it reflects when a typical consumer would reasonably reject the product or no longer find it acceptable, even if microbiological and analytical values are technically still within limits.
And if they have a bad experience with your product, you have lost a repeat purchase.
## End-of-Life Criteria for Food Products
## 5. How to Calculate Shelf Life of Food From Your Data
Once the shelf life study is complete, you can calculate shelf life of food in a structured way by integrating all three data streams.
### Put All Key Data on a Timeline
- Micro counts (APC, yeast/mold, key spoilers).
- Chemical/physical parameters (e.g., PV, moisture, aw, pH, key nutrients).
- Sensory overall-acceptability scores.
### Mark the First Failure in Each Category
- First time a microbiological limit is exceeded or obvious microbial spoilage appears.
- First time a chemical or physical parameter moves out of range.
- First time the sensory panel deems the product unacceptable.
- Verify the first-time failure with the proceeding time-point failure.
### Define the Technical End-of-Life
- Take the **earliest** of those failure points as the technical end of shelf life.
- This is your data-driven answer to how to determine the shelf life of a food product in strictly technical terms.
### Apply a Conservative Margin and Round
- Reduce that technical time by a reasonable margin (commonly 10–25%) to cover lot-to-lot variation and real-world handling.
- This may also be the previous passing time point.
- Round to a practical shelf-life code (e.g., 75 or 90 days instead of, say, 83 days).
The result is a clear, documented path from test data to a label date. And the same logic applies whether you rely solely on real-time data or use [accelerated shelf life testing](https://fsns.com/accelerated-shelf-life-testing/) (for non-microbiological metrics) as a supplementary tool that you later confirm with real-time results.
## 6. Key Takeaways When Calculating Food Shelf Life
If you want to know how to calculate shelf life of food in a way you can stand behind:
- Define microbiological, analytical, and sensory end-of-life criteria before you start.
- Use [food shelf life testing](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/) to track naturally occurring spoilage organisms, quality drifts, and real sensory changes.
- Call the technical end-of-life at the earliest point any critical criterion fails.
- Add a conservative margin of 10-25% and round to a practical date that reflects real distribution and variability.
With that structure, your shelf-life date becomes a deliberate, data-driven decision that protects consumers, your brand, and your bottom line – and ensures your [food shelf-life testing cost](https://fsns.com/how-to-reduce-food-shelf-life-testing-cost-without-compromising-data/) is focused on generating the data that matter most.
Need help designing a food shelf life study? Ready to discuss testing? [Contact our food shelf life testing team today and we’ll be happy to help!](https://info.fsns.com/labplus)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/08cd1f6c-e5aa-4b2d-b34a-ceb8fedae050)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [Nutritional Labeling & Testing: Decoding A Nutritional Label](https://fsns.com/nutritional-labeling-testing-decoding-a-nutritional-label/)
**Published:** August 1, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
## Nutritional Labeling: What is It?
Nutritional labeling is a requirement from the FDA on most beverages and packaged foods. These labels, also called the Nutrition Facts label, show the nutrient content of a food product to consumers and guide them in food selection. For businesses involved in food production, [nutritional testing](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/) is a crucial step in this process.
This labeling process has been around since 1913, initially for consumer protection. The law required food manufacturers to list their ingredients on every package, something akin to a primitive nutritional label.
The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 expanded this concept by requiring the listing of nutrient information. Thus, [nutritional testing](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/) became necessary to ensure accuracy. Nutrition labels now serve the following purposes:
- Provide information to help consumers make healthy choices.
- List nutrition facts that affect common health issues, such as diabetes and weight control.
- Serve as a guide for those on a specific diet.
The FDA also gives regular guidance to businesses in the food industry for any [changes in labeling](https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/changes-nutrition-facts-label).
## U.S. FDA Requirements on Your Nutritional Label
*A nutritional label must display serving size, calories, total fat, and other important information, per U.S. FDA regulations.*A nutritional label has 12 components, all verified through nutritional testing:
- **Serving sizes and servings per package:** This is the basis for all nutrition fact information on a label. Results from laboratory analysis use the standard measurement of units per 100 grams, expressed in quantities per serving.
- **Calories:** Regardless of the methods used to analyze calorie count, laboratories determine the sum before rounding them off.
- **Total fat:** This shows the total grams of fat in each serving, including all lipid fatty acids.
- **Saturated fat:** The sum of all “bad fats” responsible for increasing LDL cholesterol levels.
- **Trans fat:** Almost the same as saturated fat but lowers HDL cholesterol levels as well.
- **Cholesterol:** The cholesterol content measured in milligrams and rounded off to 5 mg per increment.
- **Sodium:** An essential mineral that helps maintain muscle contraction and fluid balance.
- **Total carbohydrates:** Indicates the sum of dietary fiber, sugar, and starches.
- **Dietary fiber:** This is a type of fiber that supports digestive health.
- **Sugars:** Listed in grams, this indicates the constituent sugars, which can be fructose, glucose, sucrose, maltose, and lactose.
- **Protein:** This nutrient helps to repair tissues and creates enzymes and other body chemicals.
- **Vitamin D, potassium, and minerals:** Measurement of vitamins and minerals that help to maintain consistent health.
The first item on this list counts as two components: serving sizes and servings per package. You can choose to add other optional details to your labels, such as folate, monounsaturated fat, and magnesium.
## Advantages of Nutritional Labeling
Beyond FDA compliance, nutrition facts on your product bring several benefits to your business, all underscored by precise nutritional testing:
- **Professionalism:** Without a nutrition information label on your product, your company will appear unprofessional to consumers. They may even doubt your product’s effectiveness and instead choose your competitors’ products that have detailed labels on them.
- **Transparency:** Food labels help improve brand loyalty, [especially with millennial consumers](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefffromm/2017/12/13/why-label-transparency-matters-when-it-comes-to-millennial-brand-loyalty/). Your sales may decrease if you don’t have nutrition information on your product.
- **Marketing:** Most health-conscious consumers read the information on your nutrition label. If they find that your product has a sufficient amount of nutrients they need, they’ll buy it and most likely recommend them to their friends and family.
## The Value of a Nutritional Label: Not Just a Label, But a Trust Signal
Nutritional labeling and testing are essential components in running a business in the food industry. As said, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires proper food labeling. [This FDA guide to nutritional labeling is a great resource for food and beverage companies](https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Food-Labeling-Guide-%28PDF%29.pdf).
However, compliance with regulations is not the only goal of nutritional labeling and testing. The detailed [nutritional information that comes from accurate nutritional testing](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/) builds trust among your consumers.
The transparency you provide with these labels shows your company’s honesty. Printing an allergen declaration on your labels also helps protect your business if a person allergic to one of your ingredients consumes your product.
However, before you can place the actual nutritional values, your product must undergo nutritional testing first.
[Food Safety Net Services (FSNS)](https://fsns.com/) and [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/), both Certified Group companies, offer complete nutritional facts testing that complies with current FDA guidelines. We also provide product-specific labels based on the results of our tests.
In addition to standard labeling, we offer many accompanying tests such as caffeine, amino acids, and other vitamins and nutrients.
## Why FSNS is Your Go-To Analysis Lab for Nutritional Labeling & Testing
Our [nutritional analysis labs](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/) can help accurately determine the amounts of vital ingredients in your products. We cover a broad scope of nutritional testing, including:
- Fat
- Protein
- Carbohydrates
- Calories
- Sodium
- Fiber
- Sugars
- Vitamin D
- Calcium
- Iron
- Potassium
Our North American network of 30+ ISO 17025 accredited labs have experts to guide you through nutritional testing and [labeling of your products](https://fsns.com/6-steps-to-ensure-correct-product-labeling-and-prevent-recalls/). Major brands in the food industry trust our nutritional testing services for various products, including food ingredients, commodities, vitamins, and [dietary supplements](https://certified-laboratories.com/supplements/).
Besides the competitive pricing we offer, we provide you with an option to request rushed turnaround times.
## Adding More Value to Your Products with Nutritional Testing & Labeling at Our Nutritional Analysis Lab
Accurate nutritional testing and labeling go beyond FDA compliance. They also help build customer loyalty and trust in your brand. Even if your products pass chemical and food testing, you wouldn’t be able to show your products’ value without a nutritional fact label. Drop us a line to [discover how our nutritional testing at FSNS and Certified Laboratories, top-tier nutritional analysis labs, can help you meet regulatory requirements and bolster your brand](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/)
**Categories:** General
---
### [Front-Of-Package Nutrition Labels – A Quick Introduction](https://fsns.com/front-of-package-nutrition-labels-a-quick-introduction/)
**Published:** December 19, 2024
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*By Gary C. Smith and Keith E. Belk, Colorado State University*
Legislation was introduced by Democrat Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., of New Jersey (and several co-sponsors) during the 118th U.S. Congress in April 2023 called the “[Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2023](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1289)” that would modify the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. At the time of submission, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and subsequently to the Subcommittee on Health. Since that time, it does not appear to have moved any further and, given the outcome of recent elections, may not move any further in the foreseeable future.
## The Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2023 and Its Implications
Nonetheless, the introduction of the legislation was noteworthy because, if passed, it would require that nutritional information be displayed on the front of food and beverage packaging in a standardized format.
The current form of the bill requires that foods must include on principal display panels a summary of nutritional information using a system that clearly distinguishes between products of greater or lesser nutritional value and that uses standardized symbols to provide information about products that are high in certain substances, such as saturated fats. Labels that use certain terms, such as whole wheat, fruit, or vegetable, must include additional information, such as the amount or quantity of that item in the food. The FDA would be required to develop regulations relating to the use of the terms “natural” or “healthy” on food labels. Requirements for certain foods that contain added coloring, flavoring, phosphorus, caffeine, gluten, allulose, polydextrose, sugar alcohols, or isolated fibers would be included, among other things.1
## The FDA’s Evolving Approach to Healthy Food Labeling
In 2022, the FDA updated the Nutrition Facts panel on food/beverage packages to…
1. Update Daily Values based on new scientific information
2. Require Daily Values for added sugars, vitamin D, and potassium
3. No longer require “Calories From Fat” (because research shows that type of fat consumed is more important than the amount) plus vitamins A and C (because deficiencies of these vitamins are rare today)2
The [FDA is frantically searching for a definition of the term “Healthy”](https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-food-labeling-and-critical-foods/use-term-healthy-food-labeling), and on September 28, 2022 proposed a rule to update the definition of a “Healthy” claim on food packaging that…
1. Relies on Dietary Guidelines For Americans (DGFA) and current RDAs of certain nutrients
2. Uses a food-group-based approach in addition to “nutrients to limit” (those are saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars)3,4
## Dietary Guidelines For Americans (DGFA) Released
[The federal government released the 2020-2025 DGFA, dubbed “Make Every Bite Count,”](https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans_2020-2025.pdf) focused on four guidelines (note that the 2025 version of the Guidelines are under development):
1. Follow a healthy dietary plan at every stage in life.
2. Customize nutrient-dense food and beverage choices for personal preferences, cultural traditions, and available budgets.
3. Focus on meeting food group needs (fruits; vegetables; grains; dairy and fortified soy-alternatives; and proteins) and stay within calories.
4. Limit foods/beverages higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium.5
DGFA 2020-2025 redirected its dietary guidance toward food groups and subgroups; redefined the term “nutrient-dense”; doubled-down on “added sugars”; extended its “recommended healthy dietary patterns” to include infants, toddlers, pregnant women, and lactating mothers; and dropped the Food Guide Pyramid in favor of MyPlate.5
## “Food Groups” Supplant “Nutrients”
DGFA has shifted its guidance from “nutrients” to “Food Groups” and its recommendations by food groups and subgroups – not specific foods and beverages – to avoid being prescriptive.5,6 It has doubled-down on [added sugars](https://fsns.com/natural-and-added-sugars-in-dietary-guidance/) saying, “A healthy dietary pattern doesn’t have much room for extra added sugars; foods and beverages high in this component should be limited. Avoid foods and beverages with added sugars for those younger than age two; a small amount can be added to nutrient-dense foods and beverages to help meet food group recommendations.”7
“Nutrient-dense” has been used for decades to describe differences among foods relative to “how much of a food has to be consumed to ingest a given amount of essential nutrients.” DGFA 2020-2025 hijacked the term, defining it as “Nutrient-dense foods provide vitamins, minerals, and other health promotants – and they have no or little added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium.”8
## MyPlate Replaces the Food Guide Pyramid
The 2020-2025 DGFA did not contain the USDA Food Guide Pyramid (FGP) and replaced it with an updated diagrammatic depiction called MyPlate. The FGP was created by USDA in support of the DGFAs, became famous, and was the national standard for what all Americans should eat.9 For 29 years , the FGP (referenced as the “Government’s Guide To A Healthful Diet”) was taught to students in public schools and those in the healthcare community with emphasis on a four-tiered “consumer advice” categorization: Eat Less, Eat Moderately, Eat More, Eat Most. Fats, Oils, and Sweets were in the Eat Less tier with an admonition to “Use Sparingly.”10
## Dissecting the Food Guide Pyramid and MyPlate
When the six blocks of the FGP are dissected, the DGFA recommends a diet of…
- 41% Bread, Cereal, Rice and Pasta
- 19% Vegetables
- 14% Fruit
- 12% Milk, Yogurt, and Cheese
- 12% Meat, Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans, Eggs, and Nuts
- 2% Fats, Oils, and Sweets11
The diagrammatic depiction of MyPlate consists of a dinner fork, a large circle (a dinner plate), and a small circle (a beverage coaster).7 Placement of names of food groups in the two circles suggests the recommended diet consists of…
- 27% Vegetables
- 27% Grains
- 19% Fruits
- 19% Protein
- 8% Dairy7
For five decades, Big Food has been delighted with the dietary guidance of the AHA, USDA, and FDA: Instead of animal products, we’re supposed to eat plants – they all believe that a nearly vegetarian diet is the healthiest.12
AHA most recently updated its dietary guidance as follows:
1. Emphasizing consumption of vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, whole grains, lean protein, and fish.
2. Suggesting limited intake of foods high in saturated fat and/or cholesterol
3. Minimizing consumption of trans fat, sodium, processed meat, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.13
For more than 40 years, the USDA, FDA, and DGFA have followed in lockstep with AHA dietary guidance,12,14 but all are now transitioning to “food groups” and “eating patterns”, advising consumers to use Nutrition Facts and Ingredient lists to choose individual food products.7,15,16 They’re all sticking with admonitions against saturated fat, added sugars, and sodium but heightening anxiety about refined carbohydrates and [ultra-processed foods](https://fsns.com/the-impact-of-ultra-processed-food-on-human-health/). This does not bode well for marketers of some food products.
So, going back to what the U.S. Congress asked for with the Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2023, the government has not…
1. Identified a standardized format for displaying nutritional information on the front of food packages.
2. Created a protocol for distinguishing greater or lesser nutritional value of individual food products
3. Decided whether or not to mandate “Warning Symbols” for products high in saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, added sugars, and any other negative nutrients.
4. Defined the terms “Healthy” or “Natural”.
That leaves the door open for Big Food to search for a new system to assign relative-ranks for “Healthfulness” to individual food products.
## Controversies in Categorizing Foods as “Healthy”
Not everyone believes that categorization of certain foods as “Healthy” and featuring it as a Front-Of-Package (FOP) claim, is a good idea.
An analysis of 1,139 Public Comments sent to the FDA concluded that the majority of respondents favored eliminating the “Healthy” claim altogether.17 In the United Kingdom, use of “Healthy” [labels has had essentially no effect on the nutritional](https://fsns.com/nutritional-labeling-testing-decoding-a-nutritional-label/) values of products sold by the 10 largest food/beverage retailers.18
In a later Public Comment response to the FDA, KrogerTM said, “We support identification of a ‘Healthy’ FOP depiction or symbol but recognize that it will be challenging to distill the many attributes in a food into a single definition.”19
If the criteria for claiming a food product as “Healthy” is decided upon – and deployed by food manufacturers – there will be collateral damage for the implied “Unhealthy” foods.
## International Approaches to Front-of-Package Labeling
Since April 2022, food retailers in the United Kingdom have faced severe restrictions as to how they can market “Unhealthy” sugary foods/beverages and snacks.20 Health Canada has mandated use of an FOP symbol as a “Warning Label” on products that contain an amount of saturated fat, sodium, or sugar that is at or above 10% of the applicable Daily Value.21 Health Canada’s Food & Drug Regulations agency intends to restrict “advertising to children” of foods that contribute to excess intakes of sodium, sugars, and saturated fats.22
The FDA has considered using the Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2021 (a previous bill to that of 2023, but similar) to require that a FOP “Warning Symbol” be placed on food products that are high in saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, added sugars, and any other negative nutrients.1 Prognosticators expect the Biden Administration to: (a) raise revenue by taxing “Unhealthy” foods, and (b) issue regulations to limit availability and exposure to junk foods for children especially in the School Lunch Program, and Big Food.23 The FDA has regulatory authority over food labels: the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission have extended their authority to include food advertising (i.e., statements made in flyers, on television, and on the Internet).24 Some of the White House proposals will require Congressional action, while others can be undertaken by the FDA (e.g., FOP nutritional labels, guidelines to reduce sodium and added sugars in foods).25
## The Evolution of Health Claims on Food Labels
Prior to 1990, putting a [heath claim on a food label](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/label-claims/) was prohibited. Then, because Kellogg’sTM wanted to make claims about diet and health on their cereal boxes, the U.S. Congress passed the NLEA of 1990.26
Since then, the FDA has approved 12 “authorized” and about 30 “qualified” health claims26, and AHA has approved innumerable “Heart Healthy” Checkmarks. All of these can be consumer-facing FOP claims and are intended to attract impulse buyers. Because health claims are dependent on two fluid sets of standards – DGFA ideology and FDA guidance – and the tide is rising, Big Food is searching for an alternative, government-approved system for assessing “Healthfulness” of foods.27,28 It is unclear, exactly who, how, and when a scientist (Dariush Mozaffarian PhD, Tufts University) was hired to invent such a system.
## Questioning the Motivation Behind a New Food Guide System
When a food company funds a university to conduct a study, it expects to get results that will favor the company’s product, and they look for one of nutrition’s elite: a university professor who is well-connected at the AHA or NIH.29
One medical professional claims that both Big Pharma and Big Sugar are searching for a lifeline, by..
1. Deploying a representative of the Biden Administration (a Dr. Stanley) to claim that obesity is a genetic problem (i.e., if one or both of your parents is obese you have a 50 to 85% chance of becoming obese).
2. Funding a bought-and-paid-for academician (a Dr. Mozaffarian) to develop, promote, and lobby for a new Food Guide Pyramid (i.e., the Tufts University, Nutrient Profiling System, Food Compass Scores).30
Others claim that development of the NPS-FCS system was fueled by contributions to Tufts University by Bill Gates (who wants to decimate animal agriculture)27,31 the healthcare sector (that wants a bigger part of national wealth),32 and/or Big Food (e.g., specifically Kellogg’sTM, General MillsTM, and PepsiCoTM who together have more than 100 products ranked by NPS-FCS).33
## The Rise of Nutrient Profiling Systems and the Tufts Food Compass Score
Whatever was the case, the National Institutes of Health, apparently under pressure from parts of the food industry, decided to replace the Food Guide Pyramid that was used for years in DGFA.34 What they wanted was to protect high-carb diets, refined carbohydrates, added sugars, and ultra-processed foods; and they wanted a new, government-approved, “identifier” for Front-Of-Package display that would simplify what and how much of certain foods a person should consume.35 Dariush Mozaffarian and his colleagues at Tufts University developed one.36
## The Rise of Nutrient Profiling Systems and the Food Compass Score
The Tuft’s University study ranked more than 8,000 foods/beverages by assigning each of them a Nutrient Profiling System, or Food Compass Score (NPS-FCS). The nine nutritional values used to determine “Healthfulness” are…
1. Nutrient Ratios – Unsaturated:Saturated Fat; Fiber:Carbohydrate; Potassium:Sodium
2. Vitamins
3. Minerals
4. Food Ingredients
5. Additives
6. Processing
7. Specific Lipids
8. Fiber and Protein
9. Phytochemicals
Foods with an FCS of 70 to 100 are categorized as “Highly Encouraged, No Limitations”, those with an FCS of 31 to 69 are identified as “Consume In Moderation”; and those with an FCS of 30 or lower are categorized as “Limited Consumption”.36
Since then, a second publication of the same data in the Journal of Nutrition, has added a new “Pyramid Chart” that has three tiers: 70 to 100, “To Be Encouraged”; 31 to 69, “To Be Moderated”, and 30 or lower, “To Be Minimized”.
The food industry will now push for use of the NPS-FCS definition of healthfulness – and especially its new “Pyramid Chart” for Front-Of-Packaging labeling, Warning Labels, taxation, and company ratings.37
## Controversies Surrounding the Food Compass Score and Nutritional Rankings
What about those NPS-FCS rankings?
Among 8,023 foods/beverages, only two – watermelon and kale – scored 100. Huh? Watermelon is the most nutritious, most healthful food on the planet? Most people grew up being told that milk, meat, and eggs were the “perfect” foods; they scored 49, 26 and 29, respectively.36 Joe Rogan said, “The rankings were complete, undeniable, indefensible b.s!”31
Here are some more FCS rankings: 70 to 100, Frosted Mini Wheat, almond milk, lettuce, chocolate-covered almonds, Honey Nut Cheerios; 31 to 69, skinless chicken breast, Lucky Charms, Almond M&Ms, potato chips, corn chips; 30 or lower, roast beef, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, pork chop, chocolate milk, bacon.36
What do others think of NPS-FCS rankings and categorization?
- Tom Karst says, “FCS ranks fruits and vegetables as almost the only foods that score 70 to 100. I really don’t get it. Lettuce is “healthful” because it contains so much water, but not “nutrient dense” because it contains too much water.”38
- Justin Mares says, “The FCS results are absurd; 70 breakfast cereals (led by Lucky Charms) ranked higher on this new Healthfulness scale than either meat or eggs.”34
- Greg Bloom says, “Sadly, FCS will negatively affect schoolkids, the poor, the sick, and the elderly – the most vulnerable of our communities.29
- Nina Teicholz says, “This is appalling. It ranks Lucky Charms and Cheerios above all meat and dairy products because Dr. Mozaffarian et al. believe saturated fats are bad, and FCS counts added vitamins and minerals.”37
- Tamar Haspel says, “Who’s fault is obesity? 73% of Americans are overweight or obese; the problem is the food system, not the people. Food manufacturers have developed product after product that was deliberately designed to be overeaten.”40
## The Future of Front-of-Package Labels and Nutrient Profiling Systems
So far, the government has not acted on any of this,33 but Dariush Mozaffarian is on leave-of-absence from Tufts and is lobbying for adoption of NPS-FCS full-time in Washington DC.14,33
The FDA extended the Comment Period on Draft Guidance for “Questions And Answers About Dietary Guidance Statements In Food Labeling”, but that extension closed on Sept. 25, 2023.41 They issued a presentation of the study titled “Reagan-Udall Foundation Front-of-Package Nutrition Labeling”42 on Nov. 16, 2023. However, the Draft Guidance for “Questions And Answers About Dietary Guidance Statements In Food Labeling” remains listed on FDA’s website in its previous pre-comment 2023 form as of this writing.
On Jan. 14, 2025 [the FDA issued a proposal to require at-a-glance nutrition information on the front of packaged foods](https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-proposes-requiring-glance-nutrition-information-front-packaged-foods). We shall see if the proposal gains traction or not in the months ahead.
### REFERENCES
1. Congress.gov. Accessed December 2, 2024.
2. FDA. 2023. usfda@public.govdelivery.com. Accessed on 4/1/2023.
3. Demetrakakes, Pan. 2020. Food Processing. April Edition.
4. Fusaro, Dave. 2022. Food Processing. October Edition.
5. USDA/USDHHS. 2023. DietaryGuidelines.gov. Accessed on 6/29/2023.
6. Levy, Sarah. 2018. Food Processing. April Edition.
7. USDA. 2023. MyPlate.gov. Accessed on 7/12/2023.
8. Gelski, Jeff. 2021. Dairy Processing. November 12 Issue.
9. Teicholz, Nina. 2022. Meatingplace. October 28 Issue.
10. Eliason, Nat. 2019. Health. April 22 Issue.
11. USDA/USDHHS. 2000. Food Guide Pyramid. Washington DC.
12. Teicholz, Nina. 2014. The Big Fat Surprise. Simon & Schuster. New York, NY.
13. Scott, Chris. 2022. Meatingplace. September 7 Issue.
14. Teicholz, Nina. 2023. Unsettled Science. May 25 Issue.
15. American Heart Association. 2023. Heart.org. Accessed on 8/17/2023.
16. FDA. 2023. EAS Consulting Group. March 29 Issue.
17. Levy, Sarah. 2018. Food Processing. April Edition.
18. Demetrakakes, Pan. 2021. Food Processing. August 8 Issue.
19. Karst, Tom. 2021. The Packer. July 6 Issue.
20. Demetrakakes, Pan. 2021. Food Processing. January 4 Issue.
21. Health Canada. 2023. Government of Canada. May 16 Issue.
22. US Meat Export Federation. 2023. USMEF Export Newsline. May 4 Issue.
23. Cardello, Hank. 2020. Hudson Institute. December 2 Issue.
24. Steven, S. and E. Presnell. 2022. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
25. Hoffman, J. and J. Wiesemeyer. 2022. Drovers. September 27 Issue.
26. Avis, Ed. 2022. Food Processing. June Edition.
27. Carlson, Paige. 2022. Drovers. August 10 Issue.
28. Teicholz, Nina. 2021. Nutrition Coalition. November 29 Issue.
29. Bekelman, Justin. 2003. Journal of the American Medical Association. 289:454-465.
30. Means, Calley. 2023. True-Med®. April 26 Issue.
31. Rogan, Joe. 2022. You Tube. Accessed 4//8/2022.
32. Makary, Marty. 2023. Fox News. January 10 Issue.
33. Teicholz, Nina. 2023. Unsettled Science. February 6 Issue.
34. Mares, Justin. 2023. Fox News. January 4 Issue.
35. Waters, J. and J. Mares. 2023. Fox News. January 4 Issue.
36. Mozaffarian et al. 2021. Nature Food. 2: 809-818.
37. Teicholz, Nina. 2021. Nutrition Coalition. November 29 Issue.
38. Karst, Tom. 2021. The Packer. November 28 Issue.
39. Bloom, Greg. 2022. Meatingplace. September 22 Issue.
40. Haspel, Tamar. 2023. The Washington Post. June 29 Issue.
41. FDA. 2023. . Accessed on 6/16/2023.
42. FDA. 2023. . Accessed on 6/30/2023.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [5 Ways Food Testing Promotes Quality & Safety as Companies Cut Costs](https://fsns.com/5-ways-food-testing-promotes-quality-safety-as-companies-cut-costs/)
**Published:** June 29, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
As companies strive to cut costs, the intersection of cost-efficiency and food safety is under the microscope. With an eye on the bottom line, stressed budgets often lead to reductions in redundant and superfluous spending. Sometimes budget cuts are easy to identify and will have minimal impact. Other times the temptation to save money can compromise product quality and safety.
As belts tighten, one tool that can help reduce costs is [food safety testing](https://fsns.com/resources/importance-of-food-safety-testing/). Here’s how.
## **1. Food Testing Detects Harmful Contaminants**
One of the primary objectives of food testing is to identify contaminants that could be hazardous to consumers. [Pesticides](https://fsns.com/reasons-to-perform-pesticide-testing/), [heavy metals](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/how-to-test-for-heavy-metals-in-food-other-products?__hstc=187690167.40f942fd254d7bf7adc0fea5960c389d.1686329846311.1689624081235.1689637079376.58&__hssc=187690167.12.1689637079376&__hsfp=2924083047), and [pathogenic bacteria](https://fsns.com/pathogen-testing/), for example, can all be identified through rigorous testing.
[Allergen cross contamination](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/food-allergen-testing-avoiding-allergen-cross-contact?__hstc=187690167.40f942fd254d7bf7adc0fea5960c389d.1686329846311.1689624081235.1689637079376.58&__hssc=187690167.12.1689637079376&__hsfp=2924083047) is also important. Food testing helps to prevent costly product recalls and potentially damaging lawsuits, contributing to a company’s bottom line.
Don’t just rely on your supplier’s testing. As a food manufacturer, the last line of responsibility for ensuring a safe food product is yours.
## **2. Food Testing** **Protects Against Food Fraud**
[Food fraud](https://fsns.com/what-is-food-fraud/) is a growing concern worldwide. After all, everyone is looking for ways to cut costs, even your suppliers.
However, without diligent testing you could become the victim of food fraud where unscrupulous suppliers replace high-cost ingredients with cheaper alternatives.
As you review your supplier agreements, both long term suppliers and when vetting new suppliers, ensure that adequate controls are in place to protect you from food fraud. Then test to verify authenticity. Food testing enables companies to authenticate ingredients and safeguard against fraud.
You’ll ensure you receive the product that you paid for and in turn provide that same peace of mind to your consumers, ultimately protecting brand integrity and customer loyalty.
*Food expiration dates and best-buy dates protect consumers from food product spoilage.*## **3. Food Testing** **Optimizes Shelf-Life**
Food testing determines the optimal shelf-life of ingredients and finished products. This allows products to be available for sale and visible to customers for longer periods of time, a clear advantage.
Specifically, [challenge studies in foods and beverages](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/) enable manufacturers to determine in a scientific manner how products degrade over time and inform the development of sell-by and best-by dates.
Looking to take advantage of new shelf-stable technologies like nanotechnology or change your product formulation? Conducting a challenge study is particularly important when any change might affect your product’s shelf-life since spoilage due to inaccurate shelf-life data can cost you. ([Get a quote for you next challenge study here.](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/challenge-study-questionnaire?__hstc=187690167.40f942fd254d7bf7adc0fea5960c389d.1686329846311.1689624081235.1689637079376.58&__hssc=187690167.12.1689637079376&__hsfp=2924083047))
From a tarnished brand reputation to litigation risks to consumers who will “never buy it again,” products that should have been designated “expired” are wasteful to manufactures and potentially dangerous for consumers.
[\[Case Study\] Challenge Studies Help Dairy Products Manufacturer Expand Product Line and Boost Revenue](https://eadn-wc05-2540179.nxedge.io/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Dairy-Case-Study_1122.pdf)
## **4. Compliance with Regulatory Standards**
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) mandates safety standards for food products. Examples include the Food Safety Modernization Act found in the Code of Federal Regulations [21 CFR Part 117](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-117) and thermally processed Low Acid and Acidified Foods regulations of [21 CFR 113](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-113) and [21 CFR 114](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-114), respectively.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has its own regulatory requirements for meats, dairy, and other products under its purview. Even states will have regulatory requirements pertaining to food safety.
It is important to understand and maintain compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements to legally market food products in the U.S. Many of those requirements pertain to food safety measures, which are verified through laboratory testing.
Examples of testing include environmental monitoring for microbial pathogens and allergen cross contamination, [nutritional analysis](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/) to create accurate Nutrition Facts Panels and others. Some types of testing may be voluntary, but others are required. Ensure your food safety managers are well versed in the specifics of your regulatory requirements and perform compliance activities that keep you on the right side of the law.
## **5. Food Testing** **Ensures Nutritional Accuracy**
Speaking of Nutrition Facts Panels, nutritional analysis is a critical aspect of food testing. It ensures that product [labels accurately represent the nutritional](https://fsns.com/nutritional-labeling-testing-decoding-a-nutritional-label/) content, a crucial aspect of consumer trust and regulatory compliance.
Inaccurate labels can lead to significant financial penalties and harm a company’s reputation. By verifying the nutrient content, companies can avoid these pitfalls and maintain their market position.
While the upfront costs of food testing can seem daunting, the long-term financial and reputational benefits are significant. Not only does it facilitate regulatory compliance and protect against food fraud, it also helps optimize shelf-life and ensure product quality and safety. By investing in rigorous food testing, companies can effectively cut costs and safeguard their reputation in the competitive food industry, particularly in inflationary markets when cutting costs can cut corners. [Contact us with any questions about how our food testing services can help you save money.](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
**Categories:** General
---
### [Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-to-Eat Foods Through Environmental Monitoring](https://fsns.com/control-listeria-monocytogenes-ready-eat-foods/)
**Published:** March 12, 2018
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Control of *Listeria monocytogenes* in ready-to-eat foods is a critical priority for food safety and regulatory compliance. The genus *Listeria* is ubiquitous in the natural environment (i.e., soil, vegetation, and surface water) and most *Listeria* species are not pathogenic to humans. *Listeria monocytogenes* is the only species in the *Listeria* genus of public health significance.
Not only is *L. monocytogenes* able to infect more than 40 species of animals and birds but is also commonly shed in the feces of asymptomatic production animals, including cattle and sheep. *L. monocytogenes* can cause a severe invasive disease known as listeriosis in high-risk host populations, including pregnant women and their neonates, the elderly and otherwise immunocompromised individuals (e.g., cancer and HIV patients). *L. monocytogenes* infections account for approximately 20% of deaths attributable to foodborne pathogens in the U.S. per annum.
[View our on-demand webinar: The *Listeria-*Control Toolbox.](https://fsns.com/listeria-monocytogenes-contamination-in-produce-an-increasing-cause-for-concern/)
## Understanding the Risks of *Listeria monocytogenes* in RTE Foods
Because *Listeria* is common in the general environment and commonly shed by asymptomatic animals, the organism may be found in raw materials and other ingredients used to manufacture and process [ready-to-eat (RTE) foods](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/). Although *Listeria* is readily controlled by lethality treatments such as cooking, pasteurization, and drying, exposure to the environment after a lethality treatment (prior to packaging) can lead to cross-contamination of RTE food products from environments where foods are manufactured, processed, packaged and held. Combined [microbiological testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and molecular subtyping studies have demonstrated utility in elucidating *Listeria* transmission patterns in RTE food processing plants and identifying harborage sites within a facility.
## Environmental Sources and Transmission Pathways in Processing Facilities
Additionally, these studies have demonstrated that a given facility tends to be predominated by one or a few specific *Listeria* DNA fingerprint types. Whole genome sequencing studies have shown that *Listeria* can persist in the environment of food processing facilities for years while undergoing minimal genetic change. In addition, unlike other foodborne pathogens, *Listeria* is capable of growing slowly during refrigerated storage throughout the shelf-life of ready-to-eat foods. Trend analyses of combined testing and molecular subtyping data along with in-plant trainings on *Listeria* ecology have been shown to improve knowledge and may lead to better *Listeria* control in the environment.
## FDA and USDA-FSIS Guidance for Control of *Listeria monocytogenes* in Ready-to-Eat Foods
In 2017 the FDA released a new draft guidance document on “[Control of *Listeria monocytogenes* in ready-to-eat foods](https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/draft-guidance-industry-control-listeria-monocytogenes-ready-eat-foods)”, which replaces the 2008 document. The purpose of the document is to help companies subject to the current good manufacturing practices and preventive controls rule in 21 CFR part 117 in accordance with the Food Safety Modernization Act.
USDA:FSIS industry best practices and the “seek and destroy” philosophy have been incorporated into the 2017 FDA guidance document to harmonize the regulatory approach to control *L. monocytogenes* in RTE foods and benefit facilities regulated by both agencies. The document includes “non-binding” recommendations to control *L. monocytogenes* involving personnel, plant design and operation, equipment cleaning and maintenance, sanitation, raw materials and other ingredients, lethality treatments, and product formulations to inhibit the growth of *L. monocytogenes* as well as storage and transportation practices.
The overall goal is to eliminate *L. monocytogenes* contamination or control the growth of *L. monocytogenes* in finished RTE products through controls on raw materials and other ingredients, listericidal controls, listeristatic formulations, separation of raw and cooked food areas, environmental sanitation, sanitary equipment design and physical barriers to prevent cross-contamination of the finished RTE product by the environment.
## How EMPs Help Control *Listeria monocytogenes* in Ready-to-Eat Foods
Of note, the document outlines strategies for risk-based [environmental monitoring programs](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/), including the zone system to characterize areas within a facility based on risk for cross-contamination of RTE product exposed to the environment following the lethality step.
The location and number of environmental sites to be tested should be clearly described in the environmental monitoring written procedures (e.g., an extensive list with random selections to be exhausted within a month or an appropriate number based on the plant size). The guidance document recommends testing environmental samples for *Listeria* spp. rather than *L. monocytogenes* because a *Listeria* spp. positive result would include *L. monocytogenes* and represent a site where *L. monocytogenes* could be harbored.
One of the big changes is that a facility does not have to react to a *Listeria* spp. environmental positive as if it were a *L. monocytogenes* positive. The document indicates *Listeria* spp. is expected to be detected in the environment occasionally. The document does not recommend compositing environmental samples from food contact surfaces and if compositing is performed no more than five samples should be composited for testing purposes. If a site consistently tests negative for *Listeria* spp., it is recommended that site be removed from the sampling plan and replaced with new site(s) to identify other potential sources of contamination.
## Designing Effective Environmental Monitoring and Corrective Action Programs
It is recommended to collect environmental samples several hours into production or ideally at the end of production just prior to cleaning and sanitation. It is also recommended that the FDA procedure for environmental samples (or equivalent method) be used for testing and that the laboratory performing testing is able to perform the most current and valid testing methods (ISO 17025).
See our [Environmental Sampling Best Practices guide](https://fsns.com/environmental-sampling-best-practices/) for help when taking swabs.
Compositing is not recommended for follow-up environmental investigations to locate specific harborage sites. Risk-based corrective actions should be taken when a sample is positive, depending on product type (i.e., whether or not the product supports the growth of *L. monocytogenes*) and environmental sample type (i.e., food contact surface vs. non-food contact surface). Corrective actions can range from intensified [cleaning and sanitation,](https://fsns.com/product/sanitation-management-of-cleaning-disinfecting-in-food-environments-covid-19/) intensified sampling and testing, root cause analysis, to “hold and test” of the affected RTE product). The document recommends that if a FCS is positive for *Listeria* spp., further testing should be conducted to determine if the sample contains *L. monocytogenes*.
Finally, the document recommends testing RTE food products, for *L. monocytogenes*, rather than *Listeria* spp. due to public health implications. Specific recommendations for [sampling of various environmental](https://fsns.com/environmental-sampling-best-practices/) sites (e.g., swab vs. sponge, testing small parts such as bolts, and how to handle liquid samples) as well as guidance for “hold and test” of RTE food products provided in the document.
### References
1. Nightingale KK, Schukken Y, Nightingale C, Fortes E, Ho A, Her Z, Grohn Y, McDonough P, Wiedmann M. 2004. Ecology and transmission of *Listeria monocytogenes* infecting ruminants and in the farm environment. Applied and environmental microbiology 70:4458-4467.
2. Brandt A, Borjas E, Chen J, Wiedmann M, Nightingale KK. 2013. Foodborne pathogen persistence in the meat processing environment: longitudinal study results, training outcomes and additional investigation. International Association for Food Protection Annual Meeting (Charlotte, North Carolina).
3. Williams SK, Roof S, Boyle EA, Burson D, Thippareddi H, Geornaras I, Sofos JN, Wiedmann M, Nightingale K. 2011. Molecular ecology of *Listeria monocytogenes* and other *Listeria* species in small and very small ready-to-eat meat processing plants. Journal of food protection 74:63-77.
4. Lappi VR, Thimothe J, Nightingale KK, Gall K, Scott VN, Wiedmann M. 2004. Longitudinal studies on *Listeria* in smoked fish plants: impact of intervention strategies on contamination patterns. Journal of food protection 67:2500-2514.
5. Harris M, Brandt A, Den Bakker H, Cook P, Wiedmann M, Nightingale KK. 2015. Persistent and transient *Listeria* strains show different abilities to form biomass and strains isolated from harborage sites vary in accumulation of genetic changes. In 2015 Annual Meeting (July 25-28, 2015). International Association for Food Protection.
6. Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson MA, Roy SL, Jones JL, Griffin PM (2011). Foodborne illness acquired in the United States–major pathogens. Emerging infectious diseases 17: 7-15.
7. https://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm536716.htm
**Categories:** News
---
### [Listeria monocytogenes Contamination in Produce – Increasing Cause for Concern](https://fsns.com/listeria-monocytogenes-contamination-in-produce-an-increasing-cause-for-concern/)
**Published:** November 18, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
When it comes to produce safety, the most feared pathogens are *E. coli* O157:H7 and *Salmonella* sp.. It makes perfect sense given that several of the outbreaks and recalls related to contaminated produce have been due to *E. coli* O157 or *Salmonella* sp.. But, if we think about it, these pathogens were of major concern mostly in meat and egg products, which are now alarmingly isolated from various food sources, such as produce. On the other hand, *Listeria monocytogenes*, a saprophyte and a pathogen usually isolated from dairy products, cold-cut meats, and smoked fish have also made their way into fresh produce, causing several costly food recalls and multiple foodborne disease outbreaks leading to multiple illnesses and deaths over the past few years.
[View our on-demand webinar: The *Listeria*-Control Toolbox.](https://fsns.com/listeria-monocytogenes-contamination-in-produce-an-increasing-cause-for-concern/)
There was a very recent recall in June-July 2019 due to possible *Listeria monocytogenes* contamination in packaged produce, such as butternut squash, cauliflower, zucchini, and a butternut squash based veggie bowl. The recalled products affected multiple product brands and retail distributors (3). Currently, in November 2019, several other recalls have been initiated in various produce types due to possible *Listeria monocytogenes* contamination in produce by numerous distributors and retailers. Affected products include veggie trays, broccoli, tomatoes, snap peas, veggie power blend, and stir fry blends to name a few (4). Besides these recalls, there have been few major outbreaks in the past years. Outbreaks due to *Listeria monocytogenes* in produce in April to May 2016 caused multiple illnesses including some deaths. In this outbreak, *Listeria monocytogenes* caused 9 illnesses in four states due to the consumption of contaminated frozen vegetables. All of the nine recorded cases were hospitalized, with three reported deaths. This outbreak involved an initial recall of 11 frozen vegetable products, which was expanded to 350 consumer products sold under 42 separate brands (1).
Similarly, there was another outbreak in July 2015 to January 2016 due to *Listeria monocytogenes* contamination in packaged salads. This outbreak was reported to cause 19 illnesses in nine different states leading to hospitalizations of all the cases, with one reported death. The outbreak strain of *Listeria monocytogenes* was traced back to a particular processing facility in Springfield, Ohio. Several brands and varieties of packaged salads were recalled during this outbreak (2). Another outbreak in 2014-2015 due to *Listeria monocytogenes* contamination in Caramel Apples was attributed to 35 reported illnesses in 12 different states. This outbreak caused 34 hospitalizations leading to 7 deaths.
It is important to note that hospitalization and death rates are higher for patients with Listeriosis*.* This is because of the greater mortality rate due to *Listeria monocytogenes,* which is as high as 30% (5). Also, the infection due to *Listeria monocytogenes* is mainly troubling to immunocompromised patients, i.e. elderly populations and children, including pregnant women. Listeriosis in pregnant women can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, and preterm labor. Produce are considered healthy foods given their nutritious values, that is why all people, including sick and vulnerable populations are encouraged to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables. However, it would be alarming to have situations where *Listeria monocytogenes* was routinely or more abundantly isolated from such food sources. It is important to understand the prevalence of *Listeria monocytogenes* contamination in produce and to implement mitigation strategies to reduce their related food safety risks.
*Listeria monocytogenes* is widely distributed in nature, such as in soil, water, and manure sources. Prevalence of these organisms are often found in niches in the processing facilities where it might be damp and cold. Usually, areas that are under minimal usage and seldom cleaned can also harbor these pathogens. A study review found that environmental, soil, and water samples collected from various sources showed 5.5% to 33% prevalence for *Listeria monocytogenes* (6). Fortunately, the prevalence of *Listeria monocytogenes* in fresh produce itself is not as high as that observed in environmental samples. A survey conducted by Aparecida et al., in New Zealand showed that only 3 samples (collard greens, parsley, and spring onions) from 162 leafy green samples were positive for *Listeria monocytogenes* (7). Another study published in 2012 showed that 3.1% of the samples collected in Brazil were positive for *Listeria monocytogenes* contamination with some of the samples with counts at high as 2 log CFU/g (8). Here in the USA, a survey conducted by Luchansky et al., for *Listeria monocytogenes* prevalence on raw cut vegetables (1,689), low acid cut fruits (2,408), and sprouts (2,652) showed that 18, 9 and 3 samples, respectively, for each product type were positive for *Listeria monocytogenes.* The reported levels of *Listeria monocytogenes* ranged from 0.036 MPN to 3 logs CFU/g in produce samples (9).
Once present on the produce samples, *Listeria monocytogenes* can survive for long periods of time because this pathogen is adapted to such conditions. *Listeria monocytogenes* not only survives but can also grow at temperatures as low as 0°C. It is also known to endure low pH conditions and survive and grow at high salt concentrations. These particular attributes of *Listeria monocytogenes* helps it adapt to cold storage temperatures or acidic conditions, which also happens to be the suitable storage parameters for fresh produce. These situations provide a favorable condition for a potentially increased survival and growth of *Listeria monocytogenes.*
It is equally critical to understand the sources of contamination of *Listeria monocytogenes* in produce. Mostly, studies are focused on understanding the prevalence and persistence of *Salmonella* sp., and *E. coli* O157 in produce fields or retail establishments. However, prevalance of *Listeria monocytogenes* in produce-related environments is also beginning to increase in recent years. Some similar patterns and trends as to those for the spread and contamination of *Salmonella* sp., and *E. coli* O157 from various sources to produce farms are also noted for *Listeria monocytogenes.* A research study published in 2017 by Pang et al., studied the prevalence of *Listeria* sp., including *Listeria monocytogenes,* in mixed produce and dairy farms over a period of 14 months. They reported that wind speed and precipitation had a significant impact on the probability of isolation of *Listeria* sp. Their findings suggested that run-off during precipitation and wind-driven dust from one farm to the other may be reasons for contamination of produce on the produce farms (10). Besides, these indirect sources, contamination can occur on produce fields through the use of contaminated manure, irrigation water, and wild animals (11). Even in the processing facilities, there are several harborage sites and *Listeria monocytogenes* can survive for prolonged periods of time in these niches. Studies shows that *Listeria monocytogenes* can be persistent in such environments for years and are difficult to eradicate. However, many of these studies are conducted in meat and poultry facilities or delicatessen establishments, and data from produce processing facilities are lacking! Nevertheless, it is evident that such harborage sites can lead to contamination of produce in the processing facilities (12).
For proper mitigation of *Listeria monocytogenes* contamination in produce, a hollistic approach is needed that involves pre-harvest and post-harvest ramifications. Just as important is the responsibility of the consumers to prevent cross-contamination at homes and discard recalled and foodborne disease outbreak associated products with longer shelf life, mainly frozen vegetables/fruits, whenever such information is available. Information on product recalls and foodborne disease outbreaks are publicly available on FDA (Food and Drug Administration- ) and CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- ) websites.
1. Multistate Outbreak of Listeriosis Linked to Frozen Vegetables (final Update). Posted July 15, 2016 1:45 PM ET. Retrieved on November 12, 2019.
2. Multistate Outbreak of Listeriosis Linked to Packaged Salads Produced at Springfield, Ohio Dole Processing Facility (Final Update). Posted March 31, 2016 9:00 AM ET. Retrieved on November 12, 2019.
3. Growers Express Issues Voluntary Recall of Multiple Fresh Vegetable Products Due to Potential Contamination of *Listeria monocytogenes*. FDA Public Date July 01, 2019. Retrieved on November 12, 2019.
4. FDA Recalls, Market Withdrawals, & Safety Alerts. Current as Of November 12, 2019. Retrieved on November 12, 2019.
5. Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Widdowson, M.A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—Major pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 7–15
6. Zhu, Qi, Ravi Gooneratne, and Malik Hussain. *Listeria monocytogenes* in fresh produce: outbreaks, prevalence and contamination levels. *Foods* 3 (2017): 21.
7. Aparecida, O.M.; Abeid Ribeiro, E.G.; Morato Bergamini, A.M.; Pereira De Martinis, E.C. Quantification of *Listeria monocytogenes* in minimally processed leafy vegetables using a combined method based on enrichment and 16S rRNA real-time PCR. Food Microbiol. 2010, 27, 19–23.
8. Sant’Ana, A.S.; Igarashi, M.C.; Landgraf, M.; Destro, M.T.; Franco, B.D.G.M. Prevalence, populations and pheno- and genotypic characteristics of *Listeria monocytogenes* isolated from ready-to-eat vegetables marketed in São Paulo, Brazil. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 155, 1–9.
9. Luchansky, John B., et al. Survey for *Listeria monocytogenes* in and on ready-to-eat foods from retail establishments in the United States (2010 through 2013): assessing potential changes of pathogen prevalence and levels in a decade. *Journal of food protection* 6 (2017): 903-921.
10. Pang, Hao, et al. Identifying and modeling meteorological risk factors associated with pre-harvest contamination of Listeria species in a mixed produce and dairy farm. *Food research international* 102 (2017): 355-363.
11. Smith, Alva, et al. Sources and survival of *Listeria monocytogenes* on fresh, leafy produce. *Journal of applied microbiology*4 (2018): 930-942.
12. Buchanan, R.L., Gorris, L.G.M., Hayman, M.M., Jackson, T.C.and Whiting, R.C. (2017) A review of *Listeria monocytogenes*: an update on outbreaks, virulence, dose-response, ecology, and risk assessments. Food Control 75, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.12.016.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Powdered Dairy: Low Moisture Does Not Equal Low Risk](https://fsns.com/powdered-dairy-testing/)
**Published:** February 27, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Reviewed By:  Aaron Pleitner  Aaron Pleitner
Director of Microbiology Technical Services, Certified Group | Food safety scientist with deep expertise in microbial risk management, environmental monitoring, sanitation strategy, and product safety.
[See Full Bio](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/) [ ](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/)
### 1-Minute Summary
- Low water activity prevents bacterial growth in powdered dairy, but it does not prevent pathogen survival.
- *Cronobacter sakazakii* can persist in dry environments and has been linked to serious illness in infants and product recalls.
- Spore forming bacterial pathogens like *Bacillus cereus* and *Clostridium botulinum* survive processing and pose risk after rehydration.
- Proactive environmental monitoring and pathogen testing are essential to protect consumers and prevent costly recalls.
## Rethinking Risk in Low‑Moisture Dairy Products
In 2022, [contamination of powdered infant formula with *Cronobacter sakazakii*](https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/fda-investigation-cronobacter-infections-powdered-infant-formula-february-2022) triggered one of the most disruptive food safety crises in memory. The event led to the shutdown of the processing facility, nationwide recalls, FDA warning letters, import restrictions, congressional scrutiny, and widespread formula shortages. Most tragically, infant illnesses – and reported fatalities – were linked to the outbreak.
Three years later, in 2025, [powdered infant formula again made headlines](https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/fdas-actions-respond-clostridium-botulinum-illnesses-associated-consumption-powdered-infant-formula) – this time tied to a multistate outbreak involving *Clostridium botulinum*. This time the whole milk powder ingredient was identified as a potential source of the *C. botulinum* strain. The investigation prompted recalls, public health warnings, and renewed scrutiny of sanitation and pathogen control in low-moisture dairy facilities.
**Two separate incidents. Two different pathogens. One shared vulnerability: powdered dairy.**
## More than an “Infant Formula” Threat
While infant formula receives the most public attention, powdered dairy ingredients are used across a wide range of products:
- Protein powders
- Meal replacements
- Baked goods
- Confectionery
- Dairy beverages
- Snack foods
- Nutritional supplements
The microbiological risk doesn’t stop at infant formula. Overall: **Low moisture does not equal low risk**.
## The Misconception: “It’s Dry, So It’s Safe”
Powdered dairy products typically have low water activity (aw). This product attribute is critical as all vegetative pathogens require moisture to grow and multiply.
**But growth and survival are not the same thing.**
Low water activity prevents bacterial proliferation. The restriction of water, however, does **not** necessarily kill pathogens.
“Moisture” is the “M” in the helpful [FAT TOM acronym](https://fsns.com/fattom-a-key-to-microbial-control-and-food-safety/) used to describe the six impactful factors for growth and survival of microorganisms in food.
In fact, certain organisms are remarkably adapted to [survive for extended periods](https://fsns.com/presence-persistence-salmonella-dry-conditions/) – sometimes years – in dry environments. Some form spores. Others enter stress-resistant states. Many persist quietly in a dormant state, present in equipment niches and environmental reservoirs.
This is particularly relevant for *Cronobacter sakazakii*, a pathogen now synonymous with powdered infant formula contamination.
## *Cronobacter sakazakii* Evolved for Dry Environments
Among low-moisture pathogens, *Cronobacter sakazakii* demands special attention.
This organism has been repeatedly associated with powdered infant formula. In neonates, especially premature or immunocompromised infants, infection can lead to:
- Sepsis
- Meningitis
- Necrotizing enterocolitis
- High mortality rates
What makes *Cronobacter* particularly concerning is its environmental resilience.
Unlike many pathogens that struggle in dry conditions, *Cronobacter sakazakii* can survive in powdered products and dry manufacturing environments for prolonged periods. It tolerates desiccation. It can persist in dust. It can harbor in equipment framework, [air handling systems](https://fsns.com/air-quality-production-facilities/), hard-to-clean zones, and facilities that are designed for dry cleaning procedures at a lower frequency
Of note, [*Salmonella* can also survive in low-moisture foods](https://fsns.com/presence-persistence-salmonella-dry-conditions/).
Contamination also commonly occurs after the lethality step (like spray drying), such as during blending, transfer, packaging, or environmental exposure.
For facilities producing or handling powdered dairy, this underscores the importance of the following verification programs for interventions and corrective actions:
- Properly designed [Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP)](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/) for your product.
- Routine pathogen-specific swab testing.
- Aggressive root cause investigations for presumptive positives.
## *Bacillus cereus* – the Spore-Former in Plain Sight
Another organism frequently detected in dairy powders is *Bacillus cereus*.
Unlike *Cronobacter*, *Bacillus cereus* forms spores – dormant structures that withstand heat, drying, and other environmental stresses, including pasteurization and spray drying.
In powdered dairy systems, *B. cereus* may be present at low levels without causing immediate concern.
**The risk emerges when products are rehydrated and temperature-abused.**
Under favorable conditions, the *B. cereus* present as spores can germinate into vegetative cells, multiplying and producing toxins. Some of these toxins are heat-stable, meaning they are not destroyed by subsequent heating.
The takeaway?
A dry powder may *appear* microbiologically stable at shipment due the product characteristics of low aw but downstream handling introduces new risk. This is particularly relevant for:
- Foodservice reconstitution
- Consumer preparation
- Ingredient incorporation into ready-to-eat foods
Testing programs should include:
- Total aerobic plate counts
- Spore enumeration
- *Bacillus cereus* monitoring in raw materials
- Strong supplier verification
## *Clostridium botulinum* – Low Probability, High Consequence
While less commonly associated with powdered dairy than *Bacillus* species, *Clostridium botulinum* cannot be ignored.
Like *Bacillus cereus*, it is a spore-forming organism. Under anaerobic, high-moisture conditions, it can produce one of the most potent neurotoxins known.
In dry form, spores can survive quietly. Risk increases when:
- Products are rehydrated
- Anaerobic packaging is used
- Temperature abuse occurs
For infant populations, even low levels of contamination can carry significant consequences.
Preventive strategies include:
- Validation of lethality steps
- Environmental hygiene controls
- Moisture control in processing areas
- Robust spore detection methodologies
- Even limitation of commonly associated food products for infants (e.g. honey)
## Environmental Monitoring in Dry Facilities
Unlike wet plants, where water is an obvious risk factor, dry facilities often rely on compressed air, sweeping, or vacuum systems – all of which can aerosolize dust and spread contamination and highlight the need for periodic [air sampling in your food manufacturing environment](https://fsns.com/air-sampling-in-food-manufacturing-which-methods-to-use-and-when/).
Key risk factors include:
- Powder accumulation in overhead structures
- Condensation
- Employee traffic patterns
- Equipment framework and hollow rollers
- Inadequate hygienic zone segregation
An effective Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) in powdered dairy facilities should include:
- Zone 1–4 swabbing while following [environmental swabbing best practices](https://fsns.com/environmental-sampling-best-practices/)
- Pathogen-specific assays, including *Cronobacter sakazakii*
- Associated hygiene and pathogen indicators (e.g. Testing for anaerobic spore-forming mesophiles for insight into the potential for *Clostridium* spp.)
- Trend analysis over time
- Defined corrective action thresholds
- Clear escalation procedures
It is not enough to test occasionally. Data must be trended. Patterns must be recognized. Harborage sites must be eliminated.
## How to Build a Proactive Microbiological Testing Program
A strong microbiological safety program needs multiple checks with tactics designed to catch what the others might miss. Here’s how to approach it.
### Start with Raw Material Verification
This as your first checkpoint. Even trusted suppliers benefit from regular oversight.
- Review supplier COAs, but don’t rely on them alone.
- Build in periodic verification testing so you know their results align with yours.
- Take time to audit supplier controls, especially around spore-formers and *Cronobacter*. These organisms are stubborn, and they require disciplined preventive systems.
### Strengthen Finished Product Testing
- Perform routine microbiological testing as part of your normal workflow.
- Layer in targeted pathogen testing at increased frequency when something changes: new materials, new equipment, environmental positives, or process deviations.
- Use results to establish trends and refine your risk assessments, not just to “check a box.”
### Focus on Environmental Monitoring
Your facility environment often tells the story before your product does.
- Make pathogen swabbing a regular habit – not something triggered only by an event.
- Leverage appropriate indicator testing to be proactive and have foresight into the control of your environment.
- Dig into presumptive positives quickly; they’re windows into your hidden risks.
- Validate that your sanitation is doing what you think it’s doing. “Clean” and “microbiologically safe” are two different things.
### Choose the Right Methods
Your testing toolbox matters just as much as the testing plan.
- Use sensitive molecular screening methods to catch issues early.
- Follow up with cultural confirmation to maintain regulatory defensibility.
- Rely only on validated, fit-for-purpose methods designed for your matrices.
## Low Moisture Is Not a Safety Guarantee
Low aw helps control growth, but it isn’t a kill step.
*Cronobacter sakazakii* survives in dry environments. *Bacillus cereus* and *Clostridium botulinum* spores can tolerate heat and persist until conditions shift in their favor.
In powdered dairy, pathogens may not grow, yet they can still endure – and for vulnerable populations, that endurance is enough to cause harm.
A strong [microbiological testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) program with environmental monitoring, spore detection, and targeted [pathogen testing](https://fsns.com/pathogen-testing/) remains essential for protecting consumers and your brand.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [5 Reasons To Do Accelerated Shelf Life Testing](https://fsns.com/accelerated-shelf-life-testing/)
**Published:** February 19, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
[Food shelf life testing](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/) is important for any business in the food manufacturing industry. Food shelf life testing helps companies understand how long their products will maintain an acceptable degree of quality after they are manufactured. This helps companies establish accurate expiration dates for their food products to ensure the best experience for their customers. In this post, we will help you discover the benefits of accelerated shelf life testing.
### **Shelf Life Testing Benefits**
[Food shelf life testing](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/) also helps companies identify the types of degradation that are observed at the end of the product’s shelf life. This may include…
- Off-odors
- Off-flavors
- Loss of color
- Breakdown of texture
By understanding the types of degradation that occur at the end of the product’s shelf life, companies can determine the causes of that degradation and find solutions to correct them, ultimately improving the finished product.
### **Real-Time Simulation Tests May Take Too Long**
The most accurate way to determine your product’s shelf life is to conduct real-time simulation tests. In this setup, the product is stored under its normal storage conditions and monitored until it degrades.
This testing method is very straightforward. However, it can be time-consuming for manufacturers, and there are many instances when decisions must be made within tight timelines.
Food manufacturers are also under constant pressure to develop and launch new products in shorter periods of time, so they often do not have enough time to complete a real-time shelf life test. This is where accelerated food shelf life testing, or ASLT, can help.
*Because their shelf life is so long, dry cereals, dry powders, confectionary, and similar products are excellent candidates for accelerated shelf life testing.*## **What Is Accelerated Shelf Life Testing (ASLT)?**
Accelerated shelf life testing of food is an **indirect** method of determining a food product’s shelf life. The products that are most often subjected to ASLT are those with very long shelf lives, such as…
- Confectionery
- Dry powders
- Dry cereals
These and similar products will maintain quality for an extended period. Thus, to observe degradation within a reasonable period of time, the products must be subjected to the conditions of accelerated shelf life testing of food.
In ASLT, products are stored under **elevated stress conditions** to accelerate physiochemical changes and speed up their rate of degradation. Temperature is the most common acceleration factor used in these tests. Given the aggravated conditions, ASLT reduces the time needed to test products. This feature can **shorten the time needed for [food shelf life testing](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/) to half or even one quarter** of the time needed under real-time shelf life analysis.
## **5 Reasons To Do Accelerated Food Shelf Life Testing**
Reducing the amount of time to complete a shelf life analysis is just one of the many advantages you can get out of conducting ASLT. Here are five more reasons why your food manufacturing facility should adopt this testing method:
## **1. Accelerates Shelf Life Prediction**
The biggest reason to implement accelerated shelf life testing for food products is that it allows you to **ascertain their expiration dates much earlier** than in real-time tests.
ASLT is particularly helpful if you are keeping up with a tight launch schedule and need to make commercial decisions quickly. ASLT enables you to still get reliable expiration dates, have them printed on your product labels, and push through with your product launch timeline as planned. Going the real-time simulation route would greatly extend the amount of time needed to complete this process. Aside from this, ASLT also gives you crucial information on the quality of the product early on, which is required in audits and inspections.
However, it is important to note that not all products are candidates for accelerated shelf life analysis. This will be dependent on factors such as product pH, moisture content, and texture, and will be heavily influenced by the expected modes of product degradation. It is always important to [consult with a shelf life testing expert](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) to determine if your product is a candidate for ASLT. Our experts are glad to help; just contact us by [completing the simple form at the bottom of this page](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/).
*Accelerated shelf life testing allows you to ascertain your product’s expiration date much earlier compared to a real-time study.* ## **2. Speeds Up Product Development**
As mentioned earlier, the high-stress conditions used in accelerated shelf life testing speed up the deterioration of a product. This consequently reduces the time required for testing.
If you are developing a new product or formulation, this gives you the chance to **gather more data in less time**. ASLT enables you to eliminate the factors that are contributing to product degradation early on in the development process. Ultimately, this testing method helps you **reduce the time and budget required** to launch a successful product into the market.
## **3. Accelerated Shelf Life Testing Helps Determine Product Quality Under Extreme Conditions**
Accelerated shelf life testing is not only useful in determining a product’s lifespan. It is also instrumental in observing the changes a product undergoes when it is stored under higher stress conditions.
Since your products may not always be stored under your recommended conditions, ASLT gives you an idea of **how the product will perform when its storage environment is less than ideal**. This is particularly important for products that are destined for markets where temperature abuse is more likely due to warm climates and humid conditions.
*Accelerated shelf life testing helps you know how your product will perform when stored in less-than-ideal conditions.* ## **4. Helps Improve Packaging and Storage Systems**
Packaging and storage play a crucial role in your food product’s quality and rate of deterioration. Fortunately, the findings you get from accelerated shelf life testing can also give you guidance on how to improve both.
Remember, packaging material also degrades over time, just like your food product, and you want to ensure that your package always looks as presentable and wholesome as your product does. ASLT lets you know which storage conditions to achieve and avoid, **enabling you to keep your products fresh for as long as possible**.
## **5. Protects Your Business**
Conducting an accelerated shelf life test helps you speed up lifespan prediction and product development, but that’s not all. ASLT also **helps prevent you from launching low-quality products and dealing with customer complaints and product recalls due to quality issues**. It also gives you insight into the causes of reduced shelf life, which you can use to improve your products and processes.
Ultimately, conducting an accelerated shelf life test can optimize your operations, provide quality products for your customers, and enhance your profitability.
## **FSNS Lab+ Can Design and Conduct Your Accelerated Shelf Life Testing**
Understanding how to design and conduct a real-time [shelf life test](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/) or an accelerated shelf life test for food can be daunting if you are unfamiliar with the process. The scientists at [FSNS Lab+](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), the contract research division of Certified Group, can help. Our team can guide you through the process of conducting shelf life testing on your product, from designing the study to interpreting the final results.
If you are ready to get a quote on a shelf life study for your products, complete our [Shelf Life Study Questionnaire](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/shelf-life-study-questionnaire) and we will respond within one business day.
[](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/shelf-life-study-questionnaire)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [How to Reduce Food Shelf Life Testing Cost Without Compromising Data](https://fsns.com/how-to-reduce-food-shelf-life-testing-cost-without-compromising-data/)
**Published:** February 4, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Reviewed By:  Aaron Pleitner  Aaron Pleitner
Director of Microbiology Technical Services, Certified Group | Food safety scientist with deep expertise in microbial risk management, environmental monitoring, sanitation strategy, and product safety.
[See Full Bio](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/) [ ](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/)
### 1-Minute Summary
- [Food shelf life testing](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/) cost is incurred by baseline study setup and variable study design choices.
- Larger studies can reduce cost per data point, but only up to a point.
- Too many time points and replicates often deliver limited additional insight.
- Sequential testing of critical variables improves both clarity and cost control.
- Thoughtful planning protects both data quality and budget.
---
## How to Balance Cost and Quality in a Shelf Life Study for Food Products
Shelf life testing plays a central role in confirming that food and [beverage](https://fsns.com/industries/beverages/) products remain safe, stable, and acceptable throughout their assigned storage period. The data generated supports regulatory compliance, labeling decisions, and quality assurance programs.
At the same time, [shelf life studies](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/) require significant time, materials, and laboratory resources. Without purposeful planning, costs can escalate quickly, often without providing proportionate improvements in decision-making value.
This article outlines practical ways to design shelf life studies that deliver reliable results while keeping costs under control.
## What is the Cost Structure of a Food Shelf Life Study?
[Food shelf life testing](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/) cost is determined by baseline setup expenses and variable testing components.
**Baseline setup expenses** occur at the start of the study and remain largely fixed, regardless of study size. These costs include:
- Organism preparation
- Sample inoculation
- Initial study setup
Baseline work ensures that all samples begin under consistent and controlled conditions, which is essential for valid comparison. Whether a study includes five samples or 50, most baseline costs remain the same. For this reason, efficient use of baseline resources is critical for cost control.
**Variable costs** increase as the study becomes more complex. These costs scale with:
- Additional products (formulations & package types)
- Additional time points
- Additional replicates
Each added variable increases sample preparation, incubation, enumeration, and reporting effort. When variables are not carefully controlled, total study cost can rise quickly without providing proportional analytical value.
Understanding how baseline and variable costs interact allows manufacturers to design [shelf life studies](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/) that manage budgets while preserving scientific reliability.
Shelf life studies benefit from economies of scale, but those benefits are not unlimited.
### Economies of Scale
As a study expands, many setup costs are distributed across more data points. This often lowers the cost per result. In practical terms, adding a few more time points or replicates usually costs less than expected because much of the infrastructure is already in place.
This effect allows manufacturers to gather more complete stability profiles without proportionally increasing total food shelf life testing cost.
### Diminishing Returns
Eventually, however, additional testing produces smaller gains in useful information.
Beyond a certain point:
- Extra time points reveal little new trend information.
- Additional replicates improve statistics only marginally.
- Costs continue to rise while insight plateaus.
The most cost-effective studies stop just short of this threshold.
## What are the Cost Differences Between Food Shelf Life Study Designs?
[Food shelf life testing](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/) cost increases as time points, variables, and replicates are added, but not always in a linear manner.
Because baseline setup costs are shared, studies with more time points often cost less per data point than expected. However, beyond a certain level of complexity, added testing delivers diminishing analytical value relative to cost. Selecting the appropriate designtherefore requires balancing resolution needs with practical decision impact.
### 5-Time-Point Study Cost Breakdown
A typical 5-time-point design might include testing at 0, 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks (based on target product shelf life of 12 weeks + 25% of target).
This structure:
- Captures major stability trends.
- Provides meaningful decision support.
- Keeps sample volume and cost manageable.
For many products, this approach offers an excellent balance between resolution and efficiency.
### 5-Time-Point Back Weighted Study Cost Breakdown
This is a 5-time-point study that leverages preexisting data to assign timepoints such as 2, 8, 10, 12, and 14 weeks.
While this maintains the number of measurements as the first 5-Time-Point design, the study foregoes early time points in lieu of more timepoints at the end of the study. The result is higher resolution data at the end of the study where failure is more likely. However, this necessitates preexisting data that the variables will at least withstand storage pressures in the first 50% of the target shelf life.
### 10-Time-Point Study Cost Breakdown
A 10-time-point study adds intermediate intervals such as 2, 6, 10, and 14 weeks.
While this doubles the number of measurements, the total study cost usually increases by only about 50–60 percent because baseline costs are shared. The result is higher resolution data that can be valuable for high-risk or high-value products.
## Efficient Use of Variables in Study Design
Variables are where many shelf life studies become unnecessarily expensive.
Testing multiple formulations, packaging types, and storage conditions at once quickly multiplies sample counts and complicates interpretation.
A more efficient approach is to test variables sequentially.
For example:
- Identify optimal storage conditions first (e.g. temperature).
- Evaluate packaging under those conditions next (e.g. MAP, ambient, vacuum).
- Compare formulations only after both are defined (e.g. preservatives, intrinsic factors).
This progression reduces complexity, improves clarity, and prevents redundant testing.
## Importance of Replicates and Trials
Replicates strengthen confidence in shelf life data, but they also increase workload and cost.
### What Is the Optimal Number of Replicates for a Food Shelf Life Study?
For most [food shelf life studies](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/), three replicates per time point provide an acceptable balance between statistical reliability and cost control.
This level of replication allows manufacturers to identify meaningful trends while limiting unnecessary analytical workload. In some cases, two independent manufacturing or pilot trials with two to three replicates each may offer a practical alternative when budget or sample availability is limited. Additional replicates and number of individual production lots should take into account regulatory risk, safety impact, or commercial exposure.
## Optimal Food Shelf Life Testing Cost Balances Quality with Dollars
Food shelf life testing cost does not have to be a barrier to a good study. With proper planning, studies can remain both efficient and scientifically sound.
Manufacturers control cost most effectively when they:
- Use baseline resources efficiently.
- Select time points intentionally.
- Isolate variables logically.
- Match replicate counts to real decision risk.
- Apply [accelerated shelf life testing](https://fsns.com/accelerated-shelf-life-testing/) only when appropriate for chemical stability failure modes only, not biological.
A well-designed shelf life study delivers dependable, defensible data while respecting budget constraints.
If you are planning a [shelf life study](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/), the [FSNS Contract Research Team (Lab+)](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) can help translate your product goals into a study design that protects safety, supports compliance, and avoids unnecessary expense.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/e3cf2ace-6060-4d21-8f77-89c5b02c9d0c)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [Top 10 Reasons for a BRC Audit Non-Conformity [2025]](https://fsns.com/top-10-reasons-for-a-brc-audit-non-conformity-data/)
**Published:** September 4, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) performs hundreds of food safety certification audits each year, including for [BRC certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/). Our auditors have compiled a list of the top 10 reasons for a BRC version 9 audit non-conformity to help you prepare for your next audit. Here are a few high-level statistics:
- Avg. of **4.86 non-conformities** identified per BRCGS audit.
- **59%** of all NCs are related to section 4 of the standard.
- **16.4%** of all NCs are related specifically to section 4.4 – Building fabric, raw material-handling, preparation, processing, packing and storage areas.
Below, we provide the appropriate clause and item from the BRCGS Food Safety code for each of the top 10 non-conformities. Here’s the full list:
## 10) Temporary Repairs – 4.7.3
*Where temporary repairs are made, these shall be documented and controlled to ensure that the safety or legality of products is not jeopardised. These temporary measures shall be permanently repaired as soon as practicable and within a defined timescale.*
**Common Problems:**
- Lack of documentation for temporary repairs made.
- Unauthorized temporary repairs.
**Considerations:**
- Are employees trained on what constitutes a temporary repair and how they should be handled? All employees?
- Are supervisors trained to continually monitor their areas for temporary repairs?
## 9) Record Control and Maintenance – 3.3.1
*The site shall maintain genuine records to demonstrate the effective control of product safety, legality and quality.*
**Common Problems:**
- Records incomplete. The following are commonly missing:
- Required data (time, date, monitor name, etc.).
- Verification or record review section incomplete.
**Considerations:**
- What type of training is provided to personnel responsible for completing records?
- Are supervisors responsible for reviewing records (shipping/receiving, titrations records, etc.)? When conducting internal audits, are you reviewing records for completeness?
## 8) Cleaning and Sanitation Procedures – 4.11.2
*Documented cleaning and disinfection procedures shall be in place and maintained for the building, plant, and all equipment. Cleaning procedures for the processing equipment and food contact surfaces shall, at a minimum, include:*
- *Responsibility for cleaning.*
- *Item/area to be cleaned.*
- *Frequency of cleaning.*
- *Method of cleaning, including dismantling equipment for cleaning purposes where required.*
- *Cleaning chemicals and concentrations.*
- *Cleaning materials to be used.*
- *Cleaning records (including records for completion and sign-off) and responsibility for verification.*
*The frequency and methods of cleaning shall be based on risk. The procedures shall be implemented to ensure appropriate standards of cleaning are achieved.*
**Common Problems:**
- Cleaning and sanitation chemical concentrations are not compliant with documented procedures.
- Failure to establish or follow a master sanitation schedule.
- Recordkeeping errors:
- Documenting pre-op inspections
- Titration records
- Master sanitation records
Facilities often neglect to adhere to documented procedures when preparing chemical concentrations, which will lead to a non-conformity. Make sure you have established a master sanitation schedule and, of course, follow it.
Auditors also observe NCs because of poor cleaning and sanitation recordkeeping, so make sure your team understands what to document and the importance of carrying it out. Our [sanitation education courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/sanitation/) can help ensure you’re meeting the requirements of the standard.
## 7) Document Control – 3.2.1
*The company shall have a procedure to manage documents which form part of the food safety and quality system.*
**Common Problems:**
- Lack of identification for controlled documents.
- Incorrect revision dates.
- Lack of reasons for revisions.
- Incorrect version of a controlled document in use.
**Considerations:**
- Who has access to edit controlled documents?
- What is the review and approval process? Does this include removing obsolete documents and verify accuracy of log?
- Is a thorough verification process/internal audit in place?
Potential contaminants can originate from anywhere in your production environment, including directly above your products.## 6) Ceilings and Overheads – 4.4.4
*Ceilings and overheads shall be constructed, finished, and maintained to prevent the risk of product contamination.*
**Common Problems:**
- Cobwebs
- Exposed insulation
- Peeling/cracking paint or caulk
- Unclean overheads
**Considerations:**
- Are overheads included in the master sanitation schedule?
- How often are overheads inspected?
Potential contamination can come from just about anywhere, including directly above your production areas. Auditors often identify peeling paint, loose caulk, rust flakes, peeling tape, and other contaminants on ceilings and overheads that must be addressed.
Make sure your team includes the cleaning of these areas in your SOPs, too.
Our [BRCGS Food Safety Audit Checklist](https://info.fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-brcgs-checklist) can help ensure your facility doesn’t receive any of the non-conformities on this list.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/8cdce96e-285a-45de-9a15-28ce47baf0a7)## 5) Internal and External Doors – 4.4.8[](https://info.fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-brcgs-checklist)
*Doors (both internal and external) shall be maintained in good condition. At a minimum:*
- *External doors and dock levelers shall be close fitting or adequately proofed*.
- *External doors to open product areas shall not be opened during production periods except in emergencies*.
- *Where external doors to enclosed product areas are opened, suitable precautions shall be taken to prevent pest ingress.*
**Common Problems:**
- Dock doors with gaps or not tight-fitting.
- Man doors identified with gaps.
**Considerations:**
- Are employees trained to help monitor doors? Are employees encouraged to bring damaged doors to the attention of management?
- Is a reporting system in place when doors are damaged? Is this followed?
- How often are doors verified/audited?
## 4) Facility Cleanliness – 4.11.1
Number 4 on our list of top 10 reasons for a BRC audit non-conformity is as important as it is direct:
*The premises and equipment shall be maintained in a clean and hygienic condition.*
**Common Problems:**
- Product buildup on equipment.
- Unclean equipment missed during pre-operation inspections.
**Considerations:**
- Do sanitation personnel know the problematic areas of their area?
- How are staff conducting pre-op inspections trained/verified?
- How often are management involved in pre-op inspections? Is the frequency adequate?
Every food safety professional knows the importance of clean, sanitary operations. The most common observances our auditors see is unclean equipment following a pre-op inspection; and dust, spiderwebs, dirt, and other contaminants in warehouses and storage areas.
While it might seem less critical to maintain non-production areas or surfaces that do not come into direct contact with food, cleanliness across the entire premises is essential as per the BRCGS Food Safety standard. If all areas of your facility aren’t clean and hygienic, you risk a non-conformity notice in your next BRC audit.
Pathogens can find harborage in the most unlikely places, like a broken weld or other area of damage on equipment.## 3) Equipment Design and Construction – 4.6.2
*The design and construction of equipment shall be based on risk, to prevent product contamination. For example, the use of the correct seals, impervious surfaces or smooth welds and joints, where they are exposed to product and could otherwise result in foreign-body, microbiological or allergen contamination of the product.*
*Equipment that is in direct contact with food shall be suitable for food contact and meet legal requirements where applicable.*
**Common Problems:**
- Rusty utensils, equipment, and parts.
- Damaged, cracked, peeling equipment and tools.
- Rough or damaged welds.
**Considerations:**
- Are sanitation and pre-op personnel trained on equipment condition expectations?
- Does post-maintenance inspection include an inspection for cleanability or damage?
- Is management informed when equipment modifications are made? Every time?
We have seen pathogens find harborage in all kinds of easy-to-miss cracks and crevices, such as a broken weld that may be difficult to see at first glance. It’s important to root out and fix broken welds and other damaged areas where microorganisms can take refuge and contaminate your products.
Proper equipment and utensil storage is another major reason our auditors find for a BRC audit non-conformity, so ensure your personnel are following proper procedures.
## 2) Chemical Control and Storage – 4.9.1.1
*Processes shall be in place to manage the use, storage and handling of non-food chemicals to prevent chemical contamination.*
**Common Problems:**
- Secondary chemical containers not properly labeled.
- Chemicals not stored in appropriate location (i.e. food-grade chemicals stored in non-food-grade cabinets).
**Considerations:**
- Where are the secondary chemical containers coming from? Is there a process to issue these for use? Are people responsible for handling chemicals properly trained?
- Is chemical storage part of internal audits? Is maintenance staff trained on the importance of chemical storage procedures?
## 1) Ventilation/Condensation – 4.4.10
Number 1 on our list of top 10 reasons for a BRC audit non-conformity is the presence of condensation in production environments, which is often due to poor ventilation. Dust is often present where it can contaminate food as well, which is another consequence of poor ventilation. As the standard states:
*Adequate ventilation and extraction shall be provided in product storage and processing environments to prevent condensation or excessive dust.*
**Common Problems:**
- Beaded condensation.
**Considerations:**
- Has the facility identified the areas where condensation is most likely?
- Are PMs in place to periodically monitor air flow?
- Is a condensation monitoring program in place? Is it based on risk?
- Are supervisors instructed to continually monitor their area?
## The Top 10 Reasons for a BRC Audit Non-Conformity: Recap
Being aware of these top 10 reasons for a BRC audit non-conformity can be invaluable in preparing for your next audit.
Remember, these insights are drawn from common problems we’ve observed during audits, and each facility has unique challenges. Continually striving for improvements and fostering a culture of food safety is key. Use this information to achieve higher standards and avoid non-conformities in future BRC audits. For additional preparation, [check out the top five BRCGS audit findings for mature vs. new sites here](https://fsns.com/top-5-brcgs-audit-findings-mature-vs-new-sites/).
[Reach out to our certification and audit experts with questions or to schedule your next BRC audit](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-lp).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** BRCGS, GFSI
---
### [How to Prepare for a BRCGS Food Safety Audit](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-a-brcgs-food-safety-audit/)
**Published:** March 11, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Kaci Foote, FSNS Certification & Audit Accreditation Manager*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Some sites neglect to document all food safety procedures prior to an audit – if it’s not written down, it didn’t happen.
- Conduct a rigorous internal audit to find and fix gaps before the real audit.
- Train employees to confidently explain food safety practices to the auditor, not just regurgitate a canned answer.
- Ensure daily operations match written procedures to avoid non-conformances.
---
While a BRCGS audit is rigorous, a well-prepared facility has nothing to fear. Provided food safety is part of your daily operations, you can think of it as a structured review, not a high-stakes test.
The key is preparation, not last-minute scrambling. Here’s how to avoid these [common BRCGS audit findings](https://fsns.com/top-5-brcgs-audit-findings-mature-vs-new-sites/) and ensure success.
## Understand the BRCGS Food Safety Standard
The BRCGS Food Safety Standard is built around fundamental clauses – critical food safety requirements that, if not met, result in an automatic failure. In [BRCGS Standard Issue 9](https://www.brcgs.com/product/global-standard-food-safety-issue-9/p-13279/), they include:
- Senior management commitment to continual improvement (1.1)
- The food safety plan – HACCP (2)
- Internal audits (3.4)
- Management of suppliers of raw materials and packaging (3.5.1)
- Corrective and preventive actions (3.7)
- Traceability (3.9)
- Layout, product flow and segregation (4.3)
- Housekeeping and hygiene (4.11)
- Management of allergens (5.3)
- Control of operations (6.1)
- Labelling and pack control (6.2)
- Training: raw material-handling, preparation, processing, packing and storage areas (7.1)
Failure to comply with a fundamental clause is a major non-conformity. With the stakes set so high, **review the standard and be sure you understand the requirements of each fundamental clause** before your BRCGS audit.
Our complimentary [BRC audit checklist](https://info.fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-brcgs-checklist) can help you with this step.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/8cdce96e-285a-45de-9a15-28ce47baf0a7)## Document Everything!
One of the most common mistakes companies make is assuming that because their facility is well-run, they’ll automatically pass a BRC audit. That’s not how it works. You also must have the proper documentation in place to prove compliance.
As the old adage goes: **If it’s not written down, it didn’t happen.**
Proper documentation is one of the most effective ways to increase your chances of passing a BRCGS audit. Ensure every aspect of your [food safety management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) is documented and accessible.
If there are gaps in documentation, close them before your audit.
## Conduct an Internal BRCGS Audit – Be Your Own Worst Critic
Be sure to conduct a rigorous internal audit as part of your preparation. Mimic the real process and be thorough; your goal isn’t to check a few boxes and call it a day, it is to find and fix gaps before the formal audit. Here are some steps to take when approaching your internal BRC audit:
- **Walk the facility as if you were the auditor.** Check documentation and observe operations in real time. Are written procedures actually being followed?
- **Test your documentation.** Are logs, monitoring records, and corrective action reports complete and up to date?
- **Ask employees food safety questions.** Can they confidently explain their role in food safety? If not, training gaps need to be addressed.
- **Look for trends in your data.** If you’re monitoring metal detection or sanitation effectiveness, can you show trending data that proves consistent performance?
## Develop Procedures to Show Compliance with Fundamental Clauses
When your internal audit reveals a gap, be happy because now you can address it before your real audit.
In some cases, you may need to develop SOPs to show compliance with the standard.
For example, a facility may install metal detectors and test them daily, but if there’s no documented process for verification, it’s not BRCGS-compliant.
Additionally, if metal is detected, what happens next? Many facilities remove the contaminated product but don’t have a clear process for analyzing trends. Is it a one-time issue, or is there a pattern? Without proper documentation and analysis, the auditor may view the facility as reactive rather than proactive, which can lead to a non-conformance.
This is a perfect example of why good documentation is just as important as good practices.
## Prepare Your Team for Questions from the Auditor
A well-trained team is one of the biggest assets during a BRCGS audit. Auditors will ask employees questions about food safety practices, and their responses matter.
Make sure to train your employees for this scenario.
- **Focus on understanding, not memorization.** Employees should know *why* they follow specific procedures, not just repeat scripted answers.
- **Conduct mock auditor interviews.** Ask employees the same types of questions an auditor would, like:
- “What do you do if a foreign material is detected?”
- “Can you show me the [allergen-control procedure](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/food-allergen-testing-avoiding-allergen-cross-contact/)?”
- “How do you document temperature checks?”
- **Ensure employees know where to find key records.** If an auditor asks for documentation and an employee can’t locate it, that raises concerns.
If employees feel comfortable discussing food safety, it creates a strong impression of a [food safety culture](https://fsns.com/food-safety-and-quality-culture-what-is-the-auditor-looking-for/), which is a key area in a BRCGS audit.
## Verify That Written Procedures Match Reality
One of the biggest issues that auditors uncover is **a gap between written procedures and actual practice**.
A facility might have a beautifully written sanitation program, but if employees aren’t following it, the documentation is meaningless. Auditors will compare policies to real-world execution, and any inconsistencies can lead to non-conformances.
Before your audit, spend time observing operations in action:
- Are hygiene and sanitation procedures being followed exactly as written?
- Are critical control points (CCPs) monitored and recorded properly?
- If a problem occurs, do employees follow the documented corrective action procedures?
## Schedule a Pre-Assessment BRC Audit
Even if you feel confident in your preparation, a pre-assessment audit can reveal blind spots before the real BRCGS audit.
A third-party pre-assessment mimics the official audit and helps identify areas that need improvement. This provides an opportunity to correct minor issues before they count against you.
Facilities that schedule pre-assessments typically achieve better results in their BRC audit.
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) can conduct BRCGS audit pre-assessments.
## Final Readiness Check Before the BRCGS Audit
In the last week before your audit, you should be in maintenance mode, not panic mode.
Run through a final checklist to ensure everything is in order:
- **Review all required documentation** – is everything complete, accurate, and easily accessible?
- **Perform a traceability test** – can you track an ingredient back to its supplier?
- **Walk the floor one last time** – do hygiene stations, temperature logs, and monitoring records all reflect real-time compliance?
- **Reassure employees** – remind them that the audit is a **review of what they already do every day**, not an interrogation.
A well-prepared facility should not be scrambling the day before the audit. If last-minute fixes are needed, it suggests deeper food safety issues that should have been addressed earlier.
## Prepare to Pass Your BRCGS Food Safety Audit
A BRCGS audit is about demonstrating that food safety is embedded in your daily operations. By focusing on documentation, internal audits, employee training, and proactive compliance, you can approach your audit with confidence and achieve [BRC certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/).
Need expert guidance? [Contact FSNS Certification & Audit for pre-assessments, formal BRCGS audits, and ongoing support to help you meet certification requirements.](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** BRCGS, food and beverage
---
### [Top 5 BRCGS Audit Findings – Mature vs. New Sites](https://fsns.com/top-5-brcgs-audit-findings-mature-vs-new-sites/)
**Published:** January 21, 2026
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Reviewed By Kaci Foote, FSNS Certification & Audit Accreditation Manager*
Our [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) team conducts hundreds of food safety certification audits each year, including [BRCGS Food Safety audits](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), as well as other [GFSI-benchmarked certification audits](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) such as [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) and [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/).
Some sites have operated under GFSI certification programs for many years. Others are [preparing for their very first BRCGS audit](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-a-brcgs-food-safety-audit/). Not surprisingly, the most common BRCGS audit findings differ between mature and new sites.
In this article, we outline the top five BRCGS audit findings observed at:
- **Mature sites:** Sites that have successfully completed at least one prior BRCGS certification audit and are in a recertification cycle.
- **New sites:** Sites in their initial BRCGS certification cycle.
All findings below are based on **BRCGS Food Safety Standard, Issue 9**, with applicable clause numbers noted for reference.
This guidance will help you prepare for your BRCGS audit, reduce non-conformances, and improve audit outcomes.
## Top 5 BRCGS Audit Findings: Mature vs. New Sites
## What are the Top 5 BRCGS Audit Findings for Mature Sites?
Mature sites typically have established programs, but long-term operations can allow small gaps to persist or gradually worsen over time. The following findings are most common in recertification audits.
### \#5) Internal and External Door Maintenance – 4.4.8
The clause states:
*4.4.8 – Doors (both internal and external) shall be maintained in good condition. At a minimum:*
- *external doors and dock levellers shall be close fitting or adequately proofed;*
- *external doors to open product areas shall not be opened during production periods except in emergencies;*
- *where external doors to enclosed product areas are opened, suitable precautions shall be taken to prevent pest ingress.*
**Typical audit findings:**
- Doors propped open during production.
- Damaged or missing door seals.
- Peeling paint or deteriorated surfaces.
- Gaps allowing pest entry.
**Audit tip:**
Before your BRCGS audit, conduct a facility walk-through focused specifically on all doors and dock interfaces. Verify physical condition, closure integrity, and pest-proofing.
### \#4) Risk-Based Equipment Design & Construction – 4.6.2
*4.6.2 – The design and construction of equipment shall be based on risk, to prevent product contamination. For example, the use of the correct seals, impervious surfaces or smooth welds and joints, where they are exposed to product and could otherwise result in foreign body, microbiological or allergen contamination of the product. Equipment that is in direct contact with food shall be suitable for food contact and meet legal requirements where applicable.*
**Common issues observed:**
- Rough or porous surfaces.
- Poor weld quality.
- Broken supports or structural damage.
- Materials not suitable for food contact.
These conditions can harbor microorganisms, allergens, and foreign material, increasing contamination risk.
**Audit tip:**
Evaluate equipment condition through a hygienic design lens. If contamination could reasonably occur due to surface condition or design, corrective action is required prior to your audit.
### \#3) Adequate Ventilation – 4.4.10
*4.4.10 – Adequate ventilation and extraction shall be provided in product storage and processing environments to prevent condensation or excessive dust.*
**Common findings:**
- Condensation on ceilings, walls, and overhead structures.
- Condensation above or near food contact surfaces.
- Insufficient airflow control.
Condensation represents a direct contamination risk when it can drip onto exposed product or contact surfaces.
**Audit tip:**
Document corrective actions for condensation control and verify effectiveness prior to the audit.
### \#2) Maintain Clean, Hygienic Equipment and Facilities – 4.11.1
The second more frequent BRCGS audit finding for mature sites relates to overall cleanliness and hygiene throughout the facility.
*4.11.1 -The premises and equipment shall be maintained in a clean and hygienic condition.*
**Findings may include:**
- Inadequate cleaning of production areas.
- Unsanitary utensils or tools.
- Poor employee hygiene practices.
**Audit tip:**
Perform a GMP and sanitation gap assessment using [21 CFR 117](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-117?toc=1) and BRCGS expectations. Verify cleaning records and visual cleanliness on the production floor.
### \#1) Proper Storage and Handling of Non-Food Chemicals – 4.9.1.1
The number one BRCGS audit finding for mature sites involves non-food chemicals.
*4.9.1.1 – Processes shall be in place to manage the use, storage and handling of non-food chemicals to prevent chemical contamination. These shall include, at a minimum:*
- *an approved list of chemicals for purchase;*
- *availability of material safety data sheets and specifications;*
- *confirmation of suitability for use in a food-processing environment;*
- *avoidance of strongly scented products;*
- *the labelling and/or identification of containers of chemicals at all times;*
- *a designated storage area (separate from chemicals used as raw materials in products) with access restricted to authorised personnel;*
- *use by trained personnel only;*
- *procedures to manage any spills;*
- *procedures for the safe, legal disposal or return of obsolete or out-of-date chemicals and empty chemical containers.*
**Key expectations include:**
- Approved chemical list.
- SDS availability.
- Food-safe suitability confirmation.
- Proper labeling.
- Segregated, restricted storage.
- Trained personnel.
- Spill procedures.
- Disposal procedures.
**Why this is the top finding:**
Chemical-handling errors present a serious food safety and recall risk. Even experienced sites frequently overlook one or more of these control elements.
## What are the Top 5 BRCGS Audit Findings for New Sites?
New sites often struggle with system implementation rather than physical facility issues. Documentation, records, and program control dominate early audit findings.
### \#5) Food Safety & Quality System Document Management – 3.2.1
*3.2.1 – The company shall have a procedure to manage documents which form part of the food safety and quality system. This shall include:*
- *a list of all controlled documents indicating the latest version number;*
- *the method for the identification and authorisation of controlled documents;*
- *a record of the reason for any changes or amendments to documents;*
- *the system for the replacement of existing documents when these are updated.*
- *Where documents are stored in electronic form these shall also be:*
- *stored securely (e.g. with authorised access, control of amendments, or password protection);*
- *backed up to prevent loss.*
**Common gaps:**
- No master document list.
- No version control.
- Missing change history.
- Inadequate electronic security or backups.
**Audit tip:**
Implement a structured document control procedure early. Once established, maintenance becomes significantly easier and reduces future audit findings.
### \#4) Records Management – 3.3.1
*3.3.1 – Records shall be legible, maintained in good condition and retrievable. Any alterations to records shall be authorised and justification for the alteration shall be recorded. Where records are in electronic form these shall also be:*
- *stored securely (e.g. with authorised access, control of amendments, or password protection);*
- *suitably backed up to prevent loss.*
**Common findings:**
- Illegible entries.
- Missing signatures or dates.
- Unauthorized changes.
- Poor electronic controls.
**Audit tip:**
If it is not documented, it did not happen. Ensure SOPs define how records are completed, reviewed, corrected, and stored.
### \#3) Adequate Ventilation – 4.4.10
*4.4.10 – Adequate ventilation and extraction shall be provided in product storage and processing environments to prevent condensation or excessive dust.*
This clause appears again for new sites. Condensation and airflow control remain universal challenges regardless of experience level.
### \#2) Risk-Based Equipment Design & Construction – 4.6.2
New sites frequently install equipment without fully evaluating hygienic design risk. The same contamination principles apply as noted in the mature site section.
### \#1) Proper Storage and Handling of Non-Food Chemicals – 4.9.1.1
Chemical control is the most consistent BRCGS audit finding across both new and mature sites.
**Audit tip:**
Review chemical SOPs, conduct staff training, and verify real-world compliance on the production floor prior to your audit.
## Prepare for Your BRCGS Audit to Avoid Non-Conformances
Whether you are preparing for your first BRCGS audit or your 10th, proactive preparation is the most effective way to reduce BRCGS audit findings and achieve successful certification.
Key steps include:
- Conducting an internal gap assessment.
- Performing a formal BRCGS pre-audit.
- Reviewing historical non-conformances.
- Verifying SOP implementation on the floor.
Our team can perform a comprehensive pre-audit to identify gaps before your certification audit. As a **5-Star BRCGS Certification Body**, we can also conduct your official BRCGS Food Safety audit when you are ready.
[Contact us today to schedule your BRCGS audit or pre-audit and strengthen your audit readiness.](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/8cdce96e-285a-45de-9a15-28ce47baf0a7)
**Categories:** General
---
### [Certified Laboratories Approved as Amazon TIC for Supplements](https://fsns.com/certified-laboratories-approved-as-amazon-tic-for-supplements/)
**Published:** January 20, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
## *Expansion reinforces leadership in regulated product testing.*
**BURBANK, Calif., Jan. 20, 2026 –** [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Amazon%20TIC%20PR), a [Certified Group](https://certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Amazon%20TIC%20PR) company, is now officially recognized as an Amazon-approved Testing, Inspection, and Certification (TIC) organization for dietary supplements. This designation enables Certified Laboratories to perform lab testing and verify cGMP documentation, both of which are required under Amazon’s updated supplement compliance policy taking effect in 2026.
**[Read More](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/certified-laboratories-approved-as-amazon-tic-for-supplements-302665576.html)**
**Categories:** General
---
### [Your Guide to GMP Audits in the Food Industry [+ Free GMP Food Audit Checklist]](https://fsns.com/gmp-audits-food-industry-guide/)
**Published:** February 14, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
You’re ready to take your new food product to market, but before retailers or co-ops agree to carry it, they often require proof that your facility follows basic food safety practices. For many startups or small companies, that means passing a GMP audit (Good Manufacturing Practices audit), a third-party inspection that verifies your facility complies with current food safety standards.
A GMP audit is much less expensive and easier to achieve than a comprehensive [GFSI-benchmarked food safety certification](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/), such as [SQF certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) or [BRCGS Food Safety certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/). And, for some companies, a GFSI certification is more than they need.
So, let’s walk through what you need to know about passing a GMP audit in the food industry. This basic GMP audit checklist summarizes the requirements; we explain each step in detail below.
## GMP Audit Checklist for Food Manufacturers
In general, auditors check the following during a GMP audit of a food facility:
- **1) Personnel**
✔ Exclude ill or injured staff from food operations.
✔ Enforce hygiene practices: handwashing, PPE (gloves, hair nets, beard covers).
✔ Train personnel to recognize contamination or sanitation failures.
- **2) Plants & Grounds**
✔ Maintain exterior grounds: remove waste, control vegetation, and pests.
✔ Ensure proper drainage and waste systems.
✔ Keep facility well-lit, ventilated, and structurally cleanable.
- **3) Sanitary Operations**
✔ Use appropriate cleaners and sanitizers; store toxics separately.
✔ Clean food-contact surfaces and utensils as needed.
✔ Maintain pest control and store sanitized equipment properly.
- **4) Sanitary Facilities & Controls**
✔ Provide clean water at appropriate temperature and pressure.
✔ Ensure proper plumbing, drainage, and backflow prevention.
✔ Maintain restrooms, hand-washing stations, and trash disposal systems.
- **5) Equipment & Utensils**
✔ Use cleanable, corrosion-resistant equipment with bonded seams.
✔ Prevent contamination from water, lubricants, or metal fragments.
✔ Calibrate thermometers and instruments (pH, moisture, temperature).
- **6) Production & Process Controls**
✔ Follow sanitation principles in all operations.
✔ Store raw materials to prevent allergen cross-contact and microbial growth.
✔ Protect finished products and properly handle adulterated materials.
Download our [free GMP Audit Checklist for Food Manufacturers here](https://info.fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-gmp-checklist). It provides detailed information about the requirements for meeting Good Manufacturing Practice audit requirements. It includes everything you need to know to [prepare for a GMP audit as a food manufacturer](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-a-gmp-audit-in-the-food-industry/).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/37959b00-f4be-4492-9f4d-6208f32a4d58)## A GMP Food Audit is Much Easier to Pass
As we said, compared to a GFSI-benchmarked certification, a GMP audit is…
- **Much easier to pass**
- **Less expensive**
- **Less time-consuming, typically taking only one day to conduct**
Passing a GMP audit in the food industry shows your potential customers that you have a basic food safety system in place and provides a level of trust in your products.
 *Passing a third-party GMP food audit tells your customers that you have a basic food safety program in place.* ## What is a GMP Audit?
**A GMP audit is a third-party inspection of a manufacturing facility to verify that its people, processes, and products comply with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs).**
This helps ensure that the manufacturer is producing food and other products that are safe for humans to consume or use.
Passing a GMP food audit tells your customers that you follow safe practices regarding food production and that they can trust the integrity of your processes and products.
## What are GMPs?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has established current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) in [21 CFR Part 117](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-117) to help ensure the safety of food. The FDA has also published additional GMPs for certain types of food, including the following:
- Dietary supplements ([21 CFR Part 111](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-111))
- Infant formula ([21 CFR Part 106](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-106))
- Low-acid canned foods ([21 CFR Part 113](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-113))
- Acidified foods ([21 CFR Part 114](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-114))
- Bottled water ([21 CFR Part 129](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-129))
The USDA also publishes its [Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) Audit Standard](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/GMPAuditStandard.pdf), which outlines GMPs for USDA-regulated products, such as meat, poultry, and eggs.
GMPs are guidelines that set the minimum requirements for safe production of food and other products to reduce risk. They encompass all aspects of the business, including…
- Raw materials
- Production
- Sanitation
- Recordkeeping
- Employee training
- More
GMPs in the food industry help ensure a safe food supply and reduce instances of foodborne illnesses.
## GMPs in the Food Industry
To that end, GMPs in the food industry are designed to be rigorous and comprehensive. If you’re new to GMPs, all the regulatory language can be intimidating.
It’s important to remember that many of the regulations are common sense rules that help keep everyone safe. Plus, our Certification & Audit Specialists are always happy to walk people through the GMP food audit process and answer your questions. (Our [GMP checklist for the food industry](https://info.fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-gmp-checklist) also helps you know what to expect.)
Since this article focuses on GMPs in the food industry, let’s look at some of the key regulations in [21 CFR Part 117](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-117?toc=1) and [9 CFR](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9). This will help you understand what to expect.
## 1) GMP Audit Requirements: Personnel
Plant management must take reasonable measures to ensure the following:
- Any person who has an illness or source of abnormal microbial contamination, such as an infected wound or sore, shall be excluded from operations.
- Everyone working in direct contact with food or food-contact surfaces must follow hygienic practices, including (not limited to) the following:
- Wearing suitable outer garments for protecting against contamination.
- Maintaining personal cleanliness.
- Washing hands thoroughly.
- Wearing proper gloves, hair nets, beard covers, and other equipment that guards against contamination.
- Personnel should have the proper training to identify sanitation failures or food contamination.
## 2) Plants & Grounds
GMPs for food safety require the grounds around the food manufacturing plant to be kept in a condition that will protect against contamination. This includes not only the maintenance practices that govern the plant, but the construction and design of the property.
- Store equipment properly, remove litter and waste, and trim grass/weeds that can harbor pests.
- Maintain roads, lots, and yards in a manner that reduces potential contamination.
- Drain areas that may contribute to contamination or allow pests to breed.
- Operate waste-disposal systems in a fashion that reduces contamination.
- Provide sufficient space for equipment and storage.
- Design the plant in a manner that separates potential contamination areas with sufficient space or mechanical means, such as by ventilation or partition.
- Construct the plant in such a way as to permit the adequate cleaning and condition of floors, walls, ceilings, and other surfaces.
- Provide adequate lighting and ventilation.
## 3) Sanitary Operations
GMPs in the food industry include several regulations that ensure operations are conducted in a sanitary fashion. Not only must operators keep the plant properly maintained and cleaned, equipment and utensils used to manufacture food, contact surfaces, and packaging must all be clean and sanitary.
- Cleaning compounds and sanitizing agents must be free of undesirable microorganisms.
- Toxic cleaning compounds must be identified and stored in a manner that protects against food contamination.
- Pest-control measures must be in place to prevent any pests from contaminating food.
- Food-contact surfaces must be cleaned as needed to prevent contamination.
- Cleaned and sanitized portable equipment must be properly stored.
## 4) Sanitary Facilities & Controls
The manufacturing facility must have adequate sanitary facilities that include the following:
- Safe, sanitary water supply of the adequate temperature and pressure for food processing.
- Plumbing system designed to provide adequate water supply, properly dispose of sewage and liquid waste, avoid constituting a source of contamination, provide proper floor drainage where needed, and prevent backflow.
- Proper sewage disposal system.
- Toilet facilities for personnel.
- Hand-washing facilities.
- A system to properly dispose of trash and offal that minimizes odor and the potential for waste to become a source of contamination or pest harborage.
## 5) Equipment & Utensils
A facility could use several pieces of equipment or utensils to manufacture food, such as mixers, conveyors, freezers, and more. GMPs for the food industry include regulations that specify how this equipment must be maintained and cleaned, such as those listed here.
- All equipment and utensils must be cleanable and properly maintained to prevent [allergen cross-contact](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/the-complex-world-of-allergen-cross-contact-controls).
- Equipment must be designed and used in a way that minimizes contamination of food with water, lubricants, metal fragments, or other contaminants.
- Food-contact surfaces must be resistant to corrosion.
- Seams on food-contact surfaces must be bonded to minimize accumulation of food particles.
- Each freezer or cold-storage device must be equipped with a thermometer to accurately show the temperature within the compartment.
- Instruments and controls for measuring variables such as pH, moisture, temperature, and acidity must be adequately maintained and precise.
## 6) Production & Process Controls
Process control encompasses several activities throughout a food manufacturing plant, so you can imagine that there are several regulations to consider. Many of them overlap with and build upon some already listed. Highlights include the following:
- All operations in the manufacturing, processing, packaging, and holding of food must be done in accordance with adequate sanitation principles.
- You must use appropriate quality control measures to ensure your food product is safe for human consumption.
- Overall plant sanitation must be assigned to one or more competent individuals.
- Raw materials must be handled and stored in a manner that minimizes the potential for allergen cross-contact, deterioration, and contamination.
- Raw materials cannot contain levels of microorganisms injurious to human health.
- All food manufacturing, processing, packaging, and holding must be done under conditions that minimize the potential for the growth of microorganisms, allergen cross-contact, contamination, or deterioration.
- You must take effective measures to prevent finished food from being contaminated by raw materials, allergens, refuse, or other ingredients.
- Adulterated food, raw materials, or other ingredients must be disposed of in a manner that prevents contamination of other food; if it is reconditioned, it must be done so according to proven methods.
GMPs for the food industry also include regulations for warehousing and distribution, the holding and distribution of human food by-products for use as animal food, and [defect action levels](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/fda-food-defect-action-levels-filth-testing).
## The 5 P’s of a GMP Audit
## What Does a GMP Food Audit Include?
A GMP audit will focus on the five Ps:
- **People** – Workers must be properly trained for their job function and wear the appropriate protective equipment (hair net, gloves, beard cover, etc.) to protect against contamination. They should also have access to hand-washing facilities, restrooms, and break areas away from production.
- **Premises** – Your facility must follow adequate sanitation practices and maintenance principles inside and out. The GMP auditor will not want to see weeds and vegetation growing out of control adjacent to doors or windows. The interior should be clean, maintained, well-lit, and ventilated. Equipment should be clean and well maintained.
- **Processes** – Write specifications, work instructions, and procedures that ensure production of safe and legal products. Have these instructions available to workers to ensure compliance to [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) and/or [food safety management systems](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/).
- **Products** – Your products should be properly labelled according to regulations, consistently manufactured, handled and stored properly and, above all, safe for human consumption.
- **Procedures** – Again, Standard Operating Procedures are a must when manufacturing food products. Write down clearly what you are going to do, and then do it according to your SOPs. Keep adequate records of changes to your SOPs, customer complaints, batch codes, laboratory testing results, and other pertinent information.
## Basic Steps of a GMP Audit
Any audit can be daunting, especially when your business is at stake. It helps to understand the basic steps of the food audit so you can prepare.
One of the benefits of a GMP audit is that it typically takes only one day, whereas food audits to obtain a GFSI-benchmarked food safety certification, such as BRCGS, SQF, or FSSC 22000, can take multiple days.
- **Opening Meeting** – The GMP auditor will hold an opening meeting with your team to document who is present and walk through the steps of the audit with you.
- **Document Review** – The auditor will often review written documentation that helps demonstrate if your company is following Good Manufacturing Practices, such as Standard Operating Procedures, batch records, and even your company mission statement.
- **Facility Audit** – The GMP auditor will walk around and observe your facility, personnel, production process, and other procedures. They may interview key personnel, directly observe your manufacturing process in action, and ask questions, so be sure to have the appropriate personnel on hand as they make their observations.
- **Closing Meeting** – Following the audit, the auditor will hold a closing meeting where they may provide some high-level feedback about your operations. This is often a chance to find out if there are any violations and prepare to resolve them.
- **Final Report** – The auditor will complete a written report within a few days that documents their findings and indicates whether you pass or fail.
## Tips for a Successful GMP Food Audit
- **Be Prepared** – It may sound obvious, but companies can fail a GMP audit simply because they were not adequately prepared. Ensure your team is aware of the audit and understands FDA and USDA Good Manufacturing Practices regulations.
- **Stock Your Meeting Room** – Set aside a meeting room or conference area where the audit meetings can take place. Have all the required documents available for the auditor, including the following:
- Organizational chart
- Plant layout
- Training documentation
- Quality Systems Manual
- Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
- **Ensure Electronics are Working** – If accessing digital documents, ensure the computer system is operational and ready to go to prevent awkwardly searching for documents while the auditor waits.
- **Have the Right Personnel Available** – Part of passing a GMP audit is demonstrating that your company leadership supports your quality program and buys into the message. Have the right people available for the audit, including key leadership. Block off their calendars so they can focus on the audit. Designate someone to be your team’s lead when communicating with the auditor.
- **Complete a Pre-Audit Checklist** – Review a [GMP in the food industry checklist](https://info.fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-gmp-checklist) of what the auditor will be looking for during the audit. Review it with your team beforehand so you have time to adequately prepare. Conducting a pre-audit with a registered Certification Body, such as [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), is another great way to help prepare.
## GMPs in the Food Industry: Quick Audit Checklist
Use this to prep for a one-day third-party **GMP audit** and show cGMP compliance.
### Pre-audit
- Alert team; block calendars of key leaders; assign a single contact.
- Stage a meeting room and documents (org. chart, plant layout, training records, Quality Systems Manual, SOPs).
- Verify digital access; complete a pre-audit; consider a pre-audit with FSNS Certification & Audit.
### People (Personnel)
- Exclude ill or injured workers from operations.
- Enforce hygiene and PPE: clean garments, handwashing, gloves, hair nets, beard covers.
- Train staff to recognize sanitation failures/contamination.
### Premises (Plants & Grounds)
- Remove waste; trim vegetation; control pests.
- Maintain roads/yards; drain standing water; manage waste systems.
- Provide cleanable surfaces, separation of risk areas, adequate light and ventilation.
### Sanitary Operations
- Use suitable cleaners/sanitizers; segregate toxics.
- Maintain pest control.
- Clean food-contact surfaces as needed; store sanitized equipment properly.
### Sanitary Facilities & Controls
- Safe, sanitary water at proper temperature/pressure.
- Proper plumbing (drainage, backflow prevention), sewage, toilets, handwashing.
- Controlled trash/offal removal.
### Equipment & Utensils
- Keep equipment cleanable, maintained, and corrosion-resistant; bonded seams.
- [Prevent allergen cross-contact](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/food-allergen-testing-avoiding-allergen-cross-contact/) and other contamination.
- Cold storage with accurate thermometers; maintain pH/moisture/temperature instruments.
### Production & Process Controls
- Operate under sanitation principles with appropriate quality control.
- Assign sanitation responsibility to competent personnel.
- Handle/store raw materials to prevent contamination and injurious microbes.
- Protect finished product; dispose/recondition adulterated materials properly (include warehousing/distribution controls).
## Prepare with a GMP Audit Checklist
One of the best ways to prepare to pass your audit is to review our [GMP audit checklist](https://info.fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-gmp-checklist) for food manufacturers with your team. Use it to know what the auditor will be looking for before the audit begins.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/37959b00-f4be-4492-9f4d-6208f32a4d58)## What is GMP Certification?
Although people often ask about it, there is no such thing as “GMP Certification”. This is a common misperception in the food safety world.
Adhering to GMPs is required to obtain common product or management system certifications, such as SQF, BRCGS, and FSSC 22000. In other words, you must demonstrate to the auditor that your facility complies with GMPs as part of an [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), or [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/) audit.
**However, “GMP Certification” is not a standalone accomplishment that can be earned by itself.**
So, why have a GMP audit at all?
Because, as mentioned earlier, many retailers require you to pass some kind of third-party food safety audit before they will do business with you, and a GMP audit is **much** easier to pass, takes less time, and is more appropriate for many companies, such as smaller start ups or “mom and pop” companies.
A GMP audit is also a great entry into the world of food safety certification if your company wants to eventually earn a GFSI-benchmarked food safety certification.
## Why Choose FSNS C&A for Your GMP Audit?
We love working with smaller companies and organizations that are new to food safety audits and certification. We answer the phone when you call and work with you to understand your goals to recommend the best course of action for your company.
- Each of our auditors has an **average of 14 years of experience** working in food manufacturing.
- **99%** auditor satisfaction rate.
- **99%** satisfied with our client communication.
- ISO 17021 and 17065 **accredited**.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)## Frequently Asked Questions About GMP Audits
### **What is a GMP audit in the food industry?**
A GMP audit is a third-party inspection of a food manufacturing facility to verify compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices. It confirms that your operations, personnel, and processes meet basic food safety standards.
### ****How often should you have a GMP audit?****
Most facilities undergo a GMP audit annually. However, the frequency may increase depending on customer requirements, certification goals, or previous audit findings.
### ******What are the most common non-conformances in a GMP audit?******
Typical issues include poor sanitation, inadequate documentation, insufficient employee hygiene practices, pest control lapses, and failure to maintain food-contact surfaces.
### ********How do I prepare for a GMP food audit?********
Start by reviewing a GMP audit checklist, ensuring your documentation (SOPs, training records, sanitation logs) is up to date. Conduct a pre-audit and make sure your facility and team are audit-ready.
### **********Is there such a thing as GMP certification?**********
No, GMP is not a standalone certification. It is a prerequisite for certifications like SQF, BRCGS, or FSSC 22000. A GMP audit shows you comply with required practices but does not result in a formal “GMP certificate.”
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** Certification and audit, food and beverage, Food safety, GFSI, GMP
---
### [FSSC 22000: Your Path to Certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/)
**Published:** March 13, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
If you’re seeking to elevate [your food safety management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) to the highest international standards, FSSC 22000 certification may be the key.
In this article, we answer your questions, such as, “What is FSSC 22000?”, “How do I get FSSC 22000 certification”, and more.
## What is FSSC 22000?
FSSC stands for **Food Safety System Certification**.
It is an internationally recognized accreditation designed to ensure safety throughout your entire food supply chain. FSSC 22000 is recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative and is a [GFSI-benchmarked certification](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/).
The FSSC 22000 standard provides production and management processes to ensure consistency, transparency, and safety throughout your entire supply chain. The standard applies to any company in the food and beverage industry, from farmers to retailers.
By meeting requirements and achieving [FSSC 22000 certification](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), you demonstrate that your organization meets food quality requirements and implements processes to manage and reduce the [hazards posed by food fraud](https://fsns.com/what-is-food-fraud/), foodborne illness, costly recalls, and other external threats.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/cfff9de0-0057-4811-b471-7814de63e541)## What is the Current FSSC 22000 Version?
As of this writing, [FSSC 22000 Version 6 is current](https://www.fssc.com/schemes/fssc-22000/documents/fssc-22000-version-6/). However, there is a 12-month window between versions, and companies that are already certified to Version 5.1 have until April 1, 2024 to prepare; after that date, all FSSC 22000 audits will be conducted against Version 6 standards.
FSSC itself recommends auditing to Version 6 as soon as possible, however.
## For Whom is FSSC 22000 Certification Intended?
FSSC 22000 standards are applicable to any food industry organization, including the following:
- Farmers
- Manufacturers
- Transporters
- Packagers
- Retailers
Every stage in the supply chain benefits from increased consistency and transparency, ensuring that a quality product will reach the end consumer.
*The FSSC 22000 standard covers all parts of the food and beverage supply chain, from farmers to manufacturers to retailers.*## What Does FSSC 22000 Cover?
FSSC 22000 is designed to be comprehensive, leaving no part of the food and beverage supply chain out of the framework to ensure end-to-end safety. It covers the following:
- Farming animal productions such as meat, milk, eggs, and honey
- Farming fish and other seafood
- Processing perishable plant, animal, and mixed products
- Processing products with a long shelf life
- Production of [pet food](https://fsns.com/the-importance-of-testing-pet-food-for-possible-contamination/)
- Catering
- Both retail and wholesale
- Transportation and storage of both perishable and non-perishable food and feed
- Production of food packaging materials
- Production of biochemicals
In other words, an FSSC 22000 certification ensures that every aspect of a food product’s manufacture is risk-managed, giving your organization full protection and the end consumer peace of mind.
## FSSC 22000 Components
To achieve this comprehensive coverage, an FSSC 22000 certification is made up of three major components:
- [ISO 22000](https://www.iso.org/iso-22000-food-safety-management.html), which provides a consistent risk management structure across every aspect of your supply chain.
- Pre-Requisite Program, which comes in four different categories to meet the needs of your subsection of the industry: food processing, catering, farming, and food package manufacturing.
- [ISO 9001](https://www.iso.org/iso-9001-quality-management.html) Quality Module, the criteria for management that helps ensure you achieve consistent quality in your products.
## How Do I Achieve FSSC 22000 Certification?
- Review the appropriate [FSSC 22000 scheme documents](https://www.fssc.com/schemes/fssc-22000/documents/fssc-22000-version-6/) on the FSSC website.
- Complete a self-assessment to determine if your organization is ready for FSSC 22000 certification. If you are new to the process, the sheer volume of documents and information can be intimidating, so enlist the help of a [licensed training organization, such as Food Safety Net Services (FSNS)](https://fsns.com/product/fssc-22000/), for guidance.
- If you are ready for an FSSC 22000 audit, contact an [FSSC-licensed Certification Body, such as FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) and schedule an audit. Requirements depend on the food chain category and subcategories under which your business falls in the FSSC 22000 scheme. There can be additional requirements for your category, such as labeling requirements, a food fraud mitigation plan, and more.
- Once you successfully complete the audit, you will receive FSSC 22000 certification. You will be required to undergo an annual surveillance FSSC 22000 audit (including one unannounced audit every three years), and recertification every three years.
## The Benefits of Choosing FSSC 22000
Because of this end-to-end approach, FSSC 22000 certification provides a host of major benefits, including the following:
### 1. Superior Risk Management
- Uses time-tested risk management tools.
- Reduces the likelihood of systemic food safety complications.
- Ensures ongoing monitoring to meet industry changes and challenges.
### 2. Improved Customer Retention
- Demonstrates a commitment to consistent, high-quality food safety standards.
- Builds consumer trust through adherence to an internationally recognized food safety management system.
- Reinforces consumer confidence in the safety and quality of your products.
### 3. Expanded Market Reach
- Opens business opportunities with global customers requiring FSSC 22000 certification.
- Provides access to major retailers, manufacturers, and processors.
- Enhances trust with a wider range of clientele, leading to market expansion.
### 4. Save Time and Resources
- Streamlines efficiency with a consistent food safety management framework.
- Simplifies the investigation process for potential food safety incidents.
- Facilitates quicker assessment of safety processes, allowing faster return to production.
*Achieving FSSC 22000 certification requires passing a third-party audit from a licensed Certification Body.* ## How Does FSSC 22000 Compare to Other Certifications?
In contrast to other certifications, FSSC 22000 offers a comprehensive framework that holds every stage of the food supply chain to standards established by a global network of stakeholders.
One benefit compared to other standards, such as the [SQF standard](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) and the [BRC Global Standard](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), is its flexibility in terms of program development. Under FSSC 22000, you have more freedom to design a food safety program that is best for your organization.
However, this flexibility can come at a cost. The standard relies on an “effective” program being developed, which can be subjective and difficult to audit.
## FSSC 22000 vs ISO 22000
Another benefit of FSSC 22000 is its similarity to ISO 22000, which is a widely known international standard that is seen as effective. There are two key differences, however:
- **Additional Criteria:** FSSC 22000 uses ISO 22000 as its basis but adds additional requirements. These include the Pre-Requisite Program (PRP), as well as other industry-specific criteria.
- **Global Recognition:** Unlike ISO 22000, FSSC 22000 is recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) as meeting the highest global standards. It gains your supply chain international acceptance.
This global support is the cornerstone of trust when it comes to [food safety management systems,](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) ensuring that a consistent, quality product reaches your consumer every time.
## Updating from ISO 22000 to FSSC 22000
If you are already ISO 22000 certified, moving to FSSC 22000 is a straightforward and inexpensive process with huge added value.
FSSC 22000 is based entirely on ISO 22000, plus additional requirements. Because of this, [your Certification Body can schedule your FSSC 22000 audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) to be combined with a previously scheduled ISO 22000 audit, saving you significant time. Your certification will then be upgraded from ISO 22000 to FSSC 22000.
## How Do I Find an FSSC 22000 Directory?
The FSSC website includes an [FSSC 22000 directory of all companies with FSSC 22000 certification](https://www.fssc.com/public-register/).
## Where Do I Find FSSC 22000 Lead Auditor Training?
If you already have FSSC 22000 certification and [need lead auditor training for your organization, FSNS provides a course that include training for internal auditors](https://fsns.com/product/fssc-22000/).
## Questions? FSNS Certification & Audit Can Help
The benefits of a globally recognized FSSC 22000 certification are clear, whether your organization aims to improve trust with existing customers or attract new ones. Obtaining FSSC 22000 certification demonstrates a commitment to food safety and consistent quality.
FSNS C&A is an [accredited, experienced food safety audit company](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/). If you have questions or want to schedule your FSSC 22000 audit, [contact our certification and audit specialists for answers](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** Certification and audit, Food safety, FSSC 22000
---
### [Which GFSI Certification is Right for My Business?](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/)
**Published:** January 9, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
### **1-Minute Summary**
- Certification to a Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)-recognized scheme is crucial for food manufacturers aiming to sell to large retailers, confirming their commitment to food safety and effective risk management.
- The top three GFSI-benchmarked schemes – BRC Global Standard (BRCGS), Safe Quality Foods Institute (SQF), and Food Safety System Certification (FSSC) 22000 – each have unique focuses and missions, requiring an independent third-party GFSI-benchmarked audit.
- BRCGS is globally prevalent and product-focused; SQF is flexible and HACCP-compliant; FSSC 22000 is an ISO-based system certification that requires integration with PRPs; audit rigor reflects management-system complexity.
- Businesses should consider their size, type, and customer requirements when selecting a GFSI-recognized scheme. An annual GFSI-benchmarked audit is required to maintain certification regardless of the chosen standard.
## GFSI Certification Comparison
Before jumping into the details, let’s look at a quick comparison on the three main GFSI certification schemes – BRCGS Food Safety, SQF, and FSSC 22000. It highlights key aspects of each standard, which should aid in understanding their differences and suitability for various industry needs.
**BRCGS Food Safety****SQF****FSSC 22000****Global Recognition**Strong global acceptance, especially UK/EU; recognized by 70% of top 10 retailersWidely used in North America; required by major U.S. retailers (e.g., Walmart, Costco)Rapid growth globally; strong adoption among multinational companies**Standards & Specificity**Prescriptive, product-focused standardProgram-based; HACCP foundationISO-based management system (ISO 22000 + PRPs + FSSC addenda)**Audit Emphasis**Process and product safety controlsDocumentation and HACCP demonstrationManagement system integration, PRP effectiveness****Best Fit For****Global brands, exporters, companies with strong traceability demandsU.S. manufacturers, distributors, retailersLarger companies, ISO-driven systems, international operations## Choosing the Right GFSI-Recognized Certification
Certification to a [GFSI](https://mygfsi.com/how-to-implement/certification/)-recognized scheme (such as [SQF](https://www.sqfi.com/), [BRCGS](https://www.brcgs.com/), or [FSSC 22000](https://www.fssc.com/fssc-22000/)) is crucial for food manufacturers aiming to sell to large retailers, as it confirms their commitment to food safety and risk management.
If you want to join the retailer big leagues, a becoming certified to a GFSI-benchmarked scheme is a must.
**But, which of the top three internationally recognized GFSI certification schemes, each requiring a GFSI audit, is right for you?**
- [Brand Reputation through Compliance (BRC)](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/)
- [Safe Quality Foods (SQF)](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/)
- [Food Safety System Certification (FSSC 22000)](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/)
Each has a unique focus and mission. One commonality among these GFSI certifications is the requirement for an independent third-party GFSI audit of your facilities and food safety processes to ensure specific standards are met as well as annual audits that confirm good practices remain in place to maintain the certification.
## GFSI Scopes and Schemes Explained
First, let’s explain some terminology, which can get confusing.
The GFSI framework includes **scopes** and **schemes** to ensure that food businesses of all types can certify their practices.
### What is a GFSI Scope?
A **scope** defines a specific area of the food supply chain. It categorizes operations based on activities like farming, processing, or distribution. GFSI outlines several scopes to ensure certification addresses unique safety risks for each industry.
**The 15 GFSI Scopes**
1. **AI**: Farming of Animals (Meat, Milk, Eggs, Honey)
2. **AII**: Farming of Fish and Seafood
3. **BI**: Farming of Plants (Other Than Grains and Pulses)
4. **BII**: Farming of Grains and Pulses
5. **BIII**: Pre-process Handling of Plant Products
6. **C0**: Animal Primary Conversion
7. **CI**: Processing of Perishable Animal Products
8. **CII**: Processing of Perishable Plant Products
9. **CIII**: Processing of Mixed Perishable Products (Animal and Plant)
10. **CIV**: Processing of Ambient Stable Products
11. **D**: Production of Feed
12. **E**: Catering
13. **FI**: Retail/Wholesale
14. **FII**: Food Broker/Agent
15. **G**: Storage and Distribution
These scopes provide a tailored approach to GFSI certification, ensuring industry-specific risks and processes are addressed.
### What is a GFSI Certification Scheme?
A **scheme** is a specific certification program developed under GFSI’s framework. Each scheme is tailored to meet the needs of businesses operating within a scope. Schemes are benchmarked by GFSI, meaning they meet rigorous standards for food safety.
**Examples of Popular GFSI Audit Schemes**
- **[BRCGS](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/) (British Retail Consortium Global Standards):** Popular for food manufacturers and retailers.
- **[SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) (Safe Quality Food):** Widely used by food producers and distributors.
- **[FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/) (Food Safety System Certification):** ISO-based certification for food safety management systems.
By selecting the scope and scheme that best fit your operations, you can ensure comprehensive and industry-relevant food safety management.
## Unpacking the “Big Three” GFSI Certification Schemes
Let’s dive into the “Big Three” GFSI certification schemes, which are the most widely used worldwide.
### BRC Global Standard (BRCGS) Certification
**Overview / Global Recognition**
[BRCGS](https://www.brcgs.com/) is a globally recognized food safety standard, especially prevalent in the UK, EU, and among multinational companies. It is accepted by approximately 70% of the top 10 retailers and more than 60% of the top 10 quick-service restaurant chains worldwide.
**Audit Focus**
[BRCGS audits](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/) are **product- and process-focused**. They emphasize operational controls, traceability, labeling claims (e.g., gluten-free, plant-based), and compliance with both food safety and legal requirements.
**Common Use Cases / Industries**
- Companies exporting to the UK or EU.
- Global food manufacturers with complex supply chains.
- Facilities emphasizing traceability and brand protection.
**Steps to Certification**
- Develop a food safety program that aligns with BRCGS requirements.
- Choose an authorized BRCGS certification body, such as FSNS C&A, to conduct an onsite audit.
- Audits focus on the effectiveness of processes and product controls throughout the supply chain.
- Certification is maintained through annual audits.
[We take a deep dive on BRCGS certification and audits here.](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/)
A GFSI certification is a must for food manufacturers that want to sell to many large retailers. ### Safe Quality Foods Institute (SQF) Certification
**Overview / Global Recognition**
The SQF program is one of the most widely used GFSI-recognized schemes in North America. It is mandated by many major U.S. retailers, including Walmart and Costco, and recognized by brand owners and foodservice providers worldwide.
**Audit Focus**
[SQF certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) emphasizes compliance with U.S. food safety regulations, including USDA FSIS and FDA hazard assessments. A strong focus is placed on the development and demonstration of a [Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/).
**Common Use Cases/Industries**
- U.S.-based food manufacturers, processors, and distributors.
- Companies supplying directly to major retailers or foodservice chains.
- Facilities seeking a flexible, HACCP-driven certification program.
**Steps to Certification**
- A designated employee must complete HACCP and SQF practitioner training.
- Develop and document a site-specific SQF food safety management system.
- Select an SQF-authorized certification body, such as FSNS C&A, to conduct an onsite assessment.
- Annual audits are required to maintain certification.
Once the prerequisites are met, companies will choose an [SQF authorized certification body, such as FSNS C&A](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), to conduct their onsite assessment.
An SQF assessment will focus heavily on documentation reviews and demonstrations that operations meet the SQF standards defined in those standard operating procedures (SOPs).
[Learn more about SQF certification and audits here.](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/)
### Food Safety System Certification (FSSC) 22000 Standard
**Overview / Global Recognition**
[FSSC 22000](https://www.fssc.com/schemes/fssc-22000/#what-is-22000) is built on the ISO 22000 framework with the addition of sector-specific prerequisite programs (PRPs) and FSSC requirements. It is rapidly growing worldwide and is commonly adopted by large corporations and international businesses with established ISO management systems.
**Audit Focus**
Audits assess the integration of [food safety into an **ISO-based management system**,](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) with emphasis on documented processes, risk management, and the effectiveness of prerequisite programs across the facility.
**Common Use Cases / Industries**
- Large or multinational companies.
- Organizations already certified to ISO standards (e.g., ISO 9001, ISO 14001).
- Businesses with complex, global supply chains.
**Steps to Certification**
- Implement a food safety management system aligned with ISO 22000, PRPs, and FSSC requirements.
- Select an FSSC 22000-approved certification body, such as **FSNS C&A**, to perform the audit.
- Certification requires initial assessment followed by surveillance audits.
- Recertification is conducted annually to maintain compliance.
[Read more about FSSC 22000 here](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/).
## How Do I Know Which GFSI Certification is Right for Me?
> Choosing between **SQF, BRCGS, and FSSC 22000** depends on your customer requirements, company size, and market. SQF is common with U.S. retailers, BRCGS is widely used by global brands, and FSSC 22000 is ISO-based, making it well-suited for multinational organizations.
An important first step when choosing a GFSI certification is to **check with the retailers, suppliers, further processors, or other potential customers** with which you are seeking to do business. In many cases, they’ll dictate their required and/or accepted certifications.
Next, **consider your business, including size and type**. Because the FSSC 22000 standard is a management system certification, smaller companies may not want the administrative requirements associated with obtaining this GFSI certification. Larger companies with an international focus, however, may decide the FSSC 22000 certification is suited to their broad reach. BRCGS and SQF are more product-focused certifications.
Regardless of which GFSI food safety certification scheme you choose, an annual audit will be required to maintain it. In addition, [an unannounced GFSI audit is required every three years, which we talk about here](https://fsns.com/preparing-for-unannounced-audits/).
## What are the Benefits of GFSI Certification?
All this information may seem intimidating if you’re new to food safety certifications. But the up-front work is worth the cost for your business when you consider the benefits of achieving certification:
- **Global Recognition:** GFSI certification is internationally acknowledged, facilitating market access and global business opportunities.
- **Supply Chain Trust:** Demonstrates a commitment to food safety, building trust among customers, suppliers, and stakeholders.
- **Risk Reduction:** Helps identify and mitigate potential food safety hazards, decreasing the likelihood of costly foodborne incidents.
- **Consumer Confidence:** Increases consumer trust by ensuring adherence to rigorous food safety standards.
- **Operational Efficiency:** Streamlines processes and improves resource management, leading to cost savings and enhanced productivity.
- **Market Advantage:** Provides a competitive edge in an industry where safety and quality are paramount, attracting new business and retaining existing customers.
- **Continuous Improvement:** Encourages ongoing enhancement of food safety practices through regular GFSI audits and reassessments.
## How to Get Started with GFSI Certification
Achieving GFSI certification involves several key steps to align your operations with internationally recognized food safety standards. Depending on the robustness of your food safety program, it can be a big task to prepare for a GFSI-benchmarked certification audit. Here are a few steps to help get started:
1. **Understand Your Scope**
Identify the scope of your operations, such as farming, food manufacturing, or distribution. This determines the specific requirements your certification process will cover.
2. **Choose a Certification Scheme**
Select a GFSI-recognized scheme that fits your industry and scope, such as BRCGS, SQF, or FSSC 22000. Consult with certification bodies to ensure the chosen scheme meets your business needs.
3. **Prepare Your Food Safety System**
Review and update your [food safety management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) to comply with the scheme’s requirements. This may include hazard analysis, risk management, and documentation practices.
4. **Engage a Certification Body**
Work with a recognized certification body, such as [FSNS Certification and Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), to audit your operations. Choose a provider with expertise in your scope and scheme for a seamless process.
5. **Conduct a Pre-Assessment**
Some certification bodies offer pre-assessments to identify gaps in your system before the official audit. Addressing these issues early improves your chances of success.
6. **Schedule and Complete the Audit**
Plan for the certification audit, during which an auditor will evaluate your compliance with the scheme’s standards. Successful completion results in certification.
It’s also advisable to understand the [update in December 2024 to GFSI benchmarking requirements, which we explain in this article](https://fsns.com/gfsi-benchmarking-requirements-2024-what-it-means-for-you/).
By following these steps, you can achieve GFSI certification and demonstrate your commitment to food safety and quality.
## Why Choose FSNS C&A for Your GFSI Certification?
Once you are ready to begin the certification and audit process, the FSNS Certification & Audit team can help.
- **Accredited** by ANSI and ANAB to conduct certification and renewal audits against the top three GFSI food safety certifications.
- Each of our auditors has an **average of 14 years of experience** working in food manufacturing.
- We visit your facility and assess your compliance with pertinent food safety schemes **based on the certification(s) you seek.**
- Our team **helps facilities prepare for their GFSI food safety certification** through pre-assessments or mock audits that provide a realistic expectation of what to expect.
- In a survey of FSNS C&A customers, **99% said they were satisfied or extremely satisfied with our auditors.**
FSNS C&A is an [accredited, experienced company offering third-party food safety audits](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) to help you stay in compliance with your certification scheme. Contact us to discuss your plans to become certified against GFSI standards.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)
**What is GFSI certification?**GFSI itself does not issue certifications. Instead, businesses can certify to GFSI-recognized schemes such as SQF, BRCGS, or FSSC 22000, audited by accredited third parties.
**Which GFSI certification is best for U.S. retailers?**Many U.S. retailers, including Walmart and Costco, require SQF.
**What is the difference between BRCGS and FSSC 22000?**BRCGS is prescriptive and product-focused, while FSSC 22000 is ISO-based and emphasizes management systems and global standardization.
**How often are audits required?**All three schemes require annual audits to maintain certification.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** BRCGS, Certification and audit, food and beverage, Food safety, FSSC 22000, GFSI, HACCP, SQF
---
### [Five Things Accomplished by Animal Welfare Audits Conducted at the Farm Level](https://fsns.com/five-things-accomplished-by-animal-welfare-audits-conducted-at-the-farm-level/)
**Published:** February 6, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Animal welfare audits revolutionized the meat packing industry in the early 90’s. Temple Grandin developed the first objective scoring system for measuring animal based outcomes at the plant level, and began to compile survey data annually. Today, the [North American Meat Institute’s Animal Care and Handling Guidelines](https://www.meatinstitute.org/Animal_Welfare/Guidelines_and_Audits) function as an industry standard, and are widely used for auditing animal welfare in USDA-inspected red meat slaughter plants.
At roughly the same time the National Beef Quality Audits began. This project considered the opinions of packers, producers, and retailers regarding quality and safety issues in the beef supply chain, and used findings to identify new targets. The project expanded to include a focus on the cull markets, with the recognition that culled dairy cows, for example, were a growing part of the beef supply chain. The Market Cow and Bull survey of 1994 reported that the industry needed to prioritize culling or marketing animals in a timely manner. While the Quality Audits provided important information about safety and quality defects of animals destined for the food supply, there was limited information about how, where, or why these defects occurred prior to arrival at the plant.
Farm-level programs for animal care began to emerge on a national platform. One such program, the FARM Animal Care Program, was implemented by National Milk Producers Federation. The FARM [program included guidelines for animal care](https://fsns.com/the-national-dairy-farm-animal-care-program-documenting-continuous-improvement-for-the-dairy-industry/) developed by a technical writing committee that consisted of researchers, producers, and veterinarians. Since 2008, independent, third-party verifications have been conducted at the farm level to verify the implementation and the integrity of this program. Third party verifications include a review of training provided to personnel with animal care responsibilities; review of written SOPs for animal care and handling; review of critical areas of concerns (i.e. deciding when to euthanize animals, euthanasia technique, etc.); observations of housing, handling, and milking facilities; and animal-based measures such as body condition, hygiene, leg condition, and locomotion (ability to move).
## Animal welfare audits at the farm level accomplish the following five key things:
1. Gauge success/adoption of program (i.e. FARM Program). Farm-level verifications provide a review of farm programs and management practices as evaluated against the FARM program. Farms selected randomly for third-party verification have already been through a second-party evaluation, and presumably should be in compliance with the requirements of the program.
2. Information obtained at the farm level can be used to track and report the progress of a program. A good example is the lameness rate for milking cows, which has improved from over 20% to the current target of 5% or less.
3. Information about the program adoption, as well as year over year performance can be used by technical writing committees to revise the programs and set higher targets along the road to continuous improvement.
4. Information gathered in the third-party verification process can be a valuable tool to guide decisions about farm and animal management for producers. An objective, outside perspective can be useful in identifying factors that producers might not have considered to be significant
5. Animal welfare and food safety audits at the farm level drive transparency and confidence across the food chain. Now, more than ever, consumers want to know about on-farm practices. They want to be confident that the animal products they consume come from animals that have been ethically cared for. Many consumers state that a farmer being wiling to participate in a third-party audit in and of itself increases their confidence in the safety and quality of their food supply. Confident, satisfied customers become loyal customers.
Between plant audits, the National Beef Quality Audits, and farm level audits, the food industry has a better picture today of the reality across the food production chain than we have previously. The message is an overwhelmingly positive one: significant progress has been made in animal welfare at the farm level. There is a credible system in place for the dairy industry that includes a plan for continued improvement, while recognizing the progress that has been made.
## Need an Animal Welfare Audit?
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) can provide an objective, third-party animal welfare audit at your farm or facility. [View our animal welfare audit capabilities here.](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
**Categories:** News
---
### [An Update On Cell Cultured Meat ](https://fsns.com/cell-cultured-meat/)
**Published:** October 12, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Soon, available to the public will be three “kinds” of meat: (a) plant based meat alternatives (PBMAs) are made from plants; (b) cell cultured meat alternatives (CCMAs) are muscle fibers made in a bioreactor rather than an animal; and (c) genuine meat (GM) contains muscle fiber, adipose tissue, and connective tissue and is made by animals. PBMAs exploded upon the scene with accompanying bravado from their makers forecasting the imminent demise of animal agriculture.1 They took off like a rocket – largely a result of their novelty – but demand for PBMAs has now stalled under the weight of their overzealous promises and projections.2,3 CCMAs have not been approved for sale to humans anywhere except Singapore,4 yet prognosticators predict: (a) cultivated meat, by 2030, will be superior in taste, half as costly, more nutritious, more healthful, and more convenient that animal-derived food;5 and (b) a mass-market introduction of lab-grown meats in late 2023, and it could supplant animal-grown meat within a decade or so.6
## **Can Plant-Based Meat Alternatives & Cell Cultured Meat Alternatives Save the Planet?**
Vegans and other activists have long evangelized elimination of animal, meat, poultry, eggs, and milk as a healthier, more humane, and more sustainable way to feed the planet; of late, they have joined forces with the climate-change techies with a strong climate-change-mitigating message to save the planet.7 The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems concluded that: (a) widespread consumption of PBMAs and/or CCMAs would result in less deforestation, less forced labor, and less slaughtering of animals, but that: (b) the CCMA manufacturing industry has such high energy requirements, it would have little or no effect on climate change.6 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that widespread consumption of CCMAs could: (a) cut land use (land used for pastures and to grow feed for animals) by 95%; (b) reduce use of water by 78%; (c) make the planet less vulnerable to extreme weather and natural disasters; (d) stem the loss of diversity; and (e) reduce foodborne illnesses.8
## **The Origins of Cell Cultured Meat Alternatives**
In 2013, Mosa Meat™ cultivated the first beef burger; in 2015, Memphis Meats™ was the first CCMA company in the U.S.9 The most progressive manufacturers of CCMAs are in Israel (Aleph Farms™, Future Meat Technologies™, MeaTech 3D™, SuperMeat™), in the U.S. (Eat Just™, UPSIDE Foods™) and in the Netherlands (Mosa Meat™, Meatable™).10 UPSIDE Foods™, using the process of making cultivated meat similar to that used for brewing beer, produced the first cultured beef meatball in 2016, Aleph Farms™ produced the first cultivated steak in 2018, and Eat Just™ launched the first cultured meat (chicken) for commercial sale (in Singapore) in 2020.11 Lux Research® cited that 80 start-up companies which have invested $800 million developing end-products or specific technologies are working in the sector.12
## **Is Cell Cultured Meat as Popular as Some Say?**
Dave Fusaro (editor of Food Processing) has prematurely declared that “Lab-grown cultured meat is becoming more popular with each passing day.”13 It’s premature because the only cell cultured meat/poultry product in commerce is a mixture of 70% cell cultured chicken plus 30% PBMA (made from mung beans) being sold in one restaurant in Singapore at a price “several times the price of real chicken.”13 Although meat grown from cells is no longer science fiction, in reality, there are still concerns about “meeting consumer demands” and “scaling up production.”11 And, before it enters commerce, USDA and FDA need to agree on what to call it. Industry consensus presently favors use of either “cell-based meat” or “cultivated meat”, while the two agencies have moved away from use of “lab-grown”, “clean meat”, and “in vitro meat.”14
## **U.S. Meat Eaters Still Favor Conventional Meat**
Relative to “meeting consumer demand”, will some consumers refuse to buy CCMAs? Consider that, (a) among “meat eaters” in the U.S., 78% favor conventional meat, 13% favor CCMAs, and 9% favor PBMAs – those who prefer CCMAs do so largely because it has the least negative effect on the environment;15 (b) a study in the United Kingdom revealed that only 34% of consumers were willing to try CCMAs – 49% of those said they find CCMAs “off-putting”, and 29% thought it was “not safe to eat”;16 (c) the PEW Foundation found that only 20% of U.S. consumers said they would be willing to try “meat grown in a lab” – the “ick” factor loomed large among those who said “No”;17 and (d) two consumer surveys revealed that some would avoid buying CCMAs because they feel it is a GMO or ultra-processed.17,18 Conversely, some say that few people will be “anti-lab-grown meat” because that would mean you’re against [animal welfare](https://fsns.com/five-things-accomplished-by-animal-welfare-audits-conducted-at-the-farm-level/) and you’re a climate-change denier.6
## **What’s the Appropriate Way to Describe Cell Cultured Meat Alternatives?**
Some CCMA manufacturers use descriptors like “delicious, sustainable, and humane,”19 all of which are appropriate and fair – and they don’t denigrate the competition. Beef, for example, is also “delicious” (with a unique umami flavor), “sustainable” (humans have eaten animals for millions of years, and farmed them for 10,500 years), and – except in rare occasions – “humane.”6,20 And, who’s to say there won’t be a rogue, inhumane person who will be biopsying animals to obtain stem cells, or that the same animal won’t be biopsied again, and again, and again.
It’s when CCMA manufacturers use “better than” claims to make their case that things get sketchy. Claims like “ethically superior”, “healthier”, “more nutritious”, “tastes better”, and “safer” are problematic.6,18,21 Ashley Peterson (National Chicken Council) says, “Claims that cell cultured products are superior to conventional animal products should be prohibited (by governmental regulatory Agencies) unless such a claim is substantiated by scientific evidence.22
## **People Choose Cell Cultured Meat Alternatives Primarily for their Health**
Developers of cultivated meat can make a strong case that eating more CCMAs would result in less pollution, run-off, and waste, as well as free up some land now used for farming for more environmentally beneficial purposes.23 Some alt-meat makers push “healthier for the planet” more than “healthier for you” in marketing alt-meat, but recent studies show – once again – that consumers care more about the health benefits of alt-meat products and less about sustainability or saving the planet.24
A Danish study found that personal health is the most important factor that drives plant based product eating, with environmental concerns coming in a distant second,25 a U.S. study showed that consumers are more likely to accept alt-meat products if they are tied directly to human health,26 and a German study that concluded that ecological concerns for the “health of the planet” were not at all associated with eating more plant based foods but that health-conscious consumers were more likely to buy and eat meat substitutes.27 The German scientists suggested that alt-meat companies should advertise the personal-health benefits of their products; the problem is that there is no evidence that CCMAs are healthier or safer than traditionally farmed meat products.24
## **Studies Show CCMAs aren’t Nutritionally Equivalent to Conventional Meat**
Those properties of a food that are most closely related to its healthfulness are nutrient content and safety (i.e., freedom from physical, chemical, and microbiological hazards). Because cultured meat is produced using real animal cells that are grown to replicate animal tissue, it is expected to duplicate the nutritional makeup of conventional meat, but it does not.23 CCMAs contain muscle fibers; meat contains muscle fibers, connective tissue, adipose tissue, nerves, veins, arteries, and lymph. So, except for those CCMAs now being trialed with blends of stem cells (muscle fiber stem cells plus those for connective tissue and/or adipose tissue), CCMAs are not identical.
Research at Duke University suggests that CCMAs and real meat are likely to have substantive differences in some or all of amino acids, dipeptides, vitamins, phenols, immunoglobulins, and types of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids.28 A recent article in Food Science of Animal Resources found that: (a) the content of all amino acids except valine and tyrosine, was significantly different between cultivated vs. traditional products for both chicken and beef; (b) for both species, cultured products had moderately lower levels of several amino acids, including lysine and histidine; and (c) the level of glutamic acid was also lower in cultivated chicken but comparable in cultivated beef.23 Both PBMAs and CCMAs need additives, fortification, or supplementation of specific nutrients to be nutritionally equivalent to conventional meat/poultry.6
## **Is Cell Cultured Meat “Safer” than Conventional Meat?**
Cultivated meat won’t be able to claim that it is “safer than” conventional meat but could be “as safe as.” Its pluses will be: (a) its starter material originates in a clean and controlled laboratory that is essentially sterile; (b) the bioreactor will be pharmaceutical-grade, “clean-room” grade; and (c) antibiotics are blended into the vats that contain the animal cells and growth medium.6,14,18 Its minuses will be: (a) presence of a single bacteria at the onset of cultivation would condemn the entire batch; (b) disembodied meat cells don’t have immunological protection; and (c) there could never be a “no antibiotics” cultured-meat product.14,18 What brings the comparison back to neutral is that FDA has promised to use HARPC and GMPs over the culturing-to-harvest stage. USDA will use HACCP to cover the harvest-to-end-product stage.14 An industry expert believes use of the four types of preventative controls in the Food Safety Plan of FSMA should be used to mitigate physical and chemical hazards.11
## **U.S. Consumers Value Taste Above All Else**
Because cultured meat is produced using real animal cells, it is expected to duplicate the taste and mouthfeel of conventional meat.23 Of the six attributes that Americans value when making food-purchasing decisions, consumers most value the “taste” of their food while least valuing the “environmental impact” and “social responsibility” of their food.29 Very little is known about the palatability of cultured meat/poultry. Anecdotal information includes: (a) “Consumers may not be willing to embrace CCMAs because of concerns about their taste;”14 (b) “CCMA tastes better than PBMA;”21 (c) “Blind tasting of cultivated-cell vs. traditionally grown chicken found them indistinguishable by a group of professional chefs;”30 and (d) “It is not even close to conventional meat on taste.”6 Research published by Food Science of Animal Resources concluded that cell cultured chicken and beef, when compared to their farm-raised counterparts “fell short of a truly authentic meat-eating experience.”23 There were significant differences in the taste characteristics; the umami, bitterness, and sourness of cultured products were significantly lower than those of traditional chicken and beef.23 Three reports of potential solutions to the taste problems of CCMAs are: (1) CCMAs made with stem cells for both muscle fibers and intramuscular fat make them closer to real meat/poultry on flavor but can’t mimic meat/poultry texture.6 (2) Cultured animal fat can infuse both PBMAs and CCMAs with the signature flavors, aromas, and textures of conventionally farmed meat and poultry.31 (3) A 3D-printer blend of vegetable oil and pea protein that mimics the structure of lard provides a solution for replacing the creaminess and mouthfeel of a burger or steak.32
## **Cell Cultured Meat Would Retail at 8X Conventional Meat**
To “meet consumer demand”, cultivated meat must sell at a competitive price. Chef Andrew Gruel (Slapfish™ restaurants) says, “Cell cultured meat is too pricey – even at high-end restaurants.”21 CCMA makers claim their products, by 2030, will be half as costly as animal-derived food.5 Costs to produce CCMA will never be low enough to put cultivated meat in reach for any but a well-heeled slice of the market.18 The retail price for a unit of PBMA is 2X that of conventional meat; if it went to retail now, CCMA would be at 8X.6 CCMAs could get down to 4X or 5X this year or next but its future is likely to be as a premium-price specialty (e.g., like Wagyu beef).6 What will it take to lower CCMA production costs? Manufacturing must be “scaled up” (scale = to climb upward in size via a series of actions or steps) and the cost of growth medium must be reduced. Researchers in the space argue that scientific realities make it nearly impossible for cultured meat to scale up enough to become any kind of significant provider of food protein.33 Nevertheless, some believe it has lowered CCMA manufacturing costs and improved sustainability. Eat Just™ says its success in selling cultured chicken in Singapore shows that scaling up has decreased its production costs and will ultimately help reduce global warming and improve animal welfare.34
## **Research Suggests Cell Cultured Beef Would Cost $17/LB.**
In 2013, European scientists spent $375,000 to create the first lab-grown burger, cultured in a petri dish using fetal bovine serum (FBS) as the growth medium; if that same protocol was used to produce chicken nuggets in 2022, it would cost $3,000 per pound.35 FBS cost is 55-95% of the total cost of cultivating meat; so, CCMA companies have been, and still are, searching for new, low-cost replacements for FBS.35 Research funded by Open Philanthropy® (a research/investment firm) computed a projection which found that, if produced “at scale”, cell cultured beef would cost $17 per pound (at large scale) to $23 per pound (at smaller scale) compared to $5.05 per pound for conventional ground beef.36,37 Future Meat Technologies™ has developed a technology for manufacturing CCMAs “at scale”; it involves: (a) use of connective tissue cells (rather than stem cells); (b) proprietary growth medium (rather than FBS); and (c) stainless steel fermenters continuously removing waste products (to maintain a constant physiological environment).38 The system generates CCMAs 10X higher than is the industrial standard and has brought down the cost of cultured chicken, from $18 per pound, to $7.70 per pound, in the last few months.39
## **Developments Could Make CCMAs More Affordable**
In 2020, Mosa Meat™ developed a new growth medium that costs 88X less than FBS.35 In 2021, Aleph Farms™ and Wacker™ announced the development of a growth medium that is much more affordable than FBS,40 and UPSIDE Foods™ revealed that it had developed its own growth medium.35 In 2022, Opalia™ eliminated FBS and replaced it with a “cell growth substrate”,41 BioBetter™ is repurposing tobacco plants – turning them into bioreactors for large-scale protection of the “growth factors” necessary to culture meat cells,42 and Intericulture™ announced development of an animal-free growth medium that supports cell growth 2.5X faster than growth with FBS.35
And, up to now, most meat analogues – both PBMAs and CCMAs – have been ground, meatballs, or crumbles, but Redefine Meat™ has announced the “first ever” whole cuts of plant based (and the potential for cull-cultured) meat alternatives that look like steaks.43 MeaTech 3D™ has developed a process in which bovine stem cells can be proliferated with improved muscle fiber density, thickness, and length; the process has been used to successfully 3D print a 4-oz. steak comprising both actually living muscle and fat tissue.44,45 Melissa Sue Sorrells (Alt•Meat) summarized the status of cultured meat as a sector of the food industry, saying, “With cultivated-meat firms breaking ground on innovation facilities, partnering with meat industry titans, and making remarkable advancements on salable product development, early 2022 has been huge for the industry. Is this the tipping point at which cultivated meat goes mainstream?”46
**References**
1Smith, Gary. 2021. FSNS Newsletter. May Edition.
2Keefe, Lisa. 2021. Meatingplace. December Edition.
3Smith, Gary. 2021. FSNS Newsletter. November Edition.
4Venkataram. Harini. 2021. Lux Research®. September Edition.
5Tubb, C. and T. Seba. 2020. The Rethink X Project. September 20 Issue.
6Burton, Steven. 2022. Food Processing. May 27 Issue.
7Sorrells, Melissa. 2022. Alt•Meat. April 12 Issue.
8Finkel, Ed. 2022. Alt•Meat. March Issue.
9Fusaro, Dave. 2021. Food Processing. May 6 Issue.
10Fusaro, Dave. 2022. Food Processing. January 4 Issue.
11Nierengarten, Mary. 2021. Food Safety & Quality. November Edition.
12Danley, Sam. 2021. Meat & Poultry. October 4 Issue.
13Fusaro, Dave. 2021. Food Processing. May 6 Issue.
14Pelonis, E. and N. Rainer. 2021. Food Processing. August 25 Issue.
15PiplSay®. 2021. Alt•Meat. November Edition.
16Gelski, Jeff. 2022. Meat & Poultry. January 14 Issue.
17Berman, Rick. 2021. Meatingplace. June 8 Issue.
18Budzynski, Brian. 2021. Alt•Meat. November Edition.
19Valeti, Uma. 2022. Food Processing. May Edition.
20Able, Hughes. 2021. Drovers. December 7 Issue.
21Waters, Jesse. 2022. Fox News. March 28 Issue.
22Johnston, Tom. 2021. Meatingplace. December 3 Issue.
23Gale, Sarah. 2022. Alt•Meat. April Edition.
24Sorrells, Melissa. 2022. Alt•Meat. May 20 Issue.
25Peschel, Anne. 2019. Food Quality and Preference. September 15 Issue.
26Beghin, John. 2021. Iowa State University. August 8 Issue.
27Klink-Lehmann, Jeanette. 2022. University of Bonn. April 26 Issue.
28Gibson, Kate. 2021. Meatingplace. July 8 Issue.
29Lusk, Jayson. 2022. Purdue University. February Edition.
30Food Engineering. 2022. January 26 Issue.
31Shaffer, Erica. 2022. Meat & Poultry. March 21 Issue.
32Finkel, Ed. 2022. Alt•Meat. February 10 Issue.
33Fassler, Joe. 2021. The Counter. September Edition.
34Whittaker, Ryan. 2021. Meat & Poultry. October 4 Issue.
35Sorrells, Melissa. 2022. Alt•Meat. April 5 Issue.
36Keefe, Lisa. 2021. Meatingplace. December Edition.
37Johnston, Tom. 2021. Meatingplace. December Edition.
38Gelski, Jeff. 2022. Meat & Poultry. February 11 Issue.
39Watrous, Monica. 2021. Meat & Poultry. December 21 Issue.
40Sims, Bob. 2021. Meat & Poultry. December 10 Issue.
41Smith, Benton. 2022. Dairy Processing. March 10 Issue.
42Fusaro, Dave. 2022. Food Processing. March 29 Issue.
43Fusaro, Dave. 2021. Food Processing. November 18 Issue.
44Morgan, Tyne. 2021. AgWeb. October 21 Issue.
45Keefe, Lisa. 2022. Alt•Meat. February 9 Issue.
46Sorrells, Melissa. 2022. Alt•Meat. May 24 Issue.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Livestock Show & Rodeo Evaluation Tools](https://fsns.com/livestock-show-rodeo-evaluation-tools/)
**Published:** December 8, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Article is by Diane Hanson, Livestock Beef Audit Lead at FSNS C&A
2021 has been a year of growth for the FSNS Certification & Audit team. The Livestock Audit Services team has developed a variety of new audit tool offerings, which includes a new program for livestock show and rodeo events to evaluate, benchmark, and monitor compliance with current rules, regulations, and animal welfare standards.
Livestock show and rodeo events have long served as a means to promote the agriculture and food industry. These events use livestock as a medium to support youth, adult, community development and education. Additionally, livestock shows play a unique role in both the food supply chain, as well as representing the industry’s stance on [animal welfare](https://fsns.com/five-things-accomplished-by-animal-welfare-audits-conducted-at-the-farm-level/). Due to the public nature of livestock shows and rodeos, they have recently been the subject of many special interest groups wishing to ban such events. Public perception will continue to play a large role in the security of livestock shows and rodeos. Though being highly visible, and events having received negative publicity by special interest groups, exhibition events have not widely participated in third-party verification of compliance with show rules and regulations.
Understanding the importance of livestock shows and rodeos to the greater livestock and food safety industries, the FSNS C&A team created the **Livestock Show & Rodeo Evaluation Tool**. The foundation of the evaluation tool aligns with current industry standards for animal welfare and handling practices. Acknowledging that livestock show and rodeo events have developed different rules and regulations based on federal, state, local, and facility guidelines, this evaluation program is also designed to allow each customer to tailor it to fit the specific needs of the event. The tool includes focused areas for: facility, training, housing, transportation, show, special events, veterinary, and rodeo performance. Additionally, different versions of the tool have been developed to be species-specific, for animals ranging from cattle to rabbits, poultry to pigs, and everything in between.
The goal of FSNS C&A in providing third-party evaluations to the livestock show and rodeo industry is to both promote the consistent implementation of animal welfare practices, as well as provide events with data for continuous improvement. The results of our third-party evaluation allow events to have tangible data and resources that display their commitment to both animal welfare and food safety. The opportunity to work with livestock shows and rodeos has been both exciting and rewarding for the FSNS C&A team, and they look forward to continuing to expand their work as a trusted partner for the industry in 2022.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Advancing Food Quality and Food Safety Through Omics Tools](https://fsns.com/advancing-food-quality-and-food-safety-through-omics-tools/)
**Published:** January 25, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
## Introduction to Omics in Food Safety
Maintaining and improving the microbiological quality, as well as ensuring the safety of food, requires identifying the presence of both known and unknown microorganisms. Utilization of -omics based techniques (i.e., genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics) can facilitate detection of a broad range of issues in food quality and food safety. Omics tools can (i) identify microorganisms limiting product shelf-life and (ii) facilitate pathogen detection (i.e., known and unknown for emerging agents) foodborne illness cluster/outbreak detection (i.e., refinement of case definition) as well as microbial source tracking investigations. Omics tools can also provide insight into fundamental biological characteristics of microorganisms such as niche adaptation, including virulence, antimicrobial resistance and resistance to environmental stressors (e.g., acid, heat and desiccation), that allow a microorganism to thrive in specific environments or infect a host. For example, in recent years [*Salmonella* survival in dry environments and low water activity food matrices](https://fsns.com/presence-persistence-salmonella-dry-conditions/) has emerged as a particular concern and omics tools can elucidate genetic characteristics that facilitate the ability of certain *Salmonella* serotypes to survive and persist in this niche.
## How Omics Tools Improve Food Safety and Public Health
Using omics tools can improve food quality, food safety, and thus subsequently public health metrics, by allowing development of better screening and subtyping tools for both known and emerging pathogens. Better tools can be generated for tracking bacterial strains to their origin and our understanding of these pathogens can be improved to define clusters/outbreaks of foodborne illness in a real-time manner. Combined routine sampling [microbiological testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and typing can be employed to prevent future contamination events, including identification of strains that persist in the processing plant environment. Several studies have demonstrated that the environment of a given processing facility tends to be colonized by a few specific microbial strains that can contribute to limiting product shelf-life or inadvertent cross-contamination of food products after mitigation hurdles or the lethality step.
## Environmental Persistence and Omics-Based Tracking of Pathogens
The identification of pathogens in the food processing environment can be difficult due to the complexity of the processing network, heterogeneity of food products, and the presence of normal or natural microflora in the processing plant environment. Food safety controls (i.e., cleaning and sanitation programs, process interventions, management systems and robust environmental monitoring) are important for food processing facilities to reduce spoilage organisms and control pathogens in both the environment and finished product. The application of these aforementioned efficacious food safety control aid in managing low-level contamination. However, when food safety systems fail, a sporadic high-level contamination event may result in a large scale contamination even leading to a product recall or potentially an outbreak of foodborne illness.
## Whole Genome Sequencing: A Game-Changer in Omics for Food Safety
Next generation sequencing technologies have made omics based tools widely available to improve food quality and food safety by providing rapid detection and high-resolution subtyping. As WGS becomes more routinely performed in laboratories, including the rate at which isolates can be sequenced, assembled, annotated and compared through bioinformatics pipelines, laboratories have begun to shift from PFGE based surveillance systems to WGS based surveillance and outbreak detection (Moura et al., 2017). For example, the CDC is currently performing WGS on all *L. monocytogenes* human clinical isolates and the FDA is routinely using WGS in intensified follow-up sampling investigations prompted by recalls or foodborne illness outbreaks. In fact, the use of high quality draft genomes generated by WGS has been shown to be feasible for outbreak detection and provides a similar level of clonal discrimination by SNP analysis in both *S. enterica* and *L. monocytogenes* (den Bakker et al., 2011; 2014; Y. Chen et al., 2017). Subtyping by PFGE will be completely replaced by WGS in all U.S. PulseNet laboratories beginning January 15th, 2019. Replacement of PFGE with WGS for *Salmonella enterica* in Canada has already led to an eight-fold increased detection of salmonellosis clusters many of which have been associated with breaded chicken and low water activity matrices such as flour (J. Besser personal communication).
## Advantages of WGS Over Traditional Typing Methods
WGS can provide valuable information on potential phenotypic characteristics (i.e., virulence, antimicrobial resistance and resistance to environmental as well as processing stresses) by detailing all of the genes in the genome (Jia et al., 2017). This also includes any genetic differences in gene content, mobile genetic elements, or horizontal gene transfer events (den Bakker et al., 2010; Hain et al., 2012). Once the genome has been assembled, many of the currently used methods of subtyping can be inferred afterwards using databases and computer programs, such as SRST2, to identify serotypes *in silico*.
## Pathogen Virulence and the Role of Transcriptomics in Food Safety
In addition, genetic markers have been used to group *E. coli* into pathotypes to identify strains with specific virulence characteristics. A well-known set of genetic markers for *Escherichia coli* virulence is the presence or absence of a combination of the *eae*,*stxI* and *stxII* genes. However, these genes alone are not sufficient for pathogenesis as bacterial virulence systems are also a balance of regulation and reaction to secondary signals with some requiring a host response (Arpaia et al., 2011; Camejo et al., 2011). Identification of combinations of additional diarrheagenic *E. coli* virulence factors (i.e., *esp* and *nle* effector genes) could be useful to determine the pathogenic potential of *E. coli* in food. Analyzing the process of pathogenesis can identify important steps in the pathogenicity and can be used to distinguish between highly virulent and less virulent strains within a given pathogen. RNA-seq can also provide important insight into a microorganisms’ ability to survive and thrive in a given niche through identification of genes that are significantly up or down regulated in a specific environment or upon exposure to conditions used to [control microorganisms in food](https://fsns.com/fattom-a-key-to-microbial-control-and-food-safety/) (i.e., ingredients, interventions and sub-lethal concentrations of sanitizers).
## Metagenomics Applications in Food Microbiology
Metagenomics has the potential to be applied to several areas of food microbiology. Metagenomics sequencing, through 16s or shot-gun sequencing approaches, of microbial communities can provide detailed information on the relative abundance of phyla and presence/levels of pathogens in a sample. Metagenomics allows identification of taxa that comprise the microbial community in a system and has been used to describe rich microbial populations in many different systems, including humans and animals, soil, food and the environment. Metagenomics has been proposed as a culture independent diagnostic approach to identify pathogens in clinical, food and environmental samples; however, this approach is limited by inability to differentiate DNA sequences from live and dead cells.
**References:**
1. Arpaia, N., Godec, J., Lau, L., Sivick, K. E., McLaughlin, L. M., Jones, M. B., et al. (2011). TLR Signaling Is Required for *Salmonella* typhimurium Virulence, *144*(5), 675–688. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.01.031
2. Camejo, A., Carvalho, F., Reis, O., Leitão, E., Sousa, S., & Cabanes, D. (2011). The arsenal of virulence factors deployed by *Listeria monocytogenes* to promote its cell infection cycle. *Virulence*, *2*(5), 379–394. http://doi.org/10.4161/viru.2.5.17703
3. Bakker, den, H. C., Allard, M. W., Bopp, D., Brown, E. W., Fontana, J., Iqbal, Z., et al. (2014). Rapid whole-genome sequencing for surveillance of *Salmonella enterica* serovar *enteritidis*. *Emerging Infectious Diseases*, *20*(8), 1306–1314. http://doi.org/10.3201/eid2008.131399
4. Bakker, den, H. C., Cummings, C. A., Ferreira, V., Vatta, P., Orsi, R. H., Degoricija, L., et al. (2010). Comparative genomics of the bacterial genus *Listeria*: Genome evolution is characterized by limited gene acquisition and limited gene loss. *BMC Genomics*, *11*(1), 688. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-11-688.
5. Bakker, den, H. C., Didelot, X., Fortes, E. D., Nightingale, K. K., & Wiedmann, M. (2008). Lineage specific recombination rates and microevolution in *Listeria monocytogenes*. *BMC Evolutionary Biology*, *8*, 277. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-8-277.
6. Bakker, den, H. C., Switt, A. I. M., Cummings, C. A., Hoelzer, K., Degoricija, L., Rodriguez-Rivera, L. D., et al. (2011). A whole-genome single nucleotide polymorphism-based approach to trace and identify outbreaks linked to a common *Salmonella enterica* *enterica* serovar Montevideo pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type. *Applied and Environmental Microbiology*, *77*(24), 8648–8655. http://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.06538-11.
7. Hain, T., Ghai, R., Billion, A., Kuenne, C. T., Steinweg, C., Izar, B., et al. (2012). Comparative genomics and transcriptomics of lineages I, II, and III strains of *Listeria monocytogenes*. *BMC Genomics*, *13*, 144. .
8. Jia, B., Raphenya, A. R., Alcock, B., Waglechner, N., Guo, P., Tsang, K. K., et al. (2017). CARD 2017: expansion and model-centric curation of the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. *Nucleic Acids Research*, *45*(D1), D566–D573. http://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw1004.
9. Moura, A., Tourdjman, M., Leclercq, A., Hamelin, E., Laurent, E., Fredriksen, N., et al. (2017). Real-Time Whole-Genome Sequencing for Surveillance of *Listeria monocytogenes*, France. *Emerging Infectious Diseases*, *23*(9), 1462–1470. .
**Categories:** News
---
### [FSNS Adds New Food Testing Laboratory in Greeley, Colorado](https://fsns.com/fsns-new-lab-greeley-colorado/)
**Published:** November 28, 2018
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**—November 28, 2018—[Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com) (FSNS) has announced the opening of their latest, leading-edge analytical laboratory for the food and consumables industry in the central region of the United States. The lab is located in Greeley, Colorado and will conduct all microbiological tests for the food industry. The laboratory also contains a training room for FSNS education classes and customer use.
“We are anxious to have our customers tour this incredible laboratory,” says John Bellinger, FSNS CEO. “In addition, to this great facility we have an excellent staff led by Julie Tritt, our Laboratory Manager. Julie has been with FSNS for 10 years and is an excellent microbiologist and manager.”
For more information on the FSNS Greeley laboratory or to take a tour of the facility, contact the lab at 888-525-9788, 8750 20th Street, Greeley, CO 80634, or .
**About Food Safety Net Services**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO, approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit [FSNS](https://fsns.com/).
\###
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [The Contribution of GFSI To The Safety, Quality, and Authenticity Of US Foods](https://fsns.com/contribution-of-gfsi-to-us-foods/)
**Published:** November 8, 2018
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Efforts to devise systems to control “hazards” in the food we eat have evolved in the last 22 years. [HACCP ](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/)categorizes hazards as chemical, [physical](https://fsns.com/how-to-help-prevent-physical-hazards-in-food-a-guide-for-qc-teams/), and [biological](https://fsns.com/unmasking-biological-food-hazards-guide-to-understanding-and-preventing-risks/). FDA’s “Preventive Controls for Human Foods” adds [radiological](https://fsns.com/radiological-hazards/), economically related, and ideologically motivated hazards. BRC’s “Global Standard for Food Safety” adds allergens, fraud, and [radiological hazards](https://fsns.com/radiological-hazards/). Our history of attempts to control hazards, and of broadening the horizon to include “quality” and “authenticity” reads like this:
- In 1996, USDA *mandated* HACCP for domesticated-animal meat, poultry, and egg products sold in interstate and foreign commerce. Since then, seafood, fruit juice, and vegetable juice (all regulated by FDA) and catfish (regulated by USDA) were required to have HACCP programs.
- In 2000, the [Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) was developed as a *voluntary* structure for food safety standards. It “benchmarks” (i.e., “recognizes”) schemes originally developed in the US and several other countries. Though GFSI said its focus was on food “safety” standards, some benchmarked schemes also set standards for “quality” and “authenticity.
- In 2016, FDA *mandated* “Preventive Controls for Human Foods” as one of the seven pillars of the Food Safety Modernization Act for all other foods–including wild-animal meat, fish, and game.
At present, approximately 20% of food consumed in the USA comes from processing facilities regulated by USDA, while about 80% of our food comes from processing facilities regulated by FDA. Most of the food consumed in the USA is packed or processed in facilities that *voluntarily* abide by GFSI standards. For example, a meat packing plant might be inspected by USDA and audited by a GFSI-benchmarked entity (e.g., British Retail Consortium; Safe Quality Foods) while a bakery might be inspected by FDA and audited by a GFSI-recognized entity (e.g., Food Safety System Certification 22000; Global GAP). Either way, GFSI can bring quality and authenticity to the party. So, in what specific ways has GFSI certification strengthened protection of the public health while simultaneously encompassing food quality and food authenticity issues.
Surak and Gombas (Food Safety Magazine, 2009) believe that GFSI has been pivotal in harmonizing global food safety standards. Sanchez (Food Safety Magazine, 2011) argues for the strength of a singular (like GFSI), rather than a bifurcated (part FDA; part USDA), approach to a country’s food safety program. Moyer (Food Quality, 2012) believes the GFSI mandates standards that are higher than those of FDA or USDA for: safety, internal auditing programs, documentation, supplier monitoring programs, senior management reviews, evidence of worker competence, prevention of problems, process controls, food quality, and traceability.
A survey of 834 food suppliers in 21 countries (Crandall *et al.,* 2017; J. Food Protection 80: 1613-1622) revealed that GFSI certification helped [food processors strengthen their food safety management systems,](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) enhance regulatory compliance, and promote a culture of food safety, which ultimately benefits their customers and consumers.
Steve Sayer (Meatingplace; Sept, Oct, Nov, 2017) wrote a series of articles on “GFSI–Is it Worth The Time, Money, and Efforts?” Highlights of his observations were: (a) GFSI increases exponentially a company’s vigilance, awareness, and focus towards all aspects of one’s [food safety and quality management](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) programs that–in turn–helps truncate the odds of product recalls and adverse food safety or quality issues rearing their ugly heads. (b) Areas upon which there was plant-dependence on federal regulations are better refined and defined in GFSI requirements; those include such things as management commitment, approved-supplier performance, monitoring, risk assessment, internal audits, traceability, security, fraud, control of non-conforming products, employee training, and complaint handling.
Of substantial importance is that USDA-HACCP and FDA-PCHF are subject to daily or periodic, respectively, governmental in-plant oversight, and that GFSI-certificated plants are subject to third-party auditing for initial and continual (annually) accreditation. There is great merit to having both systems “in play, every hour of every day,” to help assist in assuring the safety, quality, and authenticity of food products. Of the GFSI-recognized schemes, I am personally most knowledgeable about the specific contributions of British Retail Consortium’s “Requirements of the Global Standard for Food Safety.” These are things I think GFSI-BRC brings to the party:
- The greatest strength of the GFSI-BRC approach is its dependence upon development of a “*company culture*” directed toward a team-centric approach to improving the safety, quality, and authenticity of its products. Such culture must start at the top and trickle all the way down to the worker who loads the conveyance. The senior manager (like a football coach) preaches the sermon for team success–fully recognizing that each player must “swallow the Kool-Aid” in order to achieve the team’s goal. That is embodied and codified in BRC Requirement Group 1 (Senior Management Commitment).
- The play-book is For the players to be capable of “doing their very best” they must have precise and detailed instructions. That’s why the BRC “Global Standard for Food Safety” is comprised of 7 Requirement Groups with 256 Clause/Requirements to flesh them out.
- The metrics to quantify Continual Improvement are embodied in near-perpetual auditing protocols (BRC Requirements 2 and 3 for Internal Audits, 4 for Security Audits, and 5 for Vulnerability Assessments). Such audits provide *reinforcement* that Corrective Actions are verified, that site-security is maintained, and that Food Defense and Food Fraud risks are being successfully mitigated.
- Viewing the totality of food safety, quality, and authenticity issues as a “system in need of management-entity oversight” is critical. Much like ISO 22000, BRC Requirement Group 3 defines a *management scheme* that encompasses things like customer focus and communication, risk assessments of raw materials, root cause analysis, and internal auditing in a management system.
- With increasing interest of consumers in “real,” “genuine,” and “authentic” foods, the BRC-GSFS–in Requirement Groups 2,3,4, and 5–emphasizes consideration of Food Security, Food Defense, Food Fraud, ingredient substitution, provenance, identity preservation, food authenticity, and traceability.
Other GFSI-recognized schemes bring even more to the party. For example: Safe Quality Foods contributes greatly (at Level 3) to “quality” issues, while FSSC 22000 provides additional focus on “food safety management” principles. Certification against a GFSI-benchmarked standard is much more than a “paper tiger”–buyers demand it because it brings *so much* to the party.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Listeria in South Africa: Lessons Learned](https://fsns.com/listeria-in-south-africa/)
**Published:** July 31, 2018
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
## Largest South Africa *Listeria* Outbreak in History: What Happened?
As many in the food safety community know, the largest outbreak of foodborne illness on the planet took place last year in South Africa, with 1,053 cases and 212 deaths due to consumption of Ready-to-Eat meat products contaminated with *Listeria monocytogenes*, strain ST61.
Needless to say, the human toll has been enormous, and those who lived through it will never be the same. You may have wondered, “how did this happen?”, and “could this happen in the U.S.?” To answer these questions, we first need to understand that outbreaks happen due to several factors.
Among these are the failure to control a foodborne hazard at the plant level, failure to recognize there has been a lack of control, failure to recognize the hazard has caused an outbreak of foodborne illness, failure to respond to the outbreak quickly enough, or a combination of all four. So, what happened in South Africa? Let us explore the situation.
## Food Safety Regulation in South Africa: A Different Structure
First, we should understand that like in the U.S., the regulatory systems in South Africa are under the jurisdiction of several governmental agencies. However, unlike the U.S., the division of duties among those agencies is quite different. For example, the South African Department of Health (DOH) is responsible for the overall coordination, policy development, and auditing of the national food safety control program, and of serving as the international liaison for the government to develop regulations for importers and exporters2.
Enforcement activities of the national food safety control program in South Africa (i.e. food inspections) are carried out by 52 local authorities. Therefore, the DOH does not inspect food processing establishments, but rather conducts periodic audits of inspectors who work for local authorities. The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) inspects agricultural products for the presence of insects and pests, and plant and animal diseases, not for food safety3.
As you can imagine, for this approach to successfully protect public health, it depends heavily on the timely and robust audits of the local authorities and on the proper training of inspectors to ensure that food inspections are carried out well and uniformly in every locality.
Finally, in the event of an outbreak of foodborne illness, the National Consumer Commission has authority under Section 60(2) of the country’s Consumer Protection Act to require food manufacturers to conduct an investigation, and if necessary, to recall product from the market4.
## Timeline of the South Africa *Listeria* Outbreak: Delays and Missteps
It is believed that the South Africa listeriosis outbreak began in early 2017, yet an increase in laboratory-confirmed cases was not reported to the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) until July of that year5.
Moreover, it took until December of 2017 for the outbreak to be officially declared by the Minister of Health, and the product in question was not identified, or a recall order issued, until March of 20186. In an attempt at explaining why it took so long to recognize an outbreak was in progress, and to traceback the product responsible, the DOH declared that “the meat processing industry was not cooperating for months. They did not bring the samples we requested”7. This implies that in the event of an outbreak, the DOH passively waits for industry to inform them and to provide samples.
For his part, the CEO of the company responsible (Tiger Brands), Mr. Lawrence McDougall, stated that there was no direct link between the deaths and its cold meat products, therefore they did not contact the authorities8. Clearly something is very wrong with a food safety system if the responsible government agency is unable to identify the source of an outbreak for months, and if it waits for industry to provide samples. To make matters worse, in a news report by Sowetan Live broadcast on March 7, 2018, it was disclosed that regulatory agencies had not yet decided who would conduct further investigations into the outbreak, the National Consumer Commission, the DOH, or the DAFF9. Clearly something continued to go very wrong when the government was unable to decide who would be in charge during what was clearly a public health emergency!
## Why Food Safety Controls Failed in South Africa
But even before the outbreak began, why did controls fail to prevent it? The answer lies in the fact that South African regulation #692 does not require HACCP in meat processing plants10. In addition, there is only a voluntary guideline (#885) suggesting limits for the [presence of *Listeria* in Ready-to-Eat foods,](https://fsns.com/presence-of-listeria-in-food-and-associated-risk/) so it is not enforceable11. In the U.S., the Pathogen Reduction Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points regulation, published by USDA-FSIS in 1996, requires HACCP in every meat and poultry product facility12.
As history has shown, this regulation resulted in a significant reduction in the number of positive product samples for this pathogen, from 2.91% in 1997, to 1.03% in 200213. But would having a similar regulation in South Africa, instead of #692, have prevented the massive outbreak? As we know, unfortunately, requiring HACCP was not sufficient to prevent a major outbreak of listeriosis in the U.S. in 1998, which resulted in 101 illnesses and 21 deaths attributed to product sold by Bil Mar Foods, or a second outbreak in 2000 attributed to product from Cargill, resulting in 29 illnesses and 4 deaths. Moreover, while the USDA-FSIS was engaging in a risk assessment of Ready-to-Eat products to determine the best way to minimize the risk of contamination as much as possible, a third major outbreak of listeriosis in Ready-to-Eat meats took place in 2002. This time, there were 54 illnesses and 8 deaths14.
## Could Stronger *Listeria* Regulations Have Prevented the South African Outbreak?
So, as good as requiring HACCP would have been, it probably would not have been enough to completely prevent the South African outbreak. What else would have helped?
Certainly, having a zero tolerance for the presence of *L. monocytogenes* in Ready-to-Eat foods, as we do in the U.S., is a good place to start. More importantly, and going back in our history with this pathogen, the risk assessment commissioned by FSIS mentioned earlier demonstrated that the most effective way to reduce the risk of contamination with *Listeria* would be to apply a post-processing treatment to the product to ensure that if contamination occurred after cooking (i.e. at the peeling and packaging stage), it would also be eliminated.
On June 6, 2003, USDA-FSIS published a new regulation, “Control of *Listeria monocytogenes* in Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Products” (68 FR 34208). It provided the industry with three alternatives to choose from for controlling this pathogen:
- (1) the use of a post-processing treatment and an antimicrobial agent or process,
- (2) the use of a post-processing treatment OR antimicrobial agent or process,
- (3) implementation of an increased sanitation and testing program that would test product, food contact surfaces, and the plant environment for the presence of *Listeria*, and if found, would require that product be reprocessed or discarded, and that the plant environment be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized.
Importantly, the regulation specified that if a post-processing treatment was used, then no testing would be required other than as a verification step as part of the establishment’s [HACCP plan](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/).
## Science-Based *Listeria* Control in the U.S. vs. South Africa
This approach was science-based in that it shifted attention from over-reliance on testing as proof of safety, and towards the use of post-processing treatments designed to reduce, if not actually eliminate the contaminant from the product. In addition, it also appealed to the industry, in that it reduced the frequency of testing of end-product that USDA-FSIS inspectors would conduct. As a result, the number of positive samples collected by inspectors decreased dramatically, and as of 2017, the incidence of *L. monocytogenes* in Ready-to-Eat meat and poultry products is 0.20%13.
There is a better than good chance that if a similar regulation existed in South Africa, that at least the number of samples that were contaminated with the pathogen would have been a lot smaller.
## Inspection and Oversight Gaps in the South African *Listeria* Crisis
The only other remaining element is that of inspection. How much did delegating authority to local bodies for enforcement of regulations contribute to the outbreak? After all, inspectors cannot always determine if product is contaminated simply by random testing, given that contamination with pathogens is not homogenously distributed on product. In fact, to what extent was the quality of food inspection a contributing factor, given the absence of a requirement for [HACCP implementation](https://fsns.com/5-tips-for-successful-implementation-of-haccp/)?
## Lessons from the South Africa *Listeria* Outbreak
The massive South African listeriosis outbreak will not soon be forgotten. It affected the lives of thousands of people, many of whom were children and newborns. In retrospect, it is clear that both the country’s food inspection system, as well as its regulations, failed to establish proper controls and failed to assert proper enforcement by the appropriate entities in order to prevent this terrible episode, or at least minimize its scope. Moreover, lack of preparation in handling the outbreak, including confusion as to which agency should be in charge, tells a story that should not be ignored.
## Could It Happen Here? Comparing U.S. and South Africa *Listeria* Controls
Now, before we get too comfortable, let us recognize that the U.S. does not have a perfect food safety system either, far from it. However, it would be difficult to imagine this situation taking place here, given our regulations involving meat products, our inspection systems, and our processes for tracing back product and for identifying outbreaks. Having said that, in the past few years, we have lived through several outbreaks of listeriosis in the U.S. involving contaminated produce. So, there is clearly more that needs to be done.
## Moving Forward: Improving *Listeria* Prevention in Global Food Systems
One idea is that perhaps it is time to go beyond Good Agricultural Practices and require antimicrobial processes or treatments at the packing house to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from consumption of produce. Of course, that is easier said than done, but we must not give up. As they say in South Africa, *Kom ons doen dit*!
References
1.
2.
3.
4. [http://www.thencc.gov.za/](https://thencc.org.za/)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. [http://www.nicd.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Regulations\_Governing\_Microbiological\_Standards\_for\_Foodstuffs\_and\_Related\_Matters.pdf](http://www.nicd.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Regulations_Governing_Microbiological_Standards_for_Foodstuffs_and_Related_Matters.pdf)
11. [https://store.sabs.co.za/pdfpreview.php?hash=e30b09485e8c4d317c2ce80be37730a4ffa9310d&preview=yes](https://store.sabs.co.za/pdfpreview.php?hash=e30b09485e8c4d317c2ce80be37730a4ffa9310d&preview=yes)
12.
13.
**Categories:** News
---
### [FSNS Wins BRC Global Standards CEO Award](https://fsns.com/fsns-wins-brc-ceo-award/)
**Published:** June 27, 2018
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Food Safety Net Services Certification and Audit (FSNS C&A) proudly announces winning the BRC Global Standards CEO Award 2018, presented to Lori Ernst at BRC Global Standards’ Food Safety Americas conference in Nashville. This award is in recognition of the commitment demonstrated by FSNS C&A in expanding the reach of BRC Global Standards throughout North America through their support of using the Standard to help the industry, and their outstanding customer support and service in the delivery of their services in relation to the BRC Global Standards.
Lori Ernst, Senior Vice President of Audit Services at FSNS Certification and Audit said, ‘FSNS Certification and Audit was honored to receive the BRC Global Standards CEO award. Our audit team and certification body strives to provide high quality BRC Global Standards audits across North America’.
The CEO Award was initiated by BRC Global Standards CEO, Mark Proctor, to recognize the most promising certification body partner that has driven extensive business growth. The award criteria include certification and additional module delivery, together with highest business retention rate. This combination represents optimum utilization of the BRC Global Standards to drive operational excellence in the food industry.
**About FSNS Certification & Audit**
FSNS Certification & Audit (FSNS C&A) is committed to providing certification and audit services with consistency, impartiality, and integrity. Activities conducted by or on behalf of FSNS C&A are carried out by trained and highly qualified personnel that strive to assure each activity and end product meets FSNS C&A high standards and scheme owner requirements. For more information, visit [FSNS.com/FSNS-certification-audit-services](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [What are the Requirements for Validation of HACCP Prerequisite Programs?](https://fsns.com/requirements-validation-prerequisite-programs/)
**Published:** April 17, 2018
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Updated Dec. 10, 2025*
## Defining HACCP Prerequisite Programs
HACCP Prerequisite Programs (PRP) are defined as **“practices and conditions needed prior to and during implementation of the [HACCP plan](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) that are essential for food safety and that provide basic environmental and operating conditions necessary for production of safe, wholesome food.”** These prerequisite programs for HACCP help ensure the basic environmental and operational conditions necessary for the production of safe food.
While not part of a HACCP plan *per se*, Prerequisite Programs are an essential component of the HACCP system.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/4c279ada-b6aa-4d9b-bee6-0fede46b3eab)## Examples of HACCP Prerequisite Programs (PRP)
The following list of prerequisite programs for HACCP represent widely accepted foundational elements recommended by *Codex Alimentarius*, ISO 22000/TS 22002‑1, FDA cGMPs, and USDA sanitation regulations:
- Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs)
- Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs)
- Personnel hygiene and training
- Supplier approval and raw material control
- Allergen control
- Pest control
- Water quality and ice control
- Cleaning and sanitation
- Equipment maintenance and calibration
- Waste handling and disposal
- Chemical storage and control
- Glass, brittle plastic, and foreign material control
- Traceability and recall readiness
- Product storage and temperature control
These HACCP prerequisite programs create a controlled production environment, reduce food safety risks, and frequently prevent hazards from ever requiring a Critical Control Point (CCP).
## How do Prerequisite Programs Differ from Critical Control Points (CCPs)?
> Prerequisite Programs differ from Critical Control Points (CCP) and Process Controls (PC) because **CCP and PC control a food safety hazard reasonably likely to occur**, while **PRP may prevent a food safety hazard from occurring to begin with**.
Prerequisite Programs can vary by plant, but generally include procedures that, at a minimum, ensure compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure (SSOP) requirements of FDA and USDA, respectively.
Use of preventive PRP in HACCP-based systems is important so that hazards do not become “significant” in the first place. For USDA regulatory HACCP plans, supporting documentation must be maintained according to [9 CFR 417.5(a)(1)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-E/part-417/section-417.5). When Prerequisite Programs render a particular hazard “not reasonably likely to occur”, **FSIS establishments must maintain scientific or technical support for the design of those PRP used in hazard analysis logic, and must collect in-plant validation data to support that the programs are effective as designed**.
## What’s the Difference Between Validation and Verification of PRPs?
Both validation and verification are frequently used words in the context of [food safety management systems](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/). Briefly to distinguish between the two (according to SQF Food Safety Fundamentals):
- “Validations seek to prove that the intended result was achieved and that it actually worked.”
- “Verification seeks to prove that the control measure was done according to its design.”
In other words, verification is proving that you did what you said that you would do, while validation is proving that it works.
## PRP Validation and USDA vs. FDA Jurisdiction
While USDHHS-FDA enforces Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF) requirements of the Food Safety Modernization Act and USDA-FSIS requires Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems in their respective food safety programs, both systems necessarily need Prerequisite Programs in place to be successful.
Descriptions can be found in [21 CFR 117(B)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-117/subpart-B) for FDA and [9 CFR 416](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-E/part-416) for USDA, respectively. Also, both Agencies have addressed validation in their respective [food safety systems](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/):
- For **USDA**, § 417.4 specifies that validation must occur initially (with an in-plant experiment) and on an ongoing basis (using routine data).
- In addition to validation of CCP and critical limits, monitoring, and recordkeeping, validation also encompasses review of the records generated by the HACCP system (including PRP) to ensure that the system is achieving the desired objectives.
- Under the **FDA**, on the other hand, you **must validate all process preventive controls** (i.e., CCP), but **you do not need to validate** food allergen, sanitation, recall plan, supply-chain, or other preventive controls.
- In truth, though, all validation should occur in a fashion similar to that required by USDA-FSIS for HACCP systems.
## What are the Validation Requirements for USDA-FSIS?
### 1) Scientific or Technical Support
The first step in validation is developing scientific or technical support. This support should be relevant to the actual process (i.e., should have relied on the same operating parameters) and show that the process prevents, eliminates, or reduces to an acceptable level, the hazard requiring control.
There are several acceptable methods for scientific validation:
- Published processing guidelines (Directive 711.1 falls under this).
- Peer-reviewed scientific or technical data or information (journal articles, graduate student theses, or information found in a textbook are examples of this type of information).
- Expert advice from a process authority (though, in this case, expert advice needs to be in conjunction with published scientific data).
- A [challenge or inoculated study](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/), a pathogen modeling program, data gathered by the establishment in-plant, regulatory performance standards, or best practice guidelines.
When evaluating scientific data, several parameters of the study must be considered to determine the appropriateness of using the data as technical support:
- Product studied
- Hazard
- Expected level of hazard reduction or prevention to be achieved.
- All critical operational parameters or conditions necessary.
- Processing steps that will achieve the specified reduction or prevention.
- How these processing steps can be monitored.
In terms of PRP, if a program is being applied at a specific step (such as an antimicrobial intervention), specific documentation should be kept on expected reductions, etc. When a PRP is comprised of multiple steps (such as an allergen control program), establishments may rely on scientific or technical support that contain best practices regarding the implementation of such programs.
### 2) Conduct Initial In-Plant Validation of Prerequisite Programs
Here, the plant must demonstrate not only that the HACCP system (i.e., CCP, any PRP used in HACCP logic, and the system in its entirety) is theoretically sound in its design, but also that the establishment can execute it as designed to reach the desired effect.
If an establishment is using scientific data as support for the decision that a hazard is not reasonably likely to occur because of the implementation of Prerequisite Program, all of the critical operational parameters should be incorporated into the PRP.
If an establishment implements different critical operational parameters in the process from the scientific data, then the establishment should collect in-plant data demonstrating that the critical operational parameters that have been implemented can all be met and should also collect in-plant microbiological validation data or identify scientific support that contains microbiological data.
### 3) Perform Ongoing Verification of Prerequisite Programs
Once a plant’s initial validation has occurred over the first 90 days of production (both scientific support AND in-plant validations), follow-up validation of effective critical operational parameters should be conducted.
If there are no changes in the HACCP system, ongoing verification is conducted, with an annual reassessment of the system. If there are changes to the HACCP system, the initial in-plant validation starts again.
## How is BRCGS Food Safety Validation of HACCP Prerequisite Programs Done?
For [BRCGS certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/) under Issue 9, validation is defined as, “obtaining evidence though the provision of objective evidence that a control or measure, if properly implemented, is capable of delivering a specific outcome.”
In the context of a [BRC audit](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), documentation of verification can be evaluated under requirement group 2, the food safety plan. In clause 2.7.3, it states, “The HACCP food safety team shall consider the control measures necessary to prevent or eliminated a food safety hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level. Consideration may be given to using more than one control measure.”
BRC specifically addresses PRP and the documentation of these programs in clause 2.2.1; “The site shall establish and maintain environmental and operational programmes necessary to create an environment suitable to produce safe and legal food products (prerequisite programmes).”
The clause goes on to list 9 examples of PRP and then continues, “The control measures and monitoring procedures for the prerequisite programmes must be clearly documented and shall be included within the development and reviews of the HACCP.”
Clause 2.12.1 states that ongoing verification (i.e., in theory, including validation) must occur with PRP, while 2.12.3 specifies when a PRP needs to be reviewed (annually and when a change occurs to the plan). For internal audits, PRP need to be included as per clause 3.4.1.
In requirement group 4, site standards, PRP should be considered when determining layout and product flow risk areas. Furthermore, when cleaning is a PRP, the specific hazard of concern, procedure, and frequency should all be validated with records maintained (4.11.3).
[View these clauses in our BRC Audit Checklist.](https://info.fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-brcgs-checklist)
## How Do I Validate HACCP Prerequisite Programs for SQF?
In [SQFI’s Tip Sheet 16](https://www.sqfi.com/docs/sqfilibraries/code-documents/tip-sheets/tip-sheet-16-verification-and-validation.pdf?sfvrsn=faf1849b_9), validation is defined as “A system, which identifies, evaluates and controls hazards which are significant for food safety. Validation as applied to control limits seeks to prove that the intended result was achieved and that it actually worked.”
While SFQ highlights ways to ensure that validation is performed, it does not have a specific clause addressing Prerequisite Programs as BRC does.
Still, in section 2.5, SQF System Verification, clause 2.5.1.1 *Validation and Effectiveness* states, “the methods, responsibility and criteria for ensuring the effectiveness of all applicable elements of the SQF program shall be documented and implemented.”
Taken literally, then, that section requires validation of all programs. Validation of allergen controls is the only Prerequisite Program specifically mentioned in SFQ. In reference to allergens, 2.8.1.5 states, “Based on risk assessment, procedures for validation and verification of the effectiveness of the cleaning and sanitation of areas and equipment in which allergens are used shall be effectively implemented.”
## Use FSIS Guidance When Validating HACCP Prerequisite Programs
From FSIS to FDA and BRC to SQF, there is no consistency between requirements for validation of Prerequisite Programs. However, the FSIS guidance document concerning validation seems very robust and logical, and BRC through a clause requirement is clear on what is required for PRP validation. On the other hand, FDA for PCHF does not require validation on PRP or any preventive controls other than CCPs (i.e., process controls) and SQF only specifically addresses validation of one PRP (allergen control).
It’s best practice to err on the side of caution when it comes to food safety, and following FSIS guidance is a good place to start.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Air Sampling in Food Manufacturing: Which Methods to Use and When ](https://fsns.com/air-sampling-in-food-manufacturing-which-methods-to-use-and-when/)
**Published:** December 4, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Reviewed By:  Aaron Pleitner  Aaron Pleitner
Director of Microbiology Technical Services, Certified Group | Food safety scientist with deep expertise in microbial risk management, environmental monitoring, sanitation strategy, and product safety.
[See Full Bio](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/) [ ](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/)
### 1-Minute Summary
- Traditional methods give low-cost, qualitative insight into airborne fallout – ideal for trending and setting baselines.
- Device-aided traditional methods provide quantitative data for high-care areas, including both airborne and compressed-air testing.
- Using both strengthens your EMP with routine trending, quantitative verification, and fast investigative response.
---
## Choosing the Right Air Sampling Method for Your Food Plant
Air is one of the least considered pathways for microbial contamination in food manufacturing, even though it can transport yeast, mold spores, and airborne bacteria throughout a facility, increasing the potential for spoilage in finished product. Most QA teams already know they need air sampling as part of their [environmental monitoring program](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/) and to meet requirements from [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), and customer standards. What often needs clarity is *how* to perform air sampling in food manufacturing environments and which methods fit which needs.
Food plants typically rely on two categories of air sampling technologies, each suited to monitoring different risks and operational scenarios:
- **Traditional Methods (settle plates):** for routine monitoring of airborne fallout.
- **Device-Aided Traditional Methods (AES active air sampling, CAMTU compressed-air testing):** for quantitative data or compressed-air applications.
This guide compares both methods, explains how they complement one another, and outlines how they fit into a risk-based EMP.
## Traditional Methods: Simple, Low-Cost Air Sampling for Routine Monitoring
Traditional air sampling relies on **settle plates**, or passive air sampling, to capture airborne microorganisms that naturally fall out of the environment. This method remains widely used in air sampling in food manufacturing because it is inexpensive, easy to perform, and accepted across major certification schemes.
Though not quantitative, settle plates provide a practical snapshot of airborne fallout – especially useful for tracking yeast and mold.
### How Traditional Methods Work
Settle plates use standard agar media (e.g., PDA/SDA for yeast and mold, TSA for APC). Plates are left exposed for 15–30 minutes, allowing airborne particles to settle by gravity. After incubation, colonies reveal the level of fallout in that area.
Because yeast and mold spores are lightweight and easily airborne, settle plates are particularly good at detecting them during routine air monitoring in food production environments.
### Strengths of Traditional Passive Air Sampling
Traditional methods remain a staple of many [environmental monitoring programs](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/) because they offer meaningful information with minimal effort.
Key advantages include:
- **Low cost** for routine or high-frequency trending.
- **No** specialized equipment required.
- **Easy** to train and implement.
- **Accepted** across [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), and customer audits.
- **Useful** for general environmental hygiene checks or identifying areas to evaluate further with device-aided methods.
### Limitations of Traditional Methods
- **Not quantitative** – results reflect passive collected fallout, not CFU/m3.
- **Influenced by air movement** such as fans, doors opening, or personnel flow.
- **Less reliable** for heavier bacterial indicators (APC, coliforms).
- **Longer turnaround times** (5–7 day incubation time for yeast and mold).
- **Difficult to compare** across rooms or facilities.
These limitations make traditional methods best suited for baseline trending of dedicated areas of facilities.
### When Traditional Methods Are the Best Choice
Settle plates are ideal for routine, low-cost monitoring of airborne fallout and for supplementing quantitative methods.
They are most useful for:
- **Routine trending** in general production areas.
- **Baseline monitoring** when setting facility action limits.
- **Verifying sanitation practices** over time.
- **Monitoring yeast and mold activity**, especially in bakery, [beverage](https://fsns.com/industries/beverages/), [produce](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/), and [dairy](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/) environments.
- **Supporting an EMP** without requiring expensive equipment.
## Device-Aided Traditional Methods: Quantitative Air and Compressed Air Testing
Device-aided traditional methods play a central role in air sampling in food manufacturing, especially when plants need quantitative, volume-controlled data or when compressed air is used as a processing aid or as part of unit operation. These technologies do not replace settle plates but build on them, giving QA teams precise, defensible measurements for high-care, high-risk, or compressed-air applications.
This category includes two common technologies:
1. **Active air samplers** (AES Air Sampler Lite)
2. **Compressed-air microbial testing** (CAMTU)
Both are essential for a modern, risk-based EMP, but they serve different purposes.
### Active Air Samplers (AES Air Sampler Lite)
Active air samplers pull a defined volume of air across an agar plate using a perforated impaction head. This controlled airflow allows for quantitative results, which are especially valuable in high-care or [ready-to-eat (RTE)](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/) environments.
### Strengths of Active Air Sampling
Active air samplers provide the level of accuracy and repeatability that auditors and corporate quality teams expect for airborne environmental monitoring.
Benefits include:
- **Quantitative data (CFU/m³)** for actionable trending.
- **High sensitivity**, especially for APC and coliform bacteria.
- **Strong audit alignment** with [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), and customer standards.
- **Consistent sampling volume**, making results comparable across rooms, days, and facilities.
- **Ideal for high-care/RTE zones** where airborne contamination poses greater risk.
- **Excellent for verifying HVAC** performance, filtration, and pressure differentials.
By controlling the volume of air pulled across the agar, active air samplers overcome the variability inherent in passive settle plates.
### Limitations of Active Air Sampling
Despite their accuracy, active samplers have limitations:
- **Equipment cost and maintenance**, including routine calibration.
- **Requires proper operator training** for consistent results.
- **Turnaround time is still dependent on incubation time**, typically 48 hours for APC and 5–7 days for yeast & mold.
- **Less practical for wide-area, high-frequency monitoring** due to equipment handling.
These considerations make AES units most appropriate when precise, defensible data is required.
### Best Uses for Active Air Samplers
Active air sampling is ideal for:
- **RTE and high-care areas**.
- Facilities needing **quantitative airborne data**.
- **Audit preparation**.
- **Investigating** elevated APC, coliform, or yeast & mold counts.
- **Evaluating** HVAC airflow or filtration performance.
In short, active sampling is the gold standard for air sampling in food manufacturing when quantitative, repeatable airborne data is required.
### Compressed Air Testing (CAMTU)
When compressed air interacts with food, it becomes a direct food-contact risk. CAMTU testing (Compressed Air Microbial Testing Unit) assesses the microbial quality of compressed air used for:
- Air knives
- Blow-offs
- Packaging lines
- Pneumatic systems
- Product movement
CAMTU units direct a controlled stream of compressed air onto an agar plate or hydrated sponges, allowing a facility to evaluate both microbial contamination and moisture within the air system.
### Strengths of CAMTU Testing
Compressed air is a known source of contamination in both wet and dry facilities. CAMTU testing is essential for:
- **Detecting** microbial contamination inside compressed air lines and on exit ports.
- **Identifying** moisture problems that promote microbial growth.
- **Evaluating** air used in direct or indirect food contact situations.
- **Meeting auditor expectations** – most [GFSI schemes](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) expect compressed-air quality verification.
It is one of the only reliable ways to assess whether compressed air is clean and safe for use near product, packaging, or post-lethality processes.
### Limitations of CAMTU Testing
- **Only applicable** where compressed air contacts or influences product.
- **Still dependent** on culture incubation times.
- **Does not quantify** general airborne microbial loads.
Because of these constraints, CAMTU should be used alongside – not instead of – active and passive air monitoring.
### Best Uses for CAMTU Testing
CAMTU compressed-air microbial testing is ideal for:
- Any system where **compressed air reaches food or food-contact surfaces**.
- **Quarterly or annual** audit compliance checks.
- **Identifying moisture issues** within and upon exit of compressed air lines.
- **Supporting root-cause analysis** for unexpected environmental positives.
Together with active and passive air testing, CAMTU completes the air-quality picture for a food manufacturing environment.
## Comparison of Air Sampling Methods for Food Manufacturing Environments
Selecting the right approach to air sampling in food manufacturing environments depends on the level of precision you need, the organisms of interest, and cost. The table summarizes the key differences at a glance, followed by a brief explanation of how to interpret the results.
### Comparison Table: Air Sampling Methods Used in Food Plants
**Category** **Sampling Time** **Sensitivity/Ability to Quantify** **Result Type** **TAT** **Cost** **Traditional (Settle Plates)** 15–30 minutes exposure ✓ (lower sensitivity; best for airborne fallout) Qualitative (fallout only; not CFU/m³) 5–7 days ✓ **Device-Aided Traditional (AES, CAMTU)** 5–10 minutes ✓✓ (volume-controlled, higher sensitivity) Quantitative (CFU/m³ or compressed-air evaluation) 5–7 days ✓✓ ## Choosing the Right Air Sampling Method
By this point, most facilities know what they need from an air-monitoring program. The decision usually comes down to how precise the data must be, overall cost, and where the sampling will occur. Here’s the simplest way to choose:
**Use Traditional (Settle Plates) when:**
- You need low-cost, routine trending.
- You’re monitoring general production areas for yeast and mold fallout.
- You want basic environmental hygiene insight without equipment investment.
**Use Device-Aided Traditional (AES, CAMTU) when:**
- You need quantitative results (CFU/m³) for audits or corporate standards.
- You’re monitoring RTE or high-care environments.
- You must verify compressed air used on packaging or product-contact surfaces.
- You need higher sensitivity for APC, coliforms, or broader indicators.
**In practice, most food manufacturers use a combination of all both.** Traditional methods handle routine trending and device-aided sampling provides quantitative accuracy.
## How Our Lab Supports Air Sampling Programs
Our food testing labs supply and support both of these air-sampling technologies used in food manufacturing, including:
- **AES Air Sampler Lite** rental units.
- **CAMTU** rental units and consumable supplies.
- **Media and supplies** for traditional settle plates.
- **Lab testing** for yeast & mold, osmophilic yeast & mold, APC, coliforms, and other organisms with validated methods, ISO 17025 accreditation, and competitive turnaround times.
[Contact our Customer Service Team](https://fsns.com/contact-us/) if you need air sampling for your food manufacturing facility. Whether you’re launching an air-sampling program or strengthening an existing EMP, our specialists can help you design the right approach, interpret results, and prepare for audits.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Food Safety Management System: 11 Proven Steps](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/)
**Published:** July 5, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
[What is the Purpose of a Food Safety Management System?](#FSMS-purpose)
[What are Examples of a Food Safety Management System?](#FSMS-examples)
[Understanding ISO 22000: The Global Standard for Food Safety Management](#understanding-iso-22000)
[Why You Need a Food Safety Management System](#why-you-need-fsms)
[Key Components of a Food Safety Management System](#fsms-key-components)
[Leveraging Digital Tools for Food Safety Management](#fsms-digital-tools)
[11 Steps of a Food Safety Management System](#11-steps)
[Food Safety Certification Helps Verify Your FSMS](#fsms-certification)
[Maintaining and Improving Your FSMS](#fsms-maintaining)
[The Importance of Food Safety Culture](#fsms-importance)
[Challenges in Implementing an FSMS](#fsms-challenges)
[The Imperative and Effects of a Robust Food Safety Management System](#robust-fsms)
[FAQs: Food Safety Management Systems](#FAQs)
At the heart of ensuring food safety is a systematic approach known as a Food Safety Management System (FSMS). This guide provides an in-depth exploration of Food Safety Management Systems, including their purpose, steps for implementation, and the challenges encountered.
## What is the Purpose of a Food Safety Management System?
> A Food Safety Management System (FSMS) is a **structured framework of policies, procedures, and [controls that ensures food](https://fsns.com/fattom-a-key-to-microbial-control-and-food-safety/) is produced, handled, and distributed in a way that prevents contamination and protects public health**.
The purpose of a Food Safety Management System is to help [food producers consistently meet safety standards,](https://fsns.com/fsns-wins-brc-ceo-award/) minimize risk, and comply with regulatory requirements.
## What are Examples of a Food Safety Management System?
There are several recognized types of Food Safety Management Systems, each with a unique focus and methodology, but the purpose of each is to ensure food safety and consumer health.
- [**Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP)**](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/): This is a process-control system that identifies potential hazards in the food production process and implements stringent actions to prevent these hazards from occurring.
- **Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (HARPC)**: An FDA-mandated system that identifies, evaluates, and establishes risk-based preventive controls for food safety hazards, ensuring their effective management through continual monitoring and contingency planning.
- **[ISO 22000](https://www.iso.org/iso-22000-food-safety-management.html)**: This internationally recognized standard combines the key elements of HACCP and the principles of the ISO 9001 standard. It is focused on food safety management throughout the food supply chain.
- [**FSSC 22000**](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/): Recognized by the [Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/), this FSMS is based on the ISO 22000 and ISO/TS 22002-1 standards.
- [**Brand Reputation through Compliance Global Standard (BRCGS)**](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/): This is a GFSI-recognized certification scheme that food manufacturers often use to demonstrate their commitment to food safety.
- [**Safe Quality Food (SQF)**](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/): Like BRCGS, SQF is a GFSI-benchmarked certification platform widely used by food manufacturers to ensure and showcase their commitment to food safety.
As we said, the purpose of all food safety management systems is to provide a framework for effectively managing an organization’s food safety responsibilities.
Regardless of the specific FSMS implemented, the fundamental goal remains the same: ensuring the production and provision of safe, high-quality food.
[](https://info.fsns.com/emp-ebook)## Understanding ISO 22000: The Global Standard for Food Safety Management
[ISO 22000](https://www.iso.org/iso-22000-food-safety-management.html) is an internationally recognized standard that sets out the requirements for a comprehensive Food Safety Management System. Applicable to organizations of all sizes and across the entire food supply chain, ISO 22000 provides a systematic approach to identifying, controlling, and minimizing food safety hazards.
### Key Principles of ISO 22000
ISO 22000 is built upon four core principles that form the foundation of an effective FSMS:
1. **Interactive Communication:**
Effective communication across all stakeholders, including suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and customers, is essential for identifying and managing food safety risks throughout the supply chain.
2. **System Management:**
ISO 22000 emphasizes a process-based approach to managing food safety, encouraging organizations to integrate food safety into their overall management systems. This ensures continuous improvement, leadership engagement, and the alignment of food safety objectives with business goals.
3. **Prerequisite Programs (PRPs):**
PRPs are the basic conditions and activities necessary to maintain a hygienic environment. These include Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), cleaning and sanitation procedures, pest control, and more. PRPs provide the essential foundation upon which hazard controls are built.
4. **Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) Principles:**
ISO 22000 incorporates the HACCP methodology, requiring organizations to systematically identify food safety hazards, determine critical control points, establish critical limits, and implement monitoring and corrective actions. Here are [five tips for successfully implementing a HACCP program](https://fsns.com/5-tips-for-successful-implementation-of-haccp/).
### Why ISO 22000 Matters
Adopting ISO 22000 helps organizations demonstrate their commitment to food safety, facilitates compliance with regulatory and customer requirements, and provides a globally recognized framework for managing food safety risks. Certification to ISO 22000 can also enhance market access and build trust with consumers and business partners.
## Why Do I Need a Food Safety Management System?
### 1. Consumer Protection
The core purpose of a Food Safety Management System is to provide **robust consumer protection from foodborne illnesses**.
Achieving this goal involves identification, monitoring, and effective control of potential [hazards at every stage of the food](https://fsns.com/how-to-help-prevent-physical-hazards-in-food-a-guide-for-qc-teams/) production process and throughout the supply chain.
For example, harmful bacteria like *Listeria*, *Salmonella*, and *E. coli*, left unchecked, can lead to serious health complications in consumers, ranging from mild gastroenteritis to life-threatening conditions.
The following [statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)](https://www.cdc.gov/food-safety/php/data-research/foodborne-illness-burden/index.html) illustrate the severity of foodborne illnesses in the United States. These are from 2019, the most recent available:
**Infections****Hospitalizations****Deaths***Campylobacter spp.*1.87 million13,000197*C. perfringens*889,00033841***Listeria***1,2501,070172***Salmonella***1.28 million12,500238STEC357,0003,15066An efficient Food Safety Management System helps prevent the contamination of food products, thereby protecting consumers from the health hazards of foodborne illnesses and contributing to public health.
### 2. Regulatory Compliance
Another vital purpose of a Food Safety Management System is to assist businesses in **maintaining compliance with local, national, and international food safety regulations**.
For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)](https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma) imposes strict regulations on businesses involved in the food supply chain. This legislation is designed to prevent food contamination rather than just respond to it. A company that fails to comply with these regulations could face penalties that range from warning letters to criminal prosecutions.
A Food Safety System helps organizations navigate these intricate regulations and maintain compliance, thereby avoiding penalties and safeguarding their reputation.
It is a critical tool that enables a proactive approach toward regulatory compliance, helping organizations foresee and manage potential compliance risks effectively.
### 3. Business Reputation and Economic Considerations
A robust FSMS can boost a company’s reputation by demonstrating commitment to food safety. It not only builds consumer trust but also sets a business apart in competitive markets.
Additionally, an effective Food Safety System reduces the likelihood of expensive product recalls, safeguarding your customers, protecting your reputation, and helping control costs.
Cleaning and sanitation are a critical prerequisite program for food and beverage processors.## What are the Key Components of a Food Safety Management System?
### Prerequisite Programs (PRPs)
[Prerequisite Programs (PRPs)](https://fsns.com/requirements-validation-prerequisite-programs/) are fundamental conditions and activities that are necessary to maintain a hygienic environment throughout the food chain. They are the foundation of all Food Safety Systems, providing the infrastructure for any operation that involves food production, processing, or service.
Here are some examples of PRPs, along with detail about each:
1. **Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs)**: GMPs are guidelines that provide a framework of procedures and documentation for ensuring that products are consistently produced and controlled to quality standards. A [GMP audit](https://fsns.com/gmp-audits-food-industry-guide/) is a great way to showcase your commitment to food safety.
2. **Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)**: SOPs are written instructions outlining the steps for performing routine tasks. They ensure that processes are performed consistently, increasing efficiency and quality, and reducing miscommunication and failure to comply with industry regulations.
3. **Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs)**: SSOPs are detailed written procedures specifying what to clean, who should do it, when it should be done, what steps to take, and how to check that cleaning has been done effectively. They are essential for maintaining a sanitary environment.
4. **Cleaning and Sanitization**: This includes routine cleaning and sanitizing of all equipment, utensils, and facilities to remove food residues and destroy microorganisms that could contaminate food. It also covers periodic deep cleaning procedures.
5. **Maintenance**: Regular maintenance of facilities and equipment is crucial to prevent breakdowns or malfunctions that could lead to food contamination. This could involve routine checks and repairs, as well as preventive maintenance.
6. **Pest Control**: Implementing a pest control program helps prevent the infestation of pests that could contaminate food. This might involve routine inspections, use of pesticides, and managing waste to avoid attracting pests.
7. **Waste Management**: Proper disposal of waste helps prevent contamination. This includes regular removal and disposal of garbage, cleaning of waste storage areas, and appropriate handling and storage of waste before removal.
8. **Allergen Controls**: Allergen control plans are essential to prevent [allergen cross-contamination](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/food-allergen-testing-avoiding-allergen-cross-contact/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) between allergenic and non-allergenic products. This involves correct labeling, separate storage and handling of allergenic ingredients, thorough cleaning of shared equipment, and staff training.
Each of these PRPs, among others, are designed to control the environmental conditions that could lead to a threat to the safety of food or unsuitable food. They provide a basic level of hygiene in the organization to make the effective application of HACCP or other food safety systems possible.
### Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP)
[HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) is an **internationally recognized FSMS that centers on risk assessment and the control of hazards**. Its effectiveness lies in its proactive approach, which seeks to preemptively address potential risks. HACCP applies to all stages of food production, from raw material procurement to final product distribution.
The system works by identifying Critical Control Points (CCPs) in the production process. These are stages where a failure can significantly impact food safety. For example, a CCP might be a cooking step where certain temperatures must be achieved to eliminate or reduce a potential hazard, like bacteria, to safe levels.
By focusing on CCPs and implementing appropriate controls, HACCP can effectively minimize the risk of food safety hazards. Regular monitoring and corrective actions for non-compliance are integral parts of this system, ensuring continual control over identified hazards.
### Training and Education
[Effective food safety training and education](https://fsns.com/resources/edu/) are essential to ensure all staff members understand their roles in maintaining food safety. Regular training updates help reinforce protocols and ensure staff members are aware of new regulations or industry changes. [FSNS offers HACCP training courses for your quality team.](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/)
Include a short [FAT TOM module in onboarding and refresher training to reinforce why PRPs and CCPs focus on time/temperature, acidity, oxygen, and moisture controls](https://fsns.com/fattom-a-key-to-microbial-control-and-food-safety/).
## Leveraging Digital Tools for a Food Safety Management System
Modern Food Safety Management Systems increasingly rely on digital tools and software to streamline processes, improve accuracy, and ensure compliance. Solutions such as [automated monitoring for your environmental monitoring program (EMP)](https://fsns.com/emma/), digital checklists, real-time alerts, and traceability platforms make it easier to track critical control points, document procedures, and respond quickly to potential issues. By integrating technology into your FSMS, you can enhance efficiency, reduce manual errors, and maintain comprehensive records, all of which contribute to a stronger [food safety culture](https://fsns.com/food-safety-and-quality-culture-what-is-the-auditor-looking-for/) and more effective risk management.
## What are the 11 Steps of a Food Safety Management System?
1. Analyze Your Operation and Establish Objectives and Scope
2. Assemble a Food Safety Team
3. Develop a Food Safety Policy
4. Conduct a Hazard Analysis
5. Establish Controls
6. Validate the Food Safety Management System
7. Define Verification Procedures
8. Implement a Traceability System
9. Establish a Corrective Action System
10. Establish a Recordkeeping System
11. Auditing Your Food Safety System
Let’s look at each step in implementing a Food Safety Management System more closely.
### 1. Analyze Your Operation and Establish Objectives and Scope
Before implementing a Food Safety Management System, it’s crucial to **understand your operation thoroughly**. This includes the complexity of your processes, the nature of your products, and the potential hazards associated with them. Analysis should include a detailed overview of the product flow, equipment used, and personnel involved.
**Establishing the objective and scope of your FSMS is next**. The objective should align with the broader organizational goals, such as ensuring food safety, meeting regulatory compliance, enhancing brand reputation, or improving operational efficiency.
The scope of the FSMS outlines the physical boundaries (like specific production lines or facilities), product categories, processes, and tasks covered by the system.
### 2. Assemble a Food Safety Team
The successful implementation of all Food Safety Management Systems begins with the formation of a dedicated food safety team. This multidisciplinary team should comprise individuals with knowledge and expertise across various functions of the organization.
Members may include representatives from areas such as:
- **Production**: Team members from production can provide insights into the day-to-day operations, understand the nuances of processes, and help identify potential risks or operational inefficiencies.
- **Quality Assurance**: These individuals can guide the team on existing quality protocols, standards, and regulations, and play a crucial role in ensuring that the FSMS aligns with the organization’s quality goals.
- **Cleaning and Maintenance**: Representatives from cleaning and maintenance are aware of the specific requirements and challenges associated with maintaining cleanliness and operational efficiency of machinery and premises.
- **Supply Chain**: Individuals involved in sourcing raw materials and delivering finished products can bring forward potential hazards associated with these stages.
The food safety team should ideally be led by a team leader with a strong background in food safety, capable of coordinating the team’s efforts, and having the authority to ensure implementation of necessary actions.
### 3. Develop a Food Safety Policy
A crucial task for the food safety team is the development of a food safety policy. This document **outlines the organization’s commitment to maintaining food safety and should be endorsed by top management** to demonstrate the seriousness of this commitment.
The policy should:
- Clearly state the organization’s intention to produce safe, legal, and quality products.
- Describe the framework for setting and reviewing food safety objectives.
- Commit to comply with relevant statutory, regulatory and customer requirements.
- Emphasize the importance of meeting these objectives to all employees.
- Pledge continuous improvement in the system’s effectiveness.
This policy should be communicated throughout the organization, ensuring everyone understands the organization’s commitment to food safety and their role in achieving it.
### 4. Conduct a Hazard Analysis
Once the food safety policy is established, the next significant task is conducting a thorough hazard analysis. This involves **identifying potential biological, chemical, and physical hazards** that could affect the safety of food during production, processing, packaging, and distribution stages.
In the hazard analysis, the team must consider all aspects of the operation, including raw materials, process flow, production equipment, employee practices, and end-product distribution methods. They should also consider less obvious hazards like allergens or potential contaminants from packaging materials.
Each identified hazard is then evaluated based on its severity and the likelihood of its occurrence. This assessment helps determine the critical control points – stages where control can be applied to prevent, eliminate, or reduce a food safety hazard to acceptable levels.
### 5. Establish Controls
Once potential hazards are identified and evaluated, the next step is to establish control measures.
These measures aim to **prevent, eliminate, or reduce identified hazards to acceptable levels**. They are usually applied at critical control points in the process where a hazard is likely to occur.
For example, a control measure for preventing bacterial contamination could be cooking at a specific temperature for a certain duration.
### 6. Validate the Food Safety Management System
Validation involves **collecting and evaluating scientific and technical information to determine if the Food Safety System, when properly implemented, will effectively control the hazards**.
This is an initial process done before implementing the FSMS and should be repeated whenever significant changes are made to the process.
For example, a high-heat treatment used to kill bacteria in canned foods would need to be validated to prove it consistently achieves the necessary temperature for the required amount of time. This process may involve laboratory testing, literature reviews, or predictive modeling. Validation should be conducted:
- Whenever there is a change in the process that could impact control measures.
- Whenever a new product, process, or equipment is introduced.
- At a minimum, once per year to ensure continued effectiveness.
[Process validation](https://fsns.com/process-validation/) is a critical part of a Food Safety Management System as it provides confidence in the system’s ability to deliver safe food consistently.
[](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/download-our-5-step-process-validation-checklist-here)### [](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/download-our-5-step-process-validation-checklist-here?__hstc=187690167.40f942fd254d7bf7adc0fea5960c389d.1686329846311.1689464465993.1689624081235.57&__hssc=187690167.4.1689624081235&__hsfp=2924083047)7. Define Verification Procedures
Verification is a critical step in the implementation of an FSMS. Its purpose is to **demonstrate the effectiveness of the control measures implemented**. This often involves the collection of scientific evidence, conducting tests, or ongoing data collection.
For example, a company might verify a pasteurization process by conducting tests to demonstrate that the heat treatment effectively eliminates harmful bacteria to safe levels.
Similarly, a company could verify a refrigeration control measure by collecting temperature data over time to confirm that the temperatures consistently remain within the safe range, thereby preventing bacterial growth.
### 8. Implement a Traceability System
Traceability systems allow you to **track a product through all stages of production, processing, and distribution**.
This is vital for recalls or in case of a food safety incident. Traceability systems should be able to identify where a product came from and where it went, in a “one step back, one step forward” approach. [Blockchain is one such tool that food manufacturers are using to enhance traceability](https://fsns.com/blockchain-technology/).
### 9. Establish a Corrective Action System
Even with stringent controls, there can be instances when things go wrong. A corrective action system **outlines the steps to take when [monitoring shows that a control](https://fsns.com/control-listeria-monocytogenes-ready-eat-foods/) measure may not be working**.
This can involve isolating and examining the product, reviewing the procedures, and taking steps to prevent the issue from recurring.
### 10. Establish a Recordkeeping System
Documentation is a critical part of a Food Safety Management System. **Keeping thorough records of all activities and processes related to food safety** can help demonstrate compliance to auditors and allow you to review and improve your procedures over time.
As the old adage goes, “If it’s not documented, it didn’t happen”, so be sure to establish and follow a robust recordkeeping system.
### 11. Auditing Your Food Safety Management System
Internal and external audits offer a systematic, independent review of your Food Safety Management System to evaluate its effectiveness in achieving the organization’s policy and objectives.
During an audit, an auditor might review documentation, observe operations, interview personnel, and inspect facilities and equipment. By identifying areas of non-compliance or highlighting opportunities for improvement, audits provide valuable insights that help enhance the system’s effectiveness.
## Food Safety Certification Helps Verify Your FSMS
Achieving a GFSI-benchmarked food safety certification from an accredited certification body offers independent validation that your Food Safety Management System meets a specific standard, such as the Safe Quality Food (SQF) standard, or the [Brand Reputation through Compliance Global Standard (BRCGS)](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/).
The [certification process typically includes a rigorous audit](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) by the certification body. For example, a company pursuing [SQF certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) would initially undergo a comprehensive certification audit that scrutinizes their FSMS’s conformity and effectiveness against the SQF code.
Earning certification enhances a company’s marketability, elevates customer trust, and attests to the company’s steadfast commitment to food safety. It signals to stakeholders that the company has successfully implemented an internationally recognized FSMS, aligning with industry best practices for food safety management.
[FSNS Certification & Audit provides pre-audit assessments and food safety certification audits in support of your FSMS](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
## How Do I Maintain and Improve My Food Safety Management System?
### Continuous Monitoring and Assessment
The effectiveness of a Food Safety System depends on consistent monitoring and assessment. It’s essential to track the performance of control measures and the overall system regularly.
This could involve **reviewing records, analyzing data for trends, and identifying recurring issues or non-conformities**. If non-compliances are discovered, corrective actions must be implemented promptly. An FSMS is not a static system; it must be dynamic and adaptable, changing as necessary based on the feedback received.
### Improving Your Food Safety Management System
Continuous improvement is a key principle of an effective FSMS. Changes in regulations, industry best practices, technology, or even your operations can necessitate updates to the FSMS.
As part of the management review process, top management should regularly review the FSMS to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness. This review should consider the possible need for changes to policy, objectives, and other elements of the FSMS.
## The Importance of Food Safety Culture
A strong [food safety culture ](https://fsns.com/food-safety-and-quality-culture-what-is-the-auditor-looking-for/)is a critical element of any successful Food Safety Management System. It goes beyond written procedures and technical controls, focusing on the shared values, attitudes, and behaviors that shape how everyone in the organization approaches food safety—every day, at every level.
Leadership plays a key role in setting the tone for food safety culture by demonstrating commitment, providing resources, and encouraging open communication about food safety concerns. When employees feel empowered to speak up, follow best practices, and take responsibility for their actions, food safety becomes an integral part of daily operations rather than just a compliance requirement.
Organizations that foster a positive food safety culture are better equipped to prevent incidents, respond effectively to issues, and continuously improve their FSMS. Investing in ongoing training, recognizing good practices, and involving staff in food safety decisions are practical ways to strengthen this culture and support long-term success.
## Challenges in Implementing an FSMS
### 1. Resource Constraints
The establishment of an FSMS can be resource-intensive, necessitating significant investment in equipment, training, and potentially new hires. Smaller businesses in particular may struggle with these requirements.
To mitigate this, businesses can **seek out grants, subsidies, or low-interest loans** specifically designed for food safety upgrades. Additionally, phased implementation of the FSMS can help spread out costs over time, making it more manageable.
### 2. Resistance to Change
Change can be disruptive and meet with resistance, especially when it involves altering established procedures or roles.
Leaders should **clearly communicate the benefits of the FSMS**, including safer products and potential market advantages. Providing comprehensive training ensures employees understand new procedures. Involving employees in the FSMS development and implementation process can also increase buy-in and reduce resistance.
### 3. Maintaining Compliance
Keeping up with evolving regulations, especially for businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions, can be challenging. Regular training updates for employees can help maintain compliance.
Additionally, subscribing to regulatory update services or joining industry associations can provide timely information on changes in laws and regulations. Seeking assistance from food safety consultants or legal experts can also be beneficial in navigating complex regulatory landscapes and ensuring your FSMS stays compliant.
Our partners at [EAS Consulting Group can provide expert advice](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/foods/?__hstc=187690167.40f942fd254d7bf7adc0fea5960c389d.1686329846311.1689464465993.1689624081235.57&__hssc=187690167.4.1689624081235&__hsfp=2924083047) based on years of experience with FDA, USDA, and other regulatory agencies to help ensure your Food Safety Management System meets regulatory requirements.
## The Imperative and Effects of a Robust Food Safety Management System
Implementing and maintaining a robust FSMS is a challenging yet vital task for any business in the food and beverage industry. Not only does it help protect consumers from foodborne illnesses, but it also ensures regulatory compliance, enhances business reputation, and optimizes operations.
While there are challenges, they can be overcome with commitment, resources, and a strategic approach.
Companies should view their Food Safety Management System not just as a regulatory requirement but as a key part of their operations and business strategy. The benefits of a successful FSMS extend far beyond compliance, offering significant contributions to a company’s bottom line and long-term success.
[If you have questions about developing your Food Safety Plan, need an audit, require regulatory consulting, or more, we’re here to help](https://fsns.com/contact-us/).
---
## Food Safety Management System FAQs
### **What is a food safety management system?**
A food safety management system (FSMS) is a structured approach that helps food businesses identify, control, and monitor hazards that can compromise food safety. It combines documented procedures, risk assessments, and ongoing monitoring to ensure food is consistently produced under safe conditions. FSMS frameworks are often aligned with regulatory and global certification standards.
### **What is the purpose of a food safety management system?**
The purpose of a food safety management system is to prevent contamination, reduce food safety risks, and ensure compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. By proactively managing hazards, an FSMS protects public health, builds consumer trust, and helps companies avoid recalls and reputational damage.
### **What are the key components of a food safety management system?**
Key components of an FSMS include Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP), prerequisite programs (PRPs), traceability systems, documentation procedures, corrective actions, and employee training. Together, these elements ensure food safety is maintained across the entire production and supply chain.
### **Which FSMS standards are GFSI benchmarked?**
Several food safety management systems are benchmarked by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), including ISO 22000, FSSC 22000, SQF (Safe Quality Food), and BRCGS (Brand Reputation Compliance Global Standards). [GFSI certification](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) ensures these programs meet internationally recognized food safety standards and are accepted by major retailers and manufacturers worldwide.
### **How do I implement a food safety management system?**
To implement a food safety management system, begin with a thorough hazard analysis and identify critical control points. Establish procedures for monitoring, documentation, corrective actions, and employee training. Depending on your goals, you may align your FSMS with a GFSI-recognized standard like FSSC 22000 or SQF, and seek third-party certification to demonstrate compliance.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [How to Prepare for an FSSC 22000 Audit ](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-an-fssc-22000-audit/)
**Published:** July 7, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Kaci Foote, Accreditation Manager, FSNS Certification & Audit*
### 1-Minute Summary
- An [FSSC 22000 audit](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/) evaluates how well your food safety management system functions in real time, not just how it looks on paper.
- Internal audits, management review, and employee engagement are critical.
- Expect to show implementation of PRPs and Additional Requirements, backed by risk assessments.
- A confident team and well-managed system are your best tools for audit success.
---
## FSSC Audits Are About System Performance
[FSSC 22](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/)[0](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/)[00](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/) focuses on how you manage your entire [food safety management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/), not just what’s written in your manual. Unlike prescriptive schemes like [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) or [BRCGS Food Safety](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), FSSC allows flexibility. The audit is your opportunity to demonstrate that your programs are active, effective, and understood by your team.
This article outlines practical steps to help you prepare for your [FSSC 22000 audit](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/), from confirming alignment to making sure your team is confident and audit-ready.
## Step 1: Verify That Your System Matches the FSSC 22000 Scheme
Start by confirming that your [food safety system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) aligns with the correct and current FSSC 22000 standards. Certification is based on the following three components:
### Part 1: ISO 22000 — Food Safety Management System
[ISO 22000:2018](https://www.iso.org/standard/65464.html) outlines how your site manages food safety, including [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/), corrective actions, internal audits, and management review. Make sure you’re using the current version and that your policies, procedures, and practices address each clause. A clause-by-clause review is often the best place to start.
### Part 2: ISO/TS 22002-x — Pre-Requisite Programs (PRPs)
The PRP standard defines the operational hygiene controls that support your [food safety system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/). Which version applies depends on your product type:
- [ISO/TS 22002-1](https://www.iso.org/standard/44001.html) – Food Manufacturing
- [ISO/TS 22002-2](https://www.iso.org/standard/53493.html) – Catering
- [ISO/TS 22002-3](https://www.iso.org/standard/57389.html) – Farming
- [ISO/TS 22002-4](https://www.iso.org/standard/60969.html) – Food Packaging Manufacturing
- [ISO/TS 22002-5](https://www.iso.org/standard/73101.html) – Transport and Storage
- [ISO/TS 22002-6](https://www.iso.org/standard/66126.html) – Feed and Animal Food Production
Check that your sanitation, pest control, and hygiene programs align with the relevant standard. [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) is accredited for audits against ISO 22002-1 and -4.
### Part 3: FSSC Additional Requirements
These requirements go beyond ISO and cover high-risk topics that often get missed, including:
- [Food fraud and food defense](https://fsns.com/food-fraud-vs-food-defense-a-5-minute-guide/)
- Labeling verification
- Allergen management
- Environmental monitoring (if applicable)
- Use of the FSSC logo
- Communication and complaint handling
Each one must be implemented, verified, or justified with a risk assessment if marked not applicable.
Your auditor will expect to see all three components functioning together: ISO 22000 for system control, ISO/TS 22002-x for operational hygiene, and the Additional Requirements for broader risk management.
Our complimentary [FSSC 22000 Audit Checklist](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-fssc-22000-checklist) can help with this step.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/cfff9de0-0057-4811-b471-7814de63e541)## Step 2: Review Your Programs for Real-World Implementation
Once your standards are confirmed, the next step is to ensure your programs are active and functioning, not just documented. FSSC auditors expect to see that procedures are being followed, records are current, and employees understand their roles.
Walk your site as if you were the auditor and…
- Observe sanitation in action.
- Review pest control logs and follow-ups.
- Check allergen line changeovers for verification and documentation.
- Ask employees what they do and why, especially regarding labeling, [food defense](https://fsns.com/how-to-create-a-food-defense-plan/), and corrective actions.
Spot-check key records like swabbing schedules, lab results, and EMP data. Look for completeness, accuracy, and real usage. Correct any gaps, whether that’s a missing signature or a procedure not being followed, to stay ahead of findings.
## Step 3: Prepare for the Management Review
The management review is one of the most important parts of an FSSC 22000 audit, so spend extra time on this step during your preparation. Under ISO 22000 clause 9.3, this review must follow a structured format and lead to meaningful outputs, not just notes or summaries. Auditors want to see that leadership is actively engaged, using data to make decisions, and formally recording the outputs. Management review must be documented and communicated to relevant personnel.
Management review should cover the required inputs:
- Internal and external audit findings.
- Trends in non-conformities and corrective actions.
- Results of monitoring and measurement.
- Customer complaints and feedback.
- Risk and opportunity updates.
- Performance of external suppliers or service providers.
Most importantly, the meeting must result in **outputs**, which are concrete, documented decisions or follow-ups based on what was discussed. Outputs may include:
- Approval of a capital improvement (e.g., to address recurring pest issues).
- Plans for additional training in response to audit trends.
- Adjustments to environmental monitoring scope or frequency.
- Decisions to defer certain actions, with documented reasoning.
- Updates to the food safety policy or objectives.
- Adding additional resources.
The auditor doesn’t expect you to fix every problem instantly. But they do expect to see that issues were discussed, decisions were made, and responsibilities were assigned. Even a decision to “maintain current controls” should be clearly justified.
## Step 4: Train Your Employees for Auditor Interviews
Auditors will speak to frontline staff to confirm that your system is understood beyond management. Employees don’t need to recite standards, but they do need to explain what they do and why it matters.
Here’s how to prepare your team effectively:
- **Explain the “why” behind procedures**. Help employees understand the food safety purpose behind their tasks. For example, “Why do you verify labels before production?” or “What happens if you find damaged packaging?”
- **Use real examples.** Relate procedures to what they do every day. If they handle allergens, they should be able to explain cleaning steps, line clearance, and changeover protocols.
- **Hold mock interviews.** Walk the floor and ask simple audit-style questions. This helps employees get comfortable speaking about their roles and builds confidence.
- **Review key documents.** Make sure employees know where to find relevant logs, checklists, and forms if asked.
- **Encourage honesty.** If someone doesn’t know the answer to a question, it’s better they say so and ask a supervisor, just like they would in real life. Auditors value integrity over rehearsed answers.
Practicing calmly and informally in the weeks leading up to the audit helps build familiarity and keeps anxiety low.
## Step 5: Prepare Documentation and Verification Records
Documentation is proof that the system is working. Auditors will want real-time evidence that procedures are followed and verified consistently.
Focus on…
- **Record completeness:** Logs, monitoring forms, and checklists should be complete, legible, signed, and dated.
- **Verification data:** Show that programs like sanitation, calibration, and your EMP are being monitored and trended. If you’ve found issues, auditors will want to see what you did about them.
- **Traceability:** Be prepared to conduct a traceability exercise. You should be able to track a finished product back through all raw materials, packaging, suppliers, and processing steps, with supporting documentation.
- **Corrective actions:** These should be more than just notes on a form. Auditors expect to see root cause analysis, assigned responsibilities, completion dates, and effectiveness checks.
- **Version control:** Make sure only current versions of procedures and forms are in use. Remove outdated copies from work areas and shared drives.
Assign team members ahead of time to help retrieve documents during the audit. Consistency between records and reality is key; what’s on paper must match what’s happening on the floor.
## Step 6: Run a Final Self-Assessment and Close Gaps Before the Audit
Finally, conduct a mock audit. Walk the site, check records, and interview staff like an auditor would. This is a great opportunity to catch things that may have fallen through the cracks.
Confirm that…
- Procedures are followed as written.
- Records are complete and current.
- Corrective actions are properly closed.
- EMP and allergen controls are properly implemented.
- Traceability is achievable.
Document your findings, assign actions, and make sure any changes are verified. Even small gaps, like a missing signature or an outdated form, can lead to non-conformances.
## Prepare to Demonstrate, Not Just Pass
[FSSC 22000 audits](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/) focus on how well your food safety system functions, not just how it reads on paper. If your programs are implemented, your team is engaged, and your records match your procedures, you’re already in a strong position.
Use the weeks leading up to the audit to confirm alignment, close gaps, and prepare your people. If your system is well-managed and implemented, you have no need to worry. Just show the auditor what you’re already doing each day.
[Contact FSNS Certification & Audit with questions, to schedule a mock audit, or to set up an official FSSC 22000 audit.](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** Certification and audit, FSSC 22000
---
### [How Blockchain Food Traceability Improves Supply Chain Transparency](https://fsns.com/blockchain-technology/)
**Published:** March 12, 2018
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
“Transparency” became *the* buzzword beginning in 2015; food companies implemented transparency initiatives in response to “lack of consumer trust”. A Trace One™ survey of over 3,000 shoppers across 9 countries concluded that 91% of respondents said it’s important to them to know where food comes from, but 62% said they’re not provided with enough information about what’s in their food and its origins.1 Tyson Foods, for example, wants to assure supply chain transparency with accompanying educational information so their customers can make informed decisions at the time of purchase.2 Saying they want to make their brands more transparent, Campbell Soup, Nestle, and Kraft Heinz, in October 2017, announced commitments to improve animal welfare for their poultry.3 Hence the interest in blockchain food traceability.
## Early Blockchain Pilots Demonstrate Food Traceability Potential
In October 2016, Walmart conducted a pilot study (called the Hyperledger Project) designed to make pork products in China safer by tracking swine/pork shipping information, including farm origination details, batch numbers, and storage temperatures on a secure blockchain. Frank Yiannis of Walmart reported that the safer conditions resulting from a more transparent, accurate record of supply chain transactions on a blockchain could create benefits including safer food, enhanced consumer trust, enhanced flow to provide fresher products to customers, fresher and faster deliveries that could reduce food waste in the home, and more.4
## How Blockchain Enables End-to-End Food Traceability
Blockchain is a digital ledger technology (i.e., an electronic bookkeeping system) that locks in shipment details (data points are captured, stored, transferred, and accounted for) and value flow at each point in the supply path. It offers a new way to track items or transactions using a shared digital “ledger” that is significantly more efficient than the current method for logging and sharing such information.5 Blockchain technology is being used to increase transparency in the trading of Bitcoin (a cryptocurrency); by four banks, UBS Group and IBM for global goods trade; by two companies that buy and sell oil; by the government of Ukraine to manage crop-land; and by a Chinese company growing/processing beef in the US6, 7, 8.
## Key Food Supply Chain Problems Blockchain Traceability Can Solve
Three problems in the food value chain that blockchain could help solve are:
- Traceability and food safety
- Price discovery
- Food waste reduction
Because of its ability to improve traceability, blockchain lends itself to improving food safety both from a preventive standpoint as well as drastically reducing reaction time in the case of a recall.9 IBM is working with Walmart, Nestle, Tyson, Unilever, and McCormick to identify ways they can incorporate blockchain; the technology is a big selling point for the global food industry to identify [food fraud](https://fsns.com/what-is-food-fraud/) by identifying fraudulent ingredients and to trace the source of contamination during product recalls. In most food-supply chains, it might take weeks to figure out where it went from source to destination, and in some cases, the source may not be known. On a blockchain it takes just seconds.7
## Where Blockchain Traceability Works Best in the Food Industry
Blockchain is a great tool to enable traceability – if the product proceeds through the supply path in discrete “lots”. It should work well for poultry because the “integrators” (e.g., Tyson, Pilgrim, Perdue, Cargill) own and control every facet of production from hatching, to growing, to harvest. It is much less likely, but still possible, that blockchain technology will find use in parts of the food industry – like cattle/carcasses/end products – where so much sorting, commingling, and transfers of ownership occur.
## Consumer-Facing Blockchain Traceability in Poultry and Beef
Cargill will soon be offering consumers Honeysuckle White™ turkeys produced by family farmers. In select markets, consumers will be able to text or enter an on-package code to access the farm’s location (by state and county), view the family farm story, see photos from the farm, and read a message from the farmer.10 Such food transparency is made possible because of the traceability achieved by implementation of blockchain technology. Cargill recently announced that blockchain technology will soon be used for its “Birth To Burger” beef transparency initiative.11
## Building a Global Blockchain Food Traceability Ecosystem
Walmart brought blockchain technology to the forefront by conducting the pork trial in China (in 2016) and the trial with IBM, Dole, and Driscoll’s on sliced mangoes (in 2017).12 It has now formed the Blockchain Food Safety Alliance with IBM, JD.com and the Tsinghu University National Engineering Laboratory for E-Commerce to develop standards and partnerships necessary to enable a broad-based food safety ecosystem13 and to create a standards-based method of collecting data about the origin, safety and authenticity of food.14 Farm origination details, batch numbers, factory and processing data, expiration dates and shipping details are digitally connected (within 2 seconds) to food items and entered in the blockchain network at each step of the farm-to-fork process.13
## Industry Leaders Highlight the Value of Blockchain Food Traceability
Frank Yiannis (Walmart) has said: (a) Blockchain technology won’t just benefit Walmart and its customers; farmers like the idea that it can be a solution – clearing their good name in the event of a broad-spectrum foodborne illness outbreak so they can continue to sell their products.15 (b) We’re convinced that when the food system considers the cost of foodborne disease, the cost of recalls, the cost of food waste, and the cost of food fraud, this technology should save – not cost –money.15 (c) Blockchain technology enables a new era of end-to-end transparency in the global food system, equivalent to shining a light on food ecosystem participants that will further promote responsible actions and behaviors.12
## Blockchain Traceability as a Tool for Food Safety Data Sharing
Ed Treacy (Produce Marketing Association) says “Blockchain technology should be useful for sharing food safety information like results of certifications and audits, which blockchain allows to be processed as data instead of just a PDF.”15
## Faster Outbreak Response Through Blockchain Food Traceability
Ashley Nickle (The Packer) says “Blockchain technology might not have prevented the drama associated with the recent E. coli outbreak (Canada, but not the United States, blamed Romaine lettuce) but it could have contributed greatly to making such a food-safety investigation faster and easier.”12
### References
1 Zboraj, Marian. 2016. Transparency. Food Safety & Quality (January edition).
2 Shaffer, Erica. 2017. Consumer demand for transparency. Meat + Poultry (November 1 issue).
3 Berry, Donna and Keith Nunes. 2017. Consumers expect transparency. Meat + Poultry (November 21 issue)
4 del Castillo, Michael. 2016. Walmart wants to apply blockchain to other products beyond pork. CoinDesk (October 25 issue).
5 Rometty, Ginna. 2016. How blockchain will change your life. The Wall Street Journal (November 8 issue).
6 Shell, Adam. 2017. Bitcoin futures trading may signal move to mainstream. USA Today (December 12 issue).
7 Bloomberg News. 2017. Bitcoin points way to “massive change” for commodity trading. Bloomberg News (December 15 issue).
8 Brown, Matthew. 2017. China’s largest online retailer to buy Montana beef. Associated Press (November 9 issue).
9 Barnard, Janette. 2017. Blockchain: The food chain and the billion dollar problems to be solved. Meatingplace (November 17 issue).
10 Meat + Poultry. 2017. Cargill uses blockchain technology for turkey. Meat + Poultry (December edition).
11 Kelly, Susan. 2017. Cargill aims to develop “Birth To Burger” beef audit. Meatingplace (November 2 issue).
12 The Packer. 2017. Wal-Mart, Kroger, Dole, Driscoll’s join blockchain collaboration. The Packer (August 23 issue).
13 Meat + Poultry. 2017. Blockchain food safety collaboration forms in China. Meat + Poultry (December 15 issue).
14 Johnston, Tom. 2014. Walmart, tech giants partner on blockchain food safety effort in China. Meatingplace (December 15 issue).
15 Nickle, Ashley. 2017. Produce industry keeping tabs on blockchain. The Packer (December 29 issue).
16 Nickle, Ashley. 2018. Outbreaks underscore harsh supply chain realities. The Packer (January 12 issue).
**Categories:** News
---
### [Radiological Hazards in Food](https://fsns.com/radiological-hazards/)
**Published:** November 4, 2017
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
The FDA “[Hazard Analysis and Risk-based Preventive Controls for Human Food](https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/draft-guidance-industry-hazard-analysis-and-risk-based-preventive-controls-human-food)” regulation, referred to as *[Preventive Controls for Human Food](https://fsns.com/product/fspca-preventive-controls-for-human-food/)*[ (PCHF)](https://fsns.com/product/fspca-preventive-controls-for-human-food/), defines “Hazard” as “any biological, chemical (including radiological), or physical agent that has the potential to cause illness or injury.” Let’s take a closer look at how radiological hazards in food affect Hazard Analysis when developing a [HACCP Plan](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/).
## What are Potential Sources of Radiological Hazards in Food?
Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance (FSPCA) in its PCHF Training Curriculum identifies *potential sources* of radiological hazards in food as:
- Contaminated soil, water or air.
- Ingredients with radionuclides.
- Packaging materials.
- Provides as *examples* of radionuclides:
- radium-226, radium-228, uranium-235, uranium-238, plutonium-239, strontium-96, iodine-131, cesium-137
- admits that radiological hazards are rarely encountered in food; however, when they do occur, they can present a risk (such as with [shrimp contaminated with cesium-137 in the fall of 2025](https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-information/fda-advises-public-not-eat-sell-or-serve-certain-imported-frozen-shrimp-indonesian-firm)).
FSPCA, in the narrative discussion of the training curriculum, states:
1. The World Health Organization (2011) says radiological hazards in food would have to be consumed over a period of time to present a risk.
2. The most common way these radionuclides are incorporated into foods is through “use of water that contains a radionuclide” during food production or manufacture.
3. Radiological hazards may originate from a nuclear facility due to accidental release or damage created by a natural disaster.
As you focus on radiological hazards in the Hazard Analysis, consider the source of your water (private wells?) and the sources of product components – raw material, ingredients, packaging material – (Chernobyl? Fukushima?).
## Water From Private Wells Can be a Source of Radiological Hazards in Food
In certain locations in the United States, high concentrations of radium-226, radium-228, uranium-235, and uranium-238 have been detected in private water wells (FSPCA, 2016). Of particular concern are regions of the country that were affected by atomic-bomb testing in the 1940s and 1950s \[in and around New Mexico (Los Alamos), Washington (Hanford), Utah (Dugway/Wendover), and Nevada (Nellis Air Force Base)\]. This should be considered in the Hazard Analysis of water (as a component) originating from these regions but would not be applicable in most parts of the United States (FSPCA, 2016).
## Product Components from Chernobyl Can be a Radiological Hazard
The April 1986 explosion at a nuclear plant in Chernobyl (then part of the USSR, now a city in Ukraine) sent a plume of radioactive fallout across large swathes of Europe (Osborn, 2016). Forests around the accident site (and within hundreds of miles in every direction because it was transported in the atmosphere and came back to Earth in rainfall) became repositories of radioactive contamination (Greenpeace, 2016). According to scientific tests, overall contamination from key isotopes such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 has fallen somewhat, but lingers, especially in forests.
The people of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus continue to eat and drink foods with dangerously high radiation levels (Osborn, 2016). In some cases, such as in grain, radiation levels in the contaminated area where an estimated 5 million people live have actually increased in the 30 years since the disaster.
Greenpeace (2016) reported, “And just as this contamination will be with them for decades to come, so will the related impacts on their health. Thousands of children, even those born 30 years after the Chernobyl disaster, still have to drink radioactively contaminated milk.“ Economic crises convulsing Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have resulted in reductions in, or eliminations of, programs to control radiological hazards (Osborn, 2016).
Long-term exposure to radiation can lead to severe illnesses. Doctors in the areas worst affected by the Chernobyl disaster have long reported a sharp rise in certain cancer rates (Greenpeace, 2016).
As companies consider radiological hazards in food in their Hazard Analysis, they should investigate the geographical location and history of the country-of-origin for each component (raw material, ingredients, and packaging material) of their final product.
## Beware of Products Sourced Near Fukushima
In 2011, radiation leaked from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan after an earthquake and tsunami. Shortly thereafter, radioactivity was detected in milk, vegetables, and seafood produced in areas neighboring the damaged power plant (World Health Organization, 2011).
Greenpeace (2016) conducted tests in areas contaminated by the Fukushima disaster and found that forests have become repositories of radioactivity that will pose a risk to the population for decades – or even centuries – to come. They further stated that the Japanese governments’ decontamination efforts had so far been inadequate, and left the door open to recontamination of areas deemed to have been cleared.
Five years after the disaster, only 25% of American’s were comfortable buying and eating food imported from Japan, even though 61% felt “protected” by U.S. regulatory efforts to ensure safety of the food supply (Institute of Food Technologists, 2016). Saulo (2016) characterized consumer’s feeling as “suspicious and nervous”, and concluded that latent distrust remains even when specific concerns seem absent; there doesn’t seem to be anything that can be done to change people’s behavior right now.”
Kennedy (2016) believes that we shouldn’t be importing shellfish from Japan right now; but because “fish from Japan” may have come from anywhere in the world, they’re probably not contaminated and the FDA sampling program is more than sufficient.
The circumstances in Japan related to possible radiological hazards in food should be considered as food companies conduct a Hazard Analysis of food or food-product components (raw material, ingredients, packaging material).
### References
Food Safety & Quality. 2016. Americans fear Japanese-imported food. July 21 issue.
FSPCA. 2016. Preventive Controls For Human Food, Training Curriculum, Leader Instructor Guide.
Greenpeace. 2016. Nuclear scars: the lasting legacies of Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Institute of Food Technologists. 2016. Survey conducted at IFT Annual Meeting.
Kennedy, Shaun. 2016. From a speech presented by Dr. Kennedy who is Director of the National Center for Food Protection and Defense.
Osborn, Andrew. 2016. Eating radioactive food 30 years after Chernobyl. Reuters, March 10 issue.
Saulo, Aurora. 2016. Food, fear and fury. University of Hawaii-Manoa.
World Health Organization. 2011. FAQs: Japan nuclear concerns.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Listeria monocytogenes: A Familiar Foodborne Pathogen](https://fsns.com/listeria-dairy-products/)
**Published:** June 6, 2017
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Listeria* is commonplace in environments throughout the food chain and has been isolated from fecal, soil, water, vegetation and various other samples collected from agricultural environments. Because *Listeria* is commonly isolated from agricultural environments, it is also a common contaminant of raw materials (e.g., produce, milk and meat) brought into food processing and retail facilities and may be continuously re-introduced into these environments through these raw materials. Some products (e.g., [produce](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/) and [raw milk cheeses](https://fsns.com/industries/cheese/)) are often consumed without an additional processing step, while others are consumed following a lethality step during processing.
Although *Listeria* in raw materials is easily inactivated by lethality treatments (i.e., cooking and pasteurization), post-lethality exposure of finished ready-to-eat (RTE) products to the environment can lead to cross-contamination of these products by *Listeria* that may be harbored or persisting in the environment. Previous studies have shown that the same *Listeria* strains may be harbored within a processing facility for 10 years or more while undergoing minimal genetic change (Orsi et al., 2008). Since *Listeria* is capable of growing at under-refrigeration conditions, RTE products exposed to the environment after the lethality step are of particular concern.
## *Listeria monocytogenes* Poses Serious Health Problems
*Listeria monocytogenes* is the only species of the 17 species within the *Listeria* genus that poses a significant public health threat. *L. monocytogenes* is a human foodborne pathogen that can cause disease ranging from mild febrile gastroenteritis to a severe invasive disease known as listeriosis. Invasive listeriosis may manifest as septicemia, meningitis, encephalitis or abortion and primarily affects immunocompromised individuals. Listeriosis has a 94% hospitalization rate, 16% mortality rate and accounts for 20% of fatalities attributed to major pathogens each year in the U.S. (Scallan et al., 2011). More than 40 species of animals and birds, including cattle, can become infected with *L. monocytogenes* and animals can also carry and shed the pathogen asymptomatically. A previous study showed that >20% of healthy dairy cattle shed *L. monocytogenes* in their feces without showing clinical listeriosis symptoms. Fecal shedding can contaminate the udder and lead to cross-contamination of milk (Nightingale et al., 2004).
The existing *L. monocytogenes* risk assessment identified a few specific “high risk” [RTE foods](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/) (i.e., deli meats) as being responsible for the overwhelming majority of human listeriosis cases (> 90%). However, recent data demonstrated that the reduced incidence of listeriosis has not been as great as expected based on considerable reductions in the prevalence of *L. monocytogenes* in deli meats over the past decade. This disparity indicates that other food vehicles may be responsible for more cases of human listeriosis than estimated in the existing risk assessment.
While much of our existing knowledge regarding food responsible for the burden of listeriosis is based on large multi-state outbreaks, the majority of listeriosis cases are sporadic or occur in small clusters, where molecular subtyping and epidemiological investigations may not identify a food vehicle. Implementation of whole genome sequencing (WGS) of all human clinical *L. monocytogenes* isolates by the CDC and increased efforts by the FDA to sequence the genomes of isolates from food has improved detection of smaller outbreaks and identification of the food source responsible for outbreaks by increasing the resolution between matched human clinical and food isolates as compared to PFGE typing. WGS has provided insight into other food vehicles previously thought to be “low risk” and their attribution to the burden of listeriosis.
Over the past five years, multi-state outbreaks of listeriosis have been linked to a variety of dairy products, including soft raw milk cheese, raw milk, soft cheeses, ice cream, Hispanic style cheese, and ricotta salata cheese. In 2017, eight people from four states were infected with the same *L. monocytogenes* strain, as determined by WGS, and an epidemiological investigation identified soft raw milk cheese produced by a manufacturer in New York as the source of the outbreak. The outbreak strain was later recovered from intact wheels of the cheese from the creamery. In 2015, a large multi-state outbreak of listeriosis attributed to ice cream, elucidated the potential for foods previously not recognized to support the growth of *L. monocytogenes* to cause a listeriosis. Epidemiological investigations, involving combined sampling and whole genome sequencing of isolates from facilities where the food product was manufactured, demonstrated environmental cross-contamination led to a finished product containing multiple *L. monocytogenes* strains.
These recent outbreaks highlight the importance of cleaning and sanitation programs in all environments associated with food production, processing and handling as well as demonstrate the need for rigorous routine environmental sampling, microbiological testing and molecular subtyping to identify and control *Listeria* in the environment to prevent cross-contamination of RTE products. WGS has become a routine tool for microbial source tracking. The dairy industry prompted to look for additional interventions (e.g., biocontrol of *Listeria* using bacteriophage or probiotics for competitive exclusion) to control *Listeria* in the environment and growth in finished product.
References:
Nightingale, K. K., Y. H. Schukken, C. R. Nightingale, E. D. Fortes, A. J. Ho, Z. Her, Y. T. Grohn, P. L. McDonough, and M. Wiedmann. 2004. Ecology and transmission of *Listeria monocytogenes* infecting ruminants and in the farm environment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70:4458-4467.
Orsi, R. H., M. Borowsky, P. Lauer, S. K Young, C. Nusbaum, J. E. Galagan, B. W. Birren, R. A. Ivy, Q. Sun, L.M. Graves, B. Swaminathan, and M. Wiedmann. 2008. Short-term genome evolution of *Listeria monocytogenes* in a non-controlled environment. BMC Genomics Nov 13; 9(1):539.
Scallan, E., P. M. Griffin, F. J. Angulo, R. V. Tauxe, and R. M. Hoekstra. 2011. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States–unspecified agents. Emerging Infectious Diseases 17:16-22.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Scott LaNeve Named President of Labstat International](https://fsns.com/scott-laneve-named-president-of-labstat-international/)
**Published:** November 24, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
## *Experienced life sciences executive to lead Labstat’s global expansion strategy.*
**KITCHENER, Ontario – Nov. 24, 2025** – [Labstat Inc.](https://labstat.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=LaNeve%20PR), a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=LaNeve%20PR) company and the world’s largest independent nicotine testing laboratory, today announced the appointment of **Scott LaNeve** as its new **President**.
LaNeve brings more than 30 years of leadership experience across life sciences, laboratory diagnostics, and healthcare technology. His career includes senior roles at industry leaders such as **Abbott Laboratories**, **Roche Diagnostics**, and **Quest Diagnostics**, as well as executive positions within national laboratory networks and technology organizations, where he led operational transformation and strengthened client engagement.
[**Read More**](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scott-laneve-named-president-of-labstat-international-302624688.html)
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [How Salmonella Survives in Low Moisture Foods – and What You Can Do About It](https://fsns.com/presence-persistence-salmonella-dry-conditions/)
**Published:** March 22, 2017
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Traditionally, there are specific product groups that are associated with illnesses from foodborne pathogens. For example, retail deli meats are associated with *Listeria monocytogenes*, ground beef is associated with *Escherichia coli O157:H7* and poultry products are associated with *Salmonella* spp. As such, specific interventions, practices and testing frequencies have been developed in order to reduce the risk for these product groups.
Due to high frequencies, these product groups gain particular attention, however there have also been either emerging (within the last 10 years) product groups or products with consistent low levels of associated illness that are of concern also. Fresh and washed produce have emerged to be associated with foodborne illness events.
## Why Low Moisture Foods Like Nut Butters Still Pose a Risk
Additionally, nuts and nut butters have also arisen to be of particular concern. Unlike the previous items (fresh produce, raw and RTE meat), nuts and nut butters have an intrinsic control factor (low water activity (a w) ) as well as an intervention kill step that provides an additional level of safety. Despite this, low moisture foods like nut butters, cocoa, dry milk powder, spices and dry cereals/grains have consistently been identified as sources related to foodborne disease (Finn et al. 2013). This consistency necessitates a further understanding of how *Salmonella* spp. are introduced and how this particular foodborne pathogen persists in dry conditions for both products and manufacturing environments.
## How *Salmonella* Contaminates Finished Products in Dry Environments
The introduction of *Salmonella* spp. to finished products occurs through various routes including (i) in–coming raw ingredients that are contaminated with *Salmonella* coming into contact with finished product or food contact surfaces post–thermal treatment, (ii) *Salmonella* populations present within the production environment itself, and (iii) increased tolerance of *Salmonella* spp. in dry products to heat treatment. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) published a guidance document for the Control of *Salmonella* in Low–moisture Foods (GMA 2009). As is outlined in this document, there are efforts that can be taken to minimize the risk of *Salmonella* contamination of finished product. These efforts include the management of process and employee traffic to prevent *Salmonella* spread, subjecting the supply chain raw ingredient suppliers to control programs, the increase of hygienic and cleaning efforts, reassessment of the hygienic design of the manufacturing site and equipment, the control of *Salmonella* growth in the manufacturing site and the validation of interventions targeting the inactivation of *Salmonella*.
Despite the outlined efforts presented by GMA and other best approaches, there is still the possibility that *Salmonella* may persist within the dry conditions of the manufacturing site or within finished product. This persistence is, at least, in part due to the tolerance and resistance *Salmonella* spp. and other gram–negative bacteria have to harsh conditions.
In low moisture conditions, there is an initial stress placed on a gram–negative bacterial cell via turgor pressure that induces a response. Specifically, the dry conditions in the environment, drive a force for the available water from within the bacterial cell to equilibrate to the exterior of the cell. To resist this driving force, intracellular ions are either created or collected in order to equilibrate to the dry environment. The accumulation of these ions, or solutes, may also provide increased heat resistance by stabilizing crucial cell components to denaturation (Finn et al. 2013; Pleitner et al. 2012). With this in mind, the adjustment that occurs by *Salmonella* to dry conditions can lend increased tolerance to the kill step applied during processing (e.g. dry roasting for nuts and cocoa beans).
## How *Salmonella* Survives Heat and Dryness
An additional action that *Salmonella* takes to persist within dry manufacturing environments is filamentation. Filamentation is a phenomena where only partial, not complete cell replication occurs and has been shown to be induced by dry conditions (Mattick et al. 2000). During filamentation, all cell components are replicated but the cell does not divide, making a long strand of partial cells. This results in a large accumulation of partial *Salmonella* cells which have been shown to have increased tolerance to dry and high temperature conditions. Furthermore, a population of *Salmonella* of which filamentation has occurred will not be enumerated accurately as ten partial cells that are filamented will only be enumerated as one cell. This can reduce the chances of identifying the presence of *Salmonella* in environments and products. It is important to note that when this population is introduced to a more favorable state (e.g. increased water) the filamented cells will separate and form individual cells, immediately increasing the *Salmonella* cell populations within the contaminated product.
## Why Storage Temperature Matters in Controlling *Salmonella*
Environmental and storage temperature conditions have also been shown to have an effect on tolerance and viability of *Salmonella* populations in dry conditions. Specifically, increased survival of *Salmonella* populations has been observed in peanut butter at lower temperatures (Burnett et al. 2000). Also, increased survival of *Salmonella* populations has been observed in environmental conditions on plastic surfaces at lowered temperatures (Gruzdev et al. 2012). This characteristic should be taken in to consideration for the storage of raw ingredient, processing environment temperatures and storage of finished product.
Moving forward in the process flow, from raw ingredient to manufacturing to finished product, the infective dose relating to the consumption of *Salmonella* populations in dry products is hypothesized to be effected as well. The surrounding theories behind this are that either (i) the adaptation to the dry conditions in the finished product can provide cell resistance to the harsh conditions present in the digestive system of the consumer and (ii) within a product of high lipid, low a w (e.g. peanut butter) pockets of high populations of bacterial cells occur that can also provide resistance to the harsh conditions in the digestive system of the consumer. Also, as mentioned, the occurrence of filamentation can to lead inaccurate enumeration and thus ineffective determination of low infective dose incidences.
The occurrence of foodborne illnesses related to dry, low aw products continues to occur in product types of peanut and tree nut butter, chocolate and cocoa, dry milk powder, and dry cereals. It is important to understand the ability that *Salmonella* has in persisting in dry conditions which allows for its presence within the food supply. Steps can be taken to mitigate the risk of finished product contamination including control requirements of raw ingredient specifications, proper GMPs and sanitation procedures, robust [environmental monitoring program](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/), validation and verification of the intervention kill steps, and management of process and employee traffic flow to limit post–process contamination.
If you need [microbiology testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) of nuts, cocoa, or other low-moisture foods for *Salmonella*, please [contact our food testing laboratories for help](https://fsns.com/contact-us/).
### References:
1. Burnett, S., Gehm, E., Weissinger, W., Beuchat, L. 2000. Survival of *Salmonella* in peanut butter and peanut butter spread. J. Appl. Microbiol. 89:472.
2. Finn, S., Condell, O., McClure, P., Amezuita, A., Fanning, S. 2013. Mechanisms of survival, responses and sources of *Salmonella* in low–moisture environments. Front. Microbiol 4:331
3. Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). 2009. Control of *Salmonella* in low–moisture foods. Available at: http://www.gmaonline.org/downloads/technical–guidance–and–tools/*Salmonella*ControlGuidance.pdf. Accessed: March 17, 2017.
4. Gruzdev, N., Pinto, R., Sela Saldinger, S. 2012. Persistence of *Salmonella enterica* during dehydration and subsequent cold storage. Food Microbiol. 32:415.
5. Mattick, K., Jorgensen, F., Legan, J., Cole, M., Porter, J., Lappin–Scott, H., Humphrey, T. 2000. Survival and filamentation of *Salmonella enterica* serovar Enteritidis PT4 and *Salmonella enterica* servar Typhimurium DT104 at low water activity. Appl. Environ. Microgiol. 66:1274.
6. Pleitner, A., Zhai, Y., Winter, R., Ruan, L., McMullen, L., Ganzle, M. 2012. Compatible solutes contribute to heat resistance and ribosome stability in *Escherichia coli* AW 1.7. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta – Protein and Proteomics. 1824:1351.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Safety Tips for Leveraging the Top 4 Trends Shaping the Beverage Industry](https://fsns.com/safety-tips-for-leveraging-the-top-4-trends-shaping-the-beverage-industry/)
**Published:** October 2, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Omar A. Oyarzabal, PhD, Senior Consultant, EAS Consulting Group*
### 1-Minute Summary
- 4 key trends are shaping the beverage industry: new ingredients, clean labels, minimal processing, and increased co-manufacturing.
- New ingredients like ginger, turmeric, flax seed, and others demand safety verification and regulatory compliance.
- Consumers prefer clean labels, but FDA regulations must be met for claims.
- Minimal processing poses safety risks; follow FDA guidelines for new technologies.
- Partnering with co-manufacturers offers growth but complicates safety and quality control.
---
## Navigating Key Trends for Beverage Safety and Growth
To help beverage manufacturers thrive in this evolving industry, our experts identified the following 4 trends that are shaping the industry. While they offer the promise of business growth, you must be sure your products meet safety and quality requirements to take full advantage.
That’s where this guide comes in. It offers advice to help your business manufacture safe products, meet regulatory requirements, and leverage these trends to grow your sales.
As always, contact our experts if you need [beverage laboratory testing](https://fsns.com/industries/beverages/) or [regulatory consulting services for foods and beverages](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/foods/) to help your business thrive.
## Trend 1: Use of New and Non-Traditional Ingredients
Retail shelves are filled with beverages formulated with new and non-traditional ingredients. People can’t get enough of these trendy products formulated to promote health and well-being.
This is especially true when it comes to sweeteners. According to a report by Grand View Research, [the global reduced-sugar food & beverages market is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.9% from 2022 to 2030](https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/reduced-sugar-food-beverages-market-report). Likewise, Research and Markets predicts [the global functional beverages market will grow to $276 billion by 2032 at a CAGR of 6.5%](https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5740764/functional-beverages-global-market-opportunities).
To leverage this trend, manufacturers are using a range of novel ingredients that promise improved health, such as…
- Ginger
- Turmeric
- Elderberry
- Probiotics
- Agave
- Hemp
- Monk fruit
- Flax seed powder
*Consumers can’t get enough of beverages made with new and non-traditional ingredients that promise health and well-being benefits…but you must ensure that they are safe.*
### What Does This Mean for Product Safety and Regulatory Requirements?
While it helps for sales, safety should always be at the forefront when using new ingredients. Keep the following in mind:
- Do you have documentation to support the safety of new ingredients?
- Have you conducted laboratory tests using validated methods to verify safety?
- Have you considered the regulatory implications?
Ingredients used in beverages fall under the category of “conventional foods” as defined by the FDA. They are used to sweeten, provide color, enhance flavor, or act as a preservative. So, make sure you have information supporting the safety of new ingredients.
**Action Items**
- Evaluate the safety of new ingredients through scientific documentation or [laboratory testing services for beverages](https://fsns.com/industries/beverages/).
- Consult with experts to verify the safety of the ingredients you are planning to use. Our regulatory partners at [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/about-us/) can help.
## **Trend 2: The Demand for “Clean” Labels and Fewer “Chemicals”**
The trend toward “clean” labels is continuing to reshape the beverage industry. Consumers increasingly want products that contain simple, easily recognizable ingredients instead of what they consider to be “artificial” ingredients.
Consumers are also backing up their desire for transparency and naturalness in their diet with their wallets. According to Food & Beverage Insider, [75% of consumers are willing to pay extra for clean label ingredients](https://www.foodbeverageinsider.com/market-trends-analysis/75-of-consumers-will-pay-extra-for-clean-label-ingredients).
### **Understand the Regulations**
While the clean label trend offers opportunities for innovation and market differentiation, remember that the FDA regulates the product claims printed on your labels.
**Action Items**
- Ensure your labels comply with FDA regulations in 21 CFR 101
- Consider reformulating your products to align with the clean label trend and grow sales
This blog post about [understanding label claims for food and beverage products](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/label-claims) provides information to help you understand the regulations.
### Trend 3: Less Processing
Minimally processed beverages are popping up everywhere. Claims like “cold-pressed”, and “all natural” suggest healthiness to consumers. Terms in the product name like “naked”, “cleanse”, or “simply” indicate that they’ve been minimally processed and appeal to those seeking a “closer-to-nature” experience.
However, minimal processing could raise significant safety considerations. While the FDA doesn’t mandate thermal processing, strict guidelines must be followed, particularly for juice products that fall under [Juice HACCP](https://www.fda.gov/food/hazard-analysis-critical-control-point-haccp/juice-haccp), which requires a 5-log reduction in the pertinent pathogens.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/a49e6cc3-8571-4efe-8fe1-5b2c96849dc4)Newer, non-thermal processing technologies include high pressure processing (HPP), while technologies in development that have not been commercially incorporated yet but have some promise include…
- Pulsed electric fields
- Ultrasound
- Ohmic Heating
- Moderate Electric Fields
Newer technologies present their own safety and quality challenges. Before revamping your process to include HPP, for instance, get a Processing Authority to review the process and advise on its efficacy. A process validation may also be needed to verify the efficacy of the process. [This blog explains how to conduct a process validation for high pressure processing.](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/process-validation-for-high-pressure-processing-hpp)
After all, what good is a beverage that is “all natural” if it’s not safe to drink?
**Action Items**
- Engage a Processing Authority to evaluate the efficacy of your planned process based on scientific studies and industry knowledge. This initial review can save you time and money before revamping your entire production process.
- If needed, conduct a [process validation](https://fsns.com/process-validation/) to verify the efficacy of your process and generate defensible data to protect your brand.
- Maintain meticulous records of safety tests and validations for each type of minimally processed beverage you produce. This will not only help in regulatory compliance but also provide data-driven insights for internal improvements.
- Periodically review and update your safety procedures in alignment with new research findings, consumer preferences, and technological advancements.
## Trend 4: Using and Selecting a Co-Manufacturer
More companies than ever are partnering with co-manufacturers to scale production and broaden market reach. While this approach has advantages, such as speed-to-market and cost-effectiveness, it also complicates the landscape for safety and quality control.
The following list helps you establish ideas on how to start vetting co-manufacturers. This approach will help ensure regulatory compliance and consumer trust in your brand.
### Safety Framework & Action Items
**FSMA Compliance:** Ensure the co-manufacturer is fully compliant with the appropriate regulations covering their products.
- If possible, conduct an on-site audit for thorough verification.
- Ask to see their food safety plan, including hazard analysis, as well as documentation about the verification of their suppliers.
**Food Safety Certifications:** Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) certification or other [certifications from the Global Food Safety Initiative](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) are important to show a co-manufacturer’s commitment to safety and quality.
- Inquire if the facility has had any recent inspections by state or federal inspectors. Ask for any reports from these inspections.
- Inquire about audit reports and any corrective actions taken.
**Technology & Equipment:** Verify that the co-manufacturer has the technological capabilities for the safe manufacturing of your beverages.
- Conduct pilot tests with your specific product to validate both the equipment and the expertise of the co-manufacturer in handling your production needs.
**Processing Authority Review:** Complement in-house reviews with an external Processing Authority’s evaluation for unbiased, specialized insights.
- Have a third-party Processing Authority review the co-manufacturer’s safety protocols and specialized processes relevant to your product. This review can help you made a sound judgement about the co-manufacturer’s capabilities.
**Raw Material Traceability:** Ensure the potential co-manufacturer has a robust traceability system in place.
- Discuss contingency plans for potential safety failures or recalls with the co-manufacturer.
## Embrace Innovation with Expert Support
As industry trends continue to evolve, it’s crucial to remain informed and prepared.
For comprehensive [laboratory testing for beverage safety](https://fsns.com/industries/beverages/), [contract research including process validations](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), or [expert regulatory consulting](https://easconsultinggroup.com/consulting/), reach out to us. We’re here to help your business meet regulations, cater to consumer demand, and thrive in a competitive market.
**Categories:** General
---
### [How Government Agencies Notify the Public About Which Foods Not to Eat ](https://fsns.com/how-government-agencies-notify-the-public-about-which-foods-not-to-eat/)
**Published:** January 7, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*By Gary C. Smith and Keith E. Belk, Colorado State University*
Food safety oversight by FSIS-USDA, FDA-USDHHS, and State/Local Health Departments (S/LHD) includes “notifications of the public that certain food products are potentially or actually dangerous, unsafe, adulterated, misbranded, and/or mislabeled.”1,2,3 So, how does the government inform customers and consumers that a potentially dangerous or unsafe food product has slipped through the net and entered commerce (i.e., the buying or selling of a commodity)?
- FSIS and FDA regulate the safety of food in interstate and foreign commerce.
- S/LHDs regulate the safety of food in intrastate commerce.4
## S/LHDs Food Safety Oversight and Public Notifications
S/LHDs follow Food Code regulations, routinely audit cafes, restaurants, supermarkets, schools, etc.; and then go public by revealing the results publicly. A typical “call out” lists sites (by name and address) and specific shortcomings; for example, “evidence of insects/rodents”, “poor hygienic practices”, and “failure to keep food at 41°F or less”.5 Periodically, S/LHDs issue “Voluntary Recalls” via collaboration with either FSIS or the FDA.6 FSIS notifies the public media by issuing “Voluntary Recalls” and “Public Health Alerts”.7 The FDA notifies the public media by issuing “Voluntary Recalls”, “Allergy Alerts”, and “Outbreak Advisories”.8
## Notable Foodborne Illness Outbreaks (1993–2013)
The era of high-profile foodborne illness outbreaks (1993 – 2013) included:
1. Jack-In-The Box, beef
2. Odwalla, apple juice
3. Schwann’s, ice cream
4. Sara Lee, luncheon meat
5. Malt-O-Meal, toasted oats
6. Jewel Dairy, milk
7. Jalisco, cheese
8. Dole Foods, fresh spinach
9. Con/Agra, peanut butter
10. Swift & Company, beef
11. Peanut Corporation Of America, peanuts
12. DeCoster Egg Farms, shell eggs
13. Jensen Farms, cantaloupe
14. Chamberlain Farms, cantaloupe3,4
The biggest of these were:
1. Peanut Corporation Of America recalled more than 3,200 different peanut-containing products.
2. DeCoster Egg Farms recalled 380 million eggs.
3. Jensen Farms caused 35 deaths.
4. Chamberlain Farms sickened more than 200 people in 21 states, hospitalized 62 people, and caused 2 deaths.
5. Worldwide, Fenugreek Sprouts sickened more than 4,000 people and killed more than 50 people.9
In all the aforementioned foodborne illness outbreaks, “Voluntary Recalls” played an integral role in quelling public fear of personal danger regarding what they eat. By design, governmental notification actions are intended to protect the public and to shame those members of the supply-chain that might not be as conscientious as they should be.
## The Role of Voluntary Recalls in Foodborne Illness Management
One of the most devastating things that can happen to a food manufacturing plant and/or company is to have a “Recall”; the costs – to human health, product value, and brand reputation – can be substantial.10
Given that there is no such thing as a “Mandatory Recall”, and that companies often find themselves at an extreme disadvantage when dealing with government officials, it is remarkable how quickly the food industry responds when something goes wrong and the product has already entered commerce.11
## FSIS Detection of Adulterated or Misbranded Products
FSIS may become aware of adulterated or misbranded product in commerce via:
1. The company that manufactures, distributes, or receives the product.
2. Test results from FSIS sampling.
3. Observations gathered by FSIS personnel.
4. Consumer complaints reported through the FSIS Consumer Complaint Monitoring System or other sources.
5. Epidemiological, informational, or laboratory data from local, State, Federal, or foreign-inspection authorities.12
It is the firm’s decision to recall product at the firm’s or the Agency’s recommendation; FSIS notifies the public about Class I and Class II Recalls through press releases.12 The FDA becomes aware of such need, and reacts in a similar manner. 2,3
FSIS and the FDA announce, in a press release, that a certain company in a certain city/state is voluntarily recalling approximately a certain number of pounds of product(s) that may contain a certain hazard.2,3
## What Constitutes a Class I, II, and III “Health Risk” During a Recall?
Both FSIS and the FDA characterize each Recall by the “health risk” as a Class I, II, or III.1,2,3,12 The FSIS Recall Classifications (effective Dec. 19, 2023) are:
- **Class I:** This is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.
- **Class II:** This is a health hazard situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.
- **Class III:** This is a situation where the use of the product will not cause adverse health consequences or the risk is negligible.12
The FDA uses essentially the same classification system.2 FSIS notifies the public of all Class I and Class II Recalls;12 the FDA notifies the public of all Class I and some Class II Recalls.2
## The Importance of Recall Plans and Traceability
Each establishment that harvests, produces, or processes foods regulated by FSIS or the FDA must have a Recall Plan; and, the key to its success is backward and forward traceability.3
In FSIS HACCP, “Traceability and Recall” is a prerequisite program: All raw material and finished products should be lot-coded and a Recall System should be in place so that rapid and complete traces and recalls can be done when a product retrieval is necessary.4 Effective January 2026, FDA PCHF will require manufacturers, processors, and those who pack or hold foods on the “Food Traceability List” to maintain “Key Data Element” records for “Critical Tracking Events” in a product’s journey through the supply chain.13,14
## Evolving Focus of Recall Programs Over the Decades
Over the last three decades, the focus of Recall programs has shifted. In the early 1990s, the FDA, FSIS, and food companies, reacting to outbreaks associated with foodborne pathogens in ground beef, peanuts, and leafy greens, believed they were issuing Recalls at a rate of 94% [biological hazards](https://fsns.com/unmasking-biological-food-hazards-guide-to-understanding-and-preventing-risks/), 4% [chemical hazards](https://fsns.com/are-there-chemicals-in-my-food/), and 2% [physical hazards](https://fsns.com/how-to-help-prevent-physical-hazards-in-food-a-guide-for-qc-teams/).4
By CY-2010, the FDA issued 97 Recalls (related to at least 2,000 human illnesses) of which 73% were for *Salmonella* and *Listeria monocytogenes*, while FSIS issued 23 Recalls (related to at least 100 human illnesses) of which 61% were for *E.coli*, *Salmonella*, and *Listeria monocytogenes*.15
Since then, two things changed the 94%-4%-2% hazard ratio:
1. Greater emphasis on [undeclared allergens](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/food-allergen-testing-avoiding-allergen-cross-contact/) (as a chemical cause of foodborne illness).
2. Increased pressure for companies to issue Recalls based on consumer complaints about [foreign/extraneous materials](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/fda-food-defect-action-levels-filth-testing/).16,17
## Trends in FDA and FSIS Recalls
Combined FDA and FSIS Recalls soared from a total of 120 in CY-2010 to an all-time high of 801 Recalls in CY-2016, due, in large part to:
1. Consumers, media, and lawmakers are increasingly demanding safer food.
2. There is less tolerance for foreign/extraneous material in food.18
In 2017, there were 439 Recalls of FDA- and USDA-regulated food products; 49.5% of them were for “presence of undeclared allergens and/or misbranding”, 42.0% were for biological hazards, and 8.5% were for physical hazards.19 In 2019, the “FSIS Guideline For Industry Response To Consumer Complaints” was released to help the meat/poultry/egg products sector respond to the inundation of foreign materials complaints,20 and the FDA revamped its “Guidance On Voluntary Food Recalls” to improve its protocols for public notification.21
## Trends in FSIS and FDA Recalls (2020–2022)
In CY-2020, FSIS Recalls dropped precipitously to a total of 47, while FDA spiked a YOY 700% to 417.22,23 Top 2022 FSIS Recalls were for:
1. “Contamination with foreign/extraneous materials” (the largest being 148,000 pounds of chicken patties after consumer complaints of pieces of clear plastic).
2. “Produced without inspection”.
3. “Undeclared allergens”.23,24,25
Top 2022 FDA Recalls were for:
1. “Pathogenic bacteria” (the largest being in fresh leafy greens, infant formula, cantaloupes, and cereal grains).
2. “Undeclared allergens”.
3. “Contamination with foreign/extraneous material”.16,26,27
Recall statistics over the last 10 years (FY 2013 through FY 2022) show an average of 613 Recalls of FSIS-regulated plus FDA-regulated food products each year.28 Every year, on average, 49% were for “undeclared allergens”, 26% were for “harmful pathogens”, 12% were for “contamination with foreign/extraneous material”, and 13% were for “all other reasons”.28
In the last 26 years, our belief is that the Hazards creating foodborne illness has shifted from 94-4-2 percentages for biological-chemical-physical, to 20-67-13.
## Essential Information in a Voluntary Recall
Information provided in a Voluntary Recall includes:
- Name of the company voluntarily issuing the Recall (e.g., Quaker Oats Company, Hillshire Farms).
- Product descriptor (e.g., ground beef, cantaloupe).
- Amount of product (e.g., 75,398 pounds).
- Problem (e.g., may be contaminated with *E. coli* 0103).
- Date of production.
- Packaging size and material
- Brand name.
- Lot code.
- Establishment number.
- Destination to which product was distributed.
- How the Agency found there was a problem
Whether or not people who ate the product were sick or died.29,30,31
Some are brief (e.g., especially those from FDA).32 Some are long and detailed; including advice about how to handle, cook, or return the product, and who to contact at the company or Agency about it.31 Some are written in Spanish.33
## Common Causes for Voluntary Recalls
Voluntary Recalls are initiated by the FDA and/or FSIS for the following problems:
1. Undeclared allergens
2. Made or stored under insanitary conditions
3. Not presented for reinspection
4. Contaminated with a pathogen
5. Fake inspection legend
6. Choking hazards
7. Misbranding
8. Foreign/extraneous materials
9. Not presented for re-inspection
10. Mislabeling
Food-safety oversight by FSIS-USDA, FDA-USDHHS, and State/Local Health Departments include “notification of the public that certain food products – currently in commerce –are potentially or actually dangerous or unsafe.” S/LHDs report results of Food Code audits to the media (print, radio, television, e-commerce) to “shame” food outlets.34 FSIS notifies the public media, and other parties, by issuing “Voluntary Recalls’, “Public Health Alerts”, and “Import Refusals”.7,35,36 The FDA notifies the public media, and other parties, by issuing “Voluntary Recalls”, “Urgent Food Recalls”, “Allergy Alerts”, “Consumer Alerts”, and “Outbreak Advisories”.8,37,38,39
## FSIS and FDA External Recall Notifications
For external notification, an FSIS “Recall Release” is distributed to:
1. Media wire services.
2. Media outlets in areas that received recalled products.
3. The FSIS email subscription service for recalls.
4. FSIS-affiliated social media outlets.
5. FSIS website.40
For external notification, an FDA “Recall Release” is distributed to:
1. Its Reportable Food Registry electronic portal for industry to report all Recalls.
2. Federal and State Recall coordinators.
3. Customers and consumers (about how to identify, return, or dispose recalled food).
4. The public and social media.
5. FDA Website.41
## Contact Information in Recall Press Releases
In some FSIS and FDA Recall press releases and on their websites, contact information is provided. For example, FSIS uses these:
1. Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry hotline at 888-MPHotline (888-674-6854) or send a question via email to MPHHotline@usda.gov.
2. Consumers can report problems with a meat, poultry, or egg product to the online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System at .
3. Consumers can browse food safety messages at AskUSDA.42
Prime-time public media seldom cover food recalls but there are exceptions. CNN covered the fact that a supermarket chain, Trader Joe’s, had just issued its sixth food Recall in a two-month period; those included metal, rocks, allergens, etc. in tamales, crackers, soup, falafels, etc.43
## Criticism and Reactions to Government Food Safety Efforts
Critics of the government (FSIS, FDA, and S/LHDs) on the handling of food safety issues abound. For years, skeptics have doubted that very many citizens actually kept tabs on Recall announcements, that the Agencies don’t act quickly enough to withdraw suspect foods from commerce, that we have too many serious foodborne illness outbreaks every year, and that the Agencies have woefully inadequate traceability.13,14,44,45,46,47
FSIS reacted to some of those things by launching an Application Programming Interface to transform the way the public can benefit from this critical and timely public health information48, and by issuing new Guidance on public notification procedures.12 The FDA reacted by developing a Food Traceability List and the FSMA 204 regulation.13,14
Several handlers of FDA-regulated food, including URM Stores Inc., Associated Grocers, Capitol Sausage and Provisioners, and Sysco plus 5,000 retail stores, 1,500 suppliers, and 25 distribution centers are already affiliated with two traceability companies, ReposiTrak® and iFoodDS®, preparing for the enaction of FSMA 204.14,49,50,51,52,53
## Economic Impact of Increased FSIS Recalls
The four-fold increase in FSIS Recalls from 120 (in CY-2010) to 499 (in CY 2023)54 has some critics claiming there is federal government overreach. For example, on average, the cost of a Recall ranges from $10 million to $30 million, and some exceed hundreds of millions of dollars.55
Hillshire Farms recently recalled 15,876 pounds of meat and poultry sausage after a single (one person) consumer complaint, to the company, saying that he/she had found some bone fragments in one package of the product.56
Kraft Heinz recalled 83,800 cases of Kraft American Cheese slices because a strip of plastic film might stick to the slice after the wrapper has been removed; the FDA said that “could be unpleasant and could potentially cause a gagging or choking hazard.”57
## Litigation Costs and Media Coverage of Recalls
And, it’s not just the monetary value of the recalled food products that have to be reworked or destroyed, and the loss of market-share due to public humiliation of “the brand”, it’s the cost of litigation when a consumer files a lawsuit against the grower, manufacturer, or retailer.
ConAgra recalled 245,366 pounds of frozen chicken strips after a consumer (one person) was injured (orally) by a piece of plastic in a strip.58 One week later, the injured consumer filed a class-action lawsuit against ConAgra seeking $5 million in damages.59
A journalist wrote, “The lawsuit is unnecessary and absolutely excessive, predator litigation lawyers are in action; unless there was gross negligence on the part of ConAgra, the damages should be limited to medical bills and a reasonable amount of money for ‘suffering’.”60
Another journalist said, “Consumers need to know there are two kinds of Recalls. Too often, the media fails the general public, scaring people or demeaning the food industry, by not differentiating foods that are unfit for consumption versus those that are unsafe for consumption.61
### REFERENCES
1. FSIS-USDA. 1996. Pathogen Reduction; HACCP Systems. July 25 Issue.
2. FSPC Alliance. 2016. Preventive Controls For Human Foods. First Edition.
3. Smith, Gary. 2018. FSNS:HACCP Compared To PCHF Class. March Edition.
4. Smith, Gary. 2016. FSNS:HACCP Class. September 26 Issue.
5. Denver Department of Health. 2017. The Denver Post. November 21 Issue
6. FSIS-USDA. 2023. [fsis.usda.gov](http://www.fsis.usda.gov) December 19 Issue.
7. FSIS-USDA. 2023. [fsis.usda.gov](http://www.fsis.usda.gov) Accessed on 12/22/2023.
8. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. Accessed on 12/21/2023.
9. Smith, Gary. 2023. Colorado State University. October 25 Issue.
10. Smith, Gary. 2024. Colorado State University. January 19 Issue.
11. Stevens, Shawn. 2023. National Provisioner. August 25 Issue.
12. FSIS. 2023. Directive 8080.1 Managing Adulterated or Misbranded Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products. Revision 8, December 19 Issue.
13. Hannum, Derek. 2023. ReposiTrak®. December 6 Issue.
14. Hannum, Derek. 2023. ReposiTrak®. October 31 Issue.
15. Denver Department of Health. 2012. The Denver Post. August 6 Issue.
16. Stevens, Shawn. 2022. Meatingplace. December 19 Issue.
17. Smith, Gary. 2022. FSNS Newsletter. May Edition.
18. Stevens, Shawn. 2023. Meatingplace. September 25 Issue.
19. Stevens, Shawn. 2018. Meatingplace. January 8 Issue.
20. Food Quality & Safety. 2019. May Edition.
21. Food Safety Magazine. 2019. May Edition.
22. Stevens, Shawn. 2023. Meatingplace. November 10 Issue.
23. Gibson, Kate. 2023. Meatingplace. March 15 Issue.
24. Johnston, Tom. 2023. Meatingplace. May Edition.
25. FSIS-USDA. 2023. [fsis.usda.gov](http://www.fsis.usda.gov) Accessed on 8/12/2023.
26. Lore, Kristin. 2023. The Packer. September 14 Issue.
27. Stevens, Shawn. 2023. National Provisioner. February 1 Issue.
28. Stevens, Shawn. 2023. Meatingplace. April 10 Issue.
29. Johnston, Tom. 2023. Meatingplace. August 30 Issue.
30. FSIS-USDA. 2024. [fsis.usda.gov](http://www.fsis.usda.gov) Accessed on 1/3/2024.
31. FDA-USDHHS. 2024. Accessed on 1/27/2024.
32. FSIS-USDA. 2023. [fsis.usda.gov](http://www.fsis.usda.gov) Accessed on 3/24/2024.
33. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. Accessed on 8/1/2023.
34. Smith, Gary. 2024. FSNS Newsletter. July Edition.
35. FSIS-USDA. 2023. [fsis.usda.gov](http://www.fsis.usda.gov) Accessed on 12/15/2023.
36. FSIS-USDA. 2023. [fsis.usda.gov](http://www.fsis.usda.gov) Accessed on 12/1/2023.
37. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. Accessed on 11/17/2023.
38. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. Accessed on 11/28/2023.
39. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. Accessed on 11/27/2023.
40. FSIS-USDA. 2024. [fsis.usda.gov](http://www.fsis.usda.gov) Accessed on 1/19/2024.
41. FDA-USDHHS. 2024. Accessed on 1/19/2024.
42. FSIS-USDA. 2023. [fsis.usda.gov](http://www.fsis.usda.gov) Accessed on 9/12/2023 and 10/25/2023.
43. CNN. 2023. September 1 Issue.
44. Scott, Chris. 2023. Meatingplace. August 2 Issue.
45. Keefe, Lisa. 2023. Meatingplace. September Edition.
46. FSIS-USDA. 2023. fsis.usda.gov September 7 Issue.
47. FDA-USDHHS. 2024. Accessed on 1/3/2024.
48. FSIS-USDA. 2023. Accessed on 9/8/2023.
49. Sandoval, Julio. 2023. National Provisioner. December 18 Issue.
50. Coupe, Kevin. 2024. ReposiTrak®. January 3 Issue.
51. Politz, David. 2024. Associated Grocers. January 2 Issue.
52. Driscoll, Lisa. 2023. Capitol Sausage and Provisions. December 29 Issue.
53. Leftwich, Charles. 2023. National Provisioner. December 26 Issue.
54. Stephens, Shawn. 2024.Meatingplace. January 1 Issue.
55. Barr, Brian. 2022. Food Processing. August Editon.
56. Moore, Chris. 2023. Meatingplace. October 15 Issue.
57. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. Accessed on 9/21/2023.
58. Moore, Chris. 2023. Meatingplace. September 4 Issue.
59. Moore, Chris. 2023. Meatingplace. September 13 Issue.
60. Wolf, Arturo. 2023. Meatingplace. September 13 Issue.
61. Fisher, Michael. 2020. Food Safety News. October 4 Issue.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [The Growing Importance of Allergen Testing: How Certified Group Ensures Food Safety with ELISA](https://fsns.com/the-growing-importance-of-allergen-testing-how-certified-group-ensures-food-safety-with-elisa/)
**Published:** April 1, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*By Jay Alappat, Ph.D, Chief Science Officer – Chemistry, Certified Group*
Food allergies affect millions of consumers worldwide1, with the FDA identifying nine major allergens, including peanuts, tree nuts, dairy, soy, and wheat as critical for food safety regulation.
Undeclared allergens are one of the leading causes of food recalls (34.1%) in the U.S.2, making precise and [reliable allergen testing](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/) essential for food manufacturers, suppliers, and regulatory agencies.
## Industry Trends in Allergen Testing
As consumer awareness and regulatory scrutiny increase, the allergen testing market is expected to grow. The global Food Allergen Testing industry was estimated to be worth USD 900.1 million in 2024. It is projected to reach USD 1,909.3 million by 2034, reflecting a CAGR of 7.8% over the assessment period 2024 to 20343.
With stricter global food safety laws, including [FSMA (Food Safety Modernization Act)](https://fsns.com/fsma-update/) in the U.S. and FSA (Food Standards Agency) regulations in the U.K., manufacturers must ensure their products are free from [allergen cross-contamination](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/food-allergen-testing-avoiding-allergen-cross-contact/).
One of the most widely used methods for allergen detection is ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay), known for its high sensitivity and specificity. While advanced technologies such as PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) and HPLC-MS (High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry) are emerging, ELISA remains the gold standard for routine allergen screening due to its cost-effectiveness and accuracy4.
## Certified Group’s Expertise in ELISA Allergen Testing
At Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) and [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/chemistry/), both part of [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com), we specialize in ELISA-based allergen testing at three of our ISO 17025-accredited laboratories in our national lab network: Aurora, Ill.; Melville, N.Y.; and San Antonio, Texas.
Our ELISA [allergen testing capabilities](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/) allow us to detect allergens at low parts per million (ppm) levels, ensuring compliance with regulatory standards. We provide testing for priority allergens, including gluten, milk, egg, peanut, soy, and others in processed food and raw ingredients.
Additionally, we conduct cross-contamination risk assessments and offer routine batch monitoring and validation to ensure food safety and compliance.
## Why ELISA is the Preferred Choice for Allergen Testing
- **High Sensitivity & Specificity:** ELISA can detect allergens at trace levels, ensuring food safety.
- **Regulatory Compliance:** Approved by the FDA, USDA, and other global agencies for food safety testing.
- **Cost-Effective:** Compared to PCR and HPLC-MS, ELISA offers a faster and more economical approach for routine allergen screening3.
- **Reliable for Various Food Matrices:** ELISA is highly effective for detecting allergens in processed foods, beverages, and raw ingredients.
## The Future of Allergen Testing & Our Commitment
While ELISA remains the gold standard for routine allergen screening, Certified Group also has **PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) technology** to expand its testing versatility and precision. PCR allows for the detection of allergen-specific DNA, making it especially valuable in complex or highly processed food matrices where proteins may be denatured or degraded—conditions that can limit ELISA’s effectiveness. This capability reinforces our commitment to offering clients a scientifically rigorous, multifaceted approach to allergen control.
## When and Why Customers Should Consider PCR
PCR serves as a powerful complement to ELISA in several scenarios. It is particularly useful in confirming allergen presence in thermally processed products, such as baked goods or extruded snacks, where protein targets may be altered beyond ELISA’s detection range. It also provides an additional layer of assurance for cross-reactivity investigations. With its high specificity and sensitivity, PCR enhances risk management strategies and gives manufacturers more confidence in their allergen labeling and mitigation efforts.
## Partner with Certified Group for Allergen Testing Excellence
With our expertise, ELISA and PCR methodologies, and commitment to food safety, [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) companies, including FSNS and [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), are the trusted choice for allergen testing.
[Contact us today to discuss your allergen testing needs](https://fsns.com/contact-us/) and ensure your products meet the highest standards of safety and compliance.
### References:
1. Feast for Thought: A Comprehensive review of food allergy 2021-2023, Irene, B. et al J Allergy Clin Immunol 2024, 5 (153), 576-594
2. Food for Thought 2025, U. S. PIRG Education Fund; February 2025
3.
4.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [It’s Open House Season at FSNS – And You’re Invited!](https://fsns.com/its-open-house-season-at-fsns-and-youre-invited/)
**Published:** April 10, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
We’ve been busy improving our lab network across the country – and now we want to show you what we’ve been up to. From celebrating long-standing excellence in Amarillo, Texas to unveiling a brand-new facility in St. Louis, MO, Food Safety Net Services, a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) company, is opening our doors and welcoming you in.
Whether you’re a current customer or exploring [food testing solutions](https://fsns.com/services/), our Open House events are a chance to tour the lab, meet our experts, and enjoy some hospitality. Plus, we’ll have giveaways, food, and insights tailored to the food safety community.
## Amarillo, TX – 10-Year Anniversary Celebration
Thanks to our great Amarillo team and lab customers who joined us to celebrate 10 years of service! If you missed the event, [contact us if you’re in the Amarillo area and want to discuss your food testing needs](https://fsns.com/contact-us/).
## Minneapolis, MN Lab Open House
Our Minneapolis Open House has come and gone, but please [contact us if you’re in the Twin Cities area and would like to see our lab](https://fsns.com/contact-us/).
## St. Louis, MO – New Lab Open House
Thanks to everyone who made this event a success! While it’s too late to attend our St. Louis Lab Open House, [contact us if you’re in the St. Louis area and want to see the new laboratory](https://info.fsns.com/st-louis-lab).
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [6 Steps to Ensure Correct Food Product Labeling and Prevent Recalls](https://fsns.com/6-steps-to-ensure-correct-product-labeling-and-prevent-recalls/)
**Published:** October 3, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Kaci Foote, Accreditation Manager, FSNS Certification & Audit*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Undeclared allergens cause the majority of FDA and USDA food recalls; most are due to labeling errors, not formulation issues.
- A disciplined label-control program can significantly reduce mislabeling risk – and recalls.
- GFSI-benchmarked food safety standards require robust label-control procedures.
- FSNS developed a 6-step system to improve traceability, verification, and changeover discipline.
---
## Breakdowns in Label Control are the Root Cause of Most Recalls
Undeclared allergens were [responsible for 34% all FDA and USDA food recalls in 2024](https://fsns.com/food-recalls-in-2024-revealing-the-statistics/).
Most incidents like these don’t stem from formulation errors. The root cause is almost always a **breakdown in label control**. For example, a product containing milk may be packed in a carton for a dairy-free variant. The label doesn’t declare the allergen. The result is a recall.
These types of errors — often involving common allergens such as milk, soy, or tree nuts — are preventable. But prevention requires a structured, auditable process for managing labels from receipt through release.
This **six-step process** helps food and beverage manufacturers strengthen their label-control procedures and reduce the risk of mislabeling-related recalls.
## 6-Step Label-Control Process for Food Manufacturers
1. Approve Label and Ingredient Statement Prior to Printing
2. Review and Document Labels Upon Receipt
3. Control Label Distribution to Production
4. Verify Label Accuracy During Production
5. Treat Changeovers as a High-Risk Control Point
6. Confirm Accuracy Before Final Product Release
Let’s break down the process.
## 1. Approve Label and Ingredient Statement Prior to Printing
Label accuracy starts well before labels are printed. At this stage, QA must carefully review the label proof to verify that all required elements are correct and compliant before print approval.
This is where errors are easiest and most cost-effective to catch. QA should confirm…
- **Accurate** ingredient statement.
- **Proper** allergen declarations (e.g., “Contains: Milk”).
- **Correct** [nutrition facts panel](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/).
- **Accurate** net weight or volume.
- **Legible** font sizes and compliant formatting.
- **Required** regulatory details (e.g., country of origin, barcode placement).
Compare the proof to the approved formulation and product spec sheet. Document the review with initials, date, and version number.
At this point, refer to the labeling regulations that apply to your product:
- FDA-regulated foods: [21 CFR 101](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101)
- Meat products: [9 CFR 317](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-A/part-317)
- Poultry products: [9 CFR 381](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-A/part-381)
- Egg products: [9 CFR 590](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-I/part-590)
Errors caught after printing result in unnecessary cost, waste, and risk. This step ensures the label is right before it enters production.
## 2. Review and Document Labels Upon Receipt
Every label entering your facility should be reviewed before it is released for production.
- **Compare** the received labels to the approved version shown in the current specification sheet.
- The most effective method is to **lay the received label physically next to an approved version or image of same** and compare for…
- Correct allergen declaration
- Legibility and print quality
- Supplier lot number
- Product identity, weight declaration, and origin statements
- **Document** the check with initials, date, time, and findings.
- Once accepted into the facility, **control access to labels**. Consider secure storage and sign-out procedures for labels issued to production.
This level of verification helps prevent incorrect or outdated labels from being used in the first place, potentially saving a lot of trouble down the road.
Image: Please recreate the image below. Here is the [finished label on the right](https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/packaging-design-chili-pepper-hot-sauce-2275334613). The goal is to show a side-by-side comparison.
## 3. Control Label Distribution to Production
Once labels are issued to the floor, traceability becomes critical. Maintain detailed records of…
- The **lot numbers and quantities** of labels issued.
- The **product** being produced.
- The **employee or team** responsible.
- **Return** of partial rolls or **destruction** of defective labels.
If your facility produces multiple SKUs with similar ingredients or packaging formats, the likelihood of mix-ups increases. Verification that the correct label is being used for each run must occur before application begins, even if products are otherwise identical.
Many manufacturers benefit from a formal label sign-off procedure prior to each shift or production run, with dual verification from both QA and production supervisors.
## 4. Verify Label Accuracy During Production
It is not sufficient to verify the label only at the start of production. In-process checks are essential. Establish a procedure to…
- **Conduct a “roll-start” check**: QA verifies the first unit off the line matches the approved specification.
- Perform **label checks at defined intervals** — at least once per hour or more frequently based on risk.
- **Re-verify** at every roll change, shift change, or product change.
- Provide verifiers with **authority to pause production** if errors are found.
- **Document** all checks: label lot, timestamp, verifier, findings.
This frequency-based approach is especially valuable during long runs or when different labels are used for private-label customers.
## 5. Treat Changeovers as a High-Risk Control Point
Changeovers present the greatest opportunity for mislabeling. The only way to prevent errors is to ensure all previous packaging and labels are completely removed from the line.
Establish a formal line clearance procedure that includes…
- **Removal** of all previous labels, packaging, inserts, lot codes, and barcoded materials.
- A **second-person verification**, independent from the production team, to confirm clearance.
- **Restarting** the label verification and roll-start check before production resumes.
Incomplete clearance is a common root cause of allergen mislabeling. Take the time to reset your line correctly. Documentation is essential.
## 6. Confirm Accuracy Before Final Product Release
For USDA-regulated facilities, pre-shipment review is a regulatory requirement. For FDA-regulated sites, it is not mandatory but is strongly encouraged. In either case, this step provides a final opportunity to prevent mislabeled products from entering the market. The review should confirm…
- The product label **matches** the specification sheet.
- The actual product produced **matches** the SKU and label.
- **Traceability is intact**: label lots, production lots, and QA checks are documented.
- A retained sample is **collected** and **archived** (if applicable).
For certain categories — such as infant formula ([21 CFR 106](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-106)) and low-acid canned foods (LACF) ([21 CFR 113](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-113)) — product must be held until release is authorized by QA.
Never sign off on release if any documentation is missing or if there is uncertainty about label accuracy. Remember, the QA Manager or other person who signs off on the product release is liable in the event of a recall. If you have any doubts about the product, don’t put your name on it!
## Proper Labeling is a Regulatory Requirement
In addition to the FDA and USDA regulations mentioned earlier, [GFSI-benchmarked certifications](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/), such as [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), and [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/), require robust label controls. In fact, BRCGS clauses 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3 provide excellent guidance for any label-control program, even if your site is not certified to that standard.
[View them in our BRCGS Audit Checklist.](https://info.fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-brcgs-checklist)
## Contact Us for Pre-Audits or Certification Audits
If your site is ready for a [food safety pre-audit or official certification audit, contact our team and we’ll be happy to help](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [Qualitative Pathogen Testing in Food: What You Need to Know](https://fsns.com/pathogen-testing/)
**Published:** September 16, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Alex Brandt, Ph.D., Chief Science Officer, Food Safety Net Services*
Harmful microorganisms, also known as pathogens, cause disease in humans either through direct infection or by releasing poisonous toxins. When foods and beverages become contaminated with pathogens or their toxins, it can lead to foodborne illness when they are consumed, underscoring the importance of pathogen testing.
While nearly half (44%) of all foodborne illnesses are caused by 31 known bacteria, viruses, and parasites, the remaining half (56%) of foodborne illnesses have no identified cause. Thus, there are numerous pathogens that remain to be discovered, and much that remains to be learned about foodborne illness.
In this post, we’ll look at qualitative pathogen testing and [microbiological testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) of food. [Contact us if you need pathogen testing for your food products.](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
[  ](https://cta-service-cms2.hubspot.com/web-interactives/public/v1/track/redirect?encryptedPayload=AVxigLJrHHSCMatjUtHbc4nr6rwiXfQ8ekD412sf%2BYcc4B7dqV6jtyscLSKqj3VTSq%2FqPHfX6vFqTJz4GBZKb%2BQpkyzOcxZPFbJ%2Bdljss%2Fg5rxT2JDVQO%2Bio3rYAyO2eRsbf1ks%2FUxfEKqop6DK2RKJNw3LVhNspgCaklnqG1b5l%2Bv%2Ffw2YPUTeSIiVEGfHmSPSgZ3qP&webInteractiveContentId=182852180044&portalId=7650917)
## **Foodborne-Illness Outbreaks Kill 3,000 People Each Year**
Contaminated foods and beverages that end up being consumed by the public have a high probability of causing a foodborne illness outbreak. Every year, 48 million cases of foodborne illness occur, leading to 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths. A significant proportion of these are part of foodborne-illness outbreaks. Not only does a foodborne-illness outbreak threaten consumer health and safety, it can also end up being costly for the producer of that food or beverage. For example, a single foodborne-illness outbreak can cost [up to $2.1 million](https://www.qsrmagazine.com/outside-insights/tremendous-cost-foodborne-illnesses-and-what-do-about-it) in fines, lawsuits and legal fees for a food establishment. Moreover, food recalls are estimated to cost [an average of $10 million](https://easconsultinggroup.com/understanding-and-mitigating-risks-of-emerging-pathogens/), which includes the loss of products and the time spent to manage the recall.
In the interest of public safety, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 (FSMA) introduced a shift from a reactive approach to a preventive approach for food safety. Instead of relying on reactive food recalls during an outbreak, the focus has shifted toward prevention-based controls, which include the microbiological testing of food. This helps detect the presence of pathogens in food before releasing it into the market.
[**Free Webinar: Understanding and Mitigating Risks of Emerging Pathogens**](https://easconsultinggroup.com/understanding-and-mitigating-risks-of-emerging-pathogens/)
## **What is Food Pathogen Testing?**
Pathogen testing involves applying different microbiology techniques to determine the presence and number of pathogens in food and beverage products, as well as the environments in which they are produced. It is continuously employed throughout the production process to test raw materials, intermediates and finished products to ensure that manufactured foods and beverages are free from harmful bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites (or their toxins) that can cause foodborne illnesses.
## **Microbiological Testing of Food**
In the early years of food and beverage pathogen testing, traditional microbiological techniques were the only options available. These techniques relied on using culture media that contained various nutrients to let microorganisms grow until they could be detected and identified. There were often several steps in the process, with several different types of culture media used, all of which were subject to analyst interpretation. Thus, these traditional methods, which are still used today, were laborious, time-consuming and subject to error.
These issues with traditional methods consequently drove the development of more rapid detection methods to improve laboratory efficiency. These rapid-detection methods can be divided into three categories: qualitative, quantitative and identification.
- *Qualitative*: Testing methods employed to detect whether a pathogen is present in a sample or not. A simple positive or negative result is obtained.
- *Quantitative*: Testing methods that give a numerical count of microorganisms in a sample. This is usually in the form of the number of colony forming units (CFU).
- *Identification*: Testing methods that detect cellular components, biochemical activities or gene sequences that are very specific to a particular microorganism in order to provide its full identity after it has been isolated from a food or beverage sample.
Within a manufacturing setting, food safety practices have focused mainly on the most common microorganisms that cause spoilage and foodborne illness. Consequently, manufacturers of food pathogen testing assays have developed rapid testing kits that specifically focus on these most common microorganisms. Furthermore, testing assay manufacturers employ various types of technologies in their rapid testing kits, all of which have varying degrees of sensitivity, specificity and cost. Some of these key principles in choosing a rapid testing assay are discussed below. (FSNS Lab+, the contract research division of Certified Group, performs [method validations for rapid testing kits](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/).)
**[Free Webinar: Understanding and Mitigating Risks of Emerging Pathogens](https://easconsultinggroup.com/understanding-and-mitigating-risks-of-emerging-pathogens/)**
## **Rapid Qualitative Methods Used in Food Pathogen Testing**
As mentioned above, laboratories employ qualitative testing methods to detect the presence of pathogens in foods and beverages. While the food or beverage manufacturer is waiting on these results from the laboratory, they will place their products on hold. This means that they will not let the products enter distribution until all tests provide negative results. As a result, microbiological testing of food creates a bottleneck in their operations. Thus, food and beverage manufacturers will often request that laboratories use rapid methods to obtain results faster. Some of the most common types of rapid methods are discussed below.
### **Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)**
PCR is a type of technology employed in many qualitative methods used to determine the presence of pathogens in foods and beverages. PCR technology detects one or more DNA sequences specific to the target pathogen through a cyclic three-step process that involves denaturation, primer annealing and polymerization. Detection is accomplished either by running the polymerized DNA on a gel to determine if DNA fragments of the expected size are observed (endpoint PCR) or by using fluorescence to detect a DNA polymerization byproduct called a fluorophore (real-time PCR). Through PCR methods, pathogens like Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes can be quickly and accurately detected. Due to their enhanced sensitivity, specificity and speed, PCR-based assays tend to be higher in cost than other types of rapid methods.
### **Immunoassay**
Immunoassays are testing methods that detect the presence of pathogens in foods and beverages based on antigen-antibody interactions. Antigens are cellular components of the pathogen (usually a molecule on their surface), which can be bound by antibodies that recognize the specific chemical structure of the antigen. The sensitivity of these tests is determined by the binding strength of each antibody to its specific antigen. Likewise, the specificity of the test depends on how many different types of antigen structures to which the particular antibody is able to bind.
Two of the most used types of immunoassays are the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and the Enzyme-Linked Fluorescence Assay (ELFA). Both technologies involve binding a specific antigen to an antibody (usually coated onto a stationary surface), washing away residual sample and then binding the already-bound antigen with a second antibody that is linked to an enzyme. The formation of the antibody-antigen-antibody complex (which indicates the presence of the pathogen) is then detected by adding a substrate that the enzyme converts into a product. The formation of this product is detectable either by colorimetry (ELISA) or by fluorescence (ELFA).
Both ELISA and ELFA methods have relatively low costs compared to PCR but are more prone to sensitivity and specificity issues, depending on the assay. Thus, there tends to be a trade-off in terms of assay performance and cost.
## **Other Methods**
In addition to PCR and Immunoassays, a number of other technologies are widely employed for pathogen-detection methods. This includes Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) and Targeted DNA Sequencing.
LAMP is similar to Real-Time PCR in that it involves detection of byproducts of the DNA polymerization process. The difference is that DNA polymerization is done with the aid of a strand-displacing DNA polymerase that initiates synthesis and two specially-designed primers that form “loop” structures to facilitate subsequent rounds of amplification through extension on the loops and additional annealing of primers. This allows LAMP to function at a single temperature, eliminating the need for the three-temperature cycling requirements of PCR. LAMP thus tends to be more resilient to inhibitors than PCR.
Targeted DNA Sequencing involves using PCR to amplify multiple DNA sequences in a target organism. These multiple PCR products are then sequenced on a next-generation sequencing instrument to determine if their DNA sequences match those of the target pathogen. By using actual DNA sequence data to determine if a pathogen is present, Targeted DNA Sequencing technologies are much less prone to errors and have even higher specificity than PCR. However, they are much more expensive and take several more hours to complete analysis due to the sequencing and data analysis time that is needed. Yet, they also provide additional information at no cost, such as the serotype or subtype of the target organism that they are designed to detect.
## **New Technologies Being Developed in Food Pathogen Testing**
As researchers and scientists develop new technologies for detection of microorganisms, those technologies are evaluated by foodborne pathogen test kit manufacturers to determine if they provide an advantage over current methods. Enhanced speed, improved accuracy and reduced costs are always desired, and if a new technology provides this, it will be evaluated to determine its merits in being used to develop foodborne pathogen test kits. Many technologies that make their debut in the clinical testing space eventually are adapted for pathogen testing in foods and beverages.
One of the new technologies being evaluated for use in foodborne pathogen test kits is Droplet Digital PCR (DDPCR). While DDPCR has been around for more than a decade, it is finally starting to make an entry into the foodborne pathogen testing space. In DDPCR, PCR reactions take place in thousands of tiny partitions called microdroplets. Microdroplets are formed by encapsulating water-soluble DNA template and PCR reagents inside of water-insoluble oil droplets. These microdroplet partitions create thousands of individual PCR reactions inside of one sample well. After the PCR process is complete, each individual microdroplet is passed through a droplet reader. The droplet reader reads the fluorescent signal of each droplet and determines if it is positive for one or more DNA sequences of the target pathogen. It will then provide a count of how many positive droplets it observed. Because of this special partitioning, DDPCR has the advantage over traditional PCR in several areas, especially with regard to quantification and determining co-localization of DNA targets. Thus, in the foodborne pathogen testing space, it has been investigated for use in Salmonella quantification methods and in determining co-localization of stx and eae genes in Shiga-Toxin Producing E. coli.
A new identification technology that is quickly taking hold in the food and beverage testing space is Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). MALDI-TOF MS is a rapid and reliable way to identify nearly every type of microorganism. It involves spotting a suspension of the microorganism on a plate, exciting it with a laser and then reading a mass spectrum of the different molecules that are emitted via the laser. The mass spectrum obtained is then compared to a database to identify the organism. Thus, MALDI-TOF MS is considered a replacement for traditional biochemical identification methods. While the equipment required to perform MALDI-TOF MS is considerably more expensive, it provides an almost instantaneous identification of a microorganism. As databases expand and equipment becomes less expensive, MALDI-TOF MS will eventually replace traditional biochemical identification methods.
## **How FSNS Can Help You Through Food Pathogen Testing**
In the interest of public safety, U.S. food safety laws have been updated to prioritize testing for foodborne pathogens as a crucial aspect of food and beverage production. Ensure your compliance with FSMA guidelines with the help of Food Safety Net Services.
FSNS is a network of ISO 17025 and A2LA accredited operating laboratories. We use state-of-the-art testing methods and equipment to help you with the rapid detection of [pathogens that cause foodborne illness and threaten public health](https://fsns.com/incidence-of-disease-attributed-to-some-major-foodborne-pathogens-appears-to-be-on-the-rise-in-spite-of-rigorous-efforts-at-the-pre-and-post-harvest-levels-to-improve-food-safety-and-public-health/). Using the highest standards in food safety and microbiology testing, we ensure the accurate detection of contaminants and the reliability of our results.
For any inquiries or questions about our [microbiological testing methods](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/), or if you would like more information, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us [here](https://fsns.com/contact-us/), send an email to or give us a call at 888-525-9788.
**[Free Webinar: Understanding and Mitigating Risks of Emerging Pathogens](https://easconsultinggroup.com/understanding-and-mitigating-risks-of-emerging-pathogens/)**
**Categories:** General
---
### [Non-Confirming Food Samples: How to Handle False Positives](https://fsns.com/non-confirming-food-samples-how-to-handle-false-positives/)
**Published:** October 15, 2024
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Ryan Welsh, M.S., Corporate Operations Support, Certified Group*
### 1-Minute Summary
- False positives can waste time and money but are not as potentially dangerous to public health as false negatives.
- Positive molecular screens can detect non-viable or stressed microbes that don’t grow in culture, leading to a false positive.
- Cultural confirmation failures can result from selective media challenges or variable growth rates.
- Proper sampling and testing protocols help reduce the risk of false positives and negatives.
- Many organizations treat these cases as presumptive positives and undertake the appropriate mitigation activities.
---
## The Dreaded False Positive (or is it?)
Regardless of your industry, the products you manufacture, or your target organisms, every food safety and quality assurance professional faces the challenge of a false positive at some point. This situation triggers immediate questions and action throughout the organization:
- Do we really have *Salmonella*, *E. coli*, *Listeria*, or another pathogen in our finished product?
- How reliable are these results?
- Could there have been an error during sampling?
In this article, we address a common question our scientists receive at [Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com/): What should you do when a sample screens positive but confirms negative?
## Type I and Type II Errors Explained
First, let’s define the two types of errors that can occur when testing food samples for the presence of pathogens or other organisms.
### Type 1 Error (False Positive)
A Type I Error occurs when a [test incorrectly indicates the presence of a pathogen](https://fsns.com/pathogen-testing/) or other target organism that is not actually there.
False positives can lead to costly repeat testing, unnecessary sanitation procedures, or even a product recall, disrupting manufacturing and damaging your brand’s reputation. While frustrating, false positives are generally less concerning than Type II Errors.
### Type II Error (False Negative)
A Type II Error happens when a test fails to detect a pathogen or other [biological hazard](https://fsns.com/unmasking-biological-food-hazards-guide-to-understanding-and-preventing-risks/) that is present.
This poses a significant risk, as contaminated products may be released, potentially leading to foodborne illness outbreaks and regulatory or legal consequences. False negatives can also affect product quality, resulting in negative consumer experiences and reputational harm.
## Start with Proper Sampling and Testing Processes
When a positive screen does not confirm culturally, the first step is to evaluate the sampling and testing process:
- Is our definition of a “lot” correct? Are we pulling samples from a representative cross-section of the raw materials, in-process, or finished product?
- Are we processing samples in a clean environment to prevent contamination?
- Is our in-house lab or our third-party lab using aseptic techniques throughout their testing process?
- Is the lab using the correct media, incubation time, or test kits for our target organisms?
- Is staff properly trained?
Various issues can complicate cultural confirmation, such as insufficient target organism presence or interference from background bacteria. Assays may also react with similar organisms, leading to false positives.
The key is to start with the basics to rule out obvious problems.
## Is it Really a False Positive – Molecular Methods vs. Traditional Culturing
When samples screen positive but culturally confirm negative, we need to challenge ourselves to think outside the bounds of the traditional “false positive” framework.
Molecular methods used for screening, like PCR, are more sensitive than culturing. They can detect even small amounts of bacterial DNA, including from non-conforming microbes, which are bacteria that carry the target genetic material but do not grow in culture media.
This means a positive molecular test with a negative cultural confirmation doesn’t necessarily mean a “false positive”; it may reflect the presence of non-conforming, non-viable, or stress-adapted microbes.
## Overcoming Challenges with Molecular Testing
Given the increased sensitivity and specificity of molecular methods, many think it should be the Gold Standard for food microbiology. Even so, it poses challenges due to the very reasons it is so helpful. Let’s look at a few of them and some possible solutions.
### Non-Specific Binding of Primers/Probes
Molecular assays use primers and probes to target specific genetic sequences. However, they may also bind to closely related non-target organisms, amplifying unintended DNA and leading to a false positive.
In this case, carefully design the assay with specific primers and probes. Also, use rigorous inclusivity and exclusivity panels to ensure accuracy.
### DNA from Non-Viable Cells
Molecular tests can detect DNA from dead bacteria, especially in samples that have undergone a lethality step, like heat treatment. DNA from these non-viable cells can still trigger a positive molecular result, even though the bacteria are no longer a threat.
One solution is to use methods like Propidium Monoazide (PMA), which binds to DNA that is not inside live cells and prevents the PCR reaction from occurring on that DNA.
### Viable but Non-culturable (VBNC)
Many species of organisms, including *E. coli*, *Listeria monocytogenes*, and *Salmonella*, can enter a VBNC state, meaning they are viable but non-culturable.
This means the bacteria are in a very low state of metabolic activity and do not divide. However, they are still alive and can become culturable once resuscitated. They typically don’t grow on standard growth media.
They can enter this state due to all your plant interventions, which stresses them and reduces their rate of nutrient transport, respiration, and macronutrient metabolic activity.
In this case, these actions are helpful:
- Allow additional time to grow in the culture media.
- Regrow with other selective media.
- Screen the sample with an alternative method to obtain more information, such as NeoSeek, Clear Labs, or Droplet Digital PCR.
- Reevaluate following results from other screening methods.
## Challenges of Cultural Confirmation
Inherent challenges to cultural confirmation can also lead to what appears to be a false positive.
### Issues Due to Selective Media
Selective media is designed to isolate specific bacteria by providing them with the nutrients they need while suppressing others. However, this media can sometimes be too selective.
If bacteria are stressed or injured – due to prior processing conditions, for example – they may not thrive on these media. This can lead to false negatives, where the bacteria are present but fail to grow.
### Variable Nutrient Requirements
Furthermore, different strains within the same species, such as *Salmonella*, may have varying nutrient requirements.
If the media doesn’t cater to these needs, some strains may not grow, even if they are present in the sample. Additionally, the expected chromogenic reactions (color changes) can vary among strains, leading to further identification challenges.
### Which Colony do you Choose?
Colony selection adds another layer of complexity.
When plates are overcrowded with mixed bacterial cultures, isolating the target organism can become difficult. Not every colony that appears on the plate represents the target bacteria. Their morphological characteristics – shape, size, and color – can differ significantly depending on the strain and growth conditions. Selecting the wrong colony for further testing can result in a missed detection of the pathogen.
### Different Growth Rates
Growth rates also play a significant role.
Not all bacteria grow at the same pace. Slow-growing strains may be overshadowed by more robust competitors, leading to a negative result. Competitive inhibition by other microorganisms can further suppress the growth of the target bacteria, making them harder to isolate.
## *Salmonella* Case Study – Positive Screen Fails to Confirm Culturally
One case involving 40 lots of beef time illustrates many of the points discussed above.
The samples screened positive for *Salmonella* using a PCR platform. However, **all samples failed to confirm culturally** using standard USDA MLG procedures, which typically yield a 75-85% confirmation rate. An extensive investigation was conducted to determine the discrepancy between the molecular screening and cultural confirmation results.
The samples were subjected to additional DNA and RNA tests, as well as an immunoassay. All tests confirmed the presence of *Salmonella*, indicating that the specificity and sensitivity of the original PCR assay were reliable.
To further explore the cultural confirmation failure, the samples were sent to three different laboratories where a range of plating methods, temperatures, and incubation times were used.
Only 50% of the samples produced isolates initially. Subsequent plating on non-selective media and targeted colony selection resulted in the eventual cultural confirmation of all samples.
Eventually, whole genome sequencing identified the isolate as *Salmonella Dublin*, a strain known for its challenging growth requirements. This strain’s inability to grow on standard selective media without specific conditions such as extended time and lower temperatures likely contributed to the initial cultural confirmation failure.
This case highlights the limitations of cultural methods when dealing with certain strains and underscores the importance of considering alternative approaches when discrepancies arise between molecular and cultural testing results.
## Discrepancies Highlight the Complexity of Food Safety Testing
Given the risk involved for some organizations, many FSQA personnel treat a “false positive” as a presumptive positive to err on the side of caution. This is a good strategy to maximize safety. However, it’s important to understand why you may be getting excessive false positives so your company can control costs and streamline production while still making safe products.
[Please contact us](https://fsns.com/contact-us/) if you have questions about your test results or if you need [microbiology testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) for your products.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [What’s the Real Deal on Grass-Fed Beef?](https://fsns.com/whats-the-real-deal-on-grass-fed-beef/)
**Published:** May 4, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Advocation of Grass-Fed beef originated among animal-rights activists who considered confinement of cattle in feedyards to be “animal abuse in factory-farms”. Unfortunately, added impetus came from competitors within the beef industry. For example, a Grass-Fed beef company asked Drovers® to print its press release which said, “Industrial grain-based feedlot operations foul the environment, expose cattle to inhumane conditions, require intensive consumption of fossil fuels, and produce higher levels of environmental pollutants. Sustainable ranching management on our grass-finishing ranch helps keep cattle, air, land, and water healthy.”1 Drovers, instead, issued an editorial which stated: “American beef producers face plenty of challenges from radical animal-rights activists and environmental extremists trying to destroy their livelihoods. They hardly need to hear the same attacks from fellow producers trying to promote their product.”1 Unfortunately, the editorial didn’t keep marketers from continuing their attacks on conventional cattle-raising protocols. Following are brief discussions of the validity of such claims:
- Grass-Fed beef is locally sourced from small-scale family farms. Some is; most isn’t. On the positive side, Good Natured Family Farms Grass-Fed BeefTM is a cooperative of more than 100 cattle ranches and owns a working cattle ranch, meat processing plant, and food distribution company that is third-party audited by Where Food Comes From®.2 And, a network of independent ranchers sells “shares” of Grass-Fed animals via Crowd CowsTM which allows consumers to use its web platform to order beef online.3 But the leading US provider of Grass-Fed beef—Verde FarmsTM–sources all of its beef from Uruguay.4 The majority of all Grass-Fed beef sold in the USA originates overseas.5 Grass-Fed beef production in the USA is highly variable because of the variety of genetics, forages, and management practices used.6 Part of the variability problem is that many companies make their Grass-Fed beef by using trimmings from cull-cow, rather than steer/heifer, carcasses.7 KrogerTM recently stopped selling domestic Grass-Fed beef, but continues to offer Organic Grass-Fed beef sourced from Uruguay, Argentina, New Zealand, and/or Australia.8
- Grass-Fed beef is more environmentally sustainable than Grain-Fed beef. The reverse is true. Beef sustainability is defined as producing more product with fewer inputs; grass-finished cattle grow half as rapidly, require three times as much energy, produce three times as much methane, and require 13 times as much land to reach harvest-weight as grain-finished cattle.9 Other research says grass-finishing of cattle, compared to grain-finishing, takes 226 more days to reach market weight…meaning that each pound of grain-finished beef requires 45% less land, 76% less water, and 49% less feed while generating 51% less manure and 42% fewer carbon emissions.10 A United Nation’s report11 claimed that feeding corn to cattle increases (compared to grass-feeding) deforestation and GHG emissions. US Forest Service, though, says deforestation for feed production and grazing does not occur in the USA; we actually have 16 million more acres of forest land than 100 years ago.12 Three studies reveal that North American beef production systems have carbon footprints per unit of beef production that are 10 to 50 times lower than those in many nations in Asia and Africa.13 If we wish to have enough beef to feed everyone now consuming it—and it has to be Grass-Fed—we’ll have to, at least, triple our nation’s cattle herd. Harvard University/Boston University say that current US pasture-land can only support 27 million cattle; the US cattle herd was 94.4 million on January 1, 2018.14
- Grass-Fed beef is less likely to be contaminated with foodborne pathogens. Incorrect. The idea that feeding grass to cattle would change the pH in the bovine colon and kill E. coli O157:H7 in the animal’s gut came from a 1998 Cornell University study that was poorly designed and led to an ill-conceived conclusion. A Washington State University study15 almost immediately refuted the Cornell University theory with a scathing rebuttal, and the hypothesis has never been verified or validated. Nevertheless, the Cornell University study continues to be cited by Grass-Fed beef proponents, because it is the only scientific study ever conducted that supports the claim. Cattle fed a forage diet have both higher levels and longer durations of fecal shedding of E. coli O157:H7 than cattle fed a grain diet. So, they have more—not less—chance of producing infected meat because most of the E. coli O157:H7 comes from the hides of cattle.16 In a review of scientific literature regarding Campylobacter, Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, and Toxoplasma gondii, it was concluded that any production system that allows outdoor access to farm animals has a negative effect on food safety—increasing the risk of prevalence of bacteria and the parasite.17 Another extensive literature review concluded that “The scientific evidence at this time does not support a broad conclusion that grass-feeding significantly reduces the risk of E. coli O157:H7 or other dangerous [pathogens from entering the food](https://fsns.com/pathogen-testing/) chain”.18 Whether or not cattle were grazed on pasture or fed a forage-based diet, there were no differences in prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 or in antibiotic-resistance strains of foodborne pathogens.19 Consumer Reports® published a misleading article suggesting that Organic or Grass-Fed beef should not be contaminated with Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7.20 A Texas Tech University microbiologist countered saying, “Organic” and “Grass-Fed” are marketing terms that are not accurate indicators of food safety; there are bacteria on all meat; so, cook it to 160°F.21
- Grass-Fed beef is much more nutritious than conventionally raised beef. It’s a bit more nutritious but not much more, and it’s nearly impossible to eat enough of it to gain any medical benefit. Early on, it was acknowledged that beef production methods that differed from conventional ones could alter nutritional content of beef. One study concluded that Grass-Fed beef has a slight advantage in fatty acid profile but its impact on consumers’ diets is uncertain.22 Research shows that Grass-Fed beef has higher levels of Vitamin A, Vitamin E, omega-3-fatty acid, and conjugated linoleic acid.6,23-30 Scientists recognize that grass-finishing does increase the amounts of certain essential nutrients in beef but they doubt that eating Grass-Fed, rather than Grain-Fed, beef would satisfy a person’s daily dietary requirements.6, 12, 22, 31, 32 Studies show that a consumer would need to eat (each day) the following amounts of cooked Grass-Fed beef to meet their daily requirements: 9.2 pounds, for Vitamin A; 9.36 pounds, for conjugated linoleic acid; and 12.0 pounds, for omega-3 fatty acids.12 To say that Grass-Fed beef is superior because it contains minute additional quantities of certain chemicals (e.g., conjugated linoleic acid) when it is not reasonably possible to eat enough beef of that kind to improve personal health, is not appropriate.32
There are customers who will not purchase, and consumers who will not eat, conventionally raised beef. The beef industry should embrace production/marketing of certain “kinds” of beef that are perceived (by certain customers/consumers) to be superior (in things that were, or were not done in producing harvest cattle). It is important though, that overzealous proponents and promoters of other “kinds” of beef not denigrate conventional beef in the process.
REFERENCES:
1 Maday, John. Drovers. October 9, 2009.
2Meat + Poultry. July 3, 2018.
3Bowman, Brittany. Drovers. November 7, 2019.
4National Provisioner. February 28, 2019.
5PR Newswire. July 20, 2018.
6Leheska et al. Journal of Animal Science. 86:3575-3585. 2008.
7Smith, Gary. Texas A&M University. October 14, 2019.
8Cross, Russell. Texas A&M University. November 2019.
9Capper, Jude. Washington State University. 2011.
10=. April 2019.
11Gerber et al. Livestock’s Long Shadow. 2006.
12Caudill, Brad. Harris Ranch Beef Company. May 2018.
13Maday, John. Bovine Veterinarian. February/March 2016.
14Henderson, Greg. Drovers. August 10, 2018.
15Hancock et al. Science. 284:49-52. 1999.
16Van Baale et al. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 70:5336-5342. 2004.
17Kijlstra et al. Journal of Food Protection. 72:2629-2674. 2008.
18Marler, Bill. Grass-Fed vs. Grain-Fed Beef And The Holy Grail. September 9, 2008.
19Reinstein et al. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 75:5421-5427. 2009.
20Consumer Reports. August 4, 2015.
21Brashears, Mindy. Texas Tech University. August 15, 2015.
22Kava, Ruth. American Council on Science and Health. 2003.
23Smith et al. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 59:207-214. 1996.
24Daley et al. [www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/](http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/). 2005.
25French et al. Journal of Animal Science. 78:2849-2855. 2000.
26Grzeskiewicz et al. Proc. Intl. Congress Meat Sci. & Technol. 47:66-67. 2001.
27Noci et al. Journal of Animal Science. 83:1167-1178. 2005.
28Poulson et al. Livestock Production Sciences. 91:117-128. 2004.
29Rule et al. Journal of Animal Science. 80:1202-1211. 2002.
30Smith, Stephen. BEEF. January 2003.
31Smith, Stephen. Animal Science Monthly. April 2016.
32Smith, Gary. Ohio Dietetics Association Convention. January 2010.
**Categories:** News
---
### [BRC Issue 8 Learnings](https://fsns.com/brc-issue-8-learnings/)
**Published:** June 11, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
We have completed the first four months of audits under BRC Issue 8 and have seen two areas that require some additional clarification.
Food safety and quality culture requirements were added to BRC Issue 8. The first step that each site must take regarding food safety and quality culture is to develop a plan to measure the culture. Once the baseline is established the site must then determine how the information will be used to drive continual improvement of the food safety and quality culture. These measured activities must cover all departments and employees of the facility that have an impact on [food safety and quality not just management](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) or not just operations. While developing activities it is important to keep in mind that the effectiveness of the activities must be measured to determine the overall effectiveness of the efforts to improve food safety and quality culture.
Another area that requires some clarification is in the section on Corrective and Preventive Actions. Issue 8 now requires a documented procedure for the completion of root cause analysis. The intent around this addition was to have sites identify one or several methods used to undertake root cause analysis, such as 5 Whys or Fishbone diagram, in their programs and then implement the use of the tools. One common issue observed during third party audits is poor root cause analysis and root causes that are not that actual cause of the problem or issue. Failure to complete an effective root cause analysis will not allow implementation of an effective preventive measure.
**Categories:** News
---
### [GFSI Benchmarking Requirements 2024: What it Means for You](https://fsns.com/gfsi-benchmarking-requirements-2024-what-it-means-for-you/)
**Published:** February 19, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Justin Derington, Director of Audit Services, FSNS Certification & Audit*
### <1-Minute Summary
- GFSI’s December 2024 update affects SQF, BRCGS Food Safety, and FSSC 22000, adding new audit criteria for food safety culture, hygienic design, and data management.
- No immediate re-certification is needed, but future audits may have stricter multi-site rules and increased transparency.
- Prepare now by monitoring updates, strengthening food safety culture, and updating compliance records.
---
## GFSI Benchmarking Requirements December 2024 Update
If your facility is certified under a GFSI-benchmarked food safety scheme like [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS Food Safety](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), or [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/), the [December 2024 update to the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements](https://mygfsi.com/news_updates/global-collaboration-enhanced-food-safety-the-benchmarking-requirements-2024-unveiled/) will affect your certification. These changes strengthen food safety and improve global alignment with international standards like [Codex Alimentarius](https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/en/) and [ISO 22003](https://www.iso.org/standard/74410.html).
## How These Changes Affect Your Certification
Your facility’s certification scheme, whether SQF, BRCGS Food Safety, FSSC 22000, or another GFSI-benchmarked scheme, will update its requirements to maintain GFSI recognition. This means…
- **New or Revised Audit Criteria** – Expect potential updates related to [food safety culture](https://fsns.com/food-safety-and-quality-culture-what-is-the-auditor-looking-for/), hygienic design, and data management.
- **Adjustments to Your Food Safety Program** – You may need to review and update training, risk assessments, and compliance documentation.
- **More Stringent Multi-Site Certification Rules** – If you operate multiple sites under one certification, oversight and audit requirements may become stricter.
## Do I Need to Get Re-Certified?
The short answer: **Not immediately**.
If you are currently [certified under a GFSI-recognized scheme](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/), your certification remains valid until your next scheduled audit. However…
- Certification Program Owners (e.g., SQFI, BRCGS, FSSC) will update their own requirements based on the new GFSI benchmark.
- When your next re-certification audit occurs, it will include updated audit criteria reflecting these GFSI changes.
- Your certification body (e.g. [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)) will provide details on any new requirements before they take effect.
For now, monitor the website of your Certification Program Owner for news about impending updates to their standards so you can stay well ahead of upcoming changes.
## Will It Be More Difficult to Pass My Next GFSI Audit?
That depends on the preparation of your site.
Some key updates in GFSI’s 2024 benchmarking requirements may affect your next audit and include the following:
### 1. Stronger Emphasis on Food Safety Culture
- Facilities must demonstrate continuous improvement in [food safety culture](https://fsns.com/food-safety-and-quality-culture-what-is-the-auditor-looking-for/) (employee training, leadership involvement, etc.).
- GFSI now requires a structured assessment of food safety culture, measuring communication, training, and performance over time.
### 2. Changes to Multi-Site Certification
- If your company operates multiple sites under one certification, GFSI has introduced stricter criteria for defining and auditing the “central function.”
- Expect more scrutiny over multi-site management, internal audits, and risk-based sampling.
### 3. Expanded Data Management & Transparency
- GFSI now requires certification program owners to track and report on the number of audits, certificates issued, and suspensions.
- This increased transparency may mean more scrutiny and stricter oversight of auditing practices.
## When Do These Changes Take Effect?
The GFSI Benchmarking Requirements (BMRs) v2024 were released in December 2024. However, Certification Program Owners (CPO) like SQF, BRCGS, and FSSC 22000 will require time to incorporate these updates into their schemes.
Here is an estimated timeline for sites; remember – this is an estimate, so monitor your CPO’s website for updates:
### Estimated Timeline for Sites
**2024** – GFSI published their new benchmarking requirements in December.
**2025-2026** – Certification Program Owners (SQF, BRCGS, FSSC, etc.) update their standards to align with GFSI.
**2026+** – Sites begin seeing the new requirements reflected in audits.
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) will notify our customers about any changes to the standards as soon as they are announced.
## What Should Your Facility Do Now?
Thankfully, GFSI and your CPO provide plenty of time to digest benchmarking requirements and prepare for scheme updates. But you can never be too prepared. Here are a few steps to ensure your site stays on top of upcoming changes:
- Follow announcements from your certification program owner (SQF, BRCGS, FSSC 22000) to understand when these changes will affect your audits.
- Focus on your Food Safety Culture Program – this is a major component of food safety today and continues to be emphasized with each new scheme update.
- Make sure your food safety records, risk assessments, and compliance documentation are up to date.
- Work with [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) to understand any new audit expectations.
## Final Takeaway: Start Preparing Now
GFSI’s BMRs v2024 update will not immediately change your certification, but it will shape future audits and compliance expectations. By staying informed and proactively adjusting your [food safety systems,](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) you can ensure a smooth transition and continued audit success.
If you need help preparing for these changes, our experts are here to assist you. [Contact us today to ensure your facility remains compliant with the latest food safety certification requirements.](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** BRCGS, Certification and audit, FSSC 22000, GFSI, SQF
---
### [Top 10 Reasons for an FSSC 22000 Audit Non-Conformity [+ Data]](https://fsns.com/top-10-reasons-for-an-fssc-22000-audit-non-conformity-data/)
**Published:** August 4, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) performs hundreds of food safety certification audits each year, including for [FSSC 22000 certification](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/). Our auditors have compiled a list of the top 10 reasons for an FSSC 22000 audit non-conformity to help you prepare for your next audit.
Below, we provide the appropriate clause and item from the FSSC 22000 code (version 5.1) for each of the top 10 non-conformities. Here’s the full list:
## 10) Management Review Input – 9.3.2
Our list of top 10 reasons for an FSSC 22000 audit non-conformity begins with management review. The clause states:
*The management review shall consider:*
1. *the status of actions from previous management reviews;*
2. *changes in external and internal issues that are relevant to the FSMS, including changes in the organization and its context (see 4.1);*
3. *information on the performance and the effectiveness of the FSMS, including trends in:*
4. *result(s) of system updating activities (see 4.4 and 10.3);*
5. *monitoring and measurement results;*
6. *analysis of the results of verification activities related to PRPs and the hazard control plan (see 8.8.2);*
7. *nonconformities and corrective actions;*
8. *audit results (internal and external);*
9. *inspections (e.g. regulatory, customer);*
10. *the performance of external providers;*
11. *the review of risks and opportunities and of the effectiveness of actions taken to address them (see 6.1);*
12. *the extent to which objectives of the FSMS have been met;*
13. *the adequacy of resources;*
14. *any emergency situation, incident (see 8.4.2), or withdrawal/recall (see 8.9.5) that occurred;*
15. *relevant information obtained through external (see 7.4.2) and internal (see 7.4.3) communication, including requests and complaints from interested parties;*
16. *opportunities for continual improvement.*
*The data shall be presented in a manner that enables top management to relate the information to stated objectives of the FSMS.*
**Common Problems:**
- Failure to include each one of the requirements in the management review to demonstrate what was determined.
Given all the requirements of this clause, it’s easy to understand why it makes the list of top non-conformities during an FSSC 22000 audit.
To avoid an observance, make sure your management review includes all the listed requirements.
## 9) Non-conformity and Corrective Action – 10.1.1
The ninth item on our list of top 10 reasons for an FSSC 22000 audit non-conformity involves non-conformities and corrective actions. The clause states:
*When a nonconformity occurs, the organization shall:*
1. *react to the non-conformity and, as applicable:*
2. *take action to control and correct it;*
3. *deal with the consequences;*
4. *evaluate the need for action to eliminate the cause(s) of the non-conformity, in order that it does not recur or occur elsewhere, by:*
- *reviewing the non-conformity;*
- *determining the causes of the non-conformity;*
- *determining if similar non-conformities exist, or could potentially occur;*
5. *implement any action needed;*
6. *review the effectiveness of any corrective action taken;*
7. *make changes to the FSMS, if necessary.*
*Corrective actions shall be appropriate to the effects of the non-conformities encountered.*
**Common Problems:**
- Not following up on corrective actions.
- Failure to verify the effectiveness of corrective actions.
- Not evaluating deviations for potential trends.
Implementing corrective actions when faced with a non-conformity is the first step, but they require follow-up to verify their effectiveness. It’s also important to evaluate your data and look for possible trends that point to a fundamental problem in need of resolution.
## 8) Leadership and Commitment – 5.1
*Top management shall demonstrate leadership and commitment with respect to the FSMS by:*
1. *ensuring that the food safety policy and the objectives of the FSMS are established and are compatible with the strategic direction of the organization;*
2. *ensuring the integration of the FSMS requirements into the organization’s business processes;*
3. *ensuring that the resources needed for the FSMS are available;*
4. *communicating the importance of effective food safety management and conforming to the FSMS requirements, applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and mutually agreed customer requirements related to food safety;*
5. *ensuring that the FSMS is evaluated and maintained to achieve its intended result(s) (see 4.1);*
6. *directing and supporting persons to contribute to the effectiveness of the FSMS;*
7. *promoting continual improvement;*
8. *supporting other relevant management roles to demonstrate their leadership as it applies to their areas of responsibility.*
**Common Problems:**
- Employee feedback processes not incorporated to evaluate and improve [food safety culture](https://fsns.com/developing-a-strong-food-safety-culture/).
- The [Food Safety Management System](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) did not incorporate expectations regarding food safety culture.
[FSSC offers a helpful guidance document that outlines its expectations for developing a strong food safety culture](https://www.fssc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FSSC-22000-Guidance-Document-Food-Safety-Culture-_Version-5.1.pdf). Look it over to help strengthen your organization’s commitment to safety and as part of your preparation for an audit.
Make sure your process includes provisions for not only gathering employee feedback about your culture, but methods of incorporating it to improve the overall culture.
## 7) Traceability – 8.3
*The traceability system shall be able to uniquely identify incoming material from the suppliers and the first stage of the distribution route of the end product. When establishing and implementing the traceability system, the following shall be considered as a minimum:*
1. *relation of lots of received materials, ingredients, and intermediate products to the end products;*
2. *reworking of materials/products;*
3. *distribution of the end product.*
*The organization shall ensure that applicable statutory, regulatory, and customer requirements are identified. Documented information as evidence of the traceability system shall be retained for a defined period to include, as a minimum, the shelf-life of the product. The organization shall verify and test the effectiveness of the traceability system.*
*NOTE: Where appropriate, the verification of the system is expected to include the reconciliation of quantities of end products with the quantity of ingredients as evidence of effectiveness.*
**Common Problems:**
- Traceability/Recall program did not include requirement for communicating with the certification body.
- Issues with traceability activities.
- Raw material lot numbers not properly documented.
- Amount of product produced not documented to allow for reconciliation.
## 6) Internal Structures and Fittings – 5.3
1. *Process area walls and floors shall be washable or cleanable, as appropriate for the process or product hazard. Materials of construction shall be resistant to the cleaning system applied.*
2. *Wall floor junctions and corners shall be designed to facilitate cleaning.*
3. *It is recommended that wall floor junctions be rounded in processing areas.*
4. *Floors shall be designed to avoid standing water.*
5. *In wet process areas, floors shall be sealed and drained. Drains shall be trapped and covered.*
6. *Ceilings and overhead fixtures shall be designed to minimize build-up of dirt and condensation.*
7. *External opening windows, roof vents or fan, where present, shall be insect screened.*
8. *External opening doors shall be closed or screened when not in use.*
**Common Problems:**
- Dock doors
- Condensation
- Peeling caulking
- Unsealed floors
Potential contamination can come from just about anywhere, including condensation dripping from an overhead line, peeling caulk or paint, rust flakes, peeling tape, and other sources. Improperly sealed dock doors and floors are another common observance our auditors find.
Read this clause closely and make sure your facilities meet the requirements.
## 5) Internal Audits – 9.2.2
*The organization shall:*
1. *plan, establish, implement and maintain (an) audit program(s), including the frequency, methods, responsibilities, planning requirements and reporting, which shall take into consideration the importance of the processes concerned, changes in the FSMS, and the results of monitoring, measurement and previous audits;*
2. *define the audit criteria and scope for each audit;*
3. *select competent auditors and conduct audits to ensure objectivity and the impartiality of the audit process;*
4. *ensure that the results of the audits are reported to the food safety team and relevant management;*
5. *retain documented information as evidence of the implementation of the audit program and the audit results;*
6. *make the necessary correction and take the necessary corrective action within the agreed time frame;*
7. *determine if the FSMS meets the intent of the food safety policy (see 5.2) and objectives of the FSMS (see 6.2).*
*Follow-up activities by the organization shall include the verification of the actions taken and the reporting of the verification results.*
**Common Problems:**
- Failure to take corrective actions for findings identified in internal audits.
- Lack of evidence demonstrating that findings had been verified upon closure.
Internal audits are a big part of any food safety certification platform to help assess your organization’s performance. Those audits mean little, however, if you fail to take corrective actions based on the findings and to provide evidence that you verified those solutions.
Our [FSSC 22000 Audit Checklist](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-fssc-22000-checklist) can help ensure your facility doesn’t receive any of the non-conformities on this list.[](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-fssc-22000-checklist)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/cfff9de0-0057-4811-b471-7814de63e541)## 4) Selection and Management of Suppliers – 9.2
The #4 item on our list of top 10 reasons for an FSSC 22000 audit non-conformity involves your suppliers:
*There shall be a defined process for the selection, approval, and monitoring of suppliers. The process used shall be justified by hazard assessment, including the potential risk to the final product, and shall include:*
1. *assessment of the supplier’s ability to meet quality and food safety expectations, requirements, and specifications;*
2. *description of how suppliers are assessed; NOTE: Examples of a description of how suppliers are assessed include:*
- *audit of the supplying site prior to accepting materials for production;*
- *appropriate third-party certification.*
3. *monitoring the performance of the supplier to assure continued approval status.*
*NOTE: Monitoring includes conformity with material or product specifications, fulfilment of COA requirements, satisfactory audit outcomes.*
**Common Problems:**
- List of approved suppliers was either not being used or was not in place.
- Failure to have evidence to provide the auditor demonstrating that GFSI certification was obtained by suppliers.
- Lack of evidence supporting supplier monitoring had occurred.
As food fraud issues increase, assessing and verifying your suppliers takes on added importance. Following the directives in this clause will help strengthen your supplier program and improve [food safety standards](https://fsns.com/food-safety-standards-guide/).
## 3) Documentation Information Creating and Updating – 7.5.2
*When creating and updating documented information, the organization shall ensure appropriate:*
1. *identification and description (e.g. a title, date, author, or reference number);*
2. *format (e.g. language, software version, graphics) and media (e.g. paper, electronic);*
3. *review and approval for suitability and adequacy.*
**Common Problems:**
- Failure to follow document control policies. Not including author, date, and revision as detailed in the site’s policy.
- Not including all applicable policies in the FSMS document system (i.e. supplier approval).
Number 3 on our list of top 10 reasons for an FSSC 22000 audit non-conformity is related to one of the most ubiquitous food safety certification requirements: documentation.
You can’t work in the food safety industry long without realizing the importance of documenting everything. As the clause states, you must ensure your documentation includes all the required information to avoid an observance during your next audit.
## 2) Preventive and Corrective Maintenance – 8.6
Number 2 on our list of top 10 reasons for an FSSC 22000 audit non-conformity covers your facility’s maintenance program:
*A preventive maintenance program shall be in place. The preventive maintenance program shall include all devices used to monitor and/or control food safety hazards. NOTE: Examples of such devices include screens and filters (including air filters), magnets, metal detectors, and X-ray detectors.*
1. *Corrective maintenance shall be carried out in such a way that production on adjoining lines or equipment Is not at risk of contamination.*
2. *Maintenance requests that impact product safety shall be given priority.*
3. *Temporary fixes shall not put product safety at risk. A request for replacement by a permanent repair shall be included in the maintenance schedule.*
4. *Lubricants and heat transfer fluids shall be food grade where there is a risk of direct or indirect contact with the product.*
5. *The procedure for releasing maintained equipment back to production shall include clean up, sanitizing, where specified in process sanitation procedures, and pre-use inspection.*
6. *Local area PRP requirements shall apply to maintenance areas and maintenance activities in process areas. Maintenance personnel shall be trained in the product hazards associated with their activities.*
**Common Problems:**
- Temporary repairs.
- Not verifying areas were clean following maintenance repairs.
One of the most common observances our auditors cite is temporary repairs that go unresolved for too long. As the clause indicates, temporary repairs are acceptable – provided they don’t jeopardize food safety and there is an adjoining maintenance request for a permanent repair in your maintenance schedule.
Also, make sure to verify and document that the affected area was properly cleaned following maintenance work.
## 1) Competence – 7.2
We have arrived at #1 on our list of the top 10 reasons for an FSSC 22000 audit non-conformity – Competence. The FSSC 22000 code (version 5.1) states:
*The organization shall:*
1. *determine the necessary competence of person(s), including external providers, doing work under its control that affects its food safety performance and effectiveness of the FSMS;*
2. *ensure that these persons, including the food safety team and those responsible for the operation of the hazard control plan, are competent on the basis of appropriate education, training and/or experience;*
3. *ensure that the food safety team has a combination of multi-disciplinary knowledge and experience in developing and implementing the FSMS (including, but not limited to, the organization’s products, processes, equipment and food safety hazards within the scope of the FSMS);*
4. *where applicable, take actions to acquire the necessary competence, and evaluate the effectiveness of the actions taken;*
5. *retain appropriate documented information as evidence of competence.*
*NOTE Applicable actions can include, for example, the provision of training to, the mentoring of, or the re-assignment of currently employed persons; or the hiring or contracting of competent persons.*
**Common Problems:**
- Not evaluating the effectiveness of training completed.
- Not including all topics outlined in 7.2 (i.e. food defense).
- Failure to have a process in place for evaluating competency.
A [food safety management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) is vital to producing food safely, but it does little good if the people involved lack the necessary education, training, or experience. FSSC 22000 requires your organization to ensure competency of everyone involved.
One effective way to achieve that goal is through ongoing [FSSC 22000 and food safety training](https://fsns.com/resources/education/), such as the courses available through FSNS.
## The Top 10 Reasons for an FSSC 22000 Audit Non-Conformity: Recap
Being aware of these top 10 reasons for an FSSC 22000 audit non-conformity can be invaluable in preparing for your next audit. Ensure everyone involved with your [food safety management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) is competent and trained, management has reviewed all required information, and your team properly addresses non-conformities.
Remember, these insights are drawn from common problems we’ve observed during audits, but each facility has unique challenges. Use this information to reach higher standards and help avoid non-conformities in future FSSC 22000 audits.
[Reach out to our certification and audit experts with questions or to schedule your next FSSC 22000 audit](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-lp).
**Categories:** General
---
### [How to Prepare for a GMP Audit in the Food Industry](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-a-gmp-audit-in-the-food-industry/)
**Published:** August 8, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Kaci Foote, Accreditation Manager, FSNS Certification & Audit*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Many food and beverage manufacturers pursue GMP certification to grow their business or satisfy customer requirements.
- First, make sure your facility is registered with the appropriate regulatory agency – FDA, USDA, or both – before the audit. Unregistered facilities automatically fail.
- Confirm that a GMP audit meets your needs. Some customers may want you to meet additional requirements best provided by a GFSI audit (like SQF or BRCGS).
- Use a GMP checklist to perform a self-assessment and close any compliance gaps prior to your official GMP audit.
- Once ready, schedule your audit and prepare to receive your final report.
## Why GMP Audits Matter
Generally, two different types of customers contact our Certification & Audit team about a GMP audit:
1. Those that have been making food products for years without a hitch, but suddenly a potential new customer asks them for [Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) certification](https://fsns.com/gmp-audits-food-industry-guide/).
2. New companies that want to achieve GMP certification right away to build trust with future clients.
Either way, GMP certification is a key milestone for many facilities since it provides **third-party proof** that your facility meets industry standards for food safety, helping you access new markets.
But before [scheduling your audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/), follow these steps to help ensure you’re ready to pass.
## 1. Register with the Right Regulatory Authority
Step one is to make sure your facility is legally registered with the appropriate regulatory agency.
- **FDA** oversees most food facilities.
- **USDA** covers meat, poultry, and egg products.
- **Dual jurisdiction** facilities need to register with both.
**If you’re not registered, your GMP audit will result in an automatic failure.** This is one of the first questions our team will ask new audit prospects. The last thing we want is for you to go through the process only to fail due to an easily addressed oversight.
## 2. Confirm That a GMP Audit Meets Your Needs
Once we’ve confirmed proper registration, we’ll ask another important question:
**Are you confident that GMP certification will meet your needs?**
While a cost-effective entry point into the work of food safety certification, GMP certification is not always sufficient. Some large retailers or distributors require certification to a more robust GFSI-recognized standard, such as…
- [SQF (Safe Quality Food)](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/)
- [BRCGS (Brand Reputation Compliance Global Standards)](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/)
- [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/)
Before you commit time and money to preparing for a GMP audit, ask your customer what certification they require. Don’t waste time preparing for the wrong one.
We help walk you through [which GFSI certification may be right for your business here](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/).
## **3. Use a Checklist and Perform a Gap Assessment**
With those two requirements handled, it’s time to assess your audit readiness. Start by requesting the right checklist:
- Use a [**standard GMP audit checklist**](https://info.fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-gmp-checklist), or
- Request a **customer-specific checklist** if you’re preparing for an audit tied to a buyer like Whole Foods or Costco.
FSNS Certification & Audit offers a [complimentary GMP Audit Checklist for this purpose](https://info.fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-gmp-checklist).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/37959b00-f4be-4492-9f4d-6208f32a4d58)Use the checklist to conduct a self-assessment to identify areas that need improvement. Working with facilities that are new to this process, we often find common red flags around the facility, such as…
- **Worn or uncleanable surfaces**: Rusted equipment, wooden cutting boards and utensils, and harborage sites violate GMP standards.
- **Poor facility flow or traffic control**: For example, going from a processing area to a retail counter without changing gloves or aprons creates cross-contamination risk.
- **No traceability system**: Run a mock recall to test your ability to trace ingredients and finished products.
- **Inadequate cleaning or pest control programs**: These are foundational to a safe facility, meaning you must develop Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) if you don’t have them.
Your goal in this step is to find the gaps, develop SOPs and corrective actions, and implement them before the audit.
## 4. Train Your Team on GMP Basics
If your team has been doing things the same way for years, this step can be the most challenging. It’s difficult to instill new habits, but your staff must understand GMPs and be trained to follow them before you can pass an audit. It’s common for the auditor to talk to workers during a GMP audit to gauge their understanding of food safety and their specific role.
Review the GMPs outlined in the regulations that apply to your facility:
- **FDA-regulated food facilities** must follow GMPs outlined in [21 CFR Part 117, Subpart B](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/part-117/subpart-B).
- **USDA-regulated establishments** must comply with sanitation regulations under [9 CFR Part 416](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-E/part-416).
A few common non-compliances we see, especially at facilities that are new to food safety certification, include…
- **Jewelry** worn in processing areas, which can fall into and contaminate food.
- **Failure to wear PPE**, such as gloves, aprons, and hairnets.
- **Failure to change gloves or aprons** when moving between zones (e.g., from back-of-house to retail counter).
Doing things differently is frequently a challenge, but it’s critical for [food safety and passing an audit](https://fsns.com/gmp-audits-food-industry-guide/).
## 5. Conduct a Final Self-Audit
Before you bring in an auditor, conduct a rigorous walk-through of your facility. Be brutally honest:
- Are your written programs being followed?
- Do your SOPs match what’s happening on the floor?
- Are corrective actions being documented and resolved?
Some facilities use AI or boilerplate templates to write their food safety plans. While a good start, those documents are often too general and fail to capture the unique practices of your facility. Your plan must describe operations at your facility, and your team’s activities must be reflected in your plan. As the saying goes…
“Do what you say, say what you do.”
## 6. Schedule Your Audit
Once you’ve confirmed your readiness, schedule your GMP audit. The auditing body will give you details about:
- Required documentation
- Expected duration
- Scope of the audit
Allow enough lead time to make final adjustments and communicate with your team about the big day.
## 7. After the Audit: The Final Report
After the audit, you’ll receive a detailed report outlining your facility’s performance. This may include:
- **Conformities**: What you did well
- **Non-conformities**: What needs correction
Once you’ve addressed any issues and closed corrective actions, your certification process is complete. You can provide your final report to the customer to demonstrate your GMP certification!
Preparing for a GMP audit can feel like a burden, especially if you’ve been in business for years without GMP certification. But passing your audit confirms your adherence to GMPs and helps build trust with your customers.
[If you need help preparing or are ready to schedule a GMP audit, our team is happy to help.](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-lp?utm_source=CG&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** Certification and audit, food and beverage, Food safety, GMP
---
### [Phil Gillespie Named Chief Financial Officer of Certified Group ](https://fsns.com/phil-gillespie-named-chief-financial-officer-of-certified-group/)
**Published:** September 8, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
## **New CFO to Support Company’s Growth and TIC Market Expansion**
**SAN ANTONIO, Texas – Sept. 8, 2025** – Certified Group today announced the appointment of **Phil Gillespie as Chief Financial Officer (CFO)**. With more than 30 years of experience in corporate finance, Mr. Gillespie brings extensive leadership across the healthcare, consumer products, and industrial chemicals sectors, further strengthening the company’s world-class executive team.
Previously CFO of Polytek Development Corporation, Mr. Gillespie guided the company through its post-pandemic recovery, driving significant improvements in cash flow and profitability. His expertise in long-term capital strategy and deep experience with both private and public investors uniquely positions him to help lead Certified Group into its next phase of growth and transformation.
**[Read More](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/phil-gillespie-named-chief-financial-officer-of-certified-group-302547882.html)**
**Categories:** News, Press Release
---
### [5 Tips for Successful Implementation of HACCP](https://fsns.com/5-tips-for-successful-implementation-of-haccp/)
**Published:** August 1, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
For those in the food industry, the successful implementation of [HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points)](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) is paramount to ensure the safety and quality of food products.
HACCP’s systematic approach, from raw material procurement to consumption, is internationally recognized as an effective way to prevent food contamination and ensure consumer safety. However, navigating the complexities of HACCP implementation can be daunting.
From dedicated personnel and comprehensive planning to the necessary infrastructure and continuous training, every aspect presents a unique challenge. As with any significant undertaking, a weak link in the chain can lead to failure.
This guide explores common obstacles to successful implementation of HACCP and how you can overcome them.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/56cd1387-3858-49b1-90d2-68eb6a0df65c)## Challenges to Successful Implementation of HACCP
### 1. Incomplete or Inaccurate Hazard Analysis
Identifying all potential hazards and critical control points, accurately assessing their severity and likelihood of occurrence, and correctly developing the HACCP flow diagram are challenging aspects of HACCP implementation that can lead to inadequate control measures.
Shortcuts in these steps may result in missing hazard identifications, thereby compromising the HACCP plan’s effectiveness.
**Strategies for Successful HACCP Implementation:**
- **Comprehensive Expertise:** Assign individuals knowledgeable about HACCP principles and the food manufacturing process to conduct the hazard analysis. They should be able to discern “critical” contamination points and establish specific controls to prevent or reduce risks.
- **Use a Decision Tree:** To better determine critical control points, use a decision tree to visualize the sequence of events where risks can occur. [FDA has a helpful HACCP decision tree example on its website here](https://www.fda.gov/food/hazard-analysis-critical-control-point-haccp/haccp-principles-application-guidelines#app-e).
- **Develop Prerequisite Programs:** Develop programs like Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) to minimize the likelihood of hazards and contamination risks.
- **Robust Supplier Approval Program:** Implement a strong supplier approval program to evaluate your suppliers’ HACCP practices. Regularly conduct audits to verify the safety and quality of incoming materials.
- **Documentation and Assessment:** Ensure accurate documentation during the hazard analysis phase. It’s a crucial step to the successful implementation of HACCP at your facility.
*Use a HACCP decision tree, like this one, to help determine Critical Control Points and successfully implement HACCP at your facility.*### 2. Lack of Employee Training
Without proper [employee HACCP training](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/), successful HACCP implementation may be compromised. Employees need to understand HACCP principles and the significance of identifying problems proactively.
**Solutions**
- **Regular Training:** Establish regular training programs to ensure all employees understand HACCP principles and how to execute an effective [food safety management system](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/).
- **Monitoring:** Individuals tasked with monitoring should be adequately trained, unbiased, and accurate in their reporting. They should also be trained in procedures to address any trend toward loss of control.
- **Meticulous Records:** Keep detailed training records for inspection and outbreak investigation purposes.
- **Fostering a Food Safety Culture:** Cultivate a culture of food safety across all levels of the organization to ensure successful HACCP implementation.
### 3. Insufficient Documentation
Lack of adequate documentation can lead to inconsistent practices, difficulty in tracking efforts, and evaluating the effectiveness of critical control points. From a regulatory perspective, if it isn’t documented, it didn’t happen.
**Solutions**
- **Clear Procedures:** Establish clear and standardized procedures for documenting HACCP plans, monitoring records, and corrective actions. These records should also include employee training programs.
- **Regular Reviews:** Conduct regular reviews of documented procedures and collected data to ensure accuracy, relevance, and trend identification.
- **Detailed Recordkeeping:** Keep detailed daily records and CCP monitoring records to ensure you meet regulatory requirements and enhance food safety.
### 4. Limited Resources and Time Constraints
The successful implementation of HACCP requires substantial resources, including time, personnel, and finances. Many companies struggle to allocate these resources adequately, resulting in insufficient HACCP implementation.
**Solutions**
- **Cost Evaluation:** Consider both direct and indirect costs associated with HACCP implementation. Costs may include training, hazard analysis, equipment upgrades, and changes in production lines or workspaces.
- **Long-term Investment:** See HACCP plan development as a long-term investment. It can prevent costly foodborne illnesses, reduce product recalls, enhance customer trust, and ensure regulatory compliance.
- **Collaborations and Outsourcing:** Collaborate with regulatory bodies, industry associations, and consultants to overcome resource constraints. Consider outsourcing certain processes like validation testing to [ease in-house testing costs and challenges](https://fsns.com/8-hidden-costs-of-in-house-lab-testing/).
## [](https://fsns.com/8-hidden-costs-of-in-house-lab-testing/)5. Lack of Continuous Monitoring and Verification
HACCP implementation requires constant monitoring and verification to remain effective. The plan must be reassessed at least annually and whenever changes occur that could affect the hazard analysis or alter the HACCP plan.
**Solutions**
- **Regular Audits:** Conduct regular audits, inspections, and internal reviews to assess the effectiveness of HACCP systems. Implement feedback and corrective actions promptly based on monitoring results.
- **Timely Testing:** While [microbiological testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) may provide crucial data, more immediate feedback can be obtained through monitoring CCPs via physical and chemical tests like temperature, time, pH, and moisture level measurements.
- **HACCP Plan Review:** Whenever there is a change in the product, process, or equipment, the HACCP plan should be reviewed. The plan should also be reviewed in case of incidents related to food safety, such as illnesses, product recalls, or customer complaints.
- **Stay Updated:** Keep abreast of changes in regulatory requirements or industry standards. Incorporate any changes into the HACCP plan to ensure ongoing adherence to the latest guidelines and regulations.
## Expert Help for Successful HACCP Implementation
While the successful implementation of HACCP is challenging, the rewards far outweigh the hurdles. It’s not just about compliance but about contributing to a safer food industry.
For those seeking to enhance their HACCP implementation strategies, [EAS Consulting Group, A Certified Group Company, offers thorough HACCP audits and expert consulting](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/auditing/).
Looking to bolster your team’s HACCP knowledge? [Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) offers comprehensive HACCP education and training](https://fsns.com/resources/edu/) to ensure you stay ahead of the curve. Our experts can help you turn challenges into stepping stones for success. Get in touch today.
**Categories:** General
---
### [How to Create a Food Defense Plan ](https://fsns.com/how-to-create-a-food-defense-plan/)
**Published:** November 19, 2024
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Tim Lombardo, Senior Director, Food Consulting Services,* [*EAS Consulting Group*](https://easconsultinggroup.com/)*, a* [*Certified Group*](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) *company.*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Food defense is the protection of the food supply from intentional contamination.
- FDA [21 CFR 121](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-121) (Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration) mandates that food manufacturers develop a food defense plan.
- Requirements include a vulnerability assessment and actionable process steps (APS), if needed. And then, if one or more APS are identified, there are further requirements for mitigation strategies, monitoring, corrective actions, and verification.
- Several tools exist to help perform a vulnerability assessment to identify gaps in your processes.
- Ongoing monitoring and revision of your food defense system is required to stay current with emerging threats.
---
## Understanding and Implementing Your Food Defense Plan
While most food safety and quality assurance professionals understand the importance of food defense, creating a robust food defense plan is where many challenges arise.
To meet regulatory expectations, particularly those outlined in [21 CFR 121](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-121) of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) – the “[Mitigation Strategies to Protect Against Intentional Adulteration](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-121),” or IA, rule – a well-defined food defense strategy is vital.
This article explores what food defense encompasses, why it’s necessary, and how to develop an effective plan to safeguard your operations.
## Compliance with Regulations and Standards
Let’s take a closer look at the regulations first.
The Intentional Adulteration Rule, mentioned above, mandates that businesses develop and maintain a food defense plan.
[21 CFR 121.126](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-121.126) states:
1. **Requirement for a food defense plan.** You must prepare, or have prepared, and implement a written food defense plan.
The regulations also define the content of your food defense plan, which must include…
- The written vulnerability assessment, including required explanations, to identify significant vulnerabilities and actionable process steps.
- The written mitigation strategies, including required explanations.
- The written procedures for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation strategies.
- The written procedures for food defense corrective actions.
- The written procedures for food defense verification.
Failure to meet these regulatory obligations can lead to severe consequences, including substantial fines, mandatory recalls, legal action, and damage to a company’s reputation. Non-compliance also increases the risk of unaddressed vulnerabilities, potentially leading to intentional contamination that could harm consumers and disrupt operations.
## What is Food Defense?
With an understanding of the regulatory requirements, now we can dive into your food defense program, starting with the basics – What is food defense?
**Food defense is the protection of the food supply from intentional contamination.**
Unlike food safety, which focuses on preventing unintentional contamination from sources like pathogens or spoilage organisms, food defense emphasizes protecting against deliberate acts meant to harm consumers or disrupt supply chains.
History has shown that these threats are not just theoretical. For example, in 2018, Australia faced a significant food-tampering crisis when [sewing needles were discovered embedded in strawberries across multiple states](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-45519888).
This malicious act led to widespread public fear, substantial financial losses for farmers, and a nationwide recall of the fruit. The incident underscores the critical importance of robust food defense measures to protect consumers and maintain trust in the food supply chain.
## What Does an Effective Food Defense Program Accomplish?
A well-executed food defense program accomplishes several crucial goals:
- Safeguards the public by helping to prevent intentional contamination.
- Protects a company’s brand and consumer trust.
- Ensures compliance with regulatory requirements to avoid penalties.
- Reduces the risk of costly recalls and potential legal action.
## How to Create a Food Defense Plan
As the regulations state, a *written* food defense plan is required, which means it’s not enough simply to engage in various activities that help prevent intentional economically motivated adulteration or [food fraud](https://fsns.com/what-is-food-fraud/) – you need to clearly document your plan and maintain it in writing. Here’s how to get started.
### Step 1: Conduct a Vulnerability Assessment
This step is crucial for identifying the most susceptible points within your supply chain and facility.
Vulnerability assessments can include a site audit from food safety experts who can help identify gaps where vulnerabilities to adulteration could occur. [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) company, includes several former FDA personnel who can perform a site audit.
You can also use digital tools, like our [Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment tool](https://fsns.com/how-to-conduct-a-food-fraud-vulnerability-assessment-free-checklist/), to help identify gaps in your supply chain and processes.
[](https://info.fsns.com/food-fraud-checklist?utm_source=fsns&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=food%20defense)Additionally, risk evaluations using tools like [CARVER + Shock](https://www.fda.gov/food/food-defense-initiatives/carver-shock-primer) are also a good idea. This method evaluates key factors, including…
- Criticality (the public health and economic impact)
- Accessibility (ease of physical access)
- Recuperability (ability to recover from an attack)
- Vulnerability (ease of executing an attack)
- Effect (loss resulting from an attack)
- Recognizability (ease of identifying the target)
The FDA offers its [Food Defense Plan Builder](https://www.fda.gov/food/food-defense-tools/food-defense-plan-builder), which is a digital tool that requires downloading and installing on your computer.
The gaps uncovered during the vulnerability assessment are as diverse as the products and facilities being assessed, but here are a few possibilities to help illustrate the point:
- **Inadequate Access Control:** Insufficient security measures at key entry points, allowing unauthorized individuals to access sensitive areas, such as production zones or ingredient storage.
- **Limited Surveillance Coverage:** Surveillance cameras or monitoring systems may not cover critical areas, such as loading docks, where materials enter or exit, creating blind spots for potential tampering.
- **Poor Employee Screening and Training:** A lack of thorough background checks for employees or contractors and insufficient training on recognizing and responding to suspicious behavior.
- **Weak Recordkeeping Practices:** Inadequate documentation of monitoring activities, corrective actions, and inspections can prevent a facility from meeting FDA documentation requirements and hinder audits.
- **Vulnerable Packaging and Labeling:** Packaging that is not tamper-evident or lacks secure labeling, increasing the risk of undetected contamination or adulteration in the final product.
Which tool or tools you use depends on the size and scope of your operation, in addition to the vulnerability of your products to adulteration. For some sites, an audit plus an evaluation using a digital assessment tool may be sufficient. For large, complex organizations, all the tools mentioned may be needed.
If you need help, the experts at [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/) have designed food defense plans for several sites across multiple industries, so please contact them with questions.
### Step 2: Develop Mitigation Strategies
Once vulnerabilities are identified, implement practical measures to prevent or reduce risks, such as…
- Secure access to sensitive areas by using biometric access controls or keycard systems to limit entry to authorized personnel.
- Use tamper-evident packaging to provide a clear indication of unauthorized access or tampering.
- Enhance surveillance by installing CCTV systems with remote monitoring capabilities to cover critical points such as entryways, production lines, and storage areas.
- Consider adding layered security measures like motion detectors and alarms for added protection.
Tailor these strategies to the specific needs of your facility, such as higher surveillance for high-value products or more stringent access control in areas handling allergenic or sensitive ingredients.
### Step 3: Implement Monitoring Procedures
Once measures are implemented, ensure you monitor their effectiveness over time. This includes routine inspections, checks, and verification to confirm they are functioning as designed.
Use technology-driven tools like automated monitoring systems and digital dashboards to track data in real-time and promptly flag anomalies.
Incorporate periodic third-party audits for an unbiased review of your procedures and reinforce internal protocols through scheduled mock scenarios or drills.
These steps will help maintain a resilient and responsive food defense strategy.
### Step 4: Train Your Team
A well-informed team is a critical part of any food defense plan. Regular training sessions should be conducted to teach staff how to recognize suspicious activities and respond appropriately. Ensuring employees are aware of their roles and responsibilities promotes a culture of vigilance.
FSNS offers several [food safety training courses](https://fsns.com/resources/edu/) to help train your team. You can also monitor the [EAS Consulting Group training](https://easconsultinggroup.com/events/seminars/) and [webinar schedules](https://easconsultinggroup.com/events/webinars/) for training opportunities. Or, if you would like an in-house customized food defense course conducted for your team, [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/) can assist.
### Step 5: Maintain and Update the Plan
A food defense plan should be dynamic, evolving with new threats and regulatory changes. Writing a comprehensive food defense plan and maintaining it are crucial for ensuring that all procedures are well-documented and easily accessible for audits or inspections.
Consistent recordkeeping is essential, particularly to meet FDA requirements, which mandate thorough documentation to demonstrate compliance. Schedule regular reviews and updates to adapt to emerging risks, incorporate lessons learned, and ensure ongoing adherence to current regulations.
This continuous approach helps maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the plan over time.
## Food Defense Plan Example
It helps to see an example of the contents of a food defense plan when writing your own plan. Here is an example using a common vulnerability identified using the Carver + Shock method mentioned above:
**Vulnerability:** Unauthorized access at the loading dock.
**Description:** The loading dock is a critical point for incoming raw materials and outgoing finished products. Due to its location and level of activity, it presents a risk for unauthorized access, which could lead to intentional adulteration or contamination of food products.
**Assessment Details:**
- **Criticality:** High – The loading dock is a main entry point for materials, posing a high risk to product safety if contaminated.
- **Accessibility:** Moderate – The area is accessible from outside the building but generally monitored by staff during active hours.
- **Recuperability:** Moderate – Recovery from a contamination event here could require extensive product recalls.
- **Vulnerability:** High – High volume of activity at the dock creates opportunities for unauthorized individuals to access the area undetected.
- **Effect:** Severe – A contamination event at this stage would affect a large volume of products.
- **Recognizability:** High – The loading dock is clearly marked, making it an identifiable target.
### Mitigation Strategies
**Access Control:**
- Implement a keycard access system for dock entry to restrict access to authorized personnel only.
- Ensure dock doors are closed when not actively loading or unloading.
**Surveillance:**
- Install CCTV cameras covering the loading dock and entrances.
- Review camera footage daily and flag any unusual activity.
**Employee Training and Awareness:**
- Train staff on the importance of food defense and reporting suspicious behavior.
- Display “Authorized Personnel Only” signs prominently at the loading dock entrance.
**Visitor Protocols:**
- Require all visitors to sign in at the front office and receive an escort to the loading dock if access is needed.
**Monitoring Procedures:**
- Weekly Access Audit: Review access logs to verify that only authorized personnel accessed the loading dock.
- Daily CCTV Review: Designated personnel review surveillance footage each morning to ensure no unauthorized activity occurred overnight.
- Monthly Vulnerability Assessment Review: Re-assess the loading dock’s security measures and update protocols if needed.
**Corrective Actions (if Vulnerability Detected):**
- Immediately secure the loading dock area if unauthorized access is detected.
- Conduct a product inspection to ensure there has been no tampering or contamination.
- Notify food defense team lead and document the incident.
- Implement additional controls if a security gap is identified.
**Verification and Validation:**
- Internal Audit Frequency: Quarterly internal audits by the food defense team to validate the effectiveness of access control and surveillance measures.
- Training Review: Conduct refresher training on food defense for loading dock staff every six months.
**Recordkeeping and Documentation:**
- Access Logs: Retain records of keycard access for at least one year.
- CCTV Footage: Store footage for a minimum of 30 days or as required by company policy.
- Audit Reports: Document findings and corrective actions from quarterly audits and keep on file for FDA inspection readiness.
## Need Help Creating a Food Defense Plan?
Developing and maintaining a comprehensive food defense plan is essential but complex. Assessing vulnerabilities, implementing strategies, and ensuring compliance can be challenging. Proper documentation and regular updates are key for meeting FDA requirements and preventing intentional contamination.
Partnering with experts like [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/) can simplify this process, ensuring your plan is thorough, compliant, and adaptable to changing risks, ultimately protecting your business and consumers.
[Contact EAS Consulting Group now to discuss your food defense system.](https://easconsultinggroup.com/)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [A Brief History of Governmental Oversight of Food Safety & Protection of Public Health](https://fsns.com/a-brief-history-of-governmental-oversight-of-food-safety-protection-of-public-health/)
**Published:** November 7, 2024
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*By Gary Smith and Keith Belk, Colorado State University*
In 1906, the Meat Inspection Act (MIA) assigned responsibility for food-safety oversight of meat from cattle, swine, sheep, and goats to the USDA; since then, the MIA was expanded to cover poultry, egg products, and catfish, but it does not cover milk, eggs, or milk products.1 MIA is administered by the [Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS)](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/) and covers products in interstate and foreign commerce. Some States have “equivalent to federal MIA” programs.1
Also in 1906, the Food and Drug Act assigned responsibility for safety of “all other foods” to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) of USDHHS.2 The FDA has regulatory authority over milk, milk products, eggs, fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts plus wild animal meat, fish, and game that are in interstate and foreign commerce.2
In 1982, because neither FSIS-USDA nor FDA-USDHHS have intrastate commerce jurisdiction, FDA developed the Food Code to help Local and State Health Departments set uniform food-safety standards.3 The Food Code is updated every two years at the National Conference on Food Protection.3
## Methods of Food Safety Oversight by FSIS and FDA
Food-safety oversight by FSIS-USDA, FDA-USDHHS, and State/Local Health Departments (SLHD) can include…
1. Visual inspection of cleanliness of processing, holding, and conveyance equipment/facilities (FSIS, FDA, SLHD).
2. Constant visual inspection during all processing (FSIS and some SLHDs).
3. Periodic [chemical](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) and/or [microbiological testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) of raw materials, environments, and finished products (FSIS, FDA, and some SLHDs).
4. Notifications of the public that certain food products are potentially or actually dangerous or unsafe (FSIS, FDA, and some SLHDs).1,2,3
Food-safety oversight for food products entering the USA from foreign sources is the responsibility of FSIS and the FDA, and consists only of…
1. Visual inspection of cleanliness of conveyance equipment/facilities.
2. Periodic [chemical](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) and/or [microbiological testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) of raw materials, environments, and finished products.
3. Notifications of the public that certain food products are potentially or actually dangerous or unsafe.1,2,4
## Early Concerns and Inspections in Food Safety
In 1906, we were concerned about filth; dirt; vermin; hair; worms in apples; weevils in grain; spoilage during storage; pus/feces/urine on or in animal-sourced foods; and cross-species transfers of tapeworms, parasites, and disease-causing microorganisms (e.g., *Brucella abortus*, *Mycobacterium tuberculosis*).5,6
FSIS oversight of safety for the food it regulates was largely centered on “during processing/before entering commerce.”6 Prior to and during processing and holding, government inspectors discarded unsanitary or unhealthful foods based solely on things they saw or smelled.6 Some histological testing was performed to detect parasites in meat (e.g., *Cysticercus bovis*, *Trichinella spiralis*).
Some [chemical testing](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) was done, not for safety but for adulteration (e.g., excess water, fat, or fillers).6 Some [microbiological testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) was done (e.g., survival of pathogens in inadequately pasteurized milk).6
## Evolution of Food Safety Standards and FSMA
Prior to passage of the [Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)](https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma) in January, 2011, there were some disparities between the FSIS vs. FDA methodologies regarding oversight.4 FSMA gave FDA approval to make certain corrections (e.g., adding [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/)-like criteria to their Food Safety Plans).5 FDA’s introduction of Preventive Controls For Human Foods (PCHF) has greatly improved the safety of our nation’s food supply.
Much has changed in the 117 years since passage of the Meat Inspection and Food and Drug Acts. There is much closer scrutiny of the cleanliness of workers, facilities, and equipment; more vigilant adherence to Sanitation and Good Manufacturing Practices; and use of ATP luminometers, [microbiological testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/), and swab-a-thons to verify/validate the science of hygiene.7
## Inspection Requirements and Food Safety Assessments
Establishments that generate food regulated by FSIS must have inspectors on-site at all times the plant is operating. There are 70 known diseases of animals that can be transmitted to humans; included among these are Anthrax, Undulant Fever (Brucellosis), Trichinosis, and Tuberculosis.8
FSIS Inspectors visually examine live animals, carcasses, and organs for symptoms of these diseases and condemn those that show signs of such infections.9 Inspectors also oversee the conduct of workers in the plant to make sure they don’t allow contamination of meat, organs, or processed products with filth, fluids, adulterants, fillers, or undesirable microbes.9
If Inspectors find faults, they issue a Non-Compliance Report (NR), to which the plant must respond immediately.3 Periodically, FSIS performs a Food Safety Assessment (FSA), which evaluates all food safety aspects of a plant’s products, processes, and environments; if a plant receives too many NRs or fails an FSA, FSIS files a Notice of Intended Enforcement (NOIE), which threatens withdrawal of inspection at the facility if not remediated.3,10
## FDA Food Safety Assessments and Warning Letters
The FDA does not conduct constant-operation inspection but periodically assesses all of a plant’s products, processes, and environments and, if needed, files a Warning Letter.4 For the period of Jan. 3, 2018 to Nov. 21, 2023, the FDA filed 3,429 Warning Letters – mostly for drugs and cosmetics but many for foods (including a recent one to Wan-Gee FoodsTM for failures of Current Good Manufacturing Practices/Manufacturing/Packing/Holding Human Food/Adulterated/Insanitary Conditions).11
An FDA Warning Letter reads like this:
“Your product (e.g., XYZ Food®) is adulterated because it was prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions, because: (a) you did not have a HACCP Plan to control the hazard; (b) you did not have a HACCP-trained individual in the firm; and (c) you did not monitor sanitation with sufficient frequency. Your sanitation deficiencies were: untested well water, unsealed-wood food-contact surfaces, dirty boots, flies, and no hand-washing sink.”11
The subject Establishment must submit a Response Letter describing it’s remediations within a stated time-limit; when and if the Response is adequate, the FDA allows the Establishment to continue production via a Closeout Letter.12
## The U.S. Food Code and Local Food Safety Standards
The U.S. Food Code represents the FDA’s best advice on mitigating food safety risks; it is used by State, local, tribal, and territorial Agencies that regulate intrastate commerce in more than one million restaurants, retail food stores, vending operations, and foodservice operations in schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and childcare centers.13
Food Code Inspectors follow FDA Guidance for visually inspecting cleanliness of processing, holding, and conveyance equipment/facilities.5 Over the years, the Food Code has added requirements for the allowance of pets in outdoor dining space, time/temperature cooking, allergens, [HACCP Plans](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) for high-risk foods, and many other FSIS ideologies to its portfolio.13,14,15 When faults are found, Food Code Inspectors file Warning Letters, and the parties follow the FDA’s Response Letter/Closeout Letter protocol.
## Food Safety of Imported Foods and the FSMA Impact
In addition to domestically produced food, U.S. citizens consume millions of pounds of foods imported from other countries into the United States each day. The USDA requires Foreign Inspection Certificates to accompany all products it regulates (i.e., meat, poultry, egg products, catfish), and every shipment must be re-inspected by FSIS Inspectors at a port-of-entry.3
Prior to passage of FSMA, “all other foods” regulated by the FDA were not required to have a Foreign Inspection Certificate and – because of its shortage of Inspectors – the FDA was only able to re-inspect 1.3% of all imported food at ports-of-entry.16
From 2005 through 2010, there were 39 outbreaks in which 2,348 people suffered illnesses linked to food imported from 15 nations.17 FSMA changed that by…
1. Now requiring [Foreign Supplier Verification](https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-final-rule-foreign-supplier-verification-programs-fsvp-importers-food-humans-and-animals) of companies that send products to the United States.
2. Approving employment of additional FDA Inspectors at ports-of-entry.
3. Recognizing the benefits of third-party certifications (e.g., by [Global Food Safety Initiative](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) schemes like [BRC](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/)) as preventive means for reducing risk of foodborne illness.18,19,20,21
## Regulatory Authority of Food Safety for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
The USDA also has regulatory authority over food safety of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).22 NSLP differs from FSIS because foods purchased for it were originally required to come from facilities that had implemented standards that were similar International Standards Organization (ISO) 9001. ISO-9001 relies on process control requirements that were originally based on the teachings of such advisors as W. Edwards Deming’s “Plan, Do, Check, Act” principles, plus requires mandated testing for *Salmonella*.23 Establishments that sell products to the Federal government for the NSLP are considered “one step ahead” of both FSIS and FDA.24
## Advancements in Food Safety Through Chemical and Microbiological Scrutiny
The greatest advancements in governmental oversight of food safety and protection of public health have been made regarding chemical and microbiological scrutiny. And food producers, growers, packers, and processors have reacted favorably to [guidance provided by the USDA](https://fsns.com/usda-retail-establishments/), EPA, and FDA.
There is no doubt that some drugs, pesticides, and pathogenic microorganisms could have been harming (and even killing) people before we realized they could be dangerous. People who grew up on farms/ranches prior to the late 1940s remember Dads who used almost no chemicals on their livestock or crops and Moms who essentially burned everything before the family ate (except what came from their garden).
After the war (World War II), Dads started to use chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and animal drugs/medication, and Rural Electrification Administration (REA) facilitated household refrigeration, so Moms no longer had to incinerate their food.
As agriculture moved toward using extraneous chemicals (e.g., drugs, antibiotics, medications, growth promotants, pesticides, etc.) to increase productivity and improve the health of their crops and livestock, some in the populace became concerned about what effects residues of those substances in their food might have on human health and well-being.
Carmen Rottenburg (FSIS) says, “Periodically, stories in the public media use sensational and fear-based infotainment aimed at confusing shoppers with pseudoscience and scare tactics.”25 Others say, “The food supply in the USA is one of the safest in the world.26 In the 1950s, the EPA, FDA, and USDA initiated programs to test food products for potentially problematic extraneous chemicals.27
## Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established “Acceptable Daily Intake “(ADI) values for many of the extraneous chemical compounds in foods,28 and has banned the use of certain [pesticides](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/) on food crops because of the risks they pose to consumers.29 The FDA sets tolerances for drugs in all FDA-and USDA-regulated foods.30 The FDA and USDA have a “shared responsibility” for assuring the safety of several foods (e.g., cultured animal-cell products, baby foods, cannabidiol in foods and beverages).31
## Food Safety Validation Tools and Annual Monitoring
So, what kinds of verification/validation tools are used by the FDA to help assure consumers that our foods are safe to eat?
The FDA conducts an annual “[Total Diet Study](https://www.fda.gov/food/reference-databases-and-monitoring-programs-food/fda-total-diet-study-tds)”, which tests for pesticides in the majority of fruits, grains, vegetables, and many processed foods (including meals that contain USDA-regulated and FDA-regulated foods).32
The FDA has multiple programs for monitoring extraneous chemicals in raw milk (e.g., the [Pasteurized Milk Ordinance](https://www.fda.gov/food/milk-guidance-documents-regulatory-information/pasteurized-milk-ordinance-centennial) that results in testing bulk milk tankers coming in from farms) and in fluid milk and milk products (e.g., the [National Milk Drug Residue Database](https://www.nmdrd.com/) that tests for residues of 31 different drugs).33
## USDA’s National Pesticide Data Program and Extraneous Chemical Analyses
For more than 30 years, the USDA has conducted its annual national [Pesticide Data Program](https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp), which assays fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, dairy, meat, poultry, eggs, catfish, rice, specialty products, and water.34,35
Each year, FSIS issues results of extraneous chemical analyses of nine classes of meat and poultry as a part of the National Residue Program.36 It focuses on quantification of residues of drugs, medications, antibiotics, sulfa drugs, pesticides, growth promotants, and other extraneous chemicals.37
## Microbiological Criteria and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP)
In 1988, the federal government formed the [National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF)](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/advisory-committees/national-advisory-committee-microbiological-criteria-foods-nacmcf).3 NACMCF developed [Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP)](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/).
Foodborne illness sickens one out of every six Americans each year, and the culprits most frequently include basics like animal products, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and cereal grains.38 In 1988, the foodborne illness incidents/outbreaks were attributed to…
1. [Physical Hazards](https://fsns.com/how-to-help-prevent-physical-hazards-in-food-a-guide-for-qc-teams/), 2%
2. Chemical Hazards, 4%
3. [Biological Hazards](https://fsns.com/unmasking-biological-food-hazards-guide-to-understanding-and-preventing-risks/), 94%3
Four of the eight pathogens that collectively cause 89% of foodborne illnesses are Norovirus, *Salmonella*, Shiga Toxigenic *E.coli*, *Campylobacter jejuni*, and *Clostridium perfringens*.39 To that, *Listeria monocytogenes* (in ready-to-eat products) and *Cronobacter sozakii* (in infant formula) should be added because of recent incidents and serious mortality rates.40,41,42
In January 1993, *E. coli* 0157:H7 in ground beef patties sickened >150 and killed 4 people in the Pacific Northwest.43 In 1996, FSIS enacted Pathogen Reduction HACCP Systems Final Rule.44 Since then, HACCP has been adopted by the FDA, Codex Alimentarius, and Global Food Safety Initiative.3,5,20
HACCP is a “process control strategy” designed to eliminate foodborne pathogens, foreign material, allergens, and harmful extraneous chemicals.45 Depending on which food is involved, and which Agency regulates it, the government mandates or supports industry deployment of Good Manufacturing Practices, HACCP, PCHF, specific standards for prevalence/presence of the three Hazards, field testing, testing of raw materials, [environmental testing](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/), test-and-hold protocols, in-plant [microbiological testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) for verification/validation, and use of microbial interventions.1,4,5,38
## Industry Participation in Food Safety
And, industry has chipped in with…
1. Produce-growers using “buffer zones”, testing irrigation water during the growing process, and field-testing before harvest.46,47
2. Cereal grain wholesalers who test for mycotoxins at their elevators.48
3. Renderers who check for pathogenic bacteria and drug residues.49
4. Meat/poultry packers which invest 38 cents, 62 cents, and 53 cents, respectively, for each pound of pork, beef, and poultry to mitigate food safety risks.50,51
## Public Notification and Food Safety Alerts
Food-safety oversight by FSIS-USDA, FDA-USDHHS, and State/Local Health Departments should include “notifications of the public that certain food products – currently in commerce – are potentially or actually dangerous or unsafe.”
S/LHDs report results for Food Code audits to the media (print, radio, television, e-commerce) to “embarrass” food outlets.52 FSIS-USDA notifies the public media by issuing “Voluntary Recalls” and “Public Health Alerts”.53 FDA-USDHHS notifies the public media by issuing “Voluntary Recalls”, “Allergy Alerts”, and “Outbreak Advisories”.54
### REFERENCES
1. FSIS-USDA. 1996. Pathogen Reduction; HACCP Systems. July 25 Issue.
2. FDA-USDHHS. 2015. CGMP, HA, and RB Preventive Controls. September 17 Issue.
3. Smith, Gary. 2016. FSNS:HACCP Class. September 26 Issue.
4. Smith, Gary. 2018. FSNS:HACCP Compared To PCHF Class. March Edition.
5. FSPC Alliance. 2016. Preventive Controls For Human Foods. First Edition.
6. Smith, Gary. 2023. Colorado State University. June 18 Issue.
7. Kramer, Michael. 2022. Food Plant Sanitation. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL.
8. Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary. 1988. W.B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia PA.
9. Smith, G. and J. Savell. 1983. Meat Science Laboratory Manual. American Press, Boston MA.
10. FSIS-USDA. 2023. usfsis@public.govdelivery.com Accessed on 11/21/2023.
11. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. Accessed on 11/21/2023.
12. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. Accessed on 11/22/2023.
13. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. FDA and USDA Regulatory Update on Foods. February 13 Issue.
14. Stier, Rick. 2018. Food Quality & Safety. May Issue.
15. Grisham, Nicole. 2021. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. January 14 Issue.
16. Stagnitos Daily Brief. 2007. USA Today. April 16 Issue.
17. USA Today. 2012. March 13 Issue.
18. Smith, Gary. 2017 Texas A&M University. May 25 Issue.
19. Smith, Gary. 2018. Caught ‘N the Net. January Edition.
20. Smith, Gary. 2017. BRC Global Convention. July 6 Issue.
21. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. fda.gov Accessed on 7/12/2023.
22. FSIS-USDA. 2023. Accessed on 12/18/2023.
23. Smith, Gary. 2012. FSNS: Internal Auditing Course. February 12 Issue.
24. Sayer, Shawn. 2017. Meatingplace. October 14 Issue.
25. Radke, Amanda. 2018. BEEF. September 3 Issue.
26. Morning Ag Clips. 2018. December 19 Issue.
27. Rottenburg, Carmen. 2018. Morning Ag Clips. August 19 Issue.
28. Engle, Terry. 2010. Colorado State University. July 8 Issue.
29. Hallstrom, Erin. 2021. Food Processing. August 19 Issue.
30. Schuenemann, Gustavo. 2021. Ohio State University. August 26 Issue.
31. Fusaro, Dave. 2022. Food Processing. February Edition.
32. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition. Accessed on 12/8/2023.
33. FDA-USDHHS. 2015. http:1.usa.gov/1DkenVl. Accessed on 4/20/2015.
34. Karst, Tom. 2018. The Packer. December 17 Issue.
35. Szpylka, John. 2021. FSNS C&A Newsletter. June Edition.
36. James, William. 2017. Meatingplace. May 31 Issue.
37. FSIS-USDA. 2023. USDA National Residue Sampling Report. October Edition.
38. Gibson, Kate. 2023. Meatingplace. September Edition.
39. Centers for Disease Control. 2013. June 28 Issue.
40. Smith, Gary. 2017. Texas A&M University. March 22 Issue.
41. Bowling, Mitch. 2023. Abbott Laboratories. July 15 Issue.
42. Wilkinson, Fred. 2023.National Provisioner. December 4 Issue.
43. Los Angeles Times. 1993. Bad Hamburger Linked To Deaths. January 23 Issue.
44. FSIS-USDA. 1996. Federal Register. July 25 Issue.
45. Keener, Larry. 2020. Meatingplace. May 20 Issue.
46. Smith, Gary. 2018. Texas A&M University. September 11 Issue.
47. Filkens, Darren. 2023. Harris Farms Inc., December 12 Issue.
48. Research and Markets. 2019. August 25 Issue.
49. Foster, Nancy. 2019. North American Renderers Association. December Edition.
50. Trujillo, Sherri. 2023. jbsfoodgroup. Accessed on 11/15/2023.
51. Crews, Joel. 2018. Meat + Poultry. July Edition.
52. The Denver Post. 2017. November 21 Issue.
53. FSIS-USDA. 2023. fsis.usda.gov Accessed on 12/22/2023.
54. FDA-USDHHS. 2023. Accessed on 12/21/2023.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [Are There Chemicals in My Food?](https://fsns.com/are-there-chemicals-in-my-food/)
**Published:** May 2, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*By Gary C. Smith and Keith E. Belk, Colorado State University*
You bet there are! All of our food – like everything in the world – is made up of “chemicals” (i.e., all things consist of one or more – like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. – of the 118 elements on the Periodic Table).1 Proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, micronutrients, vitamins, minerals, even water – they’re all chemicals or comprised of chemicals.2 If we don’t want to consume any chemicals, we’ll have nothing to eat or drink.3
## Chemicals and Consumer Perceptions
Most chemicals have potential to be harmful if consumed at an unsafe level.2 Nevertheless, a global consumer poll in 2017 concluded that the Top Perceived “Most Important Food Issue Today” is “Chemicals In Foods”.4 An article in Reader’s Digest claimed that the word “chemical” is often used as a synonym for “toxin” or “poison”, and that government regulators say it’s okay to label food as “Chemical-Free” because consumers clearly understand that the term really means “Free Of Synthetic Chemicals”.5 If that’s true, both consumers and regulators are misinformed.6
## The Early Days of U.S. Food Regulation
Since 1906, our first line of defense against toxic chemicals being included in U.S. food has been embodied in federal regulations. In response to Upton Sinclair’s book “The Jungle”, Theodore Roosevelt forced passage by the U.S. Congress of the Meat Inspection Act and the Food and Drug Act.7 Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) and the Food and Drug Administration share responsibility for the safety of our food.8,9
Between 1906 and 1938, a few pesticides (e.g., arsenic, rotenone) were being used on farms/ranches and during storage of grain, fruits, and vegetables, while some processing aids (e.g., nitrate, colorants, preservatives) were being used by food manufacturers.10 Both Agencies were testing for presence or excesses of those chemicals in food, but it was largely being done by FSIS to detect “economic adulteration” (commonly known as “[food fraud](https://fsns.com/what-is-food-fraud/)“) of the products that FSIS is responsible for (e.g., dyes, antioxidants, and excessive amounts of water, fat, or fillers).11
## Expansion of Regulation: The Delaney Clause
In 1938, the U.S. Congress inserted “Cosmetic” into the new Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Later, Congress included an amendment by way of the Food Additive amendment of 1958 and the Color Additives Amendment of 1960. The amendments were called the “Delaney Clause” and stated, “If a synthetic, but not natural, chemical – at any dose – can be shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals, the chemical must be banned.12
The Clause wasn’t used much by the Agencies during the next few years. The lingering impacts of the Great Depression, World War II, and its aftermath, caused our government to focus on getting as much food as possible on people’s plates.
After World War II ended, many U.S. companies that had produced munitions and other war-related chemicals pivoted, beginning to manufacture synthetic chemicals designed to increase agricultural productivity by improving the health of livestock and crops, as well as to improve the quality, consistency, shelf-life, and nutrient content of processed food.13
## The Cranberry Crisis and Aminotriazole
In 1958, the Agencies (FDA and USDA) were trudging along doing what they thought was best to protect public health. People weren’t “dying in the street” (and never have been) because of toxic chemicals in their food.
Suddenly, on Sept. 6, 1958, it became publicly known that a common weed-killer – aminotriazole – did not pass the requirements of the Delaney Clause (i.e., it flunked the “Ames Test”, which is now sometimes criticized with respect to the Delaney Clause because there are more robust methods available today). Aminotriazole was being used commercially in the growing of cranberries.14 No one had gotten sick or died after eating them, but sales of cranberries suffered a disastrous plummet.14
## Modern Oversight of Chemical Safety
By 1991…
1. About half of the tens of thousands of the pesticides, food additives, and industrial chemicals examined were found to have induced cancer in humans or animals (via the Ames Test) and were banned by the FDA.14
2. Dr. Ames was the biggest critic of the government’s use of his test to determine a chemical’s safety.15
3. The U.S. Congress required the FDA to no longer use the Ames Test to test for, or regulate, carcinogenicity of synthetic chemicals.16
Both Agencies (FDA and FSIS) ramped up their chemical testing protocols, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working jointly to oversee prevalence/quantity of toxic chemicals in U.S. foods from domestic/foreign sources.
## What Does “Adulterated” Mean?
Such oversight starts with a definition of “adulterated” – which means “made impure by mixing in a foreign or inferior substance”.17
From a regulatory perspective, both the FDA and FSIS basically define “adulterated” as: “*Food products that are rendered unsafe, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human consumption.*”
A food is “chemically adulterated” (and thereby “legally inedible” by FSIS and the FDA) if…
1. The raw material contains a toxic, dangerous, or hazardous amount of a poisonous, deleterious, or injurious substance, or…
2. If such substance is added during production, processing, or preparation of the food product.18
Oversight for control of chemical adulteration consists of: (A) Limit Setting; (B) Enforcement; and (C) Monitoring.19
## (A) Limit Setting
The EPA registers pesticides and sets “Tolerances” for residue concentrations of pesticides in all foods.20 The FDA sets Tolerances for all other chemical adulterants in both FDA-regulated and USDA-regulated foods, determining safe levels of chemicals that…
- Occur naturally in raw materials
- Are added to food
- Are contaminants from the environment
- Are used in packaging
- Can form when raw foods are cooked and/or processed21,22
Two key elements important for determining safe levels of chemicals are…
1. Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) – the amount of a chemical that can be ingested by a person on a daily basis over a lifetime without any appreciable health risk (plus a safety factor).
2. [Maximum Residue Level (MRL)](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/) – the maximum concentration of a chemical residue in a food that is acceptable for consumption.23,24
The “violative level” set as a “tolerance level” uses a 10-fold to 1,000-fold safety factor (i.e., 10 to 1,000 times the level at which the chemical endangers human health) to protect consumers (and animals) from the harmful effects of too much of any chemical.25,26 If a U.S. “tolerance level” for a particular pesticide or food additive has not been established, any amount detected is considered violative.9,27
Any substance intended for use as a food additive must…
- Be approved as “[Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS)](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/decoding-fdas-gras-and-fap-rules-for-food-beverages/) by qualified experts, or…
- Meet a listed exception to the “Food Additive” definition in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.28
Otherwise, the food additive is unsafe and the food is adulterated.28 The FDA regulatory platform includes a [GRAS list](https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras) for certain chemicals that may be used as ingredients or processing aids for foods, while FSIS regulations reference the GRAS list and include a “Safe & Suitable Directive” list of compounds that may be used as processing aids (e.g., things like “Use of 2.5% to 5.0% lactic acid on beef subprimals and trimmings”).9,19
## (B) Enforcement
FSIS regulates meat, poultry, egg products, and catfish via the Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points Systems (HACCP);8 FDA regulates all other foods via HACCP (for fish and juices) or Preventive Controls For Human Foods (PCHF).9
A [HACCP protocol](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) describes the types of chemical hazards as that can occur, including…
### Contains:
1. In raw materials (e.g., toxins, mycotoxins, veterinary drugs, [heavy metals](https://fsns.com/why-testing-for-heavy-metals-in-foods-is-crucial-for-safety/), [allergens](https://fsns.com/current-and-future-status-of-food-allergens/), antibiotics, hormones, [pesticides](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/), and environmental contaminants).
2. Direct processing additives (e.g., flavor enhancers, color additives, thickeners, curing ingredients, allergens, stabilizers, antioxidants, mold inhibitors, and microbiological processing aids).
3. In packaging materials (e.g., PFAS and at least 9,900 or more other chemicals.29,30
### Inadvertent Additions:
1. Indirect processing additives (e.g., boiler water additives, peeling aids, and defoaming agents).
2. Building and equipment maintenance chemicals (e.g., lubricants, paints, and coatings).
3. Cleaning/sanitizing, pest-control chemicals (e.g., cleaners, sanitizers, and pesticides).
4. Storage/shipment chemicals (e.g., cross-contamination with all kinds of chemicals).8,19
## Chemical Hazards in the Food Supply
The PCHF regulations (as well as the Preventive Controls for Animal Food) describes the types of chemical hazards as…
- **Naturally Occurring:** Included are food allergens, mycotoxins, and decomposition by-products.
- **Used In Formulation:** Examples are food additives, color additives, and preservatives.
- **Unintentionally Or Incidentally Present:** Included are cleaning and sanitizing chemicals, pesticides, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, drug residues, and [radiologicals hazards](https://fsns.com/radiological-hazards/).9
Far and away, the majority of inherent and dangerous chemicals in USDA-regulated foods are veterinary drugs, growth promotants, and pesticides; for FDA-regulated foods, the majority of inherent and dangerous chemicals are allergens, while the majority of extraneous and dangerous chemicals are pesticides.31,32
## Industrial and Radiological Contaminants
The “raw material” of essentially all foods is exposed to what PCHF calls “industrial chemicals”; that is: “dioxin, furan, and polychlorinated biphenyls that are released into the air from combustion processes, such as commercial or municipal waste incineration and from burning fuels, such as wood, coal, or oil, burning of household trash, forest fires, and accidental/intentional release of transformer fluids.”9
Radiological hazards” (e.g., radium-226, uranium-238, and strontium-96) can be present in foods – having appeared because the radionuclides travel in soil, water, and air.9 Those food processors who must adhere to [Global Food Safety Initiative schemes](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) (e.g., [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) and [BRCGS](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/)) or PCHF must also account for radiological hazards in the foods that they produce.33,34 Environmental contaminants (i.e., “Industrial Chemicals” and “Radiological Hazards”) undergo the least governmental scrutiny because they occur so rarely and so sporadically.9,35
## Naturally Occurring Chemical Hazards
Raw materials for some foods contain…
- Toxins (mushrooms, shellfish, and marine fish).
- Mycotoxins (grain, fruits, and nuts); heavy metals (fish and shellfish).
- Allergens (peanuts, tree nuts, eggs, milk/dairy products, soy, wheat, fish, shellfish, and sesame).
- Histamine (cheese).9,19
For some raw materials, producers or intermediaries (sellers or wholesalers) must submit chemical-presence affidavits or Certificates of Analysis (COA; negative lab tests for the compounds) that ensure no contamination with unacceptable levels of toxins, mycotoxins, antibiotics, growth promotants, and pesticides.32,36,37
## Role of Food Safety Plans
For all chemicals that are “direct processing additives” or “inadvertent additions” in HACCP, or “used in formulation” or “unintentionally or incidentally present” in PCHF, each company must depend on its [Food Safety Plan](https://fsns.com/your-complete-guide-to-food-safety-management-systems/) to prevent “chemical adulteration”. Embodied within the Food Safety Plans for companies that manufacture food regulated by FSIS and FDA are Prerequisite Programs; HACCP or PCHF Programs; and six sets of Procedures and Practices.8,9
If the company’s culture is such that the employees consistently follow the directives and guidance of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Current Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs; a FDA regulatory requirement), Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs), Good Sanitation Practices (GSPs), Good Hygiene Practices (GHPs), and Good Transportation Practices (GTPs),8,9,19,31 chemical adulteration is very unlikely to occur.
## (C) Monitoring
The FSIS, FDA, and EPA have monitoring programs that continuously assess the prevalence/quantity of toxic chemicals in U.S. foods from domestic/foreign sources. This allows the three Agencies to…
1. Identify trends in the use of legal extraneous chemicals.
2. Detect the use of illegal extraneous chemicals.
3. Collect information on occurrence of rare/sporadic environmental contaminants.
These surveillance programs include those by USDA:
- National Residue Program38,39
- Residue Repeat Violators List40,41
- Pesticide Data Program42,43
- Special Topic Separate Reports (on Melamine, Semicarbazide, Nitrofurazone, Dioxin, and PFAS44,45
Those implemented by FDA:
- Total Diet Study46,47
- National Milk Drug Residue Database48
- Pasteurized Milk Ordinance49
And Those implemented by EPA:
- Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons50
## REFERENCES
1Dorland’s Illustrated Dictionary. 1988. W.B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia PA.
2FDA-USDHHS. 2024. . Accessed on 4/3/2024.
3Smith, Gary. 2019. Texas A&M University. January 26 Issue.
4International Food Information Council. 2017. Press Release. December 15 Issue.
5Lorch, Mark, 2015. Reader’s Digest. August Edition.
6Gabbett, Rita. 2016. Meatingplace. July 27 Issue.
7Teicholz, Nina. 2014. The Big Fat Surprise. Simon and Schuster. New York NY.
8FSIS-USDA. 1996. Pathogen Reduction; HACCP Systems. July 25 Issue.
9FSPC Alliance. 2016. Preventive Controls For Human Food. First Edition.
10Smith, Gary. 2023. Colorado State University. June 18 Issue.
11FSIS-USDA. 2023. FSIS Directive 80801. December 19 Issue.
12Campbell, Hank. 2018. Food Quality & Safety. November Edition.
13Smith, Gary. 2024. Texas A&M University. January 77 Issue.
14Carroll, Vincent. 1991. Rocky Mountain News. January 27 Issue.
15Ames, Bruce. 1991. University of California – Berkeley. January 27 Issue.
16Smith, Gary. 1992. Colorado State University. February 16 Issue.
17Webster’s New Explorer Dictionary. 1999. Merriam-Webster Inc., Springfield MA.
18FDA-USDHHS. 2024. . Accessed on 4/26/2024.
19Smith. Gary. 2016. FSNS: HACCP Class. September 26 Issue.
20EPA. 2024. http:www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol. Accessed on 6/23/2024.
21FDA. 2024. http:www.fda.gov/Food/Chemicals-Metals-Pesticides/Food/Pesticides. Accessed on 6/23/2024.
22Schuenemann, Gustavo. 2021. Ohio State University. August 26 Issue.
23Erpeling, Dennis. 2018. FSNS Newsletter. December Edition.
24FDA-USDHHS. 2024. . Accessed on 4/15/2024.
25Johnston, Tom. 2019. Meatingplace. December 16 Issue.
26FDA-USDHHS. 2024. . Accessed on 7/8/2024.
27FDA. 1980. Action Levels For Deleterious Substances In Human Food And Animal Feed. First Edition.
28FDA-USDHHS. 2024. . Accessed on 5/17/2024.
29Parker, Laura. 2023. National Geographic. May 13 Issue.
30Tilley, Caitlin. 2024 Dailymail.com. April 26 Issue.
31Smith. Gary. 2018. FSNS: HACCP Compared to PCHF Class. March Edition.
32Heter, Katia. 2024. CNN. May 11 Issue.
33Safe Quality Foods. 2014. SQF Code Edition 7.2.
34British Retail Consortium. 2015. Global Standard For Food Safety. Issue 7.
35FDA-USDHHS. 2024. . Accessed on 4/3/2024.
36JBS-USA. 2011. Producer Affidavit. September 30 Issue.
37JBS-USA. 2017. Antimicrobial Drug Testing Protocol. August 17 Issue.
38FSIS-USDA. 2023. USDA National Residue Sampling Report. October Edition.
39FSIS-USDA. 2024. . Accessed on 2/13/2024.
40FSIS-USDA. 2024. fsis.usda.gov. Accessed on 6/6/2024.
41FSIS-USDA. 2024. . Accessed on 2/1/2024.
42AMS-USDA. 2024. ams.usda.gov. Accessed on 1/30/2024.
43AMS-USDA. 2024. Food Safety Magazine. February 6 Issue.
44FSIS-USDA. 2020. . Accessed on 11/17/2020.
45FSIS-USDA. 2024. . Accessed on 1/26/2024.
46FDA-USDHHS. 2023. Center For Food Safety & Applied Nutrition. Accessed on 12/8/2023.
47FDA-USDHHS. 2024. . Accessed on 4/21/2024.
48FDA-USDHHS. 2015. . Accessed on 4/20/2015.
49FDA-UDSHHS. 2015. . Accessed on 4/20/2015.
50Schulz, Claudia. 2012. Food Quality. March Edition.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [Most Important Food Safety Certifications & Qualifications](https://fsns.com/food-qualifications-and-certifications/)
**Published:** May 7, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
In the past, advancing in a hospitality or food-related career meant taking an entry-level position and working your way up the ladder. Fast forward, the world is changing, and anyone, from a small restaurant employee to a senior food quality control officer, can gain a career edge and boost their overall[ human capital value](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/humancapital.asp#:~:text=The%20term%20human%20capital%20refers,such%20as%20loyalty%20and%20punctuality.) by obtaining the proper food industry certification. Here, we explore several popular and essential food safety certifications that professionals in this industry need.
[View Our **Food Safety Training Schedule**](https://fsns.com/resources/edu/)
## Seven Important Food Industry Certifications You Should Consider
Whether you need to advance your career or simply are looking to meet employer regulations, these food safety certifications will help you gain a competitive advantage in the job market and increase your overall employee value:
### 1. FSPCA Preventive Controls
The [FSPCA Preventive Controls](https://fsns.com/product/fspca-preventive-controls-for-human-food/), developed by the Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance, is the only standardized curriculum for human food and animal food that has been approved by the FDA.
Completing the Preventive Controls course is meant to help aspiring preventive controls qualified professionals gain the skills they need to build and apply risk-based preventive measures during the processing, packing, and holding processes in food manufacturing industries, thereby helping to prevent contamination.
Preventive Controls is a 20-hour course, offered both virtually and in-person by FSNS and our regulatory arm, [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/preventive-controls-for-human-foods-training/). The course, taught by FSPCA-trained food safety professionals, is ideal for those with experience in the following areas:
- Food processing and packaging
- Food-handling facilities
- Food safety testing and auditing
### 2. Microbiology and Food Safety 101 Course
The [Microbiology and Food Safety 101 Course](https://fsns.com/product/microbiology-and-food-safety-101-course/) is a vital food safety course for any food professional seeking to improve the safety and shelf-life of their food products through microorganism control.
The course explores microbiology in detail, covering different microorganisms, their physiology, and how they affect food safety.
It also covers critical safety practices for microbial control, allowing participants to gain the necessary skills to prevent microbial contamination during food-manufacturing processes for safe, nutritious food products.
The [Microbiology and Food Safety 101 course](https://fsns.com/product/microbiology-and-food-safety-101-course/) often takes a day and covers the following topics:
- The basics of food microbiology
- Factors that promote microbial growth and survival in food-processing plants
- Microbial control strategies in food-processing factories
- Shelf-life testing
- Foodborne pathogens
The course is available either in-person or online, and the registration typically includes the course materials, certificate of completion, and lunch (if attending in-person).
### 3. BRCGS Food – Issue 9 Sites Training and Internal Auditing
The Global Standard for Food Safety was published by the BRC in 1998. Initially developed to facilitate compliance with UK and EU safety laws, the standard became a globally recognized scale for best practices in food safety and quality.
The standard is now on its ninth issue, and completing the [BRCGS Food-Issue 9 Sites Training and Internal Auditing course](https://fsns.com/product/brcgs-food-issue-9-sites-training-and-internal-auditing/) helps participants understand its fundamentals and how they can comply. The course takes two days and offers insight into what participants should expect during the certification processes and the prerequisites before, during, and after an audit. It has seven sections and includes the food safety plan – HACCP, site standards, product control, and process control.
Similar to most food industry certification courses, it’s also available both online and through in-person classes. It’s ideal for food manufacturers, retailers, importers, and even ingredient vendors across the UK and the U.S.
### 4. Sanitation: Management of Cleaning & Disinfecting in Food Environments
Cleaning is critical to preventing foodborne illnesses and ensuring food quality in processing plants. Cleaning removes dirt and grease while disinfecting using food-friendly sanitizers such as quaternary and chlorine solutions to kill bacteria and other food-contaminating pathogens.
That said, [this food safety course](https://fsns.com/product/sanitation-management-of-cleaning-disinfecting-in-food-environments-covid-19/) covers all the CDC, FDA, and USDA food and cleaning requirements and recommendations for food safety. It also offers essential tips on how food experts can prevent biofilm formation during food manufacturing and handling processes and how to manage[ ](https://opentextbc.ca/foodsafety/chapter/workplace-sanitation/)food sanitation processes.
### 5. Preventive Maintenance
A detailed, well-implemented preventive maintenance program is critical to the success of every food processing professional.
This [preventive maintenance food certification](https://fsns.com/product/preventive-maintenance/) covers the microbial, chemical, and physical risks typical of process maintenance shops and BRC, SQF, USDA, and FDA regulatory requirements. The course also integrates food safety and essential maintenance practices for food processors, quality assurance, and maintenance managers. It covers an array of topics, including but not limited to:
- Procedure writing
- Lubricant management
- Planned and emergency repairs
- Essential components of internal auditing
### 6. FSSC 22000
[FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/product/fssc-22000/) is a fully recognized food safety standard by the [Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/). The standard is based on ISO 22000, which covers all food supply chain processes that deal with consumable products directly or indirectly.
The standard also integrates PAS 220:2008 to supplement some of the ISO22000 programs, making it more compatible with GFSI requirements. Taking food safety training courses helps foodservice professionals learn and meet [FSSC 22000 scheme requirements](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/). Participants must complete either [HACCP](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/) or PCQI courses to register for this course.
### 7. HACCP Training Course
The [HACCP food certification](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/) is a two-day training course meant to equip food processing and manufacturing professionals with the development and management of [HACCP systems](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/). It’s ideal for corporate executives, plant management teams, and other individuals whose line of work links to HACCP plans.
**Other food qualification and food safety certification courses that food and beverage industry professionals should partake in include:**
- FSPCA Intentional Adulteration
- [Microbiology and food ](https://fsns.com/product/microbiology-and-food-safety-202-course/)[safety 202 course](https://fsns.com/product/microbiology-and-food-safety-202-course/)
- [SQF/Internal Auditing Training Course](https://fsns.com/product/implementing-sqf-systems-ed-10-and-internal-auditing-training-course/)
- [Advanced HACCP/Preventive Controls](https://fsns.com/product/advanced-haccp-preventive-controls/)
- FSPCA Foreign Supplier Verification Program
- Low-Acid and Acidified Foods through the Better Process Control School
- Labeling and claims for both FDA and USDA-regulated products
- Custom courses available
## Advance Your Career with the Right Food Safety Certification Courses Today
Whether you are looking to build your food industry service portfolio, meet particular job requirements, or increase your marketability, taking any of the food certification courses above will improve your skillset and value to current and potential employers.
Getting these certifications doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg. FSNS and our regulatory arm, [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/events/seminars/), offer cost-friendly, customized food safety certification courses for food processing and manufacturing professionals throughout North America.
[View all our](https://fsns.com/resources/edu/)[ food safety certification courses here.](https://fsns.com/resources/edu/)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [California Prop 12: A Guide for Producers and Distributors](https://fsns.com/navigating-california-prop-12-a-guide-for-producers-and-distributors/)
**Published:** December 14, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Justin Derington, Director of Auditing Services*
Producers and distributors raising livestock or selling animal products into the state of California have several questions about how California Prop 12 affects them. In this article, we provide answers to help you understand the regulations and what you need to do for compliance.
Let’s get started. [If you have any questions or are ready to schedule your Prop 12 audit, contact us here.](https://info.fsns.com/prop-12)
## What is California Prop 12?
[California Proposition 12](https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/fd/mb-fdp-03-2022-a.asp) is a law passed in 2018 that sets minimum space requirements for certain farm animals, including egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and veal calves. The law also mandates that animal products sold in California must comply with these standards, regardless of origin.
For distributors and producers, compliance with Prop 12 could impact product sourcing and costs, as well as necessitate adjustments in supply chain practices to meet the animal welfare standards.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/a72f099d-fe0c-4228-b451-e103b462bd83)## When Does Prop 12 California Take Effect?
Though the law passed in 2018, enforcement took effect on Jan. 1, 2024. Effective on that date…
- **Producers** are required to have a valid Certificate of Compliance.
- **Distributors** are required to have a valid Certificate of Compliance for new registrations and for the purposes of renewal.
[The California Department of Food and Agriculture provides guidelines for managing this transition.](https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/AHFSS/Animalcare/StakeholderResources/)
## What Are California Prop 12 Requirements?
The regulations define the following space requirements for these animal products sold in California:
For a complete list of California Prop 12 requirements, consult our [complimentary California Prop 12 Compliance Checklist](https://info.fsns.com/prop-12-checklist).
**Animal Type** **Housing System Description** **Requirement** [Egg-laying Hens](https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I54415650354F11ED96F0D8E31262D9FC?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) Multitiered aviaries with access to multiple elevated platforms. 1 sq. ft. of usable floor space Partially slatted systems with access to elevated flat platforms. 1 sq. ft. of usable floor space Single-level all-litter floor systems bedded with litter (limited or no access to elevated platforms). 1.5 sq. ft. of usable floor space Other cage-free housing systems with access to vertical space. 1 sq. ft. of usable floor space Other cage-free housing systems without access to vertical space. 1.5 sq. ft. of usable floor space [Breeding Pigs](https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I9054FF7034C311ED91A13814282AA05E) Enclosure allowing the breeding pig to lie down, stand up, fully extend limbs, and turn around freely. 24 sq. ft. of usable floor space [Veal Calves](https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I8C50B54034C311ED8DEC8193254C2102?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1) Enclosure allowing the calf to lie down, stand up, fully extend limbs, and turn around freely. 43 sq. ft. of usable floor space ## How Do I Comply with Prop 12 California?
For producers and distributors, compliance with Proposition 12 in California will necessitate reviewing and potentially modifying current housing systems for the affected animals. This may involve infrastructure investment to expand existing spaces or redesign confinement methods.
Beyond your own practices, you’ll also need to scrutinize your supply chain to ensure that any suppliers you work with are also in compliance with these requirements if you’re selling animal products in California.
Given the legal implications and potential for market exclusion for non-compliance, **conducting a Prop 12 audit is crucial**. An audit can verify that both your practices and those of your suppliers meet the law’s animal welfare standards. This certification can not only safeguard your ability to operate in the California market but also serve as a selling point for ethically conscious consumers.
## How Do I Get a California Prop 12 Audit?
[Reach out to FSNS Certification & Audit (FSNS C&A).](https://info.fsns.com/prop-12) We have accreditation from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to perform Prop 12 audits.
## What is the Penalty for Non-Compliance with Prop 12?
Selling products from animals that aren’t kept according to Proposition 12 rules could lead to criminal charges. If found guilty, you could face a fine up to $1,000, spend up to 180 days in county jail, or both.
## Do All My Animals Need to Meet Prop 12?
No. You can operate what the State of California defines as a “[split operation](https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/AHFSS/pdfs/animal_confinement_adopt_text.pdf)“. This means that your farm or your supplier’s farm raises animals or products that are both in conformance with Prop 12 confinement requirements and those that are not for distribution to other states or markets.
If you run a split operation, bear in mind that Prop 12 California requires you to keep documentation to verify identification, segregation, distribution, and handling to prevent comingling with non-compliant product.
Our [California Prop 12 Compliance Audit Checklist](https://info.fsns.com/prop-12-checklist) helps you understand and ensure you meet the requirements.
## What Records Do I Need to Maintain
California Prop 12 compliance requires meticulous recordkeeping. We provide the requirements below:
### California Prop 12 Recordkeeping Requirements for Egg-Laying Hens
- Records are required to be available for no less than two years beyond their creation.
- Records show the size of the farm.
- Records show the quantity of egg-laying hens and shell eggs produced or processed from each facility or farm unit in the certified operation.
- Records show the number of egg-laying hen enclosures for each facility or farm unit, the size and usable floorspace of each enclosure, and the maximum stocking density for each enclosure.
- Records show the quantity of egg-laying hens in inventory, number of hens kept in each enclosure, and the dates of stocking, harvest and production.
- Records of all covered animals and covered product transactions for the preceding two-year period must be available. The records for the shell eggs must indicate date, quantity, identity of the buyer and seller and the address where physical possession of covered product took place for each transaction.
- Records pertaining to the production, processing, handling, packaging, storage, transportation, or sale of egg-laying hens and shell eggs sold, intended for sale in California or identified or represented as compliant with requirements must be available for the preceding two-year period.
- Records must be maintained in sufficient detail to document that egg-laying hens were confined in compliance with requirements as detailed in the California Prop 12 regulations.
- If the operation is a split operation, records must sufficiently demonstrate the identification, segregation, distribution, and handling of compliant egg-laying hens and covered product to prevent commingling with any non-compliant egg-laying hens and covered product.
- If egg-laying hens are kept in non-compliant enclosures for animal husbandry purposes, then records must be maintained by an egg producer in sufficient detail to document that egg-laying hens are not kept in non-compliant enclosures for longer than six (6) hours in any 24-hour period, and no more than 24 hours total in any 30-day period.
- If egg-laying hens are kept in non-compliant enclosures for individual treatment, then records must be maintained by a producer in sufficient detail to document individual treatment records for the egg-laying hen, under direction of the herd veterinarian with a current Veterinary-Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR).
- All information submitted with the application for certification must be accurate.
### California Prop 12 Recordkeeping Requirements for Breeding Pigs
- Records are required to be available for no less than two years beyond their creation.
- Records show the size of the farm.
- Records show the quantity of breeding pigs produced or processed from each facility or farm unity in the certified operation, as well as the immediate offspring produced from each facility or farm unit in the operation.
- Records show the number of breeding pig enclosures for each facility or farm unit, the size and usable floorspace of each enclosure.
- Records show the quantity of breeding pigs in inventory, number of breeding pigs kept in each enclosure, and the dates of stocking, harvest and production.
- Records of animal transactions for the preceding two-year period must be available, including the date, quantity, identity of buyer and seller, and address where physical possession took place for each transaction.
- Records for the preceding two-year period pertaining to the production, processing, handling, packaging, storage, transportation, or sale of breeding pigs or their immediate offspring sold, intended for sale in California or identified or represented as compliant with requirements.
- Records must be maintained in sufficient detail to document that breeding pigs were confined in compliance with requirements as detailed in the California Prop 12 regulations.
- If the operation is a split operation, records and standard operating procedures must sufficiently demonstrate the identification, segregation, distribution, and handling of compliant breeding pigs and their immediate offspring to prevent commingling with any non-compliant breeding pigs and their immediate offspring.
- If breeding pigs are kept in non-compliant enclosures for animal husbandry purposes, then records must be maintained by a pork producer in sufficient detail to document that breeding pigs are not kept in non-compliant enclosures for longer than six (6) hours in any 24-hour period, and no more than 24 hours total in any 30-day period.
- If breeding pigs are kept in non-compliant enclosures for individual treatment, then treatment records must be maintained by a pork producer in sufficient detail to document individual treatment plans for the breeding pigs, under direction of the herd veterinarian with a current Veterinary-Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR).
- If breeding pigs are kept in non-compliant enclosures for farrowing, then records must be maintained by a pork producer documenting that breeding pigs are kept in non-compliant enclosures no longer than five (5) days prior to expected date of giving birth and while nursing piglets.
- All information submitted with the application for certification must be accurate.
### California Prop 12 Recordkeeping Requirements for Veal Calves
- Records are required to be available for no less than two years beyond their creation.
- Records show the size of the farm.
- Records show the quantity of veal calves produced or processed from each facility or farm unity in the certified operation.
- Records show the number of veal calves enclosures for each facility or farm unit, the size and usable floorspace of each enclosure, and the maximum stocking density for each enclosure.
- Records show the quantity of veal calves in inventory, number of veal calves kept in each enclosure, and the dates of stocking, harvest and production.
- Records of veal calf transactions for the preceding two-year period must be available. Records must include date, quantity, identity of buyer and seller, and address where physical possession took place for each transaction.
- Records pertaining to the production, processing, handling, packaging, storage, transportation, or sale of veal calves sold, intended for sale in California or identified or represented as compliant with requirements.
- Records must be maintained in sufficient detail to document that veal calves were confined in compliance with requirements as detailed in the California Prop 12 regulations.
- If the operation is a split operation, records must sufficiently demonstrate the identification, segregation, distribution, and handling of compliant veal calves to prevent commingling with any non-compliant veal calves.
- If veal calves are kept in non-compliant enclosures for animal husbandry purposes, then records must be maintained by a veal producer in sufficient detail to document that veal calves are not kept in non-compliant enclosures for longer than six (6) hours in any 24-hour period, and no more than 24 hours total in any 30-day period.
- If veal calves are kept in non-compliant enclosures for individual treatment, then records must be maintained by a veal producer in sufficient detail to document individual treatment records for the veal calves, under direction of the herd veterinarian with a current Veterinary-Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR).
- All information submitted with the application for certification must be accurate.
### California Prop 12 Recordkeeping Requirements for Distributors
- Records shall be sufficient for purposes of an audit trail. All records must be maintained for two years from their creation.
- Records shall document in a traceable manner that covered product being distributed for commercial sale into or within California originate from producers (egg producer, veal producer, or pork producer) that are in compliance with all species-specific requirements.
- Records must indicate the date, quantity, identity of the buyer and seller, for each transaction of covered product.
- For each transaction, records from the preceding two-year period must include address of the location where the distributor takes physical possession of covered product.
- Records demonstrate in sufficient detail the production, processing, identification, source, supplier, transfer of ownership, transportation, storage, segregation, handling, packaging, distribution, and sale of covered products.
- Inspection and audit the required records may be conducted by the certifying agent by on-site inspection at the distributor location, or by using email, phone, teleconference, or any combination thereof, at the discretion of the certifying agent.
- If a split operation, include documentation to demonstrate the identification, segregation, distribution, and handling of covered product to prevent commingling with non-compliant covered product.
## What Shipping Documents Do I Need to Meet Prop 12 Requirements?
Proposition 12 California regulations require properly completed shipping documents. Here are the requirements:
- All documents of title and shipping manifests for compliant covered product transported into and within California for commercial sale shall include the appropriate statement:
- “Egg CA Prop 12 Compliant”
- “Pork CA Prop 12 Compliant”
- “Veal CA Prop 12 Compliant”
- No evidence of labeling, identification, marking, advertising, or otherwise representation of covered product as compliant for commercial sale in California unless the covered product was produced in compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements.
- If a split operation, distributing compliant and non-compliant covered product all documents of title and shipping manifests of covered product that was not produced in compliance with requirements and enters the state for the purposes of transshipment, export, donation, or sale to federal agencies or on tribal lands and is not destined for commercial sale in California shall be marked with the statement “For Export”, “For Transshipment”, or “Not CA Prop 12 Compliant”. The statement shall be legible and plainly printed or stamped.
## Questions? Ready to Schedule a California Prop 12 Audit?
[FSNS Certification & Audit is accredited by the California Department of Food & Agriculture (CDFA) to perform Prop 12 audits.](https://info.fsns.com/prop-12) Our team is happy to answer your questions and work with you on your path to Prop 12 certification.
[Reach out and we’ll be glad to answer your questions.](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/45846bce-5389-4dc8-873e-6a7637f5f631)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** Certification and audit
---
### [8 Hidden Costs & Challenges of In-House Lab Testing](https://fsns.com/8-hidden-costs-of-in-house-lab-testing/)
**Published:** May 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
Companies are always trying to manage costs, and this is especially true for manufacturers of food products, dietary supplements, pet food, and other regulated products. Many companies turn to in-house lab testing to reduce costs, but many don’t see all the hidden costs and challenges until the project is already underway.
Here, we reveal some of the most important hidden costs of operating an in-house lab and what you need to know to make an informed decision.
## 1) Laboratory Accreditation: One of the Highest Costs of In-House Lab Testing
Earning accreditation is one of the costliest components of in-house lab testing. Before you say, “Well, we don’t need accreditation,” consider that many top retailers, restaurant chains, and foodservice distributors require you to provide test results from an ISO-accredited laboratory before they will do business with you.
In addition, any reputable food testing laboratory will be accredited. This provides third-party validation of the lab’s quality management system and methodologies.
There are a few major accreditations available, including the following:
- ISO
- USDA
- USDA-AMS Commodity Specific Certifications
The most widespread is ISO 17025, which a lab can earn only after passing a third-party audit from A2LA or another accrediting body.
Preparing for accreditation requires multiple steps that can easily take **9 months or longer and eclipse six figures**, depending on your starting point. Here are some of the requirements:
- [Proficiency testing](https://fsns.com/services/proficiency-testing/) to validate the competency of the lab in performing certain methods. This must be done multiple times per year and on an ongoing basis.
- Certification of employee training.
- Internal audits.
- Desk audit every other year.
- Laboratory audit every other year.
- Hiring dedicated personnel or consultants with ISO Expertise.
- Creating multiple required documents & forms and maintaining records.
- Calibration of multiple instruments through a third-party provider.
Passing requires establishing a robust system based on the ISO pyramid. Recordkeeping makes up the foundation, work instructions are built upon that, followed by Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), your Quality Manual, and finally your policy. Along the way, you need to develop employee training, safety measures, equipment maintenance plans, pest control, and much more.
**The financial burden can easily amount to six figures, especially if you hire a consulting firm to help.**
## 2) Liability in Case of a Recall or Adverse Event
Imagine accidentally releasing a product that was contaminated with *E. coli* or another pathogen that sickened or even killed someone after getting the go-ahead from your in-house lab.
**Your company must bear 100% of that responsibility.** A recall can costs millions of dollars, in addition to the public relations nightmare that may affect your brand for years.
[Outsourcing your testing to a third-party lab](https://fsns.com/resources/outsource-your-food-safety-testing/) helps you bear the burden of liability in the event of a recall, reducing stress for your Quality Control team all the way to the top of the organization. It also reduces the chances of a recall event from happening in the first place since the test results generated would more likely be unequivocal due to the quality system requirements.
## 3) Can You Find and Retain the Right People for an In-House Lab?
Nearly every company is struggling to hire and retain good people. Finding and retaining qualified personnel for in-house lab testing adds to the burden.
As you may imagine, it’s difficult to find people qualified in [microbiology testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and [chemistry testing](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/). And given the shortage of qualified people, it’s a challenge to prevent other companies from recruiting them away from your lab.
## 4) Expensive Equipment and Waste Management
It’s difficult to justify the cost of a test instrument that costs tens of thousands of dollars if you’re only running a few samples per day. A third-party laboratory can spread that cost out to several customers by running dozens of samples a day, helping control costs.
In addition, many companies don’t consider the expense of disposing of hazardous waste when performing a cost benefit analysis of in-house lab testing. Bio-hazardous waste poses a threat to personnel and is expensive to remove. Hiring a sterilization service adds to your costs.
## 5) In-House Lab Testing Requires Expertise That is Difficult to Find
Petrifilm plates are a cost-effective and relatively simple option that works well for some companies when performing tests for indicator organisms. But [pathogen testing](https://fsns.com/pathogen-testing/) is much more complex and often requires precise, sensitive instrumentation (like the [Hygiena BAX® SalQuant™ system](https://fsns.com/hygiena-bax-salquant-a-simpler-and-more-cost-effective-means-of-providing-salmonella-quantification-information/)) that requires expertise to operate properly.
In addition, it takes years to build a body of scientific knowledge that can help guide your team and ensure you’re meeting the highest standards.
One food manufacturer we worked with closed its in-house lab during the Covid pandemic due to staffing issues. It became clear after several conversations that their personnel lacked expertise in important areas.
In fact, switching to our third-party lab for [environmental monitoring](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/) resulted in more confirmed positives toward which they took more aggressive action, possibly helping prevent contaminated product from reaching commerce.
Their in-house lab testing wasn’t finding these positives due to an outdated methodology being used or requirements that were not being followed. Getting more positives is helping them make a safer product, and now they can focus on what they do best instead of trying to manage an in-house lab.
Finding personnel willing to work evenings and overnights is one of the biggest challenges to running an in-house testing lab.## 6) Can Your In-House Lab Operate 24/7?
Increasing turnaround time (TAT) is a main reason many companies opt for in-house lab testing. But to leverage the best possible TAT, you need staff working 24/7.
For example, a sample may need to be pulled overnight. In our experience, it’s extremely difficult to get overnight coverage in an in-house lab. It can also be difficult to have technical experts available all the time in case something arises that needs immediate attention.
Improved TAT is a valid reason to pursue in-house lab testing, but consider the staffing requirements of operating 24/7 to reap those benefits.
## 7) Reduced Buying Power Drives Up the Costs of In-House Lab Testing
Laboratories often face tight supply chains that make it difficult to obtain materials like growth media and lab supplies.
A new in-house lab likely won’t have longstanding relationships with suppliers to leverage when global supplies are short.
In addition, **an in-house lab will likely pay 4-5 times more for supplies**, unless it has high enough volume to qualify for supplier discounts.
However, a large North American lab will have the influence to obtain supplies during times of constraint. They can also tap into their network for help when needed. For example, [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/) and [Food Safety Net Services (FSNS)](https://fsns.com/), both part of [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/), maintain 30+ locations across North America, meaning labs can share supplies across the network as needed to meet customer demands, even with tight supply chains.
## 8) The Value of Third-Party Relationships
Third-party labs often have longstanding relationships with government agencies and trade organizations. These relationships can be beneficial for clients, keeping them informed and helping them navigate challenges. Furthermore, third-party labs are viewed as unbiased parties trusted by regulatory bodies.
Doing your own testing can affect the perception some companies have of your organization. There can be undue pressure for in-house labs to cut corners to provide results faster, or even to retest away positives, leading to inaccurate results and potential public health implications. It can give the impression that the fox is guarding the chicken coop, so to speak.
## In-House Lab Testing Often Costs More than it Seems
If you’re thinking of opening an in-house lab for your product testing, it’s essential to consider the hidden costs. Be sure to weigh the costs of accreditation, liability, staffing challenges, equipment, strained supply chains, and reduced buying power in your cost benefit analysis.
We often work with companies that built out their in-house lab only to change tactics down the road due to the high hidden costs. This allows them to focus on manufacturing food products safely, leaving the technical expertise to us.
[Contact us to find out how our North American network of 30+ ISO 17025 accredited labs can help relieve your team of the burden of maintaining an in-house food testing lab.](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [How Do I Participate in a USDA Process Verified Program?](https://fsns.com/usda-process-verified-program-guide/)
**Published:** February 1, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
USDA Process Verified Programs help producers command a higher price for their products while also providing customers peace of mind about product quality and consistency. Process Verified Programs offer ranchers, growers, and other operators a great way to distinguish their products in the market and boost profitability.
Although these programs offer quite a bit of flexibility with the process points you choose for verification, it can get confusing and raise questions. For example, which USDA Process Verified Program is right for me? We break it all down here.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/c1ebb222-a3d6-48f3-bed4-d06c5941018c)## What Does “USDA Process Verified” Mean?
Beef, poultry, eggs, and other products that bear the USDA Process Verified shield originate from livestock that were raised according to specific standards, and by producers that have successfully completed a [third-party audit by a qualified USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) auditor](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
Here is an example that can help clarify what USDA process verified means:
Say a rancher who raises black angus cattle wants to receive a premium price for their cattle at auction. Marketing their cattle as Age and Source Verified through a value-added program allows them to do that, which raises its value on the market.
However, the rancher must raise their cattle according to defined requirements, document the entire process, and pass an audit.
After successfully passing an audit, they can market their cattle as Age and Sourced Verified. The Age and Source Verification then follows these cattle through the feed yard, and if management practices continue to be followed, they can be processed, and end products marketed with this value-added claim.
This process provides the customer confidence that they are purchasing beef that meets specific quality requirements. That leads us into our next question:
## How Do I Become USDA Process Verified?
Continuing with our example above, the rancher must raise their cattle according to clearly defined, implemented, and transparent process points documented in a Quality Manual. Each process point must be…
- Supported by a documented management system
- Independently verified by a [qualified value-added-claims auditor](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
Auditors begin with a desk audit to ensure all program requirements are accounted for and documented in the Quality Manual. Afterward, the auditor conducts a thorough on-site audit of all facilities and phases of the operation that affect process points.
In this case, the auditor must confirm practices and records for items such as animal identification, calving, shipping and receiving, employee training, and other internal management systems.
If the rancher’s process is successfully verified by the auditor, they are approved to be part of the USDA Process Verified Program and may market their cattle using the USDA Process Verified shield to signal to the buyer that the cattle have been raised according to these specific, value-added standards.
## What are the Process Verified Program Requirements?
Requirements for Process Verified Programs vary depending on the industry and product. An operator can apply to have several different process points verified, including production practices; services; and various qualities of the product, such as age, size, breed, and more.
Certain Process Verified Programs offer the flexibility to choose which process points are verified so operators can customize the program to fit their goals.
In whatever way an applicant sets up their Process Verified Program, the point is to assure customers of their ability to provide high-quality products in a consistent manner. The process points defined for verification must be…
- Verifiable
- Repeatable
- Feasible
- Factual
- Cannot be requirements of regulations or management system criteria
The program is a win-win, giving customers peace of mind in what they are purchasing and helping producers receive a premium price for their products.
## What are Some of the USDA Process Verified Programs?
This is where the topic can get a little confusing.
**The USDA Process Verified Program is a *single* program that can be implemented in a variety of different ways.**
An operator can apply to have a variety of process points throughout their operation audited and verified. For example, a cattle rancher can have all process points related to the age and source of their cattle verified. They might also choose to verify that they do not treat their cattle with hormones
A poultry operator can apply to have a variety of process points for their operation verified, such as the fact that they do not use antibiotics or that their poultry is raised cage-free. Similar criteria exist for fruits, vegetables, nuts, and other commodities. The program offers plenty of flexibility so operators can tailor it to suit their goals.
That said, some of the more commonly used programs in the beef industry, which are audited by FSNS C&A, are discussed below:
- Age and Source Verification (ASV)
- Non-Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC)
- Never Fed Beta Agonists
- High Quality Beef Livestock Feeding Claim (EU HBQ)
- Non-GMO
- Grass-Fed
- Natural Verified Beef
If you are new to USDA Process Verified Program requirements, this can seem daunting. A specialist with FSNS Certification & Audit can help walk you through the requirements for better understanding. [Contact us with your questions about value-added programs today](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
## Age and Source Verification (ASV)
Consumers are taking a greater interest in the source of their food and basic [f](https://fsns.com/food-safety-standards-guide/)[ood safety standard](https://fsns.com/food-safety-standards-guide/)[s](https://fsns.com/food-safety-standards-guide/). Age and Source Verification is where many operators who are new to value-added programs start. It allows you to market your animals with the assurance of their age and source, putting customers at ease. This is typically done with an audit of birth records cross-referenced with a unique identifying ear tag.
There are a few different [product requirements for age and source verification](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/QAD1002BPROCQSAProgramforAgeandSourceVerification.pdf), but a few of the most notable are included here to give you an idea of the expectations:
- On-farm, cattle must be uniquely identified with a program compliant tag (PCT).
- Cattle must be tracked from birth.
- Cattle must be tagged before they can be moved off the ranch of origin.
## Non-Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC) Program
Exporting beef products to the European Union requires third-party verification that no hormonal growth promotants were used during the animal’s life. The NHTC cattle program was created to help U.S. beef producers meet the requirements and expand their marketability.
View the [complete requirements for Non-Hormone Treated Cattle here](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/QAD1013PROCExportVerificationProgramNHTCforEU.pdf). Highlights include the following:
- Animals cannot be administered hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) at any time during their lifetime.
- Animals must be traceable from their farm or ranch of birth using live animal production records.
- Animals must be obtained from, and must be traceable to, approved companies that appear on the “Official Listing of Approved Sources of Non-Hormone Treated Cattle”.
- Animals must be identified prior to leaving the place of birth with a program compliant ear tag.
- The company must maintain sufficient records of all rations fed to animals for the lifespan of the animal.
- Shipping documentation must accompany each shipment of animals that occurs due to sale or transfer of custody.
## Never Fed Beta Agonists
Beta agonists are feed ingredients that help cattle gain muscle as they age and near harvest. They are non-steroidal growth promotants, which can increase feed conversion and allow cattle to gain weight more efficiently. Some consumers prefer an option raised without their use.
Operators can have their cattle or hogs verified as having never been fed beta agonists. As with other verifications, product requirements include a documented quality management system that allows products to be identified and traceable through the system.
Complete [requirements for Never Fed Beta Agonists verification are here](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/QAD1007PROCQSVPNeverFedBetaAgonistVerificationProgram.pdf), but some highlights are provided below:
- Establishments must develop a program to evaluate and approve suppliers of cattle or hogs that have never been fed beta agonists.
- Establishments must maintain an approved list of suppliers who have been verified as capable of supplying cattle or hogs that have never been fed beta agonists.
- Establishments must maintain controls to ensure the segregation of live animals that have been fed beta agonists from those that have not prior to harvest.
- Establishments must develop a verification testing regime using an approved test method based on a carcass sampling plan that ensures that each approved supplier is tested at least once per quarter.
- If meat from animals that were raised by an approved supplier produces a positive test result, that supplier and product must be excluded from the program until corrective actions have been implemented and verified.
## High Quality Beef Livestock Feeding Claim (EU HQB) Quota A or Quota B
Some operators choose to market their beef with a feeding claim to receive a premium price, such as cattle being fed certain ingredients, a specific amount, or even being fed a unique ration for a certain number of days.
Some elect to verify a feeding claim that allows for eligibility to export to the European Union under the EU High Quality Beef Livestock Feeding Claim, which is broken down into Quota A and Quota B. This provides producers flexibility to verify the feeding claim that is best for their operation. You can find [details of the High Quality Beef Livestock Feeding Claim (EU HQB) here](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/QAD1040LivestockFeedingClaimsProgram.pdf), but the notable points are included below.
- A company may specify its own feed claim. If so, the following information must be provided:
- Ration
- Number of days on feed
- Rate of feed (lbs. per head per day)
- The European Union High Quality Beef Feeding Claim requires verifying different process points, including the following:
- Quota A: Cattle must have been fed for 100 days or more on a nutritionally balanced, high energy feed concentration ration containing no less than 70% grain, and at least 20 lbs. feed per day per head.
- Quota B: Cattle must have been fed the last 100 days on a diet containing not less than 62% of concentrates and/or feed grain co-products on a dietary dry matter basis that meets or exceeds a metabolizable energy content greater than 12.26 mega joules per one kilogram of dry matter.
- Beef must be obtained from cattle less than 30 months of age to ship under Quota B.
- In addition to meeting quota requirements, cattle must also be sourced from an approved NHTC Program to be exported to the EU.
If you need help understanding the requirements of these value-added programs, our [livestock audit specialists are here to help](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
## Non-GMO
Some consumers avoid purchasing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which include any organism whose genetic material has been modified using genetic engineering techniques. Wherever producers stand on the issue, having their cattle or other livestock verified as non-GMO can increase the value.
Verification as non-GMO indicates that cattle and their feed have been raised in a fashion that does not use GMOs and avoids cross-contamination. Various process points are audited to ensure cattle are raised without use of genetically modified products and that there is low risk of contamination.
## Grass-Fed
Consumer demand continues to drive the need for grass-fed beef. Some meat eaters prefer grass-fed beef for its flavor profile and because it is generally leaner.
As such, it is not enough for most consumers if a producer simply claims their beef is grass-fed; the consumer desires third-party verification. Under a value-added program, beef growers and producers can apply to have their production process verified to show their cattle have been raised on a grass diet, which can include silage and hay in addition to grazed grass.
Cattle must be moved through approved Verified Grass-Fed locations to maintain eligibility.
## Verified Natural Beef
Marketing your cattle as Verified Natural Beef requires third-party verification that the following criteria are met:
- No growth promotants
- No beta-agonists
- No antibiotics or sulfas
- No animal by-products
- No ionophores
Note that Verified Natural Beef cattle must be sold to an approved VNB location, otherwise they can lose their approval status since the buyer must be approved to purchase Verified Natural Beef cattle. As we’ve said, participating in a value-added program helps you command a higher price for your products.
## Which USDA Process Verified Program is Right for Me?
Third-party verification programs, like the USDA Process Verified Program, offer excellent ways to distinguish your products from the competition and get a higher price. Verifying against different claims carries different benefits and requirements. Some verifications require fewer steps and less work to achieve but offer less potential reward at sale time. Others require more effort but increase your profitability exponentially.
Our [Certification & Audit Specialists](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) can help you decide which is right for your operation. Discover new opportunities for your operation by contacting us now.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/0d18c45c-014e-425d-9dbe-5543e09638c9)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** Certification and audit
---
### [Pet Food Label Modernization: How it Affects Pet Food Manufacturers ](https://fsns.com/pet-food-label-modernization-how-it-affects-pet-food-manufacturers/)
**Published:** October 14, 2024
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Tim Lombardo, Senior Director, Food Consulting Services, EAS Consulting Group, A Certified Group Company*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Pet Food Label Modernization updates labels for clarity and consumer understanding.
- New Nutrition Facts Box includes calories from protein, fat, carbohydrates, and total dietary fiber.
- Ingredient statements now use common names with scientific names in parentheses.
- Intended Use Statement clearly defines if the product is complete food, treat, or supplement.
- Compliance deadline set for 2030 with a six-year phase-in period.
---
## Pet Food Label Modernization – A Decade in the Making
If you’re in the pet food manufacturing industry, you know that big changes are on the horizon when it comes to labeling.
The Pet Food Label Modernization (PFLM) initiative, led by the [Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO)](https://www.aafco.org/), is finally becoming reality after nearly a decade of development.
Here, we summarize the upcoming changes so your organization can begin working toward compliance during the six-year phase-in period.
## Why Change Pet Food Labels?
Pet Food Label Modernization aims to improve transparency, consistency, and consumer understanding for pet owners. These changes will align the Primary Display Panel and Nutrition Statements on pet food packaging more closely with human food labels, making nutritional information easier to read and compare. This includes standardized details on ingredients, caloric content, and intended use.
The hope is that clearer labels will help consumers make informed choices, ultimately boosting trust in pet food products and the industry as a whole.
## What are the Key Changes Coming to Pet Food Labels?
### Pet Nutrition Facts Box
This update replaces the traditional guaranteed analysis with a detailed breakdown similar to human food labels. The Nutrition Facts Box must now include…
- Additional caloric information, including calories from protein, fat, and carbohydrates
- Nutrient content by common household serving size
- Total carbohydrates
- Total dietary fiber instead of crude fiber
- Statement of nutritional adequacy that specifies the food either meets one of the AAFCO Nutrient Profiles or that it is intended for supplemental feeding
### Ingredient Statements
Regulations have been updated to use common names for ingredients, such as vitamins, and allow their scientific names to be include in parentheses. The scientific names of microorganisms may also be italicized. Also, manufacturers may identify organic ingredients as such. This change is designed to make ingredient lists clearer and easier to understand.
### Intended Use Statement
Labels will require an intended use statement on the front display panel, clearly defining whether the product is meant for complete nutrition, a treat, or a supplement. This standardizes the way products are classified and communicated.
### Optional Handling and Storage Icons
While not mandatory, manufacturers can opt to include AAFCO’s standardized handling and storage symbols to improve clarity around safe product use.
## What is the Pet Food Label Modernization Compliance Timeline?
You can find the new regulations for Pet Food Label Modernization in the [2024 AAFCO Official Publication](https://www.aafco.org/resources/official-publication/) (purchase required).
It’s important to note that AAFCO has no regulatory authority, so the organization cannot enforce these guidelines with the power of a Federal or state agency. However, **various state legislatures will likely adopt these guidelines**. While not all states will adopt them, companies that ship into states that do will be required to comply.
There is a six-year phase-in period for manufacturers to comply. During this time, state regulators are encouraged to practice enforcement discretion, meaning they won’t take action against companies using old labels.
However, it’s always best to begin your efforts toward compliance as soon as possible to prevent unforeseeable issues from derailing your plans.
## How Do I Prepare for Pet Food Label Modernization Compliance?
As said, start now. While 2030 seems far off, achieving compliance will set your products apart on store shelves – and will set your mind at ease.
### Evaluate Your Current Labels
Audit your existing labels to determine the required updates. Review the individual state requirements as they begin to adopt the AAFCO recommendations. Enlist the help of a regulatory consultant, such as [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), a [Certified Group](https://certifiedgroup.com/) company. Their experts can review your labels and help draw a roadmap for compliance. This will help you be judicious about exhausting current inventory and seamlessly introducing new labels with minimal waste or added cost.
### Review Your Lab Testing Needs
Your products will require additional nutritional analysis, specifically for dietary fiber. You will still need to test crude fiber since it is required for calculating calories.
Testing to determine serving size may also be required to ensure accurate information is included in the Nutrition Facts Box.
If you make label claims, additional assays may be required for justification.
[Food Safety Net Services (FSNS)](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/) and [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/), both part of [Certified Group](https://certifiedgroup.com/), can work with you to determine the assays you need to develop compliant labels. Our labs are ISO 17025-accredited and use validated methods to provide accurate, trustworthy data.
Starting early on label modernization will help you stay compliant and ensure smooth product transitions by the 2030 deadline.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Current and Future Status of Food Allergens](https://fsns.com/current-and-future-status-of-food-allergens/)
**Published:** May 9, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University
An allergy is a state of hypersensitivity induced by exposure to a particular antigen (allergen) resulting in harmful immunologic reactions on subsequent exposures. 1 Sensitivity is abnormal response (too quick or too acute) to stimulation; hypersensitivity is a state of altered reactivity in which the body reacts with an exaggerated immune response to a foreign substance. 1 Anaphylaxis is the manifestation of immediate hypersensitivity in which exposure of a sensitized individual to a specific antigen results in life-threatening respiratory distress followed by vascular collapse and shock. 1 Intolerance is a sensitivity – but not a hypersensitivity – because the symptoms (e.g., bloating, nausea, abdominal discomfort, flatulence, diarrhea) are not life-threatening. 1
A food allergen reaction is a body’s immunological response to proteins in the food that the body sees as foreign. 2 Food allergy symptoms are these: (a) mouth: swelling and tingling of lips, mouth, or tongue. (b) gastro-intestinal tract: cramping, vomiting, and diarrhea. (c) skin: hives and eczema. (d) airway: wheezing, coughing and swelling of throat. (e) cardiovascular: loss of blood pressure. (f) anaphylaxis: most dangerous, and life-threatening. Reactions usually occur 1 to 30 minutes after exposure, but may take up to 2 hours. 2 Technically, a food allergy is a medical condition in which exposure to a specific protein in a food triggers a harmful immune response. 3 Allergens can trigger everything from mild discomfort to gastric or respiratory distress to full-blown – and potentially fatal – anaphylactic shock. 3
Many foods can cause an allergic reaction in people, but eight foods are responsible for over 90% of the food allergy reactions in the US. These are cow’s milk, egg, peanut, tree nut, fish, crustacean shellfish, wheat, and soy. 2 In 2004, the US Congress passed the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA) which mandates labeling of FDA’s “Big 8” allergens; for product groups like tree nuts, fish, and shellfish, the specific type of tree nut, fish, and shellfish must also be identified on the label. 4,5
The “Big 8” food allergens recognized (as of 2021) in the USA are: (1) peanuts, (2) tree nuts, (3) eggs, (4) milk/dairy products, (5) soy, (6) wheat, (7) fish, and (8) crustacean shellfish. 2 Canada adds four more – (9) sesame, (10) sulfites, (11) mustard, and (12) molluscan shellfish. 6 The European Union uses 7 of the Big 8 allergens, substitutes “cereals containing gluten” for “wheat”, plus (9), (10), (11), (12), plus (13) celery, and (14) lupin. 7 The Global Food Safety Initiative benchmarking schemes (e.g., BRCGS8 and SQF9) use the European’s “14 allergens” list.
There are some interesting nuances in the food allergen descriptors used by the US, Canada, and the EU: (a) FDA originally used the term “shellfish” but began to use “crustacean shellfish” when the Canadians and Europeans divided the category into crustaceans (lobster, crab, shrimp) and molluscans (oyster, snail, clam, squid). (b) Canadians include “sulfites” and Europeans include “sulfur dioxide and sulfites” even though they are not –technically speaking – allergens (because they are not proteins). (c) The European Union uses “sesame seeds” rather than just “sesame”, thereby allowing “sesame oil” (if it is free of protein) to avoid being declared as an allergen on a product’s label. (d) The European Union, by changing “wheat” to “cereals containing gluten” has now extended its food allergens list, because 4 cereal grains (wheat, rye, oats, and barley) can contain gluten. 7 (e) Inclusion of “Lupin” by the EU seems an odd choice. Lupins are legumes with a long upright cluster of pea-like flowers; their seeds contain a poison that can destroy the liver of livestock. The Texas Bluebonnet is a Lupin. 1
Not all allergens are created equal. For example: (a) Shrimp and lobster are the main causes of anaphylaxis in adults.10 (b) Seafood allergies can be triggered by something as seemingly innocuous as essence of shrimp from a pre-made component of an ingredient used in an Asian cooking sauce. 11 (c) Food allergy incidence in American children has been growing four times faster than in the adult population for at least the last 20 years.12 Most of the increase among children is attributed to peanut and tree nut allergies11, but also because city kids grow-up in “too sterile” environments (in comparison to farm kids who have stronger immune systems due to their regular exposure to the land and livestock).13
Of interest is how many Americans have a food allergy. Prior to 2020, most people cited a 2012 CDC study which said that 15 million Americans have food allergies (including 5.9 million children under 18 YOA) and that tens of millions more are “intolerant to” or “have sensitivities to” certain foods and ingredients.10,11,14 Things have happened since 2012. Hospital admissions for severe allergic reactions or anaphylaxis doubled15, or tripled12, in the last decade. By 2020, the estimates were: (a) Food allergens affect up to 10% of the world population; more than 26 million US adults have food allergies16. (b) 32 million Americans suffer from food allergies12,17 with 22 million being allergic to one of the Big 8 allergens and 10 million being allergic to other allergens.12 The [food allergen testing](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/) market is poised to grow by $783 million during 2020 through 2024, largely because of an expected further increase in allergic reactions among individuals.18
Half a billion people globally, including one-fourth of all Americans (85 million), avoid allergens when shopping for food.12 More than 26 million US adults16 or 32 million persons of all ages12,17 have food allergies; another 24 million16 or 53 million persons12 believe they have an allergy, sensitivity, or intolerance… but they don’t (they have no medical diagnosis to support their belief).12,16 Food products bearing labels stating “Gluten-Free” or “Dairy-Free” have experienced tremendous sales growth as more consumers have a physically or psychologically negative reaction to certain foods, or change in their diets to achieve healthier lifestyles, weight loss, increased energy, or greater immunity.11,12
With regard to celiac disease, gluten sensitivity, and lactose intolerance: (a) Only 4% of those eating “Gluten-Free” actually need to be.11 (b) 1% of US consumers have celiac disease and slightly more have gluten sensitivity yet 20% of today’s consumers seek to limit gluten in their diet.10,16 (c) Banning gluten from your diet is not a wise nutrition or health decision; rather than diagnosing yourself, you should work with an MD or RD who specializes in gastro-intestinal disorders.19,20 (d) After infancy, approximately 65% of the world’s adults have a reduced ability to digest lactose (i.e., milk sugar) but that’s an “intolerance” – not an allergy – because lactose is not a protein.21
People can be allergic to any of more than 160 ingredients in food12; so, should other allergens be added to FALCPA’s mandated labeling list? For several years, FDA has considered adding “sesame”, due to the number of people with sesame allergies.11 The Asthma and Allergy Foundation says 1 million Americans have a sesame allergy17 which is similar to the prevalence of people who have soy or fish allergies.22 In 2018, FDA issued a Notice asking for data on the severity and prevalence of sesame allergies.23 In 2020, FDA moved a step closer to making “sesame” a major allergen by issuing a Draft Guidance for voluntary declaration of “sesame seeds” in the Ingredient List and “sesame oil” as a parenthetical if it is a component of a spice or flavoring.24 In 2021, the US Congress passed and the President signed the Food Allergy, Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research (FASTER) Act.25 On January 1, 2023, “sesame” will be the ninth major allergen that must be identified by law on food labels.25,26 The “Big 8” will become the “Big 9”.
Matayoshi and Lopez said: (a) The FASTER Act strongly suggests that additional ingredients will be added to the Major Food Allergens list moving forward. (b) We believe that FDA will look closely at the 14 ingredients in the EU list, and the 12 ingredients used by Canada. (c) Our guess is that “mustard” will be the next additional ingredient on the US Major Food Allergens list.27
REFERENCES:
1. Dorland’s Medical Dictionary. 1988. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA
2. FSPCA. 2016. Preventive Controls for Human Food.
3. Drayer, Lisa. 2018. CNN. December 13 Issue.
4. FDA. 2006. Guidance for Industry Regarding Food Allergens.
5. National Seafood HACCP Alliance. 2011. HACCP Training Curriculum.
6. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2010. Guide to Food Safety Codex Alimentarius HACCP Documents.
7. Arrowsmith, Helen. 2012. International Food Hygiene 23:23-24.
8. Brand Reputation Compliance. 2021. . Accessed 9/12/2021.
9. Safe Quality Foods. 2021. . Accessed 9/12/21.
10. Phillips, David. 2014. Food Processing. June Edition.
11. Cantor, Stuart. 2017. Prepared Foods. July Edition.
12. Almeida et al. 2020. Consumers With Food Allergies. McKinsey & Company. September 22 Issue.
13. Maday, John. 2019. Bovine Veterinarian. August 6 Issue.
14. Saunders, Leann. 2019. Where Food Comes From Newsletter. Spring Edition.
15. Nolan, Marie. 2020. Research and Markets. December 20 Issue.
16. Mapes-Christ, Jennifer. 2021. Prepared Foods. January 6 Issue.
17. Demetrakakes, Pan. 2021. Food Processing. April 16 Issue.
18. Murphy, David. 2020. Research and Markets. October 27 Issue.
19. Case, Shelly. 2018. Gluten Free: The Definitive Resources Guide. CNN. December 13 Issue.
20. Stefanski, Julie. 2018. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. CNN. December 13 Issue.
21. Readers Digest. 2018. October Issue.
22. Food Quality & Safety. 2021. January Issue.
23. FDA. 2018. Notice: Sesame. October 2 Issue.
24. Fusaro, Dave. 2020. Food Processing. November 12 Issue.
25. Demetrakakes, Pan. 2021. Food Processing. April 16 Issue.
26. Stevens, Shawn. 2021. Meatingplace. June 24 Issue.
27. Matayoshi, J. and M. Lopez. 2021. Food Safety Magazine. June 29 Issue.
**Categories:** News
---
### [FSNS C&A Wins BRCGS Americas, Certification Body of the Year](https://fsns.com/fsns-ca-wins-brcgs-americas-certification-body-of-the-year/)
**Published:** April 23, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**–April 23, 2020–Food Safety Net Services Certification & Audit (FSNS C&A), a worldwide provider of certification and audit services and audit programs for the food safety industry, has been selected as the BRCGS Americas, Certification Body of the Year.
This prestigious award validates the growing capacity and ongoing integrity of the FSNS C&A Certification program. To achieve this level of recognition, FSNS C&A continuously trains and calibrates members of the audit team to ensure consistency among auditors, and to enable members of the team to learn from each other.
In addition to being selected as the BRCGS Americas, Certification Body of the Year, Senior Audit Specialist, Michael Sanders, received an honorable mention for BRCGS Americas, Auditor of the Year. Sanders has been with FSNS C&A since 2012 and has a total of 28 years in the food industry.
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [How Can We “Modify” Or “Supplement” Our Diet to Improve Our Gut Microbiome?](https://fsns.com/how-can-we-modify-or-supplement-our-diet-to-improve-our-gut-microbiome/)
**Published:** August 1, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*By Gary Smith (Colorado State University), Aeriel Belk (Auburn University), and Keith Belk (Colorado State University)*
Of the trillions of microbes that inhabit the human body, 95% reside as an ecosystem in the large intestine known as the [gut microbiome](https://fsns.com/what-is-the-gut-microbiome/).1 These microbes are mostly beneficial and influence our health and well-being in a symbiotic relationship by helping digest our fibrous foods, producing vitamins, preventing pathogen colonization, and producing molecules and metabolites that interact and regulate our immune, metabolic, and nervous systems.1 The more we learn about the details of associations, relationships, and cause-and-effect sequelae between gut microbiomes and human health, the more obvious it becomes that people might be able to affect – if not control – their own destiny by modifying or supplementing their dietary choices.
## The Role of Diet in Enhancing Health
There is growing interest in enhancing health through diet modification, which includes adding foods perceived to promote health and/or eliminating those foods believed to have a negative impact on health.2,3 Consumers across the globe prefer this functional nutrition rather than reductionist methods of diet control; 71% of consumers agree that it is important to choose foods that positively boost nutrition or benefit how the body functions.4
A growing portion of these consumers are embracing diet and lifestyle changes in a movement toward eating [functional foods](https://fsns.com/functional-foods-food-as-medicine/). This is specifically described in the [Food is Medicine initiative led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services](https://health.gov/our-work/nutrition-physical-activity/food-medicine), which involves connecting nutrition and healthcare through both dietary and prescription programs. An estimated 70% of global consumers have made changes to their diet and lifestyle to improve their immune health6, and a national survey recently found that consumers are increasingly eager to explore questions about how foods can support immune response and cognitive enhancement by improving gut health.7
## The Importance of a Healthy Gut Microbiome
We have established here and in our [previous publication](https://fsns.com/what-is-the-gut-microbiome/) that the gut microbiome is crucial to our physical well-being, thus we need to maintain a healthy one. Much of this can be accomplished by eating foods that can feed your microbiome; if you eat too much sugar or too little fiber, the gut microbiota can’t get enough nutrients.8
## Scientific Insights on Diet and Gut Health
Several potential diets have been evaluated in the scientific literature to investigate how changing your diet could impact the health of your gut microbiome. A study of the specific strains of gut microbes capable of mitigating hypertension found that consumption of fruits and vegetables provided the ideal gut microbiome composition.10
Additionally, attempts to alter the balance of children’s gut microbiome by provision of simple nutrients (sugars, vitamins, and minerals) do not impact the large intestine (where the gut microbiome is most dense) because simple nutrients are largely digested/absorbed in the small intestine.11 There is general agreement on the ideal diet for maintaining a healthy gut microbiome. Your microbes are what you eat; a shift from a high-fat/low-fiber diet, to a low-fat/high-fiber diet leads to a rapid and significant change in the composition of the gut microbiome.12 The best way to take care of the gut microbiome and your overall health is by consuming a healthy diet that’s rich in fruits, vegetables, and fiber – and low in fat, sugar, and processed foods.13
## Challenges in Maintaining a Healthy Diet
We know what scientists say we ought to eat, but that’s easier said than done. We mess it all up by snacking and by eating way too much sugar, refined carbohydrates, and [ultra-processed food](https://fsns.com/the-impact-of-ultra-processed-food-on-human-health/).15 The composition of the gut microbiome changes throughout our lives.16 The gut microbiome is constantly monitoring and reacting.17
The qualitative and quantitative fluctuations that occur in the gut microbiome communities can make the difference between health and sickness.18 Only a long-term healthy diet can truly maintain or improve your gut microbiome; eat foods that are high in fiber (grains, legumes, vegetables), fermented foods (kimchi, kefir, and sauerkraut, which all contain live microorganisms), and foods that are low in sugar.8
## Impact of Diet and Sleep on Gut Microbiome
Diet and sleep are major factors in ratios of gut microbes because of how these factors can impact nutrients, water availability, and pH.19 The balance of microbes in the human gut varies substantially from morning to night and even more by seasons; fluctuations completely transform the microbiome from summer to winter.20 Periodic fasting by the host can shift the microbiome toward higher proportions of beneficial microbes.21
A person’s immune system does not simply shape its gut microbiome, but the person’s microbiome also shapes its immune system.24 Sensory cells in the gut influence hunger and satiety via both neuronal communication and hormone release; behaviors, mental state, and neurological disorders are controlled by relaying messages between the brain and the digestive tract.25,26,27
## The Complex Relationship Between Gut and Brain
The gut microbiome community harbors a trillion microbes that influence human physiology – and, thereby, human health and well-being.8 We don’t know whether the gut is influencing the brain, or the brain is influencing the gut.8 Researchers at Stanford University are studying the presence and difference of cell-types (i.e., epithelial, connective tissue, nerve, and immune cells) of the entire intestine to determine how the cells interact with each other – and the brain.28
Meanwhile, scientists are wrestling with two other matters: What happens to the balance of the gut microbiome when a person uses an antibiotic to fend off an infection of some sort or uses a substitute for real sugar? When a person is given an antibiotic to cure some health issue, it causes collateral damage of that person’s gastro-intestinal microbiome and sometimes causes antimicrobial resistance in other pathogens and/or weakening of the person’s immune system (making the person more susceptible to other diseases).29
Researchers from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory [identified a number of drugs that can help protect against the collateral damage often caused by antibiotics to bacteria in the gut](https://www.insideprecisionmedicine.com/news-and-features/drugs-identified-that-protect-gut-bacteria-from-harmful-effects-of-antibiotics/) without negatively impacting their effectiveness.30 Non-nutritive sugar-alternatives (e.g., Sucralose® and Saccharin®) may impair glucose responses by altering our gut microbiome, and they do so in a highly personalized manner (i.e., by affecting each person in a unique way).31
## The Effect of Antibiotics and Sugar Substitutes on Gut Microbiome
Maintaining a balanced and healthy gut microbiome by simply modifying your repertoire of food-group choices is exceedingly difficult given the effects of diurnal cycles, seasons, antibiotics, and sugar substitutes. What if you instead modified the balance and composition in the gut microbiome by supplementing the microbes in the gut?
Interest in this approach started when food processors responded to consumer demands for diets that would improve their immune health.6 Early research on humans and farm animals helped characterize peaceable vs. fractious microbiomes and beneficial vs. harmful species/strains of gut microbiota.32,33,34 Research conducted on meat animals (cattle and swine) continues to broaden our knowledge of the gut microbiome.35
## The Potential of Probiotics in Treating Diseases
Research findings in Science suggest that manipulating the gut microbiome could be a way to have an effect on the brain without putting anything directly into the brain; scientists believe the best way to approach preventing and treating neurodegenerative diseases is by modifying the gut microbiome with specialized diets and probiotics.27,36 A growing body of scientific literature has linked prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics with improvements in metabolic diseases, including obesity and cholesterol abnormalities, depressive symptoms, and poor sleep qualities.13,27
## Understanding Prebiotics, Probiotics, and Postbiotics
So, what are these -biotics? And, can they make a difference by supplementing the gut microbiota, providing food for the microbes, aiding beneficial strains of microbes, and/or increasing the molecules/metabolites that an ideal microbiome provides?
The three -biotics descriptors are used more as marketing terms rather than true medical terms but are useful to understand the different types of supplements that can be used to potentially alter the microbiome.
The suffix -biotic means pertaining to life or living matter; of those three terms, only prebiotic is described in the medical dictionary as meaning “the period before the existence of life on Earth.”38 But, the more commonly used definitions for these terms are to describe **prebiotic as chemicals that precede development of a community of gut microbiota** (of, basically, food for the microbiome), **probiotic means microbes that can be supplemented into the gut microbiome directly**, and **postbiotic means chemicals produced by the gut microbiota**.
## Understanding Prebiotics, Probiotics, and Postbiotics
Marketers of prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics claim that these beneficial molecules, metabolites, or microbes are critical to our gut health and could help treat everything from obesity to depression, to sleep disorders by supporting the community of microscopic organisms that live in the gut microbiome.13 They claim that all three of the -biotics are necessary for gut health and so much of our immune function and overall health is tied to our gut microbiome, but true evidence that these tools are able to significantly alter the microbiome and gut health long-term is still unclear.39
Prebiotics are types of beneficial molecules.13 Prebiotics are sources of food for specific probiotics and other microbes already in the gut microbiome; they are typically a form of carbohydrate, mostly fiber, that people don’t have the enzymes to digest.40,41 Things like whole oats, onions, bananas, asparagus, wheat, barley, and beans move through the digestive tract to the intestine where beneficial bacteria can feast on them.42 Chemically, the fibrous foods contribute oligosaccharides, beta-glucans, chicory fiber, inulin, etc., which will be on the ingredient list.42
## The Benefits of Probiotics
According to the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics, probiotics are live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host.43 Some probiotics promote a healthy microbial balance and diversity in the gut, while others help reduce the number of pathogens.41
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2022) found that there is specific evidence that certain probiotics can:
1. Reduce antibiotic-associated diarrhea
2. Treat infectious pediatric diarrhea
3. Improve some digestive symptoms, including those caused by mild-to-moderate irritable bowel syndrome
4. Help manage symptoms associated with poor digestion of lactose
5. Reduce colic symptoms in infants
6. Decrease some common infections, including those of the respiratory tract, gut, and vaginal tract43
## Common Sources of Probiotics
Some fermented and/or cultured foods, such as yogurt, kefir, kimchi, fermented soybeans, sauerkraut, and kombucha naturally contain probiotics 8,39 as do some infant formulas and dietary supplements.43
The most common probiotic are *Lactobacillus* and *Bifidobacterium* of dozens of strains; different strains are effective on specific ailments but have no effect on other illnesses.44 Consulting the website [USProbioticGuide.com](https://usprobioticguide.com/) is recommended for those making decisions about which probiotic therapy would be beneficial to a specific person’s ailment.44 Examples of probiotics available in supermarkets and drug stores are:
1. Great Value Yogurt®
2. Ozona Probiotics For Digestive Health®
3. GoHealthy Probiotics For Infants, Toddlers, and Kids®
4. Probiotic 10®
All of them depend on *Lactobacillus* and *Bifidobacterium* strains. Another dietary supplement, Probio Slim® is actually a “Synbiotic”, which contains seven strains of *Lactobacillus*, a *Bifidobacterium* plus a prebiotic comprised of inulin, green tea, papaya, and fig extract. A “Synbiotic” is a synergistic mixture of prebiotics and probiotics in which the prebiotic increases the benefit of a paired Probiotic.41
## The Ongoing Debate on Probiotics
The jury is still out on probiotics; while the addition of these organisms may provide temporary benefits, it is not yet clear whether they can actually modify the gut microbiome long-term. These new organisms tend to get kicked out because all the other microbes in that community are accustomed to being with each other and have a strong ecosystem – similar to how it can be tricky to introduce a new animal species to a habitat and expect it to survive in a healthy way.45
## The Potential of Live Bacterial Products (LBP)
Researchers are using gut microbiome characterizations and bioinformatics to develop Live Bacterial Products (LBP) as living drugs for the development of therapeutics that incorporate recombinant probiotics; there has been success in the selection of LBP strains to reprogram the infant gut microbiome to a healthy state.46 An engineered probiotic could revolutionize the way we treat chronic diseases; if we can use living microbes to produce medicine from within the body they can keep producing the active metabolite – as is needed – for the rest of the person’s life.47
## The Role of Postbiotics in Health
Postbiotics are metabolites produced by probiotics; these metabolites help prevent disease and promote overall health and well-being.48 Postbiotics are metabolites or molecules of the probiotics that you have ingested.37 The microbes in your gut consume the undigestible prebiotic fiber and produce bioactive compounds called postbiotics.39
Postbiotics have specific physiological benefits of their own, including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anticarcinogenic properties.49 Marketers say all three “-biotics” are critical for supporting the community of microscopic organisms in the gut microbiome; with both beneficial and harmful bacteria, the three “-biotics” help tip the balance in the positive direction.13
## Conclusion: Maintaining Gut Health
To reiterate, we do not yet fully understand the mechanisms for how these -biotics impact human health, or really whether they are actually helping at all. They are likely not causing harm, however, so it is a reasonable method to try if you are experiencing gastrointestinal issues or are looking for ways to balance your health.
It is important to be careful, though; probiotics are not regulated by the FDA, so there is not a guarantee that the claims on the packaging are actually correct, or that the contents even truly contain what the marketing says.
Additionally, these compounds could interfere with other medicines you are taking. So, if you’re going to take a prebiotic or probiotic, we recommend you check in with a medical professional before you do so.42 Plus, these products can be expensive, so you want to make informed decisions before making an economic investment in these supplements.
The best way to take care of the gut microbiome and your overall health is by consuming a healthy diet that’s rich in fruits, vegetables and fiber – and low in fat, sugar, and processed foods. Taking a prebiotic or a probiotic supplement alone will not be enough to fix a bad diet!8,13,50
### REFERENCES
- 1 Hanson, Nur. 2023. 8th Annual Translational Conference. April 15 Issue.
- 2 Archer Daniels Midland.™️ 2020. October 29 Issue.
- 3 Arnot, Charlie. 2020. Meatingplace. June 19 Issue.
- 4 Innovative Market Insights®. 2021. Prepared Foods. July 16 Issue.
- 5 Connolly, Jenn. 2021. Packaging Strategies. May 13 Issue.
- 6 Avis, Ed. 2022. Food Processing. January 12 Issue.
- 7 Sowder, Amy. 2023. The Packer. August 3 Issue.
- 8 Sterbenz, Christina. 2023. National Geographic. June 30 Issue.
- 10 Song, Ju. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. June 16 Issue.
- 11 Robertson, Ruairi. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. February 16 Issue.
- 12 Brouillette, Monique. 2022. Inside Precision Medicine. October Edition.
- 13 Colino, Stacey. 2023. National Geographic. March 30 Issue.
- 15 Tanzi, Rudy. 2022. CNN. December 5 Issue.
- 16 Ball and Boyle. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. June 9 Issue.
- 17 Bedree, Joseph. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. April 20 Issue.
- 18 Liszewski, Kathy. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. June 9 Issue.
- 19 Zarrinpar, Amir. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. May 10 Issue.
- 20 Machado, Carolina. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. April 28 Issue.
- 21 Groisman, Eduardo. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. March 21 Issue.
- 22 Hymes, Matthew. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. June 7 Issue.
- 23 Chen *et al*. 2020. BB Science Focus. July 4 Issue.
- 24 Hanson, Mark. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. July 21 Issue.
- 25 Anikova, Polina. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. June 23 Issue.
- 26 Morton, Jamie. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. June 28 Issue.
- 27 Dantas, Gautam. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. June 14 Issue.
- 28 Nolan, Garry. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. July 20 Issue.
- 29 Genetic Engineering News. 2021. October 16 Issue.
- 30 Maier and Goemans. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. April 17 Issue.
- 31 Elinav, Eran. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. August 19 Issue.
- 32 Uyeno *et al*. 2015. Microbe Environment 30:126-132.
- 33 Fouhse *et al*. 2016. Animal Frontiers 6:30-36.
- 34 Venable *et al*. 2016. Animal Frontiers 6:43-49.
- 35 Scott, Chris. 2023. Meatingplace. July 20 Issue.
- 36 Holtzman, David. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. January 13 Issue.
- 37 Rosales, Anna. 2023. National Geographic. March 30 Issue.
- 38 Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary. 1988. W.B. Sanders Company. Philadelphia, PA.
- 39 Rosales, Anna. 2023. Institute of Food Technology. March Edition.
- 40 Cresci, Gail. 2023. National Geographic. March 30 Issue.
- 41 Kemin.™️ 2023. Eye On Biotics. Accessed on 9/7/2023.
- 42 Cresci, Gail. 2023. Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital. June 30 Issue.
- 43 ISAPP. 2023. Probiotics. . Accessed on 9/14/2023.
- 44 Reid, Gregor. 2023. Western University of London Ontario. March 30 Issue.
- 45 Kashyap, Purna. 2023. Mayo Clinic. June 30 Issue.
- 46 Hans, Heidi. 2023. Clinical Microbiomics.® June 9 Issue.
- 47 Quintana, Francisco. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. August 9 Issue.
- 48 Smith, Lloyd. 2021. WebMD. September 8 Issue.
- 49 Crist, Gina. 2023. University of Delaware. March 30 Issue.
- 50 Sonnenburg, Justin. 2023. National Geographic. June 30 Issue.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [Environmental Sampling Best Practices](https://fsns.com/environmental-sampling-best-practices/)
**Published:** November 5, 2024
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Alex Brandt, PhD, Chief Science Officer, Certified Group; Ryan Welsh, M.S., Corporate Operations Support, Certified Group*
Your [environmental monitoring program (EMP)](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/) is only as effective as the data it produces based on your environmental swabbing practices.
To help food safety and quality assurance personnel maximize EMP effectiveness and food safety, we’ve compiled the following list of best practices for environmental sampling.
## 1. Use the Appropriate Swabbing Tool
- Sponges are ideal for large areas, such as food processing equipment and environmental surfaces.
- Cotton-tip swabs are best for narrow spaces like cracks, crevices, or hard-to-reach areas.
## 2. Swabbing Technique
- On flat surfaces, use at least ten vertical strokes, ten horizontal strokes, and ten diagonal strokes, while rotating the swab or sponge to cover the entire area.
- Use a systematic pattern (e.g., zig-zag) to maximize recovery of microorganisms from the sampling site.
## 3. Ensure Adequate Area Coverage
- Swab a sufficiently large area for each sampling site to ensure representative data. A 4”x4” (10×10 cm) area is common for small surfaces.
- For larger areas, swabbing a 12”x12” (30×30 cm) area with a sponge ensures more comprehensive sample collection.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/56cd1387-3858-49b1-90d2-68eb6a0df65c)## 4. Incorporate Neutralizing Agents
- Use a swab or sponge that contains a neutralizing agent to prevent residual disinfectants from continuing to kill bacteria during transport to the lab.
- Choose a neutralizer that is effective against the sanitizers used in your facility and that does not interfere with the analytical assay used.
## 5. Identify Critical Areas to Swab
- Focus on biofilm-prone areas – target anything sticky, gunky, or that appears to harbor residue, as these are potential biofilm sites.
- Pay attention to surfaces where water and/or food residue lingers (e.g., hollow rollers, crevices, hinges), as these areas are high-risk for harboring microorganisms.
## 6. Proper Handling During Sampling
- Change gloves between samples to prevent crosscontamination.
- Keep swabs or sponges in their sterile packaging until immediately before use.
- Avoid touching the swabbed area with hands or other surfaces before it is sealed in the transport medium to maintain sample integrity.
## 7. Maintain a Clean-to-Dirty Order
- Swab areas in a clean-to-dirty order to reduce the risk of cross-contamination during sampling.
- Begin with areas nearest the product (e.g., Zone 2) before moving to less critical areas (e.g., Zones 3 and 4).
It’s also a good idea to randomize environmental sampling locations to ensure you’re getting a good representation of the entire production area.
[Environmental monitoring software, such as emma®, our Environmental Monitoring and Mapping Application](https://fsns.com/emma/), can automate and randomize swabbing locations for you, helping save time and improve your program’s effectiveness.
Contact us if you would like to see how [emma® can help automate your EMP](https://fsns.com/emma/) or if you need [laboratory testing for your EMP](https://fsns.com/contact-us/).
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [How to Test for Heavy Metals in Food](https://fsns.com/why-testing-for-heavy-metals-in-foods-is-crucial-for-safety/)
**Published:** November 26, 2024
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
When consumers hear about foods that contain heavy metals, panic ensues because many heavy metals are toxic when consumed above safe levels.
In some cases, metal supplements that are not considered “heavy metals” may be added to certain foods, which may confuse consumers. This is why [testing for heavy metals in food](https://fsns.com/industries/) is a crucial part of your safety program. It ensures that the food consumers are eating is safe for consumption, but it also helps educate consumers on what is acceptable and what isn’t when it comes to the addition of metals in some foods.
In this article, we explain how to test food for heavy metals and cover the regulations involved.
## Does the FDA Monitor Heavy Metals in Foods?
There has been quite an uptick in reports of heavy metals in food, such as [recent news of lead in cinnamon](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/heavy-metals-in-cinnamon-and-the-importance-of-testing).
However, the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states explicitly that they do monitor levels of metals in foods](https://www.fda.gov/food/chemical-contaminants-pesticides/environmental-contaminants-food). The FDA currently runs two tests for metals and other elements in food products, including the following:
- [FDA Total Diet Study](https://www.fda.gov/food/science-research-food/fda-total-diet-study-tds): This FDA program carefully monitors levels of approximately 800 different contaminants and nutrients in the average diet of U.S. citizens.
- [FDA’s Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware; And Radionuclides in Food Compliance Program](https://www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-food/toxic-elements-foods-and-foodware): This program is specifically designed to monitor foods and products used in the consumption of foods, such as ceramicware, for the presence of toxic elements and radionuclides.
The FDA also states that they conduct targeted sampling assignments to report potentially elevated levels of heavy metals or other toxic elements in certain foods.
It is also worth noting that dozens of third-party testing groups perform heavy metal testing as a regular part of their food safety testing practices to further ensure the safety of the consumable products currently on the market.
Lead is one of the most dangerous contaminants that can affect the food supply, along with mercury, arsenic, and cadmium. ## Which Heavy Metals in Food are Most Problematic?
While the term “heavy metals” is scientifically defined as any metallic element with high density, the food world further defines it as either metal nutrients with Recommended Daily Amounts (such as iron, manganese, and magnesium), or as heavy metals that pose health problems.
It is this second category that is usually meant when spoken by food producers/sellers/users. Among the most hazardous heavy metals are lead, mercury, arsenic, and cadmium.
### Lead
Lead contamination can originate from several sources, including past use of lead in agricultural or industrial applications, such as pesticides, gasoline, and paint.
High levels can cause kidney and brain damage. It is especially damaging to children, which is why it has been banned from many consumer products, particularly children’s toys.
### Mercury
Mercury contamination can cause chest pains, headaches, exhaustion, weight loss, and other problems. It is especially toxic when inhaled as a gas after it has been heated.
While not a natural element in food, it can contaminate the food supply if plants or animals ingest mercury from contaminated soil, water, or air.
### Arsenic
Arsenic is considered a heavy metal, although it has non-metallic properties. Plants, particularly rice, can absorb it from the ground and cause arsenic poisoning. It is a naturally occurring element, but consuming excessive amounts, normally via contaminated drinking water, poses serious health risks, such as increased risk of cancer.
While inorganic arsenic has been shown to be more dangerous than organic arsenic, detrimental health effects due to excessive exposure to organic arsenic is being studied and is an area of concern. Typical testing methods measure the sum of both organic and inorganic arsenic present in the food, which is a faster, more reliable test.
### Cadmium
Cadmium is present in the earth’s crust, but it is also a by-product of zinc refining practices. Plants can absorb cadmium, leading to health problems if consumed in excess, such as anemia, kidney failure, and increased cancer risk.
## How to Test for Heavy Metals in Food
Testing for heavy metals in food is a relatively common analytical chemistry test that most food safety laboratories, like FSNS, can perform. The same steps apply for most products:
**1. Sample Collection**
- Collect random samples directly from the production line or off the shelf.
**2. Sample Preparation at the Lab**
- Homogenization to create a uniform sample for accurate testing.
**3. Sample Digestion**
- A small quantity is mixed with specific acids in a high-powered microwave, breaking down the product into a clear liquid.
**4. Heavy Metal Analysis in Food**
- Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) is used.
- Analysis of common isotopes of lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, etc.
**5. Reporting Results**
- The lab creates a Certificate of Analysis (COA) detailing metal concentrations in parts per billion.
- The COA indicates concentrations, but doesn’t define pass/fail criteria – this depends on regulatory standards or company benchmarks.
Certified Laboratories, our fellow Certified Group company, [provides a more detailed explanation of how to test for heavy metals in foods on its website.](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/how-to-test-for-heavy-metals-in-food-other-products) More specifically, they also explain [how to test for heavy metals in spices here](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/how-to-test-for-lead-in-spices).
## Food Safety Testing: Why are Heavy Metals Such a Hot Button Topic?
If heavy metal testing is a regular part of food safety testing done by both the FDA and many third-party testing facilities around the country, why is the topic of metals in food so prevalent?
One of the biggest stories in the last decade is that [baby formulas have tested positive for arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury](https://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/heavy-metals-in-baby-food-a6772370847/).
While some testing has shown the presence of these heavy metals in food, most consumers are unaware that many of these foods are infused with some metals deemed essential for the body, such as iron.
Many baby formulas and breakfast cereals are infused with iron to help supplement the minerals in a young child’s diet.
A study found that 23 out of 28 brands of dark chocolate contained potentially dangerous levels of either lead or cadmium if consumed daily.## Heavy Metals in Dark Chocolate Raise Concern
Another story that turned heads was the discovery of [potentially dangerous levels of lead and cadmium in some brands of dark chocolate](https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/).
A Consumer Reports study tested 28 brands of dark chocolate for lead and cadmium. Results showed that 23 brands contained levels of either lead or cadmium that exceeded California’s maximum allowable dose level of lead (0.5 micrograms) and cadmium (4.1 micrograms).
Five brands contained levels of both lead *and* cadmium that exceeded safe levels.
Because there are no Federal limits, scientists used California’s regulations since, Consumer Reports said, they are the “most protective available”.
In 2024, [Consumer Reports again reported on lead contamination, this time in cinnamon powders](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/heavy-metals-in-cinnamon-and-the-importance-of-testing), with the most egregious offender containing 3.52 ppm lead.
## Where Do Heavy Metals in Food Come From?
Food manufacturers are not intentionally adding arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, and other heavy metals to the food and other products they sell to people.
Instead, these metals are often found in the soil, air, and water used to grow and cultivate the products that are later sold in stores. They also don’t degrade, so special care is needed to prevent them from being in the food in the first place.
For example, chocolate is made from the cacao bean. While dark chocolate contains antioxidants that provide health benefits, researchers have found that cacao plants absorb cadmium from the soil, which accumulates in the beans used to make chocolate. Since dark chocolate uses more cacao beans than other types of chocolate, it stands to reason that it has a higher likelihood of containing excessive cadmium.
Lead can contaminate the outer shell of the cacao bean after it is harvested and end up in the finished product we eat.
The same holds for rice, which absorbs more arsenic from the soil than other plants. That is one reason rice-based baby food can be susceptible to elevated arsenic levels.
Fish is also susceptible to heavy metals, particularly mercury. When fish ingest mercury from the water, it can accumulate in their bodies and present a challenge to food safety, underscoring the need for a robust food safety testing program.
Rice absorbs more arsenic from the soil than other plants, which heightens concern over unsafe levels of arsenic in rice-based baby food. ## Do Regulations Control Heavy Metals in Food?
The FDA has not established limits for heavy metals in food, but it does have limits for drinking water:
- Public drinking water: 15 ppb
- Bottled drinking water: 5 ppb
However, in its document [Guidance for Industry: Juice HACCP Hazards and Controls](https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-juice-hazard-analysis-critical-control-point-hazards-and-controls-guidance-first), the FDA does say that lead levels above 50 ppb in juice may constitute a health hazard and “FDA may in the future establish an action level for lead in juice at levels above 50 ppb”.
In addition, CFR Title 21 establishes heavy metal limits for food contact materials, such as flatware and ceramic mugs.
## California Prop 65 Limits Heavy Metals in Food
California has adopted regulations to help combat heavy metals contamination.
Anything made or grown in California is labeled with a warning regarding the presence of heavy metals found in the earth in which many products are grown.
Due to [Proposition 65](https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/about-proposition-65#:~:text=Proposition%2065%20requires%20businesses%20to,defects%20or%20other%20reproductive%20harm.&text=Proposition%2065%20requires%20California%20to,defects%20or%20other%20reproductive%20harm.), all products that were grown in the ground or consumables and cosmetics made with such products must be labeled with the warning, even if no heavy metals (or other potentially harmful substances) are present in the product.
## Food Safety Testing with Food Safety Net Services
Heavy metal analysis in food is a critical part of any food safety testing process because it checks for these potentially hazardous materials and helps identify where these materials are found in larger quantities. Once identified, necessary changes can be made to ensure consumer safety.
Here at Food Safety Net Services, a [Certified Group company](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/), we perform [chemistry testing to identify and quantify lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and other heavy metals](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) to ensure a safe food supply.
[Certified Laboratories, a Certified Group company, also performs heavy metals testing for food and other products.](https://certified-laboratories.com/chemistry/) Reach out to us if you need heavy metals testing for your food products.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety, heavy metals
---
### [Certified Laboratories Approved as Amazon TIC for Ophthalmic and Skin-Lightening Products ](https://fsns.com/certified-laboratories-approved-as-amazon-tic-for-ophthalmic-and-skin-lightening-products/)
**Published:** December 11, 2024
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
## *Company can conduct required testing and verify COAs against Amazon’s policy requirements.*
**BURBANK, Calif., Dec. 11, 2024 —** Certified Laboratories, a Certified Group company, proudly announces its recognition as an Amazon-approved Testing, Inspection, and Certification (TIC) organization for ophthalmic and skin-lightening products. This approval allows Certified Laboratories to verify these products against Amazon’s updated compliance policies, helping to ensure safety and quality for these products on the platform.
**[READ THE PRESS RELEASE](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/certified-laboratories-approved-as-amazon-tic-for-ophthalmic-and-skin-lightening-products-302329158.html?tc=eml_cleartime)**
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [How to Prepare for an Unannounced GFSI-Benchmarked Audit](https://fsns.com/preparing-for-unannounced-audits/)
**Published:** February 6, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*By Justin Derington, Director of Auditing Services, FSNS C&A*
In December 2024, the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) released its updated [GFSI Benchmarking Requirements, version 2024](https://mygfsi.com/news_updates/global-collaboration-enhanced-food-safety-the-benchmarking-requirements-2024-unveiled/). These Benchmarking Requirements outline the criteria all certification program owners (CPOs) must meet to be included under the GFSI umbrella.
The publications of these updated requirements affect [BRC](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/), IFS, and all other GFSI standards. The new benchmarking standard includes two important updates.
- First, GFSI mandates that all GFSI recognized schemes include [food safety culture requirements](https://fsns.com/food-safety-and-quality-culture-what-is-the-auditor-looking-for/).
- Second, GFSI requires that unannounced audits be mandatory, at a minimum, once every three years.
## GFSI-Benchmarked Standards Require Unannounced Audits Every Three Years
BRCGS Food Safety, SQF, and FSSC 22000 standards include mandatory unannounced audits once every three years. While each of these standards varies in the unannounced audit requirements, there are a few that are consistent.
- First, each site scheduled for an unannounced audit is permitted to submit “blackout” dates. These are dates when a site is not planning on being operational. Please note that blackout dates are not days when an audit would be inconvenient or more difficult.
- Second, each standard defines a timeframe during which the audit must take place. These timeframes vary widely by standard. [Feel free to reach out to FSNS C&A for more information.](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
- Lastly, each standard requires the auditor to visit the production area within 30 minutes of arrival on site.
## How to Prepare for an Unannounced GFSI Audit
Since an audit can take place at any time, **make a plan beforehand**.
- First, communication among the management team is critical. Since the audit may take place at any time, it’s important that management understands, and is in agreement on, what to do when the auditor arrives onsite. Prepare for contingencies before the audit. What happens if the QA Manager is out sick? Where are the audit materials stored? It’s imperative to have more than one person who can work with the auditor and participate in a successful audit.
- Second, communicate with staff. Make sure staff understands that an audit may take place at any time and that it takes the entire team to show the site in the best light.
- Lastly, get organized. Collect and organize policies, procedures and other supporting information in a place that is easily accessible, organized, and understood by those who will be participating.
When the auditor shows up at the site, relax and implement the plan. Communicate with the management team that the audit is taking place and allocate appropriate resources for a successful audit.
If you have any questions about GFSI-benchmarked audits, [contact our Certification and Audit Specialists](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
**Categories:** Newsletter
**Tags:** BRCGS, Certification and audit, FSSC 22000, GFSI, SQF
---
### [Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) Announces Valentine's Promotion on 2025 Food Safety Training](https://fsns.com/food-safety-net-services-fsns-announces-valentines-promotion-on-2025-food-safety-training/)
**Published:** February 14, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
*Register Between Feb. 14-28 for 20% Off All Courses*
SAN ANTONIO, Feb. 14, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — [Food Safety Net Services (FSNS)](https://c212.net/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=4363121-1&h=3192915466&u=https%3A%2F%2Ffsns.com%2F&a=Food+Safety+Net+Services+(FSNS)), a [Certified Group](https://c212.net/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=4363121-1&h=3058999934&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.certifiedgroup.com%2F&a=Certified+Group) company, is celebrating Valentine’s Day with a special promo for food safety professionals. From Feb. 14 to Feb. 28, FSNS is offering 20% off all 2025 food safety training courses in appreciation for the hardworking people dedicated to ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply.
**[Read More](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/food-safety-net-services-fsns-announces-valentines-promotion-on-2025-food-safety-training-302377199.html?tc=eml_cleartime)**
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) Expands with New Laboratory in St. Louis](https://fsns.com/food-safety-net-services-fsns-expands-with-new-laboratory-in-st-louis/)
**Published:** March 3, 2025
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
## *Bringing 24/7 Food Safety Testing to the Area*
**SAN ANTONIO, Texas, March 3, 2025 –** [Food Safety Net Services (FSNS)](https://fsns.com/?utm_source=PR%20Newswire&utm_medium=press%20release&utm_campaign=St%20Louis%20Lab), a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=PR%20Newswire&utm_medium=press%20release&utm_campaign=St%20Louis%20Lab) company, is proud to announce the opening of its new food testing laboratory in St. Louis, Missouri. This expansion strengthens FSNS’ growing North American network of 30+ ISO-accredited laboratories, reinforcing its commitment to providing high-quality food safety solutions to manufacturers and processors in the region.
The new ISO 17025-accredited facility offers a comprehensive range of food safety testing services and is located at…
[**READ MORE**](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/food-safety-net-services-fsns-expands-with-new-laboratory-in-st-louis-302388852.html?tc=eml_cleartime)
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [The Importance of Testing Pet Food for Possible Contamination](https://fsns.com/the-importance-of-testing-pet-food-for-possible-contamination/)
**Published:** August 14, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
The American Pet Products Association (APPA) estimates that 68% percent of U.S. households own a pet, according to the 2017-2018 National Pet Owners Survey. That means roughly 85 million families in the U.S. have a pet in their household. Many households treat their pet as a member of the family and animals play an indispensable role in human lives, from companionship to therapeutic support. Working dogs have provided a multitude of services from police work, rescue operations, herding, and even helping transport critical medical supplies, such as the transport of Diphtheria antitoxin by sled to Nome during the 1925 outbreak. There is so much love and affection between humans and pets. Humans care deeply for their pets and want to feed their animals the best possible food. Consumers have so many great options when buying pet food. It is almost a little overwhelming when going to the pet food store; there is a formulation out there for many different diets, budgets, and health needs.
Picture this: you just purchased a treat for you dog. Your dog is enjoying the treat and then jumps into bed with you (it is estimated that 41% of dogs and 53% of cats share their owner’s bed) (APPMA, 2004). Dogs can shed *Salmonella* in their feces and have been known to bring treats into their owner’s beds to enjoy (Green, 1998). Humans spend roughly one third of their life asleep (usually in a bed), and that bed might have just been contaminated with *Salmonella* from your loving animal. Your dog licks your face after eating the treat. You go to pick up the remainder of the treat and don’t wash your hands after! What you didn’t know is that the treat could be possibly contaminated with *Salmonella* bacteria. Both you and your dog are at risk to be exposed to a pathogenic organism. According to the CDC symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps (and these symptoms can stick around for 4 to 7 days).
[Testing pet food products](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/) for pathogens, like *Salmonella,* before it entered commerce might have prevented this situation from occurring. Unfortunately, a situation very similar to this story is currently occurring with pig dog ear treats. The CDC and FDA are advising pet owners not to feed any pig ear dog treats due to contamination with multidrug-resistant *Salmonella* (CDC, 2019). There are 127 reported cases in 33 states with 26 hospitalizations. In December of 2018 fresh frozen meats for cats and dogs were recalled for possible *Salmonella* and *Listeria monocytogenes* (another pathogenic bacteria) contamination (FDA). In September of 2018 frozen raw pet food was recalled for the potential to be contaminated with *Salmonella* (FDA). In August of 2018 ground dog and cat food was recalled for the potential to be contaminated with *L. monocytogenes.* In April of 2018 there were five different recalls for pet food involving *Listeria* and *Salmonella* (FDA). In March of 2018 dog chews and bully sticks were recalled for the potential to be contaminated with *Salmonella* (FDA). *Salmonella* doesn’t discern between human and pet foods; contamination can occur at many different points in the process. Many pet food products are produced with ingredients of animal-origin, and there is a risk of contamination (as is the case with foods for human consumption) with bacterial organisms. Pet food products may have bacterial contamination in raw materials sourced to make the products. Most pet food products have a thermal treatment that is implemented to kill bacterial organisms that may be found in the raw materials. There is the potential for contamination after the thermal treatment.
In Alberta, Canada in 1999 there was an outbreak of human salmonellosis attributed to pig ear treats (Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, 2000). There have been multiple human salmonellosis outbreaks attributed to pet food and treats. Following the outbreak in Canada, the FDA conducted a study looking at animal-derived pet treats. Of the 158 tested pet treats, 65 treats were contaminated with 24 different serotypes of *Salmonella* (White et al., 2003). Although pet food isn’t meant to be for human consumption, humans could be eating pet foods during times of hardship. Edward Peeples describes his situation and observations in a New York Times article called *…Meanwhile, Humans Eat Pet Food.* He describes eating pet food as his source of nutrition during times of financial hardship, and also documents others having to do the same.
Dogs and cats have potential to be sources of zoonotic disease, like salmonellosis. Salmonellosis in dogs and cats is similar to the infection in humans with symptoms of fever, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and malaise. (Greene, 1998). Dogs can shed *Salmonella* in their feces for at least six weeks (Morse et al., 1976). A study performed on Beagles demonstrated that dogs fed raw pet food contaminated with *Salmonella* leads to *Salmonella* colonization of healthy dogs after a single meal (Finley, 2004).
Pets play an important part of life for humans, they are companions, working animals, and parts of the family. Many families that have pets also have children. Children’s immune system are still developing and they would be more susceptible to the pathogenic organisms when they touch contaminated dog treats, dog food, or receive licks from their pets that are potentially carrying these pathogenic bacteria. People are also eating pet foods that aren’t meant for human consumption. Dogs are used for therapy at hospitals and other facilities where there are immunocompromised individuals. It is important that dogs offering these services are fed a diet that has been tested for the absence of *Salmonella* and *Listeria monocytogenes*. Pathogen testing in pet food not only helps to maintain healthy dogs, but also helps keep humans healthy. Humans can get salmonellosis and other foodborne illness from contaminated pet foods. Pathogen testing is an integral part of food safety, and food safety doesn’t stop at the dinner table, it also extends to the food bowl where we feed our pets.
References
American Pet Product Manufacturer Association (APPMA). 2017-2018 APPMA national pet owners survey. Greenwich, CT: APPMA, 2018.
American Pet Product Manufacturer Association (APPMA). 2003-2004 APPMA national pet owners survey. Greenwich, CT: APPMA, 2014.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2019 Outbreak of Multi-drug Resistant *Salmonella* Infections Linked to Contact with Pig Ear Dog Treats. 2019
Finley RL. *Salmonella* in commercially available pig ear treats and raw food diets: prevalence survey and canine feeding trial \[MSc. Thesis\]. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph, 2004.
Greene CE. Enteric bacterial infections-salmonellosis. In: Infectious diseases of the dog and cat, 2nd ed. CE Greene, ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1998.
Laboratory Centre for Disease Control. Human health risk from exposure to natural dog treats-preliminary report. Can Commun Dis Rep 2000.
Morse EV, Duncan MA, Estep DA, Riggs WA, Blackburn BO. Canine salmonellosis: a review and report of dog to child transmission of *Salmonella* enteritidis. Am J Public Health 1976.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Recalls & Withdrawals. 2019.
White DG, Datta A, McDermott P, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility and genetic relatedness of *Salmonella* serovars isolated from animal derived dog treats in the USA. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003.
**Categories:** News
---
### [How to Conduct a Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment](https://fsns.com/how-to-conduct-a-food-fraud-vulnerability-assessment-free-checklist/)
**Published:** December 12, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Tim Lombardo, Senior Director, Food Consulting Services, [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), a [Certified Group company](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/).*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Conducting a Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment is a requirement for GFSI-benchmarked food safety certifications and crucial for brand protection and public health.
- Regulatory requirements from the FDA and GFSI standards like SQF, BRCGS, and FSSC 22000 mandate specific procedures for identifying food fraud risks in your supply chain.
- The Vulnerability Assessment process systematically evaluates factors like ingredient sourcing, supply chain complexity, and supplier verification to identify weak points that are susceptible to food fraud.
- Use scoring systems to assess risk factors and conduct Severity Assessments to generate an overall Food Fraud Risk score.
---
## Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment: Safeguarding Public Health and Protecting Your Brand
Conducting a [food fraud](https://fsns.com/what-is-food-fraud/) vulnerability assessment is a major component of your overall Food Fraud Program. It’s a requirement for [GFSI-benchmarked food safety certifications](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/). And it’s important for safeguarding public health and protecting your brand.
This article focuses on how to perform a food fraud vulnerability assessment, sometimes called a food defense vulnerability assessment. We’ll also show you how to perform a Severity Assessment to obtain an overall Food Fraud Risk score for each consideration in your supply chain.
[Access our complimentary Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment tool here to assess your organization’s risk](https://info.fsns.com/food-fraud-checklist).
[](https://info.fsns.com/food-fraud-checklist)## What are the FDA Regulations Regarding Food Fraud?
Before diving into performing a vulnerability assessment, let’s cover the regulatory and industry requirements regarding your Food Fraud Program.
### FDA: Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)
The FDA’s approach to food fraud prevention is rooted in the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) of 2011, specifically the two rules listed below:
- [**Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF)**](https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-final-rule-preventive-controls-human-food) **and** [**Animal Food (PCAF) Rules**](https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-final-rule-preventive-controls-animal-food): Require food facilities to implement a written food safety plan that includes an analysis of hazards and risk-based preventive controls. While these regulations do not explicitly mention food fraud, they do require preventive controls to significantly minimize or prevent adulteration, which is a type of food fraud.
- [**Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) Rule**](https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-final-rule-foreign-supplier-verification-programs-fsvp-importers-food-humans-and-animals): Requires importers to verify that their foreign suppliers are producing food in compliance with U.S. safety standards. Includes verifying that suppliers have controls in place to prevent intentional adulteration, which includes certain types of food fraud.
## What are GFSI Requirements for Food Fraud?
[SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS Food Safety](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/), and others all include requirements for conducting a Vulnerability Assessment as part of your Food Defense Program. Here’s a rundown of the requirements:
### SQF
**Section 2.7 Food Defense and Food Fraud**
- 2.7.1.4: “The food defense threat assessment and prevention plan shall be reviewed and tested at least annually or when the threat level, as defined in the threat assessment, changes. Records of reviews and tests of the food defense plan shall be maintained.”
### BRCGS Food Safety
**Section 5.4 Product Authenticity, Claims, and Chain of Custody**
- 5.4.3: “A documented vulnerability assessment shall be carried out on all food raw materials or groups of raw materials to assess the potential risk of adulteration or substitution.”
### FSSC 22000
**Section 2.5.4 Food Fraud**
- 2.5.4.1: “The organization shall have a documented and implemented vulnerability assessment procedure in place…”
## What is a Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment?
A Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment is a critical tool that helps **identify potential vulnerabilities in your supply chains that might make your business susceptible to food fraud**.
It involves systematically evaluating each of your ingredients in isolation, its supply chain, and the control measures in place to determine where the gaps lie. The process requires you to ask the right questions to assess safety and quality, such as…
- Do my ingredients have a history of food fraud?
- Where are my ingredients sourced from?
- What degree of processing do my ingredients require?
- How complex is my supply chain?
- What controls do I have in place to ensure authenticity?
- How robust are my supplier verification processes?
If it sounds daunting, it doesn’t have to be if you follow some simple guidelines. Let’s walk through the process using our Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment template.
## Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment Example
This checklist uses a scoring system that helps assess risk for several considerations throughout your manufacturing process.
## Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment Template
**Vulnerability** **Score** Raw Materials & Packaging History of Fraud 1 3 5 Economic & Geopolitical Considerations 1 3 5 Supply Chain 1 3 5 Supplier Relationship & History 1 3 5 Raw Materials QC 1 3 5 Processing & Distribution Storage & Traceability 1 3 5 Calibration 1 3 5 Hygiene & Cleaning 1 3 5 Human Resources 1 3 5 Information Given to Customers 1 3 5 Subcontracting (if required; otherwise score 0) 0/1 3 5 To conduct your vulnerability assessment, begin with a single ingredient and assign a score for each consideration as follows:
- 1 = Low Vulnerability
- 3 = Medium Vulnerability
- 5 = High Vulnerability
Let’s use the example of turmeric. Begin by assigning it a Vulnerability Assessment score for “History of Fraud”. The information below will help you assign the appropriate score for each consideration.
Let’s say there have been a moderate number of reports of fraud, but no official alerts. You would assign a score of 3 for “History of Food Fraud”.
Next, assign a score for “Economic and Geopolitical Considerations”, and so on until you’ve completed the list.
**History of Fraud**
- **Low Vulnerability:** No reports or evidence of fraud in similar or equivalent ingredients.
- **Medium Vulnerability:** Moderate/high number of reports, but no official alerts from authorities.
- **High Vulnerability:** High number of reports. Alerts from authorities.
**Economical and Geopolitical Considerations**
- **Low Vulnerability:** One or more components with geographic origins that have little cause for concern.
- **Medium Vulnerability:** One or more components with geographic origins or that has been transported through regions of political concern. Anomalies detected frequently but are unrelated.
- **High Vulnerability:** One or more components with geographic origins or that has been transported through regions with increased concern. Anomalies detected that are related to each other.
**Supply Chain**
- **Low Vulnerability:** All production originates with the company. Suppliers act ethically and with quality policies.
- **Medium Vulnerability:** All raw materials originate from a single suppler, which may not manufacture its products, or which may purchase ingredients from a secondary supplier.
- **High Vulnerability:** Several ingredients, each manufactured by a different supplier.
**Relationship with Supplier & History**
- **Low Vulnerability:** Known and trusted supplier that always supplies the same ingredient. No known issues; past issues have been resolved. Supplier holds valid third-party certification. Obtains approval for any new ingredients.
- **Medium Vulnerability:** Established supplier with a short period of previous business or who is respected in the industry. Has had an issue that was not resolved appropriately.
- **High Vulnerability:** Non-established supplier. Ongoing issues that are not resolved appropriately. Evidence that appropriate checks not being made.
**Raw Material Quality Control**
- **Low Vulnerability:** Raw materials and packaging materials verified. Temperature monitoring conducted during transport. Weight controls applied. Processing aids comply with U.S. regulations.
- **Medium Vulnerability:** Raw materials, processing aids, and packaging approved, but no control testing performed. Transport conditions checked via checklist; weight of certain batches checked but without validated procedures or calibrated scales.
- **High Vulnerability:** Materials not verified. Temperature and weight checks not conducted. Processing aids lack appropriate certificate.
**Storage & Traceability**
- **Low Vulnerability:** Storage established and indicated for each material. Computerized management of traceability throughout production chain. Ingredients identified individually throughout processing. Full traceability of all finished product batches monitored.
- **Medium Vulnerability:** No area dedicated for each product but clear identification. Traceability performed manually.
- **High Vulnerability:** Location of materials not established in warehouse and products not identified individually. No traceability monitoring.
**Calibration**
- **Low Vulnerability:** Robust calibration plan. All instruments calibrated and periodically checked. Plan defines tolerances for all equipment.
- **Medium Vulnerability:** Calibration and verification plan established, but not all equipment is periodically calibrated.
- **High Vulnerability:** No calibration plan.
**Hygiene & Cleaning**
- **Low Vulnerability:** Sanitation plan for intermediate and final cleaning established that accounts for the product handled before and after cleaning. All detachable parts cleaned before each raw material change.
- **Medium Vulnerability:** Generic cleaning procedures that do not consider raw material changes.
- **High Vulnerability:** No generic cleaning procedures.
**Human Resources**
- **Low Vulnerability:** Operators have received extensive training about GMPs, traceability, and food fraud. Personnel responsible for internal product traceability receive specific training. Annual refresher training provided.
- **Medium Vulnerability:** Generic traceability and GMP training provided. Personnel not trained on specific food fraud issues; refresher training not provided.
- **High Vulnerability:** GMP training provided. No food fraud or traceability training provided.
**Information Given to Customers**
- **Low Vulnerability:** Regular checks made on correlation between raw materials origin/processes and specifications on the Technical Data Sheets and labels. Legality verified of all info provided on packaging material.
- **Medium Vulnerability:** Legality of information provided to customers checked regularly, but not verified.
- **High Vulnerability:** No check of information provided to customers.
**Sub-Contracting**
- **Low Vulnerability:** Service provider is known and trusted. Approval complies with standard procedures. Contractor has good food safety history and has regular third-party audits, preferably GFSI.
- **Medium Vulnerability:** Service provider is approved, but they define and control the type and conditions of processing. Contractor has good food safety history and has regular third-party audits, preferably GFSI.
- **High Vulnerability:** Service provider not approved and does not have food safety certifications. Third-party audits not conducted.
## Conduct a Food Fraud Severity Assessment
Once you’ve completed the Vulnerability Assessment, it’s time to assign a Severity Assessment for each consideration using the scores you have just generated. We’ll review an example soon, but let’s first explain the Severity Assessment.
For each ingredient in your finished product, apply a Severity Assessment to gauge overall risk of food fraud. This entails aligning each consideration during the Vulnerability Assessment with one of the category descriptions below:
**Severity Assessment** Low Severity (1) Adulterant corresponds to a negligible percentage of total product. Product complies with all applicable standards and does not affect public opinion. Medium Severity (3) Accumulation of adulterant may cause non-fatal injuries or harm to long-term health. Adulterant corresponds to a non-negligible percentage of total product. Adulterated product does not comply with current standards and operator may be committing a serious breach. High Severity (5) Fraudulent product contains an allergen or may cause illnesses with serious or potentially fatal consequences. If adulterant considerably reduces nutritional content, it could cause a public health problem. Adulterated product does not comply with current food safety standards and operator may be committing a serious crime. Product has media pressure and its adulteration generates major controversy among public opinion. ## Food Fraud Severity Assessment Example
Let’s review using our turmeric example. In our Vulnerability Assessment, we assigned a score of 3 for “History of Food Fraud”.
In our Severity Assessment, we realize that the adulterant in our turmeric corresponds to a non-negligible percentage of the total product. Plus, it could lead to long-term health consequences. For these reasons, we assign it a score of 3 in our Severity Assessment, indicating Medium Severity.
## Putting it all Together: Food Fraud Risk
Let’s put it all together to generate a score that indicates our Food Fraud Risk in our assessment of turmeric for this consideration.
Vulnerability Assessment (3) + Severity Assessment (3) = **6 (Medium Risk of Food Fraud)**
This means that we have a medium risk of food fraud for this consideration. Now, complete the same process for each consideration to gauge your food fraud risk. Areas of high risk (8-10) should trigger your mitigation plan.
By conducting a detailed and well-thought-out Vulnerability and Severity Assessment for each ingredient, you can pinpoint where your greatest risks lie. These assessments provide an understanding of potential food fraud threats.
Armed with this knowledge, you can strategically plan and implement effective mitigation tactics to protect your supply chain, uphold food safety standards, and safeguard consumer trust in your products.
Use our complimentary [Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment tool to begin assessing your risk now](https://info.fsns.com/food-fraud-checklist).
[Reach out to our regulatory partners at EAS Consulting Group with help conducting your Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment.](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/foods/)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, food fraud, Food safety
---
### [What Is The Gut Microbiome?](https://fsns.com/what-is-the-gut-microbiome/)
**Published:** July 8, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*By Gary Smith (Colorado State University), Aeriel Belk (Auburn University), and Keith Belk (Colorado State University)*
As the Advisory Committee for the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines For Americans begins deliberations, it has announced that it will include first-ever discussions of “the relationship of human diet and health to the gut microbiome.”1
That comes as no surprise. Lux Research®, in “Food Company Of 2050,” identified six megatrends that will shape the future of the food industry.2 The first two things food companies must do to survive and thrive over the next 30 years are…
1. Develop food for health
2. Master the role of the microbiome.2
The “Top Five Trends” that will impact the way consumers eat and drink includes No. 3: “The gut microbiome emerges as the gateway to wellness.”3
## What is the Gut Microbiome?
So, what is a gut microbiome?
Gut and intestine are synonymous and are defined as “the portion of the alimentary canal extending from the pyloric opening of the stomach to the anus.”4 In other words, the portion of the digestive tract beginning after the stomach.
A biome is “the recognizable community unit of a given region”, a term generally used in ecology, which has since been adopted by the microbial ecology community. In microbial sciences, the microbiome is the community of microscopic living organisms and their genes in a given region, with the microbiota, though often used interchangeably, describing the organisms and their functional attributes.4
Human and animal bodies contain several distinct microbiomes, which can include species of bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, and archaea (a separate domain of life from bacteria that are still single-celled, but genetically more related to eukaryotes, the group containing plants and animals); they are one of the richest microbial ecosystems on the planet.5,6,77 Of the trillions of microbes that inhabit the human body, 95% (more than 100 trillion cells) reside in the colon of the large intestine.7,8
## How Environment and Lifestyle Shape the Human Gut Microbiome
The gut microbiome of humans is a diverse and complex ecosystem. Overall, there are over 3,500 microbial species known to exist78 in this environment, though within a single person, there are probably only a few hundred of these at a given time.
It is said about microbiome science, “everything is everywhere but the environment selects”, and that is the case in the human gut as well.79 Though there is the potential to harbor a wide range of organisms, the specific conditions within an individual drive the microbiome to be unique. For example, most organisms in the gut microbiome are anaerobic, only growing when there is no oxygen in the environment, thereby limiting the types of organisms that can grow.
Within an individual, other major drivers of the composition of a microbiome include the environment that a person lives in, their diet, whether they have pets, and numerous other basic elements of a person’s lifestyle.
## Key Findings from the American Gut Project: Lifestyle and Gut Health
Much of what we know about the relationships between gut microbes and lifestyle in individuals was generated by the [American Gut Project](https://www.mymicrobiome.info/en/news-reading/the-american-gut-project), the world’s largest community science microbiome project, which analyzed stool samples from countries around the world between 2013 and 2019.13
Outcomes from this project touch on a variety of areas that can have important implications for human health. For example, they showed that…
- The more types of plants you eat, the more diverse our gut microbiome is.
- Antibiotics reduce the diversity of our gut microbiome.
- The microbiomes of hunter gatherer guts were completely different from those in industrialized regions.
It is generally thought that a more diverse gut microbiome, meaning there are more different types of microbes in the environment, is good and healthier, though this is not always the case.
## What Bacteria are in Our Gut Microbiome?80
Early in gut microbiome studies, researchers identified patterns that could broadly describe a human gut microbiome, and used this as a tool to better understand the relationship between the microbes and lifestyle. These categories were called *enterotypes*, and are still used today, though many researchers view them with skepticism as our ability to evaluate microbial communities has improved. We will still describe them here for a simplified entry to understanding these complex ecosystems.
There are three commonly described enterotypes in the human gut, though scientist occasionally suggest updates to them. They are identified by the most dominant organism in the community:
- *Bacteroides* (enterotype 1)
- *Prevotella* (enterotype 2)
- *Ruminococcus* (enterotype 3)
In general, enterotype 1 is associated with a western diet (high in fat) and enterotype 2 is associated with a high-carbohydrate diet, while enterotype 3 is less defined and may be a mix.
## Key Enterotypes in Human Gut Microbiota
In the scientific literature, the predominant enterotypes in human gut microbiota are…
1. *Bacteroides*
2. *Prevotella*
3. *Ruminococcaceae*
4. *Proteobacteria*
5. *Faecalibacterium*
6. *Escherichia*
7. *Eubacterium*
8. *Bifidobacterium*
9. *Lachnospiraceae*
10. *Clostridiales*
11. *Acinobacteriota*
12. *Akkermansia*
13. *Firmicutes*12,14-16
Cross-validation suggests that five enterotypes – (a), (b), (f), (h), and (m) above – were able to ubiquitously describe variation in gut metagenomes from Western, as well as Non-Western, fecal metagenomes of all ages.12
The *Bacteroides* enterotype is core in the resilience of Westernized gut microbiomes.12 As with Western settings, microbiomes are dominated by *Bifidobacteria* in early infancy followed by *Prevotella* and *Faecalibacterium* following weaning.14 These enterotypes may be established very early, though, with the establishment of an enterotype-like structure occurring as early as 9-36 months in humans.81
## Where Do Our Gut Microbiomes Come From?
Researchers are still investigating exactly how the microbiome colonizes and structures itself in the human gut. Evidence suggests that this process begins as early as at birth, with vaginal microbes colonizing at least the nose and mouth of the infant, if not more. Breastfeeding, especially the initial colostrum, is also important to begin the development of the microbiome. As mentioned previously, however, these microbiomes do not form the stable structure that will be maintained for life until slightly later.
A mother’s gut microbes share genetic information with those in her baby’s digestive tract and may affect its health and development before and after birth; mobile genetic elements from the mother’s bacteria shape her child’s gut microbiome.17,18 A Stanford University study revealed that 90% of U.S. babies are substantially deficient of a gut-microbiome bacterium (*Bifidobacterium infantis*), which is key to breast milk utilization and immune system protection against gut pathogens (e.g., *Klebsiella pneumoniae, E. coli, Salmonella, Streptococcus,* and *Staphylococcus*).19
The near-absence of *B. infantis* in infant’s gut microbiomes results from…
1. The reduction in transfer of their mother’s gut microbiome (from fecal material in the birth canal) when babies are born via C-section.
2. Increased use of antibiotics.
3. Widespread use of infant formulas rather than breast-feeding.18-20
The early-life gut microbiome affects child-growth through immune, metabolic, and endocrine pathways, and could contribute to “shunting”, which affects one in five children globally.21
## So, Where Does the Gut Microbiome Start?
In nature, the microbiome is thought to start with the animal’s mother; for example, baby elephants eat their mother’s feces to inoculate their own gut microbiota.41 In people, as with other animals, the microbes that inhabit the gut are critical for personal health and understanding the factors that encourage the growth of beneficial bacterial species in the gut may enable medical interventions that promote gut and overall human health.69 Diet and sleep are likely major factors in daily fluctuations of ratios/proportions of gut-microbiome organisms because of radical differences in nutrients, water availability, and pH.13
The composition and relative abundance of microbes in the human gut varies substantially from morning to night, and even more by season; such fluctuations in the amounts and types of organisms that make up the microbiome could have wide-ranging implications for health and medicine.70
Scientists at Yale University found that *Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron* is one of the most abundant beneficial species found in the human gut and that it has the unique ability to survive and prosper even when the host animal is fasting and sending no nutrients down the pipe – a finding that could yield novel clinical interventions to support a healthy gut.69
## How Your Microbiome Impacts You
Everything we eat or drink and do not digest or absorb earlier in the digestive tract goes down to our distal colon, the last portion of the digestive tract before the waste is expelled and becomes food for the microbiome.6
Researchers have determined that the intestinal microbiota co-exists with the animal host, for mutual beneficial purposes, and is now functionally its own organ, with properties that are integral to the host’s endocrine, metabolic, and immune systems.22 In this way, the gut microbiome has been referred to as our second genome.
Among the trillions of bacteria in the gut, most are beneficial or at least innocuous, but some are bad.23 And, some “go bad” only if they are in a microbial community that is falling into “dysbiosis” (i.e., losing its health-sustaining balance).23
## What are Some Beneficial Members of the Gut Microbiota?
Some beneficial members of the gut microbiota…
1. Assist with the digestion of food, breaking down proteins and carbohydrates, including fibrous material in our diet that we lack the enzymes to process.6,24,25
2. Produce essential micronutrients, including vitamin K, folic acid, and vitamin B12.7,12,26,27
3. Produce 90-95% of serotonin (which transmits messages between nerve cells and helps regulate body functions like sleep, mood, and digestion), neurotransmitters, and chemicals like dopamine and tryptamine (which play a role in anxiety and depression).27,28,29
4. Influence activities of our immune system in assuring our health and well-being.6,7,30
A famous example of a normally innocuous bacterium “going bad” in patients is the case of *Clostridium difficile* overgrowth in a post-surgery hospitalized patient. When the patient was treated with heavy antibiotics, a large portion of the healthy gut microbiome was killed, so the *C. difficile* had plenty of space to grow; when there were too many *C. difficile* organisms, it then caused illness in the patient.
The public’s first exposure to the concept of the gut microbiome may have occurred with the solution to this problem – doctors transplant fecal stool samples from healthy individuals into the sick individual to essentially re-seed the microbiome with healthy organisms.31,32
Now, this is considered the standard of care in treating such conditions. It is extremely effective in hospital settings, but now many people are also trying this at home, which can be very dangerous and risk introducing pathogens, so it is best left to medical professionals. Do not trust TikTok on this. Interestingly, some things are happening that show up late in our food digestion/absorption process that help us fend off invading pathogens, inactivate unwanted metabolites, and protect our health. Scientists are “hot on the trail” of whatever that is.82,83
## Exploring the Connection Between Gut Health and Immunity
There is a connection between gut health and immunity because 70-80% of the immune system is in the gut.84 And, the gut microbiome contains 10 times more health-determining bacteria than the rest of the body.8,33
Our immune system confers the body’s response to bacteria, viruses, and toxins that would otherwise cause us harm as infectious disease.4 A person’s gut microbiome starts with antibodies from the mother and then evolves over their lifetime being shaped by exposure to microbes or molecules in their diet and environment.34
The gut microbiota can activate a person’s local immune system (when needed) by communicating with the individual’s brain and cells in the gut itself. It also plays an important role in maintaining the layer of tissue on the inside of the gut tissue, called the epithelium, which is the first line of defense in the gut.6,22,35,36
## How are Gut Dysbiosis and Neuro-Generative Disorders Connected?
There is continuous bidirectional cross-talk between the body and the brain.37 Sensory cells in the gut influence hunger and satiety via both neuronal communication and hormone release.37,38,39
Many behaviors (e.g., feeding, mental state, neurological disorders) are controlled by an extensive communication network, relaying messages between the brain and the digestive tract.37 Various neuro-generative disorders (including depression, dementia, senility, autism, Parkinson’s Disease, and Alzheimer’s Disease) have an association with Dysbiosis.28,29, 40. 42
But does gut dysbiosis cause the mental state, cognitive, or neurological disorder, or does the disorder cause gut Dysbiosis?26,28
## Exploring the Link Between Enterotypes and Diseases
Some enterotypes have been linked to a specific disease; the gut microbes may…
1. Modulate (i.e., keep in proper proportion) the efficacy of T-cell-driven cancer immunotherapies.15
2. Improve weight loss and sleep behavior.13
3. Prevent weight gain.43
4. Prevent hypertension.44
5. Reduce cardiometabolic events and inflammatory bowel disease.45
6. Lessen inflammatory bowel disease and obesity.12
Additional research has been conducted that connects the gut microbiota to…
1. Digestion of fibrous material46
2. Regulation of the immune system47,48,49
3. Cardiometabolic diseases38,50,51,52,53
4. Cancer47,54,55,56
5. Small intestine bacterial overgrowth and Crohn’s Disease12,45,54,57,58
6. Dementia, depression, autism, Parkinson’s Disease, and Alzheimer’s Disease24,28,29,37,42
7. Bone loss and muscle repairing59,60
8. COPD in adults and asthma in children29
9. Obesity43,61
10. Colic and diaper rash in children19
11. Diabetes54.62
12. HIV and AIDS63,64
13. Promotion of desire to exercise39,53
14. Gram-negative bacteria, *C. difficile* and *Candida*65,66,67
15. Steatohepatitis68
## Can I Know My Health From My Microbiome?
There is, as yet, no reliable or universal marker or measure that can accurately reflect the current state of gut microbiome health.7,27 A robust gut-microbiome-based health index would ignite an era of preventive medicine not only by measuring the level of any imbalances, but also by predicting the underlying cause of such to enable potential health-restoring solutions.7
Studying the gut metabolomics involves…
1. Determining the relationship between the small molecules or metabolites produced by specific bacteria that enter the bloodstream and impact human health.
2. Defining the effect of entry of molecules/metabolites on the relative abundance of organisms in the gut microbiome.71
In 2014, “Scientific Quantitative Wellness” values (based on analyses of proteins, metabolites, and clinical chemistries of the gut microbiomes of 108 individuals) were proposed that would allow individualized recommendations for optimized wellness and avoiding disease.72 That is the epitome of “Personalized Nutrition.”72
Researchers in Sweden have found strong links between certain bacteria in the gut microbiome and small molecules found in the blood; they developed an “Online Atlas” to help researchers and medical professionals to better understand how the human host and the bacterial community affect each other.71
Scientists at Stanford University have developed a software called gutSmash® that identifies “metabolic gene clusters (MGCs)” in the human gut microbiome that synthesize small molecules that alter physiological attributes from digestion, to mood.73
South Korean researchers studied more than 120,000 individual microbiomes and developed a “Gut Microbiome Index (GMI)” that can consistently predict health conditions from human gut microbiome data.74
## What is the Future of Gut Microbiome Health?
Genetically engineered gut bacteria from a person’s own gut could one day be used to treat diseases (e.g., diabetes, [obesity](https://fsns.com/being-overweight-isnt-just-personal-gluttony/), atherosclerosis, and cancer).62 Modifying “native” gut bacteria by inserting specific genes that cause metabolic changes affecting physiology can be used to treat chronic diseases.62
We will learn much more about the gut microbiome in the next few years. Led by Nobel Laureate Jennifer Doudna (she developed, in part, the CRISPR Cas-9 gene editing approach), the Innovative Genomics Institute at UC-Berkeley will spend $70 million on “Engineering The Microbiome With CRISPR To Improve Our Climate And Health.”75
The future of gut health will likely head toward an individualized approach based on gut microbiome characterization that will be used in disease management and health optimization.76
### REFERENCES
1. USDA-USDHHS. 2023. DietaryGuidelines.gov. Accessed on 7/9/2023.
2. Shike, Jennifer. 2020. AG•WEB. October Issue.
3. Archer Daniels Midland.™️ 2020. Press release. October 29 Issue.
4. Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary. 1988. W.B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia, PA.
5. Ball, M. and B. Boyle. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. June 9 Issue.
6. Sterbenz, Christina. 2023. National Geographic. June 30 Issue.
7. Hanson, Nur. 2023. 8th Annual Translational Conference. April 15 Issue.
8. Petrucci, Kellyann. 2023. Fox News. January 26 Issue.
9. Jackson, Christina. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. May 11 Issue.
10. Okada, Yukinori. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. May 15 Issue.
11. Costea *et al*. 2018. Nature Microbiology 3:8-16.
12. Quadram Institute Bioscience®. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. June 22 Issue.
13. Zarrinpar, Amir. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. May 10 Issue.
14. Robertson, Ruairi. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. February 16 Issue.
15. Elinav, Eran. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. March 14 Issue.
16. Tap *et al*. 2023. Nature Communications. 14: Article 3310.
17. Dantas, Gautam. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. May 4 Issue.
18. Vatanen, Tommi. 2022. Inside Precision Medicine. December 29, 2022.
19. Genetic Engineering News. 2021. January 29 Issue.
20. Piters, Steenhuijsen. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. March 10 Issue.
21. Roberston *et al*. 2023. Nat. Commun. 14:654-673.
22. Hanson, Maureen. 2022. Bovine Veterinarian. December 15 Issue.
23. Liszewski, Kathy. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. June 9 Issue.
24. Sonnenburg, Justin. 2023. National Geographic. June 30 Issue.
25. Kemin™️. 2023. Eye On Biotics. Accessed on 9/7/2023.
26. Cresci, Gail. 2023. Cleveland Clinic. June 30 Issue.
27. Kashyap, Purna. 2023. Mayo Clinic. June 30 Issue.
28. Dantas, Gautam. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. June 14 Issue.
29. Genetic Engineering News. 2020. November 27 Issue.
30. Chen *et al*. 2020. BB Science Focus. July 14 Issue.
31. Soukup, Mary. 2015. Bovine Veterinarian. March 30 Issue.
32. Clark, Brian. 2018. Washington State Magazine. Winter Edition.
33. Bonham, Sara. 2021. Dairy Processing. April 2 Issue.
34. Hanson, Mark. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. July 21 Issue.
35. Uyeno *et al*. 2015. Microbes Environment 30:126-132.
36. Fouhse and Venable. 2016. Animal Frontiers 6:30-49.
37. Anikeeva, Polina. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. June 23 Issue.
38. Wang, Meng. 2022. Inside Precision Medicine. August 6 Issue.
39. Thaiss *et al*. 2022. Nature. December Edition.
40. Cresci, Gail. 2023. National Geographic. June 30 Issue.
41. Thomas, Kyle. 2023. Discovery Channel. August 29 Issue.
42. Morton, Jamie. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. June 28 Issue.
43. Roager, Henrik. 2022. Inside Precision Medicine. December 27 Issue.
44. Song, Ju. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. June 16 Issue.
45. Carolina *et al*. 2019. sciencedirect.com. Accessed on 9/28/2023.
46. Cronin *et al.* 2021. Nutrients 13: 1655-1683.
47. Li *et al*. 2022. E. BioMedicine 82:104163 (622081).
48. Henrikson, Sarah. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. May 30 Issue.
49. Silverman, Michael. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. May 27 Issue.
50. Aron-Wisnewsky and Clement. 2016. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 12:169-181.
51. Genetic Engineering News. 2021. December 27 Issue.
52. Orho-Melander, Marju. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. July 13 Issue.
53. Oh, Julie. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. February 8 Issue.
54. Hymes, Matthew. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. June 7 Issue.
55. Park, Joon. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. May 4 Issue.
56. Jain *et al*. 2021. Front. Immunol. 12:622064.
57. Sachdev and Pimentel. 2013. Ther. Adv. Chronic Dis. 4:223-231.
58. Doms, Shawni. 2022. Inside Precision Medicine. August 24 Issue.
59. Bedree, Joseph. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. April 20 Issue.
60. Lin, May. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. March 11 Issue.
61. Serlie, Mirelle. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. June 13 Issue.
62. Zarrinpar, Amir. 2022. Inside Precision Medicine. August 4 Issue.
63. Genetic Engineering News. 2023. June 24 Issue.
64. Apetrei, Crist. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. July 24 Issue.
65. Hanson, Mark. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. July 25 Issue.
66. Crawford, Carl. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. April 27 Issue.
67. Seelbinder, Bastian. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. May 15 Issue.
68. Bajaj *et al*. 2014. Hepatology. 60:940-947.
69. Groisman, Eduardo. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. March 21 Issue.
70. Machado, Carolina. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. April 28 Issue.
71. Fall, Tove. 2022. Genetic Engineering News. September 26 Issue.
72. Hood, Leroy. 2021. Genetic Engineering News. January Edition.
73. Fischbach, Michael. 2023. Genetic Engineering News. February 13 Issue.
74. Chun, Jon. 2023. Seoul National University. June 9 Issue.
75. Philippidis, Alex. Genetic Engineering News. April 20 Issue.
76. Gholam, Devon. 2021. Prepared Foods. September 16 Issue.
77.
78.
79.
80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6351938/
81. Bergstrom, Anders, et al. “171. et al. 2014. Establishment of intestinal microbiota during early life: a longitudinal, explorative study of a large cohort of Danish infants.” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80: 2889-900.
82.
83.
84. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8001875/#:~:text=With%2070%E2%80%9380%25%20of%20immune,the%20local%20mucosal%20immune%20system.
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage
---
### [Labstat Inc. and Universal/Global Laboratory Services (GLS) Enter Partnership to Boost Testing Solutions for Tobacco/Nicotine Industry](https://fsns.com/labstat-universal-global-laboratory-services-gls-partnership/)
**Published:** August 29, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
## *Enhanced Analytical Capabilities Offer Comprehensive, Customer-Centric Solutions*
**KITCHENER, Ontario, Aug. 29, 2023**
Labstat Inc., A Certified Group Company, has entered a strategic partnership with Global Laboratory Services, Inc. (GLS), a subsidiary of Universal Leaf Tobacco Company, Inc. This alliance aligns Labstat’s cutting-edge capabilities with GLS’s comprehensive testing services, enabling both companies to offer tobacco and nicotine manufacturers more robust and integrated testing solutions.
[Read the Press Release](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/labstat-inc-and-universalglobal-laboratory-services-gls-enter-partnership-to-boost-testing-solutions-for-tobacconicotine-industry-301910762.html?tc=eml_cleartime)
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [FSNS Certification & Audit Receives Accreditation to Conduct California Prop 12 Compliance Assessments ](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-receives-accreditation-to-conduct-california-prop-12-compliance-assessments/)
**Published:** December 19, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Prop 12 Enforcement Begins Jan. 1, 2024*
SAN ANTONIO, Dec. 19, 2023/PRNewswire/ — FSNS Certification & Audit (FSNS C&A), a Certified Group Company, is pleased to announce its accreditation from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to perform compliance audits for California Proposition 12 (Prop 12).
**[Read the Press Release](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fsns-certification--audit-receives-accreditation-to-conduct-california-prop-12-compliance-assessments-302015774.html?tc=eml_cleartime)**
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [EAS Consulting Group Announces Essential Virtual Seminar on GMP Compliance for the Dietary Supplement Industry](https://fsns.com/eas-consulting-group-announces-essential-virtual-seminar-on-gmp-compliance-for-the-dietary-supplement-industry/)
**Published:** February 15, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Industry Leaders to Share Expertise on Navigating FDA Regulations and Good Manufacturing Practices*
**ALEXANDRIA, VA., Feb. 15, 2024 —** EAS Consulting Group, a Certified Group Company, announces a critical virtual seminar addressing the dietary supplement industry’s need for clarity on Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) compliance. Scheduled via Zoom for Feb. 27, 29, March 5, and 7, 2024, from 11 am to 4 pm Eastern each day, the event aims to help increase regulatory compliance, safety, and quality.
[Read the Press Release](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/eas-consulting-group-announces-essential-virtual-seminar-on-gmp-compliance-for-the-dietary-supplement-industry-302063169.html?tc=eml_cleartime)
**Categories:** Press Release
**Tags:** Regulatory Consulting
---
### [FSNS Now Offering COVID-19 Environmental Swab Testing](https://fsns.com/fsns-now-offering-covid-19-environmental-swab-testing/)
**Published:** April 30, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**—April 30, 2020 – [Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com/) (FSNS) is now offering [environmental swab testing for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/covid-19-environmental-swab-testing/). The test method allows for the detection of the presence of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) viral particles on environmental surfaces within production facilities. This new capability will help companies better understand the effectiveness of their sanitation practices against the virus.
The viral transport swab kits are easy-to-use and come with step-by-step instructions for seamless submission to our laboratory. The turnaround time is 48 hours once the samples have been received. If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact or call 888-525-9788.
**About Food Safety Net Services**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO, approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit [FSNS](https://fsns.com/).
\###
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [Todd Shea Joins Certified Group As President, Cosmetics and Personal Care Division](https://fsns.com/todd-shea-joins-certified-group-as-president-cosmetics-and-personal-care-division/)
**Published:** January 3, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Shea To Lead Certified Group’s Expansion of Personal Care Business*
Melville, N.Y. and San Antonio, TX—January 3, 2022 – Certified Group and Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), a Certified Group Company, today announced that Todd Shea has joined Certified Group as President, Cosmetics and Personal Care Division. Todd brings decades of executive leadership experience in sales, marketing, corporate strategy, and product innovation in the cosmetics and personal care industry that have led to over 500 product formulations and numerous prestigious product innovation awards.
Prior to joining Certified Group, Todd held the role of Senior Vice President of Innovation and Client Strategy at Cosmetic Group USA, where he was successful at managing the corporate direction for product development to ensure the best customer experience.
Previously, Todd led innovation and marketing at Aware Products and was instrumental in the successful transition of Aware Products, CEI, and VeePak to Voyant Beauty. During his time at Aware/Voyant, Todd developed and oversaw nearly 1,000 formulas and innovations and had a pivotal role in directing a complete solution approach in contract manufacturing.
“We are very excited about Todd leading our team of scientists to accelerate innovative ideas and market growth,” said John Bellinger, CEO of Certified Group and FSNS. “His contributions will be valuable as we scale and grow our personal care business.”
Todd holds a Master of Science, Pharmacology Cosmetic Sciences from the University of Cincinnati, and earned a Master of Business Administration from UCLA and a B.S. in Journalism/Advertising from University of Kansas.
**About Certified Group**
Certified Group is a leading North American provider of testing and regulatory consulting services with laboratories located in New York, California, Illinois, Texas, Ontario, and Alberta. The Certified Group of companies includes Certified Laboratories, EAS Consulting, FSNS, Labstat, LabSmart, ABC Testing, Microconsult Inc, and MicroQuality Laboratories. The Certified Group provides total testing and regulatory guidance solutions in the Food, Food Safety, Supplement & Botanical, Cosmetic, Personal Care, Cannabis, Nicotine, and Vaping industries.
## **About FSNS**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO approved auditing and certification capabilities. [FSNS joined Certified Group in 2021.](https://fsns.com/certified-group-merger/) For more information, visit [www.FSNS.com](https://fsns.com/).
**Categories:** News
---
### [Mitigating The Risk Of Salmonella In Food](https://fsns.com/mitigating-the-risk-of-salmonella-in-food/)
**Published:** May 19, 2022
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
[](https://fsns.com/iso-19011/)
## [Remote Audits, AI, and Risk Take Center Stage in ISO 19011:2026 ](https://fsns.com/iso-19011/)
Reviewed By Reviewed and Approved by Kaci Foote, Accreditation Manager, FSNS Certification & Audit 1-Minute Summary ISO 19011:2026...
[read more](https://fsns.com/iso-19011/)
**Categories:** General
---
### [Being Overweight Isn’t Just Personal Gluttony](https://fsns.com/being-overweight-isnt-just-personal-gluttony/)
**Published:** April 12, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
(Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University)
A lurking fear of “dietary fat as fattening” goes back to the 1920s in America, as staying slender was an important part of new middle-class fashions and lifestyles.1 Cutting back on calories was one of several competing theories at that time about how people should lose weight, and since fat packed more calories, many doctors advised their patients to cut back on this part of the diet.1
In 1930, Louis Newburgh (University of Michigan) declared that “those who have become fat did so because they over-ate or under-exercised – not because there was some endocrine or constitutional disorder.”2
## Are the Causes of Obesity “Settled Science”?
The *Los Angeles Times* reported on Newburgh’s work in 1932 with the headline, “Just Gluttony Causes Obesity; Michigan Professor Strips Defense Of Portly.”2 Not much public attention was paid to causes of obesity between 1932 and 2001 because nutrition scientists and the federal government were obsessed with heart disease, dietary goals, and dietary guidelines. It seemed like “settled science” – people get fat because they take in more calories than they expend, or stay lean when they don’t.3
## President’s Heart Attack Spurs Low-Fat Diet
In 1955, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had a heart attack; his personal physician (Paul D. White) immediately held a press conference calling for the American public to cut down on eating saturated fat and cholesterol.1 White based his dietary recommendation on research by Ancel Keys (University of Minnesota).4 Keys published another paper supportive of his “Diet-Heart Hypothesis.”5
Then, in 1961, Keys and White convinced the American Heart Association to officially recommend a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet (reduce total fat to 30% of calories, cap saturated fat at 10% of calories, increase carbohydrates to 55-60% of calories).6 Restricting total fat and saturated fat consumption while increasing carbohydrate consumption was codified in the Dietary Goals set by Senator George McGovern’s committee7, Dietary Guidelines For Americans: 19808, and DGFAs thereafter.
Little did we know, but these choices by AHA and the federal government – in their quest to conquer heart disease – were accompanied by lethal collateral damage to public health in America.
## All We Know About Fat is Wrong, Study Finds
After an all-consuming nine-year investigation, Nina Teicholz concluded that all of our nation’s dietary recommendations about fat – the food ingredient about which our health authorities have obsessed for the past 60 years – are not just slightly off-track but completely wrong.1
**When the low-fat, low-cholesterol diet was first officially recommended to the public by the American Heart Association (AHA) in 1961, 1 of 7 adult Americans was obese and 1 of 100 had diabetes; 40 years later, 1 of 3 adult Americans was obese and 1 of 9 had diabetes.**9,10,11
Between 1961 and 2001, three scientific reports concluded that high-carbohydrate diets were more plausible explanations for heart disease than were total fat, saturated fat, or cholesterol – and warned that low-fat diets exacerbated the problem (because if you reduced the fat content of a diet, you automatically increased the content of carbohydrates).12,13,14
## Researcher Blames Carbohydrates for Obesity Pandemic
The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), started in 1993, was the first and only controlled randomized trial ever conducted of the low-fat diet; after 10 years of tracking the diet and health of >49,000 women, it was learned that the women not only failed to lose weight, but they also did not see any reduction in either heart disease or cancer.15
Researchers who opposed the low-fat diet dogma were ignored by most mainstream medical and nutrition communities until, in 2001, Gary Taubes wrote a critical history of the “Diet-Heart Hypothesis” for Science.1 He concluded that obesity was indeed a hormonal defect and not the result of gluttony and sloth; he described how the hormone causing obesity is most likely Insulin, which spikes when one eats carbohydrates.16,17
Among his primary conclusions were:
- Carbohydrates, not fat, are the drivers of obesity and many other chronic diseases;
- Dietary fat, itself, is the nutrient least likely to make you fat, because it’s the one macronutrient that doesn’t stimulate the production of Insulin;
- The refined carbohydrates and sugars in our diet are what cause obesity, diabetes, and related diseases, and not the dietary fat or the “excess calories” that are thought to come from eating more than we should.1,16,17
## Eating Carbohydrates Throughout the Day Causes Your Body to Store Fat
Taube’s work shattered dogma to such an extent that most nutrition “experts” have been unable to respond except by simply dismissing him.1 But, a 2010 headline in the Los Angeles Times declared, “Fat Was Once The Devil. Now More Nutritionists Are Pointing Accusingly At Sugar And Refined Grains.”18
By 1953, we knew that:
- Hormones are responsible for the stockpiling of fat; Insulin – a hormone produced in the pancreas – trumps all others in the deposition of fat; and, the body secretes Insulin whenever carbohydrates are eaten.
- If carbohydrates are eaten only occasionally, the body has time to recover between the surges of Insulin; the fat cells have time to release their stored fat; and the muscles can burn the fat as fuel.
- If carbohydrates are eaten throughout the day, however, in meals, snacks, and beverages, then Insulin stays elevated in the bloodstream and the fat remains in a state of constant lockdown; fat accumulates to excess; and it is stored – not burned.1,19,20
If a person consumes a diet restricted in carbohydrates:
(1) The absence of carbohydrates would allow fat to flow out of the fat tissue, no longer held hostage there by the circulating Insulin, and this fat could then be used as energy.
(2) The person would lose weight – not because they ate less, but because the absence of Insulin was allowing the fat cells to release the fat and the muscle cells to burn it.21,22
## Recent Research Identifies Hormones that Control the Urge to Eat
More recent research has revealed that there are two hormones that control our “urge to eat”: (a) Ghrelin – increases appetite, leads to weight gain, and (b) Leptin – suppresses appetite, contributes to weight loss.23
Research at the University of Alabama-Birmingham showed that sticking to an “Early Time-Restricted Feeding” (eTRF) regimen (“Eating breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper”) – a meal-timing strategy that involves intermittent daily fasting – was linked with reduced levels of the “appetite hormone” (i.e., Ghrelin) and increased levels of the “satiety hormone” (i.e., Leptin). Study participants reported more “even-keeled hunger,” increased feelings of “fullness,” and less inclination to eat.24
## Beware of “One-Size-Fits-All” Dietary Guidelines
In retrospect, it was a huge mistake for the federal government to decide that it was prudent to issue “one-size-fits-all” dietary goals and dietary guidelines instead of having a range of advisory options that could – together – be a “Dietary Guidelines For ‘All’ Americans.”25 There is great danger to public health in “getting something wrong” – in which case the problem would be exacerbated rather than eliminated.
Sometimes there are solutions “in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.” The DGFA is the single most powerful influence on American food choices; Americans have followed the advice of DGFA since 1970, but has it worked?26 In 1980, 15% of Americans were obese; in 2017, 37.7% were obese.26
## Is There a Genetic Component to Obesity?
There has to be a genetic component in the sequelae of obesity, diabetes, and cardiac mortality. Early on, scientists found communities (e.g., Eskimos and Inuits in the Artic; Samburus and Masai in Africa; Sikhs and Hunzas in India) of people who ate almost exclusively animal products (fish, game, meat, poultry, dairy, milk, blood, animal organs, eggs), yet almost never became obese or suffered heart attacks.1
In the general U.S. population, heritability of obesity ranges from 30% to 70%, and dozens of genetic variants have been associated with obesity.27 Investigators have discovered that variations within 13 genes, acting in the brain, can affect people’s food intake, hunger, satiety, etc.28
One gene instructs the fat tissues to burn more fat from food,29 another gene causes the body not to inform the brain to stop eating,28 and a third gene predicts weight loss.27 Three scientists agree that disclosing genetic information for “personalized nutrition” results in greater changes in intake of some dietary components, compared to general-population-based dietary advice.28,30,31
## Obesity is a Hormonal Disorder
For nearly a century, “experts” have said, “obesity is caused by an imbalance between calories consumed and calories expended” (i.e., people get fat because they take in more calories than they use-up).3 That would be believable if the prevalence of obesity had not risen relentlessly in the past half-century.3
The failure to make meaningful progress by either treating or preventing obesity cannot be ignored; those in the field have been laboring under a fatally, tragically flawed paradigm.3 **Obesity is not an energy-balance disorder – it is a hormonal disorder – a dysregulation of fat storage and metabolism and a disorder of fuel-partitioning.**32
People don’t get fat because they eat too much, but because of the quantity and quality of carbohydrates in their diets, which establish a hormonal mileu that fosters the accumulation of excess body fat.32
## “Carbohydrate-Insulin Model” Breaks onto the Scene
Because these hormonal responses are dominated by the Insulin signaling system, which in turn responds primarily to the form and amount of carbohydrates in their diet, this is called the “Carbohydrate-Insulin Model”.32
The “Carbohydrate-Insulin Model” is most certainly not settled science; both the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model and the Diet-Health Hypothesis are based on epidemiological (observational) data, which cannot be used to prove cause-and-effect relationships (only Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials can do that).33
## Further Study Still Needed
Human-nutrition scientists have honed-in on the culprit (i.e., carbohydrates) and we know that “personalized health/nutrition” can be used to identify those individuals who are genetically susceptible to obesity, but there are still things that need further study. For example:
- When we feel “full” after eating a meal, some say the satiety-messaging is effected by Leptin,24 with signaling that originates from a full stomach,34 or a stretched intestine35, or sensory neurons in fat deposits near the spine,36 or bacteria from the gut microbiome.37,38
- There are research findings that connect addiction (similar to that of cocaine and nicotine39) to the consumption of large quantities of processed foods, fatty foods, and sugary foods/beverages,40 or sweet/fatty foods 39, or sugars, unhealthy fats, and refined flour, 41 or processed foods that “re-wire” the brain – causing it to elicit behavior that programs people to “crave” them.41
## Ultra-Processed Foods May be a Driver of Obesity
Americans get 70% of their calories from plant-based foods and 30% from animal-based foods; 81% of their calories come from ultra-processed foods (i.e., those containing added sugars, fat, hydrogenated vegetable oils, and refined grains).42
So, 57% of all calories consumed by U.S. consumers come from ultra-processed foods. The high increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods in the 21st century may be a key driver of the obesity epidemic.43 Tons of evidence has come in within the last five years that ultra-processed foods should not be consumed regularly or in large amounts.44
The best of the evidence is that of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial conducted at the National Institutes of Health and published in Cell Metabolism.45
Those researchers concluded that:
- People were able to “gulp down” the ultra-processed food faster, which doesn’t allow sufficient time for the stomach-to-brain saying “the tank is full” – so they kept eating;
- On average, individuals on the ultra-processed diet ate 508 calories more per day (by taking extra helpings) and gained an average of 1 pound per week; those on the minimally processed diet lost an average of 1 pound per week;
- Limiting consumption of ultra-processed food by buying only those products with the least numbers of ingredients may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.34,45,46,47
## Cutting Sugar Could Prevent Millions of Cardiovascular Disease Events
Another NIH-funded study showed that cutting 20% of the sugar in packaged foods and 40% from beverages could prevent 2.48 million cardiovascular disease events such as strokes, heart attacks, and cardiac events, 490,000 cardiovascular deaths, and 750,000 diabetes cases in the U.S. over the lifetime of the current adult population.48
Very recently, FDA approved Tzield® as the first-ever immunotherapy to delay the onset of type 1 diabetes – hailing it as a “historic moment,” the “start of a seismic shift” in how that disease is treated, and as “the most important breakthrough for the condition since Insulin was discovered 100 years ago.”
For the first time, the immune system attack that is the root cause of type 1 diabetes can be addressed because Tzield® binds to, and deactivates, immune cells that attack Insulin-producing cells and increases the proportion of cells that help moderate immune response.49
USDA and USDHHS have released “Proposed Scientific Questions For Public Comment Regarding The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines For Americans.” New questions that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee plans to address include ultra-processed foods.50 Hopefully, the DGFA Advisory Committee will allow the address of low-carb diets, sugars, refined grains, and genetic components to the sequelae of diabetes, obesity, cancer, and cardiac mortality.
REFERENCES:
1 Teicholz, Nina. 2014. The Big Fat Surprise. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
2 Smith, Gary. 2022. Colorado State University. July 25 Issue.
3 Taubes, Gary. 2021. STAT News. September 13 Issue.
4 Keys, Ancel. 1953. Journal of Mt. Sinai Hospital, New York 20:134.
5 Keys, Ancel. 1957. Journal of Chronic Diseases 6:552-559.
6 American Heart Association. 1961. Committee on Nutrition, New York, NY.
7 Mottern, Nick. 1977. Dietary Goals: US Senate. Washington DC.
8 USDA-USDHHS. 1980. Dietary Guidelines For Americans, Washington DC.
9 US Centers For Disease Control. 1962. National Health Examination Survey.
10 Harris, Maureen. 1985. Diabetes in America 6:1-31.
11 Beckles et al. 2012. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 62:99-104.
12 Ahrens et al. 1961. Transactions of the Association of American Physicians 74:134-146.
13 Albrick, Margaret. 1962. Archives of Internal Medicine 109:345-359.
14 Yudkin, John. 1972. Pure, White, and Deadly. Penguin. New York, NY.
15 Howard et al. 2006. Journal of the American Medical Association. 295:39-49.
16 Taubes, Gary. 2001. The Soft Science of Dietary Fat. Science 291:2536-2545.
17 Taubes, Gary. 2007. Good Calories, Bad Calories. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.
18 Jameson, Marni. 2010. Los Angeles Times. December 20 Issue.
19 Von Noorden, C. 1907. Clinical Treatises On Diabetes Mellitus. E.B. Treat, New York, NY.
20 Falta, Wilhelm. 1923. Endocrine Diseases. P. Blakiston’s Son, Philadelphia, PA.
21 Pennington, A.W. 1953. New England Journal of Medicine 248:959-964.
22 Sears, Barry. 2015. National Public Radio. December 12 Issue.
23 Dasgupta, Raj. 2019. CNN. October 25 Issue.
24 Genetic Engineering News. 2019. July 24 Issue.
25 Teicholz, Nina. 2019. The Washington Post. May 18 Issue.
26 Teicholz, Nina. 2019. Nutrition Coalition. April 15 Issue.
27 Jambolis, Melina. 2019. CNN. May 24 Issue.
28 Loos, Ruth. 2018. Genetic Engineering News. January 10 Issue.
29 Penninger et al. 2020. Genetic Engineering News. May 25 Issue.
30 El-Sohemy, Ahmed. 2018. Lifestyle Genomics 11:49-63.
31 Lindberg, Eric. 2022. Inside Precision Medicine. August 5 Issue.
32 Ludwig, David. 2021. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. September 13 Issue.
33 Teicholz, Nina. 2016. Nutrition Coalition. April 5 Issue.
34 Boudreau, Catherine. 2019. Morning Agriculture. May 17 Issue.
35 Genetic Engineering News. 2019. November 15 Issue.
36 Patapoutian, Ardem. 2022. Genetic Engineering News. September 1 Issue.
37 Zarrinpar, Amir. 2022. Inside Precision Medicine. August 4 Issue.
38 Wang, Meng. 2022. Inside Precision Medicine. August 6 Issue.
39 Scripps Research Institute. 2011. Nature Neuroscience. November 5 Issue.
40 Volkow, Nora. 2011. National Institute on Drug Abuse. November Edition.
41 Ludwig, David. 2011. Harvard University. November 5 Issue.
42 Layman, Don. 2020. Purdue University. July 15 Issue.
43 Juul et al. 2021. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. October Edition.
44 Nestle, Marion. 2020. CNN. July 15 Issue.
45 Coggin, Will. 2019. USA Today. November 2 Issue.
46 Scutti, Susan. 2019. CNN. May 17 Issue.
47 Fitzgerald, Nurgul. 2019. Rutgers University. May 17 Issue.
48 Shangguan et al. 2021. Circulation. September Edition.
49 Sharretts, John. 2022. Inside Precision Medicine. November 18 Issue.
50 Kelly, Susan. 2022. Meatingplace. April 15 Issue.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Food Safety and Quality Culture: What is the Auditor Looking For? ](https://fsns.com/food-safety-and-quality-culture-what-is-the-auditor-looking-for/)
**Published:** May 6, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Reviewed and Approved by Justin Derington, Director of Auditing Services, FSNS Certification & Audit*
### 1-Minute Summary
- Food Safety and Quality Culture (FSQC) is shaped by shared values and norms affecting food safety attitudes and behaviors, focusing on proactive risk mitigation and consumer trust.
- [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS Food Safety](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), and [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/) require developing an FSQC, incorporating specific clauses for maintaining and documenting food safety objectives and practices.
- Auditors look for detailed, documented FSQC strategies in an organization, focusing on established processes, success evaluations, and management reviews.
- Common challenges in developing FSQC include lack of upper management buy-in, leading to non-conformities in food safety programs and audit failures.
---
## What is “Food Safety and Quality Culture”?
The food and beverage industry has been shifting toward a proactive approach to safety and quality and away from a reactionary model for several years. The emphasis now is upon developing a strong Food Safety and Quality Culture (FSQC) within your organization.
The definition of Food Safety and Quality Culture is the **shared values, beliefs, and norms that affect mindset and behavior toward food safety across your organization**.
Fostering a commitment to excellence that permeates an organization helps proactively mitigate risks, enhance efficiency, and build consumer trust. In short, your Food Safety and Quality Culture should influence how things are done throughout the organization – even if no one is watching.
## Which Food Safety Certifications Require a Food Safety and Quality Culture?
Most [GFSI-benchmarked food safety certification standards](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) include clauses that require development of a Food Safety and Quality Culture in your organization, including the three most popular:
- [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/)
- [BRCGS Food Safety](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/)
- [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/)
Let’s review the FSQC requirements in each of these standards.
### SQF Clause 2.1.1.2
The clause states:
Senior site management shall lead and support a food safety culture within the site that ensures at a minimum:
- i. The establishment, documentation, and communication to all relevant staff of food safety objectives and performance measures;
- ii. Adequate resources are available to meet food safety objectives;
- iii. Food safety practices and all applicable requirements of the SQF System are adopted and maintained;
- iv. Employees are informed and held accountable for their food safety and regulatory responsibilities;
- v. Employees are positively encouraged and required to notify management about actual or potential food safety issues; and
- vi. Employees are empowered to act to resolve food safety issues within their scope of work.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/1c216274-b691-4d60-b5df-e409e5d00683)### BRCGS Clause 1.1.2
The clause states:
The site’s senior management shall define and maintain a clear plan for the development and continuing improvement of a food safety and quality culture. The plan shall include measures needed to achieve a positive culture change.
This shall include:
- defined activities involving all sections of the site that have an impact on product safety. As a minimum, these activities shall be designed around:
- clear and open communication on product safety
- training
- feedback from employees
- the behaviours required to maintain and improve product safety processes
- performance measurement of activities related to the safety, authenticity, legality, and quality of products
- an action plan indicating how the activities will be undertaken and measured, and the intended timescales
- a review of the effectiveness of completed activities.
- The plan shall be reviewed and updated at least annually, at a minimum.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/8cdce96e-285a-45de-9a15-28ce47baf0a7)### FSSC 22000 Clause 2.5.8
The clause states:
- a) In accordance with and in addition to clause 5.1 of ISO 22000:2018, as part of the organizations’ commitment to cultivating a positive food safety and quality culture, senior management shall establish, implement and maintain a food safety and quality culture objective(s) as part of the management system. The following elements shall be addressed as a minimum:
- Communication,
- Training,
- Employee feedback and engagement, and
- Performance measurement of defined activities covering all sections of the organization impacting on food safety and quality.
- b) The objective(s) shall be supported by a documented food safety and quality culture plan, with targets and timelines, and included in the management review and continuous improvement processes of the management system.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/cfff9de0-0057-4811-b471-7814de63e541)## Auditor Insights – How to Prepare for a Food Safety Certification Audit
Certification standards for your Food Safety and Quality Culture can pose unique challenges in both understanding and practical implementation. Terms like “cultivating a Food Safety and Quality Culture” or “achieving positive cultural change” often raise questions about their tangible application within an organization.
To shed light on these concepts, we consulted Justin Derington, Director of Auditing Services at [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/). Drawing on his extensive real-world auditing experience, Derington provided insights into how organizations can comprehend their specific requirements and effectively develop a Food Safety and Quality Culture.
## Q: What Does the Auditor Expect to See in an Organization to Establish, Implement, and Maintain a FSQC?
**Derington:** ‘Food Safety and Quality Culture’ is an enigmatic term, but successful implementation doesn’t include many requirements. In fact, reviewing a site’s FSQC is only a four-step process:
- Evaluate the written program.
- Review the results.
- Identify the weak points.
- Review actions taken.
The first thing we look for is evidence of a site’s overall strategy for establishing a Food Safety and Quality Culture. It should be defined in your written program and should answer these questions:
- What are we going to do?
- What’s our process to evaluate and improve our FSQC?
- How will you evaluate success?
It’s vital that you capture this information because you can’t improve if you don’t know where you are today.
We expect to see detail in the written program. For example, regarding your process of evaluating the success of your FSQC, include details about the activities your organization will take during that process. For example, some sites have employees take a survey with questions related to food safety to gauge success.
Others evaluate success on an outcome basis, such as the number of food safety or quality complaints reported over time. How often are you going to evaluate complaints? How will you address safety or quality gaps in your program? For example, if employees say they’re not being told what the top food safety concerns are in the organization, we want to see that action has been taken to fill that gap.
Finally, we want to see evidence of all these activities, such as a review of your FSQC by top management, including documentation of when the review was completed, how it was done, and by whom.
## Q. What are the Top Challenges Organizations Face When Developing an FSQC?
**Derington:** The top challenge we see is upper management not buying in to the importance of a robust Food Safety and Quality Culture. Quality Unit personnel know the importance and benefits of a FSQC, but they sometimes struggle to convince management, which makes their job tougher.
One the flip side, once upper management buys in, sites tend to do much better on their audits and reap a lot of benefits from having an FSQC. When everyone in the organization buys in, sites typically have fewer complaints, implement more effective preventive measures, reduce stress, and save money. This top-down commitment also improves safety and quality, which is the whole point.
## Q. What are the Top Observances Cited When Auditing the FSQC?
**Derington:** Again, it often relates to upper management’s lack of commitment and follow-through. Your organization’s Mission Statement must include a commitment to your Food Safety and Quality Culture, which is one non-conformity we often see.
Failure to follow-through is another. Sites sometimes create detailed food safety programs with actions defined, but nothing is done about it. Sometimes, they perform a FSQC survey but never follow up on the results. Or they acted upon their program the first year but forgot about it after that. Again, many non-conformances spring from a lack of management commitment.
[View the Top 10 Reasons for an SQF Audit Non-Conformity](https://fsns.com/top-10-reasons-for-an-sqf-audit-non-conformity-data/)
[View the Top 10 Reasons for a BRCGS Food Safety Audit Non-Conformity](https://fsns.com/top-10-reasons-for-a-brc-audit-non-conformity-data/)
[View the Top 10 Reasons for an FSSC 22000 Food Safety Audit Non-Conformity](https://fsns.com/top-10-reasons-for-an-fssc-22000-audit-non-conformity-data/)
## Q. What Can Organizations do to Prevent Such Observances?
**Derington:** Get commitment from upper management and your peers in the organization. Obviously, that’s easier said than done.
One tactic that can help is to assign the overall responsibility of food safety and quality to the Plant Manager or other member of upper management instead of the Quality Unit. This helps ensure more people are involved across the organization. Getting a top person committed to safety and quality helps everyone.
## Q. What Positive Impacts Have You Seen as a Result of a Well-Implemented FSQC?
**Derington:** Sites with a well-implemented Food Safety and Quality Culture have more involvement from upper management throughout the audit, which typically improves results.
Anecdotally, we notice that employees demonstrate increased knowledge of food safety, quality, and their role in the process during audit interviews. People get out of their silos and everyone works on the same food safety team, helping improve safety, quality, and audit performance.
## Need to Talk to a Certification & Audit Specialist?
[If you have questions about your next food safety audit or want to schedule an audit, contact our team for help.](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-lp)
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/20e244e0-deea-4fb1-9a48-8cae56317082)
**Categories:** General
**Tags:** food and beverage, Food safety
---
### [Functional Foods: Food-As-Medicine](https://fsns.com/functional-foods-food-as-medicine/)
**Published:** May 25, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University
Japanese academics were among the first to promote the concept of “Functional Foods”. In the 1980s, they defined them as having nutrition, sensory satisfaction, and physiological functions.1 Food has long been used to improve health, such as oranges and chicken soup to fight colds or the proverbial “apple a day to keep the doctor away.”2
IFT’s “[Functional Foods: Opportunities and Challenges](https://www.ift.org/news-and-publications/food-technology-magazine/issues/2004/december/features/functional-foods-opportunities-and-challenges)” notes, “Research has proven that food can reduce the risk of disease, from the effect of vitamin A from eggs on blindness, to the effect of zinc from high-protein foods on the immune system. Functional foods fit into a continuum that ranges from health maintenance and promotion, to disease treatment.”3
## What is “Functional Food”?
FDA is in charge of all food labeling but has no statutory or legal definition for “Functional Foods” and, thus, does not regulate them.1 Three industry groups (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Institute of Food Technologists, International Life Sciences) have separate, but very similar, definitions.
An amalgam of these would be, “**Whole foods and fortified, enriched, or enhanced foods that improve health beyond basic nutrition.**”1
Marketers have pounced on the concept, with one caveat: fortified foods and enhanced foods (which contain added nutrients or ingredients) are considered “Functional Foods,” whereas enriched foods (which only add back original ingredients removed during processing) are not considered “Functional Foods.”1
## U.S. Consumers Prioritize Functional Foods
There is no doubt that diet influences human health, and National Institutes of Health confirms that the [rise in obesity](https://fsns.com/being-overweight-isnt-just-personal-gluttony/), diabetes, chronic lung disease, and cardiovascular disease in the U.S. is related to what and how we eat.2
Marketers were quick to seize on this opportunity when Pharmaceutical Market Europe magazine reported that, “Functional Foods command an average 25% profit margin, which is well beyond the single-digit percentages that food companies make on many of their consumer products.”2
And demand heated up during the COVID-19 pandemic. A survey of “U.S. Behaviors That Are Higher Priority Since January 2020” showed that 52% of adults answered Strengthening Immunity, 47% said Eating Healthy, and 41% said Managing Weight.4 Five Key Behavior Shifts identified by Archer Daniels Midland™ emphasized interest in tailored nutrition and a proactive perspective on immunity.5
## People Increasingly Value Foods that Promote Immunity
Functional Foods gained prominence during the pandemic; 63% of shoppers now regularly buy foods for specific health benefits.6 Consumers are particularly interested in the following:
- Vitamins and minerals
- Immunity-boosting products
- Pediatric health
- Support for individuals at higher risk for getting more severe COVID-19, such as those with hypertension, obesity, or diabetes.6
In 2019, immunity ranked 18th among health issues of greatest concern, but now it ranks third.6 Consumers are now more concerned about immunity and wellness as they now seek Functional Food.7
Almost half (48%) of parents cite “immune health” as the reason they give children vitamins, minerals, and supplements, but less than 1% of global launches of new foods made immune-system claims during the two years prior to February 2020 (the start of the pandemic).7 There is a connection of gut health to immunity, since 70% of the immune system is in the [gastro-intestinal gut microbiome](https://fsns.com/what-is-the-gut-microbiome/), and it contains 10 times more health-determining bacteria than the rest of the body.8
## **Functional Foods are Trending Higher**
Whole Foods Market™ identified “Ten Trends To Watch For in 2022”; 7 of the 10 trends had a health component.9 More than half of U.S. consumers say they are eating “more healthily” than they did prior to the pandemic.6
A survey found that 49% of global shoppers and 46% of those in the USA believe that health and wellness have become much more important over the past year.10 In the 1980s through the early 2000s (Healthy 101), consumer diet choices were about weight management – what was not in foods, such as fat and calories.11
Next came Healthy 201 from 2004 to 2020, when consumers were driven more about feeling good about what they eat, such as Organic, Natural, and Sustainably Raised.11
Now we are looking at Healthy 301 (Functional Foods, what foods can do for me – does it supply me with protein; does it support my health) and Healthy 401 (nutrition tailored to the unique individual).11
## **Consumers Want Food that Supports Mental Health in Addition to Physical Health**
Health and wellness are being redefined as more than just nutrition and fitness. It now also means mental and emotional health; shoppers are turning to their grocery stores for answers to their quest for health.12 Nutrition ingredients can sharpen the mind and retain cognitive health through the person’s lifespan, according to research by King’s College London.13
Consumers have become more interested in the way that food can…
- Boost the body’s resilience.
- Lessen the emotional aspects of mental health.
- Enable improvements in mood and happiness by reducing stress and fatigue, as well as optimizing relaxation and sleep patterns.14
A brain health expert recommends starting your day with the right foods (i.e., the Big Three brain-boosting nutrients – protein, fat, and fiber) to help maintain heart health, provide steady energy, and optimize cognitive functioning.15 Concepts involving “Holistic Health” and “Functional Nutrition” both claim that taking a holistic approach to health, focusing on immunity-supporting foods, can help boost the body’s resilience and improve physical, mental, and emotional well-being.16, 17
## **“Food-As-Medicine”: Some Value Medicinal Benefits Over Taste**
Mention of the term “Food–As–Medicine” (some call it “Kitchen Medicine”) helped it gain traction in January 2018 when a Congressional Food–As-Medicine Work Group convened with Jim McGovern (D–MA) as Leader, and Dariush Mozaffarian (Tufts University) as Scientific Panel Leader.18
John Stanton (a food marketing expert) said, “Food today is more about medicine than about taste; almost everything that tastes good has been labeled ‘bad for your heart’ or ‘causes cancer’. It’s amazing that people still pay attention to all the news about food, given that nutritionists have changed their opinions on virtually every bit of eating advice they have given us over the years – look at what’s happened to advice about cholesterol, and fats, and sodium.”19
Yet we have made food a medical product; it’s happened because of the opinions of friends and relatives or the reading of articles online from fringe groups advocating all sorts of unfounded beliefs.20
## **Viewing Food as Medicine Dates to at Least 400 BC**
The “Meals that Heal” concept dates back to ancient Greece, when Hippocrates (the father of modern medicine), in 400 BC, declared, “Let food be thy medicine, and medicine be thy food.”21
Mehmet Oz (Columbia University) says, “A growing body of research evidence suggests that foods may be as good as – or better than – drugs; eating the right foods – and avoiding the wrong ones – can help boost the immune system and combat cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease.”21
## **What Does “Food-As-Medicine” Mean to Consumers?**
What Food–As–Medicine means for consumers is a moving target – impacted by a multitude of factors such as individual-need states, age, and socioeconomic status.22 The ambiguity of the concept has allowed marketers to create products for specific medical purposes rather than using “Kitchen Medicine” to improve general health.22, 23
HealthFocus International looked at Food–As–Medicine across 22 countries and found that:
1. 70% of people strongly believe in medicinal benefits from foods;
2. and 49% have increased their belief in Food–As–Medicine over the past two years.24
In November 2020, 43% of U.S. adults said that staying healthy and living longer were the top goals they wanted to achieve with their food choices; **if a food manufacturer can demonstrate that its products have medicinal properties, it could be a boon to its marketing strategies**.25
## **Is Modern Healthcare a Barrier to Food-As-Medicine?**
The concept of Food–As–Medicine has been around for ages; consumers eat certain foods (e.g., elderberry, moringa, turmeric, kombucha) because they believe those foods help them build immunity, prevent inflammation, aid their digestive health, and relieve stress and anxiety.25
Some say healthcare may be a barrier to adoption of Food–As–Medicine; it might be better if we gave everybody free vegetables instead.26 A documentary blames meat for “The End of Medicine”, saying, if everyone around the world went Vegan, both individuals and the planet would be healthier.27
Some say, “Now is the time to get on the ‘Food–As–Medicine’ train; now is the time to improve the health and wellness of the nation by having fruits/vegetables take a bigger piece of the consumer’s plate.28 Others say, “People have finally figured out that we cannot medicate our way out of diseases and ailments; it has become clear that the solution to our health challenges is not found in the ‘pharm’ but on the ‘farm’.”29
## **Consumers are Still Confused About Food-As-Medicine**
Even though 80% of shoppers believe that “fresh” food is healthier for them than “processed food marketed as healthy,” there’s an information gap:
1. 62% of consumers cite conflicting information and confusion about the healthfulness of specific foods.
2. 40% do not clearly understand which fresh foods can act like medicine.
3. 53% say it’s essential to get data about food origins, safety, and nutritional properties to confidently use Food–As–Medicine.30
The Deloitte Insights® survey found that most consumers see potential benefits from Food–As–Medicine; it revealed these percentages of consumers who “agree” or “strongly agree” with each statement:
(a) The right foods can help keep me healthy and prevent me from suffering certain health problems, 78%
(b) The right foods can be therapeutic and help alleviate certain health problems, 76%
(c) Eating the right food can be the best medicine, 75%31
## **U.S. Consumers Will Pay a Premium for Foods that Act as Medicine**
Even though the price is influencing shopper purchase decisions at retail more during these inflammatory times, 55% of consumers say they are willing to pay a premium for the right foods if they can act as medicine – contributing to their health and welfare.31, 32
In the U.S., more than 48 million households have a member with a health condition that needs to be managed through diet; these families can benefit from foods that have preventive or therapeutic effects, but in no case should Food–As–Medicine detract from the importance of pharmaceuticals prescribed by a physician.33
## **Food-As-Medicine Gains Federal Foothold**
As consumers have sought foods to boost immunity and overall wellness, the concept of Food–As–Medicine has begun to take hold. Some say “Food and medicine will converge in the next five years because of the pace of science and the powerful health benefits of produce (i.e., fruits and vegetables) as ‘accelerators’.”34
To reduce diet-related diseases (high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and stroke) and hunger, President Biden announced he is creating a pathway to:
1. Provide free school meals for all students;
2. Expand the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP);
3. Develop front-of-package nutrition labels; and
4. Implement a Medicare test of “Food–As–Medicine.”35
Some of the White House proposals will require Congressional action, while others can be undertaken by FDA (e.g., front-of-package nutrition labels; guidelines to reduce sodium and added sugars in food).35
[FSNS offers a full range of analysis for nutritional labeling](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/).
[EAS Consulting Group, A Certified Group Company, can assist with label claims substantiation and support for your food products](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/foods/food-labeling-and-claims/?__hstc=187690167.40f942fd254d7bf7adc0fea5960c389d.1686329846311.1689624081235.1689637079376.58&__hssc=187690167.10.1689637079376&__hsfp=2924083047).
---
1 Valigra, Lori. 2021. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
2 Zacka, Michael. 2014. Food Processing. June Edition.
3 Institute of Food Technologists. Food Processing. June Edition.
4 Mintel®. 2021 Food Processing. August Edition.
5 Shroeder, Eric. 2021. Dairy Processing. August 30 Issue.
6 Sloan, Elizabeth. 2021. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
7 Accetta-Smith, Pamela. 2021. Diary Processing. April 20 Issue.
8 Bonham, Sara. 2021. Dairy Processing. April 21 Issue.
9 Nunes, Keith. 2021. Dairy Processing. October 18 Issue.
10 Bonham, Sara. 2021. Dairy Processing. June 28 Issue.
11 Ishmael, Wes.2021. CALF News. July Edition.
12 Nelson, Andy. 2021. Dairy Processing. July 20 Issue.
13 Hughes, Kerry. 2021. Prepared Foods. November 17 Issue.
14 Williams, Lu Ann. 2021. Prepared Foods. July 16 Issue.
15 Wicks, Lauren. 2022. Well + Good. October 24 Issue.
16 Innova Market Insights®. 2021. Prepared Foods. September 14 Issue.
17 Canning, Katie. 2021. Dairy Foods. October 3 Issue.
18 Teicholz, Nina. 2018. Nutrition Coalition. January 10 Issue.
19 Stanton, John. 2018. Food Processing. June Edition.
20 Stanton, John. 2019. Food Processing. March Edition.
21 Newsmax® 2022. Special Health Report. Summer Edition.
22 McHugh, Holly. 2020. Prepared Foods. March Edition.
23 Berry, Donna. 2020. Meat + Poultry. December 28 Issue.
24 HeathFocus International. 2020. Meat + Poultry. December Issue.
25 The NPD Group®. 2021. Prepared Foods. April 6 Issue.
26 Gregg, Jeff. 2021. Dairy Processing. July 26 Issue.
27 Thompson-Weeman, Hannah. 2022. Meatingplace. June 1 Issue.
28 Acosta, Gina. 2022. Progressive Grocer. August 2 Issue.
29 Burns, Cathy. 2022. The Packer. October 27 Issue.
30 Deloitte Insights®. 2022. July Edition.
31 Edsall, Daniel. 2022. The Packer. September 26 Issue.
32 Sowder, Amy. 2022. The Packer. September 27 Issue.
33 Academy of Nutrition and Diabetics Foundation. 2022. August Edition.
34 Strailey, Jennifer. 2022. The Packer, July 15 Issue. \[1\] Hoffman, J. and J. Wiesemeyer. 2022. Drovers. September 27 Issue.
35 Hoffman, J. and J. Wiesemeyer. 2022. Drovers. September 27 Issue.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Extraneous & Foreign Material In Food: Safety & Consumer Displeasure](https://fsns.com/extraneous-foreign-material-in-food-safety-consumer-displeasure/)
**Published:** December 8, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University*
Presence of unwanted “foreign” (i.e., not characteristically present) or “extraneous” (i.e., coming from without) material in food can constitute health and/or quality concerns. Depending on the size and shape of the object, it may cause choking, injury in the mouth, or other health effects, in which case it is deemed a “Physical Food Safety Hazard” in both [USDA HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/)1 and FDA PCHF2 regulations as well as [GFSI standards](https://fsns.com/contribution-of-gfsi-to-us-foods/).3,4 In all of the Regulations and Standards, there are documented policies, procedures, and handling requirements for the control of foreign materials plus the use of detection and removal equipment to find, reduce, or eliminate the risk of foreign-body contamination.
## What is a “Physical Hazard” in Food?
Both Agencies have codified, through inclusion in their Code of Federal Regulations documents, specific “Physical Hazards.” USDA lists metal, glass, and plastic1; FDA lists metal, glass, and stones.2
Training modules have broadened those lists. One [HACCP training class](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/) lists as Physical Hazards the 12 most common foreign materials in foods, including the following:5
- Glass
- Wood
- Stones
- Metal
- Jewelry
- Insects
- Bone
- Plastic
- Insulation
- Personal effects
- Bullets/BB shot
- Needles
Another HACCP training class lists the following as Physical Hazards:6
- Glass
- Metal fragments
- Wood
- Wire clips
- Stones
- Needles
A PCHF training class lists the following as Physical Hazards:7
- Glass
- Brittle Plastic
- Metal
- Wood
- Stones
- Choking Hazards For Young Children (soft plastic, cylindrical or compressible foods like hot dogs, sausages, grapes, peanuts, popcorn, and bottle caps from beverages)
GFSI standards add these foreign materials:3,4,8,9
- Ceramics
- Porcelain
- Temporary Fasteners (string, wire, and tape)
## What is Foreign Material in Food?
From a regulatory standpoint, there are foreign materials (e.g., hard, sharp, pointed, and shorter than 7mm or longer than 25mm10) and extraneous material (e.g., string, paper, mold, hair, insects, sand, and dirt7,11) that are not considered Food Safety Hazards.
USDA says, “Foreign objects which cannot cause illness or injury are not Hazards, even though they may not be esthetically pleasing to your customers.”6 FDA says, “Establishments should address, in the PCHF Food Safety Plan, only those foreign or extraneous materials that are Hazards reasonably likely to cause injury.”7
## FDA and USDA Determine When Something Becomes an “Adulterant”
However, both Agencies can make judgement calls regarding the amount or level at which a extraneous or foreign material in food becomes an “adulterant.”11,12 FDA uses “Action Level” standards for Extraneous Material defects that present no Health Hazard to make decisions on regulatory actions.7 For example, these standards allow no more than: (a) 10 milligrams of animal feces in 1 pound of coffee, or (b) 12% mold, 4 rodent hairs, and 5 whole insects per 3.5 ounces in apple butter.13 GFSI-benchmarked schemes have no regulatory authority, so they just list – with no metrics – foreign materials.
## FDA Tasks QC Departments With Reducing Defects to the Lowest Possible Level
Those at the processing/manufacturing level are concerned about complying with federal regulations (to prevent recalls, product withdrawals, and safety alerts), achieving GFSI standards, and meeting customer/consumer expectations. Inadequate product quality, based on “Consumer Displeasure” (i.e., sight and feel “danger” – rooted in odd appearance, irregular mouthfeel, or unexpected texture) can damage brand reputation and loyalty, resulting in economic losses.
“Quality Threats” (i.e., not meeting consumer expectations for size, shape, or appearance of foreign or extraneous defects) necessitate action beyond regulations and standards.14 FDA says, “Quality Control Operations must be used to reduce these defects to the lowest level currently possible.”7 So, no metrics are needed – processors/manufacturers must find and remove them all.
## Recalls Due to Extraneous and Foreign Material in Food Increasing
Prior to 2010, so few recalls were associated with Physical Hazards that FDA didn’t even collect the data.15 For 2010-2012, FDA food recalls for Physical Hazards averaged 2.6% of all food recalls; things heated up when FDA started mandating the Reportable Food Registry.7
FSIS-USDA recalls for extraneous and foreign material in food were very low until it issued a Rule in 2012 requiring notification of the Agency within 24 hours if a food is potentially contaminated with foreign objects.16 A few years later, FSIS started requiring that companies notify the Agency if they received consumer complaints about foreign material in USDA-regulated foods.17
In 2016, 11% of FSIS recalls were for extraneous and foreign materials; by 2017, 43% of FSIS recalls were for extraneous and foreign materials.18 Three reasons for that increase included the following:
- Greater focus on those materials by in-plant personnel
- Lower tolerance for extraneous and foreign material in food by customers and consumers
- The litigious nature of foreign and extraneous material19
## 75% of Food Recalled in 2019 Due to Foreign Material
So, in March 2019, USDA issued a “Best Practice Guideline” for meat and poultry processors to reinforce the 2012 Rule.16 By 2019, it was reported that: (a) foreign material has surged to become the No. 1 cause of recalls in recent years20 and (b) foreign-material contamination accounted for 75% of the total volume of food recalled by FSIS in 2019.21
One HACCP Course identifies “Source or Cause” of Physical Hazards as the following:5
- (1) Glass: bottles, jars, light fixtures, gauge covers, thermometers
- (2) Metal: nuts, bolts, screws, steel wool, wire
- (3) Stones: deteriorating walls, ceilings, floors; in the tread of wheels or workers’ shoes
- (4) Plastics: packaging materials, belts, aprons
- (5) Bone: errors in fabrication, processing, product segregation
- (6) Insects: fields, plant, post-process entry
- (7) Wood: fields, pallets, boxes, buildings
- (8) Bullets/BB Shot: animals shot in the field
- (9) Needles: hypodermic needles used for livestock treatment
- (10) Jewelry: careless employee practices, earrings, finger rings, necklaces
- (11) Personal Effects: careless employee practices, pens, pencils, buttons
- (12) Insulation: building materials, walls, ceilings
Another HACCP Course identifies “Sources” of Physical Hazards as the following:11
- (1) Contaminated raw materials
- (2) Poorly designed facilities or equipment
- (3) Improperly maintained facilities or equipment
- (4) Poor employee practices
- (5) Processing procedure failure
## GMPs and PRPs for Physical Hazards in a HACCP Program
Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) and Prerequisite Programs (PRPs) for Physical Hazards in HACCP consist of the following:5
- (1) Paperwork: purchase specifications, verification programs
- (2) Observation: visual inspection
- (3) Things That Sort or Remove: magnet, sifter, riffle board, bone separator
- (4) Things That Detect: metal detector, x-ray equipment, UV-light equipment, laser equipment
Potential “Controls” for foreign material in food in PCHF include the following:12
- GMPs
- PRPs
- Regular inspection of at-risk equipment for signs of damage
- Process controls (e.g., metal or x-ray detectors)
- Preventive controls (e.g., supply chain program)
- FDA “small parts test fixture” used for toys
[SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) Preventive Measures include the following:4
- Inspection of plant and equipment condition
- Assure no string, tape, or wire as temporary fasteners
- Assure no loose saws, knives, hooks, or thermometers
- Maintaining and calibrating sieves, screens, and magnets
- Monitor, verify, and validate operational effectiveness of detection technologies (e.g., metal, x-ray, and laser devices)
[BRC](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/) adds to those Preventive Measures: (a) optical sorting equipment, and (b) physical separation equipment (e.g., gravity separation and fluid-bed technology).8
## What Does it Take to Implement a Foreign Material Prevention Program?
Implementing a verifiable Foreign Material Prevention Program (FMPP) involves the following:19
- (1) Determining whether you are purchasing (in raw materials) or creating (during manufacture) foreign material
- (2) Following Standard Operating Procedures
- (3) Robustly following Control Procedures
- (4) Verifying risk via data collection
- (5) Verifying effectiveness of x-ray and metal detectors
- (6) Making sure that management is fully committed
## Prevention is Best Practice for Eliminating Foreign Material in Food
Detection and/or inspection is too late; prevention is the solution.22 Keeping foreign material out, using the same strategies that are used for pathogen prevention, is the answer.22 Once we move away from the concept of a screening device as the “catch-all” and view it as the verification of our prevention program’s effectiveness, we can begin to experience significant advancements in our FMPP.23
When risk assessments show that foreign material is found on the equipment or within the facility, you know that you need stronger Preventive Maintenance, Sanitation, and GMP programs to prevent such material from entering the food-making process.20,24 The North American Meat Institute has published “[The Meat and Poultry Industry Foreign Material Manual: Considerations for Designing a Foreign Material Control & Prevention Program](https://www.meatinstitute.org/sites/default/files/original%20documents/The%20Meat%20and%20Poultry%20Industry%20Foreign%20Material%20Manual.pdf)” with the necessary information to design a FMCPP.25
## Recall of 12 Million Pounds of Chicken Prompts Action
In 2019, Tyson Foods™️ had a “foreign material recall” of nearly 12 million pounds of frozen, ready-to-eat chicken products. The event started with two consumer complaints.26 Tyson™️ then developed “Keys To Success” to minimize the presence of extraneous and foreign materials:26
- (1) Visual Inspection – empowering every employee to halt production if they see something out of place
- (2) Know Process Controls – every employee knows enough to recognize an out-of-control process and what to do about it
- (3) Documentation – complete recordkeeping of inspections and incidents
- (4) Training – thorough and often, practices of behaviors and actions of employees and managers
## Your Organization’s Culture Affects Your Foreign Material Prevention Program
Most of the discussions on controlling foreign material in food concentrate largely on detection methods; too few address the impact of organizational “culture.”27 Fostering a culture of food safety is essential for minimizing presence of foreign material in food products.28
Jesperson et al. asked three experts to identify five characteristics of an ideal “culture” to impact foreign material elimination; they replied with the following:27
- (1) Promoting trust and courage, not blame
- (2) Integrating food safety into management principles, reliability, and operations
- (3) Setting and revising internal expectations and consequences
- (4) Focusing on competent employees at all levels/functions in risk analyses
- (5) Adhering to the belief that winning organizations are built on cross-functional teams
## “Zero FM” is Possible in Food Processing
The risks of foreign material contamination in food can be overcome with a three-pronged approach:29
- (1) Creating the right culture
- (2) Setting high expectations and robust programs
- (3) Developing strong detection capabilities within the manufacturing facility
Consumers trust the industry to deliver safe foods. Incidents of foreign materials in finished products can cause significant harm to consumers and brand loyalty, and ultimately have a long-reaching impact on company reputation. The journey starts with the “culture” and the commitment of senior management.29
**REFERENCES:**
1 FSIS-USDA. 1996. Pathogen Reduction; HACCP Systems. July 25 Issue.
2 FDA-DHHS. 2015. CGMP, HA and RB Preventive Controls. September 17 Issue.
3 BRC. 2015. Global Standard. January Edition
4 SQF Institute. 2014. Safe Quality Food Code. July Edition.
5 Smith, Gary. 2016. FSNS: HACCP Class. September 26 Issue.
6 Gehring, Kerri. 2015. TAMU: HACCP Class. January Edition.
7 FSPC Alliance. 2016. Preventive Controls For Human Foods. First Edition.
8 BRC. 2017. Implementing BRC Standards. August Edition.
9 SQF. 2014. Implementing SQF Standards. May Edition.
10 Olsen, Alan. 1998. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 98:181-189.
11 Gehring, Kerri. 2022. Texas A&M University. August Edition.
12 Smith, Gary. 2018. FSNS: HACCP Compared to PCHF Class. March Edition.
13 La Motte, Sandee. 2019. CNN. October 4 Issue.
14 SQF Institute. 2014. SQF: Systems Training Class. First Edition.
15 CDC. 2013. Surveillance for Foodborne Disease Outbreaks. November Edition.
16 Tolu, Andrea. 2020. Food Quality & Safety. November Edition.
17 Belk, Keith. 2022. Colorado State University. August 24 Issue.
18 FSIS-USDA. 2018. Recall Summaries. July Edition.
19 Raede, John. 2018. Food Safety Magazine. September Edition.
20 Johnston, Tom. 2019. Meatingplace. May Edition.
21 Pawluczyk, Olga. 2021. Food Quality & Safety. July Edition.
22 Seyfert, Mark. 2021. Food Safety. June 17 Issue.
23 Butts, John. 2018. Food Safety Magazine. September Edition.
24 Davis, De Ann. 2020. Food Quality & Safety. November Edition.
25 Sims, Bob. 2021. Meat+Poultry. September 16 Issue.
26 Finstad, Suzanne. 2022. MeatingPod. July 20 Issue.
27 Jesperson et al. 2020. Food Safety Magazine. March Edition.
28 Global Food Safety. 2022. [www.mygsfi.c](http://www.mygsfi.com/)[om](http://www.mygfsi.com/) accessed August 19, 2022.
29 Williamson, Sherry. 2020. Food Safety Magazine. November Edition.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Use of Remote Audits During the Pandemic Part 2](https://fsns.com/use-of-remote-audits-during-the-pandemic-part-2/)
**Published:** December 10, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
As explained by Alyssa McMahan in our previous newsletter, fully remote audits and blended remote audits are now a reality due to social distancing requirements and attempts to keep auditors and plant staff safe. A full copy of Alyssa McMahan’s previous article can be found [here](https://fsns.com/use-of-remote-audits-during-the-pandemic/).
FSNS C&A supports all auditing methods but recognized select conditions have made fully remote auditing a challenge. Challenging conditions include lack of cellular network or adequate internet access to stream video, low light conditions, inadequate video clarity, time delays between capturing video and reviewing video, and ensuring veracity of the footage.
When preparing a technology solution for fully remote audits, plants must consider the aforementioned conditions. Some sites are able to use a simple mobile phone or mobile camera. Some sites are able to use existing in-house installed cameras. Audits must be scheduled according to technology limitations, specifically any time delays between capturing video and reviewing video.
Plants must also account for potential failure to capture all necessary requirements in video footage. How will the plant and the certification body address footage gaps? Will it result in a non-conformity? If additional footage is needed, how long will it delay the audit process?
As FSNS C&A and our customers continue to learn from and refine fully remote and blended auditing, we recognize the need for nimble, secure, easy to use, video and footage sharing solutions. Where customers are unable to source or do not have the time to source technology solutions, FSNS C&A has developed a solution.
FSNS C&A has trialed a ready to ship camera solution, available at a cost less than typical travel fees for an audit with technical support included.
The camera can hold up to conditions commonly found in food manufacturing settings and farms, including dairy farms, poultry farms, and feed lots. The camera can be sanitized as needed. Live stream or recorded footage with a GPS tag to ensure veracity is available. The system has a battery life of 8 hours or more depending on lighting conditions, and has built in night vision.
Footage captured can be uploaded typically in minutes to an hour, which facilitates rapid review where live streaming is not an option. The footage is end to end encrypted for security, and can be immediately destroyed after auditing is complete. Our technology partner can work with your current information technology security expert to explain additional security details.
To learn more about testing your equipment, or exploring FSNS C&A solutions, please reach out to .
**Categories:** News
---
### [FSNS to Host New Course in Greeley, Colorado](https://fsns.com/fsns-to-host-new-course-in-greeley-colorado/)
**Published:** May 28, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**—May 28, 2019—[Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com) (FSNS) will be hosting a [training course](https://fsns.com/resources/education/) on June 26, 2019 at their Greeley, Colorado location. The course, The Importance of GFSI in Food Safety Management and the Association with Microbiology, will discuss GFSI influence on food safety management systems and the importance of understanding and reacting to data generated from sampling, testing, and environmental monitoring. It will also address the meaning of the results and possible risks associated if the information and data is not acted upon. The course will be taught by Alex Brandt, FSNS Chief Science Officer and Lori Ernst, Senior Vice President of Audit Services.
Ernst is a food industry veteran with 20 years of experience in food operational management. As a food industry auditor, Ernst has conducted more than 250 GFSI audits. Her audit capabilities cover animal welfare (all species), sanitation, food safety/ GMP, customer specific requirements, industry specific needs, and warehouse audits. She also has audit experience in multiple other areas including bakeries, flour milling, fish, canning, oil refining, dairy, eggs, beverages, produce and snack food items. Her specific qualifications cover BRC Food third party audits; BRC Storage & Distribution third party audits; BRC-approved training provider (ATP); SQF high risk third party audits; Professional Animal Auditor Certification Organization (PAACO) red meat audits; and PAACO Poultry audits. Ernst also is trained for Foundation for Food Safety Certification (FSSC) 22000 and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) certification.
Brandt’s expertise includes food antimicrobials, environmental sampling, molecular subtyping of foodborne pathogens, molecular detection methods, and persistence of foodborne pathogens in food processing environments. He is a member of several professional associations including the American Meat Science Association, the International Association for Food Protection, the Institute of Food Technologists, and AOAC International.
For more information on the course, call 888-525-9788 or email .
**About Food Safety Net Services**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO, approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit [FSNS](https://fsns.com/).
\###
**Categories:** News
---
### [Certified Group Appoints John R. Nelson as Chief Operating Officer](https://fsns.com/certified-group-appoints-john-r-nelson-as-chief-operating-officer/)
**Published:** January 10, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Joins Company to Drive Organizational Excellence and Financial Performance*
Melville, N.Y. and San Antonio, TX—January 10, 2022 – Certified Group and Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), a Certified Group Company, today announced the appointment of John R. Nelson as Chief Operating Officer where he will lead and support Certified Group’s management of its various business holdings that address the food, food safety, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, cannabis, nicotine, and vaping industries.
John’s track record in driving organizational growth comes from over 20 years of being in the TIC industry and holding technical, quality, and leadership roles. Most recently he served as Executive Vice President, Transportation & Industrials at Element Materials Technology where he orchestrated a transformation of the T&I sector and built a $240M business servicing more than 12,000 customers in seven countries.
Previously, John worked with Inspectorate, acquired by Bureau Veritas in 2010, as Senior Vice President, Laboratory Services Americas where he transformed a business that was severely constrained by its longstanding single-market focus into a comprehensive laboratory services provider, unlocking diversification opportunities that generated substantial higher-margin organic revenue growth.
“John possesses a foundation of technical experience with a strong background in operational leadership, commercial focus and continuous improvement,” said John Bellinger, CEO of Certified Group and FSNS. “His strengths in implementing strategic vision, financial performance and technical growth are what we need to expand our capabilities to meet our clients’ pressing needs in a dynamic global economy.”
John holds a B.S. in Biology and Chemistry and an MBA from Texas Tech University, while also recently completing the Advanced Management Program at INSEAD.
**About Certified Group**
Certified Group is a leading North American provider of testing and regulatory consulting services with laboratories located in New York, California, Illinois, Texas, Ontario, and Alberta. The Certified Group of companies includes Certified Laboratories, EAS Consulting, FSNS, Labstat, LabSmart, ABC Testing, Microconsult Inc, and MicroQuality Laboratories. The Certified Group provides total testing and regulatory guidance solutions in the Food, Food Safety, Supplement & Botanical, Cosmetic, Personal Care, Cannabis, Nicotine, and Vaping industries.
**About FSNS**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit [www.FSNS.com](https://fsns.com/).
**Categories:** News
---
### [The Impact of Ultra-Processed Food on Human Health](https://fsns.com/the-impact-of-ultra-processed-food-on-human-health/)
**Published:** January 19, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*By Gary C. Smith, Texas A&M University*
## Understanding “Ultra-Processed Food”
The term “ultra-processed” was coined by a Brazilian nutrition professor (at University of Sao Paulo) based on the “[NOVA System of Food Classification](https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova).”1 There’s no hard and fast definition, but, in general, it refers to food with a high proportion of artificial ingredients or added ingredients.2
Processing per se does not make a food or an ingredient less healthy,3,4,5 but the NOVA food classification system implies that there is a direct correlation between the “degree” of processing and the healthfulness of a food.3 Diets high in ultra-processed foods have been associated with obesity, high blood pressure, cancer, and other diseases.2
## NOVA Food Classification System
## The Allure of “Pseudo-Foods”
“Pseudo-foods” are engineered to be super tasty and alluring as well as high in fat, sugar, and salt.6
They have dominated the U.S. diet for the last 70 years since the food industry discovered that ingredients could be formulated to produce a state of gratification beyond just satisfaction (i.e., the “Bet you can’t eat just one” syndrome).6
This is termed the “bliss point.”6 It is “that stage at which levels of richness, sweetness, and saltiness are perceived as ‘just right’ by the consumer”… add some “crunch” and it’s irresistible.6
There’s a reason pseudo-foods have staying power; it’s because we “crave” them.7 A group of psychologists, neurologists, anthropologists, and consumers from three continents better defined “craveology” (i.e., the basic cravings are for sugar, salt, and fat); cravings are the body’s way of bringing emotional balance – whether from conflicts, deadlines, stress, or even mundane rituals of everyday.7
## Food Classification and Health Impact
Since 2009, most health authorities and scientists, in search of a “cause” of obesity and poor health, have categorized foods as:
1. Unprocessed food (e.g., raw agricultural commodities).
2. Processed food (e.g., food subjected to washing, cleaning, milling, cutting, chopping, or heating).
3. Minimally processed food (e.g., a processed food for which most of the inherent physical, chemical, sensory, and nutritional properties are retained).
4. Processed culinary ingredients (e.g., vegetable oils, butter, cream, lard, milk proteins, sugar, sweeteners, starches, gums, and preservatives).
5. Ultra-processed food (e.g., sugared beverages, juices, milks, no-calorie cola, infant formulas, baby food, cheeses, sauces, breads, [breakfast cereals with added sugars](https://fsns.com/the-battle-for-breakfast/), bars, savory and sweet snack products, chips, crisps, and salted, pickled, smoked, or cured meat and fish)5.
## What is Ultra-Processed Food?
The NOVA food classification system defines ultra-processed foods as “any product with more than five ingredients.”3
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identify, among others, these unhealthy ultra-processed foods:
- Ready-to-eat meals
- Heat-and-eat meals
- Pizza
- Cakes
- Cookies
- Doughnuts
- Brownies2
## Defining a Healthful Diet: Perspectives from Top Nutrition Scientists and the Debate over Plant-Based Alternatives
A “Common Ground Conference” led by six of the world’s top nutrition scientists who are vegan and/or anti-meat advocates (Walter Willet, David Katz, Dean Ornish, Neal Barnard, Colin Campbell, and Boyd Eaton) defined a “healthful diet” as low in red meat, processed meat, sugar-sweetened drinks, and refined grains.8
Plant-based meat-alternatives classify as ultra-processed food because many of them have 18 or more ingredients (some say they have a “Frankenfood Ingredient List” of unpronounceable chemical-sounding components) and some contain 14.6 times as much sodium as a lean genuine-beef patty.9,10,11,12
Michael Rogers (University of Guelph) worries that the proliferation of Beyond Meat™️ is only adding to a growing food crisis, where — in Canada — 50% of people’s calories come from processed foods.10 Conversely, some argue that a more plant-based diet can help lower the risk of heart disease, colon cancer, and obesity.13
## Ultra-Processed Foods in Diet and Disease
Ultra-processed foods make up more than 50% of the total dietary energy consumed in high-income countries such as the U.S., Canada, and the UK.14 In the U.S., we get 70% of our calories from plant-based foods and 30% from animal-based foods; 51% of those calories come from added sugars, fats, and hydrogenated vegetable oils and 30% of those calories come from refined grains.15
Americans have increased their consumption of ultra-processed food from 53% (in 2002)16, to 58% (in 2022).17
## Historical View on Carbohydrates and Heart Disease
For 60 years, there has been ample evidence that [high-carbohydrate diets and sugary foods](https://fsns.com/being-overweight-isnt-just-personal-gluttony/) were the most plausible explanations for heart disease.18,19,20,21
Human-nutrition scientists have now honed in on the dietary culprit (i.e., carbohydrates). They believe but have not confirmed the “carbohydrate-insulin model” (i.e., have not proved a cause-and-effect relationship with enough Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials), and need further study of the effect on human health associated with over-consumption of ultra-processed food.22
## The Effect of Ultra-Processed Foods on Health
A plethora of epidemiological studies, a few RCCTs, and several scientific opinions have concluded that overconsumption (too much or too frequent) of ultra-processed food:
1. Is “unhealthy” (so says the Advisory Committee of Dietary Guidelines For Americans);23
2. Contributes to excess calorie consumption and obesity;5
3. Hijacks the brain in ways that resemble addictions to cocaine, nicotine, and other drugs that “re-wire” the brain – causing it to elicit behavior that program people to “crave” them;24,25,26,27
4. Causes people to eat foods that have concentrated levels of sugars, unhealthy fats, and refined flours without redeeming levels of fiber or nutrients;28,29
5. Promotes inflammation throughout the body, which is perhaps the most major threat to healthy aging in the body and brain;29
6. Can lead to obesity, high blood pressure, and cancer;29
7. Is associated with poor diet quality and higher risk of several chronic diseases, and may be a key driver of the 21st century obesity epidemic;29
8. Causes people to gain more weight, and with added weight-gain can come complications such as kidney disease, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and heart disease;30
9. Is linked with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and an increased risk of early death;14
10. Raises the risk of obesity, heart and circulation problems, diabetes, cancer, and a shorter life-span.31
## Ultra-Processed Foods and Overeating: Insights from NIH Studies
The National Institutes of Health has concluded that ultra-processed foods are playing a big role in Americans’ ever-expanding waistlines; there is something about the highly processed nature of foods that contain high levels of salt, sugar, and fat that drives people to overeat.32
- NIH believes people are able to gulp down ultra-processed food faster, which doesn’t allow sufficient time for the stomach-to-brain signal saying “the tank is full”… so they keep on eating.32
- Other researchers believe that “satiety-messaging” originates from a stretched intestine;33
- Or from bacteria in the gut microbiome;29,34,35,36
- Or the appetite hormones (ghrelin and leptin);37
- Or the “endocannabinoid homeostasis system”, (which regulates our hedonistic “cravings” for fatty, starchy, and sugary food);37
- Or sensory neurons in fat deposits near the spine,38 none of which could, during a single eating episode, trigger the brain to tell us that we have taken in enough and can stop eating by switching-off hunger-promoting neurons in the hypothalamus.
## Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Its Consequences
In the U.S., 61% of adults’ total diet comes from ultra-processed foods; numerous studies show that industry-engineered foods can lead to obesity, high blood pressure, and cancer.39
One scientist recommends reviewing the “Ingredients” statement on the label and buying only those products with the least number of ingredients and with ingredients you understand; limiting consumption of ultra-processed foods may be an effective strategy for obesity prevention and treatment.39
## Scientific Studies on Ultra-Processed Foods and Mortality
Two large epidemiological studies published in the same edition of the British Medical Journal caused a journalist to conclude that, “Ultra-processed foods are easy, cheap, and could be killing you.”14
In Spain, a study of almost 20,000 people for 16 years measured how frequently they ate food of each of the four NOVA food categories and found that higher consumption (more than four servings per day) of ultra-processed food was associated with a 62% increased risk for earlier death.40 And, each additional serving of factory-made fare increased the Relative Risk of mortality by 18%.40
In France, using data from 105,000 people and NOVA food categorization found that:
1. Each 10% increment in the percentage of ultra-processed foods people ate was associated with a 12%, 13%, and 11% increase in the rates of overall cardiovascular, coronary heart, and cerebrovascular disease, respectively.
2. There is an association between consumption of minimally processed foods and lower risks of these same diseases.
3. To improve their health, people need to limit their consumption of ultra-processed foods, while increasing the amount of unprocessed or minimally processed foods (e.g., milk, meat, eggs, poultry, fish, seafood, fruits, vegetables, legumes, yogurt, whole grains, natural juices) in their diets.41
## Evidence from NIH Controlled Clinical Trials
The best of the evidence is that of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which concluded that:
1. We consume too many calories when we eat ultra-processed foods because we can consume them so rapidly that our “satiety feedback message” is too slow in informing us that “we should feel full”.
2. Individuals on the ultra-processed diet ate 508 calories more per day (by taking extra helpings) and gained an average of one pound per week; those on the minimally processed diet lost an average of one pound per week.
3. People on the ultra-processed food diet ate faster, ate more, and gained weight.32,42
Another NIH-funded study showed that cutting 20% of the sugar in packaged foods and 40% from sweetened beverages could prevent 2.48 million cardiovascular disease events such as strokes, heart attacks, and cardiac events; 490,000 cardiovascular deaths; and 750,000 diabetes cases in the U.S. over the lifetime of the current adult population.43
## Ultra-Processed Food Can Lead to Cognitive Decline
A recent study of more than 10,000 men and women revealed that those **people who ate the most ultra-processed foods had a 25% faster rate of decline in “executive function” (i.e., ability to process information and make decisions) and a 28% faster rate of overall cognitive impairment** compared with those who ate the least amount of overly processed food.44
That study,44 combined with the work of Rudy Tangi,29 supports the notion that if your daily calorie intake from eating ultra-processed food is too high (e.g., exceeds 20% of total intake44) you may affect the balance of bacteria in your gut microbiome29 – and thereby increase the risk of age-related brain diseases like cognitive decline, dementia, and Alzheimer’s Disease.29,44
A small order of French fries and a regular cheeseburger (both of which are ultra-processed foods) contains a total of 530 calories; that’s 26.5% of a 2000 calories-a-day diet.31
## Processed Food Industry’s Role in Dietary Trends
In 1999, the leaders of the largest processed food companies met privately to discuss the consumption of “craveable” foods and the upturn in rates of obesity; they’ve known for decades that sugary and salty foods are not good for us, yet none has acted to change the content of its “big sellers.”6
The science hasn’t changed the thinking among food and beverage companies which are, after all, primarily in the business of selling the Doritos™️ and Twinkies™️ that people crave.45
Some food companies have corrupted nutrition recommendations toward their profit-driven ends.23 People’s health must be prioritized over corporate profits.46 Far too many foods marketers have exacerbated the problem by capitalizing on the frailty of the human predilection toward hedonism in designing “craveable” rather than “beneficial” products.5
## Controversies in Dietary Guidelines and Expert Opinions
Too many experts at some of our most trusted institutions have been complicit in giving disingenuous nutrition advice regarding carbohydrates, plant-based diets, and ultra-processed foods.47 Too many “experts” over-interpret weak and impressionistic data shaped by passions verging on zealotry.48
Unfortunately, the 2020-2025 Advisory Committee of Dietary Guidelines For Americans (AC-DGFA) was over-populated with biased and conflicted “experts”; nearly all 20 members had long lists of “conflicts of interest” with food, pharmaceutical, or supplement companies, 11 members trained in epidemiology (decidedly weak science for identifying casual relationships), and the majority favored vegetarianism or predominately plant-based, rather than balanced, diets.49
As a result, the 2020-2025 DGFA has veracity problems, suffering from:
1. Entrenched bias of AC-DGFA members and their “Deep State” USDA and USDHHS “helpers”.
2. Complacency among those in Washington D.C. bureaucracy who don’t want to change anything canonized in previous versions of the DGFA.
3. Pressure and influence from lobbyists representing “Big Food”, commodity groups, activists, and special-interest groups.47,50,51,52,53,54
## Nutrition Advice and Industry Influence
Marion Nestle Ph.D. (an eminent human nutritionalist) said, “Ultra-processed is the new way of talking about foods that should not be consumed regularly or in large amounts – tons of evidence has come in within the last five years, yet the DGFA Advisory Committee didn’t even discuss it as they finalized the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines For Americans.”55
Steve Dittmer (a journalist) phrased it differently saying, “No reference to carbohydrates or plant-based diets or ultra-processed food was made.”47
R. Clemens and P. Pressman (human nutrition scientists) said, “The DGFA Advisory Committee has leaned heavily upon epidemiological studies, which suggest (but do not demonstrate a causal effect) that ultra-processed foods are “unhealthy.”5
All three statements could be correct. The AC-DGFA probably discussed these matters but could have been coerced (by the Deep State, the bureaucracy, or lobbyists) not to recommend anything. Or, they could have decided that there is insufficient evidence (especially a lack of RCCTs to warrant making a general Recommendation. Or, they may have had “second thoughts” and didn’t want to exacerbate the problems they have already parented.
Nina Teicholz bravely proclaimed, “If, in recommending that Americans avoid meat, cheese, milk, cream, butter, eggs, and the rest, it turns out that nutrition experts made a mistake, it will have been a monumental one. Measured just by death and disease, and not including the millions of lives derailed by excess weight and obesity, it’s very possible that the course of nutrition advice over the past 60 years has taken an unparalleled toll on human history.”48
And, Gary Taubes says, “Getting the wrong answer on such a huge and tragic scale borders on the inexcusable; can we get the low-fat proponents to apologize?”56
### REFERENCES
- 1 Klapholz, Sue. 2022. Food Technology. January Edition.
- 2 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2021. Food Processing. August 10 Issue.
- 3 Keefe, Lisa. 2022. Alt•Meat. February Edition
- 4 Gehring, Kerri. 2018. Texas A&M University. January 18 Issue.
- 5 Clemens, P. and P. Pressman. 2019. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
- 6 Norris, Chuck. 2019. The Eagle. June 3 Issue.
- 7 Turner, Jeanne. 2020. Food Processing. January Edition.
- 8 Templeton, David. 2016. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. January 11 Issue.
- 9 Coggin, Will. 2019. USA Today. November 3 Issue.
- 10 Bharti, Bianca. 2019. National Post. August 7 Issue.
- 11 Berry, Donna. 2020. Meat + Poultry. July 22 Issue.
- 12 Cesario, A. and J. Vahalik. 2022. Alt•Meat. April Edition.
- 13 Meyer, A. and L. Finlay. 2022. Reader’s Digest. October Edition.
- 14 Scutti, Susan. 2019. CNN. May 30 Issue.
- 15 Layman, Don. 2020. CALF News. July Edition.
- 16 Juul *et al*. 2021. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. October Edition.
- 17 LaMotte, Sandee. CNN. December 5 Issue.
- 18 Ahrens *et al*. 1961. Transactions of the Association of American Physicians 74:134-146.
- 19 Yudkin, John. 1972. Pure, White, And Deadly. Penguin. New York, NY.
- 20 Leslie, Ian. 2016. The Guardian. April 7 Issue.
- 21 Albrick, Margaret. 1962. Archives of International Medicine. 109:345-359
- 22 Smith, Gary. 2023. FSNS Newsletter. April Edition.
- 23 Teicholz, Nina. 2019. Nutrition Coalition. January 17 Issue.
- 24 Volkow, Nora. 2011. National Institute on Drug Abuse. November Edition.
- 25 Langreth, Robert. 2011. Bloomberg News. November 6 Issue.
- 26Scripps Research Institute. 2011. Nature Neuroscience. November 5 Issue.
- 27 Ludwig, David. 2011. Harvard University. November 5 Issue.
- 28 Stanford, Duane. 2011. Denver Post. November 5 Issue.
- 29 Tanzi, Rudy. 2022. CNN. December 5 Issue.
- 30 Langer, Abby. 2019. National Institutes of Health. August 7 Issue.
- 31 Katz, David. 2022. CNN. December 5 Issue.
- 32 Hall, Kevin. 2019. National Institutes of Health. May 17. Issue.
- 33 University of California-San Francisco. 2019. Genetic Engineering News. November 15 Issue.
- 34 Zarrinpar, Amir. 2022. Inside Precision Medicine. August 4 Issue.
- 35 Wang, Meng. 2022. Inside Precision Medicine. August 6 Issue.
- 36 Thaiss *et al*. 2022. Nature. December Edition.
- 37 Dasgupta, Raj. 2019. CNN. October 25 Issue.
- 38 Patapoutian, Ardem. 2022. Genetic Engineering News. September 1 Issue.
- 39 Fitzgerald, Nurgul. 2019. Rutgers University. May 17 Issue.
- 40 Bes-Rastrollo, Maira. 2019. British Medical Journal. May 29 Issue.
- 41 NutriNet-Sante Project. 2019. British Medical Journal. May 29 Issue.
- 42 Boudreau, Catherine. 2019. Morning Agriculture. May 17 Issue.
- 43 Shangguan *et al*. 2021. Circulation. September Edition.
- 44 Suemoto *et al*. 2022. JAMA Neurology. November Edition.
- 45 Hoyle, Tim. 2011. Bloomberg News. November 6 Issue.
- 46 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2021. Food Processing. September 21 Issue.
- 47 Dittmer, Steve. 2020. AFF Sentinel. August 12 Issue.
- 48 Teicholz, Nina. 2014. The Big Fat Surprise. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
- 49 Teicholz, Nina. 2019. Nutrition Coalition. April 14 Issue.
- 50 Teicholz, Nina. 2020. Meatingplace. October 22 Issue.
- 51 National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Food Processing. October Edition.
- 52 Teicholz, Nina. 2015. British Medical Journal. September 23 Issue.
- 53 Fusaro, Dave. 2017. Food Processing. October Edition.
- 54 Fusaro, Dave. 2020. Food Processing. August Edition.
- 55 Nestle, Marion. 2020. CNN. July 15 Issue.
- 56 Taubes, Gary. 2002. New York Times Magazine. July 7 Issue.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Natural and Added Sugars In Dietary Guidance](https://fsns.com/natural-and-added-sugars-in-dietary-guidance/)
**Published:** August 31, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
By Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University
## The Historic Shift in Nutritional Guidelines
It’s hard to overstate what a radical departure from the government’s stand on nutrition the [Dietary Guidelines For Americans (DGFA)](https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/) represented when it came out in 1980; since 1956, USDA had been advising people to eat a well-balanced diet of four groups:
- Milk
- Meat
- Fruits & vegetables
- Cereals & grains1
Having dietary guidelines represented the first time the public had been advised to eat less of something rather than enough of everything.1 Prescribed to the public by the American Heart Association (AHA) since 1961 to fight heart disease, then adopted by USDA in 1980 as the official dietary plan for all men, women, and children, DGFA has been terrible for health in every way as evidenced by skyrocketing rates of obesity and failure to conquer heart disease.1
## What Did the American Heart Association Recommend?
American Heart Association’s 1961 guidance recommended that the diet consist of…
- 30% of calories from overall fat.
- No more than 10% of calories from saturated fat.
- 55 to 60% of calories from carbohydrates2 (sugar is a “refined carbohydrate”).
It was revised in 1970 to add the statement, “To control fat intake, *increase refined-carbohydrate* consumption by choosing snacks from other food groups such as low-fat cookies, low-fat crackers, unsalted pretzels, hard candy, gum drops, sugar, syrup, honey, jam, jelly and marmalade”.3 In short, to avoid fat, people *should eat sugar,* the AHA advised.1
By 2020, Americans were getting 70% of their calories from plant-based foods and 30% from animal-based foods; 81% of their calories came from ultra-processed foods (i.e., those containing added sugars, fat, hydrogenated vegetable oils, and refined carbohydrates.)4
## Did Dietary Guidelines Really Promote Health?
For a quarter-century (1970 until 1995), people seeking to be health-conscious by reducing fat consumption plowed their way through mega-tons of industry-generated bags of “Non-Fat” or “Low-Fat” salty, sugary, or crunchy products full of refined carbohydrates instead.5 AHA and DGFA clearly steered Americans – and the food industry – toward exactly that solution, and AHA rode the profit wave by charging a hefty fee for putting the AHA’s “Heart Healthy” check mark on dubious candidates such as Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes®.6
## Contesting Theories: Keys vs. Yudkin
The premise and concept of having national dietary guidelines was predicated on the “Diet-Heart Hypothesis” in Ancel Keys’ “6-Countries Study”, which indicted the fat content of food as the cause of heart disease.7 Two scientists (believing that Keys had cherry-picked the six counties) added data from 16 more countries and conducted a “22-Countries Study” of the hypothesis.8 Their study revealed that other factors (e.g., the number of cars sold per capita, number of cigarettes sold, consumption of protein, consumption of sugar – all of which were measures of personal wealth) could equally explain the trends in heart disease in all these countries – but showed *no* correlation with heart disease when countries beyond Key’s original six were added.8
## Keys Counters with a “7-Countries Study”
Keys, incensed by the results of the “22-Countries Study”, then initiated the now famous “[7-Countries Study](https://www.sevencountriesstudy.com/)” to prove that fat consumption was the culprit and sugar consumption was not. From 1957 to 1970, Keys jousted with John Yudkin; Yudkin thought excess sugar consumption was the most likely cause of obesity and heart disease.9 Keys spent most of his time from the late 1950s to the early 1970s defaming Yudkin and making sure the “7-Countries Study” supported his Diet-Heart Hypothesis.1,10 As the research leaders from the seven countries met to discuss the conclusion of that study, Keys was aggressively disparaging of any hypothesis other than his own, and never allowed them to properly discuss sugar as a cause of heart disease.1
## Italian Researcher Finds Correlation Between Sweets & Coronary Mortality
The results of the “7-Countries Study” were released in 1970 and claimed to demonstrate a strong correlation between the consumption of saturated fat and deaths from heart disease when the seven countries were compared to each other; but, within countries, the correlation between saturated fat and heart disease was not different from zero.11
Fourteen years later (in 1984), Keys followed up with these populations in all seven countries; by then, the consumption of saturated fat could no longer explain differences in heart disease rate at all – among or within countries.12
Twenty-nine years later (1994), an Italian researcher re-analyzed the raw data from the “7-Countries Study” and found that the category of foods that best correlated (r=0.821, or 82%) with coronary morality was “sweets” (i.e., sugar products and pastries).13
## How Has Sugar’s Role Been Downplayed?
Why (and how) has Yudkin’s “Sugar-Obesity-Heart Hypothesis”9 been so cleverly covered-up?:
1. Yudkin’s evidence was excoriated by Ancel Keys, Key’s followers, and the World Sugar Research Organization.14
2. A reduction in sugar consumption was advised in the first draft of the 1977 Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs national diet policy but it mysteriously disappeared after lobbyists from the Nutrition Foundation (funded by “Big Food” manufacturers like General Foods™, Quaker Oats™, Heinz™, National Biscuit Company™, etc.) intervened.15
3. It re-appeared – as “Americans should reduce total fat, saturated fat, dietary cholesterol, sugar, and salt” – when the U.S. Congress published “Dietary Goals for the United States”.16
4. The phrase “Americans should reduce sugar consumption” remained in “Dietary Goals For Americans” when it was released by USDA in 1980 because the U.S. Congress had approved it as a part of “Dietary Goals for the United States”.16,17
## The Evolution of the USDA’s Dietary Recommendations
Eventually, the DGFA became the basis for the USDA Food Pyramid, which has morphed into the [USDA MyPlate](https://www.myplate.gov/) in recent years.1 In 1992, using the Egyptian Great Pyramid’s triangulation, USDA subdivided one face of their “Food Pyramid” according to the proportions of each of six “food groups” that DGFA says people should eat.18 At the tip of the triangle (i.e., at its pinnacle), with the warning “Use Sparingly”, is the “Fats, Oils, & Sweets” food group; nearby, in a side panel, it calls out “added sugars” as being problematic.18
*The USDA Food Pyramid as it appeared in 1992*.The 2020-2025 DGFA did not contain the USDA Food Pyramid and replaced it with a diagrammatic called MyPlate.gov. That infographic consists of a dinner fork, a large circle, and a small circle. The large circle represents a dinner plate and is divided into four parts (Fruits, Grains, Vegetables, and Protein); the small circle represents a coaster and says “Dairy”.19
*The USDA’s MyPlate diagram has since replaced the Food Pyramid.*## Sugar Consumption Over the Years: A Brief Overview
For 40 years, the Food Pyramid was taught to students in public schools and universities as well as those in the healthcare community with emphasis on a four-tiered “consumer advice” categorization: Eat Less, Eat Moderately, Eat More, Eat Most.20 “Sweets” were in the “Eat Less” tier. That didn’t work. By the end of the 20th century, the American food industry was providing more that 150 pounds of sugar per capita.21
## Where Did the 2020-2025 DGFA Land on Sugar?
Between 1980 and 2020, DGFA tinkered with phraseology, changing its admonition to consumers from “should reduce sugar consumption”17, to “should limit calories from added sugars”22, to “should be encouraged to consume less than 10% of calories per day from added sugars”23. When the 2020-2025 DGFA Advisory Committee made its recommendations to the USDA and USDHHS on July 15, 2020, it included a key change: “We recommend 6% (down from 10%) of a person’s calories should come from added sugars”; but when DGFA 2020-2025 was released it said “less than 10%” (not 6%).24 That’s evidence of meddling by the Deep State and/or lobbyists (by Big Sugar, Big Food, NIH, or AHA).25,26
John Staunton says, “It’s amazing that people still pay attention to all the news about foods, given that nutritionists have changed their opinions on virtually every bit of eating advice they have given us over the years – look at what’s happened to advice about cholesterol, and fats, and sodium.”27 Nina Teicholz blames food companies that corrupted nutrition recommendations toward their profit-driven ends, and blames nutrition scientists who over-interpreted weak science to become dietary dogma.1 And, that is undoubtedly the reason that DGFA has relentlessly refused to consider any evidence that contradicts the last 35 years of nutritional advice.28
To be fair, though, DGFA – from the beginning – has warned against consuming too many sweets and too much sugar. DGFA 2020-2025 states, “A healthy dietary pattern doesn’t have much room for extra added sugars…foods and beverages high in this component should be limited.17 Limits are:
1. Less than 10% of calories per day starting at age 2.
2. Avoid foods and beverages with added sugars for those younger than age 2.
3. Avoid feeding sugars to infants so they might not crave it as they grow older.17, 18
## Is the Food Industry Sending Mixed Messages?
On the other hand, there is evidence of ambivalence, mixed-messaging, end-runs, and work-arounds to placate manufacturers of sweets and sugary foods/beverages. FDA, USDA, and AHA send mixed messages to consumers inasmuch as they have policies that warn against consuming too many sweets, too much sugar, and/or too much refined carbohydrates, yet will allow front-of-package marketing claims of “Healthy” or “Heart-Healthy®” on products that clearly do not meet the nutritional standards of their policies.29,30,31,32
Even that may not be enough as the food industry appears to be rallying around government approval of the Nutrient Profiling System (i.e., Food Compass Scores), which creates a new “Healthfulness” scale and a new Food Pyramid.33,34,35,36,37
## Evidence Against High-Carbohydrate Diets
For 60 years, there has been ample evidence that high-carbohydrate diets and sugary foods/beverages were the most plausible explanations for all or some of obesity, stroke, heart disease, and cancer.1,2 Between 1961 and 2001, four scientific reports concluded that high-carbohydrate diets were more plausible explanations for heart disease than were total fat, saturated fat, or cholesterol.9,14,38,39 Sugar (natural and/or added), white flour, and other refined carbohydrates are almost certainly the main drivers of obesity, cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.1,40
Population-specific data from 175 countries/territories were used to explore correlations between life expectancy and intakes of meat vs. carbohydrate crops; meat intake was positively associated with life expectancy while carbohydrate-crop intake was negatively related to life expectancy.41 Promotion of near-vegetarianism, via low-fat/high-carb dietary guidance, will most likely result in shortened life expectancy because people will likely be more susceptible to chronic illnesses.42 The EAT-Lancet Committee on Food, Planet, Health report concluded that the world must move to a daily dietary target, which will require consumption of sugars to decrease by 50%.43
## What Does Modern Research Indicate About Sugar?
Harvard University studied 75,000 women and 44,000 men and reported in *JAMA Internal Medicine* that people could reduce their risk of early death nearly 20% by sticking to the tenets of their dietary plan and only if the plan complies with the mandates (including “less than 10% of calories from added sugars”) of the DGFA.44
A National Institutes of Health study published in *Circulation* demonstrated that cutting 20% of sugar from packaged foods and 40% from beverages could prevent…
- 2.48 million cardiovascular disease events such as strokes, heart attacks, and cardiac events.
- 490,000 cardiovascular deaths.
- 750,000 diabetes cases in the United States over the lifetime of the current adult population.45
A research study conducted in the United Kingdom followed more than 110,000 people’s health for nine years and have reported that the more “added sugar” a person ate, the higher was their risk of heart disease and stroke.46 Called “free sugar” or “added sugar”, the culprit is found most often in sugared soda drinks, pastries, sweet snacks, [breakfast cereals](https://fsns.com/the-battle-for-breakfast/), honey, fruit juices, and candy.46
A review of 73 meta-analyses, which included 8,601 research studies, revealed that high consumption of “added sugar” was associated with significantly higher risks of 45 negative health outcomes, including diabetes, gout, obesity, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke, cancer, asthma, tooth decay, depression, and early death.47, 48
## The Big Picture: Metabolic Syndrome & Sugar’s Impact
History tells us that obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic ailments are interconnected. Known today as the “metabolic syndrome”, this constellation of chronic medical problems used to be called the “obesity sextette”, the “Western diseases”, the “disease of civilization” or – in the early 1900s as sugar swept across the English colonies – the “saccharine diseases”.1
[Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com/about-fsns/) offers [nutritional analysis for foods and beverages](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/) to measure the content of sugar and other compounds.
### References**:**
1 Teicholz, Nina. 2014. The Big Fat Surprise. Simon & Schuster. New York NY.
2 Taubes, Gary. 2001. Science 291: 2536-2545.
3 American Heart Association. 1995. An Eating Plan For Healthy Americans. Dallas TX.
4 Layman, Don. 2020. Purdue University. July 15 Issue.
5 Baum *et al*. 2012. Journal of Clinical Lipidology 6: 216-234.
6 Rothstein *et al*. 2003. Rochester Studies In Medical History. University of Rochester Press.
7 Keys, Ancel. 1956. Journal of Chronic Disease 4: 364-380.
8 Yerushalmy, J. and H. Hilleboe. 1957. New York State Journal of Medicine 57: 2343-2354.
9 Yudkin, John. 1972. Pure, White, And Deadly. Penguin. New York NY.
10 Keys, Ancel. 1971. Atherosclerosis. 14: 193-202.
11 Keys, Ancel. 1970. Circulation 41 and 42, AHA Monograph 29: 1-211
12 Keys, *et al*. 1984. Preventive Medicine 13: 141-154.
13 Menotti *et al*. 1999. European Journal of Epidemiology 15: 507-515.
14 Leslie, Ian. 2016. The Guardian. April 7 Issue.
15 Mottern, Nick. 2009. Interview with Nina Teicholz. March 25 Issue.
16 Seiz, Keith. 1977. US Government Printing Office. Washington DC.
17 USDA-USDHHS. 1980. Dietary Guidelines For Americans. Washington DC.
18 Smith, Gary. 2023. Colorado State University. July 22 Issue.
19 USDA. 2023. MyPlate.gov. Accessed on May 13, 2023.
20 Eliason, Nat. 2019. Health. April 22 Issue.
21 USDA. 2003. Agricultural Fact Book 2001-2022. Washington DC.
22 McNeill, Shalene. 2016. The Beef Checkoff. February Edition.
23 Gabbett, Rita. 2016. Meatingplace. January 7 Issue.
24 Fusaro, Dave. 2020. Food Processing. August Edition.
25 Teicholz, Nina. 2022. Meatingplace. October 28 Issue.
26 Dittmer, Steve. 2020. AFF Sentinel. August 12 Issue.
27 Stanton, John. 2018. Food Processing. June Edition.
28 Teicholz, Nina. 2015. British Medical Journal. September 23 Issue.
29 Stevens, S. and E. Presnell. 2022. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
30 Food Processing. 2020. April Edition.
31 Scott, Chris. 2022. Meatingplace. September 7 Issue.
32 Front-of-package statement. 2023. Great Value® Extra-Raisin Bran. Accessed on June 15, 2023.
33 Carlson, Paige. 2022. Drovers. August 10 Issue.
34 Mozaffarian *et al*. 2021. Nature Food 2: 809-818.
35 Teicholz, Nina. 2021. Nutrition Coalition. November 29 Issue.
36 Mares, Justin. 2023. Fox News. January 4 Issue.
37 Karst, Tom. 2021. The Packer. November 28 Issue.
38 Ahrens *et al*. 1961. Transactions of the Association of American Physicians 74: 134-146.
39 Albrick, Margaret. 1962. Archives of Internal Medicine 109: 345-359.
40 Taubes, Gary. 2007. Good Calories, Bad Calories. Alfred A. Knopf. New York NY.
41 You *et al*. 2022. International Journal of General Medicine 15: 1833-1851.
42 de Lazaro, Enrico. 2002. Science News. February 22 Issue.
43 Muirhead, Sarah. 2019. Feedstuffs. January 16 Issue.
44 LaMotte, Sandee. 2023. CNN. January 9 Issue.
45 Shangguan *et al*. 2021. Circulation. September Edition.
46 Processed Foods. 2023. AG-WEB. February 15 Issue.
47 Rogers, Kristen. 2023. CNN. April 5 Issue.
48 Huang *et al*. 2023. British Medical Journal 381: e071609.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) Moves to New Laboratory in Logan, Utah](https://fsns.com/food-safety-net-services-moves-to-new-laboratory-in-logan-utah/)
**Published:** July 26, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
### Location Provides Essential and Time Sensitive Information for Food & Beverage Companies
**LOGAN, Utah, July 26, 2023** – Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), A Certified Group Company, has moved to a new state-of-the-art laboratory with increased capabilities in Logan, Utah. The lab is equipped with the latest scientific instruments to provide a full range of microbiology and chemistry assays to companies across the food and beverage industry, including protein, poultry & egg, ready-to-eat, beverage, produce, refrigerated, frozen, pet food, and more.
Current and potential customers are invited to tour the new laboratory by emailing or by visiting .
The new laboratory is ISO 17025 accredited and uses validated methods to provide customers with accurate results with fast turnaround times. It operates 24/7/365, offers same-day courier service, and is staffed with experts in their fields committed to helping customers meet their food safety goals.
“Our new Logan lab is the latest example of our commitment to providing food and beverage companies with the essential and timely information they need to verify product safety,” said Nick Buschur, Certified Group Food & Beverage Business Unit President. “The lab’s increased capabilities will help us better serve our customers in the Utah and surrounding area, and we’re thrilled to add this location to our North American network of testing labs.”
FSNS is the leader in food safety, with 30+ ISO 17025 accredited laboratories in North America. FSNS’ team of experts provides a full range of services to support food safety initiatives for companies across multiple industries, including regulatory consulting, education & training, certification & audit services, and contract research. For more information, visit [www.fsns.com](https://fsns.com).
**About Certified Group** Certified Group is a leading North American provider of laboratory testing, regulatory consulting, and certification & audit services. The Certified Group of companies includes Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), Certified Laboratories, EAS Consulting Group, and Labstat International Inc. The Certified Group provides analytical testing and regulatory guidance services in the food & beverage, dietary supplements & NHP, cosmetics, OTC, personal care, tobacco/nicotine, and cannabis/hemp industries.
View the original release on [PRNewswire](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/food-safety-net-services-fsns-moves-to-new-laboratory-in-logan-utah-301883496.html).
---
**Contact**
Nishat Jones
Chief Marketing Officer
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [Labstat Inc., A Certified Group Company, Highlights Need for Enhanced Cannabis Regulations to Protect Consumers](https://fsns.com/labstat-highlights-need-for-enhanced-cannabis-regulation/)
**Published:** August 2, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
## *Encourages Collaboration to Foster Industry Transparency and Reduce Harm Potential*
**TORONTO, August 2, 2023/PRNewswire**
As Canada approaches the 5th anniversary of cannabis legalization, Labstat Inc., a leader in tobacco/nicotine, cannabis, hemp and NHP laboratory testing and research & development, underscores the need for more robust regulations and increased research funding to continue leading the way for the international community in this area.
[Read the Press Release](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/labstat-inc-a-certified-group-company-highlights-need-for-enhanced-cannabis-regulations-to-protect-consumers-301891972.html?tc=eml_cleartime)
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [FSNS Announces 2021 Food Safety Training Schedule](https://fsns.com/fsns-announces-2021-food-safety-training-schedule/)
**Published:** December 14, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
[](https://fsns.com/iso-19011/)
## [Remote Audits, AI, and Risk Take Center Stage in ISO 19011:2026 ](https://fsns.com/iso-19011/)
Reviewed By Reviewed and Approved by Kaci Foote, Accreditation Manager, FSNS Certification & Audit 1-Minute Summary ISO 19011:2026...
[read more](https://fsns.com/iso-19011/)
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [FSNS Announces Merger with Cierto Y Seguro S.A. de C.V. Laboratory in Irapuato, Guanajuato, Mexico](https://fsns.com/fsns-announces-merger-with-cierto-y-seguro-s-a-de-c-v-laboratory-in-irapuato-guanajuato-mexico/)
**Published:** December 16, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**— December 16, 2020 —[Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com) (FSNS) has partnered with Cierto y Seguro S.A. de C.V., a leading food and water analysis laboratory in Irapuato, Gto., Mexico. Cierto y Seguro is accredited before the Mexican Accreditation Entity under the updated ISO IEC 17025: 2017 standard.
Cierto y Seguro was founded in 2010, and is the preferred analysis laboratory within the Bajío region. Their mission is to provide their clients with the best systems and technologies to deliver the highest quality services to the market in the best possible time. Cierto y Seguro is known for their accuracy, service, professionalism and for always being at the forefront of technology. CyS employs a dynamic team of professional experts in the field who are motivated, goal-oriented, and consistently meet customer objectives. This laboratory offers traditional microbiology methods, rapid molecular microbiology methods, microbiology sampling, and physiochemistry, as well as temperature- and humidity-controlled shelf life studies.
Food Safety Net Services, headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO approved auditing and certification capabilities. FSNS’ mission is to be your trusted and responsive food safety partner. As a leader in food safety services, we provide long-term commitment to valued employees, unequivocal technical standards, and unsurpassed, individualized customer service leading to true partnerships in the food industry.
Director of Cierto y Seguro, Carlos Gonzalez de Cossío, announced, “FSNS adds to CyS’ expertise and years of experience while expanding its reach, servicing jointly the North American free trade region.” John Bellinger, CEO of FSNS states, “FSNS is so fortunate to partner with Cierto y Seguro, as they are the best quality microbiological food testing laboratory in Mexico. Gina and I look forward to working with Carlos Gonzalez de Cossío, Minerva and the entire team of Cierto y Seguro.”
FSNS is proud to announce the merger with Cierto y Seguro in this growing market to support new clients and to better serve their existing clients with needs in Mexico. For more information on the partnership, contact Jeff Carpenter, SVP of Strategic Alliances at FSNS .
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [Nandini Natrajan, Ph.D. Joins FSNS as SVP of Science, Quality & Training](https://fsns.com/nandini-natrajan-ph-d-joins-fsns-as-svp-of-science-quality-training/)
**Published:** January 6, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**— January 6, 2021 —Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) is pleased to announce that Nandini Natrajan, Ph.D. has joined FSNS as SVP of Science, Quality & Training. Nandini Natrajan has a Ph.D. in Food Science from North Carolina State University, MS in Food Science from the University of Delaware, and a BS in Microbiology from the University of Mumbai.
For the last 24+ years, Dr. Natrajan worked at Keystone Foods, where she served most recently as the Senior Director of Science Operations. Throughout her impressive career, she has also held such roles as Director of Global Microbiology and Analytical Services, Senior Manager of Technical and Analytical Services, Food Safety Information Manager, Laboratory Manager and Project Manager. She currently serves on a number of boards and advisory committees both in and out of the food industry. Dr. Natrajan is described as a “Global Food Safety Influencer” with deep knowledge and experience in applied microbiology and food safety.
“As our SVP of Science, Quality and Training, Dr. Nandini Natrajan brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to Food Safety Net Services,” says John Bellinger, CEO of FSNS. “She is one of the premier food microbiologists in the world. We are so fortunate to have Nandini join the FSNS team.”
**About Food Safety Net Services**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit FSNS.com.
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [NIHC Announces Partnership With Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com/nihc-announces-partnership-with-food-safety-net-services/)
**Published:** January 19, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**Washington, DC** – January 19, 2021–The National Industrial Hemp Council today announced a partnership and welcomed its newest member [Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com) (FSNS) to its ranks.
FSNS has been a leader in safeguarding our nation’s food supply through its network of accredited laboratories. With a cornerstone focused on safety, FSNS continues to strategically expand national services for food safety, consumer products, and nutraceuticals.
“At a critical time for establishing safety standards for processed foods like CBD, NIHC is pleased to partner with FSNS,” said Patrick Atagi, Board Chairman of the National Industrial Hemp Services. “We’re looking forward to their expertise as we continue to push for policies and regulations that ensure consumer safety and transparency in CBD products.”
“For 27 years, FSNS has been providing the food and beverage industry with outstanding laboratory and auditing services, and we are proud to partner with NIHC to extend that experience, expertise, and commitment to quality to the hemp industry,” said Barry Carpenter, Senior Advisor for Regulatory Affairs & Client Relations.
FSNS is the largest food safety testing laboratory network in North America, with a network of 19 ISO-17025 accredited laboratories spanning three countries. FSNS provides microbiological and chemical analyses of all food matrices and environmental samples, as well as education, and Research & Development. Additional services include NLEA labeling and a comprehensive Certification & Audit program.
Contact Larry Farnsworth at NIHC at or Rosemary Musacchio at FSNS at for more information.
**About the National Industrial Hemp Council**: The National Industrial Hemp Council provides high-quality networking and resources for its members, from farm to consumer. Its leadership is composed of leading international, federal, state, private industry, and government professionals throughout the sector. The organization is dedicated to furthering market development, assisting members in entering the industry, and educating consumers on industrial hemp and its applications. For more information please go to www.hempindustrial.com.
**About Food Safety Net Services**: Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit FSNS.com.
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [FSNS Moves Into New State-of-the-Art Laboratory in Green Bay, WI](https://fsns.com/fsns-moves-into-new-state-of-the-art-laboratory-in-green-bay-wi/)
**Published:** January 25, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**— January 25, 2021 — [Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com) (FSNS) has been providing industry-leading food safety testing services in Green Bay, Wisconsin since 2005. FSNS has announced their move within the city to a new, state-of-the-art laboratory. This transition will allow FSNS to continue to grow as one of the food safety leaders in the region, and expand operations throughout the Midwest.
The new facility, located at 3400 S Packerland Drive, De Pere, WI 54115, will offer all of FSNS Green Bay’s previous testing platforms and allow for newer technology and automation implementation. Upgrades to the sample prep and sample analysis areas include processing hoods for sample prep of powders, pharmaceuticals, and similar products and a fully equipped chemistry laboratory. Customers in the region will benefit from an increased scope of testing, reduced turnaround times, and the most advanced testing equipment available.
FSNS is also pleased to announce that the facility on S Packerland Drive will include an expansive training room that can be made available to customers in the area as needed.
Julie Tritt (M.S. Food Science MBA) has been with FSNS for 13 years and will serve as the Regional Director, and the laboratory will be managed by Brad Day (B.S. in Biology/Chemistry).
“We are thrilled to move into a new laboratory in the Wisconsin market,” said John Bellinger, CEO of Food Safety Net Services. “We look forward to touring our customers in the new laboratory and teaching a wide variety of food safety courses in the 45 person auditorium style classroom.”
For more information on the new FSNS Green Bay laboratory, to take a tour of the facility, or to inquire about the use of the FSNS training room, please contact the lab at 888-525-9788, 3400 S Packerland Drive, De Pere, WI 54115, or info@fsns.com.
**About Food Safety Net Services**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit FSNS.com.
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [FSNS Hosts Industry Leaders and Grand Opening Event in Green Bay, WI](https://fsns.com/fsns-hosts-industry-leaders-and-grand-opening-event-in-green-bay-wi/)
**Published:** April 26, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**Green Bay, WI** — April 26, 2021— [Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com) (FSNS) has been providing industry-leading food safety testing services in Green Bay, Wisconsin since 2005. Earlier this year, FSNS announced the company’s move within the city to a new, state-of-the-art laboratory. This transition will allow FSNS to continue to grow as one of the food safety leaders in the region, and expand operations throughout the Midwest.
In celebration, FSNS will be hosting a luncheon in De Pere, WI, on May 20th with a powerful lineup of industry experts and leaders in their field. Speakers include Dr. Temple Grandin (Colorado State University), Julie Anna Potts (North American Meat Institute), Michael Dykes (International Dairy Foods Association), Mark Polansky (Former NASA Astronaut), Lisa Picard (National Turkey Federation), Carmen Rottenberg (Groundswell Strategy), Shawn Stevens (Food Industry Council), Barry Carpenter (Food Safety Net Services), Vinith Poduval (Schreiber Foods), Jane Mattias (Johnsonville Sausage) and Dr. Ashley Lembke (American Foods Group). Cocktails, hors d’oeuvres, and laboratory tours to follow at the new facility, which is located at 3400 S Packerland Drive, De Pere, WI 54115.
This new lab offers all of FSNS Green Bay’s previous testing platforms and allows for newer technology and automation implementation. Upgrades to the sample prep and sample analysis areas include processing hoods for sample prep of powders, pharmaceuticals, and similar products and a fully equipped chemistry laboratory. Customers in the region will benefit from an increased scope of testing, reduced turnaround times, and the most advanced testing equipment available.
FSNS is also pleased to announce that the facility on S Packerland Drive will include an expansive training room that can be made available to customers in the area as needed.
“FSNS is committed to the food processors in Wisconsin, and proud to be their trusted food safety partner,” said John Bellinger, CEO of Food Safety Net Services. “We truly appreciate 16 years of your support and look forward to further assisting our existing and new customers.”
For more information on the new FSNS Green Bay laboratory, to take a tour of the facility, or to inquire about the use of the FSNS training room, please contact the lab at 888-525-9788, 3400 S Packerland Drive, De Pere, WI 54115, or info@fsns.com. To register for FSNS Green Bay’s Grand Opening Luncheon & Reception, visit [https://fsnsgreenbaygrandopening.eventbrite.com ](https://fsnsgreenbaygrandopening.eventbrite.com)
**About Food Safety Net Services**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI and PAACO approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit FSNS.com.
**Categories:** News, Press Release
---
### [Warburg Pincus and Tilia Holdings Announce Investment in Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com/warburg-pincus-and-tilia-holdings-announce-investment-in-food-safety-net-services/)
**Published:** July 8, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
## Investment and merger with Certified Group creates a leading, national testing platform
**NEW YORK, NY – July 8, 2021**– Warburg Pincus, a leading global growth investor, today announced an investment in Food Safety Net Services (“FSNS”), a leading provider of laboratory testing services for customers in the food & beverage end-markets. The company serves a broad range of product categories within the broader food & beverage sector (e.g., meat, dairy, produce, dietary supplements, pet food, nutraceuticals, restaurant, ready-to-eat). Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.
As part of the investment, FSNS will merge with Certified Group, a leading North American platform provider of testing and regulatory consulting services. Certified Group provides mission critical and time sensitive testing and regulatory consulting services to the food & beverage, supplements & botanicals, cosmetics & personal care, nicotine & cannabis, and other regulated end markets. Warburg Pincus and Tilia Holdings (“Tilia”), a Chicago-based private investment firm focused exclusively on the food and nutrition supply chain, first invested in Certified Group in 2018. The merger is expected to close in the third quarter.
The merger will create a leading, national testing platform. Together, Certified Group and FSNS represent a highly differentiated testing services provider in North America. The merger will bring Certified Group’s employee base to ~1,580 total employees, across 20 states and provinces in over 30 laboratories in North America. At the close of the transaction, John Bellinger, CEO of FSNS, will assume the role of CEO across all respective companies. Steven Mitchell, CEO of Certified Group, will become Vice Chairman of the combined company and Board member.
“The investment from Warburg Pincus reflects the current success of our company and underscores our top-tier position as a leading North American platform provider of testing and regulatory consulting services. The combined businesses position our company with the broadest footprint and most diversified service offering in the industry,” said John Bellinger, CEO of FSNS. “We are excited to work with Warburg Pincus, Tilia and the Certified team to grow the combined companies further.”
Warburg Pincus is a leading investor in food safety and food supply chain services, with current and historical investments in Certified Laboratories, Hygiena, GA Foods, SPINs, Aramark, Grubhub/Seamless, Duravant, and Trimark.
“I am excited by the opportunities the combined companies will achieve as our platform strengthens and grows,” said Steven Mitchell, CEO, Certified Laboratories Group. “I look forward to working with John and the team as we continue to deliver on the sophisticated needs of our clients.”
“The investment in FSNS reflects our ongoing mission to invest in companies that help make the food supply chain safer for customers and address the growing market opportunity. FSNS’ strength in microbiology testing paired with Certified Group’s strong position in chemistry testing are highly complementary, providing meaningful cross-sell potential to clients,” said Stephanie Geveda, Managing Director, Head of Business Services, Warburg Pincus.
“Warburg Pincus shares our vision of improving the global food and nutrition supply chain through innovative companies, backed by strong management teams. The merger of FSNS and Certified Group will strengthen and grow their respective service offerings, capabilities and footprint, enabling the combined company to reach a wider range of customers,” said Johannes Burlin, Co-CEO, Tilia.
### About Warburg Pincus
Warburg Pincus LLC is a leading global private equity firm focused on growth investing. The firm has more than $60 billion in private equity assets under management. The firm’s active portfolio of more than 200 companies is highly diversified by stage, sector, and geography. Warburg Pincus is an experienced partner to management teams seeking to build durable companies with sustainable value. Founded in 1966, Warburg Pincus has raised 19 private equity funds, which have invested more than $90 billion in over 930 companies in more than 40 countries. The firm is headquartered in New York with offices in Amsterdam, Beijing, Berlin, Hong Kong, Houston, London, Luxembourg, Mumbai, Mauritius, San Francisco, São Paulo, Shanghai, and Singapore. For more information please visit [www.warburgpincus.com](http://www.warburgpincus.com).
### About Tilia Holdings
Tilia is a Chicago-based private investment firm focused exclusively on building distinctive middle- market companies that provide outsourced, technical services across the global food and nutrition supply chain. Through an interdisciplinary approach to investing, Tilia partners with companies providing technical business services that support leading and emerging CPG brands. Tilia’s investment team has complementary skills across operations and finance and provides expertise in scaling and growing middle-market companies. Tilia’s deep sector focused strategy is a successful approach to investments that spans almost three decades and approaches each investment as a steward by employing a consistent set of principles to improve capital across four dimensions: brand, human, social and financial. For more information, please visit [www.tiliallc.com](http://www.tiliallc.com).
### About FSNS
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit [www.FSNS.com](https://www.fsns.com).
### About Certified Laboratories & The Certified Group of Companies
Certified Group is a leading North American provider of testing and regulatory consulting services with laboratories located in New York, California, Illinois, Texas, Ontario, and Alberta. The Certified Group of companies includes Certified Laboratories, EAS Consulting, Labstat, LabSmart, ABC Testing, Microconsult Inc, and MicroQuality Laboratories. The Certified Group provides total testing and regulatory guidance solutions in the Food, Supplement & Botanical, Cosmetic, Personal Care, Cannabis, Nicotine, and Vaping industries.
Contact
Warburg Pincus
Sarah McGrath Bloom
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [Certified Group Welcomes Amanda Bosse as CEO](https://fsns.com/certified-group-welcomes-amanda-bosse-as-ceo/)
**Published:** August 25, 2022
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
SAN ANTONIO, Aug. 25, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Certified Group, a leading provider of testing and regulatory consulting services in North America, has announced Amanda Bosse as CEO. Ms. Bosse succeeds John Bellinger, who will remain with the company as its Chairman. Certified Group provides mission critical and time sensitive testing and regulatory consulting services to the food & beverage, dietary supplements & NHP, cosmetics, OTC, personal care, tobacco, cannabis, nicotine, hemp and other regulated end markets.
Ms. Bosse brings over 20 years of global experience in pharmaceutical and science led service businesses. She has extensive experience in growing complex service businesses in regulated environments, building and enabling high-performing teams, and proven track record in leadership roles across strategy, commercial operations and business.
Previously, Amanda was President of Drug Product Services at Thermo Fisher Scientific, a world leader in life sciences and diagnostics. In this role, she successfully led Drug Product Services Business, inclusive of oral solid dose and sterile injectables, serving customers across development and commercial operations. Prior to Thermo Fisher Scientific, she held multiple senior roles of increasing responsibility for Patheon Pharmaceuticals, an industry-leading pharma services solutions provider for drug development, clinical trial logistics, and commercial manufacturing.
“Certified is well-positioned as a leading provider of differentiated lab testing services and I see immense opportunity in serving our growing end markets through continued M&A and service expansion, all supported by an excellent team. It is an honor to lead this exceptional company and advance its role as a premier laboratory testing platform in North America,” said Amanda Bosse, CEO, Certified Group. “I look forward to working closely with John and this talented team as we further strengthen and expand our product offering, capabilities, and reach.”
“Amanda has a strong background in delivering successful transformations across numerous verticals. It has been a privilege to serve as CEO of Certified and I am incredibly proud of what our team has accomplished to-date,” said John Bellinger, Chairman, Certified Group. “I look forward to focusing on Certified’s key customers, and supporting the company strategy as the company’s Chairman.” “I am thrilled that Amanda will be leading Certified Group’s broad set of capabilities, colleagues, and laboratories,” said Steven Mitchell, Vice Chairman, Certified Group.
View the original release on [PRNewswire](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/certified-group-welcomes-amanda-bosse-as-ceo-301612307.html).
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [Certified Group Announces Investment in Kaycha Labs Knoxville, TN Hemp and CBD Testing Laboratory](https://fsns.com/certified-group-announces-investment-in-kaycha-labs-knoxville-tn-hemp-and-cbd-testing-laboratory/)
**Published:** December 19, 2022
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
SAN ANTONIO, Dec. 19, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Certified Group, a leading North American provider of laboratory testing and regulatory consulting services, today announced an investment in the hemp and CBD laboratory testing business of Knoxville, Tennessee-based Kaycha Labs. This move adds critical hemp and CBD testing services to the breadth and depth of capabilities already offered by Certified Group and its collective entities.
Certified Group, backed by Warburg Pincus and Tilia Holdings, provides laboratory testing services for customers working in FDA and USDA-regulated markets. The collective company owns Labstat with over 30 laboratory testing facilities across North America. This newest hemp and CBD laboratory testing facility will operate under the Labstat name.
Investment in Kaycha Labs’ Tennessee location solidifies Labstat’s entry into the U.S. hemp testing market, enabling assistance for clients doing business in hemp related products which complement Certified Groups existing food, cosmetics and supplement laboratory testing business.
“This acquisition expands our service capabilities, providing clients with accurate and reliable laboratory results with industry leading turnaround times,” said Amanda Bosse, CEO of Certified Group. “Kaycha Labs has a stellar reputation in the hemp testing space. We could not be more pleased to bring this laboratory, which shares our commitment to customer experience, into the Certified Group fold.”
View the original release at [PRNewswire](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/certified-group-announces-investment-in-kaycha-labs-knoxville-tn-hemp-and-cbd-testing-laboratory-301705302.html).
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [Labstat Inc., A Certified Group Company, Partners With Toxys to Offer ToxTracker® Assay](https://fsns.com/labstat-inc-a-certified-group-company-partners-with-toxys-to-offer-toxtracker-assay/)
**Published:** March 15, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**TORONTO, March 15, 2023/PRNewswire/**
Labstat Inc., A Certified Group Company, has entered into a partnership with Toxys to offer the ToxTracker assay at its Kitchener, Ontario laboratory. ToxTracker is a state-of-the-art stem cell-based reporter assay that provides mechanistic insights into the mode of action (MOA) of genotoxic properties of pharmaceutical compounds and chemicals.
**[Read the Press Release](https://labstat.com/labstat-inc-a-certified-group-company-partners-with-toxys-to-offer-toxtracker-assay/)**
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [Labstat Inc., A Certified Group Company, Opens New Laboratory in Greensboro, North Carolina, Strengthening its Global Network](https://fsns.com/greensboro-laboratory-opens/)
**Published:** July 25, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
***Optimizes Turnaround Time and Customer Experience for Tobacco/Nicotine Clients***
**KITCHENER, Ontario, July 20, 2023**
Labstat Inc., an industry-leading provider of tobacco/nicotine, cannabis/hemp testing and research services, is excited to announce the opening of a new laboratory in Greensboro, North Carolina. This significant expansion of Labstat’s global laboratory network, which also includes operations in Kitchener, Ontario, Edmonton, Alberta, and Knoxville, Tennessee, bolsters Labstat’s commitment to enhanced customer service through streamlined logistics and improved turnaround times.
**[Read The Press Release](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/labstat-inc-a-certified-group-company-opens-new-laboratory-in-greensboro-north-carolina-strengthening-its-global-network-301881184.html?tc=eml_cleartime)**
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) Announces New Website Launch](https://fsns.com/fsns-announces-new-website-launch/)
**Published:** August 3, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
## *Enhanced Navigation, Services, and Resources for Food Safety Professionals*
**SAN ANTONIO, August 3, 2023**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), A Certified Group Company, is excited to announce the launch of its redesigned website: **FSNS.com**. As a leader in food safety testing, FSNS operates 30+ ISO 17025 accredited laboratories across North America and offers a comprehensive portfolio of microbiology and chemistry assays, contract research services, and certification & audit solutions for a wide variety of regulated industries including protein, produce, frozen, refrigerated, ready-to-eat, beverages, dairy, and more.
[Read the Press Release](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/food-safety-net-services-fsns-announces-new-website-launch-301892972.html?tc=eml_cleartime)
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [What’s Up With Healthy Foods?](https://fsns.com/whats-up-with-healthy-foods/)
**Published:** December 8, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University*
Being able to call a food or beverage “healthy” has never been about benevolence. To a dehydrated person, water is healthy. Water is considered “essential to human health” by the Department of Water Resources in the State of California.1 To a person who is malnourished or starving, anything they can eat that has any amount of calories and/or nutrients is healthy. During World War II, starving persons in Nazi-surrounded Leningrad ripped down their wallpaper, boiled it, and survived on wallpaper paste.
## “Healthy” Introduced as a Marketing Strategy
To some food marketers, it’s all about “market share”; they use “healthy” as a cudgel to make you believe that the offerings of their competitors are “unhealthy.” It’s a dog whistle. It’s like a candidate with nothing to offer except demonization of their opponent.
The Regulations about making health claims on food labels date back to the [Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990](https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/3562#:~:text=Nutrition%20Labeling%20and%20Education%20Act%20of%201990%20%2D%20Amends%20the%20Federal,servings%20or%20other%20units%20per). Prior to that Act, putting a health claim on a food label was prohibited.2 Then, Kellogg™️ wanted to make claims about diet and health on their cereal boxes, so Congress decided to open it up by giving Regulatory authority to FDA.2 What most people ate for breakfast was low-hanging fruit for the “cancellation basket”; they weren’t ever going to be able to qualify as “healthy”. Those at the lever of FDA still worshiped at the throne of Ancel Keys and had blessed the Dietary Guidelines For Americans; in no way would FDA ever allow butter, eggs, ham, sausage, or bacon to be categorized as “healthy.” Those foods had already been found guilty of containing sodium, cholesterol, and/or saturated fat.3 End game? Market share.
## Most of What We Know About Fats is Wrong
Nina Teicholz got it right when she concluded that all of our dietary recommendations about fat – the ingredient about which our so-called health authorities have obsessed during the past 60 years – is not just off track, it’s completely wrong.3 Almost nothing that we commonly believe today about fats generally and saturated fats in particular appears, upon close examination, to be accurate.3
How did we get to this place? She blames…
- Food companies that corrupted nutrition recommendations toward their profit-driven ends
- Nutrition scientists at some of our most trusted institutions, hastening to address growing epidemics of chronic disease, over interpreting weak and impressionistic data shaped by passions verging on zealotry – they allowed weak science to become dietary dogma3
## Food Marketers Promote “Clean Eating”
In the last 10 years, food marketers have run amok trying to come up with [food descriptors](https://fsns.com/green-real-and-clean-as-food-descriptors/) (e.g., “Green”, “Real”, “Clean”, “Clear”, etc.) they can use as label claims on new products or to bolster existing, but waning in popularity, brands.4
Some say that such labeling is deceptive and puts fear into consumers; some say it’s gotten ridiculous out there and is time for food companies to stop trying to hype their products with meaningless distinctions.5 Only “Clean” has gained any traction; and, to many, “Clean Eating” necessarily implies that any other form of eating is dirty, impure, and bad.6
## “Healthy” Eating Claims Miss the Mark
During the period of 2015 and 2020, food marketers began to tout “consumer-lifestyle” movements; 6 of 8 such movements used “Clean” or “Cleaner” in their moniker and 8 of 8 used “Health”, “Healthy”, or “Healthful” to describe their intent.7
Food marketers envision a pot of gold at the end of the “healthy” rainbow, but so far: (a) “Clean” won’t do it; when asked, “What does the term ‘Clean Label’ mean to you?”, no respondents to a survey mentioned nutrition or health.8 (b) Critics don’t support it; in a world where 21,000 die each day from lack of nutrition, we should not support use of a cheap marketing gimmick like “Clean Food” as a way to claim health/nutrition benefits to capture the dollars of an elite upper crust of the affluent citizens.9 (c) The matter of what is considered “healthy” food and what can be legally labeled as “healthy” has not yet been reconciled.10
On Sept. 28, 2022, FDA officials issued a proposed rule to update the definition of the “healthy” claim on food packaging; interested parties have about three months to comment on it. In 2020, USDA published a “Healthy Label Rule” for review and public comments in the Federal Register.12 But, so far, nothing more has happened on the USDA proposal.
## FDA Wants Consumers to Make Informed Decisions
FDA believes that making a health claim on a food label allows consumers to make informed choices. As of 2022, FDA has authorized 12 “food/ingredient-health connection” claims “because they are truly backed by the totality of scientific evidence.”2 These include the following:
- **Osteoporosis**: calcium, vitamin D
- **Cancer**: dietary lipids, vegetables, fiber-containing grain products, fruits
- **Coronary Heart Disease**: dietary saturated fat, cholesterol, fruits, vegetables, fiber-containing grain products, soluble fiber, soy protein, stanols, sterols
- **Dental Caries**: dietary non-cariogenic carbohydrate sweeteners
- **Neural Tube Defects**: folic acid
- **Hypertension**: sodium2
## FDA Approves “Qualified Health Claims” for Some Foods
In addition, FDA has approved about 30 “Qualified Health Claims” for some foods or ingredients with some – but not complete – evidence, in which case the claim must be accompanied by a disclaimer sentence.2 Generally, FDA believes that a product allowed to make a “healthy” claim must be low fat, low in saturated fat, and low in cholesterol plus also be a good source of one or more vitamins or minerals.13
However, in 2016, FDA issued a Guidance Document stating, “Products that are not low in Total Fat but have a fat profile that is predominately mono-unsaturated and poly-unsaturated fats or are a good source of potassium or vitamin D can use the term “healthy” in labeling and advertising.13 In early 2022, FDA announced that it “will not object to” the use of qualified health claims regarding the consumption of magnesium and a reduced risk of hypertension.14 USDA has announced that meat, poultry, and egg products will be able to use the word “healthy” on labeling and in advertising if their fat content consists mostly of monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fats, as opposed to saturated fats.15
## Definition of “Healthy” Comes Under Scrutiny
In 2015, FDA announced it was contemplating revision of the definition of “healthy” (an implied nutrient content claim), saying it seeks to better align the claim with “current understanding” and “the Dietary Guidelines For Americans (DGFA),” and asked for public comments.16
The problem with that is two-fold:
- There is no consensus on what “healthy” means
- The DGFA has shifted its guidance from “nutrients” to “food groups”16
FDA received 1,139 public comments; FoodMinds® (a food and nutrition consulting company) used a subset of those and concluded that the majority of comments favored eliminating the “healthy” claim altogether.16 Since then (largely by use of the media), others have favored banning the use of the term for one or more of the following foods:
- Red meat
- Processed meat
- Fruit juice
- Candy
- Sugar-sweetened foods and beverages
- Cheese
- Grain
- Refined grain
- Soybeans
- Milk and dairy products
- Corn
- Wheat
- Poultry
- Sugar
- Processed food
- Hydrogenated vegetable oils
- Plant-based meat alternatives
- Eggs16-24
Relative to nutrients per se, FDA says a “healthy” claim is allowed if a food is low fat, low in saturated fat, low in cholesterol, and a good source of one or more vitamins or minerals.13 But others believe in limits on or minimization of one or more of trans fats, sodium, processing, refinements, sugars, sweeteners, calories, carbohydrates, and ingredients.22,25-30
Yet others believe that “all proteins are not created equal”; so, protein quality (digestibility plus amounts, profiles, and balance of essential amino acids) must be characterized.31-34 Opinions on fat as a criterion for segregating “healthy” from “unhealthy” foods are split, with some preferring elimination of “fat content” altogether (because the science on this subject is unsettled), to some who believe that food products with higher ratios of monounsaturated and/or polyunsaturated fats as opposed to saturated fats would automatically qualify for a “healthy” claim.16
## Consumers Look to Nutrition Facts Over Ingredients to Gauge Healthfulness of Food
Consumers believe that the “Nutrition Facts” panel on a food label is more important in determining “healthfulness” than the “Ingredient List.”35 When reading the Nutrition Facts panel, “sugar” ranks at the top of what adult consumers look for (56%), “calories” are second (45%), and “sodium content” is third (38%).36
When it comes to which foods some want to be called “unhealthy”…
- The veganism-activists at the United Nations want meat, poultry, eggs, and milk to be designated “unhealthy”19
- American Society for Nutrition wants processed foods plus all other foods that contain too much sodium and/or saturated fat to be called “unhealthy”22
- EAT-Lancet says the two “unhealthy” foods are red meat and sugar37
- Dietary Guidelines For Americans doesn’t identify foods as “unhealthy”, but DGFA, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Nutrition Policy Panel, the “deep state” at FDA and USDA, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine are decidedly against animal-based foods38,39
## How do we Quantify “Healthfulness” of Food?
Several entities have developed systems to quantify the relative “healthfulness” of foods. Nutri Score® ratings, developed by Attest™️, claim to be based on a scientific assessment of a product’s combined nutrient quantity, quality, and balance.40 It appears that the ratings will be used for advertising purposes and/or as validation for use of a logo on the package.
American Heart Association uses nutritional and scientific guidelines to determine if the product is “Heart Healthy®”; if so, the product can bear a logo.23 The American Society of Nutrition uses a Healthy Eating Index®, which assigns points for eating fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and protein and for avoiding processed foods, refined grains, sugar, and saturated fat.22
The EAT-Lancet Commission has ranked >8,000 foods and assigned Food Compass Scores® (from 0 to 100) based on the following:
- Nutrient Ratios (unsaturated:saturated fat; fiber:carbohydrate; potassium:sodium)
- Vitamins
- Minerals
- Food Ingredients
- Additives
- Processing
- Specific Lipids
- Fiber and Protein
- Phytochemicals41
Foods with scores of 70 to 100 are “highly encouraged, no limitations”, 31 to 69 are “consume in moderation,” and 0 to 30 are “limited consumption.”41
## Do We Really Need “Healthy” as a Descriptor?
Perhaps not. According to the Deloitte Food Value Equation® survey, shoppers are purchasing food based upon: First (No. 1) taste, then price, convenience, safety, (No. 5) health and wellness, sustainability, and last (No. 7) social impact.42
If we do need to set standards, we shouldn’t depend on complying with the standards for Dietary Guidelines For Americans for the following reasons:
- The majority of the evidence cited by the DGFA Advisory Committee does not support its conclusions3,29,43,44,45
- FDA does not believe protein needs to be on the Nutrition Facts panel or in DGFA “because Americans already eat enough protein”30
- Some saturated fats are actually good, not bad, for peoples’ health3,37,38,43,46
- Available research does not support the DGFA position on low-carbohydrate diets29,32,47,48
- DGFA does not admit that plant-based foods have major deficiencies in calcium, essential fatty acids, essential amino acids, heme iron, vitamin B12, taurine, carnosine, beta-lactoglobulin, lactoferrin, CLA, and immunoglobulins30,32,34,49–52
- DGFA makes a case for “lower is better” policy on sodium intake, while available data reveals that a “moderate amount of sodium” is better for the majority of people29
## What About Those Food Compass Stores®?
The food industry will push for the use of FCS as the definition of healthfulness.53 The system creates a problem because FCS rates fruits and vegetables as almost the only foods that score 70 to 100 (“consumption to be encouraged”), no meat/poultry/egg/dairy foods have scores of 70 or higher, and beef, pork, cured meat, and cheese all had scores of 29 or lower (“foods to be minimized”).18
It is appalling that the system ranks Lucky Charms®, Cheerios®, and Cocoa Puffs® above all meat, poultry, and dairy products because the scientists who developed FCS assume that all saturated fat is bad, and it counts nutrients added (for fortification/supplementation) as the same as those present in natural foods.41,53
## Animal-Based Food Provides Much of Our Nutrients
For those who want to relegate animal-based food to the trash heap, consider the following:
- Alternative proteins alone can’t feed the world; if we try to, we’ll see increased soil erosion and use of pesticides and fertilizer. When you take the most nutrient dense foods (meat, eggs, milk, and poultry) off the planet and try to replace it with peas and beans, we’re going to have to eat a lot more of it.54
- While only 30% of US food calories come from animal-based foods, that’s how our citizens get 70% of their protein; they provide all our vitamin D and calcium; and most of our vitamin B12, vitamin B6, zinc, and selenium. How many animal products can we take out of our diet and still stay “healthy”?20
- Scientists from four countries examined the health effects of meat consumption in 175 countries using detailed data collected by the United Nations. Their conclusion was: “Meat intake is positively associated with life expectancy. The underlying reasons may be that meat not only provides energy but also provides a complete set of nutrients for the human body. Meat has been an indispensable component in the human diet for millions of years. The complete nutritional profile of meat, and human adaptation to meat eating, have enabled humans to gain many physical health benefits, including greater life expectancy”55,56
Details of [FDA’s proposed rule to update the “healthy” claim have been posted in the Federal Register](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/29/2022-20975/food-labeling-nutrient-content-claims-definition-of-term-healthy) and comments can be submitted to [www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/). Highlights of the proposed rule are: (a) It generally relies on DGFA and current Recommended Daily Allowances of certain nutrients; (b) it uses a food group-based approach in addition to nutrients to limit saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars.
**REFERENCES**:
1 Karst, Tom. 2021. The Packer. December 3 Issue.
2 Avis, Ed. 2022. Food Processing. June Edition.
3 Teicholz, Nina. 2014. The Big Fat Surprise. Simon & Schuster. New York, NY.
4 Stanton, John. 2017. Food Processing. October Edition.
5 Mulhearn, Jim. 2018. Dairy Herd Management. May 10 Issue.
6 Lawson, Nigella. 2017. British Broadcasting Company. October 12 Issue.
7 Smith, Gary. 2022. FSNS Newsletter. Fall Edition.
8 Schroeder, Joanna. 2016. Food Quality & Safety. March 5 Issue.
9 Folta, Kevin. 2018. AGDAILY. January 24 Issue.
10 Malcolm, Hadley. 2016. USDA Today. May 12 Issue.
11 Fusaro, Dave. 2022. Food Processing. October Edition.
12 Food Processing. 2020. April Edition.
13 Stevens, S. and E. Presnell. 2022. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
14 Fusaro, Dave. 2022. Food Processing. January 13 Issue.
15 Food Processing. 2020. April Edition.
16 Levy, Sarah. 2018. Food Processing. April Edition.
17 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2022. Food Processing. July 26 Issue.
18 Mozaffarian et al. 2021. Nature Food 2:809-818.
19 Cuthbertson, Holly. 2021. Birkenwood International Party. August 2 Issue.
20 Layman, Don. 2020. CALF News. July Edition.
21 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2022. Food Processing. July 7 Issue.
22 Shike, Jennifer. 2022. The Packer. June 22 Issue.
23 Scott, Chris. 2022. Meatingplace. September 7 Issue.
24 Sorrells, Melissa. 2022. Alt•Meat. May 20 Issue.
25 Tolu, Andrea. 2021. Food Quality & Safety. July Edition.
26 Scott, Chris. 2022. Meatingplace. September 7 Issue.
27 Keefe, Lisa. 2016. Meatingplace. January 4 Issue.
28 Rosenbloom, Cara. 2017. Washington Post. September 16 Issue.
29 Astrup, A. and R. Krauss. 2021. Nutrients. September 28 Issue.
30 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2022. Food Processing. July 27 Issue.
31 Scott, Chris, 2022. Meatingplace. June 23 Issue.
32 Rodriguez, Nancy. 2022. Meatingplace. March 28 Issue.
33 Berg, Eric. 2021. AMSA Newsletter. June 28 Issue.
34 Berry, Donna. 2021. Dairy Processing. September 7 Issue.
35 Sollid, Kris. 2020. Food Technology. December Edition.
36 NPD Group. 2021. Food Processing. October 26 Issue.
37 Smith, Stephen. 2021. Texas A&M University. March 13 Issue.
38 Bloom, Gregory. 2016. Meatingplace. April 7 Issue.
39 Sorrells, Melissa. 2022. Alt•Meat. July 19 Issue.
40 Danley, Sam. 2022. Dairy Processing. March 15 Issue.
41 Carlson, Paige. 2022. Drovers. August 10 Issue.
42 Jones, J.J. 2022. Drovers. July Edition.
43 Taubes, Gary. 2001. Science 291:2536-2545.
44 Smith, Gary. 2022. Colorado State University. July 25 Issue.
45 McNeill, Shalene. 2016. BEEF. February 12 Issue.
46 Teicholz, Nina. 2016. Nutrition Coalition. April 5 Issue.
47 Taubes, Gary. 2021. STAT News. September 13 Issue.
48 Ludwig et al. 2021. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. September 13 Issue.
49 Fusaro, Dave. 2021. Food Processing. June 24 Issue.
50 Park, William. 2020. The Vegan Factor. January 29 Issue.
51 Wu, Guoyao. 2015. Texas A&M University, March 10 Issue.
52 Thompson-Weeman, Hannah, 2022. Drovers. April 21 Issue.
53 Teicholz, Nina. 2021. Nutrition Coalition. November 29 Issue.
54 Shike, Jennifer. 2021. Drovers. November Edition.
55 de Lazaro, Enrico. 2022. Science News. February 22 Issue.
56 You et al. 2022. International Journal of General Medicine 15:1833-1851
**Categories:** General
---
### [The Battle For Breakfast](https://fsns.com/the-battle-for-breakfast/)
**Published:** August 15, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*By Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University*
## Are Manufacturers of Sugary Products Running Out of Marketing Options?
Things are going great for manufacturers of sweets, sugary foods/beverages, ultra-processed foods, and foods with high levels of refined carbohydrates. Consumers are addicted to their products – we love the stuff!1,2 It’s the marketers of these products that are running out of options. Manufacturers of these products certainly have the right to make them, and to try to sell more of it.3,4 That’s not at question; the question is how, and to whom, they market it.
## How Did Dietary Guidelines Impact Traditional Breakfast Choices?
The low overall fat, no saturated fat, low-cholesterol, low-sodium, low-sugar guidance of the 1980 Dietary Guidelines For Americans (DGFA) annihilated the conventional breakfast meal. To comply with DGFA, people had to trade-off eggs and buttered biscuits, toast, pancakes, and waffles as well as bacon, ham, and pork sausage for rice, oatmeal, gruel, or porridge – but with limited added sugars. The absence of fat and the satiety it provides, made people hungry again – long before noon – so they ate snacks.
## Indigenous Dietary Habits May Have Held a Clue Missed by Modern Guidelines
The “experts” on the Advisory Committee of the DGFA failed to recognize that the Indigenous People of North America fought tooth-and-nail for the fatty parts of seals, fish, game animals, and especially the American Bison – oft times leaving the muscular parts for other carnivores because the people wanted and needed the satiety and nutrients associated with the organs and adipose tissue.5-7 Those people almost never became obese or died from diabetes or heart disease.5-7 And, other than robbing honey from bee hives, they had no access to sugars *per se*.
## Why Did AHA’s Dietary Recommendations Shift Toward Sugar and Carbohydrates?
As early as 1968, the American Heart Association (AHA) warned against reducing fat in the diet because that would lead to excessive consumption of refined carbohydrates, sugary beverages, and sweets.7 Mysteriously, in 1970, АНАpivoted and started releasing pamphlets telling Americans to reduce their fat intake yet achieve satiety by choosing snacks, refined carbohydrates, and sweets.8 The National Institutes of Health (NIH) criticized AHA for telling Americans to cut back on total fat when there was no evidence to support such reduction and no evidence to support consuming more refined carbohydrates or added sugar9 – but to no avail.
## How Did the 1980 DGFA Influence Breakfast Cereal Manufacturers?
As a result of the AHA’s reasoning and its pamphlets, manufacturers of breakfast cereal prospered for the decade of 1970 to 1980 – they were providing the refined carbohydrates and sugar that people needed to replace the devil’s foods (meat, poultry, egg, and dairy products). Then came the 1980 DGFA advising men, women, boys, and girls to “use sparingly” fats, oils, sweets, and added sugars.10 Children should avoid sugar? That’s who Big Cereal markets to. Big Cereal’s counter-attack was to double-down on its support of AHA and its lobbying of FDA.
## AHA Benefits from Promoting Refined Carbohydrates
AHA had steered Americans toward sugar as the solution for *not* eating animal-based foods.11,12 AHA then rode the profit wave of refined carbohydrates from the 1990s onward by charging a hefty fee for the privilege of putting the AHA’s “Heart Healthy” Check Mark with the label ending up on some dubious candidates such as Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes®, Fruity Marshmallow Krispies®, and Pop Tarts®12 In 2012, it was on Honey Nut Cheerios® and Quaker Life Cereal Maple and Brown Sugar®7, and, in 2023, “Heart Healthy” was on Walmart Great Value Frosted Bite Sized Shredded Wheat® and Quaker Simply Granola, Honey & Almonds® – in my pantry. Given the AHA’s role in promoting high-sugar foods, it therefore seems disingenuous to blame the food industry for the shift from fat to refined carbohydrates and sugars.12,13
## What Impact Did the NLEA of 1990 Have on Food Labeling?
Prior to 1990, putting a heath claim on a food label was prohibited. Kellogg’s™ wanted to make claims about diet and health on their cereal boxes; so, the U.S. Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990.14 Big Cereal’s “knock out punch” logic was that FDA would never allow the word “Healthy” to be associated with the competition (i.e., butter, eggs, sausage, ham, and bacon) because they contain too much fat, saturated fat, and/or cholesterol. Nevertheless, FDA has struggled – for 33 years – with what is considered “Healthy” food, and what can be legally labeled as “Healthy”.15,16
NLEA gave FDA the right to regulate food labels ([21 CFR 10](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-10)), which includes:
1. Nutrient Content Claims ([21 CFR 101.13](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-A/section-101.13)) to characterize the level of a specific nutrient (e.g., “Low In Fat Content”).
2. Health Claims ([21 CFR 101.14](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-A/section-101.14)) must name the food substance and the disease or health-related condition (e.g., “Heart Healthy: Diets rich in whole-grain foods and other plant foods and low in saturated fat and cholesterol may help reduce the risk of heart disease”).
3. Use Of The Word “Healthy” ([21 CFR 101.65](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-D/section-101.65)). Use of a statement that suggests that a food, because of its nutrient content, may help consumers maintain healthy dietary practices.17
From 1990 to 2022, FDA approved 12 “food-ingredient-health connection” claims and 30 “qualified health claims”, depending largely on DGFA ideology.14,18
## How Are Breakfast Cereals Currently Advertised and Labeled?
Some breakfast cereals have front-of-package (FOP), principle-display-panel (PDP) verbiage on their boxes and use messaging for advertisements and marketing based on 21 CFR 10. Some who make Nutrient Content Claims using descriptors (e.g., “Excellent source of”; “Low In”) or actual amounts (“42 grams of”; “Less than 3 grams of”) of whole grains, fiber, vitamins, minerals, or cholesterol include Post Sweet Dreams®, Walmart Crunchy Honey Oats®, Walmart Strawberry Awake®, General Mills Cheerios Oat Crumbles®, and Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes®. Some make Heart Healthy claims – Walmart Frosted Shredded Wheat®, Kellogg’s Raisin Bran®, General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios®, Walmart Crunchy Raisin Bran®, Quaker Simply Granola®, General Mills Cheerios®, and Quaker Life Multigrain®. Some make no Nutrient Content or Health claims – General Mills Lucky Charms®, General Mills Trix®, Post Honey Bunches of Oats®, and General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch®.
## Is the AHA’s “Heart Healthy” Checkmark Misleading?
Things are happening that involve AHA, FDA, DGFA, NIH, the White House, Tufts University, and the research community that will affect the future of breakfast cereal. My frame of reference is based on information garnered from 24 boxes of Post™, Kellogg’s™, General Mills™, Walmart™, and Quaker™ cereals.
AHA is currently facing a lawsuit over its failure to disclose to consumers that food companies can pay a fee to use the Heart Healthy Checkmark shield on their food packages, and not requiring use of its own nutritional and scientific guidelines in determining if a product is truly “Heart Healthy”.19 AHA doesn’t appear to be a major player in this space. All five manufacturers have one or more products with a FOP claim of Heart Healthy but only one of the seven cereals (i.e., General Mills Cheerios®) uses the AHA Checkmark shield – the others use the FDA version of Heart Healthy.
## FDA Proposes Updates to the “Healthy” Claim Criteria on Food Packaging
[FDA proposed a rule on September 28, 2022 to update the definition of the “Healthy” claim](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/29/2022-20975/food-labeling-nutrient-content-claims-definition-of-term-healthy) (21 CFR 101.65) on food packaging that:
1. Relies on DGFA and current Recommended Daily Allowances of certain nutrients, and
2. Uses a food-group-based approach in addition to “nutrients to limit” (those are saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars).20
On March 29, 2023, FDA issued “[Dietary Guidance Statements In Food Labeling](https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-issues-draft-guidance-dietary-guidance-statements-food-labels)”, saying, “All these claims (Nutrient Content, Health, and Dietary Guidance Statements), must support DGFA 2020-2025 recommendations if they are to be used on a product’s Principle Display Panel or to be used in any other marketing materials.21 In order for a food product to bear a Dietary Guidance Statement (DGS) or any DGS symbol or vignette, the products must not exceed certain nutrient levels that are inconsistent with a healthy dietary pattern (i.e., it must have a Percent Daily Value of less than 10 for each of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars).21,22
Relative to what the FDA has proposed for Percent Daily Values (%DVs)…
- All 24 of my reference cereals passed muster on the “less than 10%” limit for saturated fat (they range from 0% to 5%).
- 18 of 24 cereals had “less than 10% for sodium (they range from 0% to 13%).
- Only 4 of 24 cereals had “less than 10%” for added sugars (they range from 2% to 32%).
So, it’s “game over” for 22 of my reference cereals if FDA uses *dry* cereal as the basis for approval to use a DGS; only General Mills Cheerios® and Kellogg’s Rice Krispies® at “less than 10% DVs” for all three “nutrients to limit” (i.e., saturated fat, sodium, added sugars) clear that hurdle.
Several cereal boxes provide % DVs in the Nutrition Facts panel for dry cereal plus ½ or ¾ cup of skim milk. With that, the serving’s % DVs for saturated fat go up by 0% to 3% and for sodium go up by 2% to 3%. As a result, all 24 of the cereals – including General Mills Cheerios® and Kellogg’s Rice Krispies® – lose eligibility for a DGS.
## What Are the Nutrient Restrictions for Children’s Cereals According to DGFA?
But what does DGFA really say about nutrients to be restricted in children’s diets? With one exception (i.e., General Mills Cheerios®), the % DVs in the Nutrition Facts panels on cereal boxes are based on serving sizes (i.e., the Reference Amount Customarily Consumed – RACC – to achieve an intake of 2,000 calories per day) for adults. DGFA recommends *no* saturated fat and *no* added sugars for a child less than 2 YOA, as well as diminished serving sizes (i.e., 52%, 65%, and 78% of adult RACC) for children of ages 1 through 3, 4 through 8, and 9 through 13 years, respectively.22
With that, children less than 2 YOA shouldn’t eat any of the 24 cereals, and children 3 to 14 YOA should only eat limited servings of two of the 24 cereals (i.e., General Mills Cheerios® and Kellogg’s Rice Krispies®). A study in *The Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism* said early exposure to sugar may discourage children from liking non-sweetened foods and thereby increase the risk of obesity later in life.23
## Is There a Hidden Influence Behind DGFA Recommendations?
The DGFA 2020-2025 Advisory Committee wanted to recommend 6% (down from 10%) of calories from added sugars but eventually did not;24 some believe that’s evidence of meddling by the Deep State and/or lobbyists (by “Big Sugar”, “Big Food”, NIH, or AHA).25,26 Since then, results of new research studies published in *JAMA Internal Medicine*, *Circulation*, and *British Medical Journal* have identified “added sugars” as being a major culprit in up to 45 negative healthy outcomes.27-31
## How Important Are Nutrition Facts and Ingredients for Consumers?
Consumers believe that the Nutrition Facts panel is more important in determining “Healthfulness” than is the Ingredient List.32 “Sugar” ranks at the top of what adults look for (at 56%);33 the three nutrients that most Americans say they “need less of” are:
- Saturated fat
- Sodium
- Added sugars34
In 2022, FDA updated the Nutrition Facts panel by requiring that “Added Sugars” be added because “consuming too much added sugars can make it hard to meet nutrient needs while staying within calories limits”.35 MyPlate® says, “A healthy dietary pattern doesn’t have much room for added sugars… foods and beverages high in these components should be limited”.36
## Is There a Need for Front-of-Package Warning Symbols?
FDA has considered using the Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2021 to require that a FOP “Warning Symbol” be placed on food products that are high in saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, added sugars, and any other negative nutrients.37
[Health Canada just mandated a new FOP nutrition system for packaged foods](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2022/06/front-of-package-nutrition-labelling.html) that contain nutrients of public health concern at or above specified thresholds.38 The FOP Symbol is a “Warning Label” that will help Canadians avoid excessive consumption of foods that are unhealthful”.38 The Warning Symbol must appear when the amount of saturated fat, sodium, and/or sugars is at or above 10% of the applicable Daily Value.38 If U.S. manufacturers sell products in Canada, the products must comply with Canada’s mandate.38
## What Will the Advisory Committee for DGFA 2025-2030 Focus On?
The Advisory Committee for DGFA 2025-2030 has announced it will examine “Topics most often raised in Public Comments”, which include:
- Healthy eating
- The gastro-intestinal microbiome
- Ultra-processed foods
- Low-carb diets39-42
Breakfast cereals are both ultra-processed and high-carbohydrate foods, so things could get worse. The NOVA food classification system defines ultra-processed as “any product with more than five ingredients”; 40 others say the term means food with a high proportion of artificial and/or added ingredients.43
## How Are Ultra-Processed Foods Impacting Health in America?
NIH has concluded that ultra-processed foods are playing a big role in America’s ever-expanding waistlines.44 Epidemiological studies, clinical trials, and scientific opinions have concluded that overconsumption (too much or too frequent) of ultra-processed food causes people to consume excess calories, gain weight, become obese, and have increased risk of high blood pressure, heart and circulation problems, cognitive impairment, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, cancer, and shorter lifespan.27,42-53
## Do We Misunderstand the Term “Ingredient”?
The meaning of the term “Ingredient” on cereal boxes is unclear. Just below the Nutrition Facts panel, there are “Ingredients” (the reference cereals have 4 to 27 items in their lists); beneath that, there are “Vitamins and Minerals” (the reference cereals have 0 to 13 items in their lists). Combined, there are 7 (Kellogg’s Raisin Bran®) to 38 (Kellogg’s Special K) *total* Ingredients in these cereals. General Mills Kix® has a FOP claim of “Just 7 Ingredients + Vitamins & Minerals.” So, if Vitamins and Minerals don’t count, five cereals have only four Ingredients and thereby escape demonization as being ultra-processed (i.e., four from Kellogg’s – Rice Krispies®, All-Bran®, Corn Flakes®, and Frosted Flakes® – and one from Walmart™ – Frosted Shredded Wheat®).
## Is Ultra-Processed Food Inherently Bad or Is It About Consumption Patterns?
In truth, there is no scientific evidence that there is anything *in* ultra-processed food that is dangerous, it’s the fact that we eat *too much* when we do eat it.54 Ultra-processed foods [*propel people to overeat* – and they gain weight](https://fsns.com/being-overweight-isnt-just-personal-gluttony/).42 Too much ultra-processed food in your diet leads to obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and cancer; we’ve gone too far inasmuch as it also leads to hypertension and premature death.42 Brazil, Peru, and Uruguay have dietary guidelines that specifically recommend freshly prepared meals and *avoiding* ultra-processed foods.42 *Avoiding* – not eliminating – is a much less draconian approach to offering advice on public heath.
## How Is Advertising Influencing Eating Habits?
Ultra-processed foods currently make-up nearly 60% of what the typical adult eats, and nearly 70% of what kids eat.55 An old adage is, “When I was growing up, my mother’s menu consisted of two choices – take it or leave it.”56 One in five U.S. parents say they are often too stressed to cook and 88% say they let their children pick what they want to eat.57 Companies and brands use “consumer segmentation” to develop marketing strategies and tactics that are narrowly aimed at identifiable groups of consumers and offer solutions to specific needs or pain points.58 People’s eating habits are largely mediated by factors outside their conscious control – chief among the factors that cause “craving” are food advertisements and commercials on billboards, cell phones, and television.59
## Are Children Being Exposed to Unhealthy Influences Online?
A *Pediatrics* study of “influencers” (usually children themselves) on YouTube who were pushing unhealthy food to children, found that they were “host selling” (where hosts or characters of a television show promote products within that show).60 Researchers are calling for federal regulations limiting such exposure of children in that “host selling” is banned from broadcast television.60
Health Canada’s Food & Drug Regulations agency intends to restrict “advertising to children” of foods (including “sweetened breakfast foods”) that contribute to excess intakes of sodium, sugars, and saturated fats.61 USDA presently offers $1 million grants to State Agencies and School Food Authorities that agree to teach MyPlate® nutrition courses to school-aged children (Pre-K through 12) and their families.62 It is tragic that our federal government would bribe educators to brainwash children with nutrition advice that has led Americans to a 3-fold increase in obesity, an 11-fold increase in diabetes, and no demonstrable effect on incidence of heart disease or cancer.
## What’s the Future for Breakfast Cereals and Marketing Strategies?
Things look bleak for manufacturers of sweets, sugary foods/beverages, ultra-processed foods, and foods with too much refined carbohydrates. It does not appear likely that the FDA will allow breakfast cereals to bear a “Healthy” label claim. Marketers of such products are running out of options. That’s not keeping them from trying.
Post Sweet Dreams® is being marketed – not as a breakfast cereal – but as “Part of a healthy sleep-routine cereal” that supports natural melatonin production. Some breakfast-cereal manufacturers feature arrays of “any-time-of-day” (not just breakfast) offerings that comply with consumer’s cravings.63 Kellogg’s™ just added to its portfolio with:
- Special K Oat Crunchy Honey® for those who want crunchy foods.
- Special K High Protein®, which is fortified with soy, pea, and lentil proteins.
- Special K Zero®, which replaces “added sugars” with allulose, sucralose, and monkfruit extract.63
## How is NIH Responding to the Current Food and Health Landscape?
NIH – under pressure from “Big Food” and/or “Big Sugar” – is trying to fend-off the demonization of sweets and sugary foods/beverages by the DGFA 2025-2030 and the potential attack on ultra-processed foods by the DGFA 2025-2030.64 Dariush Mozaffarian (Tufts University) used NIH funding to develop a Nutrient Profiling System (i.e., Food Compass Scores) that creates a new “Healthfulness” scale and a new Food Pyramid.65 The results are absurd; 70 breakfast cereals (led by General Mills Lucky Charms®) ranked higher on the NPS-FCS Healthfulness scale than either meat or eggs.65 Mozaffarian has lobbied for NPS-FCS as an alternative to the DGFA at the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition & Health, at a World Economic Forum, and to the U.S. Congress.66
[Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com/about-fsns/) offers a full range of food testing, including [chemistry testing](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) for sugar and other compounds, as well as [nutritional labeling testing services](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/) for all your testing needs.
### References:
1 Turner, Jeanne. 2020. Food Processing. January Edition.
2 Volkow, Nora. 2011. National Institute on Drug Abuse. November Edition.
3 Hoyle, Tim. 2011. Bloomberg News, November 6 Issue.
4 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2021. Food Processing. September 21 Issue.
5 Hrdlicka, Ales. 1908. Smithsonian Institution Bulletin 34. Washington, DC.
6 Newcombe, W.W. 1961. University of Texas Press. Austin, TX.
7 Teicholz, Nina. 2014. The Big Fat Surprise. Simon & Schuster. New York, NY.
8 Stamler, J. and H. Epstein. 1972. Preventive Medicine 1: 27-48.
9 Frederickson, Donald. 1971. British Medical Journal 2: 187-192.
10 USDA-USDHHS. 1980. Dietary Guidelines For Americans. Washington, DC.
11 Baum *et al*. 2012. Journal of Clinical Lipidology 6:216-234.
12 Rothstein, William. 2003. Rochester Studies In Medical History. University of Rochester Press. New York, NY.
13 American Heart Association. 1995. An Eating Plan For Healthy Americans. Dallas, TX.
14 Avis, Ed. 2022. Food Processing. June Edition.
15 Malcolm, Hadley. 2016. USDA Today. May 12 Issue.
16 Food Processing. 2020. April Edition.
17 FDA. 2023. usfda@public.govdelivery.com. Accessed 7/14/2023.
18 Stevens, S. and E. Presnell. 2022. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
19 Scott, Chris. 2022. Meatingplace. September 7 Issue.
20 Fusaro, Dave. 2022. Food Processing. October Edition.
21 FDA. 2023. EAS Consulting Group. March 29 Issue.
22 USDA-USDHHS. 2020. Dietary Guidelines For Americans. Washington, DC.
23 CHI St. Joseph Health. 2019. Refresh: Medical Issue. Winter Edition.
24 Fusaro Dave. 2020. Food Processing. August Edition.
25 Teicholz, Nina. 2022. Meatingplace. October 28 Issue.
26 Dittmer, Steve. 2020. AFF Sentinel. August 12 Issue.
27 Shangguan *et al.* 2021. Circulation. September Edition.
28 LaMotte, Sandee. 2023. CNN. January 9 Issue.
29 Processed Foods. 2023. AG·WEB. February 15 Issue.
30 Huang *et al.* 2023. British Medical Journal 381:e071609.
31 Rogers, Kristen. 2023. CNN. April 5 Issue.
32 Sollid, Kris. 2020. Food Technology. December Edition.
33 NPD Group. 2021. Food Processing. October 26 Issue.
34 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2022. Food Processing. July 27 Issue.
35 FDA. 2023. fda.gov. Accessed 4/1/2023.
36 USDA. 2023. MyPlate.gov. Accessed 6/30/2023.
37 Fusaro, Dave. 2021. Food Processing. September Edition.
38 Health Canada. 2023. Government of Canada. May 16 Issue.
39 Kelly, Susan. 2022. Meatingplace. April 15 Issue.
40 Keefe, Lisa. 2022. Alt·Meat. February Edition.
41 USDA-USDHHS. 2023. DietaryGuidelines.gov. Accessed 7/19/2023.
42 Gardner, Christopher. 2023. Stanford University. May 25 Issue.
43 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2021. Food Processing. August 10 Issue.
44 Boudreau, Catherine. 2019. Morning Agriculture. May 17 Issue.
45 Hall, Kevin. 2019. National Institutes of Health. May 17 Issue.
46 Godoy, Maria. 2023. National Public Radio. May 25 Issue.
47 Langer, Abby. 2019. National Institutes of Health. August 7 Issue.
48 NutriNet-Sante Project. 2019. British Medical Journal. Mau 29 Issue.
49 Tanzi, Rudy. 2022. CNN. December 5 Issue.
50 Suemoto et al. 2022. JAMA Neurology. November Edition.
51 Katz, David. 2022. CNN. December 5 Issue.
52 Bes-Rastrollo, Mairo. 2019. British Medical Jouranl. May 29 Issue.
53 Hall, Kevin. 2023. National Public Radio. May 25 Issue.
54 Clemens, R. and P. Pressman. 2019. Food Quality and Safety. May Edition.
55 Goday, Maria. 2023. National Public Radio. May 25 Issue.
56 Hackett, Buddy. 2023. Reader’s Digest. June Edition.
57 Gibson, Kate. 2021. Meatingplace. September 22 Issue.
58 Amstein, Dannette. 2023. Meatingplace. April 26 Issue.
59 Haseltine, William. 2023. Inside Precision Medicine. May 19 Issue.
60 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2020. Food Processing. October 26 Issue.
61 US Meat Export Federation. 2023. USMEF Export Newsline. May 4 Issue.
62 USDA. 2023. MyPlate.gov. Accessed 4/15/2023.
63 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2023. Food Processing. January Edition.
64 Means, Calley. 2023. Fox News. April 26 Issue.
65 Waters, J. and J. Mares. 2023. Fox News. January 4 Issue.
66 Teicholz, Nina. 2023. Unsettled Science. February 6 Issue.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Scrutiny on Food Traceability Lists Creates Havoc for Manufacturers](https://fsns.com/scrutiny-on-food-traceability-lists-creates-havoc-for-manufacturers/)
**Published:** August 1, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
FDA’s laser focus on food traceability as part of a Smarter Era of Food Safety under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) has translated into great strides in the protection of the U.S. food supply. In January 2023, FDA strengthened these efforts with a final rule that established [Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods](https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-final-rule-requirements-additional-traceability-records-certain-foods), produced domestically and imported, included in the [Food Traceability List](https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/food-traceability-list).
From farm to table, firms producing foods on the Food Traceability List must track specific Key Data Elements (KDE) for Critical Tracking Events (CTE), both forward and backward in the supply chain. This framework forms the foundation for effective and efficient tracing of food.
CTEs include the following:
- Harvesting of food.
- Active cooling before initial packing such as icing, forced air cooling, etc.
- Initial packing (except for food from a fishing vessel) of a raw agricultural commodity.
- First land-based receiving of a food obtained from a fishing vessel.
- Shipping by truck, ship, or rail from one location to another, but excluding the consumer.
- Receiving by an entity other than a consumer.
- Transformation such as manufacturing, processing, or changing of a food on the Food Traceability List.
*Recordkeeping, either paper or electronic, is a key requirement in food safety and food traceability.*## What are Key Data Elements and Critical Tracking Events?
The Food Traceability List makes clear that supply chain partners with KDEs for certain CTEs in the food’s supply chain must maintain and make readily available any records pertaining to these events.
While the information that firms must keep and send forward will vary depending on the type of supply chain activities they perform with respect to an Food Traceability List food, all must assign, record, and share Traceability Lot Codes for their Food Traceability List foods as well as link these Traceability Lot Codes to earlier stages as the food moves through the supply chain.
FDA offers an [interactive worksheet for KDEs and CTEs](https://www.fda.gov/media/163132/download) enabling those working with Food Traceability List foods to understand the KDEs and CTEs they must track to fulfill their traceability requirements as part of the supply chain.
For instance, Cooling KDEs include:
- The location description for the immediate subsequent recipient (other than a transporter) of the food.
- The food commodity and, if applicable, variety.
- The location description and date for where the food was cooled.
Remember, food traceability looks forward and backward, and the processes that a Food Traceability List food undergo while in your control must be recorded and remain with the Traceability Lot Codes as the food moves through the supply chain.
As part of traceback activities, Traceability Lot Codes will also retain all pertinent information prior to your possession of the food. In this example, a Cooling KDE must also include the location description for the farm where the food was harvested prior to cooling.
Notable for farms, there are no specific KDEs related to the growing or raising of foods on the FTL and there are no Shipping KDE requirements when a food is shipped before it has been initially packed.
## What is a Food Traceability Lot Code?
As traceability is the focus of FDA’s Smarter Era of Food Safety, all foods on the Food Traceability List must have a Food Traceability Lot Code that is used to track the lots throughout the manufacturing lifecycle. Even foods received from entities that are exempt from additional recordkeeping compliance must have a Traceability Lot Code assigned to them once they are under the control of a non-exempt entity.
For example, in the case of transforming foods to create a deli salad with tomatoes, cucumbers, and olives, receiving records and records for the incoming ingredients (tomatoes and cucumbers) must be retained as these two foods are on the Food Traceability List. However, records for olives as an incoming ingredient do not need to be retained since olives are not on the Food Traceability List.
Once the Traceability Lot Code is assigned, this number stays with the lot moving forward, helping to identify where the lot has been and the processes the food lots go through. In the deli salad example, records for the deli salad, as well as any subsequent shipping records for the deli salad, must be kept.
*Food traceability recordkeeping requirements apply to every step in the supply chain, including transformation.*## Documenting Food Traceability
Those working with foods on the Food Traceability List must have documented traceability plans for tracking food lots throughout their lifecycle. These Traceability Plans must include how you will identify any foods under your control that are subject to the Food Traceability List, and a detailed plan for how those foods will be traced, including specifics on how you will assign Traceability Lot Codes for tracking and tracing.
Farmers (excluding egg farmers) subject to the Food Traceability List must also document on a map the specific locations on the farm such as the geographic coordinates where those foods are grown. Likewise, aquaculture farms must clearly define on a map the locations of ponds, pools, tanks, etc. where seafood on the Food Traceability List is raised.
All the documentation contained in the Food Traceability List must be legible and retained in its original condition, either digital, written, or true copies. Digital copies of records must be kept and retained in accordance with the requirements of 21 CFR Part 11 for electronic recordkeeping.
This information must be readily available at all times and provided to FDA upon request within 24 hours, or another mutually agreed upon timeframe.
## Am I Exempt from the Food Traceability List?
Certain exemptions do apply to the Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Food Traceability Lists.
FDA has [created an interactive flow chart](https://collaboration.fda.gov/tefcv13/) enabling companies to determine any exemptions. Much like other provisions within FSMA, small or very small entities with less than a certain threshold of annual income may not be subject to Food Traceability List compliance in certain circumstances.
Other exemptions include those entities that apply kill steps that significantly minimize [pathogens](https://fsns.com/pathogen-testing/) in a food. For example, if you apply a kill step to a food on the Food Traceability List and maintain a record of your application of the kill step, the Additional Recordkeeping final rule would not apply to your subsequent shipping of the food. Additionally, any subsequent receivers of a food to which the kill step has been applied are also not subject to the requirements of the final rule.
Likewise, if a Food Traceability List food will receive a kill step in the future (by an entity other than a retail food establishment, restaurant, or consumer), that food is partially exempt from the rule, providing the shippers and receivers of the food enter into written agreements stating that the kill step will be applied by the receiver or a subsequent entity in the supply chain.
## FDA Food Traceability and Additional Recordkeeping Enforcement
Compliance for the Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Food Traceability List foods regardless of business size or physical location is **January 20, 2026**.
After such time, FDA expects to conduct routine records inspections that seek to ensure covered entities are fulfilling their obligations, identify any compliance gaps and ensure voluntary corrective actions are implemented in the case of deficiencies.
However, as noted earlier, FDA may request Traceability records and will do so in exigent circumstances such as foodborne illness outbreaks, recalls, or other food safety emergencies. In these cases, FDA may request specific records from covered entities to facilitate a traceback or trace forward operation and these must be supplied within 24 hours or at a mutually agreed upon time.
Covered entities will not be required to regularly submit traceability data to the agency, but only in the case of routine inspections and foodborne illness investigation requests.
**Free webinar:** [U.S. FDA Proposed Traceability Rule – Overview](https://easconsultinggroup.com/us-fda-proposed-traceability-rule-overview/)
**Categories:** General
---
### [Does ESG Compliance Prove That Your Company Is Sustainable?](https://fsns.com/does-esg-compliance-prove-that-your-company-is-sustainable/)
**Published:** November 28, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Dr. Gary C. Smith, Texas A&M University*
Not really. For centuries, companies survived if they were profitable, and failed if they were not. It used to be that a company could decide to use a marketing claim about environmental impact or social justice to set its products apart.
In 2022, activists (and perhaps the government) want to pick winners and losers by making companies comply with their definitions of what is or is not “sustainable”. For example, Benefit Corporation™, an auditing company that instructs more than 10,000 companies on complying with ESG mandates, advises companies to discard the concept of “shareholder primacy” (which prioritizes profits even when derived from behaviors that create inequality, environmental damage, and social fragmentation) and use “stakeholder governance” (which prioritizes working for a healthier planet and a more inclusive economy).1
## **What is ESG?**
ESG means Governance (i.e., control – via the company’s business policy) over Environmental and Social issues. To meet the ESG standard, a company must attain certain metrics for environmental policies (to minimize changes in the climate and the environment) and for social policies (to assure social justice for humans and food animals). ESG equates to a company’s sustainability.2
## **Polls Say Consumers Support Sustainability**
Several consumer polls and surveys support the importance of sustainability to shoppers. Among the conclusions they reach are the following:
- 84% say food brands don’t meet consumers’ ESG expectations3
- 51% say they have changed their purchasing choices within the past year to make a difference on economic, social, environmental, or political issues4
- Consumers will continue to demand that companies focus more on sustainability, with human rights, fair wages, and gender equality of particular interest5
- 68% said they will pay more for sustainable foods6
- When asked why they prefer sustainable brands, 17% said to improve the environment, 16% said social signaling, 11% said to reduce carbon footprint, 9% said to reduce production waste, and 8% said to improve animal welfare6
- Consumers want to know how a company is working toward improving its practices to better sustain the life of the planet and Earth’s people plus how it’s going to benefit them personally7
## **However, Purdue University Poll Results Disagree…**
Conversely, the only consumer survey I have found, and the only one I consider unbiased, was conducted by a completely independent party – [Purdue University in its “Sustainable Food Purchasing Index”](https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2022/Q1/new-report-provides-insight-on-consumer-food-spending,-satisfaction,-sustainability.html) – and which says, “Of the six attributes that Americans value when making food-purchasing decisions, consumers most value the taste of their food while least valuing the environmental impact and social responsibility of their food.”8
## **Marketers Use Sustainability to Distinguish Their Brands**
Nevertheless, when sustainability first appeared on the horizon, food marketers saw it as a potential brand differentiator – using “sustainable” on the label like some companies use “organic”, “natural”, “non-GMO”, and “gluten-free” to service niche markets.
At that time, some privately owned and some publicly traded manufacturers, supermarket chains, and food-service operators touted their sustainability because at least some participants in the supply chain wanted it – and, of those who wanted it, some expected a paper (or electronic) trail that proved it.9
Then, in 2015, large companies that sell shares of their firm on the stock exchange (i.e., that are “publicly traded”), began to be forced by stockbrokers and money managers to provide evidence of their company’s sustainability efforts.10 So, what do companies include, and what evidence do they provide, to make their ESG claims believable?
## **How do Companies Support their ESG Claims?**
Evidence of “giving-back” actions as part of social justice include donations of money or food…
- To those affected by severe storms, wildfires, tornadoes, or hurricanes (Hormel™, Pilgrim’s Pride™, Nolan Ryan Brands™, Tyson™, Cargill™, Kroger™)
- In support of education efforts at public schools and universities (JBS-USA™, Perdue Farms™, Smithfield™, Wayne Farms™)
- To directly support lineworkers, their families, and their communities affected by the COVID-19 pandemic (Tyson™, JBS-SA™, Perdue Farms™, JBS-USA™, Smithfield™, Hormel™, Cargill™, Pilgrim’s Pride™)11-16
Some food companies pursue environmental and social issues and causes by “pledging” the following:
- Reaching zero carbon emissions by 2015 (Mondalez™)
- Replenishing more water than the company uses by 2030 (Pepsico™)
- Promoting conservation of the Amazon rainforest (JBS-SA™, Ahold™, Lidl™, Carrefour™)
- Switching to recyclable or compostable packaging by 2025 (Saputo™, Kellogg™)
- Slashing their food loss and waste 50% by 2030 (Wegmans™, Kroger™, Campbell Soup™, Aramark™, Amazon™, Walmart™, Pepsico™, Smithfield™)
- Achieving 25% representation of racially diverse talent at the managerial level by 2025 (Kellogg™)
- Being among the Top 300 female-friendly employers in the world (Hormel™)
- Hiring a “Chief People Officer” to assure diversity, equity, and inclusion with regard to race, gender, transgender, and LGBTQ persons (Grimmway Farms™, Danone™, Harris Woolf Almonds™)17-26
Companies seeking oversight and validation of elements in their ESG Plan use groups like the following:
- Meijer™ (a supermarket chain) seeks validation by one or more of 38 third-party auditing companies (e.g., Where Food Comes From®, Rainforest Alliance Certification Program®)27
- Business Benchmark On Animal Welfare® is used by investors to validate animal care and handling claims28
- Appian Workplace Safety® validates programs for COVID-19 patients to safely return to work in packing plants29
- Benefit Corporation™, via B Lab®, advises more that 10,000 publicly traded companies on matters of social justice as they seek to comply with ESG mandates and qualify as “B Corp Certified”30
- J.P. Morgan Chase (an investment firm) established “Food Agriculture Sustainability Transition” (FAST®), which suggests that investors preferentially seek shares of those businesses that comply with ESG dictates31
- More than 25% of Fortune 500® companies are on the “carbon credits/carbon offsets” bandwagon, an action intended to compensate for the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a result of industrial or other human activity32
- Genstar Capital™ (an investment firm) owns “Institutional Shareholder Services” (ISS®), an advisory firm that specializes in corporate ESG initiatives33
- Fairtrade America®, a third-party certification company, specializes in gender equality, fair wages, and human rights5
## **How do Companies Design Their ESG Plans?**
Four examples of how companies design their ESG plans include the following:
- Kellogg™ says its “Better Days ESG” strategy involves working with its partners (Consumer Goods Forum® and Science-Based Targets Initiative®) to seek end-to-end supply-chain solutions for well-being, hunger relief, and climate resiliency. They are presently making commitments and pledging improvements using percent changes by certain future dates.18,20
- To sell almonds to Danone™, almond growers and processors must comply with these ESG standards:
- California Almond Sustainability Program – for water management, pollinator health, and financial planning
- Bee-Friendly Farming Certification – for protection and preservation of pollinator health
- B Corp Certification – for corporate governance, community engagement, customer relationships, employee engagement, and environmental impact
- Eco-Practices – a risk-management program that measures sustainability throughout the supply chain24
- Grimmway Farms™ (a fruit and vegetable grower/processor), using its “Responsible Growth for a Healthier World” strategy, released its ESG report. It consisted of measurements of the company’s impact on carbon mitigation, soil health, water conservation, biodiversity, energy conservation, waste reduction, food safety, employee health and diversity, and social equity.21
- Smithfield Foods’™ ESG strategy is “To produce good food, do good work, and be good stewards of its animals and the environment.” It consists of seven key pillars of concern about the environment, food waste, animal welfare, food safety, worker wellness, food insecurity, company culture, community vitality, and high-quality products.34
## **One-Third of US Assets are Invested Using “Sustainability Strategies”**
By November 2020, the “Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment” (USSIF) reported that $17.1 trillion (one-third of total US assets under professional management) were being invested upon using “sustainability investment strategies”.10 Some observers are critical of publicly traded corporations: (a) being badgered by “leftists” and/or “socialistic” stockbrokers to “make the world a better place” by complying with the dictates of ESG;2 (b) being forced to use ESG criteria to address climate change, sustainable natural resources, regenerative agriculture, labor diversity, and political spending – all “woke” hot topics;35 and (c) for folding to “activist” shareholder pressure and “woke” philosophies to change the way they do business.36
Activist shareholders want to pick “winners” and “losers” by making companies comply with their personal definitions of what is, or is not, sustainable. In 2021, 467 shareholder resolutions on ESG were filed.35 Included were the following:
- Demands that Hormel™ assess the effects on public health costs of having antibiotic residues in its meat37
- Concerns about Big Food (e.g., Coca Cola™, Bayer™, Dannon™, Kellogg™, General Mills™) using the International Life Science Institute® to consult them regarding ESG dictates38
- Demands that Kroger™ nominate two persons to its Board of Directors who support adding “animal welfare” and “fair wages” to its ESG policy39
- Activist investors who do not want the company to finance fossil fuels or animal agriculture because of their association with climate change40
## **ESG Strategies Often Contain Disparate Issues**
The Center For Food Integrity identifies more than 250 attributes in the ESG strategies of food companies; no company can effectively manage 250 disparate issues.41
Activist investors and stockbrokers want to run corporate America according to their individual ESG goals – not the good of the average shareholder.40 ESG strategies must balance the input of multiple stakeholders (frequently with competing interests) with the business objectives of the company.42
Companies that rate high on the ESG scale have not necessarily been good financial performers; some of the specific changes made by companies in order to upgrade their ESG “socially responsible index” ratings backfire, largely because those who decide what is “woke” know essentially nothing about agricultural practices.43 The problem with forcing companies to abide with ESG constraints is that it forces money managers to invest, or not invest, in certain shares/stocks for political reasons instead of fiduciary reasons – which could be a disservice to the investors.44
## **What Motivates Corporations to Adopt ESG Strategies?**
Corporate motivation to follow ESG ideology is fueled by its appeal to environmentally conscious investors, social-justice advocates, and those trying to take pre-emptive ESG action ahead of state and federal governance requiring regulatory compliance.32 ESG advocates in California have…
- Weaponized their Attorney General to use ESG in planning/zoning decisions
- Passed a law forcing 700 publicly traded corporations to leave one seat on their Board of Directors open for LGBTQ individuals and minorities
- Passed a law requiring that all companies have three women on their Board of Directors45,46
## **Government Pressure Sometimes Forces ESG Compliance**
The “hammers” that activists and the federal government already use on farmers/ranchers to increase their power over use of water and land (e.g., Waters of the United States, Endangered Species Act) are now being augmented to force those that supply raw materials or finished goods to publicly traded companies to comply with ESG mandates.40 Under the Biden Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is rigidly supporting ESG mandates; the agency has sided with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) over Wendy’s™ in a dispute over an animal-welfare issue.47
SEC has yielded to US President Joe Biden’s desire to continue his “war on fossil fuels”.48 BlackRock™, one of the three largest US public-company money managers plus “progressive democratic” investors have convinced SEC to advance a proposed rule requiring public companies to disclose climate risks.48 This regulatory action is partially a result of the fact that President Biden’s effort to address “global warming” in legislation has stalled in congress.49 [SEC formally put forth a 534-page proposal](https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2022/33-11042.pdf) that would force publicly traded companies to disclose the following:
- GHG emissions from both the company’s supply chain as well as its customers
- Information about climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on their business, result of operations, or financial conditions
- Certain climate-related financial-statement metrics49,50,51
## **Some Companies are Resisting ESG Mandates**
But some are fighting back. The Robinson Bours family holds 73% of the shares of Bachoco™ and has decided to delist the company from the stock exchange by purchasing the remaining 27% of the shares to avoid having to conform to the SEC’s intent to require that the company comply with ESG mandates.52
Some ESG opponents are pushing legislation at the state level that would dictate where investment firms must put their states’ money. Texas passed a law to keep state funds away from investment firms that divest from fossil fuels.44 Nebraska state senators are attempting to pull state funds from Genstar Capital™, an investment firm that is “anti-cattle” because of bovine GHG emissions.33
Corporate Citizen Project, an independent think tank that opposes corporate ESG initiatives, is advising the Nebraska senators on the Genstar Capital™ case. US Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) believes the US Congress should pass legislation forbidding investment firms from using ESG as a cudgel to affect traders’ buying/selling of shares.53
More than 120 agricultural groups are asking SEC to delay codifying its proposed rule to review the costs and liabilities for farmers/ranchers if they are forced to report personal information and business-related data.54
Kim Stackhouse-Lawson (Colorado State University) says, “Sustainability, as a concept, has evolved into a science that works on eliminating risk from a business supply chain – A CORPORATE MITIGATION STRATEGY.”55 And, the conversation around “sustainability” just shifted to “risk” being “loss of reputation” and “access to capital”. European-based banks and US investment firms are seeking federal regulation to not invest in high greenhouse-gas-emitting industries, especially animal agriculture.55
**References**
1B Lab®. 2022. January 17 Issue.
2Gasporino, Charlie. 2022. Fox News. March 7 Issue.
3Demetrakakes, Pan. 2022. Food Processing. January 12 Issue.
4Williamson, Peg. 2022. The Packer. January 5 Issue.
5Sowder, Amy. 2022. The Packer. January 5 Issue.
6Gelski, Jeff. 2022. Dairy Processing. January 20 Issue.
7Sowder, Amy. 2022. The Packer. February 23 Issue.
8Lusk, Jayson. 2022. Purdue University. February Edition.
9Cornett, Steve. 2022. Drovers. May 6 Issue.
10Henderson, Greg. 2022. Drovers. March Edition.
11Gibson, Kate. 2022. Meatingplace. January 6 Issue.
12Keefe, Lisa. 2022. Meatingplace. April 1 Issue.
13Henderson, Greg. 2021. Drovers. December 22 Issue.
14McCarthy, Ryan. 2018. Meat & Poultry. September 6 Issue.
15Clyma, Kimberlie. 2021. Meat & Poultry. December 23 Issue.
16Crews, Joel. 2021. Meat & Poultry. December 21 Issue.
17Fusaro, Dave. 2022. Food Processing. January 4 Issue.
18Cahillane, Steve. 2022. Food Processing. April Issue.
19McCarthy, Ryan. 2020. Meat & Poultry. September 24 Issue.
20Schroeder, Eric. 2022. Supermarket Perimeter. January 24 Issue.
21Strailey, Jennifer. 2022. The Packer. April 22 Issue.
22Crews, Joel. 2022. Meat & Poultry. January 5 Issue.
23Scott, Chris. 2021. Meatingplace. December 29 Issue.
24Morehead, Justin. 2022. Harris Woolf Almonds. January 4 Issue.
25Fusaro, Dave. 2022. Food Processing. April Issue.
26McCarthy, Ryan. 2021. Supermarket Perimeter. December 20 Issue.
27Nelson, Andy. 2022. Supermarket Perimeter. April 1 Issue.
28Thompson-Weeman, Hannah. 2022. Meatingplace. April 5 Issue.
29Putch, Kristen. 2021. Dairy Processing. December 21 Issue.
30www.bethechange.foundation. 2022. Accessed March 22, 2022.
31Finkel, Ed. 2022. Alt•Meat. March 8 Issue.
32Wilson, Patti. 2022. CALF News. March Edition.
33Demetrakakes, Pan. 2022. Food Processing. March 31 Issue.
34Urner-Barry. 2022. FoodMarket News. May 19 Issue.
35Forbes Magazine. 2022. February Edition.
36Dittmer, Steve. 2022. AFF Sentinel. February 24 Issue.
37Gibson, Kate. 2022. Meatingplace. January 7 Issue.
38www.corporateaccountability.org. 2022. Accessed April 10, 2022.
39Scott, Chris. 2022. Meatingplace. March 30 Issue.
40Dittmer, Steve. 2022. AFF Sentinel. March 18 Issue.
41Arnot, Charlie. 2022. Center for Food Integrity. February Edition.
42Arnot, Charlie. 2022. Meatingplace. March 16 Issue.
43Wall Street Journal. 2022. January 15-21 Issues.
44Demetrakakes, Pan. 2022. Food Processing. April 29 Issue.
45Ghigich, Daniel. 2022. The SJV Sun. April 4 Issue.
46Woodruff, Judy. 2022. PBS News Hour. May 16 Issue.
47Johnston, Tom. 2022. Meatingplace. March 25 Issue.
48The Editorial Board. 2022. March Issue.
49The Directors Letter. 2022. April 2 Issue.
50Dittmer, Steve. 2022. AFF Sentinel. March 24 Issue.
51Karst, Tom. 2022. The Packer. March 22 Issue.
52Kelly, Susan. 2022. Meatingplace. March 31 Issue.
53Sullivan, Dan. 2022. Fox News. May 20 Issue.
54Kelly, Susan. 2022. Meatingplace. May 6 Issue.
55Handke, Laura. 2022. Drovers. June 2 Issue.
**Categories:** General
---
### [FSNS further expands Food Chemistry and Safety Scope](https://fsns.com/fsns-further-expands-food-chemistry-and-safety-scope/)
**Published:** August 21, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly changed the way many companies operate, including FSNS. This unprecedented time has offered new challenges in maintaining social distancing, employee wellbeing, and logistics. That being said, FSNS has worked diligently to expand their scope of service while implementing numerous new safety procedures. 2020 has been an eventful year, including tremendous growth within the chemistry business unit and we are excited to highlight a few of these updates below.
In January FSNS opened a new ICP testing lab with state-of-the-art instrumentation for the analysis of both heavy metals by ICP-MS and quantitative metals by ICP-OES. This lab was specifically designed to further expand FSNS’ ability to meet low level (Prop 65) detection limits of heavy metals and allow for rapid turnaround of results to support immediate client needs.
Recently FSNS completed their validation of an LCMS/MS method for low level detection of the Beta Agonist Ractopamine. This new method aligns with the USDA CLG-AGON1.10 method and allows for detection of Ractopamine well below the action level of 1.0 ppb. FSNS is currently in the AMS approval process and looks forward to supporting testing needs for both the beef and pork industry.
FSNS successfully completed their A2LA ISO 1705:2005 audit for the San Antonio chemistry lab in June. As part of this audit, FSNS extended their accreditation scope to include multiple new methods. Vitamin D, Protein by Combustion, Beta Carotene, Heavy Metal Analysis and Water Activity are a few of the added methods.
We are also pleased to announce the appointment of John Szpylka to the role of Chemistry R&D Manager at the FSNS San Antonio site. With over 30 years of industry experience working at General Mills and Merieux NutriSciences, John offers a wealth of knowledge in method development, troubleshooting, and technical consulting. He also serves on the board of the AOAC and is active in both the AACC and AAFCO.
FSNS continues to put food safety, quality, and customer needs at the forefront of all their growth decisions as we work to demonstrate our ability to be your trusted partner in food safety. The chemistry department is eager to support your nutritional, allergen, and contaminant needs for a variety of products including raw ingredients, meats, vegetables, nutraceuticals, and finished products.
**Categories:** News
---
### [FSNS Awarded AMS Approval for the Analysis of Ractopamine](https://fsns.com/fsns-awarded-ams-approval-for-the-analysis-of-ractopamine/)
**Published:** August 21, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**—August 21, 2020 – [Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com/) (FSNS) has been approved by the USDA-AMS Laboratory Approval Program for Export of Meat and Poultry Products for the analysis of the Beta-Agonist Ractopamine in Animal Muscle and Liver Tissues by LC-MS/MS (Trace Residue Level). The internally validated FSNS method references USDA CLG-AGON1.10; Screening, Determination and Confirmation of Beta-Agonists by LC/MS/MS. The method has precise quantification capabilities of ractopamine levels beyond the USDA action level of 0.1 ppb to support regulatory compliance. Testing will be conducted at the San Antonio laboratory location, with options for expedited analysis. If you have any questions about testing or would like more information, please contact [**customerservice@fsns.com**](mailto:customerservice@fsns.com) or call **888-525-9788**.
Service Highlights:
- USDA-AMS Approved Methodology and Lab Quality Procedures
- FSNS is an ISO 17025:2005 Accredited Lab
- Trace Level detection beyond required USDA Action Level (0.1 parts per billion)
- Validated for both Muscle and Liver Tissues
- Rapid Turnaround Time Options Available
**About Food Safety Net Services**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO, approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, please visit [FSNS](https://fsns.com/).com.
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [What We Need Are Facts and Faith, Not Fear, About Our Food Consumption](https://fsns.com/what-we-need-are-facts-and-faith-not-fear-about-our-food-consumption/)
**Published:** December 6, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University*
Have you ever thought how sad and childish it is that some companies can only sell their products by demeaning and vilifying the products of others? What’s worse is the “doomsday prognostications” of fear-based marketing – i.e., making shoppers believe that eating certain products would wound or kill you.
## Shoppers Make Purchasing Decisions in as Little as 1/20th of a Second
Forty thousand is the best estimate of average number of stock keeping units (SKUs) in US grocery stores and supermarkets.1 A study of eye tracking shows that shoppers spend fractions of seconds (in many cases, as little as 1/20th of a second) making a purchase decision.2 So, how can the marketer affect that decision?
Few shoppers take the time to read the ingredient list or scrutinize the nutrition facts panel. Some believe they can “tell a story” about their product by use of websites, smart labels, and QRs whereby shoppers can inform their decisions.3,4 Marketers can try to “tell their story”, but evidence shows that if you don’t complete it within 13 seconds, the listener moves on to the next issue.5 Most food companies originally used a “Good-For-You” marketing strategy based almost exclusively on nutritional or economical benefits (i.e., to personal health or in price).
## Product Labels Now Focus on What is *Not* in the Product
Over time, when a company or a product had declining – or even static – sales, marketing gurus were brought in to “stop the bleeding”. What used to work (emphasis on what’s “good about the product” or what’s “good for you” in terms of a balanced nutritional diet or cost savings) no longer did. What did seem to work during the first decade of the 2000s was marketing food based on “what it’s not.”
Less than 5% of all food labels used in 2017 mentioned “money”, “price”, or “economy”.6 A marketing expert said, “I am vexed by the change the food industry has made from presenting positive attributes (e.g., ‘High In Protein’) to putting negative claims (e.g., ‘No Additives’) on food labels.”7 What companies put on dairy product labels between 2006 and 2016 changed dramatically. The number of labels claiming…
- “High In Vitamins And Minerals” dropped by 62% while the claim “Hormone-Free” increased by more than 300%
- “Added Calcium” was down 61% while the “GMO-Free” claim increased by more than 1,000%7
The “Good-For-You” strategy had taken a turn to the left. By 2010, the fastest-growing claims among store brands (ranked below) emphasized “Low”, “No”, and “Free-Of” the following:
- (1) GMO-Free
- (2) Gluten-Free
- (3) Low In Saturated Fat
- (4) Low In Cholesterol
- (5) No Monosodium Glutamate
- (10) High Fructose Corn Syrup-Free
- (11) Hormone/Antibiotic-Free8
## “They” Influence Consumers’ Decisions
And, how is it that such things become important to consumers? Who else? “They.”
The unnamed “They” are the most insidious myth builders – friends, neighbors, TV, radio, or the Internet.9 Scientists from Stanford University and the University of Chicago looked at >3,000 social media posts by 181 “highly followed celebrities” and found that 88% of their recommendations for things to eat or drink were so “unhealthy” that it would be against the law in many countries to advertise them directly to children.10
## Marketers Concoct “Trends” to Push Sales
Food marketers have to dream up new marketing trends every day. Here’s what seems to be the solution:
1. Responding to noisy subgroups of the consuming public
2. Making something happen by repeatedly saying it is already happening
3. Knowing that marketing is a self-fulfilling prophecy; if two companies do it, or two surveys say it, that makes it a trend
4. Using a marketing strategy that involves “scaring consumers”11
Fear-based marketing is a strategy based upon “making people buy what you make” rather than “making what people want to buy” – creating an itch the shopper has to scratch.12 A few loud voices don’t represent majority opinions; decisions made at the behest of a misguided and tyrannical minority group with a megaphone – doing good for all of society – can have devasting unintended consequences.13 Inaccurate labels increase prices at the point of sale and create unnecessary burdens on farmers and small businesses.14
## “Fear-Based Marketing” Misleads Consumers
Food marketers seem to be catering to a few “loud” consumers who want something “taken out of food” and appear to be creating fear and even mass hysteria among others.15
Marketing doesn’t always depend on what consumers want or need; consumers didn’t want “Antibiotic-Free” until someone in industry noticed that food critics started pointing fingers at what they considered a “bad” production practice.16 Walk down a grocery store aisle and you’ll see a “Non-GMO” label on a can of tomatoes. This is “fear-based” marketing – [there are no GMO tomatoes](https://gmoanswers.com/current-gmos-crops-dont-include-tomatoes), so there is no chance it can be a GMO, yet it is labeled as though there could be.17
Tell them, “If you eat this it will make you fat or sick, or hasten climate warming, or make Monsanto™️ profitable.”18 What also works now is to call them something better than what it actually is, using the name of whatever is better. Tell them it’s a Cadillac when it’s actually a Ford; tell them it’s milk when it’s pulverized nuts or beans; tell them it’s meat when it’s really chickpeas.19 That’s “fear-based” marketing – scare the hell out of them so they won’t buy someone else’s product and maybe they’ll buy yours.20
It’s fear mongering that has happened to GMOs (originally called “Frankenfoods” by Greenpeace® and other activists); it’s the print media (selling advertising space) and telecommunications (selling viewing time opportunities); and it’s “me-too-marketers” that fan the flames.21
## Some Marketers Use Fear Because it Works
Fear is the most basic emotion we have; fear is primal; fear sells.22 You sell things in the “extremes”, you raise money in the extremes, you can get elected in the extremes. While you can win in the moment, you can’t live in extremes and you can’t succeed.23
Science can prove a “positive” claim if there is proof of a causal relationship; unfortunately, science cannot prove a “negative” claim, making it impossible for any science-based evaluation that there will never, ever be a reaction or outcome.24 This has allowed critics, activists, and fear-based marketers to have a perpetual heyday for unfounded claims.25 By 2015, some consumers were insisting that all food must be Non-GMO; Organic; Natural; No Pesticides; No Chemicals; No Toxins; Allergen-Free; and/or Gluten-Free because those are the things they “fear” or are “afraid of.”26
## The Origin of Fear-Based Food Marketing
Jayson Lusk, Ph.D. (Oklahoma State University) believes “fear-based” marketing started in the 1970s when sellers of “Natural” and “Organic” food products stoked peoples’ fears in order to help market their own products.27 The food industry has played a huge role in labeling that food does not contain this or that. It is “All Natural” even though no one knows what is “Natural.” Some poultry processors claim “No Antibiotics”, but no chicken in the food supply contains antibiotics. Some dairy foods claim “No Hormones”, but all dairy milk contains naturally occurring hormones.28 The food industry has to stop catering to those who make claims based on one or two studies.28
## “If You Eat Rabbit Stew, You’ll Begin to Hop”
In 1994, when Flavor Savor® was about to be the first GMO approved by FDA, Greenpeace® called it “Frankenfood”, and critics claimed that it would result in its monopolization of the plant-seed business by its creator, Monsanto™️.29 Activists claimed a litany of repercussions if a GMO food was ever approved (e.g., it would come at the expense of the US, our markets, capitalization, farmers, consumers, national security, our liberty, and our freedom).30 Some in the public think, “If they eat rabbit stew, they will begin to hop”.31 Others believe, “if you eat a banana, you might turn into a banana.”32 Hollywood, television programs, social media, and food marketers have promoted the idea that there are “mad scientists” that create monsters; food marketers use it to scare shoppers into buying only those products with “Non-GMO” on the package.24 Truth is, when you eat a plant or animal, all of the DNA in them is destroyed,32 and we’ve been eating GMO food for decades (e.g., almost all corn products, canola oil, and sugar are GMOs) with no negative effects on public health.24
## Alternative-Meat Marketers Make Big Claims
The most egregious use of fear-based marketing has been that of [plant-based alternatives for meat](https://fsns.com/cell-cultured-meat/), milk, and poultry. Beyond Meat™️ uses a marketing recipe containing two parts “good for you” and six parts “fear-based” (No-GMOs, “No Synthetic Additives”, “No Antibiotics”, “No Carcinogens”, “No Hormones”, and “No Cholesterol”).33 Patrick Brown (Impossible Foods™️) says, “I’m confident that by 2035 there will be no global animal agriculture industry. Animal agriculture must be eliminated; it’s the planet’s biggest problem, and history’s most destructive technology”.34
Eat Just™️ claims that animal agriculture is unsustainable because it negatively impacts the following:
- Human health, due to nutrition and food safety issues
- Social issues such as undervaluing farmers around the globe
- Environmental issues such as pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change
- Animal issues such as animal abuse35
A representative of the Good Food Institute recently claimed that the world is sleepwalking into climate catastrophe and the government needs to enact policies toward changing people’s lifestyles and behaviors by promoting plant-based products over meat consumption.36 Alternative proteins can have a spot on the plate, but they should focus on their own merits rather than using fear-based campaigns to denigrate animal source foods.37
## Activists Use Fear to Drive Changes
“Climate-Change”, “Next-Pandemic”, and “Vegan” activists have joined the “fear-based” and “absence-claims” chorus. Patrick Moore (the founder of Greenpeace®) says, “Climate-Change activists use scare-stories, half-truths, and Fear-Based speculations about carbon emissions caused by humans resulting in climate change with no hard evidence that any of the temperature/weather anomalies have been or will be triggered by human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide.”38
Animal-rights extremists are pointing to COVID-19 to develop “Pandemic Potential”; they are claiming that the next pandemic is brewing on large-scale livestock and poultry farms.39 “Next Pandemic” fear will end when society decides to resume normal life because consumers no longer “fear the worst.”40
## Separating Meat From Masculinity
The United Nations is supporting a concerted campaign to “dissociate meat and masculinity” using mass media, social media, and influencers (like celebrity chefs) to attack the relationship between meat eating and stereotypically male traits, and positively relate consumption of plant-based foods with these traits.41 While people might switch to a plant-based diet as a “guilt-free alternative” with the best intentions, unseen risks might show up years later; PBMAs have major deficiencies in fatty acids, essential amino acids, heme iron, and vitamin B12.42
## Record Number of Lawsuits Filed Against Food Companies
Misinformation is being normalized; there’s strength in numbers. A record 220 lawsuits were filed against food companies in 2020 for “false or deceptive” labeling claims; most prevalent were supposed misuse of the terms “Natural”, “Wholesome”, “Humane”, “Free-Range”, “Sustainable”, and “Place-Of-Origin.”43 It is absurd that one federal Agency (USDA) [requires an ingredient list](https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/) (i.e., what is not (absence claims).44 The remedy for disallowing “absence claims” lies in FDA and USDA, working together, pursuing resolution by the White House and/or the US Congress.44
Animal agriculture is shooting itself in the foot by allowing use of this nonsense. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack says, “We all lose when food manufacturers use ‘absence claims’ on labels that play on consumer fears, hoping they will gain market-share advantages.”45
## Move to Reject Fear-Based Food Marketing
Shoppers are fatigued from making purchase decisions based on “fear”. The first thing companies need to do to regain consumer trust is to tell their stories so that consumers feel safe and grounded.46 The produce industry has developed a “Facts, Not Fear” campaign to help guide consumers’ shopping choices.47 Miller and Cohrssen say, “Let’s stop the fear-mongering in food labeling that promotes unwarranted consumer fears.”44 We don’t want a world in which everybody is fearful of their food; most people want a world in which people feel good about the food they’re eating and believe that the food they’re eating is contributing to a healthier life.48
**REFERENCES**:
1 Lobato, Armond. 2018. The Packer. November 15 Issue.
2 Priest, Tim. 2017. Food Processing. September Edition.
3 Kelly, Susan. 2018. Meatingplace. June 8 Issue.
4 Bloom, Gregory. 2018. Meatingplace. October 11 Issue.
5 Butler, John. 2020. Progressive Beef. May 9 Issue.
6 Mintel Database. 2017. November 12 Issue.
7 Stanton, John. 2018. Food Processing. January Edition.
8 Pirovano, Thomas. 2010. U.S. Healthy-Eating Trends. February Edition.
9 Stanton, John. 2014. Food Processing. October Edition.
10 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2022. Food Processing. January 14 Issue.
11 Smith, Gary. 2018. California/Arizona Cattle Feeders Convention. May 13 Issue.
12 Stanton, John. 2019. Food Processing. April Edition.
13 Kreiger, Angie. 2019. Meatingplace. July 1 Issue.
14 Kelly, Susan. 2018. Meatingplace. June 8 Issue.
15 Stanton, John. 2017. Food Processing. October Edition.
16 Uetz, Michael. 2019. Midan Marketing. May 24 Issue.
17 Pagel, Kelsey. 2019. CALF News. November Edition.
18 Keefe, Lisa. 2017. Meatingplace. September 1 Issue.
19 Smith, Gary, 2019. Texas A&M University. March 26 Issue.
20 Smith, Gary. 2020. Colorado State University. November 29 Issue.
21 Smith, Gary. 2019. Texas A&M University. March 10 Issue.
22 Pharo, Kit. 2021. Pharo Cattle Company. December 22 Issue.
23 Blake, John. 2022. CNN. June 4 Issue.
24 Burton, Steve. 2022. Food Processing. May 27 Issue.
25 Smith, Gary. 2021. Texas A&M University. August Issue.
26 Schroeder, Joanna. 2016. Food Quality & Safety. March 5 Issue.
27 Radke, Amanda. 2015. BEEF. July 13 Issue.
28 Stanton, John. 2018. Food Processing. June Edition.
29 Smith, Gary. 2019. Texas A&M University. March 3 Issue.
30 Meatingplace. 2017. September 5 Issue.
31 Manella, Carmen. 2008. Genetic Engineering News. January 15 Issue.
32 Van Eeneennaam, Alison. 2018. BEEF. May Edition.
33 Food Processing. 2020. April Edition.
34 McMahon, Jeff. 2021. Forbes. November 5 Issue.
35 O’Donnell, Claudia. 2022. Food Processing. January 31 Issue.
36 Bloom, Gregory. 2022. Meatingplace. June 30 Issue.
37 Thompson-Weeman, Hannah. 2021. Meatingplace. June 1 Issue.
38 Bloom, Gregory. 2022. Meatingplace. March 24 Issue.
39 Thompson-Weeman, Hannah. 2022. Meatingplace. March 22 Issue.
40 Doshi, Peter, 2021. British Medical Journal. December 16 Issue.
41 Thompson-Weeman, Hannah, 2021. Meatingplace. June 29 Issue.
42 Park, William. 2020. The Vegan Factor. January 29 Issue.
43 Gibson, Kate. 2021. Meatingplace. September 10 Issue.
44 Miller, H. and J. Cohrssen. 2021. Genetic Literacy Project. September 7 Issue.
45 Vilsack, Tom. 2021. Genetic Literacy Project. September 7 Issue.
46 Sowder, Amy. 2021. The Packer. September 29 Issue.
47 Karst, Tom. 2021. The Packer. September 17 Issue.
48 Bricher, Julie. 2021. Meatingplace. September Edition.
**Categories:** General
---
### [How These Technological Advancements in Detection of Foreign and Extraneous Material in Food Can Help You](https://fsns.com/how-these-technological-advancements-in-detection-of-foreign-and-extraneous-material-in-food-can-help-you/)
**Published:** June 7, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University
USDA’s FR, HACCPS began with the intent of identifying and then controlling three kinds of hazards. Physical hazards took a third seat because we were told that, of all foodborne illness incidents/outbreaks, 94% of the causes were biological, 4% were chemical, and 2% were physical.1
Justifiably, food safety professionals focused on microbiological and chemical contamination because of the severity of those hazards on private and public health.2 The focus has shifted dramatically over the past decade, largely because of the [frequency with which presence of foreign and extraneous material (FEM) causes recalls](https://fsns.com/extraneous-foreign-material-in-food-safety-consumer-displeasure/), product withdrawals, safety alerts, consumer complaints, and economic losses.2
A 2017 analysis of combined FDA and USDA recalls revealed that the Top 3 causes were: (1) undeclared allergens, (2) wrong ingredients, and (3) FEM.3 By 2019, it was reported that: (a) FEM had surged to become the No.1 cause of recalls in recent years,4 and (b) FEM contamination accounted for 75% of the total volume of food recalled by FSIS.5
## **Why Have FEM Recalls Increased So Dramatically?**
It’s a combination of:
1. FDA mandated the listing of FEM Recalls in a Reportable Food Registry.6
2. An FSIS Rule requiring 24-hour notification of FEM contamination.7
3. The requirement to notify FSIS if the company received consumer complaints about FEM.8
4. Lower tolerance for FEM by customers and consumers.2
5. The litigious nature of FEM.2
## **FEM Contamination the Leading Cause of USDA Recalls in Q1-2019**
Plastics were the most common contaminate, being found in 40% of recalled products; millions of pounds of food became landfill or was rendered.9 For the expanded period of November 2018 to April 2020, there were at least 23 USDA or FDA FEM recalls. Six of those recalls originated from consumer complaints, including the three largest ones:
1. Tyson Foods™, 11,829,517 pounds of chicken strips;10
2. Con Agra™, 276,872 pounds of chicken and turkey bowls;11
3. Johnsonville™, 95,393 pounds of sausage.12
For 16 of the 23 recalls, a specific FEM was called-out; 7 said “plastic,” 5 said “rubber,” 2 said “metal,” and 2 said “choking hazard.”13 (Both FDA and USDA allow front-of-packaging labeling, warning that a bottle-cap or product-size poses a choking hazard.)
## **What Foreign and Extraneous Matter is Contaminating Food the Most?**
FEM recalls of USDA-regulated product (2017 through 2020) were identified as follows:
1. Foreign matter
2. Extraneous material
3. Glass; glass fragments
4. Metal; metal fragments
5. Small rocks
6. Wood
7. Pieces of bone material
8. Rubber; rubber pieces; flexible pink rubber
9. Plastic; soft purple plastic; thin blue plastic pieces; hard green plastic; clear pliable plastic, hard plastic; styrofoam13, 14
## **Tools to Prevent Foreign and Extraneous Matter from Contaminating Food**
With all these recalls and economic losses, we must admit that we’re doing something wrong – or not doing enough. Too many fish are slipping through the net.
There’s no question that “Prevention” (i.e. keeping FEM out)15, 16, “Best Practices”4, FMPP/FMCPP2,17 and developing the right “culture”18, 19, 20 are essential, but “Detection And Removal” prevents entry of FEM-contaminated products into commerce.
### **Ways to “Sort or Remove” FEMs**
A compilation of “Things That Sort Or Remove” FEMs by FDA, USDA, BRC, and SQF1, 6, 21, 22, 23 lists the following:
- Visual inspection
- Magnet
- Screen
- Sifter
- Riffle board
- Bone separator
- Filter
- Sieve
- Stone trap
- Gravity separation
- Fluid bed technology
- Floatation chamber
- Washing steps
- Small parts test fixture used for toys
### **“Things That Detect” Foreign and Extraneous Matter**
A compilation by FDA, USDA, BRC, and SQF1, 6, 21, 22, 23 lists the following:
- Metal detector
- X-ray equipment
- UV-light equipment
- Laser equipment
- Optical sorting equipment
As FEM has surged to become the No. 1 cause of recalls, equipment manufacturers have reacted by increasing the precision and accuracy of detection and/or removal of FEM by their x-ray, magnetic, sensor, vision, and imaging instruments.4
## **Tips for Developing a Foreign Material Prevention Program (FMPP)**
When you develop a Foreign Material Prevention Program (FMPP), start by determining whether you are *purchasing* FEM (in the raw materials) or *creating* FEM (during manufacturing); this will determine where you should place technology-based detection systems.2
Most customers require location of a detection instrument (usually a metal detector or x-ray instrument) at the last point in the processing or manufacturing chain – just before it is finally prepared for shipment to the retailer.
### **Determine the Origin of the Foreign or Extraneous Matter**
In-plant inspection to determine the origin of FEM includes the following:
1. Examine FEMs using appropriate forensic tools like microscopes and x-ray fluorescence.
2. Establish whether the source is internal or external to the plant.
3. Determine where the FEM enters product flow.
4. Identify the means by which the FEM entered the contaminated products.
5. Redesign the process to eliminate the root cause and implement systems to manage the risk.24
### **Identify the Type of FEM**
Identifying the type of FEM is the first step; the Reading Scientific Services Ltd. (RSSL) in the United Kingdom uses the following:
- Light microscopy (for general morphology).
- X-ray microfluorescence (for types of glass, steels, and other alloys).
- Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) (for even the smallest FEMs).
- Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (FTIR) (for organic materials like fibers and polymers).7, 25
## **The Food Industry Needs Next-Generation Detection Equipment**
The food industry has used visual inspection, sieves, screens, magnets, and metal detectors for decades; but it is low-density FEM (e.g. blue gloves, combo liners, belting, ear plugs, hair nets, labels) that now so often elude detection. So, next-generation detection equipment (using high-definition color-based technology and x-ray technology) are now being used to augment our ability to detect FEM in our food.26
Most food processing facilities use one or more of the five primary detection methods:
1. X-ray
2. Metal detection
3. Optical sorting
4. Magnets
5. Sieve or screen separation systems
The biggest problem? Plastic – especially soft, rather than hard, plastics because none of those five detection methods is really very reliable for detecting small pieces of it.18
Risk is not a “Yes” or “No” question.27 Certain FEMs present more of a problem than others; some can be found readily through technology, while for others, like thin clear plastics, it’s going to be very difficult.27 The 2019 Tyson™ recall of almost 12 million pounds of chicken strips was a result of the use of metal detectors that were unable to detect tiny particles of stainless steel that originated from wire conveyor belts.28
## **These Companies are Using New Tools with Great Success**
Sorters, filters, sieves, and magnets are typically used with fruits, vegetables, liquids, and powders.7 A second, more sophisticated sorting level uses cameras, lasers, plus infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) radiation; cameras look at color and shape, while lasers, IR, and UV analyze reflections (e.g., UV detects the chlorophyll in feces).7
Although it occurs very rarely, line-workers have been known to “get even” with supervisors or the company by intentionally putting FEM in food products.29 [Company culture should encourage employees to be vigilant](https://fsns.com/developing-a-strong-food-safety-culture/) – “if you see something, say something.”
Cognex Corporation™, using as few as five images and the In-Sight 2800® series vision system as a classifying tool, can quickly be trained to identify and sort defects into different categories.30 Cantrell•Gainco™ has introduced a new Foreign Material Inspection System® that uses color-based inspection technology to find low density FEM like blue gloves; combo liners; plastic and polymer belting material; O-ring ear plugs; as well as beard and hair nets.31 P&P Optica™ Vision-Based Detection Systems® use multi-spectral vision to see 15 colors – including white paper, white cotton gloves, or clear plastic; it’s hyperspectral can be taught “what to look for” using artificial intelligence, operating on the production-line in real time.5
## **The Top FEM-Control Technologies**
In an article entitled “Getting Rid of Just Enough,” Pan Demetrakakes said, “In-line inspection systems have to reliably weed out FEM contamination and defective product without being too finicky. The goals of quality-control inspection systems are simple; find stuff in the product that’s not supposed to be there, and get rid of it – while getting rid of as little product as possible.32
Top technologies for FEM control identified by two experts are the following:
(a) Sorters, filters, and magnets
(b) Cameras, lasers, and IR/UV radiations
(c) Metal detectors and x-ray systems
(d) Updated versions of metal detectors (e.g., use of 5-voltage frequencies at once) and x-ray systems (e.g., using multiple beams and imaging software)7
## **The Limitations of Metal Detectors for Identifying FEMs**
Metal detectors can be flummoxed by “product effects” and odd shapes (e.g., long, thin ones or very tiny particles).32 Metal objects change the electromagnetic field and generate a voltage signal in FEMs. In x-rays, foreign objects with higher density will attenuate more energy, producing a darker area in the image.7 The detection capability of both systems is limited by the so-called “product effect”, which can cause false positives or negatives.7 In metal detectors, “product effect” is the phenomenon whereby the product and the contaminate generate a similar signal at the same frequency.7
## **These Improved Metal-Detection Technologies are Helping Food Safety Professionals**
Improved technologies for metal detection include the following:
- **Fortress™ Interceptor Divergent Field®** inspects low profile (e.g., slices of cheese and deli meats) vertically and horizontally to achieve the highest possible sensitivity. It is especially sensitive to small, very thin metal contaminant flakes and foils that are very difficult to detect on low profile foods.33, 34
- **Mettler-Toledo Safeline™ Signature® systems** find ferrous and non-ferrous tramp metal, non-magnetic stainless steel, non-spherical fine-wire fragments, plus it creates a memory storage bank. On production lines where multiple different kinds of food are produced, the memory storage bank rapidly accounts for differences in “product effect.”35
- **Eriez Manufacturing™** produces magnetic separators (for tubes, grates, traps, etc.) and Xtreme Metal Detectors™ that use “rare earth magnets” to generate the greatest known “pull strength” to remove micron-sized ferrous material particles, rust, fine stainless steel, aluminum, and brass from food products.34,36, 38, 39 The Xtreme Metal Detector™ incorporates Enhanced Platform technology, which allows it to account for “product effect.”37
- **ABM Equipment™** is using new hardware and software from Eagle™ to detect FEM in food products half the size previously possible; it can detect FEM fragments as small as 0.3mm (0.117 inch).40
- **ThermoFisher Scientific™ Selectscan®** can find metal objects that are 25% smaller than previous technology. Autolearn™ in Selectscan® rapidly identifies the ideal frequency (from 50 to 1,000 kHz) to maximize probability of detection, tunes out “product effect”, and adapts results to account for temperature changes and electromagnetic interference.41
## **Improved Technologies for Non-Metallic FEM Detection**
Technologies for non-metallic FEM defects include the following:
- **Eagle Product Inspection™** offers RMI 400®, an advanced x-ray inspection machine that detects contaminants that include bone, stainless steel, aluminum, glass, and stone.42
- Sesotec™ offers **RAYCON® x-ray scanners** that detect magnetic and non-magnetic metals, glass, ceramic, stone, raw bones, and several types of plastics. 42
- Mettler-Toledo™ offers an **x-ray Reinspection Program®** that allows food companies to reinspect quarantined product without shutting down ongoing production; after initial detection, the x-ray system can be configured to maximize detection for that particular contaminant.43
- Colorado State University researchers and JBS-USA are conducting trials on an **OXOS™ hand-held, radioactive imaging detection apparatus** that is portable and can be used to identify sources of FEM anywhere and everywhere food travels during processing.44
- Eagle Product Inspection™ has developed **Pack 400 HC with PXT®**, which detects bone fragments down to 1mm.45
- Mettler-Toledo™ Safeline® now has **Model X33 and Model X36 x-ray scanners** that multi-task for manufacturers of packaged goods; metal detectors just detect metal (and reject packages wrapped in foil). These x-ray scanners detect all FEMs, don’t reject packages that have a foil component, and check each package for fill volume.46
Of interest is that most manufacturers of dairy novelties use x-ray scanners rather than metal detectors because, over the years, fruit pits and nut shells remain the most prevalent consumer complaints, insects are second, and glass and stones are common.47
“Elastomers” (i.e., springy, resilient, flexible rubber or plastic materials used to close or connect crevices or connections in a series of pipes or tubes) and rubber that provide elasticity to gaskets, O-rings, screens, sheets, and scrapers, degrade over time. As a result, rubber/elastomer fragments often enter food streams and are missed by metal detectors and x-ray inspections. Rubber Fab™ makes Detectomer Products® which, as “Detectomer fragments”, can be blended into the other components used to manufacture gaskets, O-rings, etc., thereby making the fragments detectable by x-ray and metal detectors.48
## **Prepare for Pre-Pandemic Recall Levels**
There was a pronounced decline in recalls in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. FDA recalls averaged 607 between 2015 and 2020, 389 in 2020 and 342 in 2021.49 USDA recalls averaged 130 between 2015 and 2020, 31 in 2020, and 45 in 2021.49
With regulatory scrutiny set to increase in 2022 and beyond, food processors should anticipate a return to pre-pandemic recall volumes.49 On average, the cost of a food safety recall is going to be anywhere from $10 to $30 million; some exceed hundreds of millions of dollars.50 There is also the potential harm to the consumer in the form of illness or possibly even death.50
Food companies like Sysco™ factor into their earnings projections, Reputational Risk (damage to their brand), Legal Risk (litigation costs), and Shareholder Risk (declines in publicly traded stock value) of potential recalls.50 In today’s food processing environment we’re also seeing individuals being held criminally liable for food safety recalls.50
[FSNS offers a full range of analysis for foreign and extraneous matter in food](https://fsns.com/), while [Certified Laboratories, our partner company under the Certified Group umbrella, specializes in food forensics and filth testing](https://certified-laboratories.com/filth-testing/?__hstc=187690167.40f942fd254d7bf7adc0fea5960c389d.1686329846311.1689624081235.1689637079376.58&__hssc=187690167.14.1689637079376&__hsfp=2924083047).
References
1. Pawluczyk, Olga. 2021. Food Quality & Safety. July Edition.
2. FSPC Alliance. 2016. Preventive Controls For Human Foods. First Edition.
3. Tolu, Andrea. 2020. Food Quality & Safety. November Edition.
4. Belk, Keith. 2022. Colorado State University. August 24 Issue.
5. McCarthy, Ryan. 2019. Meat + Poultry. June 6 Issue.
6. McCarthy, Ryan. 2019. Meat + Poultry. May 6 Issue.
7. Keefe, Lisa. 2020. Meatingplace. May 25 Issue.
8. McCarthy, Ryan. 2019. Meat + Poultry. June 3 Issue.
9. Smith, Gary. 2021. Texas A & M University. May 16 Issue.
10. Smith, Gary. 2021. Texas A & M University. February 8 Issue.
11. Butts, John. 2018. Food Safety Magazine. September Edition.
12. Seyfert, Mark. 2021. Food Safety Magazine. June 17 Issue.
13. Sims, Bob. 2021. Meat + Poultry. September 16 Issue.
14. Williamson, Sherry. 2020. Food Safety Magazine. November Edition.
15. Jesperson et al. 2020. Food Safety Magazine. March Edition.
16. Sharman, Nic. 2021. Food Safety Magazine. August 22 Issue.
17. BRC.2017. Implementing BRC Standards. August Edition.
18. SQF. 2014. Implementing SQF Standards. May Edition.
19. Smith, Gary. 2018. FSNS: HACCP Compared To PCHF Class. March Edition.
20. Henderson, Matt. 2020. Meatingplace. June Edition.
21. Wright, David. 2020. Food Quality & Safety. November Edition.
22. Cantrell•Gainco.2020. National Provisioner. September Edition.
23. Davis, De Ann. 2020. Food Quality & Safety. November Edition.
24. Finstad, Suzanne. 2022. MeatingPod. July 20 Issue.
25. Gibson, Kate. 2022. Meatingplace. August 29 Issue.
26. Food Quality & Safety. 2022. July Edition.
27. Gibson, Kate. 2021. Meatingplace. August 13 Issue.
28. Demetrakakes, Pan. 2020. Food Processing. May Edition.
29. Johnston, Tom. 2021. Meatingplace. August 4 Issue.
30. Food Quality & Safety. 2022. July Edition.
31. Bissell, Hadley. 2022. Food Processing. August Edition.
32. Laughman, Casey. 2020. Food Engineering. August 27 Issue.
33. Stevens Strategic Communications. 2021. October 12 Issue.
34. Laughman, Casey. 2021. Food Engineering. September 21 Issue.
35. Food Processing. 2022. July 26 Issue.
36. Cassa, John. 2021. Dairy Processing. June 1 Issue.
37. Food Engineering. 2020. November 6 Issue.
38. Food Safety Magazine. 2018. March Edition.
39. Food Safety Magazine. 2020. September Edition.
40. Belk, Keith. 2022. Colorado State University. August 17 Issue.
41. Food Processing. 2022. July Edition.
42. Food Processing. 2020. February Edition.
43. Putch, Kristen. 2021. Dairy Processing. July 1 Issue.
44. Food Safety Magazine. 2018. September Edition.
45. Ricci, Peter. 2022. Meatingplace. February Edition.
46. Barr, Brian. 2022. Food Processing. August Edition.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Certified Group Partners with Groundswell Strategy to Strengthen Their Position as Food Safety Experts](https://fsns.com/certified-group-partners-with-groundswell-strategy/)
**Published:** August 17, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**SAN ANTONIO, August 17, 2022/PRNewswire/**
Certified Group, a leading provider of laboratory testing services for customers working in FDA and USDA-regulated markets, today announced a partnership with Groundswell Strategy. The partnership enables Certified Group companies, Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) and EAS Consulting Group (EAS), leading North American providers of laboratory testing and regulatory consulting services, to engage with customers to meet regulatory compliance objectives, ultimately helping respond to and prevent foodborne illness.
**[Read more](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/certified-group-partners-with-groundswell-strategy-to-strengthen-their-position-as-food-safety-experts-301607439.html)**
**Categories:** News
---
### [FSNS Supports Local Students with FFA Projects](https://fsns.com/fsns-supports-local-students-with-ffa-projects/)
**Published:** April 29, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**—April 29, 2019 – Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) understands the importance of agricultural education and recognizes that students will be the future leaders of the world. With the growing population, the agriculture industry needs motivated and passionate students to lead the next generation. Since 1994, FSNS has supported the National FFA and local associations and chapters.
FSNS strives to connect and assist students with their FFA projects. FSNS wants the students they work with to pursue their aspirations while gaining career and leadership skills through hands-on experience in the laboratory. Networking with the students not only helps spread knowledge of food safety but also builds awareness and a true understanding of what FSNS does.
Daniella Burleson, a former FFA member who FSNS worked with on her project learned the importance of food safety during her time in the lab. “I had no idea that there was so much science and work behind the products on grocery store shelves. It gave me an appreciation for our farmers, our ranchers, our food processors, our scientists, and every other hand involved in getting food from the ground to our shelves,” said Burleson. Burleson’s project researched how food processors reduce milk fat content from raw milk to skim, 1%, 2%, and whole milk. Her project, Got Milk: A Study Testing the Sonification of Fat Globules in Dairy Emulsions, won first place in the food processing category at state and second overall for food processing at nationals. She also won Grand Champion at the Houston Livestock Show and received over $4,000 in scholarships.
Coby Wellman and Hannah Taylor are the most recent FFA students that FSNS has worked with. Taylor invented a device that expands the life of fresh-cut flowers while blooming them faster and larger through aerated bacterial reduction. “Food Safety Net Services assisted my project by providing the funding and the help for bacteria, fungus and mold tests so that I could properly evaluate the effect of my invention. Through this, I could determine the types of pathogens that my invention is reducing,” said Taylor. Taylor’s device is currently in the process of being patented. Wellman’s project compared Sonication Bath and Ultraviolet Light on the Reduction of *Escherichia coli*. “In my research, I discovered many different machines that are suitable methods for decontamination of bacteria in agriculture and I wanted to find out which machinery would be the most effective,” said Wellman. Wellman plans to continue his research and pursue a career in food science.
FSNS’ goal is to help build the next generation of agriculturalists and scientists by supporting the goals of students through education and research. FSNS believes that FFA and similar programs are crucial to bringing students into the agriculture and food industries. Students will be integral to the success of these industries in years to come. FSNS hopes the ongoing support will continue to attract new talent and spread the importance of food safety.
**About Food Safety Net Services** Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF, and PAACO approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit [FSNS](https://fsns.com/).
\###
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [JBS Global Food Innovation Center Named in Honor of FSNS Board Member Gary Smith](https://fsns.com/jbs-global-food-innovation-center-named-in-honor-of-fsns-board-member-gary-smith/)
**Published:** May 14, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Last month, the JBS Global Food Innovation Center in Honor of Gary & Kay Smith opened its doors. The USDA-FSIS-inspected facility is a 36,000-square-foot center that is located in the Animal Sciences Building at Colorado State University. The state-of-the-art-facility will be used for teaching and research in meat processing. The $20 million center is also home to Where Food Comes From Market, a retail store where students sell their prepared meat products.
Smith and his late wife, Kay, are the namesakes of the new center in recognition of the work Smith did at Colorado State. Smith began working at CSU in 1990, where he was named Endowed Chair. Through his time at CSU, Smith did intensive research and developed many programs. Smith’s current role at CSU is as a special contributor to the president of CSU, he also teaches annually at the International Livestock Forum.
The JBS Global Food Innovation Center in Honor of Gary & Kay Smith includes a new modern chemistry and microbiology laboratory named for the Bellinger Family and Food Safety Net Services. “Largely because of the contributions made by the Bellinger’s and FSNS, CSU has as good of a microbiology and chemistry laboratory as anyone in the U.S.,” said Smith. The next generation of CSU students will now have the best tools to achieve their goals.
Smith has a long history with John Bellinger and FSNS.”Dr. Gary Smith has been a mentor to me for over 45 years,” said Bellinger. Smith and Bellinger met in 1976, when Smith offered Bellinger a graduate assistantship to complete his Masters of Science and coach the Texas A&M Meat Judging team. Smith also went on to help Bellinger start the Houston Livestock Show Intercollegiate Meat Judging Contest, and found FSNS. Smith currently serves on the FSNS Board of Directors.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Cole Tautges Joins FSNS as Vice President of Chemistry Operations](https://fsns.com/cole-tautges-joins-fsns-as-vice-president-of-chemistry-operations/)
**Published:** May 21, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**—May 21, 2019 – [Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com/) (FSNS) announced that Cole Tautges has joined the company as Vice President of Chemistry Operations. Tautges brings an abundance of leadership and intelligence from his involvement with various companies. As Vice President of Chemistry Operations, Tautges will be responsible for all aspects of chemistry at FSNS.
“Tautges brings many years of valuable chemistry experience and management skills to our company,” said John Bellinger, CEO of FSNS. “We look forward to having Tautges develop the FSNS chemistry business into the best in North America.”
Prior to joining FSNS, Tautges worked at Covance in their Nutritional Chemistry and Food Safety department. He oversaw various methodologies including proximate chemistry, amino acids, sugars, fiber analysis and special projects. Tautges moved to Harrogate, England for a period of time to hire staff and establish a new chemistry laboratory in the United Kingdom. More recently, he was the Laboratory Manager for Pharmaceutical Product Development (PPD). He also led the creation of the Reference Standard Services group, which focused on validations, qualifications, certification, storage and distribution of standards and critical reagents.
**About Food Safety Net Services**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO, approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit [FSNS](https://fsns.com/).
\###
**Categories:** News, Press Release
---
### [FSNS Certification& Audit and Nolan Ryan Beef Partner Together for Inaugural Temple Grandin Responsible Cattle Care Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-and-nolan-ryan-beef-partner-together-for-inaugural-temple-grandin-responsible-cattle-care-audit/)
**Published:** June 10, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Food Safety Net Services Certification and Audit (FSNS C&A) has announced the creation of the FSNS C&A Temple Grandin Responsible Cattle Care Program. The program was developed under the guidance of Dr. Temple Grandin, driven by science, founded in practicality, and dedicated to continuing Dr. Grandin’s tireless service to the meat industry, and her core purpose of continuing to improve animal welfare.
Suppliers volunteer to participate in this innovative approach to improving the conditions under which cattle are managed throughout their life. This system focuses on objective scoring at meat harvesting facilities for indicators of responsible care and management of animals intended for human consumption. Participants in this program have committed themselves to developing a management system that uses routine monitoring to enhance the lives of the animals on which we depend. This is achieved by assessing the condition of animals received at the meat processing facility. Several of the measures that will be monitored at the plant are lameness, cleanliness, injuries, and internal health. While this program provides a means for greatly improving animal welfare through the reduction of serious welfare issues, it cannot measure cattle handling or painful procedures that occur prior to arrival at the meat processing plant.
Nolan Ryan Beef® is the first beef company to utilize the FSNS C&A Temple Grandin Responsible Cattle Care Audit to assess animal conditions prior to harvest. This audit occurs in addition to annual third–party animal welfare audits conducted at their partner facility that monitor humane handling at the meat processing facility. During this audit, animals are inspected upon arrival the plant for lameness, health condition, injuries, cleanliness, and signs of overall level of care from their previous point of ownership. Only suppliers providing proper animal care will be included in the Nolan Ryan Beef®.
Nolan Ryan, Texas rancher and majority owner of Nolan Ryan Beef®, shares “As a lifetime cattle rancher who has a heart and passion for animals, I’m honored to partner with FSNS C&A and Dr. Grandin in the utilization of this program. We feel this is an essential step in ensuring the continuous improvement of animal welfare throughout the supply chain.” Perry Coughlin, President and CEO of Nolan Ryan Beef®, adds “We understand the proper care and handling of livestock is an ethical responsibility for everyone involved in this industry. Not only does it make good business sense, but it aligns with our mission and core values.”
FSNS C&A recognizes the lifelong commitment of Dr. Temple Grandin to improving the lives of animals raised for food. Both Dr. Grandin and FSNS C&A also recognize the critical role of animal production as part of a sustainable food system. Recognizing this, FSNS C&A and Dr. Grandin believe that it is imperative that those involved in food animal production have the highest commitment to animal husbandry and demonstrate their commitment through such venues as third-party verification of compliance with high standards. The role of independent, third-party verification is important in providing transparent assurance to consumers about practices used in animal production.
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [FSNS Adds New Food Testing Laboratory in Allentown, Pennsylvania](https://fsns.com/fsns-adds-new-food-testing-laboratory-in-allentown-pennsylvania/)
**Published:** July 30, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**—[Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com) (FSNS) has announced the opening of their latest, leading edge analytical testing laboratory for the food and consumables industry in the northeastern region of the United States. The 22,000 sq. ft. state-of-the-art facility is located in Allentown, Pennsylvania and will be adept to conduct all microbiological tests, allergen detection, and wet chemistry for the food industry. The laboratory also contains a 50-seat training room for FSNS education classes and customer use.
“We are excited to be able to service our existing and new customers in the Northeast U.S.” said John Bellinger, FSNS CEO. “We have an excellent, experienced team managing our Allentown laboratory who will take customer service in the region to a new level.”
For information on the FSNS Allentown laboratory or to take a tour of the facility please contact Tony Petrucci at 614-971-1396, anthony.petrucci@fsns.com or David Bosco at 559-443-2182, david.bosco@fsns.com.
**About Food Safety Net Services**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO, approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit [FSNS](https://fsns.com/).
\###
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [FSNS Announces New Food Testing Laboratory in Dodge City, Kansas](https://fsns.com/fsns-announces-new-food-testing-laboratory-in-dodge-city-kansas/)
**Published:** November 4, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**—[Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com) (FSNS) has announced the opening of their latest, leading edge analytical testing laboratory for the food and consumables industry in the central region of the United States. The state-of-the-art facility is located in Dodge City, Kansas and will be adept to conduct all microbiological tests, allergen detection, and wet chemistry for the food industry.
For information on the FSNS Dodge City laboratory, 1519 S. 2nd Avenue, Dodge City, KS 67801 or to take a tour of the facility please contact Sue Ann Seitz at 210.284.6863, sueann@fsns.com, or info@fsns.com.
**About Food Safety Net Services**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO, approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit [FSNS](https://fsns.com/).
\###
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [Krista Krish Joins FSNS as Business Development Manager](https://fsns.com/krista-krish-joins-fsns-as-business-development-manager/)
**Published:** November 5, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**—March 10, 2020 – [Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com/) (FSNS) is pleased to announce the appointment of Krista Krish, PhD, as Business Development Manager – East. She joins the Company from Ceva Animal Health, one of the world’s largest poultry vaccine manufacturers where she was Bacteriology Research and Development Scientist. Prior to this, she was Director of Food Safety at United Egg Producers.
Krista brings to FSNS a wealth of experience in microbiology with numerous publications and teaching engagements as well as business development in the food industry. She has consistently driven customer satisfaction as well as enhanced performance and business operations in high-growth, proactive and food-based environments. Her roles will include representing FSNS as the lead for technical business development in the poultry and egg industries.
“We welcome Krista to FSNS and are delighted to appoint a candidate of her caliber as Business Development Manager,” said Jeff Carpenter, SVP of Strategic Alliances. “This position highlights the increasing level of interest we are seeing for our food testing services on the east coast as well as all over the U.S. We look forward to benefiting from Krista’s vast experience and contact network to capture this demand and expand our market presence.”
**About Food Safety Net Services**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO, approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit [FSNS](https://fsns.com/).
\###
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [Valerie Smith Joins FSNS C&A as Technical Manager of Livestock Services](https://fsns.com/valerie-smith-joins-fsns-ca-as-technical-manager-of-livestock-services/)
**Published:** June 22, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**— June 24, 2020—[Food Safety Net Services Certification & Audit](http://www.fsnsaudit.com/) (FSNS C&A) announced the appointment of Valerie Smith, DVM, as Technical Manager of Livestock Services. FSNS C&A, the industry leader in food safety services, welcomes Dr. Smith where she will work toward expanding the company’s on-farm audit services.
Dr. Smith, who comes to FSNS C&A with more than 25 years of veterinary experience, obtained her B.S. in Pre-veterinary curriculum from Western Kentucky University and her Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine from Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. Smith is a licensed veterinarian in Kentucky and Tennessee, a PAACO certified auditor, Cow Signals Master Trainer, Food Armor Accredited and FARM Train the Trainer certified FARM 4.0 evaluator.
In her new role with FSNS C&A, Dr. Smith will conduct assessments of livestock certification programs, conduct audits and trainings, and work with producer groups to implement assessment and certification programs within the industry.
“We are very fortunate to have Valerie join the FSNS C&A team”, said John Bellinger, CEO of FSNS. “Her experience, knowledge, and passion for animal welfare are exemplary.”
Dr. Smith was most recently the Manager of Dairy Stewardship at Dean Foods and was primarily responsible for managing and training auditors for dairy evaluations and audits. In addition, she spent 20 years practicing veterinary medicine at the Animal Clinic of Glasgow as an Associate Veterinarian. Dr. Smith is also a member of DCWC, AABP, AVMA, KVMA, TVMA, NMC, KY Cattlemen’s Association, and an avid supporter of the FFA.
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [FSNS Debuts New Environmental Mapping and Data Management Program, “EMMA”](https://fsns.com/fsns-debuts-new-environmental-mapping-and-data-management-program-emma/)
**Published:** November 13, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX—** November 12, 2020–[Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com) (FSNS) has launched its new environmental monitoring and mapping application called EMMA. This powerful program, which is directly integrated with the FSNS LIMS, will allow food processors, plants and facilities to strategically manage their environmental monitoring program and trend their data based on the results.
EMMA can be used as an automated approach to ensure timely collection and submission of samples for testing, and generate alerts with real-time status updates. EMMA users can import one map of their facility or multiple maps of various zones to pinpoint each unique swab site. Within the system, specifications can be created for a color-coded pass or fail map for both quantitative and qualitative sampling results. Users can easily mine and track this data over time to monitor performance and ensure continuous improvement.
EMMA is fully customizable with solutions for routine sampling plans, customizable sampling plans, and the ability to set up plans for remediation of out of specification events. FSNS is pleased to offer this comprehensive environmental mapping and data management solution to its customers. For more information, contact Jeff Carpenter, SVP of Strategic Alliances at Food Safety Net Services, 210-668-6561 or .
**About Food Safety Net Services**
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit [FSNS](https://fsns.com/).
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [Is There A Bull’s-Eye On Salmonella](https://fsns.com/is-there-a-bulls-eye-on-salmonella/)
**Published:** August 13, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
There’s a new Food Safety “sheriff” in town–Mindy Brashears PhD–and we’re all wondering what she is going to emphasize during her period of FSIS-USDA service. Her stated intent is to first focus on, “Pathogen control, with an emphasis on *Salmonella*. We (FSIS) are working on many policies, as well as science-based approaches, to control *Salmonella* in meat and poultry in new and innovative ways,” (Chuck Jolley, Feedstuffs, July 5, 2019). That’s logical, and needed. Scallan et al. 2011 \[Emerging Infectious Diseases 17(1): 36-51\] informed us that *Salmonella* is the second “most likely to make you sick,” first in “most likely to kill you,” and third “most likely to kill you once you get it,” among the most common foodborne pathogens”.
From whence does it come? *“Salmonella* is prevalent in food, and food animals such as cattle, pigs, and chickens. Eating food contaminated with feces is the most common way that people become infected with *Salmonella.* In addition, it can be spread by people through cross-contamination and improper hand-hygiene,” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). Snyder et al. 2019 \[Journal of Food Protection 82(7): 1191-1199\] characterized 2,447 US outbreaks of salmonellosis and found that: (a) frequently implicated foods included eggs (12.5%), chicken (12.4%), and pork (6.5%), and (b) food commodities that were most commonly associated with multistate outbreaks were nuts, seeds, sprouts, and fruits. So, whatever Dr. Brashears does at USDA about *Salmonella,* she needs to work in concert with her counterparts at USDHHS because FDA regulates eggs, nuts, seeds, sprouts, and fruits. She knows that, and has reported that she is “working closely with Dr. Frank Yiannis (FDA).”
The feces of cattle, pigs, and chickens have been called-out as the culprit by CDC but other animals are also implicated in *Salmonella* contamination of foods. Smith and Riggs (Texas A&M University, July 12, 2019) summarized research findings by the APHIS-USDA National Wildlife Research Center which revealed that: (a) pathogenic bacteria that can be carried and transmitted by birds and wildlife to agricultural operations cause morbidity in livestock and subsequent illness in humans further along the food chain, (b) resident and/or maintenance hosts for *Salmonella* spp. and other enteric pathogens include mice, rats, raccoons, deer, elk, and birds (especially European starlings), and (c) rodents, game animals, wildlife, and birds exploit abundant and nutritious food sources (especially on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) and–in so doing–contaminate feed (in bunks) and water (in troughs) with *Salmonella enterica,* (Carlson *et al.*2011; Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 479-486). Taylor *et al.* 2015 (Proc. Beef Industry Safety Summit, Dallas, TX) reported presence of *Salmonella* spp. in 18.5% of South Texas feedlots; 10% were recovered from feed, 60% from soil, 10% from feces, and 20% from drinking water.
At the packer/processor level, meat and poultry companies have employed extensive microbiological interventions including: SOPs; GMPs; Sanitary Dressing Procedures; hot-water washes; chemical-solution rinses or sprays (e.g., acetic acid, lactic acid, peroxyacetic acid, acidified sodium chlorite, trisodium phosphate, cetylpyridinium chloride); diversion of high-risk materials; and proper chilling for fresh meat and poultry. For ready-to-eat products, strategies like risk zones, environmental contamination determinations, thermal processing, and high pressure processing have been employed to mitigate risk.
In cattle, it was initially thought that the *Salmonella* on and in beef products was from surface contamination that originated from the hide and intestinal tract, but Bosilevac *et al.* 2009 (App. Environ. Microbiol 75: 1892-1900) reported that *Salmonella* prevalence in ground beef was 4.2% vs. 0.8% on carcass surfaces. Subsequently, at least some of that disparity was traced to *Salmonella* located in peripheral lymph nodes–within intermuscular adipose tissue (i.e., seam fat). Attempts to determine how *Salmonella* find respite in lymph nodes relates–somehow– to the fact that *Salmonella* prevalence in peripheral lymph nodes from cattle in different feedlot environments differs dramatically depending on relative levels of *Salmonella* in/on feed, water, pen-surface materials, and hides of cohorts within the same pens, (Smith and Arnold, FSNS® Quarterly Newsletter, March 2016). Inclusion of direct-fed microbials (Brichta-Harhay *et al.* 2014; International Association of Food Protection, Abstract) in cattle diets has shown promise for reducing *Salmonella* prevalence in peripheral lymph nodes, but an attempt to develop a vaccine has not. Cernicchiaro*et al.* 2016; Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 13(9): 1-22) reported that a *Salmonella* SRP vaccine was not effective at reducing lymph node contamination in commercial feedlot cattle. Though some beef processors presently extract three to six of the major peripheral lymph nodes (popliteal, subiliac, superficial cervical, axillary, coxal, and iliofemoral) from beef trimmings during fabrication, more of the peripheral lymph nodes might need to be extracted, and more processors might need to adopt such extraction practice, (Smith and Arnold, 2016).
The Economic Research Service (ERS-USDA) concluded that, each year, foodborne illnesses cost the US economy more than $15.6 billion, cause 8.9 million cases, send 53,245 persons to hospitals, and take the lives of 2,377; Number 1 among major foodborne pathogens is nontyphoidal *Salmonella* at a cost of $3.7 billion, (Dan Flynn, Food Safety News, October 9, 2014). Such reports incite others to demand that all or some *Salmonella* be classified an “adulterant”. An article in the *Los Angeles Times* (October 13, 2013) said, “At a minimum, we could declare *Salmonella* an adulterant so that USDA and agricultural operations are compelled to recall infected product. An article in *The Guardian* declared that the US federal government has not declared *Salmonella* an adulterant which allows chicken with *Salmonella* to be sold in US stores, (Erica Shaffer, Meat + Poultry, February 22, 2018). US Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) said the US government “should declare antibiotic-resistant strains of *Salmonella* as an adulterant in meat and poultry,” (Institute of Food Technologists, The Weekly, January 23, 2019).
But, it seems highly unlikely that the government would make *Salmonella* an adulterant. Why? Because *Salmonella* is ubiquitous in Earth’s environment as a result of its prevalence in the feces of essentially all animals–humans, livestock, birds, wildlife. Meat and poultry processors try their hardest, but presence of *Salmonella* within processing plants and on food products is unpredictable, episodic, and almost impossible to completely control. Some *Salmonella* slip through the net but most are killed via pasteurization (milk), cooking (meat, poultry, eggs) or canning. “There is no ‘kill-step’ when processing fruits and vegetables (and much of it is eaten raw); so, our only option is to take steps to reduce pathogen counts and minimize cross-contamination,” (Doug Grant, The Packer, December 21, 2018). So, if *Salmonella* was declared an adulterant in meat and poultry, it would also need to be declared an adulterant in the other 80% of US food that is regulated by FDA. If *Salmonella* is deemed an adulterant, it portends a near-certain impossibility for the US to provide adequate nourishment for its citizens.
To “control *Salmonella* in meat and poultry in new and innovative ways,” as suggested by Dr. Brashears, we could attack comprehensively, or at delineated junctures in the supply-chain. Whatever is our approach, those in production and processing sectors, consumers, and regulators will be better informed of pathogen prevalence via whole genome sequencing, (Dow-Jones Factiva, December 10, 2018). Some have recommended that we attack comprehensively: (a) Baer *et al.* 2013 (Comprehensive Reviews of Food Science and Food Safety 12: 183-217) says *Salmonella* can be reduced through on-farm strategies, hygienic slaughter practices, and processing techniques. (b) An article in *Los Angeles Times* (October 21, 2013) claims Sweden has virtually eliminated *Salmonella* in store-bought chicken by using microbiological testing at multiple key production points, inspection of clean-up protocols, banning shipments from producers that are not *Salmonella*-free, etc. (c) Sandra Eskin (The Pew Charitable Trust, October 3, 2018) recommends vaccination of broiler-breeder flocks, strong hygienic practices, vermin control, quarantine procedures, biosecurity measures, and comprehensive microbial testing programs for carcasses. (d) The Pew Charitable Trust (May 28, 2019) reported that Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark have implemented successful food safety control programs to reduce *Salmonella* contamination on poultry and swine. These countries require strict, on-farm biosecurity measures including cleaning and disinfecting animal housing, extensive microbiological testing and monitoring for *Salmonella* in the animals and feed, culling of infected breeding animals, and separate handling of *Salmonella-*positive flocks or herds at slaughter.
Others have focused on preharvest solutions: (a) USDA’s National Organic Program (2016) has emphasized raw manure handling Guidance for control of *Salmonella* in feedstuffs. (b) *Salmonella* infections in broiler-breeder chicken flocks and breeder pig herds can be transmitted to chicks and piglets, underscoring the need for efficient control measures–like vaccines–earlier in the production chain, \[European Food Safety Authority, 2010; EFSA Journal 8(4): 1547\]. (c) The Pew Charitable Trust (2018) says, “A comprehensive approach to tackle foodborne illnesses must begin at the farm level, with probiotics and vaccines, to reduce *Salmonella* in livestock. (d) The National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (2018) recommended improved poultry vaccines for pathogenic mircoorganisms. (e) USDA scientists, in 2019, have proven efficacy for addition of sodium chlorate to the water and feed of livestock to kill *Salmonella* Typhimurium (Erica Shaffer, Meat + Poultry, May 30, 2019). (f) Consider screening H-2A workers for microbes, viruses, and parasites before they enter the US, as suggested by Fresh Express™ (June 24, 2019).
At the harvest level, FSIS has–historically–tried to regulate *Salmonella* contamination on meat and poultry carcasses. Among the four essential elements of “The Final Rule on Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems (July 1996) was, “Plants must meet Pathogen Reduction Performance Standards, set by FSIS-USDA, for *Salmonella*. After that part of the regulation was nullified in the Supreme Beef Company™ litigation of 2000, the FSIS *Salmonella* Initiative (May 2008) resurrected the Performance Standards in the form of a categorization system. It is a “Buyer Beware” notification whereby any establishment that has a Category 2 or 3 *Salmonella* incidence score may have its name, establishment number, and *Salmonella* score posted on the Agency’s website. FSIS could consider minor modifications of the Performance Standards categorization process (e.g., using a Non-Conformity/Corrective Action validation protocol) to improve the *Salmonella* status and website listing of an establishment. Martin Wiedmann PhD (Cornell University) says that, “To control *Salmonella,* industry needs to think differently about FSIS Performance Standards (which considers ‘all serotypes to be equal’ in importance) vs. considering certain serotypes or strains (e.g., *Salmonella* Newport for beef, *Salmonella* Enteriditis for eggs, *Salmonella* Heidelberg for chickens, etc., or any *Salmonella* that is MDR) more important than others, so that industry has the motivation to focus on the organisms most likely to cause human disease,” (Julie Larson Bricher, Meatingplace, May 2019). There have been substantive discussions of identifying “Top 3” or “Top 5” *Salmonella* serotypes of greatest concern, by animal-source or product-category, and assigning them elevated status–either as a potential “adulterants” or in determining the Category 1, 2, or 3 establishment score. If either of those ideas materialized, such lists would need constant oversight and readily adaptable listings because–over time– problematic dominant serotypes and/or strains change. Other possibilities for fine-tuning include holding more executives of companies accountable. The “Park Doctrine” was used to impose as 28-year prison sentence on the owner of Peanut Corporation of America™ for shipping products known to be contaminated with *Salmonella.* Or, final product testing; Cargill™ subjects 100% of its ground turkey products to a “test-and-hold” procedure before product release.
And, what about consumer education?: (a) CDC (2015) issued “Tips For Avoiding *Salmonella* While Preparing Foods”. (b) CDC, in 2019, warned people, “You can get sick from *Salmonella* simply by touching poultry or the bird’s environment”. (c) An Arizona federal court jury attributed 30% of the fault, in its decision, to Foster Farms™ and 70% to family members for their preparation (handling, cooking, serving) of some chicken that caused brain injury to a 5-year-old child. (d) Shawn Stevens JD (Meatingplace, July 22, 2019) said, “I’m not advocating for a ‘just cook it’ campaign as consumer education. That’s overly simplistic and fails to address the real cause of foodborne illness. Now is the time for industry, advocacy groups, and government to pool their resources, and partner on a ‘scorched earth food safety campaign’”. (e) We now know that Dr. Brashears is “working closely with Dr. Frank Yiannis (FDA), as we plan to partner with stakeholders to identify how consumers are mishandling foods and also to develop educational programs that can actually result in behavior changes,” (Chuck Jolley, Feedstuffs, July 5, 2019).
As I “read the tea leaves,” I doubt that *Salmonella* will be declared an adulterant (that’s too big a bite of the apple) because it would have devastating effects on our country’s ability to nourish our people. My suggestions would be: (1) Go after the birds, rodents, and wildlife. (2) Promote biosecurity diligence on the part of growers. (3) Consider mandating removal of all six major lymph nodes from beef trimmings. (4) Maintain existing FSIS *Salmonella* Performance Standards but examine opportunities to fine-tune them. (5) Revisit the potential for electron-beam pasteurization without label declaration, and (6) Consider Shawn Stevens “Scorched Earth” approach (Meatingplace, July 22, 2019) to consumer education on food safety. USDA Secretary Sonny Purdue has an Agency’ motto–“Do right and feed everyone.” Mindy Brashers says, “For FSIS, the motto should be, ‘Do right and feed everyone–safely’,” (Kimberlie Clyma, Meat + Poultry, July 26, 2019).
**Categories:** News
---
### [Trust but Verify – Livestock Audit Services Approach to Hiring and Training](https://fsns.com/trust-but-verify-livestock-audit-services-approach-to-hiring-and-training/)
**Published:** December 16, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
2019 brought unprecedented oversight for the dairy industry. On June 4, 2019, Animal Recovery Mission (ARM) held a press conference in Chicago and released undercover video which was filmed as part of the “largest undercover dairy investigation in history.” The video was captured over several months by an individual briefly employed by at least two dairies in Fair Oaks, IN, part of the Fair Oaks Dairy Adventure, an agritourism venture. Despite having an unofficial vetting process as part of their hiring program (intended to prevent just such activity) the system was not robust enough.
As the official third-party verifier for the FARM Animal Care Program, FSNS C&A has often been asked what assurance we can provide to the dairy industry that our auditors and verifiers do not pose a similar threat. Understanding that our role in verifying implementation of the FARM Program requires our presence on dairies across the U.S., this is a topic we have always taken very seriously. National Milk Producer’s Federation (and many of our dairy customers) IS involved in screening potential verifiers, who have to submit a resumé documenting a prerequisite amount of education and dairy production experience and achieve a passing score on the FARM Verifier Certification Test administered by NMPF. Additionally, FSNS C&A requires all candidates to successfully complete a comprehensive and rather intensive personality profile, as well as undergo a thorough background check and drug screen. Following the Fair Oaks case, we have added an additional level of screening to include affiliations with known animal activist groups. Initially, we had a direct connection with each person hired, or knew someone who did. As we continue to grow in response to industry needs, we will rely even more heavily on known industry partners for references. But it doesn’t end there: when a qualified applicant has met these prerequisites and is hired, he/she undergoes a robust internal training and shadowing process as well. FSNS C&A field staff conduct numerous shadow verifications or audits before they meet our internal standards for qualifying to work independently. This process ensures our team consistently performs to the standards of excellence we (and producers) expect. Most importantly, this demonstrates how highly we value the trust of our industry partners.
FSNS C&A experienced nearly significant growth in the number of dairy verifications and audits performed in 2019 compared to 2018, and our team continues to grow to meet this rapid growth trajectory. We realize people are an investment we are not willing to compromise. As we look ahead to 2020, we expect even more growth, and believe our approach to building highly qualified teams will ensure we have a key role in supporting the ongoing needs of the dairy industry.
**Categories:** News
---
### [The complicated relationship between Salmonella and the Lymph Node](https://fsns.com/the-complicated-relationship-between-salmonella-and-the-lymph-node/)
**Published:** February 19, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Non-typhoidal *Salmonella enterica* (commonly referred to as *Salmonella)* is the leading cause of foodborne illness globally resulting in most hospitalizations and also the leading cause of foodborne illness resulting in the most deaths in the United States (CDC, 2011). In the United States, it is estimated that there are 1.3 million cases of gastroenteritis a year caused by *Salmonella* (Scallan et al., 2011). One in seven *Salmonella* outbreaks (where the contamination was found) were attributed to beef (CDC, 2008). Following the 1992-1993 *Escherichia coli* O157:H7 outbreak, substantial efforts have been made in the U.S. meat industry to reduce the risk of foodborne pathogens (CDC, 1993). Though most efforts targeted *E. coli* O157:H7, including the declaration of this pathogen as an adulterant and the establishment of zero-tolerance policy for it by the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), additional efforts also reduced the presence of other foodborne pathogens. The implementation of requirements for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems, and other programs, following the 1993 outbreak have led to reduction in the presence of *E. coli* O157: H7 and the six non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing *E. coli* (STEC) serogroups found in beef.
Substantial work has been done investigating the source of *Salmonella* in beef. Multiple studies have confirmed that *Salmonella* can be isolated from the lymph nodes of cattle (Gragg et al., 2013b, Haneklaus, et al., 2012, Brichta-Harhay et al., 2012, Gragg et al., 2013a, Vipham et al., 2015, Moo et al., 1980). Lymph nodes in cattle, like in humans, are located all over the body. Lymph nodes can vary in size, and can be found surrounded by adipose tissue. Lymph nodes are not always distinguishable from surrounding tissue, and thus can be incorporated into ground beef (and it would be a very time consuming and near impossible task to remove over 200 lymph nodes from a beef carcass!). We know *Salmonella* is in bovine lymph nodes, but the big question is **why**?
To try to understand the complexity of the interaction of *Salmonella* and lymph nodes, we have to take a step back and start by familiarizing ourselves with some immunology basics. The immune system is the defensive center of the host. This system is responsible for protecting the host body from bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, and tumors. There are two branches of the immune system, adaptive and innate. Innate is the first line of defense, while the adaptive (or acquired) branch is specific to the pathogen or the foreign body. Physical barriers, such as skin, help to keep pathogens (also known as antigens) out of the body and stomach acid either kills or reduces the pathogens to low levels. Phagocytic cells (such as macrophages) patrol the body for pathogens and can phagocytize pathogens (basically eating pathogens). Macrophages can discriminate “self” and “foreign” molecules, like the macrophage knows the difference between a bacteria cell, and a cell from its own body. Acquired immunity comes from B and T cells that can specifically identify pathogens of interest during infection. The immune system can remember the pathogens it has encountered in the past, so that a timely immune response can be elicited in future encounters.
Lymph nodes are an incredibly important part of the immune system. Responses to pathogenic antigens are initiated and the immune response is controlled within the lymph node. The lymph node acts as a filter by grabbing antigens from the circulating lymph fluid that passes through the node (Buettner and Bode, 2012). Thus, the lymph node acts as a surveillance of the body’s tissues to identify any antigens through the flow of the lymph. Lymph nodes have three compartments and vessels that enter and exit the node. The three parts of the lymph node are the cortex, paracortex, and the medulla (Haley et al., 2005). Dendritic cells, another important cell of the immune system, are able to enter the lymph node. These Dendritic cells have an important job, they carry antigens with them to show to immune cells in the lymph node (picture a cell carrying a most wanted sign with the particular antigen, and then showing this sign to all the important cells in the lymph node so that they know there’s a criminal around). The Dendritic cells are presenting antigens to T cells in the paracortex. The medulla of the lymph node houses the macrophages. All of the lymph entering the node must pass through the medulla before exiting to the body (Gray and Cyster, 2012). Within the medulla there are macrophages (phagocytic cells) that filter and destroy particulate antigens (Willard-Mack, 2006). Macrophages internalize and degrade antigens by phagocytosis and release cytokines that alert the adaptive immune system (Gray and Cyster, 2012). This is useful if there is an active infection and bacteria are moving through the host. The macrophages in the lymph node will “catch” the bacterium, thus preventing it from causing further infection. Phagocytosis by macrophages is an important defense against pathogen invasion. Pathogens, or other material engulfed by phagocytosis by macrophages, are delivered to the phagosome, which combine with lysosomes and endosomes to enable destruction of the pathogen (Stuart and Ezekowitz, 2005; Desjardins et al., 1994). The phagolysosome of macrophages is hydrolytic and bactericidal (Garin et al., 2001; Stuart et al., 2007). The bacterium is essentially killed and broken up within the macrophage and then the macrophage presents specific parts of the antigen to other cells in the immune system.
*Salmonella* is a facultative intracellular pathogen. This means that it can survive outside of a host cell, and inside of a host cell. For contrast, *E. coli* is not an intracellular pathogen, certain strains may cause infection, but the bacteria does not enter host cells. *Salmonella* has specific parts of its genome that enable it to get into host cells, and survive in them. We collectively call these the *Salmonella* Pathogenicity Islands. *Salmonella* Pathogenicity Island I (SPI-I) encodes a Type 3 Secretion System (T3SS) that is essential for gastrointestinal infection which are, collectively termed the ‘invasion genes’ (Mills et al., 1995). The Pathogenicity Island II (SPI2) is required for intracellular survival. The SPI2 encodes a T3SS that is activated during intracellular conditions and is required for proliferation (Shea et al., 1996, Hensel et al.,1998). Almost immediately upon entry into the host cell a phagolysosome is formed, called the *Salmonella* containing vacuole (SCV) that enables intracellular growth (Mills and Finlay, 1998; Garcia-del Portillo, 2001). The SPI2 is essential for intracellular survival and dissemination throughout the lymphatic system through oral inoculation (Cirillo et al., 1998).
Now we want to go back to thinking about the immune cells in the lymph node. There are macrophages in the lymph node that are there to phagocytize pathogens. *Salmonella* has the ability to survive in host cells (like macrophages in the lymph nodes). *Salmonella* is able to put up a defense against the attacks of the macrophage, and can destroy the macrophage while continuing to infect other cells! The immune cells in the lymph node that should be killing pathogens are actually being infiltrated by *Salmonella.* Viable *Salmonella* can travel to the mesenteric lymph node by migrating dendritic cells and autonomously (Bravo-Blas, 2018). This study also observed that only half of the *Salmonella* in lymph are traveling inside of dendritic cells, while the rest are autonomously migrating, which is why *Salmonella* is recovered in higher CFUs in macrophages from the lymph node. This study, like many other studies cited here, used mouse models and mesenteric lymph nodes. Mice are vastly different then cattle, but both are vertebrates and have immune systems similar to each other. Mesenteric lymph nodes aren’t incorporated into beef muscle cuts, but the interaction of *Salmonella* and the immune cells documented may provide valuable information to further understand *Salmonella* and the bovine immune system.
Alberto Bravo-Blas, Lotta Utriainen, Slater L. Clay, Verena Kästele, Vuk Cerovic, Adam F. Cunningham, Ian R. Henderson, Daniel M. Wall, Simon W. F. Milling
The Journal of Immunology November 28, 2018, ji1701254; **DOI:** 10.4049/jimmunol.1701254
Brichta-Harhay, D. M., Arthur, T. M., Bosilevac, J. M., Kalchayanand, N., Schmidt, J. W., Wang, R., & Wheeler, T. L. (2012). Microbiological analysis of bovine lymph nodes for the detection of *Salmonella* enterica. *Journal of Food Protection®*, *75*(5), 854-858.
Buettner, M., & Bode, U. (2012). Lymph node dissection–understanding the immunological function of lymph nodes. *Clinical & Experimental Immunology*, *169*(3), 205-212.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1993). Update: Multistate outbreak of *Escherichia coli* O157:H7 infections from hamburgers- western United States, 1992 1992
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). Epidemiology of *Escherichia coli* O157:H7 Outbreaks, United States, 1982–2002. 11:4.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Surveillance for foodborne disease outbreaks-United States. 2008. *Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report* 2011; 60: 1197-1202.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). CDC estimates of foodborne illness in the United States.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Vital Signs: Incidence and trends of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food- foodborne diseases active surveillance network, 10 U.S. Sites, 1996-2010. *Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report* 2011; 60: 749-755.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Burden of Foodborne Illness: Findings.
Cirillo, D. M., Valdivia, R. H., Monack, D. M., & Falkow, S. (1998). Macrophage‐dependent induction of the *Salmonella* pathogenicity island 2 type III secretion system and its role in intracellular survival. *Molecular Microbiology*, *30*(1), 175-188.
Desjardins, M., Huber, L. A., Parton, R. G., & Griffiths, G. (1994). Biogenesis of phagolysosomes proceeds through a sequential series of interactions with the endocytic apparatus. *The Journal of Cell Biology*, *124*(5), 677-688.
Garin, J., Diez, R., Kieffer, S., Dermine, J. F., Duclos, S., Gagnon, E., & Desjardins, M. (2001). The phagosome proteome insight into phagosome functions. *The Journal of cell biology*, *152*(1), 165-180.
Garcia-Del Portillo, F., Stein, M. A., & Finlay, B. B. (1997). Release of lipopolysaccharide from intracellular compartments containing *Salmonella* Typhimurium to vesicles of the host epithelial cell. *Infection and Immunity*, *65*(1), 24-34.
Gragg, S. E., Loneragan, G. H., Nightingale, K. K., Brichta-Harhay, D. M., Ruiz, H., Elder, J. R. & Brashears, M. M. (2013). Substantial within-animal diversity of *Salmonella* isolates from lymph nodes, feces, and hides of cattle at slaughter. *Applied and Environmental Microbiology*, *79*(15), 4744-4750.
Gragg, S. E., Loneragan, G. H., Brashears, M. M., Arthur, T. M., Bosilevac, J. M., Kalchayanand, N. & Wheeler, T. L. (2013). Cross-sectional study examining *Salmonella enterica* carriage in subiliac lymph nodes of cull and feedlot cattle at harvest. *Foodborne Pathogens and Disease*, *10*(4), 368-374.
Gray, E. E., & Cyster, J. G. (2012). Lymph node macrophages. *Journal of Innate Immunity*, *4*(5-6), 424-436.
Haley, P., Perry, R., Ennulat, D., Frame, S., Johnson, C., Lapointe, J. M., & Walter, G. (2005). STP position paper: best practice guideline for the routine pathology evaluation of the immune system. *Toxicologic Pathology*, *33*(3), 404-407.
Haneklaus, A. N., Harris, K. B., Griffin, D. B., Edrington, T. S., Lucia, L. M., & Savell, J. W. (2012). Salmonella prevalence in bovine lymph nodes differs among feedyards. *Journal of food protection*, *75*(6), 1131-1133.
Hensel, M., Shea, J. E., Waterman, S. R., Mundy, R., Nikolaus, T., Banks, G., & Holden, D. W. (1998). Genes encoding putative effector proteins of the type III secretion system of *Salmonella* Pathogenicity Island 2 are required for bacterial virulence and proliferation in macrophages. *Molecular Microbiology*, *30*(1), 163-174.
Holzer, Katlyn. (2017). Effects of Potential Tylosin Substitutes on *Salmonella* Prevalence and the Microbiome of subiliac lymph nodes of beef feedlot cattle. Master’s Thesis. Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO.
Mills, D. M., Bajaj, V., & Lee, C. A. (1995). A 40 kb chromosomal fragment encoding *Salmonella* Typhimurium invasion genes is absent from the corresponding region of the *Escherichia coli* K‐12 chromosome. *Molecular Microbiology*, *15*(4), 749-759.
Mills, S. D., & Finlay, B. B. (1998). Isolation and characterization of *Salmonella* Typhimurium and *Yersinia pseudotuberculosis*-containing phagosomes from infected mouse macrophages: *Y. pseudotuberculosis* traffics to terminal lysosomes where they are degraded. *European Journal of Cell Biology*, *77*(1), 35-47.
Moo, D., O’boyle, D., Mathers, W., & Frost, A. J. (1980). The isolation of *Salmonella* from jejunal and caecal lymph nodes of slaughtered animals. *Australian Veterinary Journal*, *56*(4), 181-183.
Scallan, E., Hoekstra, R. M., Angulo, F. J., Tauxe, R. V., Widdowson, M. A., Roy, S. L., … & Griffin, P. M. (2011). Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens. *Emerging Infectious Diseases*, *17*(1).
Shea, J. E., Hensel, M., Gleeson, C., & Holden, D. W. (1996). Identification of a virulence locus encoding a second type III secretion system in *Salmonella* Typhimurium. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, *93*(6), 2593–2597.
Stuart, L. M., & Ezekowitz, R. A. B. (2005). Phagocytosis: elegant complexity. *Immunity*, *22*(5), 539-550.
Stuart, L. M., Boulais, J., Charriere, G. M., Hennessy, E. J., Brunet, S., Jutras, I., & Ye, P. (2007). A systems biology analysis of the Drosophila phagosome. *Nature*, *445*(7123), 95-101.
Vipham, J. L., Loneragan, G. H., Guillen, L. M., Brooks, J. C., Johnson, B. J., Pond, A., … & Brashears, M. M. (2015). Reduced Burden of *Salmonella enterica* in Bovine Subiliac Lymph Nodes Associated with Administration of a Direct‐fed Microbial. *Zoonoses and Public Health*, *62*(8), 599-608.
Willard-Mack, C. L. (2006). Normal structure, function, and histology of lymph nodes. *Toxicologic Pathology*, *34*(5), 409-424.
Wheeler, T. L., Kalchayanand, N., & Bosilevac, J. M. (2014). Pre- and post-harvest interventions to reduce pathogen contamination in the U.S. beef industry. *Meat Science*, *98*(3), 372–382.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Properly using Metal Detectors in the Food Industry](https://fsns.com/properly-using-metal-detectors-in-the-food-industry/)
**Published:** March 12, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
One of the most common recalls in the food industry is from foreign body contamination. Manufacturers have the capabilities to protect their brand, prevent recalls, and to ensure product shipped is safe for consumption through the use of foreign body detection devices.
There are different ways to aid in foreign body detection in the food industry (i.e. filters, sieves, magnets, x-ray machines, and metal detectors), but metal detectors are one of the most common forms of foreign body detection devices used in the food industry.
Selecting the right metal detector for the products at the site is critical due to the composition, characteristics, temperature, and packaging material of product which ultimately determine the metal detector effectiveness. For example, warm products or frozen products can cause false rejects and products high in salt can cause false rejects due to the conductivity of salt. Depending on the form the product is passed through the metal detector (e.g., whole muscle vs. emulsified product), that too can affect the reading. Product packaging can also have an effect on the metal detectors if passed through in finished packaging (e.g., if it contains metal foil). Metal detector suppliers should be made aware of the aforementioned item so they can offer the appropriate foreign-body detector to the site.
The key is to properly test the metal detectors to ensure appropriate rejection of product potentially affected with metal. There are, however, some key factors to consider when determining how to properly test metal detectors. Testing the capacity of the metal detector to find contaminates should be conducted after final processing steps and/or in final packaging. The site should determine the most sensitive setting possible to detect the smallest piece of metal possible for the product. Each metal detector should be tested using standards to verify the functionality. Test pieces should be passed lengthwise through the metal detector in the stream of product flow to assure it is detecting all dimensions of each piece of product. For example, if a long piece of product such as meat stick is being passed through the metal detector, the test pieces should be passed through at the beginning, middle, and end of the product to determine if the detection, rejection, and timing mechanisms are set properly to identify defects in all parts of each individual piece of product. Additionally, if in-line metal detectors were present, test seeds should be placed in the product stream at a frequency based upon risk. When there is not a belt stop or belt retraction system, the memory reset function should be tested at a frequency based upon risk. The memory reset function is tested by sequentially passing the test pieces back to back to determine if product could be rejected during an incident which would result in multiple metal pieces in the stream of product. The frequency for testing metal detectors depends on the site, but should be conducted at a minimum at the start of a shift, after maintenance repairs, at product changeovers, and at the end of the shift.
Maintenance activities must be conducted per manufacture’s recommendations or based upon plant history to ensure the device is maintained. Additionally, metal detectors should be calibrated by using certified test pieces or serviced by an approved company which can calibrate the metal detectors.
Food manufacturers have key tools to use in this day and age to detect products contaminated with metal before it reaches consumers. This is the key advantage to any food business for using metal detectors which could prevent recalls or potential legal actions which could result from shipping unsafe products contaminated with metal.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Verifying the Corrective Action Effectiveness](https://fsns.com/verifying-the-corrective-action-effectiveness/)
**Published:** March 12, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
When situations arise in our everyday life, we investigate the problem, correct the issue, and naturally we verify the corrections implemented, so in short we “close the loop”. Why would this be any different in food safety management systems (FSMS)?
Closing the loop and ensuring corrective actions are implemented in a manner which prevents recurrence is a concept which companies consistently have a hard time grasping. Verifying corrective action effectiveness is crucial for continuously improving the FSMS by closing the loop between identifying an issue and completing the actions to truly solve a problem or minimize risk of a recurring problem. So what are some of the best ways to do this?
Collecting qualitative or quantitative data can be useful methods for truly ensuring corrective actions are effective. Qualitative data would be collected and be used most often to gain insight and understanding of an issue to determine if the corrective action was effective whereas quantitative information would be collected as numerical data to measure the effectiveness of corrective actions. Tools to ensure these effectiveness checks are successful could be trend analysis, unbiased observations, periodical checks over a period of time, and sampling, to name a few. These effectiveness checks should not be designed to be completed once, but over a period of time to minimize the risks of recurrence. With that being said, ensure that targeted completion dates for corrective actions allow sufficient time for data to be collected to ensure effectiveness.
Key things to consider when collecting data to ensure effectiveness of implemented corrective actions is the “Who, What, Where, When, How” concept. How will the effectiveness be measured, how will the data be analyzed, and to whom the results will be communicated, are key concerns.
Verifying corrective action effectiveness checks help improve the overall FSMS, minimize potential risks, and truly close the loop for deviations. Implementing a firm process will allow a site to truly help demonstrate a strong commitment to the FSMS.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Are Plant-Based Meat Alternatives “Healthier” Than Genuine Beef?](https://fsns.com/are-plant-based-meat-alternatives-healthier-than-genuine-beef/)
**Published:** April 29, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
A Gallup Poll press release (2020) said, “70% of consumers who never eat meat or have cut back on eating meat cite ‘Health’ as a major reason”. “If consumers are truly going to embrace ‘Eating Healthier’—which 71% claim they intend to do in 2020—someone needs to define ‘Healthier Food’; at the moment, 49% of US consumers say they’re going to eat ‘Healthier’ by consuming plant-based meat-alternatives (PBMAs),” says Dannette Amstein (2020). Power Of Meat (2020) reported that 36% of Americans do not think meat has a role in a “Healthy” diet. Perdue Farms is now targeting the 30% of the US population that want to reduce meat consumption for primarily “Health” reasons. Innova Market Insights (2020) reported that 49% of US consumers are influenced by “Health” priorities when purchasing PBMAs.
Marketers of meat-alternatives are free to claim virtually anything they wish with no fear that FDA will intervene. In 2016, a Congressional bill proposed a “Dairy Pride Act” with the mission of prohibiting the use of the claim “milk” on products (e.g., almond milk) that are not derived from animals and urged FDA to enforce new labeling standards for plant-based foods and beverages. FDA has done nothing, despite survey results: (a) by IPSOS (2018) which found that 73% of consumers erroneously believed that almond-based drinks have as much protein per serving as cow’s milk, and (b) by IPSOS (2019) which found that 61% of consumers want FDA to prohibit non-dairy beverage companies from using the term “milk” on their product labels. USDA has likewise done nothing to prevent use of the word “meat” on PBMAs.
Rita Jane Gabbett (2019) says, “While the PBMA companies are trying the ‘health card’, meat processors are pushing back, saying that many PBMAs need to pull back on that assertion because PBMAs are highly processed and full of salt and refined ingredients.” Angus Beef Bulletin Extra (2020) reported that nearly two-thirds of consumers surveyed believe that Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, and LightLife contain real beef, 44% believe PBMAs are lower in sodium, 34% believe PBMAs are less processed, and >50% believe PBMAs are “better-for-my-health,” than genuine beef. This is largely due to labeling. Processed Foods (2020) described a Congressional bill (“The Real MEAT Act”) which seeks to require PBMAs to be labeled as “Imitation Meat”.
Older consumers are motivated to shift to a plant-based diet for “health” reasons (Food Technology, 2020). The American Heart Association (2019) issued a warning: “People choosing ‘alt-meats’ (i.e., plant-based or cell-cultured meat-alternatives) should be careful to compensate for the loss of nutrients.” That goes double for people moving away from animal products entirely. If they’re not having meat, egg, or dairy products in their diet they might have a hard time getting enough grams of protein (men need 56, women need 46, grams daily) and not all proteins are created equal (Nutrition Coalition, 2019).
According to “Nutrition Facts” panels on Impossible Burger, Beyond Beef Burger, and 85% Lean Ground Beef, all have very similar amounts of calories, fat, and saturated fat but 85% lean ground beef has less sodium and slightly more protein (ground beef with 93% lean outperforms both PBMAs for all of these nutrient values). But the “Nutrition Facts” don’t tell the whole story (Dannette Amstein, 2020). Many American shoppers look solely at “grams of protein” rather than the “Quality” or “Daily Value” of protein to determine the protein content of foods. Most protein from plants is “incomplete” (i.e., doesn’t provide all of the essential amino acids the body needs but can’t make). Importantly, protein from plant sources isn’t as readily absorbed as protein from animal-based foods. “Daily Values” take both factors into account. While plant-based foods do contain protein, you typically must eat larger amounts of plant-based food to get the amount of amino acids your body needs. Be aware of tradeoffs if you choose PBMAs solely for purported health reasons. Early in the game, the PBMA companies claimed their products were “equal in nutritional value” to genuine meat. Anne-Marie Roerink (2020) says 50% of consumers who regularly purchase PBMAs do so because they believe plant-based foods are “healthy,” and 36% because they believe PBMAs are a good source of protein. When challenged, some PBMA companies used fortification to more than double their “grams of protein per serving” claim. Some PBMA-makers have lately added mung beans to their recipe—trying to bolster their content of essential amino acids, but this attempt has fallen short of the “Quality” achieved by animal proteins (Feedstuffs, 2019). A deficiency of even only one essential amino acid will limit the use of all amino acids for protein synthesis in the human body.
The most abundant protein (at 30% of total protein) in the human body is collagen, which is the most needed protein for assurance of healthy skin, hair, nails, joints, tendons, ligaments, bone, and the digestive tract. The three key amino acids in collagen are glycine, proline, and hydroxyproline. Animal-based foods are human dietary sources of proline and hydroxyproline, because plants and plant-based diets do not contain collagen.
Guoyao Wu (2020) says, “Beef is an abundant source of functional amino acids (e.g., taurine and hydroxyproline), b-alanine-containing dipeptides (e.g., carnosine and anserine), and creatine (a metabolite of amino acids). Taurine, creatine, carnosine, and hydroxyproline were originally discovered in research with cattle, and the discovery of anserine (a methylated product of carnosine) was also linked with cattle. These five nitrogenous nutrients are highly abundant in beef and have important physiological roles in anti-oxidative and anti-inflammatory reactions, as well as neurological, muscular, retinal, and cardiovascular functions. Therefore, taurine, hydroxyproline, carnosine, anserine, and creatine are expected to improve human health and reduce risks for chronic diseases (e.g., obesity, cancer, neurological disorders, hypertension, and stroke) that are all characterized by oxidative stress in tissues.”
However, the public is generally not aware of these physiologically significant nutrients and, disappointingly, is misled by negative epidemiological studies that are populated in the media. In recent studies, highly publicized researchers have continued to raise concerns that consumption of beef increases risks for obesity as well as associated cardiovascular and metabolic dysfunction in humans. Consequently, the public is increasingly reluctant to eat meat. Scientific studies of beef and PBMAs are urgently needed to refute these misconceptions to ensure that the physical growth and development of American children, as well as the health and well-being of all Americans, will not be compromised.
Guoyao Wu (2020) says, “In cattle, creatine and b-alanine are synthesized through the inter-organ metabolism of amino acids that involves the small intestine, liver, kidneys, and pancreas, whereas taurine is synthesized primarily in the liver and, to a limited extent, in the brain. While it is commonly thought that skeletal muscle cells *synthesize* creatine, b-alanine, and taurine, they do not; skeletal muscle takes up these substrates from the blood for use (e.g., energy metabolism, buffering, and formation of b-alanine-containing dipeptides) and storage. In addition, the hydroxylation of proline residues in the collagen protein of animal connective tissues (e.g., the extracellular matrix of skeletal muscle, tendons, and bones) generates large quantities of hydroxyproline.”
So, consumption of 30 grams (approximately 1 ounce) of beef can fully meet daily physiological needs of a healthy 70 kg adult human for taurine and carnosine, and can provide large amounts of creatine, anserine, and 4-hydroxyproline to improve human nutrition and health, including metabolic, retinal, muscular, neurological, and cardiovascular health. In contrast, plant-source foods do not provide taurine, carnosine, creatine, or anserine, and contain only a negligible amount of hydroxyproline. And, based on the ratio and amount of amino acids in beef, and beef’s digestibility, beef has higher protein quality than plant-based food because “quality” relates, in human nutrition, to the promotion of healthy growth and development in humans.
Guoyao Wu (2020) says, “Another substitute for animal-based protein that has been widely publicized is cell-cultured meat alternatives (CCMAs). CCMAs are derived from cultured cells that are created by proliferation of skeletal muscle stem-cells. Unless they are bathed in bovine blood during their growth cycle, the end-product (CCMA) will not contain creatine, taurine, or b-alanine because these compounds are not synthesized in skeletal muscle. Note that, due to biosafety concerns, the whole blood of any animal species cannot be used to culture muscle stem-cells that are intended for human consumption.”
PBMAs like Beyond Beef, Morning Star Farms Beef, and Impossible Beef are not nutritionally equivalent to genuine beef. There is no information on the labels of PBMAs about the composition of amino acids and related nitrogen-containing nutrients in the plant-based product compared to that in beef. Nutritionally, 1 gram of plant protein is not equal to 1 gram of protein in beef. *At present, consumers cannot make informed decisions because both labels contain the word “BEEF”.* The same will be true of CCMAs like Memphis Meats, Mosa Meats, and Aleph Farms, if they ever enter commerce. The public must be provided sufficient knowledge of nutritionally and physiologically significant amino acids and dipeptides in order to make informed decisions among different products labeled “BEEF”.
In addition to protein, the quality and quantity of fat in animal products has a major impact on human health and wellbeing. In the 1950s, “supposed nutrition experts” declared that: (a) Eating beef will likely kill you, and (b) The fat in beef is predominantly “saturated”. By 2010, we knew that neither claim was true. The 1950’s story (Ancel Keys, 1953) was that higher TOTAL cholesterol in a person’s blood supply caused blockage of blood vessels and, subsequently, cardiovascular events (i.e., heart attacks, strokes) and that:
- Eating saturated fatty acids *increases* TOTAL cholesterol.
- Eating monounsaturated fatty acids *has no effect* on TOTAL cholesterol.
- Eating polyunsaturated fatty acids *decreases* TOTAL cholesterol.
- Eating trans-polyunsaturated fatty acids decreases TOTAL cholesterol.
By 1970, we knew that TOTAL cholesterol isn’t a useful medical determinant because there are two kinds of cholesterol: “good” cholesterol (called HDL cholesterol) because it carries cholesterol in the blood *to the liver* where it is metabolized to bile salts for excretion via the feces, and “bad” cholesterol (called LDL cholesterol) because it is carried via the blood *away from the liver* to other tissues and can form plaques in the arteries (Kim Hossner, 2010). Importantly, we had learned that not all “saturated” fatty acids *are created equal*, nor are all “unsaturated” fatty acids. By 2019, the scientific evidence (Stephen Smith, 2019) demonstrated that:
- Eating saturated fatty acids *elevates* “bad” (LDL) cholesterol but also *elevates* “good” (HDL) cholesterol.
- Eating polyunsaturated fatty acids *generally decreases* TOTAL cholesterol.
- Eating trans-polyunsaturated fatty acids *raises* LDL cholesterol and *lowers HDL*
- Eating the monounsaturated fatty acid, oleic acid, *lowers* LDL cholesterol and *raises* HDL cholesterol.
So, the rest of the story (Kim Hossner, 2010) is: A beef porterhouse steak contains:
- About 10% total fat
- 51% monounsaturated fatty acids (mostly oleic acid)
- 4% other polyunsaturated fatty acids
- 45% saturated fatty acids (about one-third stearic acid)
Stephen Smith (2020) says, “That means that 65% to 70% of the fatty acids in a Porterhouse steak will *improve* ‘good cholesterol’ values (compared to consuming carbohydrates); the remaining 30% to 35% will *raise* LDL cholesterol but will also *raise* HDL cholesterol. For a healthy man, the steak will increase LDL cholesterol 4 mg per 100 milliliters of blood; at best, this represents a 3% increase in LDL cholesterol, which has no effect on risk for cardiovascular disease. This steak also will raise HDL cholesterol 4 mg per 100 milliliters of blood, but this represents a 10% increase in HDL cholesterol, which can have profound effects on decreasing the risk of cardiovascular disease.”
The Advisory Committee for the 2020 version of the “Dietary Guidelines For Americans” has announced that “It plans to build on the 2015 DGFA Advisory Committee review of “saturated fat” rather than using the more recent data contradicting emphasis on that dietary component. A large international group of scientists recently submitted a public comment to the DGFA Advisory Committee regarding the latest consensus science on saturated fats that has been published in the British Medical Journal (2019). This comment made a number of important points regarding saturated fats, none of which are currently being addressed by DGFA-Advisory Committee. Among the British Medical Journal’s points are: (a) “Saturated fatty acids” is not a single group with identical biological effects, but mainly different fatty acids with very diverse effects; (b) The effects of saturated fatty acids on cardiovascular disease not only depend on the specific fatty acid, but also on the food matrix they exist in; (c) And, therefore, the approach of looking at saturated fat as one group is likely to lead to erroneous conclusions.
Much is already known about the fatty acid composition of genuine beef. What is needed, to add to our body of knowledge, is the source of fats and the fatty acid composition of both PBMAs and CCMAs. It is known that the landscape is undergoing change: (a) One manufacturer of PBMAs has recently added globs of coconut oil to its recipe in an effort to improve the appearance, increase the melting point of the fat, and to attain the taste benefits of marbling; and (b) One manufacturer of CCMAs has recently commingled stem-cells of skeletal muscle (beset with nutritional and biosafety concerns as noted previously) with stem-cells of lipids for the same reason. Nevertheless, there is precedent to draw a “line in the sand”.
The Wall Street Journal (2019), in “The Modern Meaning of Meat” wrote “The meat industry is overwrought and too old-school about its regard about ‘meat’ being derived from an animal. We shouldn’t be passing laws that ban the use of word ‘meat’ for plant-based meat-alternatives, or ‘milk’ for plant-based milk-alternatives. Farmers, ranchers, and their processing industries are ‘entrenched interests’ that fight changing the definitions out of personal best interests.” We–as an industry–need to own the opposing argument that, “No, we believe that these entrepreneurs are marketing products that provide nutritionally inferior and lower-quality products than consumers expect from animal-based products, and we can prove it.”
Chronic diseases are characterized by oxidative stress in tissues, particularly the heart, liver, and adipose tissue. Beef contains large amounts of anti-oxidative nutrients (taurine, hydroxyproline, carnosine, anserine and creatine) and HDL cholesterol, which is elevated by the fatty acids in beef, now is known to reduce vascular inflammation and oxidation. Therefore, beef plays an important role in mitigating oxidative stress and decreasing risks for chronic diseases. However, the public is not generally aware of nitrogenous substances and fatty acids in beef that have enormous physiological roles. Despite results of clinical studies, use of GRADED research-study meta-analyses, and collective scientific re-examination of 60 years of attempts, we have failed to identify a food group or ingredient that can be added to, or removed from, the American diet to prevent the occurrence of cardiovascular disease or cancer. As a result, too many “experts” have been allowed to claim that PBMAs have “high quality protein” and to vilify cholesterol, saturated fat, or meat (especially beef) as the culprit. Jeff Gelski (2019) reported that 83% of consumers now believe that PBMAs are “healthier” than meat.
**Categories:** News
---
### [VSP- A Clean Thermal Pasteurization System](https://fsns.com/vsp-a-clean-thermal-pasteurization-system/)
**Published:** May 20, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Working at FSNS, I have investigated several spoilage studies on low moisture products. In some of the instances, the spoilage of the finished commodities were due to usage of raw ingredients that had not been adequately heat treated or processed. For example, spoilage in liquid sauces were observed because of the use of dry spices that had higher levels of spoilage organisms. Similarly, other foods that used raw flour had decreased shelf life. Thermal treatments are one of the best ways to treat such low moisture products before they can be used as an ingredient to make the final food commodities. However, higher treatment temperatures are needed to obtain sufficient amount of log reductions of naturally occurring microorganisms on the foods. The use of such high temperatures can not only affect the sensory properties of the foods, but may also make it unusable. For example, heat treatment of flour can affect the functionality, such as dough consistency and/or affect the nutrient levels. In addition, the product may be cooked due to the use of the high temperatures. Besides the spoilage concern, presence of pathogens are another big issue in ready to eat products. Effective treatment technologies are needed to reduce pathogens to a safe level while also helping maintain the original qualities of the raw ingredients and products. Vacuum Steam Pasteurization (VSP) is a technology that may be the answer for obtaining such results.
The VSP system uses steam for the thermal treatment under a controlled negative pressure i.e. under vacuum, hence the name vacuum steam pasteurization. Under normal circumstances, steam is generated at 100°C or above but a VSP unit under a lowered pressure in a closed system can generate steam at lower treatment temperatures. The benefits are that the system provides effective treatment with a) steam- which has higher thermal transfer coefficient as compared to boiling water or other forms of heat treatment leading to effective reduction of microorganisms, b) lower treatment temperature likely has no adverse effect on the product quality, c) the vacuum applied during the treatment can be applied at post treatment cycles to minimize gain in moisture, leaving minimal impact on product’s water activity or moisture content, helping maintain normal shelf life, and d) this system is chemical free, which is one of the most desired attributes preferred by consumers and processors alike.
The effectives of this technology has been shown in various research studies and are also currently being used in the industry. My Master’s work investigated the efficacy of VSP on inactivation of *Salmonella*, and *E. coli* O157:H7 on several product types, such as whole flaxseed, ground flaxseed, peppercorns, whole wheat, sunflower kernels, and quinoa (1). The lowest temperature that was investigated in this study was 75°C and 3-5 log reductions were observed on most products for the targeted pathogens for a treatment time of 5 minutes or less. Treatment at 85C provided, as much as a 5 log reduction within 30 seconds. Another study determined the effect of VSS on microbiological physical/chemical shelf life attributes (2). It was determined that the VSP system did not have any significant adverse effect on the chemical attributes (fatty acid profile, peroxide values, oil, SDG contents etc.). Similarly, the VSP led to decrease in Total aerobic plate counts and Yeasts and Molds. Also, there was very little effect on water activity over six months of storage period.
Another study conducted on hard red spring wheat from NDSU researchers showed that the quality of flour was not affected. Outbreaks in flour due to *E. coli* O121 have been reported and this study not only showed that VSP is effective in the reduction of the pathogens of concerns, but also is helpful in maintaining the baking properties of the flour (3). The treatment study showed a temperature as low as 65°C to be effective. Similar studies have been conducted by another group of researchers at Virginia State University (4). They shave shown the effectives of the VSP unit in obtaining effective reduction of pathogens in several products, such as cumin seeds, peppercorns, pecans etc.
Determining the efficacies of the VSP treatment system on pathogens inoculated on various food types, the researchers also showed that certain non-pathogenic organisms, such as *E. faecium* can be used as surrogate organisms. This information is helpful for processors to conduct in-plant validation studies using the VSP system. Current research shows effectiveness of the VSP system on various low moisture food products that are either grains, flour seeds or nuts. A few spices, such as cumin and peppercorns has also been investigated. More research is needed to investigate the use of VSP on other dried spices. The system can definitely be used on other product types and their usage is being increasingly explored through continued research (5).
The VSP treatment system is already in use in the industry to achieve appropriate log reductions for foodborne pathogens. Food products that are of low moisture in origin can be considered for treatment using VSP system since this system is not only effective in spoilage reduction and pathogen control but also causes minimal effect to the product.
References:
1. Shah, Manoj K., et al. “Efficacy of vacuum steam pasteurization for inactivation of *Salmonella* PT 30, *Escherichia coli* O157: H7 and *Enterococcus faecium* on low moisture foods.” *International journal of food microbiology*244 (2017): 111-118.
2. Shah, Manoj, et al. “Microbial and Chemical Shelf‐Life of Vacuum Steam‐Pasteurized Whole Flaxseed and Milled Flaxseed.” *Journal of food science*2 (2018): 300-308.
3. SNELLING, JANE, et al. “Effect of Vacuum Steam Treatment of Hard Red Spring Wheat on Flour Quality and Reduction of *Escherichia coli* O121 and *Salmonella* Enteritidis PT 30.” *Journal of Food Protection*5 (2020): 836-843.
4. Newkirk, Jordan J., et al. “Inactivation of *Salmonella enterica* and surrogate *Enterococcus faecium* on whole black peppercorns and cumin seeds using vacuum steam pasteurization.” *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems*2 (2018): 48.
5. NDSU Researchers Receive Grant to Reduce Pathogens in Flour. 2020.
**Categories:** News
---
### [The National Dairy FARM Animal Care Program: Documenting Continuous Improvement for the Dairy Industry](https://fsns.com/the-national-dairy-farm-animal-care-program-documenting-continuous-improvement-for-the-dairy-industry/)
**Published:** June 18, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
The National Dairy FARM Animal Care Program, which is administered by National Milk Producer’s Federation and Dairy Management Inc., provides a framework for best management practices of dairy cattle. Considering that roughly 98% of fluid milk produced in the U.S. is procured by FARM participants (cooperatives, processors, etc.), it’s fair to say that the program functions as an industry standard, even though it is a voluntary program. What is perhaps most remarkable about the FARM program, is that it has accomplished this level of adoption in just ten years. When compared to other sectors of the food industry (i.e. slaughter plants, further processing plants, etc.), government oversight of on-farm practices is far more limited. Third-party auditing on farms, or on-farm verification of compliance with animal care programs, is relatively new compared to the long history of regulations and decades of third-party auditing that are common in many other sectors of the food industry.
The FARM Animal Care Program, introduced in 2009, has progressed rapidly. January 1, 2020, saw the release of the fourth revision of the program (referred to as FARM AC V4) in just over ten years. True to the purpose of the National Dairy FARM Animal Care Program, FARM AC V4 includes a number of changes that reflect continuous improvement and progression of the standard.
The full list of progression from V3 to V4 can be viewed by clicking the link : ).
In addition to the changes to the content of the program, additional features have been added to ensure greater consistency as FARM AC V4 is implemented. FARM Certified Trainers will now be required to shadow FSNS C&A staff in order to ensure they are calibrated and performing evaluations consistently. The FARM Certified Trainers will then provide training and shadows for participant staff who are responsible for conducting routine monitoring of their member farm sites. This focus on consistency means the reliability of the aggregate data collected through second and third party efforts can also be expected to increase, providing even more leverage for informing target audiences of the progress charted in the dairy industry.
**Categories:** News
---
### [How Big Is The Market-Share For Alternative Meat?](https://fsns.com/how-big-is-the-market-share-for-alternative-meat/)
**Published:** August 5, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
The number of “Meat Analogue” launches worldwide increased from 100 in 2014, to 190 in 2018. 1 Innova Market Insights® research revealed that the greatest market-driver for purchases of plant-based meat-alternatives (PBMAs) in 2018 was “personal health priorities” and in 2019 was “environmental concerns”. 1 Despite promises they would enter commerce in 2019, cell-cultured meat-alternatives (CCMAs) are still much too expensive to compete in this category. 2 One of the PBMA manufacturers has been successful. Beyond Meat™ was founded in 2009; its portfolio of fresh and frozen plant-based proteins are currently sold at 58,000 retail and foodservice outlets worldwide; its net revenue for CY-2019 is expected to reach $275 million; and–after 11 years–was profitable for the first time in Q3-2019.
Nevertheless, the critics persist with statements like this: “Meat production chews up land and spews out methane by the kiloton, accounting for two-thirds of all GHG emissions from agriculture; to prevent global warming we need to be eating 75% less beef and 90% less pork globally.” 3 We have a long way to go but–that’s okay–“Lab-grown food will soon destroy farming, and save the planet.” 4 RethinkX® envisages an extremely rapid “death spiral” in the livestock industry with “precision fermentation” resulting in US dairy production being all but bankrupt by 2030 and American beef industry’s revenues falling 90% by 2035.4
Perhaps; but where are we now? We seem to have lost the battle on the “personal health” front. A recent consumer survey determined that 44% of respondents believe that PBMAs are lower in sodium (they actually are 220% to 620% higher in sodium), 34% believe PBMAs are less processed (they actually are “ultra-processed”) and >50% believe PBMAs are “better-for-my-health” (while they are decidedly less healthful) than genuine meat. 5 Dynata™ reported that 56% of survey respondents are “very likely” or “likely” to decrease meat consumption, and that “personal health” was the Number 1 reason even though research shows that the nutrition in PBMAs is typically not better than the meat it replaces. 6 Power Of Meat 2019 revealed that 36% of people do not think genuine meat has a role in a healthy and balanced diet, 7 and that 50% of consumers who regularly purchase PBMAs do so because they believe PBMAs are “healthy”. 8
And, the upward trajectory of market penetration by PBMAs seemed steep. By early 2016, Gardein™, Beyond Meat™, and Impossible Foods™ had PBMA in tens of thousands of supermarkets, restaurants, and hotel/restaurant/institution locations. 2 By 2020, more than 100 thousand fast-food outlets were offering plant-based meat. 9 Customers ordered 228 million servings of veggie burgers and sandwiches at Quick Service Restaurants from April 2018 to May 2019, but real beef burgers were still more popular–by far–with 64 billion ordered in the same time-frame. 10 That constitutes a 96.6% to 3.4% market-share split. Impossible Foods™ gloated about 2019, calling it the “Year Of Firsts” inasmuch as its company: (a) tripled its restaurant footprint to >15,000 locations across the globe, (b) landed in grocery stores for the first time, and (c) launched the Impossible Whopper® with Burger King™. 11 It claimed, “By eating Impossible Burger®, you helped reduce animal meat’s land footprint by the equivalent of Yosemite National Park; you helped reduce the greenhouse gas footprint by the equivalent of 40,000 cars; and you showed there’s hope for our planet.” 11 What it didn’t do was decrease consumption of genuine meat.
Early estimates were that PBMAs plus CCMAs would achieve 2% “meat” market-share, by the year 2021 in the US 12 ; 6.6% of the global market, eventually 13 , and no more than 10% in the US, ever 14 . A number of agricultural economists predicted that the “ceiling” market-share of PBMA patties would be at 10% of burgers sold by QSRs; the test market for Burger King’s™ Impossible Whopper® resulted in a 10.7% market-share “but the initial buzz around that menu has since died down. 15 Global sales of genuine meat in 2019 was $1,700 billion while that for alternative meat was $2.2 billion. 16 That’s an 0.13% market-share; not much progress for creating a vegan world. Radical Insights® valued the global meat-substitute market at $3.34 billion, a mere fraction (0.49%) of the global genuine-meat market of $675 billion per year. 17
Four reports of PBMA market-share were published in 2019 and 2020. The PBMA market is growing but is still only a fraction of 1% of the overall “meat” market. 18 Genuine beef burgers had a market-share in QSR sales during FY-2019 of 97% while PBMA burgers had a market-share of 3%. 19 Real beef maintained 99% of the retail market (supermarkets and foodservice operations) vs. only 0.5% was meat substitutes. 20 Meanwhile, real beef consumption continues to grow, and even consumers who sometimes choose to buy PBMAs continue to eat real beef as often as they always have. 20 US retail sales of all plant-based foods rose 11.4% in 2019 to $5 billion now; of the total, PBMA sales were up 18% in 2019 to $939 million. 21 Plant-based meat now accounts for 2% of retail-packaged meat sales. 21
There are at least six reasons PBMAs are not gaining market-share. *First,* despite the hoopla, genuine meat and poultry remain very popular. The average US consumer ate 216.9 lb of it in 2017, 222.4 lb in 2018, 223.7 lb in 2019, and are projected to eat 225.6 in 2020. 22 , 23 And, two months into the COVID-19 pandemic, year-over-year genuine meat/poultry sales were up 51.3% (as of May 3, 2020). 24 Plant-based proteins are in the headlines and getting all the love these days but NPD Group® says 14% of US consumers regularly use plant-based protein in their diets while 86% rely primarily on animal proteins instead. 25 *Second,* the price of the Impossible Whopper® is $1 higher than that of the Impossible Burger® so that’s $4 per lb more for the PBMA patty; Beyond Beef® at Aldi™, HEB™, and Kroger™ supermarkets in Texas over the period of June 2019 to July 2020 ranged from $8.98 to $11.98 per lb while conventional ground beef at the same fat level ranged from $3.48 to $3.99. Nielsen Product Insider® reported that the cost at retail for one gram of protein from a PBMA was twice that for milk, 2.5 times that for beef, and 5 times that for chicken, pork, or turkey. 26
*Third,* most consumers presently purchasing PBMAs aren’t vegans or vegetarians; they’re “flexitarians”–consumers who don’t want to stop eating meat, just reduce consumption of it. 27 Flexitarians want protein in their diet but are driven away from eating meat, based on concerns about animal welfare, sustainability, and personal health. 28 And they are fickle. *Fourth,* PBMAs don’t fit the “Clean Label” paradigm. The biggest problem that PBMAs have is that they are “ultra-processed” foods (because they contain 20 to 30 ingredients). 29 And, both Impossible Burger® and Beyond Burger® keep adding more ingredients than earlier versions of their veggie burgers, trying to improve their taste, texture, and juiciness. 30 *Fifth,* PBMAs remain a “one-trick pony”; they’re entering only the ground-product space (about half of meat sales) with no imitation steaks or roasts. Until they do so, there is no way they can eliminate the need for animals. *Sixth,* PBMAs still face a plethora of shortcomings. PBMAs will use “virtue signaling” and “guilting about the ethics of eating meat” to convince consumers to adopt a meat-less diet yet 9 in 10 Americans don’t consider plants an acceptable substitute for meat. 31 Five key issues that PBMA should address are taste, nutrition, Clean Label, protein source, and variety. 32 Things PBMA are still trying to replicate are taste, physical functionality, nutrient content (especially protein quality and collagen content), texture, mouth-feel, and the vegetal, grassy, and off-flavored odor of plants. 33
And, while they’ve not yet entered commerce, CCMA’s Achilles heel is the “ick factor” of growing stem cells bathed in fetal blood serum. 34
REFERENCES:
1 Innova Market Insights. 2020. January 28 Issue.
2 Smith, Gary. 2020. Texas A&M University. January 20 Issue.
3 Thompson, Clive. 2018. Science. December 17 Issue.
4 Monbiot, George. 2020. The Guardian. January 8 Issue.
5 Angus Beef Bulletin Extra. 2020. February 20 Issue.
6 Meatingplace. 2020. February Edition.
7 Thompson-Weeman, Hannah. 2020. Animal Agriculture Alliance. March 10 Issue.
8 Roerink, Anne-Marie. 2020. Meat + Poultry. March 18 Issue.
9 Emmett, Julie. 2020. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
10 NPD Group. 2020. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
11 Impossible Foods. 2020. Press Release. January 2 Issue.
12 Browne, Michael. 2018. Supermarket News. July Edition.
13 Bennett, Chris. 2018. Drovers. August 13 Issue.
14 Ozimek, Adam. 2018. Moody’s Analytics®. August Edition.
15 Lucas, Amelia. 2020. CNBC. January 14 Issue.
16 James, Katie. 2019. Drovers. December Edition.
17 Gabbett, Rita Jane. 2016. Meatingplace. March 16 Issue.
18 Demetrakakas, Pan. 2019. Food Processing. July Edition.
19 Shaffer, Erica. 2019. Meat + Poultry. July 17 Issue.
20 Harrison, Alisa. 2019. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. July 31 Issue.
21 Valigra, Lori. 2020. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
22 Schierhorn, Carolyn. 2019. Food Processing. December Edition.
23 Gallup Consulting Company. 2020. February 20 Issue.
24 Roerink, Anne-Marie. 2020. Meatingplace. May 11 Issue.
25 Avis, Ed. 2020. Food Processing. January Edition.
26 Meatingplace. 2019. September Edition.
27 Seifer, Darren. 2019. NPD Group. July 15 Issue.
28 Nunes, Keith. 2019. Meat + Poultry. June 18 Issue.
29 Donnan, Dave. 2020. Food Technology. March Edition.
30 Ervin, David. 2020. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
31 Radke, Amanda. 2020. BEEF. February 19 Issue.
32 Gelski, Jeff. 2019. Meat + Poultry. November 20 Issue.
33 Caputo, Philip. 2020. Food Processing. April Edition.
34 Radke, Amanda. 2019. BEEF. May 10 Issue.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Use of Remote Audits During the Pandemic](https://fsns.com/use-of-remote-audits-during-the-pandemic/)
**Published:** September 18, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected nearly every aspect of our lives, including the way audits are conducted. Remote audits and blended remote audits are now a reality due to social distancing requirements and attempts to keep auditors and plant staff safe. Factors that affect remote audits include advantages such as less time spent onsite by auditors, utilizing electronic systems to their full potential, and limiting financial cost due to travel. Disadvantages include elements such as weak internet connectivity, use of platforms to share information and maintaining secured lines to ensure data breaches do not occur.
Determining whether a site is capable of conducting a remote audit is a key factor during the initiation and set up process. A site must have internet connectivity capable of keeping a steady connection. Due to many sites being in rural areas, this is a limiting factor some sites may face. During the set-up process, a technical test is completed between the auditor and the site to ensure the site is capable of completing a remote audit or remote portion of an audit. This technical test is completed approximately 14 days prior to the audit start date. The test includes determining which online meeting platform: Zoom, WebEx, Microsoft Teams, etc; will be used during the remote audit. After determining which platform will be used, a test of that platform is completed to ensure the site has an adequate number of personnel involved with the audit. Personnel may include computer driver, program/data retriever, technical support, knowledge of screen sharing, and ability to use the platform to its fullest potential for the remote audit. During the technical test, the dates of record review are communicated so that the site has time to scan and upload records to their computers for ease of record review and to ensure audit objectives are attained. Through this process it has been found that several sites have moved to electronic records and away from hard copies.
Audits have expected durations based on several factors such as facility size, number of HACCP/Food Safety Plans, number of employees, and whether a facility is high care or high risk. During a remote blended audit, the remote portion can be half of the expected duration. For example, if the expected duration is 20 hours, up to 10 hours can be spent remotely. The onsite portion will be completed with 28 days of the completion of the remote portion of the audit.
The end of the audit is handled essentially the same as normal onsite audits. A closing meeting is held, non-conformities are discussed, and post-audit activities are outlined with the site.
In conclusion, remote audits are growing within the industry due to COVID-19, sites not allowing visitors within the facility, less time auditors spend in the facility, and overall ease of completion if all deciding factors are adequate and the audit objectives can be achieved.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Is The Globe Warming? Or The Climate Changing?](https://fsns.com/is-the-globe-warming-or-the-climate-changing/)
**Published:** September 23, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
In case you haven’t noticed, it is interesting that what used to be irrefutable evidence of human-caused “global-warming” is now irrefutable evidence of “climate change”; and–instead of “warming”–the earth is now “cooling”.1 And it’s interesting that while Barack Obama claimed in 2014 that 97% of scientists agreed that “climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous,” a subsequent petition signed by 31,000 scientists said, “There is no scientific evidence that human activity has caused or will cause catastrophic heating of Earth’s atmosphere or disruption of Earth’s climate”.2 Data from NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations say the world warmed 0.36°F from 1979 to 2014. However, the bulk of that warming occurred between 1979 and 1998; temperatures have dropped ever since and Earth is 1.08°F cooler than it was in 1998.3
So, what does cause “Climate Change?” It’s cycles of the Sun…Solar cycles. There are times when the Sun gets hotter and times when it cools off, as measured by “Sunspots”. Solar cycles are–bar none–the most devastating argument against man-made “global warming”.3 The Sun is 1.3 million times larger than the Earth; when its temperature changes, our temperature changes. Earth’s distance from the Sun enables it to sustain life, but it must have CO2 (plants need it to complete photosynthesis), oxygen (it is essential to the life of animals), and surface warmth (without CO2, the Earth’s surface would be frozen). Temporarily, Earth’s atmospheric CO2 is rising, but that is not unexpected; *Earth has seen and solved such cycles for a very long time.*4 The Greenland Ice Core Records for the last 10,000 years show that global warming is due to the repeat of the “Warm Period Cycle”—based on Earth’s 100,000-year Milankovitch Cycle related to Earth’s orbit around the sun.5 CO2 isn’t the culprit, *the Warming Period is the true cause of increasing temperatures on Earth.*5
The world experiences a normal ebb and flow of climate changes, but–unfortunately–it has become politically popular to make human activities the *reason* and the *culprit*. As an example, the latest finger-pointing is a theory advanced by University College of London that European colonization of North, Central, and South Americas resulted in the killing of so many native people that it transformed the environment by reducing atmospheric CO2, cooling the planet, dropping Earth’s temperature by 1.5°C, and causing the “Little Ice Age” of 1300 AD to 1850 AD.6 Fact is though, the Greenland Ice Core Records reveal that Earth’s temperature was completely independent from Earth’s atmospheric levels of CO2 which changed only from 273 ppm, to 283 ppm, over a 4,000 year period surrounding those events.5, 6
To convince the rest of the world, activists of late have focused laser-like on the (alleged) impact of livestock production on climate change, arguing that if only we would all stop eating meat and dairy products we’d qualify as planetary saviors—as if that’s the most important action people could take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.7 It all started when the United Nations issued “Livestock’s Long Shadow” in 20068 and “The High (Greenhouse Gas) Cost Of Meat” in 20139 which focused attention on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by livestock. The choice of titles and the choice of wording in a summary statement were intentionally biased. For example, the second report concluded, “Worldwide, meat production emits 14.5% of all atmospheric GHGs–more than do *all* other forms of global transportation or commercial activity.” By saying *“all other forms”* rather than *“any other form,”* critics interpreted that sentence to say *“more than all other forms combined”*. Plus, the critics interpreted “Worldwide” to mean *“everywhere”* in the world–which is not the case. The US EPA10 has determined that–of Total GHG emissions in the United States–31% comes from generation of electricity, 27% is generated by the transportation sector, and 4.2% is a byproduct of livestock production.
The United Nations went after livestock because they wanted to avoid confrontation with the energy and transportation sectors. Many of those who work at the United Nations and some members of the Obama Administration wanted to use the 2006 and 2013 UN reports plus the Paris Climate Accord as vehicles of “worldwide monetary re-distribution”—i.e., taking wealth from the industrialized nations and giving it to the lesser-developed countries. They saw the UN as the tax collector and the distributor of the newfound wealth. The Paris Climate Accord is all about empowering the United Nations, and has nothing to do with the climate.11 The Paris Climate Accord is a money grab; Obama pledged that the US would pay 2% of our GDP to other countries for our sins of being industrialized.12 Climate-change activists believe that reducing meat consumption is the answer to reducing GHG emissions because it affects their lifestyles less than changing their traveling habits, use of plastics, or dealing with the discomfort of a home that is slightly too cold in the winter or too warm in the summer.13 If one truly wishes to reduce their personal GHG contributions, they should travel less, use less electricity, and walk more. Frank Mitloehner (UC-Davis) said, “In short; Yes; what we eat matters environmentally, but it pales in comparison to what we drive, and how we use electricity. So, have a burger. Just make sure you walk to the restaurant.14 Nevertheless, a parade of candidates for the Democrat Party’s nominee to be the next US President identified “meat” as one of the things they would ban if elected to the position.15
In 1975, we were told by “experts” that Earth was cooling; it didn’t happen. We’ve lately been told that we must prevent Earth’s temperature from rising 1°F; to do that, Earth’s human inhabitants would need to commit to using no cars, no planes, and no electricity for the next 33 years.16 It would take many years to raise Earth’s temperature 1°F, but–if it did–it would be beneficial because it would allow us to farm in geographic areas that are further north in North America, Asia, and Europe.16
Much of the climate “science” is political ideology dressed up as science. The Institute of Public Affairs says that even with a significant increase in industrial emissions of CO2, there has been no increase in global atmospheric temperature over the past 17 years.17 Scientists agree that Earth’s weather has changed repeatedly throughout geologic time–long before an increase in CO2. NOAA, NASA, and UN-IPCC based their predictions on computer models with no actual confirmatory data.17 Climate models are not evidence; at best, they offer scenarios of what might happen if their assumptions are correct. Shortly after John Casey3 and John Coleman11 exposed the truth about “global warming,” thousands of emails and documents from “leading global-warming scientists were found…revealing potential conspiracies, collusions, data manipulation, destruction of information, and even admission of flaws that had been buried.18
The vegan/vegetarian anti-meat activists are using Climate Change as their new cudgel, portraying the idea that livestock production is to blame for a lion’s-share of the contributions to total GHG emissions. Their argument suggests that the solution is to limit meat consumption, starting with “Meatless Mondays,” which would show a significant impact on Total GHG emissions.19 EPA (2016) quantified the impact of livestock activities in the US, and found that it accounted for 4.2% of all US GHG emissions–very far from the 18% to 51% that others cite. Comparing the 4.2% to the 27% from the Transportation Sector, or the 31% from the Energy Sector, in the USA, brings it into perspective.20 A “Meatless Monday” per week would cut Total GHG emissions by 0.6% annually; a “Beefless Monday” would cut Total GHG emissions by 0.3% annually.19 Research shows that if every American went vegan, US GHG emissions would only drop 2.5%, and it would create a US food supply incapable of supporting the nutrient requirements of the US population.21
So, where does the carbon dioxide really come from? EPA (2016) identified kinds and proportions of US greenhouse gases as: (a) Fluorinated Gases (3%), (b), Nitrous Oxide (6%), (c) Methane (10%), and (d) Carbon Dioxide (82%).10 Volcanoes, created by the sliding of techtonic plates (geological events dealing with the faulting and folding of the planet’s surface), supply the Earth’s CO2.4 Volcanoes are the key components of the Earth’s thermostat—keeping the CO2 content on Earth’s surface at levels necessary to support life—and making the Earth hotter.4 And, if we don’t have enough CO2, we have no oxygen, and living animals (like us) cannot exist.4 In California, according to the California Air Resources Board–GHG emissions from beef cattle alone produce 0.007% while beef cattle plus dairy cattle produce 0.05%, of all California GHG emissions. Wildfires are the largest contributors to California’s GHG emissions–larger than that from the Transportation Sector and Electricity Generation Sector combined.22
But here’s the bombshell: (a) The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland, in just 4 days, negated every single effort that all of us have made in the past 5 years to control CO2. (b) There are about 200 volcanoes on planet Earth—spewing out CO2…every day. (c) When Mount Pinatubo (in 1991, in the Philippines) erupted, it spewed out more GHGs than the human race had emitted in all of humans’ years on Earth. (d) Isn’t it interesting how the supposed “experts” don’t mention “Global Warming” anymore, but just “Climate Change”; it’s because the planet has cooled by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these “Global Warming” advocates got caught with their pants down.23
REFERENCES:
1 Plimer, Ian. 2019. Climate Change: The Facts. University of Adelaide (Australia).
2 Wall Street Journal. 2014. May Edition.
3 Casey, John. 2014. Dark Winter. Accessed September 8, 2019.
4 The Weather Channel. December 22, 2019.
5 Hamilton, C. J. 2019. The Australian. October 15 Issue.
6 Milman, Oliver. 2020. The Guardian. March Edition.
7 Murphy, Dan. 2019. Drovers. May 10 Issue.
8 Gerber *et al.* 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow. FAO-United Nations.
9 Gerber *et al.* 2013. The High (Greenhouse Gas) Cost Of Meat. FAO-United Nations.
10 Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Total US Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
11 Coleman, John. 2016. USA Today. April 22 Issue.
12 Fox News. 2015. October 30 Issue.
13 Murphy, Dan. 2018. Drovers. July 27 Issue.
14 Bricher, Julie Larson. 2018. Meatingplace. March 23 Issue.
15 Ingraham, Laura. 2019. Fox News. September 5 Issue.
16 Monkton, C. and R. Litton. 2019. Fox News. October 30 Issue.
17 Graves, Mack. 2019. Meatingplace. September 19 Issue.
18 Keefe, Lisa. 2016. Meatingplace. October Edition.
19 Mitloehner, Frank. 2016. University of California-Davis. April 27 Issue.
20 Van Eenannaam, Alison. 2018. The Conversation. October 24 Issue.
21 Azain, Michael. 2018. American Society of Animal Science. January 28 Issue.
22 California Cattlemen’s Association. 2019. February 13 Issue.
23 Plimer, Ian. 2019. University of Melbourne (Australia). February 20 Issue.
(NOTE: Ian Plimer PhD is an Australian geologist, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne and at the University of Adelaide.)
**Categories:** News
---
### [Local Foods Make Some Consumers “Feel Good”](https://fsns.com/local-foods-make-some-consumers-feel-good/)
**Published:** November 3, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Some consumers…we don’t know how many, but it’s substantial, prefer to purchase and consume “Feel Good” foods. They justify their selections using one or more of the following: “It’s good for x,” where x equals “my neighbors,” “the community,” “the animals,” “the environment,” or “me”. It’s seldom good for your wallet or purse; so it’s expected to be good for something else. A study conducted by the National Pork Board determined that 23% of US consumers are willing to pay more for meat if it is locally sourced.1 Small-scale, underlying motivation of the “locavore movement” wherein consumers believe they are contributing to the world with lower climate-change impact or less animal cruelty.2
Some of the Locavores want to “Feel Good”; many want to buy Local foods solely because they dislike “industrial agriculture” (activists call it “factory farming”).3 Magic Pill®, a Netflix documentary, says, “If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, one of the best things you can do is eat locally and grow your own food in your own backyard.”4 Good idea, but you better have a very large yard if you expect to have fruits and vegetables and fish and beef and eggs and milk and peanuts and tree nuts. People who believe that Local beef production is sustainable (i.e., in regard to making sure that everybody has enough to eat) don’t realize that to produce the same amount of meat, you would have to increase the number of animals being raised.5 Beef-lovers in Wyoming want to buy meat identified as “Locally Produced and Wyoming-Raised” and now can do so.6 Kentucky Cattlemen’s Association claims that their locally grown and marketed beef is produced by farm families who share a commitment to good animal care and the environment.7 That’s undoubtedly true but certainly not unique. A quick-service restaurant chain rolled out a television ad saying it “only used fresh beef…from ranches nearby.” They pulled it back a few days later perhaps because they could be asked, “From what ranch nearby New York City…or Boston…or Anchorage did your company source their beef?”8
Is buying Local food good for my neighbors and the community in which I live? Probably. It allows some small-scale producers to survive financially.9 Especially if you can charge enough for it…like $7.99 a dozen for Local eggs when a dozen conventional eggs sells for $1.65.10 But that doesn’t help the community because it’s your neighbors who are paying for the higher-priced product. Consumer demand for locally produced food can be driven by demand for freshness, support for the local community, and personal communication with the producer11 but perhaps—as the grower—you wouldn’t want the end-user to know it was you who benefited from the transaction. Nevertheless, a Harris Poll™ says consumers still rank “support for the local economy” highest among reasons for choosing local food.12
During the Obama Administration, the USDA poured millions of dollars into support of Local, direct-to-consumer (DTC), food marketing, but by 2015 DTC sales were declining.12 When selling “Locally,” DTC marketing strategies include farmers’ markets, farm stands, on-farm sales, pick-your-own operations, and community-supported agriculture; less than 3% of farm sales are DTC.13 Participation in community Farmers’ Markets resulted in 71% of farmers saying they achieved higher profits if they sold their products in local markets; participants valued highest (as being most beneficial to them) the Farmers’ Market venue for its ability to give them a better sense of what the consumer really wanted to purchase.14 So, it really depends on whether you are the producer of the purchaser; it really “Feels Good” if you’re paid more than something’s worth…not so much if you’re the buyer. Nevertheless, there were 8,260 Farmers’ Markets in the US in 2014, and more than 4,300 farm-to-school programs purchased $385 million of Local food.15
An A.T. Kearney™ survey found that 93% of all shoppers associate “Local” with “fresh,”16 which is the primary purchase-decision factor for grocery shoppers; but that is not categorically correct. Others, convinced by USDA in 2008-2016, came to believe that shopping locally lowered carbon emissions; but that too is not always the case. The latter belief was based on the premise that Local food helps prevent climate change by minimizing GHGs from fossil fuels associated with “food miles”. Problem is: the term “Local” has no universal meaning, and some people want to expand it to include regional, or state, or even border (US Vs. Mexico or Canada).12 USDA defines “Local” as a measurable distance between food production and consumption that is 400 or fewer miles13; most retailers use that as their gold standard.17 The state of California allows vegetables from Mexico, and bananas from Malaysia, to qualify as “Local” for their school lunch program if the school buys them from companies that have a distribution center in California.18 A purveyor in Colorado says “Local has gone loco”; there are no chicken processors in his state, yet a competitor buys chicken from a plant in Georgia, repackages it in bags labeled “Processed In Denver, Colorado,” and retailers sell it as “Local”. When that was revealed to a supermarketer operator, he said, “I don’t care where the product was made so long as the package say’s it’s prepared or packed in Colorado.”19 Environmental sustainability of purchasing only locally grown food has been clarified; for example, the most environmentally friendly form of egg transport form source to home is that of purchasing a dozen eggs from a grocery store—unless you bought 17 dozen eggs on each visit to a local poultry farm.20
Relative to “It’s good for the animals,” that’s a myth believed only by activists searching for a reason to criticize industrial farming. No one could possibly believe that animal caretakers “nearby” are the only ones compassionate enough to care about the health and well-being of their animals. No one could possibly claim that only small-scale or Local farmers and ranchers protect their farm animals from; (a) shortages of feed, water, and healthcare; (b) the vagaries of extreme weather events; and (c) harm or death from predators. There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. Consumers often don’t realize that a “Local” label-claim doesn’t mean anything at all about animal welfare; it certainly doesn’t preclude mistreatment of animals.21 Production systems that allow free-range exposure allow direct contact between domesticated and wild animals, and their feces.22 USDA’s Farm Service Administration paid $2.2 million to a Georgia-based “Pasture-Raised” poultry farm to compensate for bald eagle attacks that killed 160,000 chickens.23 Farmers originally moved from “Free-Range” and “Group-Housing” in order to improve welfare (lessening broken breast bones and higher mortality due to “pecking order”).24
What about “It’s good for me”? A restaurant company claims, “The health benefits of eating locally are tremendous; fruits, vegetables, and meat that have been processed and picked in a recent time-frame have a higher nutrient density versus those that travel across the country”.17 Absolute nonsense. Foods that contain water become *higher* in nutrient density as the time between harvest and consumption *increases*— because they “dry out” more. Nutritional composition of animal-based foods is more reflective of what an animal eats than the type of production system that is followed.25 Power Of Meat 2019 revealed that meat/poultry consumers tie back livestock-raising practices to their own health, even more so than having benefits for the welfare of the animal.26 FDA now allows tens of thousands of small farmers to be exempt from the Food Safety Modernization Act regulations saying “products from Local farms are safer”.27 Recent recalls of raw organic milk, organic eggs, and organic poultry—all from small-scale producers—show clearly that consumer expectations are not being met.27 Any production system that allows outdoor access to farm animals has a negative effect on food safety—increasing risk of prevalence of infections by viruses, bacteria, and parasites.28
The Coronavirus pandemic revealed that there is a severe shortage of meat processing capacity encouraging numerous journalists to suggest that the USA needs to build more locally owned small-scale slaughtering and processing facilities.29 But, with regard to food safety, there is substantial evidence that if animals are not harvested and processed under FDA, USDA, or Food Code supervision, their meat is less safe. Those in the consuming public seldom hear about foodborne illnesses associated with production of meat on farms and ranches or at locker plants because most of those sicknesses are classified as “incidents” rather than “outbreaks” inasmuch as so few people are affected.30 A six-year scientific study of “Safety Of Meat To Size Of Processing Plants” identified substantial deficiencies in food safety practices at small and very small plants.30 Senator John Tester (D-MT) has argued in Congress that dangerous foodborne outbreaks don’t start with family agriculture27 but Auburn University surveyed food safety of locally produced foods and found it wanting.31 They’ve started a statewide butchery course to train small-scale processors on sanitary facility design as well as safe preparation and handling.31
The advantages associated with producing food locally don’t include food safety, nutritional value, or sustainability; so, its popularity must depend on its ability to satisfy someone’s philosophical ideology regarding freshness, supporting the local community’s economy, or avoiding purchase of products from a large-scale operation.32 “Local” continues to appear among “Top Ten Food Trends”33 and “2020 Power Of Meat”34 because of its capacity to generate a “Feel Good” mindset for a niche subset of consumers. Any other perceived added advantage is so subtle as to be immeasurable. I believe that, if there is a market for any reasonable food product, the industry should produce some of it—but not at the expense of any other product generated within the industry.
REFERENCES:
1 National Pork Board. October 2019.
2 Graves, Mack. Meatingplace. May 12, 2016.
3 Coclanis, Peter. The Wall Street Journal. August 28, 2015.
4 Gedgaudas and Keith. Netflix™. 2017.
5 McWilliams, James. NAFB News Service. September 2009.
6 Krut, Steve. Meat + Poultry, September 9, 2020.
7 National Cattlemen. April 2018.
8 Smith, Gary. Texas A&M University. December 2016.
9 Martinko, Katherine. Sustainable Agriculture. February 2015.
10 Gigot, Betty Jo. CALF News. November 2019.
11 Low and Vogel. Prepared Foods. February 2012.
12 Reetz, Alan. The Packer. July 29, 2019.
13 Webb, Megan. CALF News, September 2020.
14 New Jersey Community Farmers’ Markets. August 2009.
15 Harden, Krista. The Modesto Bee. March 2015.
16 Johnston, Tom. Meatingplace. April 20, 2016.
17 Jones, Amber. Insite. March 2019.
18 Meatingplace. January 2015.
19 Bloom, Greg. Meatingplace. August 13, 2020.
20 Capper, Jude. Washington State University. 2011.
21 Hopkinson, Jenny. Politico. April 8, 2015.
22 International Poultry Production. 12 (2): 4-9. 2004.
23 Raymond, Richard. Meatingplace. October 8, 2018.
24 National Association Of Egg Farmers. July 18, 2018.
25 Kelly, Susan. Meatingplace. July 19, 2018.
26 North American Meat Insitute. March 6, 2019.
27 Kochak, Jacqueline. Food Safety Magazine. May 2015.
28 Kijlstra *et al.* J. Food Protection. 72:2629-2637.2008.
29 Pharo, Kit. Pharo Cattle Company. August 12, 2020.
30 Cates *et al.* Journal of Food Production. 28:26-36. 2008.
31 Smith, Maggie. Bovine Veterinarian. July 26, 2018.
32 Abend, Lisa. TIME Magazine. January 25, 2020.
33 Sloan, Elizabeth. Food Technology. April 2018.
34 Roerink, Anne-Marie. 210 Analytics, March 15, 2020.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Thriving Livestock Auditing Program](https://fsns.com/thriving-livestock-auditing-program/)
**Published:** December 3, 2020
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
The Livestock Auditing Team at FSNS Certification & Audit has experienced many changes during 2020. Despite the challenges presented due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SVP of Auditing Services, Lori Ernst, and the FSNS C&A team have worked to continue to provide trusted audit services through innovative technology and flexibility. As a result, the team now offers virtual auditing, which allows us to provide customers with the certification and audit services they need in a safe and effective manner. The team is currently working on projects to streamline this process for future endeavors.
Valerie Smith, DVM, was hired as the Technical Manager of Livestock here at FSNS C&A. Valerie was a practicing large animal veterinarian for 21 years and previously managed the Dairy Stewardship program at Dean Foods. She jumped in and hit the ground running to work on expanding our livestock audit services.
Due to the growing need to expand our beef feedlot auditing services, Diane Hanson also joined the team as the Livestock Beef Audit – Lead. Diane is a new graduate from Colorado State University and was a welcome addition due to her vast knowledge from working in the beef industry and fluency in the Spanish language.
Our Beef Audit Services will now offer American Humane Certified Audits and USDA Process Verified Programs for Source & Age Verification, Non-Hormone Treated Cattle, Grass-Fed, Non-GMO, Natural, and Certified Organic.
The livestock auditing team did not stop there. A new audit tool was developed and we now offer the BEEF (Bovine Energy, Efficiency, and Feed ) Audit & Evaluation Tool with addendums in Animal Health & Welfare, Transportation, Workforce, Environment, Sustainability, and Carbon Emissions.
Still further expanding our livestock services, a new service for evaluating Livestock Shows & Rodeos was developed. This tool offers addendums for evaluating Facilities, Housing, Training/Education, Transportation, Shows/Events, and Veterinary Oversight areas.
The livestock auditing team at FSNS C&A is excited to offer these new services in addition to specialized customer audits for beef, dairy and multiple other species in order to fit the needs of each of our valued customers.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Blending Audits With Technology](https://fsns.com/blending-audits-with-technology/)
**Published:** March 7, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
For almost a year now, people all across the globe have learned to adjust their daily lives in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As people have grown to further rely on technology for their daily lives, so too is FSNS Certification and Audit becoming more reliant on technology to conduct audits in a safe and efficient manner. High-resolution cameras and virtual meetings with clients, uncommon before the pandemic, are now part of daily operations. Reliance on technology has also led many to reconsider the audit processes. In response to the pandemic, many GFSI benchmarked schemes such as BRC, SQF and FSSC, have updated their audit protocols to allow various technologies be used to assist in the conduct of certification audits.
Most GFSI schemes now allow a “blended” approach to conducting GFSI certified audits. The blended approach is a combination of traditional onsite auditing and the use of technology to assist the process. This typically consists of a virtual meeting between the auditor and the site wherein policies, procedures and records may be reviewed, as well as an onsite audit where the auditor visits the site to verify implementation of the food safety management system. The term “blended” is used as this process includes a combination of virtual auditing and onsite verification. The benefits of this process are the reduction in time spent on site by the auditor, the ability to involve more people in discussions without compromising social distancing, the savings on travel costs and the flexibility in scheduling.
In addition to blended audits, BRC, SQF and FSSC have also introduced the option of fully remote audits. These audits may be conducted 100% virtually through video streaming and virtual meetings. Auditors tour the facility via a live-feed camera and interview employees using platforms such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams. While fully remote audits are approved by BRC, SQF and FSSC, this process has not been benchmarked by GFSI.
While people around the globe have suffered through the challenges presented by COVID-19, there is a small silver lining in that these challenges have forced many to rethink how business is conducted. Hopefully, these changes in the third-party audit process are just the beginning. With high-resolution cameras and virtual meetings, it’s conceivable that third-party verifications can be more targeted with a greater sampling of onsite activities without the cost and time requirements associated with traditional auditing.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Virtually Adapting for Food and Personal Safety](https://fsns.com/virtually-adapting-for-food-and-personal-safety/)
**Published:** March 7, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
The world has gone virtual over the past year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the way we audit, review, and meet to discuss food safety.
An increasing number of audits are conducted either remotely or blended remote/on-site. This is true for GMP and animal welfare audits as well as major audit schemes such as BRCGS and SQF. Remote and blended audits allow contactless or limited contact options for services that would have previously been conducted fully on-site. Some clients require results of a negative COVID-19 test before admitting auditors access to the facility.
In-plant food safety meetings which would normally occur in a conference room are now held via various online meeting platforms or conference calls with attendees in their individual offices or in some cases working from home. Corporations have placed travel restrictions on staff to minimize the risk of contact, so what once would have been an in-person visit is very likely a virtual visit today.
Food industry conferences this year such as the Annual Meat Conference, Global Food Safety Initiative Conference, and BRCGS Food Safety Americas Conference will be conducted either fully virtual or with some form of limited contact interactions in 2021. Professional industry organizations such as PAACO (Professional Animal Auditor Certification Organization) now offer virtual training and certification options.
Online meeting platforms are expanding and technology is evolving to meet increasing virtual demands. Audits, meetings, and conferences have made a necessary shift to limited- or no-contact options to continue to monitor and improve food safety while striving to keep people safe amid the pandemic.
**Categories:** News
---
### [The Future of Fake Meat](https://fsns.com/the-future-of-fake-meat/)
**Published:** May 4, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Most of the manufacturers of fake meat have no interest in “competing” with those who produce meat conventionally; their vision, intent, or goal is more sinister than that. Among the “25 Claims In Support Of Meat Substitutes” 1 are these: (1) “Our vision is not to provide an alternative; it is to replace meat”; (2) “We intend to replace animals as a food production technology”; and (3) “Our company’s goal is to eliminate the need for animals in the food-chain by 2035”. And they expect to do it soon. Bonny et al. (2015), in Journal of Integration Agriculture, are so sure of its imminent success they predict that plant-based meat-alternatives (PBMAs) and cell-cultured meat-alternatives (CCMAs) will push conventional meat into the premium end of retail sales–and that real meat will have to compete at higher competitive retail prices.2
Others are much less optimistic. One prognosticator said, “The forecast for total real and alternative meat/poultry sales is $100 billion in 2021, and that PBMAs plus CCMAs will account for 2% (less than $2 billion) of the projected total.”3 Another said, “World demand for meat substitutes is expected to reach 6.7% of the real plus fake meat market.”4 A professor said, “Fake meat is a great theory on paper but its promises are disconnected from agricultural reality.”5 An economist said, “I don’t see alternative meat as a long-term threat to the meat industry; it definitely has a ceiling and will settle in the same market-share as Natural, Organic, Local, and Grass-Fed products.” 6
Max BurgersTM said, “Americans can help prevent catastrophic sea-level rise, droughts, and other consequences of climate change by reducing their annual consumption of beef by 95%; our goal is to have vegan burgers replace beef burgers in every second meal by 2022.” 7 Impossible FoodsTM claimed, “Our company was founded to replace animals; our manufacturing platform will enable us to recreate all animal products–including meat, dairy, and fish–using plants.”8 There’s a problem though. “Capturing the look and texture of cow’s milk with almonds, rice, or soy is simple compared to the complexity of meat; Fake milk is easy to make, yet hit the ceiling when they captured 10% of the total, overall, milk market.”9
PBMAs took off like a rocket. By March 2016: (a) Gardein TM was being sold in 22,000 retail stores, 5,000 restaurants, and 100 college-campus outlets; (b) Beyond Beef® was being sold in 19,000 grocery stores, >3,700 restaurants, and–via Sysco (a distributor)–thousands of food service operations; and (c) Impossible Foods was selling to >7,200 restaurants and 7,200 Burger-King TM QSRs. 10 Sounds great…but did it indicate that farm animals are being replaced? The “100 Hottest Food Trends For 2018” included both “real meat” and “real poultry.”11 Dan Murphy wrote, “Despite the media’s salivation over PBMAs, real meat and poultry still dominate foodservice; that’s because–at the end of the day–restaurants serve what sells, and veggie concoctions are window dressing.12 Even as plant-based diets gain traction, 2018 may well become known as “The Year Of Meat,” with Americans predicted to consume 222.2 lb of red meat and poultry during the calendar year–a record surpassing the previous high, set in 2004.13 (USDA in 2019 reported actual consumption was 222.4 lb). So, admittedly, CCMAs weren’t helping the cause in 2019 because, “Right now, a hamburger made from the Memphis MeatsTM process costs thousands of dollars.” The PBMA market is still growing but is still only a fraction of 1% of the overall meat market.14
In 2019, Dariush Ajami (Beyond Burger®) was resolute in saying, “Our goal is to perfectly replace animal meat with plant-based options.”15 Impossible Foods reiterated that “Our company’s goal is to eliminate the need for animals in the food chain by 2035.”16 But not all was going well, many consumers weren’t coming on board, some retailers were jumping ship, and financial experts were expressing doubt. A Harris Poll reported that nearly 75% of shoppers said they were unlikely to choose a plant-based patty over the real deal, and 80% would pass on lab-grown meat if it were available in stores.17 Power Of Meat 2019 reported that, of US consumers, 36% will “Absolutely Not” purchase PBMAs and 55% will “Absolutely Not” purchase CCMAs.18 Criticisms of PBMAs are rising: Consumers will closely scrutinize comparative prices, Ingredient Lists, nutrition profiles, and production practices.19 ChipotleTM announced that Beyond MeatTM and Impossible Foods products won’t fit in our food because of the processing it takes to make a plant taste like a burger; it wouldn’t match our ‘Food With Integrity’ principles.20 Beyond Meat products are getting booted off the menu at Tim HortonsTM; “ultimately, the product was not embraced by our guests”.21 Power Of Meat 2019 reported that only 18% of consumers said, “I am interested in PBMAs” and less–11.5%– said, “I am interested in CCMAs”.
People in the financial sector are generally adept at measuring business models. Beyond Meat reported $67 million in sales and $6.6 million in losses last quarter after a decade in business; with 70% of consumers preferring products without additives, Beyond Meat and all of these PBMA companies are positioning to be “nothing burgers”.22 To justify Beyond Meats’ present price ($150 per share) on the New York Stock Exchange, sales of product have to reach $22 billion by 2030; 2019 sales are $205 million (<1% of $22 billion).23 A 100-fold increase in sales in the next 10 years, when the PBMA price is 2.4 times that of a beef burger, is a tall order.23 On August 21, 2019, among the 10 largest increases in NYSE stock values were 4 meat and poultry companies (MarfrigTM, JBSTM, TysonTM, Sanderson FarmsTM); among the largest decreases was Beyond Meat (down 18.3%).24
Of present concern is the future of fake meat. Some things are changing. Supermarkets are putting PBMAs in the fresh-meat case (2% in 2016; 16% in 2018)25 hoping shoppers buy them by mistake and find out they like (or can tolerate) them. Beyond Burger finally was profitable in 3Q-2019 and 12 of the 16 PBMA companies had percentage increases in total sales in CY-2019 over CY-2018. 26 And, US retail sales of all plant-based food rose 11.4% in 2019 to $5 billion–of which $939 million was for PBMAs.27 Even so, PBMAs in the US now account for 2% of retail-packaged meat sales28 and 0.1% of all refrigerated/frozen meat sales globally.29 Investment bank UBS® forecasts a 28% compound annual growth for global PBMA sales taking the category from less than $5 billion in 2018 to $85 billion in 2030.30 Nevertheless, if we’re going to save the planet by getting rid of all meat animals, we have a hard row to hoe to replace 98% of the meat supply in the USA and 99.9% of the meat supply globally with PBMAs. A number of agricultural economists have predicted that the “ceiling” market-share for PBMA patties in US quick-service restaurants will be 10%.31
The most startling predictions relative to the future of fake meat is that of A.T. Kearney: Using information from United Nations, World Bank, A.T. Kearney Analysis, and expert interviews to forecast “Global Meat Consumption Trends,” they estimate that–by the year 2025–meat-sales market-shares will be 0% for CCMAs, 10% for PBMAs, and 90% for genuine meat (GM). 32 They further speculate that these proportions will change from 0-10-90 in 2025, to 10-18-72 in 2030, then 22-23-55 in 2035, and 35-25-40 in 2040…which suggests that 60% of all “meat” sales will be CCMAs plus PBMAs.32 They further speculate that genuine meat will lose even more of market share if the NestlesTM and TysonsTM of the world decide they want to put more of their corporate Research and Development resources to work on mimicking the properties of real meat.32
REFERENCES:
1Smith, Gary. 2020. Texas A&M University. January 20 Issue.
2Gyton, Georgi. 2015. GlobalMeatNews.com. April 21 Issue.
3Browne, Michael. 2018. Supermarket News. July Edition.
4Bennett, Chris. 2018. Drovers. August 13 Issue.
5Karisch, Brandi. 2018. Mississippi State University. August 18 Issue.
6 Peel, Derrell. 2018. Oklahoma State University. August Edition.
7Radke, Amanda. 2018. BEEF. June 27 Issue.
8 Phelps, Lisa. 2018. Prepared Foods. October Edition.
9 Ozimek, Adam. 2018. Moody’s Analytics®. August Edition.
10 Smith, Gary. 2020. Texas A&M University. May 23 Issue.
11 TheStacker.com. 2018. December 9 Issue.
12Murphy, Dan. 2018. Drovers. December 11 Issue.
13Radke, Amanda. 2018. BEEF. September 24 Issue.
14Demetrakakes, Pan. 2019. Food Processing. July Edition.
15Berry, Donna. 2019. Meat + Poultry. July 19 Issue.
16Gabbett, Rita Jane. 2019. Meatingplace. May 13 Issue.
17 Des Moines Register. 2019. October 1 Issue.
18Power Of Meat. 2019. March 26 Issue.
19 Specialty Food Association. 2019. Trendspotter®. December Edition.
20Welshans, Krissa. 2019. Feedstuffs. July 30 Issue.
21Shike, Jennifer. 2020. Pork Business. January 20 Issue.
22 Berman, Richard. 2019. The Washington Times. July 30 Issue.
23 Henderson, Greg. 2019. Drovers. July Edition.
24 Merill Lynch. 2019. Consumer Update. August 31 Issue.
25Meatingplace. 2020. April Edition.
26Meatingplace. 2020. March Edition.
27Plant Based Foods Association. 2020. Food Processing. April Edition.
28 Valigra, Lori. 2020. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
29James, Katie. 2019. Drovers. December Edition.
30 Kuhn, Mary Ellen. 2020. Food Technology. March Edition.
31 Lucas, Amelia. 2020. CNBC. January 14 Issue.
32Gerhardt et al. 2019. A.T. Kearney®. December Edition.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Noteworthy Changes in SQF Edition 9](https://fsns.com/noteworthy-changes-in-sqf-edition-9/)
**Published:** June 3, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Version 9 of the SQF code was released in late 2020 with facilities expected to have requirements fully implemented no later than May 24, 2021. First, this article is not meant to be all-encompassing of the changes, but to highlight some key changes for sites that we audit.
**Structure**
The overall structure of the standards was adjusted by separating them into 11 different standards with one of these being the Quality Code. Additionally, there are fewer elements which does not necessarily mean there are fewer requirements, but the code has been streamlined.
With the transition from version 7 to version 8, SQFi removed Level 2 (Food Safety) and Level 3 (Food Safety and Quality Codes). With the Edition 9 release, desk audits were removed for the initial certification audits where previously the desk audit and facility audit were separated. These have been combined.
Remote recertification audits are now permitted with a minimum of one day being conducted while onsite.
**Scoring**
Another big change was scoring where Major non-conformances have changed from a 10 point deduction to a five-point deduction. This stems from SQFi’s hopes that auditors will be more likely to call Major non-conformances when system issues are present at a facility.
**Surveillance Audit Failures**
If a site fails during a Surveillance audit, the Certification Body has to receive a corrective action plan within 48 hours of the suspension and the CB has to revisit the site in the following 60 days. Previously the CB had 30 days to revisit the site.
**Audit Requirement Updates**
Food Safety Culture is a change that has been required by another GFSI standard, BRC. SQF specifically calls out food safety culture through discussing objectives and performance measures. Additionally, employees should be empowered and held accountable to report food safety issue and be aware of the food safety culture at the facility.
Another area that was added but was not detailed extensively in the change documents released by SQF was the high-risk requirements. Positive air pressure is required as well as testing of ambient air annually. Footwear and distinctive protective clothing controls are also included in Edition 9.
**Conclusion**
Although SQF Edition 9 has numerous other changes, these aforementioned changes are just the tip of the iceberg for the improvements. For more of the changes and standard downloads, visit [www.SQFi.com](https://www.SQFi.com). If you have additional questions about this article or would like to talk to a team member about the changes or certification, reach out via our website [www.fsnsaudit.com](https://www.fsnsaudit.com).
**Categories:** News
---
### [Importance of Using Data to Improve Food Safety](https://fsns.com/importance-of-using-data-to-improve-food-safety/)
**Published:** June 14, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Every processing plant that we visit generates a substantial amount of data. Often the data generated is reviewed after being gathered and then filed. When looking at data only when it is gathered we are missing opportunities to improve food safety and our food safety management system.
First, you must make sure the data being gathered is accurate and represents what is actually happening in your facility. This is something that we sometimes find as auditors. People are performing tasks but not accurately recording what occurred. Each time a measurement is taken it should be recorded to enable those that were not there to see what happened. For example: If a titration is taken and it is not within the established specification the initial titration should be documented not just the final titration after adjustments have been made. Recording only what is expected or ‘good’ results does not paint the full picture.
Once you are confident that the data that is generated is accurate it provided you with information. Information allows you to evaluate your processes and systems and reveals each site’s strengths and areas for opportunity. Once you have the information you can then make decisions.
- What can we do differently?
- What can we do better?
- Do we have the right people in the right positions?
- Are we measuring the right things?
- Is there an area that is slowly declining or slipping out of control that cannot be seen if
just looking at the information on a daily basis?
- Is the right data being collected to allow us to have the right information to make the right
decisions?
Essentially, we gather data that provides us with information to make decisions and provides us with the opportunities for continual improvement. We all know that we manage what we measure so use the data that is generated everyday and make your food safety management system as strong as you possibly can.
**Categories:** News
---
### [“Green”, “Real”, And “Clean” As Food Descriptors ](https://fsns.com/green-real-and-clean-as-food-descriptors/)
**Published:** December 5, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
*Dr. Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University*
More than 40 years ago, marketing gurus for food companies sought to identify “descriptors” (i.e., words that present a picture to a person who reads or hears them) they could put on a food label to differentiate their product from its competition. In the beginning, they chose words/terms that were self-explanatory (e.g., “Natural”, “Organic”); in 2008, they began to invent descriptors like “Green”, “Real”, and “Clean” (these three were drawn from the narrative in Michael Pollan’s book, “In Defense of Food”).1
The way this “Descriptor Strategy” works is: (a) the marketing department of a fruit company has an epiphany that it can sell more bananas if it adds the word “Wonderful” to its banana labels; (b) no one has ever done that, and no one knows what “Wonderful” implies, so the food company hires a consumer research firm to conduct a study or survey that shows that “X percent of all grocery shoppers are seeking ‘Wonderful’ food, Y percent of millennials favor ‘Wonderful’ over ‘Awful’ bananas, and Z percent will pay a premium for them”; (c) the research firm releases results of its study to the print media and internet; and (d) surprise, surprise…suddenly thereafter, “Wonderful Bananas” appear in the marketplace.
## Can Consumer Polls Be Trusted?
The epitome of overreach in the interpretation of consumer-research findings can be achieved by the design of a well-crafted press release like, “A Nielsen Report® Found That 93% of US Households Presently Purchase ‘Clean Label’ Products, and 67% of US Consumers Want to Know Every Ingredient in the Food They Buy.”2 There’s nothing wrong or untruthful about the statement per se, but it is reminiscent of the old story that eating pickles caused cardiac-arrest mortality because, of all people who died of a heart attack, almost all of them had previously eaten a pickle.
In the Nielsen Report®, it doesn’t say the 93% intentionally purchase “clean label” products, it just says that 93% had some (probably bottled water) “clean label” products in their home. And the 67% who “want to know every ingredient in the food they buy” probably answered “Yes” to a binary like, “Do you want to know every ingredient in the food you buy?” as opposed to “No” (I don’t care what’s in my food). I’m surprised that only 67% care; but it doesn’t mean that two-thirds of shoppers carefully scrutinize the ingredient lists of every food product they do or don’t purchase. You can pose the questions in a survey in a manner that yields whatever outcome you want. I personally believe only the findings of those surveys that ask unassisted and open-ended questions.
## “Green” Descriptor Loses its Appeal
“Green” originally meant “Earth-Friendly”; food characterized as “Green” was perceived as being produced in a sustainable, climate-protecting, and environmentally conscious manner.3 It had some traction but temporarily lost popularity as a descriptor because so many people associated the term with Greenpeace® (a radical environmental activist group). Europe’s largest pork producer (Danish Crown™) had to recall its “Green Label” claim (based on its Climate-Controlled® program) under pressure from retailers and Greenpeace®.4
## But One Group Wants to Revive It
“Green” has recently been rescued; the United Kingdom Board of Trade believes use of the term “Green Trade” offers a major opportunity to bring together its trade plus climate agendas as it markets agricultural products.5 At present in the US, all that matters to some manufacturers and some retailers is to be able to say, “It fits the green label.”6
## Does Climate Change Signal the End is Near?
The “Green Movement” and its climate-change narrative would have us believe that the end of the Earth is imminent; these activists have indoctrinated our children with false and foolish rhetoric.7 Bjorn Lomborg (Stanford University), a climate-change believer, says, “While climate change certainly exists, it is not the end of the world, and the policies currently being taken to address the problem are worse than ineffective – they are counterproductive.”8
Global warming is causing an unprecedented “greening” of the world; because of increases in CO2 over the past three decades, upward of half of the world’s vegetated area is getting “greener” whereas only 4% is “browning”.8 Climate change is costly, but so is climate-change policy. The Biden Administration’s green-energy policy (signing on to the Paris Agreement and COP-26 using executive orders) has increased the price of all foods; it seems highly unlikely that very many shoppers will pay the premium for “Green Label” food products.9
## “Earth Friendly” Concept Splits in Two
When “Green” stalled, the “Earth-Friendly” concept was bifurcated: “Sustainable” became the descriptor for methods by which food is produced, while first “Real” and then “Clean” became the descriptor for the foods those systems produced.10
The move from “Green” to “Real” started when Joan Dye Gussow (author of “The Feeding Web”) said, “I have watched ‘Real Food’ disappear from supermarkets and restaurants, being replaced by food-like substitutes filled with artificial colors, flavors, fats, and sweeteners.” Michael Pollan believes we should stop eating anything: (a) our great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food; (b) is incapable of rotting; (c) contains ingredients that are unpronounceable, unfamiliar, more that five in number, or include high-fructose corn syrup; or (d) makes health claims. Having been codified as “Ordinary” by Gussow and Pollan, “Real” meant, “As Mother Nature made it” – leaving no room for the R&D folks to “improve” it by adding ingredients and no way for marketers to claim exclusivity.
## “Real” Stalls as an Attractive Food Descriptor
“Real” never gained traction because the word translates as: (1) genuine, (2) not artificial, and (3) not imaginary; that word doesn’t work in an era when so many manufacturers merchandise imitations, substitutes, vegan/vegetarian versions, and plant-based meat/milk alternatives.10
Use of the word “Real” in combination with an animal-product name (e.g., “Real Beef”, “Real Pork”, “Real Chicken”) may soon appear on product labels; the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Chicken Council have filed comments to FSIS-USDA that would restrict use of certain words/descriptors on food labels and in marketing claims.11,12
## Distaste for Ultra-Processed Foods Breeds “Clean-Eating” Movement
The “Clean-Eating” movement arose from dissatisfaction with the ubiquity of ultra-processed foods. For example, the ingredient list for Walmart™ Ring Donuts® contains 118 ingredients.13 Food marketers catered to a few “loud” consumers who wanted something “taken out of food” and created mass hysteria among others.14
Early on, Greenpeace® argued that “Clean” was being used as a synonym for “Green” and “Real”, when, in fact, it was a catchphrase and fake descriptor invented by food marketers to trick consumers.15 “Clean” has had its problems because, by connotation, it implies that food produced by any other production or processing method must be “Dirty”. Some food marketers decided to bolster existing, but waning-in-popularity, brands via resuscitation – by taking ingredients out of old staples.16
## What is the Definition of “Clean Label”?
“Clean label” has no legal or regulatory definition. At its simplest, as early as 2015, some defined it as “free of artificial ingredients”,16 and as recently as 2022 some define it as “absence of unacceptable chemicals.”17
But, give activists and food marketers an inch and they’ll take it a mile. In 2016-2017, some insisted it must be non-GMO; organic; natural; free of [pesticides](https://fsns.com/reasons-to-perform-pesticide-testing/), chemicals, or toxins; [allergen-free](https://blog.certified-laboratories.com/en/cl-blog/the-complex-world-of-allergen-cross-contact-controls); gluten-free; transparently packaged; vegan-friendly; minimally processed; raw; paleo; grass-fed; free-range; and pasture-grown.18,19,20 Others added in 2019-2021 included fresh; not highly processed; and free of antibiotics, hormones, preservatives, thickening agents, MSG, and high-fructose corn syrup.21,22,23,24
## What Do Consumers Look for on a Product Label?
Of those consumers who claim to read ingredient lists, they say they are looking for: (a) familiar, simple ingredients (the fewer the better) that are easy to recognize and pronounce, and (b) no artificial colors or flavors, no artificial sweeteners, and no GMOs.2
Ever since consumers began clamoring for ingredient lists they can understand, food manufacturers have sought to provide “a product that consumers can trust and feel good about.”25 Experts in food labeling say the key to a “clean label” is removing anything in the ingredient list that has the following:
- The letter “x”
- Hyphens
- Numbers
- More than three syllables in its name26
## **Many Consumers Care More About What is Not in Food Than What Is**
More than half of all consumers say the exclusion of undesirable ingredients is more important than the inclusion of beneficial ones.27 Before deciding to buy a product, more and more consumers pay particular attention to the number of ingredients listed and whether the list includes familiar names; of the two components – length and familiarity – the latter is the most important to consumers.28
## **How Do Manufacturers Create “Clean Labels”?**
Some food manufacturers create “clean labels” by removing ingredients with unfamiliar or scientific names, and replacing them with ingredients that have common or recognizable names.29
For example, a label that contained lactate, diacetate, nitrite, erythorbate, and phenolic could be “cleansed” by taking those ingredients out of the product and replacing them with (in order) cultured milk, vinegar, celery juice, cherry powder, and fruit extract.29
One company converted its traditional product into a “clean-labeled hot dog” with claims of “No artificial preservatives” and “No added nitrites/nitrates” by using vinegar (which is actually acetic acid) and celery juice (which contains nitrates) in its formulation.30
## **Label “Cleansing” Can Backfire**
“Cleansing” by removal of wrong-sounding names of ingredients (focused largely on skepticism about ultra-processing) has been hijacked by animal-rights, environmental, and sustainability activists21, and even by plant-based meat-alternative makers. PBMA makers used a “clean-label” strategy – playing follow the leader – without actually knowing what it meant. When they learned that products with 18 to 20 ingredients were not eligible, they played “cover up”, likening their products to the “clean energy” moniker because both fossil-fuel use and beef damage the environment.31,32,33
## **But “Clean Food” is Here to Stay**
As consumer desire for “clean food” continues to grow, food companies are increasing this claim on food product labels.34 However, the definition of “clean label” continues to evolve. It is not defined the same by every manufacturer; there is “ultra-clean” and there is “just barely clean” – almost always associated with the price of the final product.6 “Clean label” is not defined the same way among grocery companies. Whole Foods™ and Sprouts™ have different “clean-label” requirements than Kroger™ and Safeway™.6
## **Marketers Seek New Ways to Differentiate “Clean” Food**
Many marketers appear to be running out of ideas regarding “clean” as a descriptor and are desperately searching for a consumer-lifestyle “movement” (a series of organized activities by people working toward an objective) to which to sell their products. Such movements focus on the following:
- Keeping “clean label” but promoting the ideology that it is dedicated to the health and nutrition of the consumer35
- Changing to “green label” (PBMA makers want this because their products are not “clean”, “real”, or “healthy”)36
- “Clean eating” directed toward people who have orthorexia (an obsession with eating foods that are considered “healthy”)37
- “Clean eating” as a healthful diet or personal-eating pattern38
- “Clean eating” as the marriage of health and environmental responsibility39
- “Clean living” based on the belief that some food ingredients promote heart health40
- “Cleaner living” as combining consumer interest in health, sustainability, and ethics41
- “Green eating” in support of health, environment, sustainability, and ethical concerns41
## **Some Manufacturers are Abandoning “Clean” Completely**
Others have decided we need to drop “clean” altogether. There are those who suggest we move on to descriptors like the following:
- “Healthy choices” (foods that foster physical, mental, and emotional health and wellness)42
- “Foods for the greater good” (ingredients that are tools to make our current world a cleaner, healthier, and happier place)43
- “Hungry for better foods” (consumers want dining options that support their planet, their communities, and themselves)44
- “Ethically sourced foods” (What’s in the food? How’s it produced? Who produces it?)45
- “Functional foods” (food and beverages that improve wellness and health)46
In the end, though – in any fair discussion of the subject – is a determination of, “How important are ‘descriptors’ as shoppers make purchasing decisions?” A [Purdue University consumer survey concluded](https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2022/Q1/new-report-provides-insight-on-consumer-food-spending,-satisfaction,-sustainability.html): Of the six attributes that American adults value when making food-purchasing decisions, consumers most value the “taste” of their food while least valuing the “environmental impact” and “social responsibility” of their food.47
A [recent survey of adult Americans conducted by the International Food Information Center®](https://foodinsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/IFIC-Food-and-Health-Survey-2020.pdf) mirrored a consistent trend that we have seen in our Food Processing Food & Health Surveys over the last decade: When it comes to food-purchasing priorities, “taste” and “price” remain paramount while “environmental sustainability” trails far behind.48
**References**
1Pollan, Michael. 2008. In Defense of Food. March Edition.
2Churchill, Marisa. 2020. Prepared Foods. April Edition.
3Smith, Gary. 2011. Where Food Comes From Newsletter. Spring Edition.
4Johnston, Tom. 2022. Meatingplace. March Edition.
5Gov.UK. 2021. Press Release. July 21 Issue.
6Avis, Ed. 2022. Food Processing. April Edition.
7Davis, Blaine. 2022. CALF News. July Edition.
8Lomborg, Bjorn. 2022. False Alarm. July Edition.
9Smith, Gary. 2022. Colorado State University. June 18 Issue.
10Smith, Gary. 2012. Where Food Comes From Newsletter. Winter Edition.
11Johnston, Tom. 2021. Meatingplace. December 2 Issue.
12Crews, Joel. 2021. Meat & Poultry. December 3 Issue.
13Smith, Gary. 2022. Colorado State University. June 22 Issue.
14Stanton, John. 2017. Food Processing. October Edition.
15Greenpeace®. 2011. March Edition.
16Prepared Foods. 2015. March Edition.
17Gale, Sarah. 2022. Alt•Meat. February Edition.
18Shroeder, Joanna. 2016. Food Quality & Safety. March 5 Issue.
19Williams, Lu Ann. 2016. Prepared Foods. October Edition.
20Williams, Lu Ann. 2017. Prepared Foods. July Edition.
21Mitchell, Richard. 2019. National Provisioner. October Edition.
22Sleginski, Alan. 2020. Prepared Foods. April Edition.
23Drummond, Gerald. 2020. Prepared Foods. April Edition.
24Webster, Ali. 2021. Dairy Processing. June 17 Issue.
25Corbion Food™. 2019. Meatingplace. February Edition.
26Laughman, Casey. 2019. Food Engineering. May Edition.
27Sloan, Elizabeth. 2018. Food Technology. April Edition.
28Tolu, Andrea. 2021. Food Quality & Safety. July Edition.
29Golden, Max. 2021. Meatingplace. February Edition.
30Cahill, Emma. 2020. Food Safety Magazine. August 9 Edition.
31Soderlin, Barbara. 2018. Omaha World-Herald. January 18 Issue.
32Budzynski, Brian. 2021. Alt•Meat. December 13 Issue.
33Johnston, Tom. 2022. Meatingplace. February Edition.
34Stevens, S. and E. Presnell. 2022. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
35Berry, Donna. 2018. Meat & Poultry. June 6 Issue.
36Rosenbloom, Cara. 2017. The Washington Post. September 26 Issue.
37Lawson, Nigella. 2017. British Broadcasting Company. October 12 Issue.
38Feedstuffs. 2019. May 22 Issue.
39Gilbert, Linda. 2019. Ecofocus Worldwide. June 17 Issue.
40InsightsNow®. 2019. September 12 Issue.
41Williams, Lu Ann. 2020. Prepared Foods. June 6 Issue.
42Nelson, Andy. 2021. Dairy Processing. July 20 Issue.
43Lundahl, Dave. 2021. Prepared Foods. July 5 Issue.
44Urner, Barry. 2021. FoodMarket News. March 2 Issue.
45Prepared Foods. 2021. March Issue.
46Sloan, Elizabeth. 2021. Food Quality & Safety. May Edition.
47Lusk, Jayson. 2022. Purdue University. February Edition.
48Demetrakakes, Pan. 2022. Food Processing. June 3 Issue.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Developing A Strong Food Safety Culture](https://fsns.com/developing-a-strong-food-safety-culture/)
**Published:** July 15, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**Dr. Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University**
The World Health Organization says almost 1 in 10 people is sickened by eating food processed or prepared by others1; it is estimated that approximately 50% of cases of foodborne illness are due to failures in the “culture” of the organizations responsible for the safety of products.2 Much improvement is still required in understanding how culture can be improved to enhance food safety performance. The food safety culture of an organization is critical to a company’s ability to manage the challenges implicit in producing safe food products.3 With FDA now actively talking about the potential of regulating food safety culture in the future, and with USDA likely to eventually follow FDA’s lead, food companies should start working to assess where they currently stand on the continuum of food culture.4
In 2015, the Global Food Safety Initiative got off to an early start with a Technical Working Group On Culture which concluded that, “The path to the vision of a landscape that goes beyond compliance with rules, regulations, requirements, and standards lies squarely in the culture of your company. It rests upon a time when employees earn autonomy to act independently yet flex as a team-member to find and commit to the best path for your company to improve its food safety culture.”2 A global study in 2015 revealed that senior leaders (vice-presidents and above) rank “culture” as the number 1 concern in their organization for its ability to meet the challenges of the future, and for the business to be sustainable.5
Food safety culture works at the intersection of food science, organizational culture, and social cognitive science.6 We need to understand the interactions between traditional food sciences, including food safety, and the sociocultural sciences to determine what food safety is and how it can be measured and improved.6 Building a food safety culture requires buy-in from everyone; because of Murphy’s Law… anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.7 It’s up to the processor’s management team and staff to build the programs necessary to keep Mr. Murphy out of their operation; one of the tools that more and more operations are adopting is what is known as “the food safety culture”.7 Ensuring the safety of food products for consumers is a key goal of a food safety culture, and food companies are increasingly challenged to manage a robust food safety culture that consistently delivers safe food.8
From the raw materials arriving, to assessing each process step in manufacturing, there is a need to understand the associated risks and how they can be controlled or mitigated.9 The stronger the food safety culture at the manufacturing level, the lower the likelihood that issues will arise, as the company is one step ahead and looking to manage risk rather than a company with a weaker culture that is merely managing the hazard.9 A “mature” food safety culture can prevent physical, chemical, and biological contamination by forcing implementation in mitigating/avoiding such events. Three cases from the food industry show the impact of focusing on “mature culture”: (a) One company saw a 70% reduction in customer complaints plus a 45% reduction in lost-time injuries. (b) Another company showed reductions of 35% in customer complaints, 11% in employee turnover, and 50% in work injuries. (c) Another company surveyed its employees after a focus on culture and found that 91% understood how they contributed to the success of the organization while 82% felt that management cared about their well-being.2
Culture has recently gained greater traction: (a) The fresh produce (i.e., fruits and vegetables) industry now considers food safety culture as “essential”,10 and (b) foreign-body prevention methods require detection equipment (e.g., metal detector, x-ray) but also rely heavily on food safety culture (i.e., the behavior, attitude, and teamwork of the workforce).9 All-too-human causes of food safety system shortfalls have taught us that moving from knowledge-based training to behavior-based training might be the key to changing the culture in food plants and companies.11
Food recalls are a measure of a company’s food safety culture. FDA examined root causes of food recalls and determined that 26% of recalls were the result of improperly following Standard Operating Procedures and 32% were caused by inadequate training.12 A global food safety training survey found that 67% of respondents agreed that, “Despite our training efforts, we still find that employees are not following our food safety program on the plant floor”.13 Too many times the food safety effort is reactive, rather than proactive. There seems to be a disconnect, since most companies buy recall insurance yet are reluctant to invest in much less expensive preventive measures and technologies.14
Merging food safety and operational excellence to build a better food safety culture is very difficult when the existing culture is “run at all costs”; change takes commitment from the top down. Many company leaders proclaim that food safety comes first, then routinely take steps that run contrary to food safety (e.g., decreasing time allowed for cleaning/sanitizing so more line-time is available, refusing to slow-down or stop production when a safety problem seems imminent, running the line so fast that errors occur).4 For some, HACCP implementation is a remedy for all food safety issues; to others, it’s continuous improvement and “doing the right thing”.6 Early in HACCP’s evolution, it became obvious that management commitment was vital and essential (that is, senior managers seeing food safety management as the “right thing to do”).6 Demonstration of commitment by managers is seen as important for workforce commitment and behavior; the impact of people and culture on effective food safety management systems has evolved into considerations of organizational and food safety culture today.6
When employees, managers, and leaders feel personally committed to food safety, they will do the “right thing”; (a) even when nobody is watching, and (b) even when it is not the cheapest or fastest approach. A strong organizational culture can help create and sustain that commitment. Over time, good food safety practices become the normal way of doing things and a source of personal pride.15 In a plant with a strong food safety culture, all of the employees are empowered to speak up or stop production if they witness the processing of an inferior product or producing a product that may harm the consumer.16 Unfortunately, workers and management say this, and do this, religiously, only during a GFSI audit or when customers or regulatory-agency personnel are present.16 It’s doing the right thing when no one is looking, and when they are.4
Food safety culture starts at the top of the org chart; it doesn’t filter down unless it becomes important to the top management.16 The CEO must: (a) Develop budget and strategy goals that are ambitious, yet achievable, measured through Key Performance Indicators; if the goals are too ambitious, the management team and the line-workers may be demoralized. (b) Have periodic meetings at which “what’s working and what’s not” is discussed and course corrections are made. (c) Show urgency, yet patience and feedback, as the company culture evolves.17
To build and maintain a strong food safety culture, leaders must not only demonstrate their commitment with their words and actions, but also make sure that their company’s policies, systems and processes incentivize good food safety decisions and behavior at every level of the organization.16 Leaders must be consistent and transparent in their messages; they must: (a) allocate the resources needed to assure their food is safe; (b) show that they appreciate employee’s effort and engagement in food safety; (c) set targets and communicate specifically and consistently, and (d) set the right tone – it must be positive.2
Objectively quantifying the “culture” of a company or in a facility is difficult. Some say it’s all about recalls and market withdrawals. Many experts say that the food safety culture in a facility can be measured by what employees do when no one is looking; others say it can be gauged by whether intermittent findings of a resident environmental pathogen are allowed to persist over a period of time.4 The Global Food Safety Initiative has had a profound influence on: (a) how to measure “food safety culture”, and (b) how to predict the future success of the food safety culture in a company and at its production sites.
Safe Quality Foods states, “Where management is committed to creating a food safety management culture: (a) recalls and market withdrawals are reduced, (b) efficiencies are increased, and (c) costs are lowered. During a facility audit, the auditor should assess management and workforce commitments to providing safe, quality foods”.18 Brand Reputation Compliance (formerly called British Retail Consortium) states, “A fundamental factor in the management of product safety is the safety culture which prevails at the site; that is, the shared attitudes, values, and beliefs relating to the importance of product safety, the confidence in the product safety processes used at the site, and the systems available to report any concerns relating to product safety. For this culture to flourish and the importance of product safety to be understood by all members of staff, it needs to be led from the top of the organization to ensure that the necessary commitment, support, and resources are available”.19
References
1. World Health Organization. 2018. [www.who.int](http://www.who.int). June 1 Issue.
2. Jespersen et al. 2018. Food Safety Magazine. June 20 Issue.
3. VanRenterghem, Barbara. 2021. Food-safety.com. August 5 Issue.
4. Stevens, Shawn. 2021. Meatingplace. August 16 Issue.
5. Korn Ferry Institute. 2015. dsqapj1lakrkc.cloudfront.net. June 15 Issue.
6. Wallace et al. 2019. Food Safety Magazine. April 16 Issue.
7. Stier, Richard. 2021. Food Engineering. March 5 Issue.
8. Emond et al. 2018. Food Safety Magazine. October 1 Issue.
9. Sharman, Nic. 2021. Food Safety Magazine. August 10 Issue.
10. Food Safety Magazine. 2021. August 19 Issue.
11. Faour-Klingbell, Dima. 2021. Food Safety Magazine. August 12 Issue.
12. US Food and Drug Administration. 2009. May Edition.
13. [www.campdenbri.co.uk](http://www.campdenbri.co.uk). 2017. September 6 Issue.
14. Fenton, Daniel. 2021. Meatingplace. August 16 Issue.
15. Wan and Marterer. 2018. Food Safety Magazine. May 15 Issue.
16. Chance, John. 2021. Meatingplace. August 16 Issue.
17. Spector, Barbara. 2021. [PrivateCompanyDirector.com](https://www.privatecompanydirector.com/). April Edition
18. Safe Quality Foods. 2021. . Accessed 9/20/2021.
19. Brand Reputation Compliance. 2021. . Accessed 9/20/2021.
**Categories:** Newsletter
---
### [Hygiena BAX® SalQuant™: A Simpler and More Cost-Effective Means of Providing Salmonella Quantification Information](https://fsns.com/hygiena-bax-salquant-a-simpler-and-more-cost-effective-means-of-providing-salmonella-quantification-information/)
**Published:** May 12, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**Rhaisa A. Crespo, Ph.D.**
**Research Scientist**
In food microbiology, all test methods fall into one of two categories: qualitative methods or quantitative methods. Qualitative methods are very specific for a particular analyte (usually a pathogen that one expects to be present at a low concentration), and are designed to tell the user whether the food sample is “positive” or “negative” for that analyte. This testing approach usually involves incubating a food sample in a nutritious liquid medium (i.e. enriching) to make a single cell multiply into millions of cells. The incubated mixture is then tested with a detection assay such as a Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay (PCR) or Enzyme-Linked Fluorescence Assay (ELFA) that gives a “positive” or “negative” result. In general, one will have zero tolerance for any amount of an analyte tested via a qualitative method, so the “positive” or “negative” result is sufficient.
In contrast, quantitative methods are much broader in their specificity (usually targeting broader indicator or spoilage organism groups that are present at a higher concentration), and are designed to provide a concentration per gram of food sample for these organism groups. Generally, one has some allowable amount for an analyte tested via a quantitative method, and so needs to know “how much” of the analyte is present in order to make a decision. In most instances, quantitative testing approaches involve mixing dilutions of a food sample with an agar medium (i.e. plating) and then counting the colonies that develop in the agar after incubation. This works well when the concentration of organisms is high enough per gram to dilute the sample and count colonies on an agar plate after incubation is complete.
However, what is the laboratory to do when a customer desires to know the concentration of a specific organism (usually a pathogen) that is expected to be present in a food sample at a concentration that is too low to use a quantitative method? Likewise, what if there is no quantitative method that is specific enough to allow one to accurately identify colonies of an organism based on their appearance on agar plates? For decades, the answer to both of these questions has been to use the Most Probable Number (MPN) approach.
The MPN approach has been a reliable tool in the analysis of bacterial contamination in a wide variety of matrices since the early 1900s. This approach relies on statistical models that use qualitative methods in a semi-quantitative way. In the MPN approach, one will enrich several replicates of several portion sizes of a sample (usually three replicates times three portion sizes) and will test these with a qualitative method. Then, based on the number of positives or negatives that are obtained with the qualitative method among the replicates at each portion size, one can use statistical models to calculate the estimated concentration of the analyte in the sample along with a 95% confidence interval. This approach works exceptionally well to provide reliable estimations for very low analyte concentrations. However, MPN testing is very tedious, slow, and expensive due to the need to conduct multiple analytical tests per sample.
Although the MPN approach has been the gold standard for decades, scientists have recently realized that Real-Time PCR (RT PCR) methods, which are generally used for qualitative testing approaches, also provide quantitative information. Under certain incubation and testing conditions, the strength of the RT PCR amplification signal can be mathematically correlated to the concentration of the analyte present in the sample. More importantly, this can be done with a single test portion, not multiple test portions like the MPN approach. Due to the time and money saved by testing one portion with RT PCR versus multiple portions with the MPN approach, RT PCR has quickly become one of the preferred methods to provide reliable concentration data for low concentration analytes in food microbiology.
*Salmonella* is one of the most problematic foodborne pathogens. In fact, among 31 pathogens evaluated by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), *Salmonella* ranks number two among the top five pathogens causing foodborne illnesses, and ranks number one as the foodborne pathogen resulting in the most hospitalizations and deaths due to domestically acquired foodborne illnesses. Hence, *Salmonella* is of great concern in the food industry, and in most food products, there is zero tolerance for *Salmonella*. However, some food products that are intended be cooked before consumption, like raw meat and poultry, do not require zero tolerance for *Salmonella*. Yet, despite not having to comply with a zero tolerance policy, producers of these products often want to know (and manage) the load of *Salmonella* in their products and production environments. Furthermore, the demand for this type of testing data has recently increased. Until recently, the only way to decipher the concentration of *Salmonella* in a sample (which is not measurable using a quantitative method) was to use the MPN approach, which is less than ideal.
The Hygiena BAX® System now provides a solution to meet this challenge. BAX® employs RT PCR methods that have traditionally been used as qualitative methods to detect bacterial contamination in food matrices. Employed worldwide in countries like Canada, the United States, and China, BAX® RT PCR methods present several advantages over other microbiological methods such as faster results, superior specificity, rapid testing with up to 96 samples per batch, and greater sensitivity, detecting as low as one cell per 25 or 375 gram portion.
To meet the increased demand for *Salmonella* quantification, while at the same time avoiding the tedious and expensive MPN approach, Hygiena has created the BAX® System SalQuant™ approach. The BAX® System SalQuant™ approach uses amplification signal data from the BAX® System RT PCR Assay for *Salmonella* and correlates it with statistical models to provide *Salmonella* concentration results for a sample. SalQuant™ has several advantages over traditional methods like MPN by providing quantitative data with higher sensitivity, faster results (~24 hours), and fewer false positives, all at a lower price to the customer. The figure below provides a list of some of the most common matrices that can be tested using the BAX® System SalQuant™ approach. FSNS has the capability to perform SalQuant™ testing in every one of its laboratories. So, if this sounds like it is something that would be useful to you, please do not hesitate to reach out to your account representative or to to inquire how FSNS may be able to help you implement the SalQuant™ testing protocol today!
References
**Categories:** News
---
### [Advancements in Traceability of Meat and Poultry](https://fsns.com/advancements-in-traceability-of-meat-and-poultry/)
**Published:** April 7, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University
Consumers want to understand the origins of their food and its journey from farm-to-fork.1 “Blockchain” is a generic term for a connected, unalterable system of data that notarizes when, where, and between whom a transaction has occurred.2 It locks-in shipment details (data points are captured, stored, transferred, and accounted for) at each point in the supply-chain path.3 It is a great tool to enable traceability – if the product proceeds through the supply-chain path in discrete “lots”. It works well for poultry because the integrators (e.g., Tyson, Pilgrim’s, Perdue, Cargill) own and control every facet of production/processing from hatching, to growing, to harvest.3
It has worked well for Cargill with its Honeysuckle White Turkeys where consumers can text-message an on-package code to access a family-farmer’s location, view the farm story, and see photos of the farm.4 Walmart has successfully trialed it on pork.5 Tyson has announced that Open Prairie Natural Pork is exclusively produced at its facility in Waterloo, IA; saying that all hogs are traceable to the place of birth.6 That’s an easy thing to claim; Blockchain works if you’re vertically integrated – like poultry and pork – or if you are small in scale. Three small meat companies in Arkansas are using a Blockchain system named Provence® for beef shipments to China – with a QR code on packages to tell their story.7 Some Wyoming ranchers are using Blockchain in BeefChain®, using QR package codes to “track their cattle from pasture to the meat-case”.8
JBS-Australia is using a Blockchain “paddock-to-primals” traceability program for its King Island Beef Program.9 JBS-Brazil has launched a Blockchain platform for monitoring its beef supply-chain to assure socio-environmental (e.g., deforestation, slave-labor) compliance.10 Walmart has created its own Blockchain technology program to create an Angus beef supply-chain that will connect ranchers, feedyard operators, packers, case-ready fabricators, distribution center managers, and retailers.11
Of the major beef-exporting countries, the USA is the only one without a robust traceability system.12 A Farm Journal survey found that 49% of farmers and ranchers say that the end-consumer has no right to know how they manage their farm/ranch.13 A Drovers poll found that ranchers are split on whether or not the cattle industry needs a national traceability system with 48% responding “Yes”, and 52% responding “No”.14 A voluntary national cattle traceability system – US CattleTrace® – has been launched to enable management of an animal disease outbreak using ear-tags, tag readers, and a private database.15 That system, based on ear-tags, RFID, and GPS technology (which tracks cattle from birth to harvest) would improve supply-chain transparency, increase export-market access, improve food safety, and improve livestock management efficiency.12 R-CALF USA (a group of rogue cattlemen) has sued USDA to prevent use of RFID eartags16, but both Tyson17 and Cargill18 have joined US CattleTrace®.
Blockchain technology is not capable of achieving complete supply-chain traceability (because the trail ends at the packing plant), if the intention is to follow individual animals and their own meat. For cattle and beef, there is so much sorting, commingling, mixing, blending, and transferring of ownership that it is impossible to keep track of the bits and pieces of an individual animal. Although food companies want to use Blockchain to link consumers with family farmers19, that technology has been slow to gain industry-wide acceptance.20 The only way Blockchain technology will work in packing plants that harvest and process 500 to 5,000 animals per day, is if they do groups/lots (e.g., of Organic, Non-Hormone Treated Cattle, Grass-Fed Cattle) in which they don’t identify the pieces or grinds as being from an individual animal — it’s from a group of animals raised, harvested, and processed identically.21
So, to achieve traceability (i.e., an information trail that follows the products’ physical trail) farm-to-fork on individual animals, a system must go beyond Blockchain. An ear-tag (i.e., an Electronic Identification Device which bears an Individual Animal Identification Number) must be put in each calf at the time of birth.22 Tag-readers must be located at farms, ranches, auction markets, feedyards, and packing plants to collect IAINs, GPS locations, dates and times.22 On entry to the packing plant, DNA is collected and sent to a laboratory.22 A packer’s customer, a supermarket’s shopper, or a restaurant’s patron can gain access to the DNA data, independently and without the company’s knowledge and ask for traceability data on a sirloin steak or a package of ground beef.23
The DNA-testing protocol described above (IdentiGen®) was originally developed for Ireland’s national traceability program; it now has testing laboratories in Ireland, UK, USA, and Canada.24 The IdentiGen® protocol is being used by Tyson to trace the origin of beef entering the Open Prairie Natural Angus Beef program,24 and by Performance Food Group for its Braveheart brand of Black Angus beef.25 The Kobe Beef Marketing & Distribution Promotion Association has implemented DNA-testing to distinguish “real” vs. “fake” Kobe beef.26 Individual farmers can have their animals tested for DNA and certified as “genuine Kobe”, and they can use their unique animal identification number in retail marketing.26 New Zealand’s largest Grass-Fed beef, lamb, and venison producer – Silver Fern Farms – uses a Scientific Traceability® system for live animal traceability; Oritain® as its laboratory to test muscle samples for DNA; and Quick Response® codes on meat packages to provide transparency to its customers and consumers.27
The competitiveness of food marketers has caused the meaning of the term “transparency” to morph into more than just “where it comes from” and “how it got here”. For example, Tyson’s definition of the term; the Open Prairie Natural Meat’s brand is dedicated to transparency – communicating with its partners.6 FPL Foods processes Open Prairie Natural Angus Beef for Walmart. Jim Rogers (FPL Foods) believes that more and more folks want to know more and more about how that steak ended up on their plate, and how their roast ended up in their retailer’s meat-case. FPL does that through a DNA test. Consumers who purchase an FPL product are welcomed to send a piece of steak/roast to us and we will run a DNA test to tell them when and where it was born, fed, and harvested.28 Midas Marketing has identified “DNA Traceability” as one of the Top Four Technologies that will create a more interactive meat-case because 73% of consumers worldwide want it, and nearly all are willing to pay a premium for it.29
REFERENCES:
1. Turner, Jeanne. 2019. Processed Foods. June Edition.
2. Choat, Tamara. 2018. Tri-State Livestock News. October 3 Issue.
3. Smith, Gary. 2018. FSNS Newsletter. March Edition.
4. Bricher, Julie. 2018. Meatingplace. May Edition.
5. The Packer. 2017. August 23 Issue.
6. Tyson Foods. 2019. National Provisioner. February 8 Issue.
7. Rutherford, Burt. 2018. BEEF. September 26 Issue.
8. Radke, Amanda. 2018. BEEF. August 29 Issue.
9. Crews, Joel. 2019. Meat + Poultry. October 28 Issue.
10. Rocha, Anna. 2021. Meatingplace. April 29 Issue.
11. Boyle, Matthew. 2019. Checkout. April 24 Issue.
12. Dolezal, Glen. 2021. Meat + Poultry. June 15 Issue.
13. Griffiths, Clinton. 2020. Farm Journal. December Edition.
14. James, Katie. 2021. Drovers. February 1 Issue.
15. Henderson, Greg. 2020. Drovers. January Edition.
16. Gibson, Kate. 2021. Meatingplace. April 27 Issue.
17. Sims, Bob. 2021. Meat + Poultry. April 21 Issue.
18. Kelly, Susan. 2021. Meatingplace. June 10 Issue.
19. 2019. January 8 Issue.
20. Donley, Arvin. 2019. Baking Business. June 6 Issue.
21. Smith, Gary. 2019. Texas A&M University. February 15 Issue.
22. Newport, Alan. 2018. BEEF. July 5 Issue.
23. Shaffer, Erica. 2018. Meat + Poultry. December 21 Issue.
24. Shaffer, Erica. 2019. Meat + Poultry. Mach 14 Issue.
25. Shaffer, Erica. 2019. Meat + Poultry. April 19 Issue.
26. Johnston, Tom. 2019. Meatingplace. September 26 Issue.
27. National Provisioner. 2019. October 23 Issue.
28. Ricci, Peter. 2021. Meatingplace. February Edition.
29. Kelly, Susan. 2021. Meatingplace. January 25 Issue.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Working as a Team in a Remote Workplace](https://fsns.com/working-as-a-team-in-a-remote-workplace/)
**Published:** December 8, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
By Colton Pifer, Livestock Audit Specialist
Building a team and fostering a positive workplace environment is difficult but doing so in a virtual setting can seem near impossible. Technology enables many possibilities for team building and communication but often diminishes the value of conversation. Food Safety Net Services Certification and Audit (FSNS C&A) is an entirely remote company with employees scattered throughout the country. We strive to build the same team environment found at many in-person and hybrid workplaces in our remote work setting. A team environment is invaluable for auditors as it helps bring many different backgrounds and experiences together to train and produce the best auditors possible.
Working towards a team environment involves open communication, building relationships, and going the extra mile. Building a team environment starts from day one for a new employee. New auditors shadow experienced auditors extensively when they begin working at FSNS C&A. This in-person interaction gives new employees tangible experiences that virtual training and education cannot. Building a relationship with their fellow auditor creates a connection in the virtual workplace and provides the opportunity for communication with other co-workers. Communicating in the virtual world can be intimidating; email and instant messaging are great for initial contacts but video calls resonate best to help acclimate new hires and add the human element often missed in other methods of communication.
In addition to acclimating new hires, special attention must be paid to the engagement of existing employees. Oftentimes technology and remote work make it easy for employees to be isolated or feel out of touch. Weekly or biweekly calls help include employees and catch up on personal and work-related matters at the same time. Video calls also provide the opportunity to resolve conflict, which, when managed, can be beneficial to understanding how co-workers think and provides the opportunity to debate issues within the workplace. Having the ability to discuss and debate issues helps employees feel understood. Bottling up frustration or trying to convey frustration via email or chat programs rarely results in a positive manner. Regularly scheduled calls also promote a commitment towards continued communication that is often neglected by other forms of communication.
Building a positive workplace environment in a virtual setting is a constant work in progress. FSNS C&A works to incorporate personal elements, establish clear communication and acclimate new employees to successfully build our virtual team and provide the best services to our customers.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Plant-Based Meat-Alternatives And Their “Health Halo”](https://fsns.com/plant-based-meat-alternatives/)
**Published:** November 5, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University
By 2019, the “protein trend” was white hot and showed no sign of cooling. It was said that plant-based meat-alternatives (PBMAs) had a “health halo”.1 PBMAs with protein claims were growing at 9% per year – 3 times higher than total US Grocery. 1 Consumer interest in protein surpassed that of interest in fat, and despite the fact that animal-based food emphasis had been on protein for decades, “Protein From Plant Sources” was ranked as the 3rd “healthiest” ingredient in food while “Protein From Animal Sources” ranked 10th.2 Two-thirds of shoppers looked for “better-for-me” options when buying meat and poultry; but – even with the nation’s protein craze – only 0.2% of meat and poultry carried protein claims.3 In 2018, 96% of consumers surveyed attributed their motivation for PBMAs to the “overall health halo” of such products.4
Early on, PMBA manufacturers didn’t claim their products had “more protein” or “higher-quality protein” because they knew that was not true. But – somehow – large numbers of consumers believed one or both of those things. PBMA makers did claim “healthier” and “more nutritious” because they knew there was no official definition for those terms. When PBMAs first entered commerce, they were criticized for having fewer grams of protein per serving. For example, Beyond Beef® was called out for having “less protein”5 and “50% less protein”6 than a beef burger. Later that year, Beyond Burger® launched a new formulation with the claims: (a) Our blend of mung bean, pea, and rice proteins makes it a complete protein source; (b) Our patty offers 20 grams of protein; and (c) Our product now qualifies as a “complete protein” with all of the essential amino acids.7 The nine essential amino acids are: (1) Phenylalanine, (2) Valine, (3) Threonine, (4) Tryptophan, (5) Isoleucine, (6) Methionine, (7) Histidine, (8) Leucine, and (9) Lysine.8
A comparison of real (80% lean) beef burger, Impossible Burger®, and Beyond Burger® found Grams of Protein to be 19, 19, and 20, respectively, and ended with the conclusion, “If you’re choosing one of these burgers on the basis of protein content you might rethink your decision.”9 A comparison found Grams of Protein to be 25 for the Impossible Whopper® vs. 28 for a genuine beef (85% lean) burger.10 Seems pretty equal, only 11% less protein in the Impossible Whopper®, but not all proteins are created equal.10 In ground beef, the rate-limiting amino acid is tryptophan (at 79% of the required level); in the Impossible Whopper®, the rate-limiting amino acid is methionine (at 41% of the required level)10 So, Usable Grams of Protein was 22 for ground beef and 10 for the Impossible Whopper® patty.10
People who are presently focused on consuming exclusively plant-based foods should be aware of their deficiencies in proline and hydroxyproline.11 Those two amino acids, found in the structural connective-tissue proteins (i.e., collagen and elastin) of meat, are essential for the health of intestines, joints, and skin of humans. Nutrition Coalition quoted American Heart Association as saying, “People choosing alt-meats should be careful to compensate for the loss of nutrients.”12 That goes double for people moving away from animal products entirely; if they’re not having meat, eggs, or dairy products, they might not get enough Grams of Protein (men need 56, women need 46, grams daily – and, again, not all proteins are created equal).12 A perfectly balanced and nutritionally complete meal has all 9 essential amino acids, and all 27 essential vitamins and minerals; unlike meat, eggs, and milk, individual plant proteins do not contain all of the indispensable amino acids.13
Power Of Meat 2020 reported: (a) 95% of people eat meat but only 64% think it has a role in a healthy diet.14 (b) interest in PBMAs is driven by perceptions about health.14 (c) 5% are considering elimination, while 28% are actively reducing, meat in their diet next year.15 (d) 50% of regular eaters of PBMAs believe it is healthy; 36% of them believe it is a good source of protein.15 Meatingplace found it strange that another survey said 56% of people were likely to eat one meat-free meal per week “to improve their personal health” in light of the fact that research shows that the nutrition in PBMAs is typically not better than the meat it replaces.16 The Good Food Institute (comprised of PBMA-manufacturers) claims PBMAs are more nutritious and more healthful than animal-derived foods.17 An article in Dairy Processing claims, “Plant-based foods are bringing more nutrient-density than the original animal-based analogs.”18
Consumer surveys have reported: (a) 83% of consumers believe that PBMAs are healthier than meat; 46% said nutrition was the top driver for consumption of PBMAs; and “high protein” was the most important attribute of PBMAs.19 (b) Protein Content was the highest ranked nutritional trait among PBMA purchase drivers.20 (c) 71% of consumers claim they plan to eat healthier in the future; 49% of US consumers say they’re going to “eat healthier” by consuming PBMAs.21 (d) More than 50% of consumers believe that PBMAs are “better for my health”.22
Why do so many people believe that PBMAs are more healthful and more nutritious than animal-based foods? Consumers believe the Nutrition Facts panel on a label is more important in determining “healthfulness” than is the Ingredient List. Side-by-side, looking at Nutrition Facts, 45% of consumers believe PBMAs are at least somewhat healthier than real beef.23 Many consumers look solely at Grams Of Protein rather than Daily Value to determine the protein content of foods.8, 21 Most protein from plants is “incomplete” (i.e., doesn’t provide all of the essential amino acids); plus, protein from plant sources isn’t as readily absorbed. Daily Value takes both factors into account.21 While plant-based foods do contain protein, you typically must eat much larger amounts of plant-based foods to get the amounts of amino acids your body needs.21
Nutrition Facts on PBMAs and genuine beef may appear to be equivalent but a recent study by Duke University shows they’re as different as plants and animals. Using metabolomics, scientists found that beef contained 22 metabolites that PBMA did not; the greatest distinctions occurred in amino acids, dipeptides, vitamins, phenols, and types of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids.24
Back to the “Health Halo”. The Hartman Group was commissioned by PBMA manufacturers to flesh-out components of “The Halo Around The Term, Plant-Based”. In all fairness, the result was: The halo around the plant-based term draws its strength from its relevance to four key motivations that guide consumers’ eating choices: (1) Health and Wellness, (2) Taste and Discovery, (3) Cost and Convenience, (4) Ethics and Beliefs.25 They never mentioned protein as they discussed Health and Wellness; they realize that Daily Value and digestibility of protein is a major Achilles heel for PBMAs.
References:
1. Nunes, Keith. 2019. Meat + Poultry. June 18 Issue.
2. IFIC. 2019. November Edition.
3. Power Of Meat. 2019. Annual Meat Conference. February 26 Issue.
4. Dupont Nutrition & Health. 2018. September Edition.
5. Atuan, George. 2019. Redflox Capital. July Edition.
6. Berman, Richard. 2019. The Washington Times. July 30 Issue.
7. Feedstuffs. 2019. March 6 Issue.
8. Berg, Eric. 2021. AMSA Newsletter. June 28 Issue.
9. Dryer, Lisa. 2019. CNN. August 9 Issue.
10. Strangle, James. 2019. Tri-State Livestock News. December 20 Issue.
11. Newsmax. 2019. July Edition.
12. Nutrition Coalition. 2019. September 25 Issue.
13. Boisseau, Anna. 2019. Dairy Foods. October 8 Issue.
14. Thompson-Weeman, Hannah. 2020. Animal Agriculture Alliance. March 10 Issue.
15. Roerink, Ann Marie. 2020. Meat + Poultry. March 18 Issue.
16. Meatingplace. 2020. February Edition.
17. Tubb, C. and T. Seba. 2020. The Rethink X Project. September Edition.
18. Danley, Sam. 2021. Dairy Processing. June 1 Issue.
19. Gelski, Jeff. 2019. Meat + Poultry. November 20 Issue.
20. Kuhn, Mary Ellen. 2020. Food Technology. March Edition.
21. Amstein, Danette. 2020. Meatingplace. January 1 Issue.
22. Angus Beef Bulletin Extra. 2020. February 20 Issue.
23. Sollid, Kris. 2020. Food Technology. December Edition.
24. Gibson, Kate. 2021. Meatingplace. July 8 Issue.
25. Hartman Group. 2019. Food & Technology. December Edition.
**Categories:** General
---
### [Perspectives From a New Auditor](https://fsns.com/perspectives-from-a-new-auditor/)
**Published:** September 7, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
By Diana Trejo, Audit Specialist, FSNS C&A
Changing my career path was a difficult decision and one that I agonized over. Had I known then, what I know now, I would have made the transition long ago. Joining the Food Safety Net Services Certification & Audit (FSNS C&A) group has been a positive and exciting change.
While traveling has been a part of work-life for years, it was limited and repetitive. By joining FSNS C&A, I have been given the opportunity to travel and work, not only in the United States but in Canada and Mexico as well. The company has worked tirelessly with our legal departments to secure the required VISAs and paperwork on my behalf. Additionally, the company is concerned with my welfare and takes steps to ensure that I am well taken care of, sojourn in safe locations, and when needed internationally, ensures reliable and secure transportation.
By accepting the position of Auditor Specialist, I have opened myself up to brand new opportunities and processes. I have been given training and exposure to new environments, species, audit plans, and regulatory requirements. This has been both challenging and exhilarating, simultaneously. As a former food safety manager, this aspect of my new position has been my favorite. It has allowed me to continue to grow my knowledge base and has given me a deeper understanding of previously unfamiliar challenges that are faced in the food manufacturing environment. I now observe how industry leaders are continually working towards overall food safety, and how they are using their infinite knowledge to educate employees and communities alike.
As a result of traveling and visiting different facilities, I am meeting new professionals in the food industry. Working with like-minded and goal-oriented individuals is a pleasure and allows me to network on a much greater scale. It is delightful to see acquaintances and friends in the industry grow and positively affect overall food safety culture.
Coming out of a poultry, FSIS regulated facility, my knowledge of other species and of FSMA was limited to say the least. FSNS C&A has invested heavily in my training that includes red meat, FSMA and animal welfare. This represents just the beginning of my learning journey and I look forward to the years to come and the knowledge/training that I will acquire.
The company’s investment of time and resources to assist me in my career development has been extraordinary and something that I had not experienced previously. The camaraderie and support exemplified by our managers and shared by my peers has made me feel that I’m where I belong.
The decision to change my career path has been one of the best decisions that I have ever made, and I’m excited to be associated with such an exemplary company.
**Categories:** Newsletter
---
### [Transparency Is Actually “Improved Traceability” To Gain Consumer Trust](https://fsns.com/transparency-is-actually-improved-traceability-to-gain-consumer-trust/)
**Published:** August 11, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
(Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University)
“Transparency” is the clear winner in the Innova Market Insights, Top Ten Food Trends For 2021, with brands upping their game to meet evolving ethical, environmental, and clean-label consumer demands.1 55% of US consumers are asking for “the story” behind their food—they want to feel more connected to the products they purchase. The retailer needs to focus on how to deliver the story, carry products with a story, and effectively communicate the story to the consumer.2 Aimpoint Research reported that, with regard to “sustainability of a food product,” transparency is important to two-thirds of consumers and three-fourths support government-mandated transparency labels.3
Consumers want to understand the origins of their food and its journey from farm-to-fork.4 Transparency is truth and trust.5 In 2015, food companies implemented “transparency” initiatives in response to lack of consumer trust. The concept was actually “improved traceability” because many buyers/shoppers wanted more information about what’s in their food and where did it come from. Nestle, Walmart, Dole, McCormick, and Cargill were early-adopters, seeking to strengthen their brand-names so their customers and consumers could make informed decisions at the time of purchase.6 BrandSpark International says, “Being transparent is a way that companies gain trust in brands from consumers”; it’s “Most Trusted Brands In 2018” included: (a) eggs (Eggland’s Best); (b) sausage (Jimmy Dean); (c) fresh packaged meat (Oscar Mayer); (d) butter (Land O’ Lakes); and (e) hot dogs (Oscar Mayer).7
Brand recognition continues to grow among supermarket shoppers and foodservice patrons because of their interest in trust and transparency. FMI’s Power Of Meat 2018 said opportunities exist for food retailers in the use of “Product Transparency.”8 Consumer surveys reveal that: (a) 94% of consumers are likely to be loyal to a brand of meat and poultry that offers complete transparency; and (b) 73% would be willing to pay more for a product that offers complete transparency.9 The brand-name, Niman Ranch, appears on more than 16,500 restaurant menus because of patron’s interest in trust, transparency, and belief that the company’s heritage is vested in its ethical and sustainable practices.10
Peripheral benefits to “improved traceability” would include: (a) safer food, (b) improved trust, (c) enhanced flow, to provide fresher products to end-users, (d) fresher and faster deliveries to reduce food waste, (e) prevention of food fraud, (f) reduction of reaction time in the event of a food recall, and (g) shining a light on food ecosystem participants that will further promote responsible actions and behaviors.6 Global supply-chains can be challenging to track and trace because paper trails can be difficult to follow (because they do not provide transparency) plus there is a chance that a deceitful employee can adjust specific details.11 More and more Americans are interested in how their food is produced, processed, and distributed—and they want “transparency.” 81% of consumers deem transparency “important” or “extremely important”, and 62% of shoppers say a brand is transparent if it provides a complete list of ingredients.12 A recent study in Environmental Research Letters says that with more and more companies and brands seeking to use eco-labeling (i.e., mitigations of food waste and climate change) there is need for full supply-chain traceability.13
There are traceability systems presently in use or in the developmental stage for plant-based foods. Established technology like FoodLogiQ provides software—along with bar codes—to achieve traceability (down to the case level across the supply chains for packaged foods).14 The produce industry uses traditional ERP systems to trace fruits and vegetables back to the farm—including the field and the row in which it was grown plus the time/day it was harvested and processed.15 Safe Tracers was granted a US patent for using a barcode constructed of DNA strands from seaweed which can be safely applied to fruits, grains, vegetables, and other foods.16 The barcodes, called “safetracers” carry complete source data, stay on or in the food throughout the supply-chain, and can be read in minutes to confirm provenance and purity of the product.16 Porcupine is a DNA-based molecular tagging system which offers an alternative to bulky plastic or printed barcodes commonly used at retail; made from strands of synthetic DNA, it can be used for traceability of food products.17 Zest Labs has developed technology using wireless sensors to collect product data to help move perishable food from its point-of-origin to grocery shelves as fast as possible.18 Walmart announced its Eden technology to “track food from farm to table” in 2018; a jury just awarded Zest $115 million to be paid by Walmart for having stolen Zest trade-secrets and using them to develop Eden.18
Blockchain technology is a list of digital records (called “blocks”) that are linked using cryptography which enables retailers to tell the story of a true farm-to-table journey.19 Since 2015, attention has centered on implementing Blockchain as the technology for locking-in shipment details (data points are captured, stored, transferred, and accounted for) at each point in the supply-chain.6 The grain industry uses a Blockchain technology called Agri-Digital.20 DNA Trek uses a liquid solution containing bits of DNA of seaweed that can be sprayed on fruits and vegetables.21 The technology allows for multiple layers of spray; the grower can spray it with one kind of DNA and the processor can spray it with another kind of DNA, etc., allowing the supply-chain path to be verified.21 BlockApps, a Blockchain platform provider, has launched the True Harvest network which allows access to supply-chain information to improve food safety, sustainability, and traceability of fruits and vegetables. HerdX, United Postal Service, and Fogo de Chão have partnered to use Blockchain technology and verified traceability to provide provenance data for restaurant food ordered on-site, for curb pickup, and mail-ordered.
Blockchain technology is a driver of efficiency in a supply-chain because it means time that used to be devoted to tracking down the status of an order, and answering customer or consumer questions, can instead be spent either looking for new opportunities to serve customers and consumers, or finding new ones.24 Prepared Foods predicts that tomorrow’s food consumers will expect a brand’s transparency message to include: (a) pricing (revealing true net costs and unbundled costs); (b) corporate performance (emphasizing Fair Trade, diversity, living wages, and executive compensation); and (c) the planet (publicizing the real environmental impact, conservation initiatives, and progressive stance on animal welfare).25 Sure hope Prepared Foods’ predication never materializes.
REFERENCES:
1 Fusaro, Dave. 2020. Food Processing. October 22 Issue.
2 Gordon, Lynn. 2020. BEEF. May 28 Issue.
3 Karst, Tom. 2020. The Packer. December 16 Issue.
4 Turner, Jeanne. 2019. Processed Foods. June Edition.
5 Clyma, Kimberlie. 2018. Meat + Poultry. April 19 Issue.
6 Smith, Gary. 2018. FSNS Newsletter. March Edition.
7 Gelski, Jeff. 2018. Meat + Poultry. May 28 Issue.
8 Crews, Joel. 2018. Meat + Poultry. October 10 Issue.
9 Capstone Headwaters. 2018. May 19 Issue.
10 Tristano, Darren. 2018. Technomics. May 16 Issue.
11 Spielman, Sharon. 2021. Food Engineering. January Edition.
12 Brooks, Rhonda. 2020. Ag Web. December 23 Issue.
13 The Packer. 2021. June 22 Issue.
14 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2019. Food Processing. November Edition.
15 Fusaro, Dave. 2019. Food Processing. January Edition.
16 Labs, Wayne. 2019. Food Engineering. October 16 Issue.
17 Genetic Engineering News. 2020. November 6 Issue.
18 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2021. Food Processing. April 13 Issue.
19 Saunders, Leann. 2021. Where Food Comes From. Winter Edition.
20 McLean, Asha. 2018. ZDNet.com. June 28 Issue.
21 Andrews, James. 2014. Food Safety News. November Edition.
22 Koger, Chris. 2020. The Packer. November 18 Issue.
23 McCarthy, Ryan. 2020. Meat + Poultry. August 5 Issue.
24 Patton, Mickey. 2021. Manufacturing Business Technology. July 5 Issue.
25 Harvey, Aimee. 2018. Prepared Foods. December Edition.
**Categories:** News
---
### [The Science of Training, Goals and Food Safety Culture](https://fsns.com/the-science-of-training-goals-and-food-safety-culture/)
**Published:** September 10, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Although national surveillance data suggest improvements in many facets of food safety, certain aspects of food production management continue to receive less attention in many North American facilities, particularly with respect to the transmission of biological hazards. For example, interrelationships between food safety goals, training and culture in a facility continue to present opportunities for improvement. Internal analyses of FSNS audit data suggested that, during the period of 2016-2018, non-conformities written against facility and equipment sanitation and hygiene were second in number only to those written against the quality of food safety documentation programs. To correct such deficiencies, employee performance must be improved. So, it appears that improvements in hygienic controls and food safety culture can still be obtained in most facilities. The question becomes, how should a company address deficiencies that demand improved employee commitment and performance?
An interesting paper was published in the January 2019 edition of the *International Journal of Hospitality Management* by authors Clark et al. (2019) entitled **Exploring the Influence of Food Safety Climate Indicators on Handwashing Practices of Restaurant Food Handlers.** This paper offers some enlightening findings with respect to improving employee performance when it comes to food hygiene control behaviors—which may likely be extrapolated to all sectors of the food supply chain. Objectives of the study included determining relationships between food safety climate indicators (as a component of food safety culture and including commitment, rewards, and role overload) and food safety behaviors (Clark et al., 2019).
According to the authors, Goal Setting Theory (GST) is “a comprehensive framework of understanding, predicting, and motivating behavior, and has been empirically validated in over 500 published studies.” Use of GST was selected by the authors as the framework to test the hypothesis that attitudes associated with commitment, perception of rewards given for particular behaviors, and perception of work intensity would impact employee behavior. In the Clark et al. (2019) study, the employee behavior of interest was that of handwashing to meet U.S. Food Code requirements.
The authors worked with a county health department to interview trained (in food safety information) employees at restaurants as the sole retail outlet of high-risk or ready-to-eat foods. Ultimately, 66 restaurants (12% of those identified) agreed to participate. Those restaurants allowed researcher access to 132 employees (of which 124 were used) for data collection (Clark et al., 2019).
Results fortified previous scientific conclusions that management attitudes and values are likely to be the most important components of a “healthy food safety climate” (Clark et al., 2019). Six total survey attitude-based variables were tested against likelihood of adequately washing hands, including “employee commitment, habit strength, managerial commitments, goal level, contingent rewards, and role overload.” Only the factor of managerial commitment to handwashing was significantly correlated and served as a reliable predictor of handwashing frequency of employees. So, organizational (company) beliefs appear to have the most substantial impact on employee behavior and actions—even beyond things like perceived potential for rewards. In their study (Clark et al., 2019), employee commitment turned out to be greater than management commitment! Furthermore, the level of goals that were established were statistically associated with employee commitment. When employees feel they have sufficient time, resources, and training to wash their hands as often as they should, their handwashing goals are more likely to align with their handwashing behavior.
So, as the food industry continues to improve food safety management, clear management commitment, training, and support for specific employee behaviors and goals are absolutely needed to shift behaviors. If a company perceives less-than-desirable employee behaviors, it may be necessary to “look within” and ascertain whether or not perceptions of management commitment are adequate or not and if training has adequately addressed expectations.
**Reference:**
Clark, J. P. Crandall, and J. Reynolds. 2019. Exploring the Influence of Food Safety Climate Indicators on Handwashing Practices of Restaurant Food Handlers. Intl. J. Hospitality Mgmt. 77:187-194.
**Categories:** News
---
### [BRC Issue 7 Food Safety Audit Data over the past three years](https://fsns.com/brc-issue-7-food-safety-audit-data-over-the-past-three-years/)
**Published:** May 17, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
From 2016 to 2018, FSNS C&A auditors conducted over 600 BRC Issue 7 Food Safety site audits, resulting in the identification of over 4800 non-conformities (NC). These data were collected from sites encompassing 39 different production categories or category combinations. Throughout these audits, regardless of production category, there were commonalities in the top requirement categories and clauses written. These findings can be useful to review if your facility is scheduled for an audit, as an awareness of common infractions could allow for pre-emptive corrections and lower the number of NC issued. Two comparisons made using the data including the most common categories infractions occur in and the most common overall clauses cited,
Clauses under which a NC can occur are broken down into seven overarching categories. While the overall site average for number of NC a visit was 7.7, clauses belonging to requirement group 4, “site standards”, make up an average of 4.1 NC a visit. From there, requirement group 3, “food safety and quality management system” was cited an average of 1.5 NC per visit. No other requirement group averaged above 1.0 NC per visit (Figure) The high number of NC a visit attributed to requirement group 4 was consistent across both year and type of production.
Throughout site visits, 239 individual clauses were referenced at least once over the three years audits were conducted. Throughout the years, many clauses were found to occur at a much higher rate than other clauses. In fact, the top 5 clauses made up 15% of all NC written at all sites (see the top five clauses in the table). All of these top clauses dealt with record keeping and cleanliness and belonged to requirement group 3 or 4.
These data provide insight into the most problematic areas of compliance during a BRC Food Safety audit. As a result, additional focus can be placed on site standards and procedures that pertain to commonly cited clauses prior to undergoing a site audit.
**Categories:** News
---
### [FSNS C&A is now licensed to perform audits against the Gluten-Free Certification Program](https://fsns.com/fsns-ca-is-now-licensed-to-perform-audits-against-the-gluten-free-certification-program/)
**Published:** May 17, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
FSNS C&A is now licensed by the Allergen Control Group to perform audits against the Gluten-Free Certification Program. This program was developed using a food safety-based gluten management system developed by the Canadian Celiac Association and endorsed by Beyond Celiac in the United States. This certification program is the first and only certification program endorsed by the leading celiac disease organizations in both the United States and Canada. Certified clients are provided the option to include the Canadian Celiac Associations Logo or the Beyond Celiac Logo on products. Certified products are listed on the Allergen Control Groups website, referenced by the celiac disease associations. Additional information regarding the Gluten-Free Certification Program can be found at [AllergenControlGroup.com](http://AllergenControlGroup.com).
**Categories:** News
---
### [Evolution Of Dietary Guidelines For Americans And How They Have Impacted Consumption Of Food From Animals](https://fsns.com/evolution-of-dietary-guidelines-for-americans-and-how-they-have-impacted-consumption-of-food-from-animals/)
**Published:** May 6, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
In the 38 years that we have followed the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGFA), consumption of animal fat, red meat, eggs, and whole milk *decreased* by 17%, 17%, 17%, and 73%, respectively, while consumption of grain, vegetable oil, fruit, and vegetables *increased* by 41%, 91%, 13%, and 23%, respectively. So–as a nation– we’ve done everything we’ve been told to do. But, according to the National Academies of Science (NASEM), “The rate of Type 2 diabetes has quadrupled and that of obesity has nearly doubled since 1980.” The inevitable conclusion is, there must be something wrong with the Dietary Guidelines because we’re getting sicker and fatter.
In 1961, the American Heart Association (AHA), and in 1980, the USDA-USDHHS, advised US citizens to “limit consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol in order to prevent heart disease” based on the deeply flawed “Diet Heart Hypothesis” of Ancel Keys (University of Minnesota). Since then, study after study (involving hundreds of thousands of subjects, and billions of dollars) either failed to support or patently disproved the premise that low-fat diets and/or avoidance of saturated fat were effective at fighting obesity, diabetes, heart disease, or cancer.
Independent scientists (i.e., those not financially dependent upon biased companies and/or organizations) like John Yudkin, Robert Atkins, Alessandro Menotti, John Ioannidis, Tim Noakes, Georgia Ede, and Andrew Mente) and uninhibited journalists like Ian Leslie, Gary Taubes, and Nina Teicholz, have warned us. Ian Leslie (The Guardian) advised us of four 2008 to 2010 investigations: (1) A Europe-wide study showed that the higher the intake of saturated fat, the lower the rate of heart disease; (2) A British study of 192 countries showed that lower cholesterol correlated with higher rates of death from heart disease; (3) A UN-FAO meta-analysis of all studies of low-fat diets found “no probable or convincing evidence that a high level of dietary fat causes heart disease or cancer”; and (4) A landmark American Society for Nutrition study stated that, “There is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease.”
Gary Taubes (Science) informed us that: (a) Harvard University, UC-San Francisco, and McGill University determined that people who consume a lifetime diet following DGFA standards (less than 10% of calories from saturated fat; less than 30% of calories from total fat) can add only 3 days to 3 months to their life expectancy; (b) The MRFIT diet study showed that if anything, eating less fat might shorten your life; and (c) The Lyon Diet Health Study showed that 3 times as many people suffered cardiac death if they followed the AHA Prudent Diet, compared to those following the Mediterranean diet.
Nina Teicholz says, “There never has been solid evidence for the idea that saturated fats in butter, cheese, and red meat cause heart disease. We only believe that because nutrition policy has been derailed for 50 years by a mixture of personal ambition, bad science, politics, and bias. In cutting backs on fats (those dropped by 11%), we now eat lots more carbohydrates (those rose by 25%). The problem is that carbohydrates break down into glucose, which causes the body to release insulin–a hormone that is fantastically effective at storing fat. *Excessive carbohydrates lead not only to obesity but also, over time, to Type 2 diabetes and, very likely, heart disease.”*
It is now widely believed that Ancel Keys’ worshipers–plus vegetable oil and cane/beet sugar companies and trade associations–exerted undue political influence on early AHA and DGFA decisions, that a “deep state” developed within the federal bureaucracy, and that members of the DGFA Advisory Committee had “conflicts of interest,” “an agenda,” “bias,” and/or “outside influence”. The most recent Advisory Committee largely favored vegetarianism, with 11 of the 14 members having consistently published work in favor of plant-based, low-animal-fat, vegetarian diets. All of this has resulted in calls by NASEM and the US Congress to redesign the process by which the DGFA are developed. Nutrition Coalition has said, “In the midst of a worldwide obesity and diabetes crisis, we don’t need more input from ‘experts’ who are not paying attention to the latest science.” Ian Leslie (The Guardian) said “The 2015 edition of DGFA makes no references to any of the research reported in the last 10 years because the members of the Advisory Committee neglected to discuss it in their report. Why? If you are seeking to protect your authority, why draw attention to evidence that seems to contradict the assertion on which that authority is founded.”
As an example of “the latest science” *not considered* by the 2015 DGFA Advisory Committee: Some results from the two largest controlled trials of diets ever undertaken (Women’s Health Initiative and Framingham Study–both funded by the National Institutes of Health) were not published when the trials were completed *because* *“the analyses failed to link saturated fats with heart disease”.* Unearthed in 2010, none of nine subsequent independent-scientist reviews could find any evidence in the data that saturated fats had an effect on cardiovascular mortality or total mortality. Several researchers stated in their conclusions, *such results clearly do not support the government’s DGFA or AHA’s cap on saturated fat consumption.*
And now, there is new data to consider. Using results of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, involving 135,335 subjects in 18 countries from 5 continents, Dehghan *et al.* (2017, 2018) concluded that: (a) High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality. (b) Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease or mortality. (c) Decreased consumption of saturated fats was associated with increased risk of stroke. (d) Increased consumption of dairy products was associated with decreased risk of cardiovascular and total mortality rates. (e) *Global dietary guidelines should be re-considered in light of these findings.*
So, now, a new Advisory Committee for the 2020 DGFA is being assembled. Unfortunately, “establishment thinking” (the “Deep State”) in the federal bureaucracy has been joined by animal-rights activists, environmentalists, vegetarians, and–lately–by plant-based food advocates who have swallowed the Ancel Keys’ Kool-Aid in their quest to vanquish–forever–consumption of food from domesticated animals. The last Advisory Council’s vice-chairperson laughed heartily about “sending Ronald McDonald™ to the guillotine”.
The original proposed 2015 DGFA intended to: (a) Include a recommendation on environmental sustainability (as a backdoor approach to pushing for plant-based foods–especially as meat substitutes), (b) Propose taxes on sugars and sodas (as a prelude to taxes on meat), and (c) Eliminate meat from the list of healthy foods (to make space for more plant-based foods). USDHHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell Matthews, testifying to the US Congress on August 21, 2018 announced that “With the rising rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes in America, we are on the wrong trajectory” and said that sustainability and taxes are not in the mandate of the DGFA, and that *there is no scientific basis for deleting meat as a healthy food from the DGFA.*
We had hoped that USDA Secretary Perdue and USDHHS Secretary Matthews would exercise strong due diligence and oversight of the Advisory Committee (AC) members and of the USDA and USDHHS employees assigned to work on the project. So far (as of April 14, 2019), they haven’t. In choosing AC members: “Nearly all of the 20 AC members have a long list of conflicts of interest with food, pharmaceutical, or supplement companies. And, it is problematic that a majority (11 of the 20) of members of the AC either work in, or have been trained in, the field of epidemiology (a decidedly weak science for identifying cause-and-effect relationships),” says Nina Teicholz.
It’s hard to tell what will actually transpire, but I was impressed that the Advisory Committee: (a) claimed that it intended to recommend dietary patterns that are not prescriptive and will–instead–provide for flexibility; (b) announced a change from use of a Nutrition Evidence Library (NEL) to a Nutritional Evidence Systematic Review (NESR), but the success of that endeavor will depend on how objectively and inclusively the NESR support staff (all from the “Deep State”) assembles the evidence; (c) announced inclusion of a new Peer Review process, headed by Agricultural Research Service officials, that could serve as a Verification/Validation step in the process; and (d) promised not to consider “outside-the-scope topics” (e.g., sustainability, antibiotics, hormones). Time will tell.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Incidence of Disease Attributed to Some Major Foodborne Pathogens Appears to be on the Rise In-spite of Rigorous Efforts at the Pre-and Post-Harvest Levels to Improve Food Safety and Public Health](https://fsns.com/incidence-of-disease-attributed-to-some-major-foodborne-pathogens-appears-to-be-on-the-rise-in-spite-of-rigorous-efforts-at-the-pre-and-post-harvest-levels-to-improve-food-safety-and-public-health/)
**Published:** May 6, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Over 200 infectious agents can be transmitted to humans through food, including three types of biological agents, including bacteria, viruses and parasites. Monitoring trends in foodborne illness in the US is performed by the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) using two approaches, including continuous active surveillance and mathematical modeling of resultant active surveillance data. While the majority of foodborne illness cases have been predicted through mathematical modeling to be attributed to viruses (e.g., Norovirus and Hepatitis A; reference *3*), active surveillance focuses on known bacterial pathogens and parasites for which robust and validated detection methodologies are widely available and implemented in clinical laboratories. Active surveillance of foodborne disease through the CDC’s FoodNet Network is based on laboratory confirmed cases caused by *Campylobacter*, *Cyclospora*, *Listeria monocytogenes*, *Salmonella*, Shiga Toxin producing *Escherichia coli* (STEC), *Vibrio* and *Yersinia* in 10 sites across the US, which represents approximately 15% of the US population (*4*).
The US bears a significant public health and economic burden attributed to disease caused by pathogens transmitted through food. Trends in the incidence of foodborne illness have been monitored through active surveillance of laboratory confirmed cases and mathematical models, which take into account estimations of under-reporting, method sensitivity etc., extrapolated from these surveillance data (*3*). The most recent active surveillance report published on preliminary 2018 FoodNet data showed an increased incidence of disease caused by multiple bacterial pathogens and the parasite *Cyclospora* as compared incidence rates from 2015-2017 surveillance data. In 2018, 25,606 illnesses, 5,893 hospitalizations and 120 fatalities were observed across the 10 FoodNet sites, where *Campylobacter* and *Salmonella* were responsible for approximately 73% of laboratory confirmed cases and 72% of hospitalizations. While *Campylobacter* and *Salmonella* infections were rarely associated with mortality (0.3 and 0.5% of cases resulted in death, respectively), *L. monocytogenes* infections were associated with a 96% hospitalization rate and 21% fatality rate (*4*).
The incidence of foodborne illness caused by *Cyclospora*, *Vibrio*, *Yersinia*, STEC, *Campylobacter* and *Salmonella* increased significantly in 2018 as compared to disease burden estimates based on surveillance data from 2015-1017. Specifically, the incidence of illness caused by *Cyclospora*, *Vibrio*, *Yersinia*, STEC, *Campylobacter* and *Salmonella* increased by 399%, 109%, 58%, 26%, 12%, and 9%, respectively. However, these trends should be interpreted with caution as the number of illnesses diagnosed by Culture Independent Diagnostic Techniques (CIDTs) was also markedly increased by 65% in 2018 as compared to those identified through CIDTs during 2015-2017. Reflex culture, or attempting to obtain an isolate of a bacterial pathogen identified in a clinical specimen following identification by CIDTs, was performed for 75% of CIDT positive samples. The percentage of CIDT positive samples that were confirmed by microbiological culture and from which an isolate was obtained ranged from 37% for *Vibrio* to 100% for *L. monocytogenes*. Additionally, 14%, 36%, 41%, 44% and 50% of specimens that were CIDT positive for *Salmonella*, STEC, *Campylobacter*, *Shigella* and *Yersinia* were culture negative for each respective pathogen, which represents a potential false positive result that may artificially inflate the true burden of disease caused by these infectious agents.
The observed increase in incidence of foodborne disease may be in part attributed to the increased use of CIDTs, where culture confirmation was not concordant with a CIDT result (potential false positive) along with large multi-state outbreaks of foodborne illness that occurred in 2018 (e.g., outbreaks linked to produce, poultry and shell eggs). Importantly, CIDTs represent a rapid screening technique to identify a causative agent in an illness or make a decision as to whether to accept or reject a food commodity; however, culture confirmation to obtain an isolate for subtyping is still important to confirm the presence of a viable pathogen in a sample. Obtaining a pathogen isolate from clinical specimens and other samples (i.e., food and food-associated environments) is needed to (i) facilitate outbreak detection and microbial source tracking investigations, (ii) monitor antimicrobial resistance patterns, and (iii) evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation strategies at the pre- and post-harvest levels to develop targeted prevention measures to further reduce the load of pathogens entering the human food chain in order to improve public health metrics.
*Campylobacter* has been the leading cause of gastroenteritis in the US since 2013 and the incidence of salmonellosis has essentially remained unchanged compared to the original 1996-1998 baseline data in-spite of diligent efforts to improve food safety and public health metrics in the US. Poultry represents a major food vehicle associated with both *Campylobacter* and *Salmonella* infections. The US Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Services recently develop a new *Campylobacter* detection and isolation method and has plans to update *Campylobacter* performance standards. Salmonellosis in the US is most commonly associated with three serotypes, including Enteritidis, Newport and Typhimurium, where serotypes Enteritidis and Typhimurium are commonly linked to poultry and shell eggs. While incidence of salmonellosis cases caused by serotype Typhimurium has declined infections caused by *Salmonella* Enteritidis have not declined over the past decade warranting additional on farm interventions (i.e., vaccines and improved hygiene). In poultry, the prevalence of *Salmonella* is notably higher in chicken parts as compared to that observed for whole carcasses, supporting the need for additional interventions at the processing level. In beef mitigations that effectively reduce *Salmonella* contamination on the surface of carcasses may have limited efficacy to control *Salmonella* in internal tissues such as lymph nodes. Previous studies have demonstrated that *Salmonella* can be present in lymph nodes at high concentrations (*2*). Also, a few specific *Salmonella* serotypes tend to be predominant in beef trim and ground beef (e.g., *Salmonella* Montevideo and Dublin); further work is warranted to elucidate strain-specific characteristics that may explain the overrepresentation of these strains in beef trim and ground beef (*1*). Produce represents a major food vehicle associated with foodborne disease and in 2018 large multi-state outbreaks of illness attributed to *Salmonella*, STEC and *Cyclospora* may be responsible for the observed increase in incidence of disease caused by these biological agents. The CDC suggested implementing more targeted mitigation strategies at the pre-harvest level to prevent these pathogens from entering the human food chain in order to improve public health metrics. More microbiological testing, including isolation and further characterization of resultant isolates (i.e., Whole Genome Sequencing and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiling) is needed to further elucidate mechanisms that pathogens, and particularly specific strains within a given pathogen, employ to tolerate existing mitigations strategies.
1. DOERSCHER, D. R., T. L. LUTZ, S. J. WHISENANT, K. R. SMITH, C. A. MORRIS, and C. M. SCHROEDER. 2015. Microbiological Testing Results of Boneless and Ground Beef Purchased for the National School Lunch Program, 2011 to 2014. *J. Food Prot.* 78:1656–1663.
2. Gragg, S. E., G. H. Loneragan, M. M. Brashears, T. M. Arthur, J. M. Bosilevac, N. Kalchayanand, R. Wang, J. W. Schmidt, J. C. Brooks, S. D. Shackelford, T. L. Wheeler, T. R. Brown, T. S. Edrington, and D. M. Brichta-Harhay. 2013. Cross-sectional Study Examining *Salmonella enterica* Carriage in Subiliac Lymph Nodes of Cull and Feedlot Cattle at Harvest. *Foodborne Pathog. Dis.* 10:368–374.
3. Scallan, E., R. M. Hoekstra, F. J. Angulo, R. V Tauxe, M.-A. Widdowson, S. L. Roy, J. L. Jones, and P. M. Griffin. 2011. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States–major pathogens. *Emerg. Infect. Dis.* 17:7–15.
4. Tack, D. M., E. P. Marder, P. M. Griffin, P. R. Cieslak, J. Dunn, S. Hurd, E. Scallan, S. Lathrop, A. Muse, P. Ryan, K. Smith, M. Tobin-D’Angelo, D. J. Vugia, K. G. Holt, B. J. Wolpert, R. Tauxe, and A. L. Geissler. 2019. Preliminary Incidence and Trends of Infections with Pathogens Transmitted Commonly Through Food – Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, 10 U.S. Sites, 2015-2018. *MMWR. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep.* 68:369–373.
**Categories:** News
---
### [Barry Carpenter joins FSNS as Senior Advisor for Regulatory Affairs and Client Relations](https://fsns.com/barry-carpenter-joins-fsns-as-senior-advisor-for-regulatory-affairs-and-client-relations/)
**Published:** May 2, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
**San Antonio, TX**—May 2, 2019 – Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) announced that Barry Carpenter has joined the company as Senior Advisor for Regulatory Affairs and Client Relations. Carpenter brings a wealth of leadership experience from various companies and organizations in the meat industry. As Senior Advisor for Regulatory Affairs and Client Relations, Carpenter will be assisting FSNS customers and their management team in working with FSIS and FDA along with many trade organizations.
Prior to joining FSNS, Carpenter worked for the USDA where he was selected to USDA’s Senior Executive Service and was named Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) Livestock and Seed Program. In the area of international marketing, he represented the United States on the United Nations Committee on Agriculture from 1990 to 2006 and chaired the meetings of the Specialized Section on the Standardization of Meat from 1994 to 2006. He also served as Administrator of the U.S. Technical Advisory Group to the ISO Subcommittee, which is responsible for meat standards for the international community. Further, USDA selected him to be the representative to the International Meat Secretariat to enhance consumer demand for meat products on an international scale.
In 2007, Barry was selected as the CEO of the National Meat Association (NMA). He led the merger of NMA with the North American Meat Processors Association to form the North American Meat Association (NAMA) in 2012. Again in 2014, he led the merger of the two major meat associations, the American Meat Institute, and NAMA to form the North American Meat Institute (Meat Institute). During his tenure as CEO of NMA, NAMA, and the Meat Institute he was a strong voice with USDA, USTR, and Congress on issues affecting the meat industry. He worked closely with government regulators on significant issues facing the meat industry, including new food safety regulations, marketing, competition regulations, immigration reform, and trade.
Carpenter graduated from the University of Florida with a Bachelor degree in Animal Science in 1969. He participated in numerous training courses during 37 years with the Federal Government including labor relations, financial management, and legislative process. Carpenter received numerous governmental awards, including Presidential Rank Awards from both President Clinton and President George W. Bush. His industry awards include the National Meat Association’s prestigious E. Floyd Forbes Award for his contributions to the livestock and meat industry, the pork industry’s Distinguished Service Award, and the Meat Institute’s Richard E. Lyng Award for Public Service. Carpenter was also inducted into the Meat Industry Hall of Fame.
About Food Safety Net Services
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a national network of ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratories open 24/7, 365 days a year. FSNS provides expert technical resources that assist companies with implementing food safety and quality programs that deliver critical information needed to continually improve process controls. Additional services include GFSI, SQF and PAACO, approved auditing and certification capabilities. For more information, visit [FSNS](https://fsns.com/).
\###
**Categories:** Press Release
---
### [The winds of change are blowing…](https://fsns.com/the-winds-of-change-are-blowing/)
**Published:** February 18, 2019
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
FSNS C&A is always exploring new ways to service our customers, allowing our customers confidence in their food safety management system to grow. In this light, we are excited to announce that FSNS C&A is now offering Gluten-Free certification and certification against FSSC 22000.
It is estimated that one in 133 people in the United States is affected by celiac disease. The majority of those suffering from celiac are undiagnosed. In addition to those suffering from celiac, consumers are increasingly concerned about the safety of gluten in their diet. Gluten-free products increased by 34% each year between 2009 and 2014 and total gluten-free sales are projected to eclipse $2.3 billion by the end of 2019. To address the growing concern associated with gluten, FSNS C&A has partnered with the Allergen Control Group to offer certification against the Gluten-Free Certification Program. This certification program includes listings on the gluten-free certification program’s website, listings on Beyond Celiac website and listing on the Canadian Celiac Association’s website. More information related to the gluten-free certification program can be found here: [www.glutenfreecert.com](http://www.glutenfreecert.com)
FSSC was developed in 2009 to transition the ISO 22000 requirements into a GFSI bench-marked scheme. This standard is comprised of ISO 22000, applicable pre-requisite programs (typically ISO 22002 for food manufacturers) and additional requirements developed by the Foundation FSSC. This standard offers the benefit of being ISO based which has been recognized globally for years while also being GFSI benchmarked. This standard is one of the fastest growing standards in the United States and globally. The scheme currently boasts over 18,000 certified sites across the globe. Additional information can be found here: www.fssc22000.com
**Categories:** News
---
## Pages
### [Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com/)
**Published:** May 19, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# So The World Can Trust In What It Consumes®
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) partners with customers to deliver innovative scientific solutions and expertise that support the food & beverage industry. We help thousands of customers like you by conducting millions of food safety tests each year. We have the expertise and breadth of services to support your food safety programs so you can rest assured you’re producing products safely and meeting regulatory requirements.
[Begin Your Lab Testing](#form)
# Is Your Antioxidant System Working?
### What Advanced Testing Can Reveal About Product Quality, Shelf Life, & Compliance
COMPLIMENTARY WEBINAR
THURSDAY, SEPT. 24 | 10 AM PT | 1 PM ET
[Register Now](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/antioxidant-testing-webinar)
## Food & Beverage Lab Testing and Other Services
[](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/)
#### [Analytical Chemistry](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/)
Validated methods to verify food safety in compliance with FDA, USDA, AOAC, and USP standards for the food & beverage industry.
[](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/)
#### [Microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/)
Extensive food safety testing capabilities to detect pathogens, indicators, spoilage organisms, toxins, and other contaminants in food & beverage products.
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/import/)
#### [FDA Import](https://certified-laboratories.com/import/)
Services to help get your products released quickly from FDA detention, available from Certified Laboratories, our fellow Certified Group company.
[](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
#### [Food Industry Training](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
Virtual (live, instructor-led) and in-person food industry training from our team of technical food safety experts.
[](https://fsns.com/emma/)
#### [EMP Software](https://fsns.com/emma/)
Save time and streamline your Environmental Monitoring Program with emma®, FSNS’ proprietary Environmental Monitoring and Mapping Application.
[](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
#### [Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
Separate from our Regulatory Consulting services, FSNS Certification & Audit offers a broad range of food safety, animal welfare, GMP, and other certification and audit services.
[](https://fsns.com/regulatory-consulting/)
#### [Regulatory Consulting](https://fsns.com/regulatory-consulting/)
Separate from our Certification & Audit services, our team provides regulatory consulting services to help ensure you meet FDA, USDA, and other regulatory requirements.
[](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/)
#### [Contract Research](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/)
Shelf-life studies, challenge studies, process validations, microbial strain typing, and other contract research services to support your food safety and quality programs, available from FSNS Lab+.
## FSNS is Your
Single-Source
Provider for Food & Beverage Lab Testing & Other Services
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) works together with [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), our fellow [Certified Group](https://certifiedgroup.com/) company, to provide a broad range of [microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/), [analytical chemistry](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/), [nutritional analyses](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/), [contract research](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), and other [food safety testing](https://fsns.com/resources/importance-of-food-safety-testing/) services for manufacturers and distributors in the food and beverage industry.
Together, our 30+ ISO 17025-accredited food testing laboratories across the United States, Canada, and Mexico test [beverages](https://fsns.com/industries/beverages/), [dairy](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/), [protein](https://fsns.com/industries/protein/), [ready-to-eat products](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/), [pet food](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/), [nuts & spices](https://certified-laboratories.com/nuts-spice-analysis/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), [seafood](https://certified-laboratories.com/seafood/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), [produce](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/), and more.
[Find A Lab Near You](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
Our services include more than just food and beverage lab testing. We also offer…
[](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
#### [Certification & Audit Services](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
Including GFSI-benchmarked food safety audits
[](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/)
#### [Contract Research Studies](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/)
Including shelf-life, challenge studies, process validations, and more
[](https://fsns.com/regulatory-consulting/)
#### [Regulatory Consulting](https://fsns.com/regulatory-consulting/)
Separate from our certification & audit services through [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), also part of [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks)
[](https://fsns.com/emma/)
#### [EMP Software](https://fsns.com/emma/)
Save up to 40 hrs./week in admin duties
[](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
#### [Food Safety Training](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
Virtual (live, instructor-led) and in-person courses
### We are your single-source provider of solutions for your
microbiology testing.
||chemistry testing.
||nutritional analysis testing.
||proficiency testing.
||contract research.
||regulatory consulting services.
||EMP software.
||entire food safety program.
## Why Choose Food Safety Net Services (FSNS)?
- Competitive TAT
- North American network of 30+ ISO 17025-accredited labs
- 24/7/365 dedicated, reliable service
- Direct access to your experienced Lab Manager and technical team
- Turn-key pricing
- Unparalleled customer service
- Realtime data access via the [FSNS portal](https://portal.fsns.com/)
- Flexible courier service
## Getting Results You Can Trust Is Simple
### Contact Our Team
Talk to us about your food safety program testing needs.
### Build A Plan
Our team designs the optimal testing plan for you and provides a quote.
### Onboard With Our Labs
Receive timely and accurate results on all your tests.
[Start Testing](#quoteform)
### Latest News
#### [Secretary of Agriculture Names Certified Group Board Member John Bellinger as Senior Advisor for New World Screwworm Preparedness ](https://fsns.com/secretary-of-agriculture-names-certified-group-board-member-john-bellinger-as-senior-advisor-for-new-world-screwworm-preparedness/)
[Press Release](https://fsns.com/category/press_release/)
Appointment brings proven food safety, beef industry, and animal agriculture leadership to a...
[read more](https://fsns.com/secretary-of-agriculture-names-certified-group-board-member-john-bellinger-as-senior-advisor-for-new-world-screwworm-preparedness/)
---
### [Food Safety Audit Companies](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
**Published:** January 23, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# FSNS Certification
# & Audit Services
[Schedule Your Audit](#contact)
Separate from our Regulatory Consulting services, FSNS Certification & Audit (FSNS C&A) provides ISO-accredited and GFSI-benchmarked audits for manufacturers of foods, beverages, supplements, and other products.
SQF Food Safety
BRCGS Food Safety
FSSC 22000
Animal welfare audits
Costco, McDonald’s, H-E-B, Whole Foods, & other third-party audits
Amazon GMP verification for supplements
Whether you need a GFSI-benchmarked audit, customer-specific audit, Amazon GMP verification, or more, FSNS C&A can help you move forward with confidence. Connect with our team to plan your next audit.
[](https://info.fsns.com/15-off-certification-audit-services-2023)
## Global Food Safety Institute (GFSI) Benchmarked Certifications
We provide third-party food safety audits for the most widely used GFSI-benchmarked food safety standards:
[FSNS C&A Certification Rules](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Accreditation_Rules.pdf)
## 2X BRC Certification Body of the Year Award Winner
## 5-Star BRC Certification Body
## Food Safety Audit Companies – Why FSNS C&A?
- ISO 17021 & 17065 accreditation
- [GFSI-benchmarked food safety audits](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/) ([SQF audits](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS Food Safety audits](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), [FSSC 22000 audits](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-an-fssc-22000-audit/))
- Industry-specific third-party audits (Costco, McDonald’s, H‑E‑B, Whole Foods, Sodexo)
- 14 years average auditor experience
- Among the most accomplished third-party food safety audit companies
## FSNS C&A: Your Third Party Food Safety Audit Company
FSNS C&A is a leader in third party food safety audits, in addition to livestock, meat & poultry, animal welfare, and other audits that manufacturers and consumers increasingly require of food suppliers. Learn why the FSNS C&A team has a **99% auditor satisfaction rate**, **99% customer satisfaction rate**, and why we are a **two-time BRC Certification Body of the Year award winner**.
### Customer-Specific Food Safety Audits
Customer-specific food safety audits for multiple species and operational areas assess food safety against FDA FSMA and USDA FSIS regulatory requirements, claims verification, sustainability, as well as humane treatment of animals. Food retail customers are increasingly requiring these additional customer-specific audits as a condition of doing business.
- Costco-approved Certification Body
- McDonald’s-approved Certification Body (Animal Welfare, Beef Trim Addendum, BSE Firewalls)
- H-E-B-approved Certification Body
- Whole Foods-approved Certification Body
- [Sodexo-approved Certification Body](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-approved-to-perform-sodexo-supplier-audits/) (GMP and Warehouse Audits; Beef, Turkey, and Chicken Animal Welfare Audits)
### Standard third-party food safety audits include the following:
- Food safety audits
- GMP audits
- Warehouse audits
- Packaging manufacturing GMP audits
### Meat and Poultry Audits
FSNS C&A is the top auditing company for the meat and poultry industries in the United States. Our experts work closely with industry professionals, buyers, and regulators to ensure customers are informed of changing regulatory requirements.
Plant-Based Certification
SQFI Safe Feed/Safe Food Certification Program
Pet Food and Animal Feed
PAACO Certified Animal Welfare Audits
PAACO Animal Welfare Transportation Addendum
N60 Sampling Verification
Specific Risk Material Control
CCP Verification Addendum
Non-O157 STEC Verification
[Food Safety Standards Guide](https://fsns.com/food-safety-standards-guide/)
%
### Auditor Satisfaction Rate
%
### Client Communication Satisfaction Rate
## Livestock Audits, Beef, Swine, and Rodeo
FSNS C&A offers livestock audits and evaluation tools for multiple species and operational areas including foundational animal welfare audits and value-added programs such as feeding & claims verification, willful mistreatment/crisis protocols, and more.
### BEEF (Bovine Energy, Efficiency, & Feed) Audit & Evaluation Tool Audits
- Animal Health & Welfare
- Transportation
- Workforce Assessments
- Environmental Sustainability
- Social-Economic Sustainability
- Carbon
- Feeding & Claims Verification
- Willful mistreatment of Animals
- Crisis Protocols
### Swine
- All-Natural Verification
- Ractopamine-Free Verification
- Transportation
- Willful mistreatment
- Crisis Protocols
### Livestock and Rodeo Audits
- Facility
- Training
- Housing
- Transportation
- Show/Event
- Veterinary
### Animal Welfare Audits
- Red Meat, Animal Welfare and Transportation Addendums (NAMI Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines and Audit Guide)
- Chicken Animal Welfare (National Chicken Council Animal Welfare Guidelines and Audit Checklist)
- Turkey Animal Welfare (National Turkey Federation’s Animal Care Best Management Practices for the Production of Turkeys & National Turkey Federation’s Animal Care Best Management Practices)
- Customer-specific animal welfare audits
### FSNS C&A Process Verified Program Audits
- Age and Source Verification
- Non-Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC)
- Never Fed Beta Agonist
- High Quality Beef Livestock Feeding Claim (EU HQB)
- Non-GMO
- Grass-Fed
- Verified Natural Beef programs
- Saudia Arabia Export Verification (EV)
### American Humane Certified
- Beef Cattle
- Dairy Cattle
- Swine
- Poultry
- Bison
- Dairy Goats
- On-Farm Traceability Audits
### California Prop 12 Audits
- Accredited by the California Department of Food & Agriculture (CDFA) to perform Prop 12 audits
- Distributors
- Egg-laying hens
- Breeding pigs
- Veal
FSNS Certification & Audit has partnered with All Data Tags to provide our clients with 840 Program Compliant Tags at a discount. [See the price sheet for details.](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FSNSCA-VAP-Tags-Flyer-121625.pdf)
[840 Program Compliant Tags Price Sheet](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FSNSCA-VAP-Tags-Flyer-121625.pdf)
## Accreditations
[](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ANAB-17021-Certificate-with-FSSC-v.-6.pdf)
#### [17021 Certificate of Accreditation](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ANAB-17021-Certificate-with-FSSC-v.-6.pdf)
#### 17065 Certificate of Accreditation
[](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PV5043ZZA-Cert-Rev02-FSNS-San-Antonio-TX-083126.pdf)
#### [AMS USDA Process Verified Program Certification](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PV5043ZZA-Cert-Rev02-FSNS-San-Antonio-TX-083126.pdf)
## Grandin Responsible Care Program Audits
The Grandin Responsible Care Program enables monitoring of supplier performance related to animal husbandry. FSNS C&A conducts Grandin Responsible Care Program internal audits of cattle received to identify suppliers that require husbandry improvements. FSNS C&A livestock production experts then work with suppliers to address any concerns. This program also includes third-party verification at harvest facilities participating in the Grandin Responsible Care Program.
## Dairy Audits
FSNS C&A is the sole third-party verification provider for National Milk Producers Federation’s FARM Program. Our auditors ensure regulatory compliance for food safety as well as humane handling.
### National Milk Federation FARM Program Audits (Welfare, ES, WFD)
### NMPF Evaluator & Trainer Shadows
### Animal Care Concern Response
### Quality & Care
### Years
### Our Auditors Have an Average of 14 Years of Experience Working in Food Manufacturing
## Gluten-Free Certification
The Gluten-Free Certification Program was established with consensus from consumer and industry associations, retailers, manufacturers, and government agencies. The Program is recognized by consumer celiac/coeliac societies.
Brands producing their products by a GFCP certified manufacturer can communicate these endorsements to consumers by using the accepted certification trademarks on product packaging and marketing collaterals.
Products displaying a GFCP trademark have been manufactured in a facility that has successfully undergone a robust, unbiased, annual third-party audit.
Clients can contact BRCGS at tellus@brcglobalstandards.com to provide feedback following certification activities.
FSNS Certification & Audit Customer Portal
[Log In](https://portal.fsnsaudit.com/Login.aspx)
## Impartiality Policy
[Food Safety Net Services](https://fsns.com/) Certification and Audit (FSNS C&A) ensures the impartiality of certification activities. Team members involved in the certification process have agreed to operate in an ethical manner with no conflict or perceived conflict of interest. Employees are under contractual agreement to disclose potential conflict allowing mitigation of potential conflicts.
FSNS C&A is committed to providing certification and auditing services with consistency, impartiality, and integrity. Activities conducted by or on behalf of FSNS C&A are carried out by trained and highly qualified personnel who strive to assure each activity and end product meets FSNS C&A high standards, ISO 17065 and 17021 guidelines, and the requirements defined by the Scheme or Program Owner.
The certification management team is committed to evaluating certification activities to ensure expectations and requirements communicated by the scheme owner are met and applied to clients fairly.
Certification & Audit and Regulatory Consulting are separate services. Use of Regulatory Consulting services does not provide an advantage nor is it linked to the granting of Certification.
### FSNS C&A is one of the top food safety audit companies; contact us now to discuss your third party audit needs!
###### *Certification & Audit and Regulatory Consulting are separate entities. Use of Regulatory Consulting services does not provide an advantage nor is it linked to the granting of Certification.*
---
### [Food Microbiology Testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/)
**Published:** June 23, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Food Microbiology Testing
FSNS provides food microbiology testing services that support food safety, quality assurance, and regulatory compliance. Our laboratories perform validated qualitative and quantitative assays using FDA-BAM, USDA, AOAC, Compendium, APHA, ISO, USP, and other methods. Through our ISO 17025-accredited national laboratory network, we deliver reliable results with flexible turnaround options to match your operational and regulatory requirements.
[Tell Us About Your Testing Needs](#contact)
## National Network of Food Microbiology Labs
In partnership with [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), our fellow [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company, FSNS operates more than 30 ISO 17025-accredited microbiology food testing labs across North America. This national footprint ensures convenient access to comprehensive microbiological tests for food samples that support your product safety and quality programs.
[View All Of Our Laboratory Locations](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
## Qualitative
Food Microbiology Testing for Pathogens
Our qualitative pathogen testing services support product test-and-hold programs and environmental monitoring for [food and beverage](https://fsns.com/industries/) manufacturers. Standard methods are listed below. Additional organisms or matrices can be accommodated upon request.
- *Campylobacter spp.*
- *Candida albicans*
- *Cronobacter sakazakii*
- *Cyclospora cayetanensis*
- *Escherichia coli* O157:H7
- “Top 6” Non–O157 STEC
- Hepatatis A
- *Listeria monocytogenes*
- *Listeria* spp.
- Norovirus
- *Pseudomonas aeruginosa*
- *Salmonella* spp.
- *Shigella* spp.
- *Staphylococcus aureus*
- *Vibrio* spp.
- *Yersinia enterocolitica*
## Quantitative
Food Microbiology Testing for Pathogens
Our quantitative microbiological food testing services measure indicator organisms, pathogens, and spoilage organisms in foods, beverages, and production environments. These results support process control, risk assessment, and shelf-life management. Additional methods are available upon request.
- Aerobic/Anaerobic Plate Counts
- *Bacillus cereus*
- *Clostridium perfringens*
- Coliform Counts (Total, Fecal)
- Enterobacteriaceae Count
- Gas Forming Anaerobes
- Generic *Escherichia coli* Count
- Gram Negative Bile Tolerant
- Heat Resistant Mold Count
- Heterotrophic Plate Count
- Heterofermentative Lactic Acid Bacteria Count
- Lactic Acid Bacteria Count
- Mesophilic Aerobic/Anaerobic Spore Count
- Osmophilic Yeast and Mold Count
- Proteolytic Bacteria Count
- *Pseudomonas* spp.
- Psychrotrophic Plate Count
- Rapid Aerobic Plate Count
- Rapid Coliform Count
- Rapid Yeast and Mold Count
- *Staphylococcus aureus*
- *Streptococcus* spp. Counts (Total, Fecal)
- Sulfide Reducing Sporeformers
- Thermophilic Aerobic/Anaerobic Bacteria Counts
- Thermophilic Aerobic/Anaerobic Spore Counts
- Yeast and Mold Counts
## Toxins | Microbiological Food Testing Services
Our microbiology food testing labs perform microbial toxin testing to support food safety risk assessment and regulatory compliance, including the following analytes:
#### Aflatoxins EIA (Total)
#### Aflatoxins HPLC
#### Bacillus cereus Diarrheal Toxin
#### Ochratoxin A
#### Staphylococcus aureus Enterotoxins
## Special Microbiological Food Testing Services Available
We provide advanced microbiological food testing services that extend beyond routine methods to support validation, investigation, and continuous improvement activities.
FSNS Lab+, our [contract research division](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), specializes in custom research projects to enhance your Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) and other safety and quality programs.
- Antimicrobial Effectiveness Studies (USP 51)
- Bacterial and Fungal Identifications
- [Bacterial and Fungal Strain Typing](https://fsns.com/strain-typing/)
- [Challenge Studies](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/)
- GMO Detection and Quantification
- Meat Speciation
- Microbial Serology
- [Process Validations](https://fsns.com/process-validation/)
- [Shelf-Life Studies](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/)
- USP Suitability and Preparatory Testing
## Full Range of Food Microbiology Testing Methods for Industry
Our labs use both traditional cultural methods and rapid detection methods for food microbiology testing, including (not limited to) VIDAS, GDS, BAX, GENE-UP, MDS, and iQ-Check. These rapid methods help you obtain information faster to keep your operations on schedule.
Our technical specialists can help you select the most appropriate methods based on sample type, target organisms, and regulatory objectives.
## Food Sample Types for Microbiology Testing
FSNS performs microbiology testing across a wide range of food and ingredient matrices. If your product is not listed, our team can evaluate it for method suitability.
N
### Animal Feed
||Bakery & Baked Goods
||Beverages
||Candy & Confectioners
|| Condiments/Dressings/Oils
|| Dietary Supplement/Ingredients
||Egg Products
|| Fruit/Vegetables Grains & Cereals
|| Meat & Poultry Milk/Dairy
|| Nuts
||Pet Food
|| Processed Foods RTE
|| Seafood/Shellfish
|| Spices/Ingredients
- Animal Feed
- Bakery & Baked Goods
- Beverages
- Candy & Confectioners
- Condiments/Dressings/Oils
- Dietary Supplement/Ingredients
- Egg Products
- Fruit/Vegetables
- Grains & Cereals
- Meat & Poultry
- Milk/Dairy
- Nuts
- Pet Food
- Processed Foods
- RTE
- Seafood/Shellfish
- Spices/Ingredients
---
### [Nutritional Analysis Testing Labs](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/)
**Published:** September 29, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Nutritional Analysis Testing Labs
FSNS delivers nutritional analysis testing that supports compliant labeling for U.S. FDA and global requirements. Our [ISO 17025-accredited laboratories](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/) perform nutrition facts testing for your Nutrition Facts Panel and provide a formatted, FDA-compliant panel for use on packaging or with co-manufacturers. Regulatory label review is also available as an additional service.
[Get a Quote for Nutritional Analysis Testing](#form)
## Nutritional Label Testing: What’s Included
FSNS performs nutrition label testing to develop or verify a Nutrition Facts Panel as defined under the [Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA)](https://www.fda.gov/nutrition-labeling-and-education-act-nlea-requirements-attachment-1). This NLEA testing option is designed for brands that need compliant labeling support without additional analytical services.
### FSNS Offers all NLEA Testing Requirements
- Calories
- Total fat
- Saturated fat
- Trans fat
- Cholesterol
- Sodium
- Total carbohydrates
- Dietary fiber
- Total sugars
- Added sugars
- Protein
- Vitamin D
- Calcium
- Iron
- Potassium
We also test for optional nutrients, including…
$
#### Vitamin A
$
#### Magnesium
$
#### Vitamin C
$
#### Zinc
$
#### Vitamin E
$
#### Additional vitamins and minerals upon request
Need more nutritional analyses? See below for our expanded testing capabilities.
## How Nutrition Analysis Testing Works
#### Send Your Samples
#### We Analyze Required Nutrients
#### Recieve Results & Nutrition Facts Panels
#### (Optional) Label Review by EAS Consulting Group
## Comprehensive Nutritional Analysis Testing
In addition to core NLEA testing for U.S. FDA requirements, FSNS offers comprehensive nutritional analysis testing services to support international labeling needs. Our laboratories can generate data appropriate for major global [nutrition labeling](https://fsns.com/nutritional-labeling-testing-decoding-a-nutritional-label/) frameworks, including Health Canada, EU 1169/2011, and China GB standards. These include:
#### Proximates
moisture, ash, protein, fat, carbohydrates by difference
#### Fatty acid profiling
saturated, unsaturated, trans fats
#### Amino acid analysis
#### Expanded fiber testing (soluble and insoluble fiber)
#### Vitamins
full panel of water- and fat-soluble vitamins
#### Minerals
macro and trace minerals
#### Sugar and carbohydrate profiling
#### Alternative sweeteners
#### Sugar alcohol
#### Added sugar calculations
#### Specialty nutrients
Omega-3s, polyols, etc.
## Nutrition Facts Panel Included
As part of our nutritional analysis testing and nutrition label testing services, FSNS provides:
$
#### A full analytical report with tested nutrient values.
$
#### A formatted, FDA-compliant Nutrition Facts Panel that is ready for use on packaging or submission to co-manufacturers.
This service eliminates the need to create or format the panel yourself.
## Validated Methods for Nutritional Label Testing
FSNS’ ISO 17025-accredited nutritional testing labs offer several methods for nutritional analysis testing. Some methods for common analyses include…
Nutrient Method Moisture AOAC 925.10 / SMART 6 Ash AOAC 923.03 / Phoenix Muffle Fat Mojonnier / CEM Oracle Protein Kjeldahl / Dumas Vitamins HPLC / LC-MS/MS Minerals ICP-MS
## Optional Label Review by EAS Consulting Group
Need more assurance? FSNS’ fellow [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company, [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), offers full label review of the following:
#### Statement of identity and net quantity of contents.
#### Ingredient list and allergen declarations.
#### Legal claims and country of origin statements.
#### Type-size and formatting compliance.
#### Legal claims and country of origin statements.
This review helps you ensure total compliance with [21 CFR 101](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101) and avoid costly mistakes or enforcement action.
## Nutritional Analysis Testing for Global Nutrition Labeling Standards
For brands selling internationally, FSNS provides nutritional analysis testing that supports global nutrition labeling requirements. Our laboratory data is suitable for use in final label design and regulatory submissions for markets in North America, Europe, and Asia.
#### European Union – Regulation (EU) 1169/2011
- Testing aligned with EU requirements for energy, fat, saturates, carbohydrate, sugars, protein, and salt.
- Optional testing available for fiber, mono‑ and polyunsaturated fats, vitamins, and minerals.
#### Health Canada – Nutrition Facts Table (NFT)
- Nutrient testing for mandatory Canadian declarations: calories, fat (incl. saturated and trans), cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrate, fiber, sugars, protein, iron, calcium, and more.
- Supports back-of-pack and front-of-pack initiatives.
#### China GB Standards – GB 7718-2025 & GB 28050-2025
- Nutrient analysis to support updated Chinese regulations on energy, fat, saturated fat, sugar, sodium, and others.
- Lab data structured to assist with nutrition facts compliance under GB standards.
## Support for Label Claims
Looking to make [nutrient content or health claims on your packaging](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/label-claims/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks)? FSNS provides nutrition facts testing and quantitative nutritional analysis testing to support FDA-compliant label claims.
#### “Low fat” or “Reduced sodium”
#### “Gluten-free”
#### “Good source of fiber”
#### “Gluten-free”
#### “High in Vitamin C”
#### “No added sugars”
These claims must be supported by laboratory data. Our nutritional analysis services ensure that your product contains (or excludes) the nutrients required to make these statements legally and scientifically defensible. We’ll help confirm that your label claims are accurate and compliant with FDA regulations under [21 CFR 101.13](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-A/section-101.13) and [Subpart E](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-E).
Undeclared allergens are one of the top reasons for food recalls. We also perform [allergen testing in food products](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/) to support accurate labeling so you can help avoid a costly recall.
## What We Test
## Sample Types We Test
Our nutrition testing lab works with a wide range of product categories, including:
#### Baked goods
[](https://fsns.com/industries/beverages/)
#### [ Beverages ](https://fsns.com/industries/beverages/)
[](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/)
#### [Dairy and dairy alternatives](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/)
### Meat, poultry, and seafood
[](https://fsns.com/industries/frozen-foods/)
#### [ Frozen entrees and meals ](https://fsns.com/industries/frozen-foods/)
[](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/)
#### [ Sauces, dips, and condiments ](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/)
#### Confections, chocolates, and sweets
#### Cereals, grains, flours, and starches
#### Cooking oils and fats
[](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/)
#### [ Snack foods (bars, chips, crackers) ](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/)
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/nuts-spice-analysis/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks)
#### [ Nuts and spices ](https://certified-laboratories.com/nuts-spice-analysis/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks)
[](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/)
#### [ Pet foods and treats ](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/)
[](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/)
#### [ Produce ](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/)
### Not sure your product is testable?
Contact us
– we likely have experience with it.
## Why FSNS for Nutritional Testing?
#### ISO 17025-accredited nutritional testing labs.
#### Full in-house capability for all NLEA-required analytes.
#### NLEA-compliant Nutrition Facts Panel provided with every core panel request.
[](https://easconsultinggroup.com/)
#### [ Optional EAS Consulting Group label review to ensure 21 CFR compliance. ](https://easconsultinggroup.com/)
#### Broad sample handling across food and beverage categories.
#### Competitive turnaround times.
#### Trusted by top brands, co-packers, and private labelers.
#### Automated, sustainable lab techniques.
## Frequently Asked Questions
##### Do you provide only the Nutrition Facts Panel testing?
Yes. We offer a core NLEA testing package that includes all required nutrients and a formatted panel.
##### What is nutritional analysis testing?
It’s laboratory analysis of a food or beverage to determine its nutrient content for label use and regulatory compliance.
##### Do you provide the Nutrition Facts Panel?
Yes, a formatted Nutrition Facts Panel is included with your results.
##### Can you test for vitamins or minerals beyond the basic panel?
Yes. We offer expanded testing services to support claims, fortification, or international labeling requirements.
##### Can you review my full label for FDA compliance?
Yes. Our fellow [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company,[ EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), provides optional full-label review services.
## Start Your Nutritional Testing Project
Ensure your labels are accurate, compliant, and ready for market. Whether you need a quick Nutrition Facts Panel or full-spectrum nutritional testing services, FSNS is your trusted partner in food nutrition testing.
###### *Certification & Audit and Regulatory Consulting are separate entities. Use of Regulatory Consulting services does not provide an advantage nor is it linked to the granting of Certification.*
---
### [Food Testing for Restaurants & Retail Businesses](https://fsns.com/industries/restaurants/)
**Published:** May 31, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Restaurants and Retail Food Testing
No restaurant or retail food establishment wants to be the source of a foodborne illness outbreak. Such a scenario can harm your customers and do untold brand damage. While employee food safety training and proper preparation and handling procedures are a must, so are supplier assessments and food safety testing programs that can help identify problems before they become outbreaks.
FSNS offers 24/7/365 laboratory testing to help you verify compliance of your suppliers and support your food safety programs with accurate results and competitive turnaround time. Our three decades of food testing experience helps you protect your customers and your brand.
## Broad Portfolio of Food Testing Assays to Meet all Your Needs
We offer a full range of [microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and [chemistry testing](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) assays for several matrices to provide all the testing you need from one company. Having all your testing performed by one company reduces hassle and simplifies business.
### Microbiological Pathogen and Indicator Organism Testing
We know the restaurant and retail food industry operates at a fast pace. Thus, we use a variety of traditional and rapid-result methods to test for pathogens and indicator organisms so that you can have quick and reliable assurance that your suppliers are providing you with items that meet your specifications.
*Salmonella* spp.
*Listeria* spp.
*Listeria monocytogenes*
*E. coli* O157:H7
*Campylobacter*
*Staphylococcus aureus*
*Bacillus cereus*
*Clostridium perfringens*
Aerobic Plate Count
Coliforms
Yeast and Mold
Generic *E. coli*
Lactic Acid Bacteria
## Supplier Sampling
While suppliers must abide by their own food safety testing programs, supply chain protocols dictate that you are ultimately responsible for the foods served to your customers. FSNS can verify the integrity of your supply chain with supplier testing and monitoring.
## Menu Labeling
Certain restaurants publish nutrition and allergen information on their menus. FSNS conducts nutritional and allergen assessments using validated methods so you can be confident in what you tell your customers about your menu items.
## Food Safety Training & Education
We offer a wide range of [food safety courses](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/) designed to enhance your knowledge and execution of the latest food safety practices.
[Audit Training for GFSI, SQF, BRCGS, & FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/product/internal-auditing/)
[HACCP Courses](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/)
[Microbiology & Food Safety Courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/microbiology-food-safety/)
[Sanitation Courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/sanitation/)
[FSPCA Preventive Controls for Animal Food & Human Food (PCQI)](https://fsns.com/product-category/fspca-preventive-controls/)
[Customized training available](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
## Data to Empower Your Business Decisions
In addition to routine testing, we provide contract research services through [FSNS Lab+](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/). Our team of scientists designs and conducts challenge studies, shelf-life studies, process validations, microbial strain typing, and other studies that provide the data you need to verify product compliance and confirm the efficacy of your production processes.
We have helped the restaurant and retail food industry with validation of preparation and handling practices, validation of cooking instructions, and development of ingredient supplier specification databases. We also provide foreign material identification services when a customer finds something unexpected in their food products and you need to have it identified. We communicate with you throughout the process and provide results in terms your team can understand.
## Why Test with FSNS?
Our food testing labs offer a broad range of services to support your safety and quality goals.
We Are Where You Are – 30+ North American ISO 17025-Accredited Labs
Food Safety Training – Maximize Quality & Safety
Validated Methods – Results You Can Trust
Flexible Courier Service – We Pick Up Your Samples
Direct Access to Lab Manager – Help When You Need It
## Restaurants & Retail FAQs
##### How does FSNS support food safety for restaurants and retail food establishments?
We support supplier program compliance with [pathogen testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) for STEC, Salmonella, and more. FSNS is intimately familiar with setting up and implementing testing programs for a variety of restaurants so suppliers can meet requirements.
##### What are the most common food safety risks in fast-paced restaurant environments?
Cross-contamination is a leading issue. FSNS offers [environmental testing](https://info.fsns.com/emp-services), verification of cleaning SOPs, and virus testing for Norovirus and Hepatitis A.
##### How can regular testing help maintain high safety standards in retail settings?
Routine testing verifies sanitation practices and helps prevent cross-contamination, especially in deli or retail environments where slicers and other preparation equipment are shared across multiple products.
##### What custom testing does FSNS offer for restaurants?
We create tailored testing programs for sanitation verification, ingredient specification compliance, and risk analysis for ingredients to help you with supplier risk profiling. FSNS helps you set microbial limits and verify product safety.
---
### [Animal Feed & Pet Food Testing](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/)
**Published:** February 4, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Animal Feed & Pet Food Testing
Pet food and animal feed must meet the same strict FDA and state food safety standards as human food. Additionally, many manufacturers choose to follow the voluntary safety guidelines set by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). Ensuring compliance with these standards requires accurate, reliable testing from experts who understand the unique challenges of the industry.
At FSNS, we specialize in pet food testing and have built a longstanding relationship with the pet food and animal feed industries. Our extensive North American network of over 30 ISO 17025-accredited labs and competitive turnaround times ensure you get the data you need to keep your products safe and compliant.
## Full Range of Animal Feed and Pet Food Testing Services
Whether manufacturing or packaging pet food or animal feed, our animal feed and pet food testing labs offer validated methods for accurate, trustworthy results so you can make sound business decisions. Our standard services are listed below.
## Analytical Chemistry for Pet Food and Animal Feed
Our animal feed and pet food testing labs have the capability to test a variety of matrices, including raw ingredients; finished product; and wet, dry, and semi-moist product using a variety of assays, allowing you to have all your chemistry testing done with one company.
Our analyses provide the data you need to verify product safety and meet regulatory requirements. We test for all parameters surrounding the full AAFCO profile and beyond, including guaranteed analysis, amino acids, fatty acids, minerals, heavy metals, allergens, peroxide value, meat speciation, melamine, and more.
AAFCO Profile
Guaranteed Analysis
Crude & Total Dietary Fiber
Calories & Carbohydrates
Minerals
Heavy Metals
Amino Acids
Fatty Acids
Sugars
Vitamins
Water Activity
Allergens
Meat Speciation
Melamine & Related Compounds (MARC)
Mycotoxins
Rancidity Testing (Peroxide Value & TBA)
Shelf-Life Studies (Real-Time & Accelerated)
## Microbiology Testing for Pet Food and Animal Feed
We support your environmental monitoring program through accurate testing with competitive turnaround times for pathogens, indicator organisms, and spoilage organisms. Our EMP experts can evaluate your program and provide guidance on designing and conducting an EMP that’s right for your facility.
### Microbiology Testing:
### *Salmonella*
### *Listeria*
Enterobacteriaceae
#### Indicator Organisms
- Aerobic Plate Count
- Generic *E. coli*
- *Staphylococcus aureus*
- Total & Fecal Coliforms
- Yeast & Mold
## Ractopamine Analysis by LC-MS/MS
An animal feed additive, ractopamine is a beta-adrenergic receptor agonist that mimics the effects of adrenaline and increases protein synthesis in mature animals. Though not prohibited by FDA, some companies and countries do enforce a ractopamine-free zero tolerance rule in beef and pork. Animal feed exporters to affected countries must comply with these restrictions.
We analyze for ractopamine using LC-MS/MS instrumentation and validated methods to provide trustworthy, accurate data. Reports can be provided in a variety of languages and formats to meet your needs.
## Manage Your EMP More Effectively & Efficiently
FSNS offers emma®, a proprietary application that streamlines and automates your EMP and is linked directly to the FSNet portal for ease of use. Emma® provides real-time data & facility visualization, customizable swabbing plans, and remediation management for failed sites, enabling you to manage your EMP more effectively and efficiently.
With emma®, you can save valuable time and reduce costs by automating tedious tasks and consolidating all EMP data in a single secure location. Ditch the traditional binders and spreadsheets and take your EMP to new heights with emma®! Contact us to schedule a demo so you can see all that emma® has to offer.
## Safety Training & Education
Our certified training programs provide ongoing education opportunities to your staff to meet certification requirements and promote safety throughout your organization. Some course options are listed below.[ See our food industry training courses here.](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
## Education Courses
[FSPCA Preventive Controls for Animal Food & Human Food (PCQI)](https://fsns.com/product-category/fspca-preventive-controls/)
[Sanitation Courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/sanitation/)
[HACCP Courses](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/)
[Microbiology & Food Safety Courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/microbiology-food-safety/)
[And More](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
## Accurate Data to Make the Best Decisions
**[Lab+, the contract research division of FSNS](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/),** designs and conducts shelf-life studies, challenge and validation studies, foreign material identification, and other scientific studies that provide the data you need to give you an edge with your research and development projects. Our team of industry experts works with you to determine your study specifications and timeline to prepare a project that provides you with the answers you need. Our level of commitment and communication through the process is unparalleled.
## Ensure Compliance With Pet Food and Related Pet Regulations
The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) oversees the regulation of pet food (to include pet supplements) and pet medications sold in the U.S., ensuring these products meet strict safety and quality standards. Additional regulatory measures, such as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) determinations, Food Additive Petitions, Medicated Feed Mill licenses, and New Animal Drug Applications, further reinforce product safety. For any animal-derived ingredients contained in the product, there are additional USDA requirements designed to ensure the safety of our pets.
At the state level, regulators implement additional requirements, including adherence to the American Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) ingredient definitions and labeling standards.
[EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) company, provides expert guidance to help you navigate these complex regulations. Our team ensures your pet food, medicines, and other pet products comply with all federal and state requirements, allowing you to confidently manufacture and distribute safe, high-quality products.
Standard services include…
Veterinary Food Submissions for GRAS and Food Additives
Good Manufacturing Practice Regulation Audits
Veterinary Product Labeling and Claims
Animal Food Safety – Food Safety Modernization Act
483 and Warning Letter Remediation
Recall Assistance
US Agent and Import Assistance
Due Diligence Assessments
In-House and Public Trainings
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA)
Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA)
## Pet Food FAQs
##### What specific tests does FSNS conduct to ensure the safety of pet food?
Key tests include Salmonella detection, especially for rendered proteins, Listeria for raw pet food, and screening for aflatoxins and heavy metals using [validated analytical methods.](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/)
##### How does FSNS detect contaminants and ensure nutritional accuracy in pet food products?
We use [analytical chemistry](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) for label compliance and nutrient accuracy, HPLC for aflatoxins, and ICP-MS for heavy metal analysis. [Microbial tests](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) are performed using sensitive pathogen detection methods.
##### What regulatory challenges are faced by the pet food industry?
Zero tolerance for Salmonella, aflatoxin limits, and heavy metal maximum residue limits (MRLs) are major hurdles. FSNS helps you meet FDA requirements and identify product adulteration.
##### How does FSNS support ongoing compliance and quality control in this sector?
We offer [process validation services](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) for pathogen kill steps and contribute to industry committees.[ EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), part of [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/), provides regulatory support.
### Have questions? Connect with one of our experts today.
Contact us and we’ll help you find a solution.
---
### [About FSNS](https://fsns.com/about-fsns/)
**Published:** March 19, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# About Us
## Food Safety Net Services
As part of [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/), Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) and [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/about/) partner with customers to deliver innovative scientific solutions and expertise – **So The World Can Trust In What It Consumes®**. Founded in 1994 by John and Gina Bellinger, our North American network of 30+ ISO 17025-accredited labs serves many regulated industries, including [beef](https://fsns.com/industries/protein/), [dairy](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/), [poultry](https://fsns.com/industries/poultry-and-eggs/), [pet food](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/), [spices](https://certified-laboratories.com/nuts-spice-analysis/), [seafood](https://certified-laboratories.com/seafood/), [nuts](https://certified-laboratories.com/nuts-spice-analysis/), [produce](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/), [FDA imports](https://certified-laboratories.com/import/), and [ready-to-eat](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/) foods.
## Our Commitment
24/7/365 dedicated, reliable service
Real–time data access
Direct access to your scientifically trained FSNS Lab Manager
Unparalleled personal service
Simple turn-key pricing
Value-added programs and technical expertise
Flexible courier service
## Join Our Team
Work for a company that is dedicated to ensuring the safety of the products we consume every day.
[Work With Us](https://workforcenow.adp.com/mascsr/default/mdf/recruitment/recruitment.html?cid=cfa62047-7ba7-4c65-874e-0accc0912f0b&ccId=9200454999715_2&lang=en_US)
## Corporate Sustainability
We uphold high ethical standards and corporate responsibility throughout our lab network.
[Our Sustainability Statement](https://fsns.com/corporate-sustainability/)
## Accreditations and Certifications
We maintain several regulatory, state, trade association, and other accreditations and certifications.
[View Here](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/)
## Leadership Team
Discover the leaders at the heart of Certified Group.
[Learn More](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/leadership/)
## We Are Where You Are
We operate 30+ ISO 17025-accredited testing laboratories across North America, with several locations dedicated solely to food & beverage testing and other labs dedicated to testing cosmetics, OTC products, and supplements. The industries we serve are listed below.
## Food & Beverage
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) works with our fellow [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) company, [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/), to serve a variety of food & beverage industries:
- Beverage
- Cheese
- Dairy
- FDA Import
- Nuts & Spices
- Pet Food
- Poultry & Eggs
- Produce
- Protein
- Ready-to-Eat (RTE)
- Restaurant & Retail
- Seafood
#### Our Purpose
So The World Can Trust In What It Consumes®
#### Our Mission
Partner with customers to deliver innovative scientific solutions and expertise.
#### Our Values
#### Start With the Customer
Our customers are the core of our strategy and success. Everything we do is in service of their needs.
#### Drive to Deliver
We take initiative and act with urgency in delivering to customers. We are good stewards of all resources to deliver value.
#### Act With Integrity
With ownership, accountability, and transparency we keep our commitments and act ethically in all we do.
#### Commit to Safety and Quality
We never compromise our safety, will wear PPE, and follow all SOPs. We uphold accuracy by ensuring unequivocal results.
#### Support the Team
We believe in teamwork and enabling our collective success. We celebrate diversity, agility, and ambition.
## All Your Food Safety Needs Covered
In addition to laboratory testing, we are your single-source provider of all your food safety needs.
Our [Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) division provides food safety certification (SQF, BRCGS, FSSC 22000), livestock (Value-Added Programs), and animal welfare audits to customers around the country.
In addition, our [Lab+ division performs contract research studies](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), such as process validations, shelf-life studies, challenge studies, and more serving a full range of food and beverage manufacturers.
Plus, we offer [food safety training](https://fsns.com/resources/edu/), our [Environmental Monitoring and Mapping Application (emma®)](https://fsns.com/emma/), and [regulatory consulting](https://fsns.com/regulatory-consulting/) through EAS Consulting Group, a Certified Group company (separate from our Certification & Audit services).
### Have questions? Connect with one of our experts today.
Contact us and we’ll help you find a solution.
[Contact Us](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
###### *Certification & Audit and Regulatory Consulting are separate services. Use of Regulatory Consulting services does not provide an advantage nor is it linked to the granting of Certification.*
---
### [The Importance of Food Safety Testing](https://fsns.com/resources/importance-of-food-safety-testing/)
**Published:** May 24, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
## Food Safety Testing for Manufacturers
Food safety testing is a vital part of maintaining the health and wellbeing of consumers. The importance of testing food, how it’s transported, and the facilities it originates from are a priority as more consumers become wary of what enters their home and what they put on or within their bodies.
With the increased demand for food products that are safe and beneficial to consumers’ wellbeing, reports show that food testing has substantially increased, with the food safety testing market projected to grow to approximately [$36.01 billion by 2030](https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/food-safety-testing-market-108286).
# What is Food Safety Testing?
Food safety testing varies quite a bit by facility. While some test for quality, others test for specific minerals, chemicals, etc.
The [United States Department of Agriculture](https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/What-does-food-safety-mean) defines food safety this way:
*The conditions and practices that preserve not only the quality of the food being sent to consumers but also the practices that ensure the prevention of contamination from potentially hazardous materials/compounds, as well as bacterial/viruses that could make consumers sick.*
Food safety testing organizations can utilize several different tests to ensure the quality of goods intended for consumer consumption.
## Food Safety Testing – Microbiology
[Microbiology testing](/services/microbiology-testing/) specifically tests for living organisms and pathogens that could be harmful to consumers. These tests look not only for pathogens known to make consumers ill but those that can affect the overall quality of the food being sent out to grocery stores and other businesses. Testing for spoilage organisms and indicators is crucial to ensure that only the best food products make it to consumers.
Other microbiology testing services that may be performed include:
- Bacterial and fungal speciation/subtyping
- Environmental monitoring assessments
- Foreign material identification
- Hormone testing
- Spoilage investigations
For background on the conditions that drive microbial growth and inform test selection, [see our **FAT TOM** guide (Food, Acidity, Temperature, Time, Oxygen, Moisture)](https://fsns.com/fattom-a-key-to-microbial-control-and-food-safety/).
## Food Safety Testing – Analytical Chemistry Testing
[Chemistry testing](/services/chemistry-testing/) is a vital part of food safety testing because it tests for various additives, [allergens](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/), contaminants, minerals, and heavy metals. While there are some allowable amounts of certain compounds, minerals, and so on, limitations depend on the product and its intended use.
For example, if a product is labeled as allergen-free, it needs to be [tested to ensure no known allergens are present](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/). The same can be said of metals in food, as some consumables include supplemental metals, such as iron. However, the presence of heavy metals, such as mercury, needs to be monitored carefully.
This testing can also be used to search for properties that may increase the chances of a product spoiling or going rancid – ensuring the quality of products being sent to consumers.
## Detention Testing
According to the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)](https://www.fda.gov/food/importing-food-products-united-states/fda-strategy-safety-imported-food), approximately 15% of the country’s food supplies are imported from other countries. With such a large portion of the food supplies coming from outside the U.S., samples are taken and [tested for various pesticides,](https://fsns.com/navigating-pesticide-residue-testing-mrls-methods-labs-regulations/) additives, and pathogens to ensure that they meet the FDA’s strict standards. If they don’t, they are placed on an import alert.
This means that the shipper must provide additional evidence that future shipments meet the necessary standards. To speed up this process, shippers can reach out to a third-party laboratory to have their products tested again, as well as future shipments to prove that their goods do follow the necessary guidelines. This process is called [detention testing](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/detention-testing/), and after so many successful tests, the results can be submitted to the FDA to be removed from the [import alert list](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/fda-import-alerts-how-to-get-off-a-red-list/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks).
[FSNS](https://fsns.com/) works with [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) under the [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) umbrella to provide FDA Detention Without Physical Examination (DWPE) sampling and testing to customers across the country. We provide sampling near every U.S. port, provide lab testing, help with [Red List removal](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/fda-import-alerts-how-to-get-off-a-red-list/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), and provide [U.S. Agent services](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/how-to-choose-an-fda-us-agent/) to importers across the globe. [Contact us if you need FDA DWPE sampling or testing.](https://certified-laboratories.com/import/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks)
## Certification & Audit
When it comes to building a shipper’s reputation, they must have the proper certifications to handle food and beverages safely. Certain food testing laboratories can provide a variety of [audit services](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) that can prove that your shipping procedures and policies meet customers’ needs. Some audits that may be performed can include:
- [GMP](https://fsns.com/gmp-audits-food-industry-guide/), Food Safety
- [GFSI](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/)
- Sanitation
- [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/)
- Quality
The types of audits performed can and will vary by testing facility, so make sure you are taking the time to research your options.
## Food Safety Net Services – Testing You Can Rely On
FSNS works with [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) under the [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) umbrella to provide [outsourced food safety testing](https://fsns.com/resources/outsource-your-food-safety-testing/) to manufacturers, distributors, and other businesses across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
[Contact us if you need food testing or other food safety services.](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
---
### [Why You Should Outsource Food Safety Testing](https://fsns.com/resources/outsource-your-food-safety-testing/)
**Published:** May 24, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
When you take pride in what you do and the goods you produce, you go out of your way to ensure your product or service is safe for consumers. For some, that may include investing resources into in-house safety testing. However, you may not be doing yourself any good by doing in-house testing when it comes to consumable products. Instead, you may find that outsourcing your [food safety testing](https://fsns.com/resources/importance-of-food-safety-testing/) is much more beneficial in the long run.
## Most Common Types of Food Safety Testing
Consumable products, whether food or beverages, have to adhere to strict rules and regulations to ensure that they do not harm those ingesting them.
- [Microbiology Testing:](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) These tests focus on testing for various [organisms and pathogens](/services/microbiology-testing/) that could be potentially harmful to consumers.
- Chemistry Testing: These tests involve [analyzing and testing](/services/chemistry-testing/) various compounds and searching for unwanted additives, minerals, heavy metals, and other factors that could cause spoilage.
While these may be the top two most common food safety tests performed, dozens of tests fall under these categories. Many manufacturers simply do not have the resources to conduct every necessary test to ensure the safety of their products.
## 4 Reasons to Outsource Food Safety Testing
While it may be tempting to try and save a few bucks by conducting your own food safety testing, there are several reasons why you should seriously consider outsourcing the process to a third-party testing facility.
### 1. Preparing for an Audit
One of the most important reasons you may want to outsource your food safety testing is to prepare for an [official audit](https://marketbusinessnews.com/outsource-food-safety-testing/244246/). Whether you’re a manufacturer preparing food or beverages for consumer consumption, or you’re a shipping company that moves products, regular audits are necessary to ensure that everything is running as it should.
These audits are different from those performed internally. These are likely done by your local governing bodies, or by officials from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Routine audits are performed to ensure the products’ quality and ensure that the products are being handled as they should. However, there are some cases when the FDA must step in to investigate claims of poor practices or potentially hazardous products.
**Performing an internal audit won’t always suffice, and that means you to outsource your food safety testing to a non-biased, third-party testing facility. This ensures your testing is completed as it should and that the quality of both your products and processes are in line with federal regulations and standards.**
### 2. Ensuring all Regulations are Met
Whether you’re preparing for an official audit or you want to ensure that all rules and regulations for food quality and safety are being met, your best bet is to outsource your food safety testing.
We get it – running a business is hard, especially when you are trying to ensure staff safety and the safety of all those who come into contact with your products. By outsourcing your food safety testing to a third-party laboratory, you ensure that your products are being tested to the fullest extent and that no stones are left unturned.
Depending on the facility you choose to work with, you are likely to have access to a broader array of tests to ensure that your products meet the strict [rules and regulations](https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-publishes-proposed-rule-establish-laboratory-accreditation-program-food-testing#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20FDA%20requires%20certain,conducted%20to%20help%20determine%20safety.&text=Testing%20conducted%20in%20response%20to,or%20suspected%20food%20safety%20problem.) put forth by the FDA.
### 3. Establishing Credibility
With so many manufacturers and shipping companies out there providing products to consumers, it can be hard to stand apart from your competitors. Not only that, but it can be challenging to [gain and maintain the trust](https://fsns.com/transparency-is-actually-improved-traceability-to-gain-consumer-trust/) of consumers.
While conducting internal tests is an excellent way to show consumers that you care about the products you are putting out, you need credibility beyond that.
By conducting third-party testing, you show consumers that you are willing to go the extra mile to prove that your goods are safe and that you are doing everything you can to maintain product quality.
### 4. Help You Keep Internal Costs Down
Finally, by outsourcing your food safety testing to a third-party testing laboratory, you can significantly reduce spending. It may seem counterintuitive, but you want to ensure you have the necessary team available to complete the testing.
Most brands can’t afford to complete an array of microbiology and chemistry testing on top of all their other processes. By investing in the help of a reliable third-party testing facility, you are sure to get your money’s worth – plus so much more.
## Food Safety Net Services – Your Go-To Food Safety Testing Laboratory
If you’re looking for a reliable third-party laboratory for your food safety testing, then let the skilled team at Food Safety Net Services help you out.
We’ve been performing food safety testing since 1994, and we have become known as the go-to laboratory because we focus not only on exceeding customer expectations but also on providing expedited, timely results.
***If you have any questions regarding our food safety testing services, [contact us today](/contact-us/) for more information.***
---
### [Dairy Testing](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/)
**Published:** May 31, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Dairy Testing Lab Services
FSNS’ dairy testing helps processors comply with stringent USDA, Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), and industry regulations that promote the safety of dairy products. From NCIMS Grade “A” compliance and the USDA AMS Plant Survey Program, to GFSI food safety certifications and the National Organic Standards Board, our experts help your dairy food processing business meet regulatory requirements.
## Dairy Testing with FSNS
FSNS dairy foods testing capabilities include a broad portfolio of microbiology and chemistry assessments, including Standard Methods for Examination of Dairy Foods (SMEDP) and methods validated by AOAC, FDA-BAM, GB, Health Canada, ISO, AFNOR, and APHA. Our ISO 17025 accredited laboratories operate 24/7/365 to ensure industry leading turnaround times and accurate results.
### Microbiology Dairy Testing
We test for a variety of pathogens, indicator organisms, and spoilage organisms to support your food safety plan and environmental monitoring programs.
- Standard Plate Count
- Generic *E. coli*
- Coliforms
- Fecal Coliforms
- Yeast & Mold
- Lactic Acid Bacteria
- Psychrotrophic Plate Count
- *Listeria* spp.
- *Listeria monocytogenes*
- Enterobacteriaceae
- *Salmonella* spp.
- *Staphylococcus aureus*
- *Staphylococcus* Enterotoxin
- *Bacillus cereus*
- *Bacillus cereus* Diarrheal Toxin
- *Cronobacter sakazakii*
- Thermophilic Sporeformers
- Mesophilic Sporeformers
- Thermoduric Plate Count
### Chemistry Dairy Testing
Proximate Analysis
Butterfat
Lactose
Benzoic Acid
Nutritional Labeling
Whey Protein Nitrogen
Percent Total Solids
Aflatoxin M1
Potassium Sorbate
Sodium Benzoate
Vitamin A
Vitamin D
Heavy Metals
Melamine
Sieve Analysis
Peroxide Value
## Customized Studies to Help You Make Decisions
Our contract research division, [FSNS Lab+](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), designs and conducts custom [shelf life studies](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/), [challenge studies](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/), process validations, and other scientific studies that provide you with the data you need to verify product compliance and make good business decisions.
Use this information to establish “use-by” and “best-by” dates to promote customer safety and product quality. Verify the efficacy of a new ingredient or formulation change. Verify that your production processes result in a food product that is suitable for consumption, protecting your customers and your brand.
- Shelf Life Studies
- Challenge Studies
- Process Validations
- Microbial Strain Typing and Serology
- Spoilage Investigations
- Thermal Process Deviation Testing and Modeling
- Proficiency Testing Programs
- Foreign Material Identification
## Challenge Studies Help Dairy Products Manufacturer Expand Product Line and Boost Revenue
[Read the Case Study](https://eadn-wc05-2540179.nxedge.io/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Dairy-Case-Study_1122.pdf)
## Dairy Testing to Support Your HACCP Plan
While FSNS laboratory testing provides quantitative and qualitative analyses of your dairy products, use of preventive food safety measures like HACCP and PCHF will reduce risk of contamination.
[HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) verification testing, indicator organisms, pathogen detection, and confirmation are just some of the services our food safety experts provide. We also support HACCP, PCHF, GFSI, and other food safety platforms with regulatory consulting through [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) company.
## Food Safety Training & Education
We offer a wide range of [food safety training courses](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/) that help your employees understand food safety, conduct in-house audits, and promote a food safety culture in your organization in compliance with GFSI certification requirements.
[Audit training for GFSI, SQF, BRCGS, & FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
[HACCP Courses](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/)
[Microbiology & Food Safety Courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/microbiology-food-safety/)
[Sanitation Courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/sanitation/)
[FSPCA Preventive Controls for Animal Food & Human Food (PCQI)](https://fsns.com/product-category/fspca-preventive-controls/)
[Customized training available](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
## Food Safety Certification & Audit Services
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) can perform audits against the most common GFSI-benchmarked food safety certifications.
BRCGS Food Safety
SQF
FSSC 22000
GMP Audits
Our auditors have an average of 14 years of experience working in food manufacturing. We also offer a full range of animal welfare and on-farm livestock auditing services. In fact, FSNS C&A performs more animal welfare audits than any other organization, and our clients give our auditors a 99% satisfaction rate.
### Livestock Auditing Services:
- Dairy
- FARM 4.0 Program Audits
- Willful Mistreatment Protocols & Response
- Quality & Care
- Process Verified Programs
- Livestock Show & Rodeo
- Customer-specific audits
- American Humane Certified
## Dairy FAQs
##### What tests does FSNS perform for raw and processed dairy products?
We test for *Listeria* spp., *Salmonella*, STEC, *Cronobacter* ([powdered dairy testing](https://fsns.com/powdered-dairy-testing/)), and perform quantitative tests for *Staphylococcus aureus* and *Bacillus cereus*. Heavy metal analysis is available for products like infant formula
##### How is microbial contamination prevented throughout the dairy production process?
A strong Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) is key. FSNS supports this with [highly sensitive testing for environmental swabs](https://info.fsns.com/emp-services) and provides [EMP software](https://fsns.com/emma/) and microbial strain typing to identify contamination sources.
##### How does FSNS ensure consistency and quality in dairy testing?
Our lab protocols are adapted to dairy-specific needs, such as custom incubation temperatures and sample prep techniques. We also support starter culture enumeration and other critical quality metrics.
##### What specific challenges does the dairy industry face, and how are they addressed by FSNS?
Environmental contamination is a persistent risk. FSNS offers [EMP testing](https://info.fsns.com/emp-services), [challenge studies](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/), and [livestock audits](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) to support both product integrity and animal welfare
### From cow to consumer, FSNS dairy testing services help ensure your products make the grade.
Contact us to learn more.
###### About FSNS
###### Services
###### Certification & Audit
###### Education
###### Privacy Policy
###### Certified Laboratories
###### Industries
###### Resources
###### [Careers](https://workforcenow.adp.com/mascsr/default/mdf/recruitment/recruitment.html?cid=cfa62047-7ba7-4c65-874e-0accc0912f0b&ccId=9200454999715_2&lang=en_US)
###### Contact Us
#### Join our mailing list:
Copyright ©2026 Food Safety Net Services
- [Follow](https://www.linkedin.com/company/food-safety-net-services "Follow on LinkedIn")
---
### [Food Industry Training Built for the Plant Floor](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
**Published:** August 18, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Food Industry Training Built for the Plant Floor
---
### [Allergen Testing for Manufacturers](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/)
**Published:** May 29, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Allergen Testing for Consumer Product Manufacturers
Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company, provides laboratory allergen testing of raw materials, product samples, and environmental swabs for manufacturers of [food and beverage products](https://fsns.com/industries/). With [ISO 17025-accredited labs](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/) and validated methods, we help you identify cross-contact, validate cleaning procedures, and ensure proper labeling to protect your customers and brand.
## Who We Serve
We provide laboratory allergen testing for…
Food manufacturers
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Ingredient suppliers
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Co-manufacturers and contract packagers
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Our allergen testing services are designed for businesses that must comply with regulatory requirements and protect their customers.
## Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for Allergen Testing
Our [food & beverage labs](https://fsns.com/industries/) use ELISA for allergen testing to provide you with several benefits:
#### Targeted Accuracy
Detects even trace amounts of allergens with precision, improving risk assessment and safety.
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
#### Rapid Results
Get clear, actionable results quickly, keeping your production on track and products market-ready.
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
#### Cost-Effective Confidence
Affordable testing that doesn’t compromise quality, saving you resources while protecting your brand.
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
#### Tailored Reliability
Versatile enough to test raw materials, surfaces, and finished goods, giving you comprehensive allergen control.
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
## Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Technology for Allergen Detection
While ELISA is the industry standard for routine allergen screening, we enhance your testing strategy with advanced PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) technology. PCR targets allergen-specific DNA, making it effective in scenarios where ELISA may fall short.
#### Superior in Processed Foods
Ideal for baked goods and extruded snacks where proteins may be denatured or degraded, conditions that limit ELISA.
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
#### High Sensitivity & Specificity
Confirms allergen presence with precise DNA detection, even in complex food matrices.
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
#### Cost-Effective Confidence
Adds a deeper layer of validation during investigations of potential cross-contact.
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
#### Enhanced Labeling Confidence
Strengthens risk management and supports accurate allergen declarations.
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Together, ELISA and PCR create a robust, scientifically rigorous approach to allergen control, giving you and your consumers greater peace of mind.
## For What Allergens Can FSNS Test?
We provide allergen detection for the U.S. FDA’s “Big Nine”, in addition to all other allergens, in a wide range of food & beverage matrices.
Milk
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Egg
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Peanut
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Tree nuts
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Wheat
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Soy
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Fish
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Crustacean shelfish
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Sesame
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Gluten (for gluten-free claims)
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
Additional analytes as needed
[](https://certified-laboratories.com/allergen-testing/)
## We Help You Meet Regulatory Requirements for Allergen Controls
If you manufacture food, beverages, or dietary supplements, allergen controls are a regulatory requirement. Our allergen testing services help you meet regulatory requirements.
#### FALCPA (Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act)
Requires clear labeling of the nine major food allergens (milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, soybeans, sesame) on packaged foods.
#### FSMA (Food Safety Modernization Act)
Mandates that facilities evaluate allergen hazards and, if required, implement preventive controls to minimize cross-contact.
#### 21 CFR Part 117 (cGMPs)
Requires you to verify that allergens are controlled to prevent adulteration and misbranding.
## We Can Review Your Labels for Regulatory Compliance
Undeclared allergens are one of the top reasons for food recalls in the United States. Our regulatory consulting arm, [EAS Consulting group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company, can review your product labels to ensure compliance with FALCPA and FSMA.
We help identify risks tied to allergen declarations, “Contains”, or “May Contain” statements, and claims like “natural” or “non-GMO.” Our team offers guidance on…
#### Allergen Labeling
#### Nutrition & Supplement Facts Panels
#### Trending Claims & Substantiation
#### FDA and FTC Compliance
Whether you’re launching a product or updating a label, we’ll help you reduce risk and stay compliant.
## Certified Testing.
Nationwide Coverage.
## Certified Testing. Nationwide Coverage.
Our nationwide laboratory network includes several locations with [analytical chemistry](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) capabilities to test for allergens. Partner with us for…
- Accurate, trustworthy results using validated methods.
- Competitive turnaround times.
- 24/7/365 service and courier pickup at many of our labs.
- ISO 17025-accredited laboratories.
Contact us today to discover how we can support your allergen control program.
---
### [Food Regulatory Compliance Consulting](https://fsns.com/regulatory-consulting/)
**Published:** June 21, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Regulatory Consulting Services for the Food and Beverage Industry
Separate from Certification & Audit, [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/foods/), our regulatory consulting arm under the [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) banner, specializes in comprehensive regulatory consulting for the food and beverage industry. Our expertise helps your business navigate complex regulations so you can meet the requirements of the U.S. FDA, USDA, and other regulatory bodies. As a leading food safety consulting company, we offer a broad range of services to meet your regulatory needs.
## Food Regulatory Compliance Consulting – Industries We Serve
We serve the smallest grower to the largest food manufacturer with a broad range of food regulatory consulting services. Our technical staff and team of more than 150 independent consultants responds to your inquiries quickly to help you review a label claim, verify [FSMA](https://fsns.com/fsma-update/) compliance, audit your environmental monitoring program, and much more.
- [Conventional Foods](https://fsns.com/industries/)
- [Dairy](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/)
- [Infant Formula](https://fsns.com/industries/)
- [Organic](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/)
- [Produce](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/)
- [Meat and Poultry](https://fsns.com/industries/protein/)
- [USDA](https://fsns.com/industries/protein/)
- [Seafood](https://fsns.com/industries/#:~:text=Seafood)
- [Acidified Foods](https://fsns.com/industries/)
- [Low-Acid Canned Foods](https://fsns.com/industries/)
- [Medical Foods](https://fsns.com/industries/)
- [Foods for Special Dietary Uses](https://fsns.com/industries/)
- [Animal Feed](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/)
- [Bottled Water](https://fsns.com/industries/beverages/)
- [CBD-Infused Foods](https://certified-laboratories.com/cannabis-testing-labs/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks)
- [Snack Foods](https://fsns.com/industries/)
- [Ready-to-Eat Foods](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/)
- [Food Packaging](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/)
- [FSMA](https://fsns.com/fsma-update/)
## Food Safety Consulting Services for FSMA Compliance
Our [food safety consulting services](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/foods/food-safety-fsma/) are designed to help you comply with the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and other regulations, ensuring your products are safe for consumers. Our team of food safety consultants provides expert guidance and support to maintain the highest standards of food safety.
#### FSMA compliance strategies
#### Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (HARPC)
#### Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) assessments
#### Development of food safety plans
## Food Submissions
We assist with all aspects of [food submissions](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/foods/food-submissions/) to ensure your products meet regulatory requirements for market entry and continued compliance. Our food regulatory compliance consulting services help you navigate complex submission processes.
#### New dietary ingredient notifications (NDINs)
#### Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) determinations
#### Food additive petitions
#### Assistance with regulatory documentation and submission processes
## Food Labeling and Claims Support
Our team of [food labeling specialists](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/foods/food-labeling-and-claims/) helps you navigate the complexities of food labeling regulations, ensuring your labels and claims are accurate and compliant. As experienced FDA label consultants, we provide detailed reviews and support to ensure your product meets all labeling requirements.
#### Label reviews & approvals
#### Nutritional labeling and ingredient statements
#### Health and nutrient content claims verification
#### Structure/function claim substantiation
#### Compliance with FDA and USDA labeling requirements
## USDA Consulting Services
We provide [expert guidance on USDA regulations](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/foods/usda/) to help your business comply with requirements for meat, poultry, and egg products. Our services ensure that your products meet all USDA standards for safety and quality.
#### USDA label approvals
#### Compliance with USDA regulations for meat and poultry products
#### Organic certification assistance
#### Support with USDA inspections and audits
## 483 and Warning Letter Remediation
We offer [remediation services to address FDA Form 483 observations and Warning Letters](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/483-and-warning-letter-remediation/), helping you address compliance issues quickly. Our food safety consulting services include developing effective response strategies and corrective actions.
#### Response strategies for FDA 483 observations
#### Corrective and preventive action (CAPA) plans
#### FDA communications and follow-up
#### Expert assistance in resolving compliance issues
## Recall Assistance
Our [Recall Assistance services](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/recall-assistance/) help you manage product recalls efficiently, minimizing impact on your business and maintaining consumer trust. We provide comprehensive support throughout the recall process, from planning to execution.
#### Recall strategy development and implementation
#### Communication with regulatory authorities
#### Post-recall effectiveness checks
#### Risk assessment and management
## U.S. Agent and Import Assistance
We provide [U.S. Agent services](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/us-agent-and-imports/) for foreign companies and assist with import regulations to ensure smooth entry into the U.S. market. As your U.S. import agent, we help you navigate regulatory requirements and facilitate seamless import processes.
#### U.S. Agent representation for foreign entities
#### Importer of Record (IOR) services
#### Compliance with import requirements
#### Coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
#### Import detention assistance
## Due Diligence Assessments
Our [Due Diligence services](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/mergers-acquisitions-and-investments/) support mergers, acquisitions, and investments by providing thorough assessments of regulatory compliance. We help investors and companies identify potential risks and ensure compliance with all relevant regulations.
#### Pre-acquisition regulatory compliance assessments
#### Comprehensive due diligence reports
#### Risk evaluations and mitigation strategies
#### Expert insights and recommendations
## In-House and Public Training
We offer customized [in-house and public training](https://easconsultinggroup.com/training/food-in-house-training/) to ensure your team is up-to-date with the latest regulatory requirements and best practices. Our consultants and experts provide practical and relevant training to enhance your team’s knowledge and skills.
#### In-house training tailored to your needs
#### Online training modules for convenience and flexibility
#### Public training courses on various regulatory topics
#### Workshops and seminars led by industry experts and former regulators
Certification & Audit and Regulatory Consulting are separate services. Use of Regulatory Consulting services does not provide an advantage nor is it linked to the granting of Certification.
### Contact Us for Food Safety Consulting
If you need food regulatory compliance consulting, contact us and our team will respond, typically within one business day.
###### *Certification & Audit and Regulatory Consulting are separate entities. Use of Regulatory Consulting services does not provide an advantage nor is it linked to the granting of Certification.*
---
### [Food Chemistry Testing](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/)
**Published:** May 24, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Food Chemistry Testing
[How Can We Help?](#form)
FSNS provides food chemistry testing services that [support regulatory compliance](https://fsns.com/regulatory-consulting/), labeling accuracy, and product quality. Our analytical food labs use validated methods to deliver reliable analytical results for [nutrition testing](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/), ingredient testing, and contaminant screening. Review our primary food chemistry testing services below, or contact us to discuss your matrices, specifications, and turnaround requirements.
[Allergens](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/)
Preservatives and additives
Artificial colors
Adulterants (melamine and related compounds, thiocyanate, furosine)
Amino acids
Beta-agonists ([ractopamine by LC-MS/MS](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/ractopamine-analysis-by-lc-ms-ms/))
Carbohydrates, sugar, and other sweeteners
Crude analysis panel & minerals
Fat & water-soluble vitamins
Fatty acid profile
Proximate analysis (fat, moisture, protein, ash, crude fiber, salt)
Caffeine
Pungency – scoville heat
Rancidity (TBA, free fatty acids, peroxide value)
Solubility/Insolubility
Titratable acidity
Viscosity
Prop 65 regulations
### We perform food chemistry testing for nutrition labels, including [nutritional analysis](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/) used to make compliant product labels and nutrition panels. If you need support with labeling requirements or claim substantiation, [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/), the regulatory arm of [Certified Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/?utm_source=certified%20laboratories&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), can provide guidance on labeling regulations and documentation expectations.
## Food Chemistry Testing of
Macronutrients, Micronutrients, and Additives
The chemical composition of a [food or beverage](https://fsns.com/industries/) affects nutrition, sensory attributes, and functional performance. FSNS food chemistry testing covers macronutrients, micronutrients, and additives to support specification verification, shelf-life evaluation, and routine process control. Food chemistry testing results can be used for trending, release decisions, and investigation of out-of-spec conditions.
Our food chemistry testing services can help identify specific ingredients and additives to support accurate labeling and formulation verification. Examples include color additives and sweeteners such as tartrazine 102, yellow 2G107, benzoates 210, nitrates 252, aspartame 951, and monosodium glutamate (MSG) 621 so that your products can be labeled appropriately.
FSNS supports [meat](https://fsns.com/industries/protein/), [poultry](https://fsns.com/industries/poultry-and-eggs/), and [seafood](https://fsns.com/industries/#:~:text=Seafood) manufacturers with food chemistry testing aligned to USDA expectations. Our food chemistry testing laboratories are USDA-accredited for fat, moisture, protein, and salt testing. Common services include:
[How Can We Help?](#form)
##### Proximate Testing
- Accredited by USDA in the areas of Fat, Moisture, Protein, and Salt Testing
- Ash
- Moisture (Vacuum and Forced Air)
- Fat (Soxtec, Soxhlet and Acid/Alkaline Hydrolysis – Mojonnier Method)
- Protein (Kjeldahl and Combustion)
- Salt (Volhard)
##### Additives
- Artificial Colors
- Phosphates
- Sulfites
- Organic Acids
- Sodium Benzoate/Benzoic Acid
- Potassium Sorbate/Sorbic Acid
- Sucralose
- Nitrates/Nitrites
- Caffeine
- Scoville
##### Carbohydrates and Sweeteners
- Sugars
- Sugar Alcohols
- Brix
- Total Dietary Fiber
- Oligosaccharides/Low-Molecular-Weight Soluble Fibers
##### Minerals, Metals, and Heavy Metals
- Aluminum
- Antimony
- Arsenic
- Barium
- Beryllium
- Bismuth
- Boron
- Cadmium
- Chromium
- Cobalt
- Copper
- Germanium
- Iron
- Lead
- Lithium
- Magnesium
- Manganese
- Mercury
- Molybdenum
- Nickel
- Phosphorous
- Potassium
- Selenium
- Silver
- Sodium
- Sulfur
- Thallium
- Tin
- Titanium
- Vanadium
- Zinc
##### Fats and Oils
- Cholesterol
- Omega Fatty Acids
- Total Fat (Saturated, Polyunsaturated, Monounsaturated, Trans Fat)
##### Rancidity
- Free Fatty Acids
- Peroxide Value
- TBA Rancidity Test
- p-anisidine Value
##### Physical Property
- Viscosity (by Brookfield or Bostwick)
- Hunter Color Analysis
- pH
- Water Activity
- Turbidity
##### Amino Acids
- Free Amino Acids
- Total Amino Acids
##### Fat and Water Soluble Vitamins
- Vitamin A
- B Vitamins (B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, B12)
- Vitamin C
- Vitamin D
- Vitamin E
## Food Chemistry Testing of
Adulterants and Contaminants
Chemical adulterants and contaminants can trigger recalls, import issues, regulatory action, and brand damage, including when present at trace levels. FSNS food chemistry testing includes adulterant testing and contaminant testing using validated methods and fit-for-purpose analytical instrumentation to support risk-based decisions and compliance needs. Standard food chemistry testing services include:
- Seafood Antibiotics
- Nitrofurans
- Chloramphenicol
- Sulfonamides
- Fluoroquinolones
- Malachite Green
- Gentian Violet
- Mebendazole
- Melamine and Related Compounds
- Pesticides
- Beta Agonists
- Heavy Metals (Lead, Mercury, Arsenic, Cadmium, and More)
- Ionophores
- Residual Solvents and Other Contaminants
- Sudan Dyes
- ETO/PPO
- ECH/PCH
## Analytical Food Labs for Spices
Our food chemisty labs excel in analysis of spices, including [DWPE testing of shipments detained by the U.S. FDA](https://certified-laboratories.com/import/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks). Key capabilities include…
- Acid Insoluble Ash
- Moisture by Distillation
- Steam Volatile Oil
- Piperine Content
- Curcumin Content
- Color by ASTA
## Analytical Chemistry Testing for Product Development
Food chemistry testing supports R&D decisions across reformulation, troubleshooting, and new product development. Analytical chemistry testing results can guide ingredient selection, validate functional targets, and confirm that prototype formulations align to label and quality objectives.
[How Can We Help?](#form)
## State-of-the-Art Equipment Equals
High-Quality
Results
## State-of-the-Art Equipment Equals High-Quality Results
FSNS’ team of scientists uses state-of-the-art analytical instruments to meet your food chemistry testing demands with competitive turnaround times.
Here are some of the analytical instruments used in our chemistry testing labs:
HPLC: High-Performance Liquid Chromatography
GC: Gas Chromatography
GC-MS/MS: GC-Tandem Mass Spectrometer
ICP-OES: Inductively Coupled Plasma – Optical Emission Spectrometers
ICP-MS: Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometers
LC-MS/MS: Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometers
FTIR, NIR: Fourier Transform Infrared with Near IR Capabilities
### Looking for an Analytical Food Lab to Test Your Samples?
Complete the form to discover how we can help you!
---
### [Challenge Studies for Food & Beverage Manufacturers ](https://fsns.com/challenge-study-food/)
**Published:** July 1, 2026
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Challenge Studies for Food & Beverage Manufacturers
Lab+ performs challenge studies for food and beverage manufacturers that need product-specific data to make confident safety, quality, and commercialization decisions. Also called “inoculated pack studies”, these studies show how selected organisms behave in your product under defined conditions.
Whether you are launching a new product, reformulating, reducing preservatives, changing packaging, or supporting a [shelf-life decision](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/), a challenge study provides data your FSQA, R&D, regulatory, and product development teams can use to make defensible decisions.
Provide a few details about your product for a customized quote for your challenge study.
[Request a Quote](#form)
## Collect Data that Answers Key Product Questions
Can this organism grow in my product?
Evaluate pathogen or spoilage organism growth, survival, or decline.
Will this reformulation affect risk?
Compare how formulation variables influence microbial behavior.
Can we support this shelf-life decision?
Generate product-specific data under defined storage conditions.
Will our rationale stand up to review?
Provide clear documentation for internal, customer, auditor, or regulatory review.
## Why Lab+?
A food challenge study is far more complex than routine [food microbiology testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/). A useful study design requires sound scientific judgment, food-matrix experience, relevant organism selection, controlled conditions, and clear interpretation of results. Our team gives you…
A team of scientists (including multiple with Ph.D. degrees) that is solely dedicated to contract research work, including challenge studies.
190+ years of combined food safety testing experience working with a broad range of sample types.
3 Lab+ locations across the U.S. supporting specialized contract research studies.
Clear, easy-to-understand final reports so your team can make defensible decisions.
[Meet Our Experts](#190)
## What Is a Food Challenge Study?
A food challenge study is a controlled microbiological study that evaluates the growth, survival, or decline of selected organisms in a specific food product under defined conditions.
Challenge studies are also called inoculated pack studies because organisms of interest are introduced into the product and monitored over time. The results help FSQA, R&D, and regulatory teams understand how the product’s formulation, packaging, processing, storage conditions, and intended shelf life affect microbial growth.
### *A challenge study answers a vital question:*
### *Can the organism of concern grow or survive in this product under the conditions that matter to our business?*
## When Do Food Manufacturers Need Challenge Studies?
Food manufacturers use challenge studies when routine testing, published data, or assumptions are not enough to answer a product-specific food safety question.
A challenge study can help your team:
Understand whether a pathogen or spoilage organism can grow, survive, or decline in your product.
Evaluate whether formulation, packaging, pH, water activity, antimicrobials, or storage conditions provide adequate control.
Support shelf-life, date-code, reformulation, and product development decisions.
Generate documentation for customer, retailer, auditor, regulatory, or internal food safety review.
Reduce uncertainty before launch, scale-up, or commercialization.
## Common Triggers for a Challenge Study
### Trigger
Ready-to-Eat Product
Product Reformulation
Spoilage Issue
Cleaner-Label Development
Packaging Change
Storage or Shipping Change
Shelf-Life or Date-Code Verification
Customer, Auditor, Retailer, or Regulatory Request
### Question Your Team Needs to Answer
Can a pathogen grow if the product has no consumer kill step?
Did the change affect microbial control?
What conditions may be allowing spoilage organisms to survive or grow?
What happens if preservatives are reduced, removed, or replaced?
Does vacuum packaging, modified atmosphere packaging, resealable packaging, or a new package size change microbial behavior?
Does the product remain controlled under new refrigerated, frozen, ambient, or distribution conditions?
Can the product support the intended shelf life under defined conditions?
Do we have product-specific data to support our food safety rationale?
## Lab+ Challenge Study Capabilities
Our Lab+ team can help design the study, select the organisms of interest, establish the right conditions, conduct microbial testing, and prepare a final report your team can understand and use.
#### Pathogen Challenge Studies
#### Listeria Challenge Studies for USDA Alternative Support
#### FDA Food Code TCS Product Assessments
#### Spoilage Organism Challenge Studies
#### Antimicrobial Ingredient MIC Studies
### Best Used When…
You need to understand whether a pathogen can grow, survive, or decline in your product under defined conditions.
You manufacture certain ready-to-eat meat or poultry products and need data related to USDA Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 documentation.
You need to determine whether a product should be treated as Time/Temperature Control for Safety food.
You are investigating spoilage, reformulating a product, comparing prototypes, or evaluating microbial stability.
You are comparing antimicrobial systems, adjusting preservative levels, or developing a cleaner-label formulation.
#### Pathogen Challenge Studies
#### Listeria Challenge Studies for USDA Alternative Support
#### FDA Food Code TCS Product Assessments
#### Spoilage Organism Challenge Studies
#### Antimicrobial Ingredient MIC Studies
### What It Evaluates
Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, pathogenic E. coli, and other organisms of concern in RTE, refrigerated, no-kill-step, or post-process-exposed products.
Whether formulation, antimicrobial ingredients, post-lethality treatments, or related controls limit or suppress Listeria monocytogenes growth.
Product characteristics such as pH, water activity, formulation, storage conditions, and microbial behavior.
Growth, survival, or decline of spoilage organisms associated with quality defects in your product.
How specific antimicrobial ingredients perform against target organisms of interest.
#### Pathogen Challenge Studies
#### Listeria Challenge Studies for USDA Alternative Support
#### FDA Food Code TCS Product Assessments
#### Spoilage Organism Challenge Studies
#### Antimicrobial Ingredient MIC Studies
### Outcome for Your Team
Supports product development, food safety plan decisions, shelf-life evaluations, and documentation for customers, retailers, regulators, or industry expectations.
Helps support defensible documentation for Listeria control strategies in applicable RTE meat and poultry products.
Helps manufacturers, retailers, and foodservice operators make informed decisions about handling, storage, and shelf-life expectations.
Helps identify spoilage risks before they affect customers, reduce shelf life, trigger complaints, or damage brand confidence.
Helps R&D teams choose formulation strategies with stronger data before scale-up, launch, or reformulation.
## Every Challenge Study Depends on the Product
$
#### Target organism
$
#### Product matrix
$
#### Salt / sugar level
$
#### Water activity
$
#### pH
$
#### Preservatives or antimicrobials
$
#### Packaging system
$
#### Storage temperature
$
#### Distribution conditions
$
#### Intended shelf life
## Types of Products for Food Challenge Studies
Lab+ supports challenge studies across a range of food and beverage matrices. Contact us if you do not see your product type listed – our team can review your product and determine whether we can support the study.
### Product Category
Ready-to-Eat and Refrigerated Foods
Meat and Poultry Products
Sauces, Dips, Dressings, and Condiments
Dairy and Dairy Alternatives
Bakery and Prepared Components
Beverages
Low-Water-Activity Products
Complex or Reformulated Products
### Examples
Deli items, prepared foods, refrigerated meals
Cooked RTE meats, sliced products, marinated products, post-process-exposed products
Acidified products, spreads, emulsions, dips, sauces
Cheeses, cultured dairy, plant-based alternatives
Room-temperature pastries, pies, doughs, intermediate products
Juices, teas, functional beverages, dairy-based beverages
Low-aw foods, dry blends, pet treats, snack products
Multi-component foods, cleaner-label products, products using antimicrobial ingredients
## How the Challenge Study Process Works
#### Tell Us About Your Product & Study Goals
#### Our Lab+ Team Reviews the Product & Scope
#### We Design a Product-Specific Study
#### The Study is Performed Under Defined Conditions
#### Your Receive a Final Report
## Find a Food Challenge Study Testing Lab Near You
FSNS partners with [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), our fellow [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company, to operate food testing labs across North America, including three Lab+ locations dedicated to performing food challenge studies, [shelf life testing](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/), and other [contract research work](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/).
## Turlock, CA
## San Antonio, TX
## Aurora, IL
## What Does
190+ Years
of Combined Experience Look Like?
Our team has 190+ years of combined experience with food testing, including challenge studies for food safety. Our scientists use their food safety experience to help select relevant organisms, define appropriate study conditions, choose meaningful timepoints, interpret results, and prepare a report your team can use.
#### Alex Brandt, Ph.D.
Chief Science Officer, Microbiology
11 yrs.
#### Leslie Thompson-Strehlow, Ph.D.
Lab+ General Manager
25 yrs.
#### Wayne Muraoka, Ph.D.
Director of Research
17 yrs.
#### Isaac Boateng, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
2 yrs.
#### Jihun Kang, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
9 yrs.
#### Egle Karklis, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
1 yr.
#### Rebecca Linker, B.S.
Contract Research
Study Coordinator
8 yrs.
#### Sherman Mah, B.S.
Senior Manager Technical Services/Process Authority
30 yrs.
#### Wendy Reid, B.S.
Senior Research Operations Manager
36 yrs.
#### Vicki Gharibian, B.S.
Senior Research Operations Manager
26 yrs.
#### Ryan Welsh, M.S.
Technical Services Specialist
15 yrs.
#### Daniela Chavez, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
1 yr.
#### Nathan Kilgore, Ph.D.
Research Coordinator
1 yr.
#### Aaron Pleitner, Ph.D.
Director of Microbiology Technical Services
10 yrs.
## Complete Our Food Challenge Study Questionnaire
Provide a few details about your product, packaging, organisms of interest, storage conditions, and study needs. Our team will evaluate your request and reach out with a customized quote.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/3f88ffa1-b3a4-4ff2-a5a6-4577a6da8bd3)
## Challenge Studies for Food FAQs
##### What is a challenge study in food safety?
A challenge study is a microbiological study that evaluates how selected organisms behave in a specific food product under defined conditions. The study may assess whether pathogens or spoilage organisms grow, survive, decline, or are inhibited over time. For more, see our
[Guide on Challenge Studies in Foods and Beverages](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/)
##### Why do food manufacturers perform challenge studies?
Food manufacturers perform challenge studies to obtain product-specific data about microbial growth, survival, or inhibition. Common reasons include launching a new product, reformulating, reducing preservatives, changing packaging, extending shelf life, responding to customer requests, or evaluating whether a product supports pathogen growth.
##### What is an inoculated pack study?
An inoculated pack study is another name for a challenge study. In this type of study, selected organisms are introduced into a product and monitored over time under defined storage, packaging, or handling conditions.
##### What organisms can be used in a food challenge study?
The organisms depend on the product, hazard analysis, study objective, and regulatory or customer need. Challenge studies may use pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, or pathogenic E. coli; or spoilage organisms associated with quality issues in the product.
##### What product factors affect challenge study design?
Challenge study design may consider pH, water activity, formulation, salt, sugar, preservatives, antimicrobial ingredients, packaging system, storage temperature, distribution conditions, intended shelf life, and the organism of interest.
##### Can a challenge study support shelf-life decisions?
Yes. A challenge study can support shelf-life decisions when the question involves pathogen growth, pathogen survival, spoilage risk, or microbial control over time. Shelf-life testing and challenge studies are related, but they answer different questions and may be used together depending on the product and risk.
##### Can a challenge study help with clean-label reformulation?
Yes. A challenge study can help evaluate whether a cleaner-label formulation, preservative reduction, or antimicrobial ingredient change affects microbial control. This is useful when a manufacturer wants to reduce or replace preservatives without relying on assumptions about product safety or quality.
---
### [Environmental Monitoring Software for Food Manufacturers ](https://fsns.com/emma/)
**Published:** July 30, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Meet emma®, our Environmental Monitoring Software for Food Manufacturers
Tired of navigating spreadsheets or binders to manage your EMP? Emma®, our Environmental Monitoring and Mapping Application for food manufacturers, helps you save up to 40 hours a week in admin duties, improve source tracking, access CAPA plans, and quickly pull data for auditors and management. Elevate your EMP with emma®.
[Schedule a Demo](#form)
#### Save 40 Hours a Week in Admin Duties
#### Improve Source Tracking
#### Access CAPA Plans
#### Pull Data for Auditors & Management
### **Emma® EMP Application Streamlines Environmental Monitoring at CTI Foods**
[Read the Case Study](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/CLFS-FB-emma-Testimonial-CTI-Foods-073124.pdf)
## Emma® Saves Time
Schedule and automate tasks, print labels, and gather all your EMP data in one secure location. With emma®, you can save hours a day by automating tedious tasks previously done by your team.
## Improve Source Tracking
The dynamic dashboard lets you visualize swab sites and pass/fail points to help find connections and improve source tracking. This helps you target remediation efforts and challenge your facility, improving food safety.
## Access CAPA Plans
Emma® comes with prebuilt corrective action plans to speed remediation and save time. You can also customize your plans to suit your facility. When you get a positive, emma® helps you act quickly to maximize safety.
## Pull Data for Auditors & Management
By storing all your EMP data in one place, emma® helps you pull reports for auditors and upper management. Use the prebuilt reports or create your own.
## We Offer Technical Support
Along with providing one of the best environmental monitoring software programs for food manufacturers, we offer technical support to help you maximize its value. Our team will walk you through our 4-step process to set up emma® for your facility.
## 4-Step Onboarding Process
#### Introduction
#### Assemble Maps & Swabbing Points
#### Build Your Swabbing Plan
#### Submissions & Data Training
## See emma® in Action
Ready to see how emma® can elevate your EMP? Watch the demo video. Then contact us with questions or to schedule a customized demo for your food safety team.
---
### [Proficiency Testing](https://fsns.com/services/proficiency-testing/)
**Published:** November 24, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Food Proficiency Testing Provider
## Food Proficiency Testing Packages for Your Laboratory
FSNS Lab+ serves as a food proficiency testing provider that helps companies demonstrate in-house laboratory competency for GFSI audit schemes, internal QC, and other standards. Our food proficiency testing packages evaluate an in-house laboratory’s ability to perform defined testing methodologies through structured proficiency testing programs. We offer regularly scheduled quarterly proficiency testing events, along with custom proficiency testing events and packages, with straightforward pricing.
## Quantitative Microbiology Proficiency Testing Package
This microbiology proficiency testing package evaluates quantitative testing performance for the following organisms:
Aerobic Plate Count
*Staphylococcus aureus* Count
Coliform Count
Yeast Count
Generic *E. coli* Count
Mold Count
## Qualitative Microbiology Food Proficiency Testing Package
This microbiology proficiency testing package evaluates qualitative testing performance for the following organisms:
- *Listeria* spp.
- *Listeria monocytogenes*
- *Salmonella*
- *E. coli* O157:H7
## Supplemental Microbiology Food Proficiency Testing Package
This supplemental proficiency testing package expands your proficiency testing program with additional organisms or method areas. Organisms in this package cover testing for the following:
Lactic Acid Bacteria Count
Enterobacteriaceae Count
Anaerobic Plate Count
Psychrotrophic Plate Count
*Pseudomonas aeruginosa*
*Bacillus cereus*
*Campylobacter* spp.
*Clostridium perfringens*
## Chemistry Quantitative Food Proficiency Testing Package
The samples included in this package cover chemistry quantitative testing for the following:
- Fat
- Moisture
- Protein
- Salt
- Sodium
- Water Activity
- pH
## Custom Proficiency Testing Package Examples
FSNS Lab+ designs custom proficiency testing packages to match your audit scope, matrices, and in-house laboratory methods. We can tailor food proficiency testing programs beyond standard quarterly events. Examples of custom packages we have designed include:
- EMP sampling (coupons, sponges) – *Listeria, Salmonella*
- Poultry house drag swabs – *Salmonella* Enteritidis
- Cake and icing – pH, moisture, fat
### How Do I Enroll in a Food Proficiency Testing Program?
Simply complete the form and our Lab+ team will reach out about food proficiency testing for your lab.
Please note that these services are not accredited under ISO 17043.
---
### [Contract Research for the Food & Beverage Industry](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/)
**Published:** November 1, 2022
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Food Contract Research Services
[Request a Quote](#quoteform)
## FSNS Lab+ provides contract research for food manufacturers who need scientific data to verify products are produced safely and processes perform as intended.
Our scientists design and conduct customized food contract research services, including process validations, [challenge studies](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/), [shelf life studies](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/), method validations, and related studies that support informed decisions and safe production.
We work with food processors, chemical suppliers, equipment manufacturers, anti-microbial producers, test assay developers, trade groups, and other industry professionals to validate products, processes, and methods. The result is clearer data, stronger food safety programs, and greater confidence in product quality and brand protection.
At Lab+, we are large enough to offer a **full range of contract research food services and technical expertise** yet nimble enough to **act quickly to get results in the timeframe you need them**. And we take our customer service as seriously as our science.
We believe in a collaborative approach to study design, and we discuss the results and conclusions of your study with you in terms that you can understand so you can make the most informed, data-driven decisions. Let’s get started!
## Lab+ Contract Research Food Services
#### Process Validations
Our experts thoroughly understand the regulations and best practices involved in producing foods, beverages, and other related products. Thus, we are here to help you gather all the data and documentation required by the FDA, USDA, and other regulatory bodies to demonstrate that your manufacturing processes can produce products safely. Our expert assessments and skillfully designed studies will give you confidence that you are safely producing high-quality foods to protect your brand and, most importantly, your customers.
Our team includes FDA-oriented process authorities and USDA subject matter experts with in-depth knowledge to assess process capabilities and evaluate process deviation data. For example, in California, we work closely with the Technical Expert Review Panel (TERP), named by the Almond Board of California, to validate processes in the almond industry.
### Our capabilities are listed here:
- Thermal-process validation studies (both laboratory-based simulations and in-plant with surrogates)
- Non-thermal process validation studies (both laboratory-based simulations and in-plant with surrogates)
- Antimicrobial processing aids
- High-pressure processing
- Irradiation
- Pulsed electrical fields
- Pulsed light
- Radio frequency electric fields
- Ultraviolet light
- Microfiltration
- Cold plasma
- Supercritical carbon dioxide
- Other alternative technologies
- FDA Low-Acid Canned Foods (21 CFR 113) and acidified-product compliance (21 CFR 114) and validation
- Representation of processors and importers with FDA
- Temperature distribution and heat-penetration studies
- Consumer and commercial cook instruction validation
- Thermal process determination, evaluation, and filing
- Process deviation evaluations
- Ethylene oxide, gamma irradiation, and hydrogen peroxide sterilization/validation
- Process filings
- Aseptic processing
- Investigation and resolution of spoilage problems and FDA-detained product
Use our [Process Validation Questionnaire to get a quote for your project](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/process-validation-questionnaire).
## Challenge Studies Contract Research Services
Our team is well-versed in conducting microbial challenge studies (a.k.a. inoculated pack studies) for food, beverage, and consumer product manufacturers to help them determine if unacceptable levels of pathogen or spoilage organism growth will occur during their product’s normal shelf life. A further application is to test the ability of various additives to extend the time needed for these organisms to reach unacceptable levels or to eliminate these organisms altogether. Our [challenge studies](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/) provide the data you need to ensure your products meet your customers’ standards for quality and safety throughout their entire shelf life.
### Our capabilities are listed here:
- Pathogen challenge studies
- *Listeria* challenge studies to demonstrate compliance with USDA Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 status, Refrigerated Foods Association guidelines, or other regulatory or industry trade association guidelines
- FDA Food Code required product assessments for determining Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) status
- USP <51> antimicrobial-effectiveness studies for consumer products
- Inoculation with any pathogenic organism to assess the impact of formulations, antimicrobial additives, pH, water activity, packaging systems, and storage temperatures on outgrowth to aid Research and Development efforts
- Spoilage organism challenge studies
- Inoculation with any spoilage organism to assess impact of formulations, antimicrobial additives, pH, water activity, packaging systems, and storage temperatures on preventing product spoilage to aid Research and Development efforts
- Antimicrobial ingredient minimum inhibitory concentration studies
Use our [Challenge Study Questionnaire to get a quote for your project](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/challenge-study-questionnaire).
## Strain Typing Helps Beef Slaughter Plant Quickly Identify E. coli O157:H7 Source
[Read the Case Study](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Bruker-IR-Case-Study_1122.pdf)
## Method Validations for Food Manufacturers
Rapid test kits are used extensively in the food and beverage industry to detect contaminants that can cause foodborne illnesses. However, these test kits must be shown to be fit for purpose. Our Lab+ team routinely performs studies to validate the performance of test kits for *Listeria*, *Salmonella*, STEC, allergens, and other contaminants in food and beverage matrices. Whether you are a test kit manufacturer that is trying to attain validation for your new assay or are a processor that is trying to onboard an existing kit for testing your product, we have the expert resources to help you.
### Our capabilities are listed here:
- AOAC International method validations
- We are an AOAC Research Institute Certified Independent Laboratory
- Independent laboratory validation studies
- Method developer studies
- Official Methods of Analysis collaborative study participation
- Health Canada method validations
- MFLP validation studies
- FSNS internal method validations according to AOAC and Health Canada guidelines
- USP suitability and preparatory testing
## Shelf Life Studies for Food & Beverage Products
People often list freshness and quality as top criteria when buying food. It can take many years to build up a brand’s reputation, but only one bad experience with spoilage due to an inadequate shelf-life estimation can sour someone (pun intended!) on your brand indefinitely. Our scientists design and conduct customized [shelf life testing for a variety of food and beverage products](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/) so you can confidently assign an expiration date to your products that will promote a good customer experience while reducing the risk of premature spoilage.
### Our capabilities include:
- Real-time shelf life studies:
- Cooler and retail display case refrigerated storage studies
- High precision temperature and humidity chamber stability studies
- Room temperature ambient storage studies
- Spoilage microorganism growth, organoleptic evaluation, package integrity evaluation, and chemical evaluation
- [Accelerated shelf life (Q10 Model) studies](https://fsns.com/accelerated-shelf-life-testing/):
- Elevated temperature storage for ambient temperature products with long shelf life
- Organoleptic evaluation, package integrity evaluation, and chemical evaluation
[See all our shelf life testing for food capabilities here.](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/)
Use our [Shelf Life Study Questionnaire to get a quote for your project](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/shelf-life-study-questionnaire).
## Additional Testing & Validation Services for Food
We offer a diverse range of specialized testing services to help your organization get the data you need to meet your quality and safety standards and comply with regulations. While other labs may focus on one area of speciality, we offer a full suite of options. Here are some additional services; contact us if you don’t see what you need:
### Our capabilities are listed here:
- Microbial strain typing
- Hygiena RiboPrinter® – Genetic Fingerprinting
- Bruker IR Biotyper® – Phenotypic Fingerprinting
- Molecular testing services
- We are a Non-GMO Project Certified Laboratory
- GMO detection and quantification
- Meat speciation
- Virus and parasite detection: Hepatitis A, Norovirus
- Facility assessment services
- Facility contamination troubleshooting services
- Facility process assessment services
- On-site laboratory audits
- Pre-harvest food safety detection services
- Livestock fecal and tissue sample testing for foodborne pathogens
- Microbial identification
- Bacterial identification – biochemical identification; 16S rRNA gene sequencing
- Fungal identification – biochemical identification; 18S rRNA gene sequencing
- Bacterial toxin testing
- *Staphylococcal* enterotoxins
- *Bacillus cereus* diarrheal enterotoxin
- Gram-Negative endotoxin testing
- Data collection and modeling studies
- Thermal modeling studies – collection of thermal data from ovens, fryers, roasters, etc., and modeling to determine foodborne pathogen lethality
- Outgrowth modeling studies – collection of holding temperature data from storage conditions and modeling to determine foodborne pathogen outgrowth
- Foreign material identification
- Visual evaluation – stereoscope; microscope
- Physical evaluation – solubility; magnetic attraction
- Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry – purity indices; database matches
- Metals speciation – ICP-MS, ICP-OES, X-ray diffraction
- Proficiency testing programs
- Microbiological proficiency testing programs
- Chemical proficiency testing programs
## Challenge Studies Help Dairy Products Manufacturer Expand Product Line and Boost Revenue
[Read the Case Study](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Dairy-Case-Study_1122.pdf)
### Study Proposals Issued Per Year
### Clients Served in 2025
### Laboratory locations across North America, including 3 with dedicated Lab+ contract research facilities
## Need Contract Research Food Studies? Let’s talk. At your level.
We recognize the enormity of projects like process validation, method validation, shelf life studies, and more. Our team combines scientific expertise with clear explanations to deliver customized contract research food studies that suit your needs.
We handle every aspect of execution, allowing you to concentrate on your business, while maintaining transparent communication throughout, devoid of confusing jargon. Our goal is to equip you with the knowledge to make optimal decisions for your products and processes.
Our active participation in various industry associations like IAFP, IFT, NAMI, ASTA, and more, keeps us abreast with the latest industry trends and technologies. We also contribute to the scientific advancement of these industries to enhance food quality and safety.
Contact us below and let us know how we can help you.
## Get A Quote
Let us create a better testing experience for your business, together.
---
### [Food Shelf Life Testing ](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/)
**Published:** February 18, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Food Shelf Life Testing
FSNS provides food shelf life testing for food and beverage manufacturers so they can confidently set expiration, best-by, and sell-by dates that protect product quality and reduce waste.
FSNS offers standard shelf life testing, premium shelf life studies, and accelerated shelf life testing. Our team brings 190+ years of combined food safety testing experience, including shelf life study design across diverse food matrices, packaging formats, and storage conditions.
Contact our team to discuss your product and testing needs.
[Request A Quote](https://info.certified-laboratories.com/shelf-life-study-questionnaire)
190+ Years Combined Experience
30+ Food Testing Labs
3 Lab+ Locations
## What is Food Shelf Life Testing?
Shelf life testing for food products measures quality performance over time under defined storage conditions. A shelf life study answers one core question: how long can my product maintain its performance characteristics during storage?
## Why Shelf Life Testing for Food is Done
#### Establish or validate an expiration, best-by, sell-by, and other date code.
#### Protect brand quality and consumer trust by identifying when the sensory characteristics of a product become unacceptable.
#### Verify the affect of changes to formulation, packaging, or processing.
#### Justify stability of nutritional components that support label claims.
#### Satisfy customer or retailer requirements for shelf life verification.
## FSNS Lab+ Food Shelf Life Testing Services
FSNS offers three services to match your timeline, product type, documentation needs, and budget.
Standard Shelf Life Testing
Best for routine verification and cost-sensitive programs
Turn-key study design
Routine micro/chemistry assays
Performed at your local FSNS lab
Certificate of Analysis (COA)
Premium Shelf Life Studies
Best for new or high-risk products and R&D
Custom study design
Includes specialized organoleptic and other testing, as scoped
Performed at a Lab+ location
Custom final report with photographs and other deliverables, as scoped
Accelerated Shelf Life Testing
Best for long-shelf-life products (dry cereals & powders, confectionary)
50-75% reduced study time
Intentionally speed up degradation
Performed at a Lab+ location
Custom final report
## Microbiology Assays Available for Shelf Life Testing of Food
We offer the following microbiology assays. Additional assays are available, so contact us if you don’t see what you need.
$
#### Aerobic Plate Count (APC)
$
#### Anaerobic Plate Count
$
#### Lactic Acid Bacteria
$
#### Enterobacteriaceae
$
#### Coliform
$
#### Mesophilic Anaerobic Sporeformers
$
#### Osmophilic Yeast and Mold
$
#### Pseudomonas
$
#### Psychrotrophic Plate
$
#### Yeast and Mold
## Chemistry and Physical Assays Available for Food Shelf Life Testing
We offer the following [analytical chemistry](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) and [organoleptic testing](https://certified-laboratories.com/organoleptic/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks). Additional options are available, so contact us if you don’t see what you need.
$
#### Water activity (aw)
$
#### pH
$
#### Moisture
$
#### Fat
$
#### Protein
$
#### Rancidity indicators (as applicable):
Peroxide Value, Free Fatty Acids, p-anisidine
$
#### Hunter colorimetry
$
#### Brookfield viscosity
$
#### Organoleptic evaluation (as scoped):
odor, color, texture, appearance
$
#### Package integrity evaluation (as scoped)
## Accelerated Shelf Life Testing of Food Products
Accelerated shelf-life testing (ASLT) helps food manufacturers estimate an expiration date faster than real-time food shelf life testing by intentionally speeding up the product’s degradation under controlled “stress” conditions.
$
Ideal for long-shelf-life products (e.g., dry cereals, dry powders, confectionery) where real-time testing would take too long to observe meaningful degradation.
$
Products are stored under elevated stress conditions to accelerate physicochemical changes and increase the rate of degradation; temperature is the most common acceleration factor used.
$
ASLT can shorten the time needed for shelf-life testing to about one-half, or even one-quarter, of the time required for real-time shelf-life analysis.
$
Accelerated shelf life testing doesn’t provide [microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) data, only [analytical chemistry](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) and [organoleptic](https://certified-laboratories.com/organoleptic/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks)
Discover [**five reason to do accelerated shelf life testing**](https://fsns.com/accelerated-shelf-life-testing/) in our article.
## Types of Products for Food Shelf Life Testing
FSNS supports shelf life testing for food products across a broad range of samples types. Contact us if you don’t see your product type listed – we likely can test it, too!
- **Ready-to-eat foods**: deli items, prepared meals, meal kits, refrigerated entrees
- **Meat and poultry**: raw, cooked, cured, smoked, sliced, marinated, fully cooked RTE
- **Seafood**: fresh, frozen, smoked, cooked, RTE seafood products
- **Dairy and dairy alternatives**: milk products, cultured dairy, cheeses, plant-based alternatives
- **Bakery and grains**: breads, tortillas, pastries, cakes, cookies, grain-based snacks
- **Snacks**: chips, crackers, extruded snacks, nuts, trail mixes, bars
- **Confections**: chocolate, candy, gummies, coated products
- **Sauces, dips, and dressings**: emulsions, acidified sauces, condiments, spreads
- **Soups, broths, and prepared components**: bases, stocks, refrigerated and shelf-stable
- **Produce**: leafy greens, cut fruit, cut vegetables, salad kits
- **Frozen foods**: frozen meals, frozen produce, frozen proteins, frozen desserts
- **Canned and retorted products**: low-acid and acidified canned foods, shelf-stable retort pouches
- **Beverages**: juices, soft drinks, functional beverages, teas, coffees, dairy-based beverages
- **Powders and dry blends**: seasoning blends, drink mixes, baking mixes, protein powders (food)
- **Oils and fats:** edible oils, shortenings, fat-based fillings and spreads
- **Ingredient systems**: inclusions, fillings, bases, concentrates, and intermediate products
- **Specialty formats**: high-moisture foods, high-sugar foods, high-fat foods, low-aw products
[Request A Quote](#form)
## Find a Food Shelf Life Testing Lab Near You
FSNS partners with [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), our fellow [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company, to operate [food testing labs](https://fsns.com/industries/) across North America, including three FSNS Lab+ locations dedicated to performing shelf life studies for food and other [contract research work](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/). Standard shelf life testing of food can be done at most food testing labs, while premium studies are done at a Lab+ facility near you.
## Turlock, CA
## San Antonio, TX
## Aurora, IL
## Calibrated Storage Chambers and Wide Range of Conditions
- FSNS maintains multiple calibrated storage chambers that support a broad range of conditions for food shelf life studies, including temperature and humidity combinations.
- Conditions are monitored digitally and logged for traceable, controlled study data.
- Backup power maintains conditions during disruptions.
## What Does
190+ Years
of Combined Experience Look Like?
Our team has 190+ years of combined experience with food testing, including shelf life studies for food. They use their expertise to understand your food matrices and how conditions influence shelf life. This empowers them to choose the right assays and tests for a robust, high-quality study to help you make the best product decisions.
#### Alex Brandt, Ph.D.
Chief Science Officer, Microbiology
11 yrs.
#### Leslie Thompson-Strehlow, Ph.D.
Lab+ General Manager
25 yrs.
#### Wayne Muraoka, Ph.D.
Director of Research
17 yrs.
#### Isaac Boateng, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
2 yrs.
#### Jihun Kang, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
9 yrs.
#### Egle Karklis, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
1 yr.
#### Rebecca Linker, B.S.
Contract Research
Study Coordinator
8 yrs.
#### Sherman Mah, B.S.
Senior Manager Technical Services/Process Authority
30 yrs.
#### Wendy Reid, B.S.
Senior Research Operations Manager
36 yrs.
#### Vicki Gharibian, B.S.
Senior Research Operations Manager
26 yrs.
#### Ryan Welsh, M.S.
Technical Services Specialist
15 yrs.
#### Daniela Chavez, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
1 yr.
#### Nathan Kilgore, Ph.D.
Research Coordinator
1 yr.
#### Aaron Pleitner, Ph.D.
Director of Microbiology Technical Services
10 yrs.
[Request A Quote](#form)
## Food Shelf Life Testing FAQs
##### What is food shelf life testing?
Food shelf life testing evaluates how a food product changes over time under defined storage conditions. Results help support expiration, best-by, and sell-by dates based on product-specific quality indicators. Setting optimal dates protects your brand experience and reduces waste.
##### What is the difference between standard shelf life testing and premium shelf life studies?
Standard shelf life testing focuses on routine verification using turn-key microbiology and chemistry assays and COA-style deliverables. Premium shelf life studies are designed to include additional testing and a more robust final report, as scoped.
##### Which assays are included in shelf life testing for food products?
Assays are selected based on the food matrix, packaging, storage, and expected failure modes. Common measures include microbiological indicators, water activity, pH, moisture, and other chemistry or physical indicators tied to quality loss.
##### What is accelerated shelf life testing of food?
Accelerated shelf life testing uses controlled, elevated or stress conditions to model change faster. It is often used to compare packaging or formulation options and to support faster development decisions when timelines are tight.
##### How long does accelerated shelf life testing of food take?
Accelerated shelf life testing can reduce study time to about one-half, or even one-quarter, of the time required for real-time shelf life testing by using controlled stress conditions to speed degradation.
## Complete Our Shelf Life Testing Questionnaire
Provide details about your product, packaging, and testing needs to get a quote for food shelf life testing.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/e3cf2ace-6060-4d21-8f77-89c5b02c9d0c)
---
### [ISO 17025 Accredited Labs](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/)
**Published:** May 24, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# ISO 17025 Accredited Labs | Food Safety Testing
## A2LA Certification & Scope
## ISO 17025 Accredited Labs
FSNS maintains a network of ISO 17025 accredited labs throughout North America, delivering technically valid results supported by traceability, impartiality, and robust data integrity controls.
ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation establishes a formal quality management framework that verifies technical competence, strengthens confidence in reported data, and supports acceptance of results by regulators and global trading partners.
Our ISO 17025 accredited labs generate defensible data for food manufacturers suitable for regulatory submission, supplier qualification, and internal quality programs.
- Comprehensive scope of accreditation.
- Ongoing QA audits and method performance verification.
- ISO-compliant calibration and maintenance programs.
- End-to-end documentation and calculation traceability.
Access the accreditation scope for each laboratory location below.
### Allentown, PA
[A2LA Certificate – Biological](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/1698.20-APA-4.30.28.pdf)
### Amarillo, TX
[A2LA Certificate- Biological](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/1698-12-AMA-2.29.28.pdf)
### Atlanta, GA
[A2LA Certificate- Biological](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ATL-1698-05-Micro-3.31.27.pdf)
[A2LA Certificate- Chemical](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ATL-1698-19-Chem-3.31.27.pdf)
[USDA Certification](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/PV4073MMA-Cert-FSNS-Stone-Mountain-GA-031824.pdf)
### Boise, ID
[A2LA Certificate – Biological](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/1698-14-BOI-Updated-4.26.pdf)
### Brooks, Alberta, Canada
[A2LA Certificate](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/1698-23-ALB-1.31.28-Address-Update.pdf)
### Calgary, Alberta, Canada
[A2LA Certificate](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/1698-39-Calgary.pdf)
### Columbus, OH
[A2LA Certificate – Biological](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/1698-10-Columbus-OH-Biological.pdf)
[A2LA Certificate – Chemical](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/1698-27-Columbus-7.31.27.pdf)
### Dallas, TX
[A2LA Certificate – Biological](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/1698-02-DFW-Scope-Update-3.31.372.pdf)
### Dodge City, KS
[A2LA Certificate – Biological](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/1698-21-DCK-10.26.pdf)
### Fresno, CA
[A2LA Certificate – Biological](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/1698.06-FRE.pdf)
### Greeley, CO
[A2LA Certificate](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Greeley-A2LA-Accreditation-Certificate.pdf)
### Green Bay, WI
[A2LA Certificate – Biological](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/1698-04-GRB-GENEUp-Addition-5.19.26.pdf)
[A2LA Certificate – Chemical](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/1698-25-GRB-9.30.26.pdf)
### Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
[A2LA Certificate](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/1698-36-ONT-5.31.26-Bax-Update.pdf)
### Logan, UT
[A2LA Certificate – Biological](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/1698-22-UTA-12.31.27.pdf)
### Los Angeles, CA
[A2LA Certificate – Biological](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/LA-1698-08-Micro-4.30.27.pdf)
[A2LA Certificate – Chemical](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/LA-1698-17-Chem-4.30.27.pdf)
### Omaha, NE
[A2LA Certificate](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/1698-16-OMA-Scope-Update-1.31.2854.pdf)
### Plainwell, MI
[A2LA Certificate](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/1698-09-PLW-4.30.28.pdf)
### Plymouth, MN
[A2LA Certificate](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/1698-26-MIN-Updated-4.26.pdf)
### Phoenix, AZ
[A2LA Certificate](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/1698-03-PHX.pdf)
### San Antonio, TX
[A2LA Certificate – Biological](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/1698-01-SA-Micro-9.30.26.pdf)
[A2LA Certificate – Chemical](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/1698-07-SA-Chem-9.30.26.pdf)
[USDA FSIS Chemistry Accreditation](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/4890-FSNS-FC-121826-San-Antonio.pdf)
### Springdale, AR
[A2LA Certificate](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/1698-13-SPD-12.31.26.pdf)
[USDA FSIS *Salmonella* in Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/565-FSNS-AR-MICRO-060225.pdf)
### St. Louis, MO
[A2LA Certificate](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/1698-38-STL-Updated-4.26.pdf)
## Laboratory
## USDA – AMS
AMS Approved Laboratory Test Beef
## ISO / IEC
International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission 17025
## ISO / IEC
AMS Approved Laboratory Test Frozen Cooked Diced Chicken
## USDA – FSIS
FSIS approved laboratories Accreditation in Food Chemistry
## ASTA
Check Sample Program
## ACIL
American Council of Independent Laboratories
Laboratory Accreditation & Assessment Services
## Auditing & Food Industry Training
PAACO and Animal Welfare
International HACCP Alliance Accredited
5-Star BRC Certification Body
## Our Locations
FSNS is a network of ISO 17025 accredited laboratories across North America
**Open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year**
[Our Locations](https://fsns.com/contact-us/#locations/)
---
### [Certified Group Merger](https://fsns.com/certified-group-merger/)
**Published:** August 10, 2021
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Food Safety Net Services Joins Certified Group!
[Read the Press Release](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/warburg-pincus-and-tilia-holdings-announce-investment-in-food-safety-net-services-301328088.html?__hstc=252357718.2c01badde841720e3d0d18ef7b48f9c7.1627041342664.1627041342664.1627041342664.1&__hssc=252357718.1.1627041342664&__hsfp=&hsCtaTracking=81e98262-3aea-44d8-b939-c519ccfc1061%7C05a280b9-b7f4-4474-90fc-1a6e73aac51d)
### Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), a leading provider of food safety testing services for customers in the food & beverage industries, has joined [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/), a trusted provider of lab testing and regulatory consulting services.
**What this Merger Means**
Certified Group is comprised of over 1,500 employees across a network of 30+ laboratories in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and The Netherlands. The combination of these market-leading providers will further expand our product offerings and diversify our services while maintaining our commitment to serving our clients with the first-class customer experience you have come to expect from Food Safety Net Services.
#### More Locations
#### More Expertise
#### More Solutions
#### Same Great Service
## About Certified Group
[Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) is committed to delivering technical solutions and quality testing our customers can feel confident in – So The World Can Trust In What It Consumes™. Our network of 30+ North American and European laboratories serves the food & beverage, dietary supplements, cosmetics, OTC, tobacco/nicotine, cannabis, and hemp industries.
[ Get To Know Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/)
## Meet Certified Group
Certified Group was established in 2018 with the first of several mergers of multiple laboratories across North America. Since then, Certified Group has expanded its capabilities in the regulated industries it serves and its geographic footprint around the globe. Certified Group is comprised of…
#### Certified Laboratories
#### EAS Consulting Group
#### Food Safety Net Services
#### Labstat
---
### [Blogs](https://fsns.com/resources/blogs/)
**Published:** February 11, 2016
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Blogs
[](https://fsns.com/iso-19011/)
## [Remote Audits, AI, and Risk Take Center Stage in ISO 19011:2026 ](https://fsns.com/iso-19011/)
Aug 19, 2026
Reviewed By Reviewed and Approved by Kaci Foote, Accreditation Manager, FSNS Certification & Audit 1-Minute Summary ISO 19011:2026...
---
### [Courses](https://fsns.com/courses/)
**Published:** June 11, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
---
### [Profile](https://fsns.com/profile/)
**Published:** June 11, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
---
### [Reset Password](https://fsns.com/reset-password/)
**Published:** June 11, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
---
### [Registration](https://fsns.com/registration/)
**Published:** June 11, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
---
### [Registration Success](https://fsns.com/registration-success/)
**Published:** June 11, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
Welcome
---
### [Poultry & Eggs](https://fsns.com/industries/poultry-and-eggs/)
**Published:** May 23, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Testing Services for the Poultry and Egg Industries
FSNS operates a North American network of 30+ [ISO 17025 accredited labs](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/) that are open 24/7/365 to provide you with laboratory testing results with industry leading turnaround time and dedicated service. We use state-of-the-art instruments and validated methods to support your food safety program and provide the data you need to verify product compliance. [Contact us for a quote.](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
## Full Range of Testing Assays to Meet Your Needs
We use a variety of traditional and rapid-result assays that are validated for poultry and egg products and their associated production environments. These help provide you with accurate data with competitive turnaround times. Our flexible courier service and around-the-clock operations help you obtain the information you need to verify product compliance and ensure the efficacy of your processes, helping keep your operations running smoothly.
### Microbiology & Chemistry Testing:
- *Salmonella* spp.
- *Salmonella* Serology
- Drag swabs & rapid *Salmonella* Enteritidis (SE)
- Egg Pool Testing
- BAX System SalQuant™ for *Salmonella* Quantification
- *Campylobacter* spp.
- Enterobacteriaceae
- Indicator Organisms
- Aerobic Plate Count
- Generic *E. coli*
- *Staphylococcus aureus*
- Coliforms
- Fecal Coliforms
- Yeast & Mold
- Proximate Analysis
- Peroxide Value
- Antibiotics
- Heavy Metals
- Pesticides
- Nutritional Analysis
- Allergens
## Customized Studies to Help You Make Decisions
In addition to routine testing, we provide [contract research services through our Lab+ group](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/). Our team of scientists designs and conducts challenge studies, [shelf-life studies](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/), process validations, microbial strain typing, and other studies that provide the data you need to verify product compliance and confirm the efficacy of your production processes. We communicate with you throughout the process and provide results in terms your team can understand.
## Ditch the Spreadsheets and Binders for Good!
Our proprietary [Environmental Monitoring and Mapping Application, emma®](https://fsns.com/emma/), automates your EMP and provides real-time data visualization, customizable swabbing plans, and remediation management for failed sites, simplifying your EMP and saving you time and money. It also stores all information securely in the cloud so you can lose the binders for good!
## Food Safety Training and Education
Our [certified training programs](https://fsns.com/resources/education/) grant your staff access to top-notch industry experts. By providing continuous education opportunities, your employees can effectively tackle the issues of food safety and quality in your business, including processes, personnel, and environmental considerations.
Here are some of the available course options:
[Audit training for GFSI, SQF, BRCGS, & FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/resources/education/)
[HACCP Courses](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/)
[Microbiology & Food Safety Courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/microbiology-food-safety/)
[Sanitation Courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/sanitation/)
[FSPCA Preventive Controls for Animal Food & Human Food (PCQI)](https://fsns.com/product-category/fspca-preventive-controls/)
[Customized Training Available](https://fsns.com/resources/education/)
## Food Safety Certification and Audit Services
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) uses experienced auditors to audit your facility against the top food safety certification platforms in the industry, including SQF, BRCGS Food Safety, and FSSC 22000. We also perform GMP audits for a variety of industries. We focus on delivering the best service possible, which is why our clients give our auditors a 99% satisfaction rate.
## Poultry & Eggs FAQs
##### What microbial tests does FSNS conduct specifically for eggs?
FSNS tests eggs for *Salmonella*, including *Salmonella enteritidis*, a key regulatory concern in egg safety.
##### What microbial tests does FSNS conduct specifically for poultry?
We test poultry for *Salmonella* and *Campylobacter*, offering both detection and quantification, as well as *Salmonella* serotyping for source tracking and risk analysis.
##### How does FSNS help in implementing HACCP or HARPC programs for poultry operations?
We offer HACCP audits for poultry slaughter and laying operations, plus [HACCP training courses](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/). Our [certification and audit team](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) also assesses animal welfare practices.
##### What services does FSNS provide to mitigate risks associated with pathogens like Salmonella and Campylobacter?
FSNS conducts slaughter assessments and advises on carcass rinse methods and testing strategies to reduce contamination risks
---
### [Beverages](https://fsns.com/industries/beverages/)
**Published:** June 1, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Testing Services for Beverages
Beverage manufacturers need a reliable laboratory testing partner to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and to assess the safety and quality of their products. FSNS offers expert testing services using a wide array of instrumentation and validated methods. Our commitment to delivering accurate and timely results provides the information needed to verify product safety and protect your brand.
All Your Testing Done with One Company
We offer a comprehensive range of microbiology and chemistry assays for numerous matrices with all testing performed by one testing laboratory. We also have a team of scientists dedicated to contract research projects to provide accurate, useful data for verification of product safety and quality. From testing for environmental monitoring programs, to microbial challenge studies, to label claims, FSNS has you covered. We also [test milk and other dairy products](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/).
## Chemistry Testing for Beverages
Our broad range of chemistry testing services allows for adherence and compliance to food safety programs, such as HAACP, and meeting the requirements of GFSI-benchmarked food safety certification platforms. Results also provide vital information for R&D teams when changing formulations or determining nutritional labeling information or special label claims.
#### Allergens (including the FDA’s “Big 9”)
#### Vitamins
#### Amino acid profiles
#### Nutritional analysis
#### Food colorings and other additives
#### Preservatives
#### Artificial sweeteners
#### Brix
#### Proposition 65
#### Identification for foreign materials
## Microbiology Testing for Beverages
Our North American network of 30+ ISO 17025 accredited laboratories conducts thousands of microbiology tests in support of beverage processors’ environmental monitoring and ingredient programs every day. With flexible courier schedules, vast instrumentation, and 24/7/365 dedication, we provide fast, accurate test results for the verification of product safety and quality, in addition to the efficacy of sanitation processes.
In addition, Lab+, the contract research division of FSNS, designs and conducts scientific studies for beverage companies to help determine shelf-life, the efficacy of new ingredients, the effectiveness of manufacturing processes, and more. In addition to our immense laboratory testing capabilities, we also offer regulatory expertise and consulting services.
*Salmonella* spp.
*Listeria* spp.
*Listeria monocytogenes*
Generic *E. coli*
*E. coli* O157:H7
*Campylobacter*
Yeast & Mold
Lactic Acid Bacteria
Coliform
*Staphylococcus aureus*
*Staphylococcus* Enterotoxin
Enterobacteriaceae
Shelf-life/stability studies
Challenge studies
Process validations
Product validations
## Product Development Support
[EAS Consulting Group, A Certified Group Company](https://easconsultinggroup.com/services/foods/), offers regulatory expertise, support of new product development and formulation changes through safety studies, and FDA submissions such as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) and Food Contact Substance applications. Our experts understand the testing requirements to bring new products to market and FDA’s expectations for demonstrations of safety via their stringent submission and review process. We can assist in assessing product safety and meeting regulatory requirements.
## Manage Your EMP More Effectively & Efficiently
FSNS offers emma®, our proprietary Environmental Monitoring and Mapping Application, which streamlines and automates plant EMPs. Emma provides real-time data visualization, customizable swabbing plans, and remediation management for failed sites, simplifying EMPs and reducing time and costs.
With emma, all EMP data is gathered in one secure location, which eliminates the use of binders and spreadsheets, helping take your EMP to new heights.
## Data To Empower Your Business Decisions
In addition to routine testing, we provide contract research services through [FSNS Lab+](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/). Our team of scientists designs and conducts stability studies, shelf-life studies, process validations, microbial strain typing, and other studies that provide the data required to verify product safety and confirm the efficacy of your production processes. We communicate throughout the process and provide results in a concise, understandable format.
## Food Safety Certification & Audit Services
FSNS provides audits for the most common GFSI-benchmarked food safety certifications, including BRCGS Food Safety, SQF, and FSSC 22000, as well as GMP audits to support industry food safety programs. Our auditors focus on providing impeccable service and have received a 99% satisfaction rating from our clients.
[View our Certification & Audit Services](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
## Food Safety Training & Education
Our [certified training courses](https://fsns.com/resources/education/), which include audit training for GFSI, SQF, BRCGS, and FSSC; HACCP Training; [Microbiology & Food Safety Courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/microbiology-food-safety/); [Sanitation Courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/sanitation/); and more, provide ongoing education opportunities for plant personnel. Our courses assist in meeting regulatory requirements, train personnel in food safety, and promote a culture of safety.
## Beverages FAQs
##### What types of chemical and microbiological tests does FSNS offer for beverages?
FSNS provides spoilage testing for Alicyclobacillus and heat-resistant molds in juices, pathogen detection for Listeria, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), and Salmonella in fresh beverages, and commercial sterility testing for aseptic products like protein shakes. [Nutritional analysis](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/) and pH testing are also available for nutritional labels.
##### How does FSNS ensure shelf-life and flavor consistency in beverage products?
We offer [real-time and accelerated shelf-life studies](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) that assess spoilage and stability. Organoleptic testing helps confirm your product maintains taste and aroma over time
##### What are the common contaminants in beverage production, and how are they identified?
Common issues include Alicyclobacillus, heat-resistant molds, and pathogens like Listeria, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), and Salmonella. FSNS uses [microbiological](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and [chemical analysis](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) to detect these risks quickly and accurately.
### Ready to take your beverage testing to the next level?
#### Contact FSNS to discuss your next project.
---
### [Produce](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/)
**Published:** May 23, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Testing for Produce and Agricultural Products
Produce is grown in the great outdoors. However, the great outdoors is also a place where produce can be exposed to a variety of chemical and microbiological contaminants from soil, soil amendments, agricultural water, animals, and harvest equipment. Serious foodborne illness outbreaks can result if appropriate measures, confirmed by laboratory testing, are not in place.
Harmonized FDA and USDA Good Agricultural Practices, including FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Produce Safety Rule, give oversight and recall authority over domestic and imported produce. Laboratory testing is the final preventive measure to assess whether appropriate safety measures are in place. FSNS offers all the testing you need to meet regulatory requirements and verify product compliance.
## Laboratory Testing for Produce, Soil Amendments, and Water
We offer a full range of microbiology and chemistry testing to support the produce industry’s food safety programs. Whether it is testing soil amendments and water, pre-harvest tissue testing, or environmental monitoring of your post-harvest packing facility, we have the tools to help verify the compliance of your products and production environment. Testing is done in our North American network of 30+ ISO 17025 accredited labs using validated methods. We provide accurate results with industry leading turnaround time.
### Microbiology & Chemistry Testing:
- *Salmonella* spp.
- *E. coli* O157:H7 and Non-O157 STEC
- *Listeria* spp.
- *Listeria monocytogenes*
- Heavy metals
- Minerals
- *Cyclospora* testing
- Pesticides
- Indicator Organisms
- Aerobic Plate Count
- Generic *E. coli*
- Enterobacteriaceae
- Coliform
- Fecal Coliforms
- Yeast & Mold
## Additional Testing and Services to Support the Produce Industry
#### Agricultural Water Quality:
Microbial agricultural water standards are in place to mitigate the risk of *E. coli* contamination. Untreated water is particularly vulnerable to external threats, and sample testing must include assessments of geometric mean (GM) and the statistical threshold (STV) values.
#### Biological Soil Amendments, Including Composting:
Regulations define microbial limits for detectable amounts of bacteria (including *Listeria monocytogenes*, *Salmonella* spp., fecal coliform, and *E. coli* 0157:H7).
#### Sprout Irrigation Water:
FDA approves several scientifically validated AOAC testing methods for sprouts, including AOAC Official Method 999.08.; 999.09; 2011.03; & 2016.01.
#### Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP):
Laboratory testing and records verification throughout the supply chain can help ensure the risk of contamination is low. EAS Consulting Group, A Certified Group Company, provides records verification to help you meet requirements.
#### On-Farm Inspections:
FSNS and our regulatory partner, EAS Consulting Group, help the produce industry mitigate potentially damaging foodborne illness risks. With regular and comprehensive laboratory testing and compliance assistance when you need it, you can verify product safety and help avoid foodborne illnesses.
## Food Safety Certification and Audit Services
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) uses experienced auditors to audit your facility against the top food safety certification platforms in the industry, including SQF, BRCGS Food Safety, and FSSC 22000. We also perform GMP audits for a variety of industries. We focus on delivering the best service possible, which is why our clients give our auditors a 99% satisfaction rate.
## Ditch the Spreadsheets and Binders for Good!
Our proprietary Environmental Monitoring and Mapping Application, emma®, automates your EMP and provides real-time data visualization, customizable swabbing plans, and remediation management for failed sites, simplifying your EMP and saving you time and money. It also stores all information securely in the cloud so you can lose the binders for good!
## Data to Empower Your Business Decisions
In addition to routine testing, we provide contract research services through FSNS Lab+. Our team of scientists designs and conducts stability studies, shelf-life studies, process validations, microbial strain typing, and other studies that provide the data you need to verify product compliance and confirm the efficacy of your production processes. We communicate with you throughout the process and provide results in terms your team can understand.
## Produce FAQs
##### Which tests are most critical for ensuring the safety of fresh produce?
Salmonella and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) are the top microbial risks in produce due to environmental exposure. Pesticide residue testing is also essential for confirming regulatory compliance.
##### How does FSNS address pesticide residue and microbial contamination in produce?
FSNS provides pesticide residue panels and rapid microbial testing to detect pathogens like Salmonella and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), helping you ensure produce safety from field to distribution.
##### What are the key steps in a produce GFSI-benchmarked audit performed by FSNS?
Customers of [FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) can choose the services they want, including a gap assessment against your chosen standard, followed by a pre-audit assessment, followed by a formal certification audit. Please understand that we do not provide consulting – we simply perform the audit and supply a report for your team to use. However, we do offer [food safety training courses](https://fsns.com/resources/education/) to help you understand [GFSI requirements](https://fsns.com/gfsi-benchmarking-requirements-2024-what-it-means-for-you/).
##### Do you have flexibility to provide increased testing capacity based on the season?
Yes. FSNS operates labs in key produce-growing regions and scales testing capacity during peak harvest seasons to ensure timely results when volume spikes.
---
### [FDA Detention Testing](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/detention-testing/)
**Published:** May 24, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
What is FDA Detention Testing?
This is the process of proving that a product is not in violation of any law, regulation, or standard. This process establishes the integrity of a product. If the product was confiscated alongside other products due to classification by ingredient or country, detention testing is the process that will prove that the product is fit for consumption.
At Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), we help with the FDA detention testing process. We have a [network of ISO 17025 certified laboratories](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/ "ISO 17025 Accredited Labs") where samples are carried to for tests. FSNS also works with the FDA directly in submitting the required documents.
When [pesticide detection](https://fsns.com/reasons-to-perform-pesticide-testing/ "3 Reasons Food Producers Should Perform Pesticide Testing") is necessary, we have a team of experts ready to conduct the tests.
Establish the Integrity of a Product with Detention Testing
Detention testing allows producers to remove themselves from the pack. A product might become detained because of several regulatory factors, but there are ways to show a product is in compliance.
FSNS’ [network of ISO 17025 accredited laboratories](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/ "ISO 17025 Accredited Labs") is ready to assist you with FDA detention testing at all of our locations. If you are in need of *Salmonella* or pesticide detection, our expert staff will accurately and thoroughly complete the testing. FSNS will coordinate sampling and shipment to the laboratories for analysis and then will work directly with the FDA in submitting required documents.
Rest with the assurance that FSNS sampling and testing is in full compliance with the FDA Detained Without Physical Examination program (DWPE). Contact us to learn more.
How to Get Detention Testing
When the FDA detains or confiscates a product, it is often due to the red flags raised. The product might meet all the FDA requirements, but it must be proven before it can be released.
Here are steps to establish the integrity of a product:
1. Get Adequate Information about the Detention
The first step is to understand why a product is being detained. Your [FDA Notice of Action will explain the reasons for the detention](https://certified-laboratories.com/blog/fda-notice-of-action/). Producers want to be sure they are not in violation of any regulation, standard, or law. The FDA has provided several reasons why food and drug products can be red flagged on its website. Go through the listed reasons and assess where a violation might exist.
It is helpful to discuss the possibility of a violation with the production team.
If the product meets all the standards, having adequate information about the detention will give producers enough to challenge it. This provides enough data to take to the institution that can conduct detention testing on any product.
2. Conduct Detention Testing
This is where the integrity of a product is established. To conduct detention testing, a sample of the product is taken to the laboratory for analysis and examination.
Finding an institution with the right people and resources to conduct detention testing is essential. The reason for this is simple. Not all laboratories meet the standards set by the FDA, and not all institutions can work with the FDA directly. That is where we come in.
At FSNS, we have a network of ISO 17025 certified laboratories, and we can conduct the required tests and analysis to ascertain if a product is in full compliance with all the FDA regulations.
We oversee sampling and shipping to laboratories for analysis. We also work directly with the FDA in submitting the required documents.
3. Provide Necessary Documents
To ensure the process goes smoothly, producers should produce the necessary documents. FSNS is recognized by the FDA, and this makes it easy for us to get the required documents across for administrative purposes.
4. Outline Ways to Avoid Detention in the Future
An alert by the FDA can last for a year or more, but business must continue. This is vital when a product’s major market is in the United States.
To avoid future confiscation, getting a special permit or adjusting product ingredients may be necessary. A product can even boldly state on the label that it is free of those elements flagged by the FDA.
Then companies can return to the drawing board to find ways to position products better.
How to Easily Get FDA Detention Testing for Detained Food Products
Years ago, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began to investigate pet food in connection with the rising number of pet deaths. The agency discovered melamine and melamine analogs in certain pet foods and traced the contamination to products labeled as ‘wheat gluten’ and ‘rice protein concentrate’ imported from China.
In response to this discovery, the agency issued Import Alert #99-29 which authorized “the detention without physical examination of all vegetable protein products from China for animal or human food use, due to melamine and/or melamine analogs.”
Can we accurately say that all vegetable protein products from China contain melamine and/or melamine analogs?
In this type of situation, the solution is for producers to work with a reputable institution to conduct detention testing on their product to establish its integrity.
For more information regarding FSNS Special Projects
[Microbiology Testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/ "Food Microbiology Testing")
For more information regarding FSNS Detention Testing, call 888-525-9788 Ext. 177.
888.525.9788 ext. 177
---
### [Corporate Sustainability](https://fsns.com/corporate-sustainability/)
**Published:** July 28, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Certified Group Corporate Responsibility Statement
Certified Group upholds high ethical standards and corporate responsibility throughout our network of 30+ locations across North America. A commitment to environmental, philanthropic, and economic responsibility while promoting the wellness of our colleagues and community members guides all our business activity.
Certified Group promotes environmental stewardship through recycling programs at our facilities, in addition to management processes that identify and eliminate waste in our supply chain to reduce environmental impact. We’re also adding electric vehicles to our courier fleet to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
We promote the quality of life of our colleagues and their families through competitive compensation and benefits, including health and wellness programs, tuition reimbursement, workplace safety initiatives, and frequent recognition of superior service. Military, fire, and police personnel can qualify to receive additional PTO as a reward for their service. Corporate life at Certified Group also includes frequent colleague appreciation and teambuilding events.
Certified Group companies have a long history of giving back to their local communities through blood drives, food drives, holiday toy drives, and additional events. We partner with local charities to help the homeless and others in needs throughout the year, in addition to sponsoring collegiate programs that support the next generation of scientists.
Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) is paramount at Certified Group. The EHS team is committed to protecting the environment, health, and safety of our employees, contractors and the communities where we operate.
View our [Privacy Policy](https://fsns.com/privacy-policy/).
---
### [The Listeria Control Toolbox: Laboratory Methods, Software, and Educational Resource Updates](https://fsns.com/vod-the-listeria-control-toolbox/)
**Published:** February 25, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# The *Listeria* Control Toolbox:
## Laboratory Methods, Software, and Educational Resource Updates
*Listeria monocytogenes* remains one of the most serious food safety threats facing processors today. With high hospitalization and fatality rates, increasing outbreak activity, and growing regulatory scrutiny, food manufacturers must go beyond basic measures to truly understand, control, and eliminate *Listeria* risks.
This webinar is designed for food safety, quality, and sanitation professionals who want practical, science-based strategies for improving *Listeria* control programs, from environmental monitoring to [strain typing](https://fsns.com/strain-typing/) and data-driven decision making.
Watch now for a focused discussion on the latest tools, methods, and software approaches that can help elevate your *Listeria* testing program and reduce the risk of costly recalls and outbreaks.
**Watch On Demand Below**
### What You’ll Learn:
- Why *Listeria monocytogenes* remains a critical public health and regulatory concern.
- How *Listeria* survives, grows, and persists in food processing environments.
- Key [Environmental Monitoring Program](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/) best practices.
- Common challenges with non-traditional matrices and larger sample sizes.
- How to evaluate validated methods and fit-for-purpose testing approaches.
- When and why strain typing adds value to investigations.
- Practical differences between WGS, ribotyping, and IR spectroscopy tools.
- How rapid sequencing supports source tracking and persistence studies.
- How [EMP software](https://fsns.com/emma/) improves trending, visualization, and response actions.
- How to use location and strain data to guide sanitation and design decisions.
## Meet Our Presenter
#### Alex Brandt, Ph.D.
Chief Science Officer for Microbiology, Certified Group
Dr. Alex Brandt is the Chief Science Officer for Microbiology for [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) and has been with the company for the past 12 years. In his role, Dr. Brandt is responsible for all microbiology [technical services and contract research operations](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) for the company.
His primary duties include assisting Certified Group laboratories with technical matters and validations for microbiological methods, helping laboratory customers with troubleshooting microbiological results, and providing on-site assistance for customers that are experiencing processing issues or sanitation challenges, including *Listeria* contamination issues.
In addition, he is in charge of all three sites that perform contract research services including [shelf-life studies](https://fsns.com/food-shelf-life-testing/), [challenge studies](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/), process validation studies, and method validation studies. Dr. Brandt is a member of several industry organizations, serves on several industry technical panels, and has a passion for working with customers to solve their microbiological issues.
---
### [Food Industry Training Instructors](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/food-industry-training-instructors/)
**Published:** April 24, 2026
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Meet Our Food Industry Training Instructors
FSNS food industry training instructors are seasoned practitioners with experience in your industry. Our team includes food safety consultants, industry leaders, and Ph.D. scientists with decades of hands‑on experience leading food safety and quality systems across manufacturing, processing, and supply‑chain environments.
They bring real‑world expertise in HACCP, Preventive Controls, SQF, BRCGS, environmental monitoring, microbiology, regulatory compliance, and audit readiness. You gain access to the same knowledge they use every day to build, assess, and strengthen food safety programs so you leave prepared to apply what you’ve learned at your facility.
[Register for Food Industry Training Today](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
“Helped me understand how to prepare for our next audit.”
“Interactive discussions were very helpful.”
“Helpful for understanding food safety microbes.”
“Course was well organized and engaging.”
## Meet Our Instructors
### Lynn Graves Delmore, Ph.D.
- [Allied Food Safety](https://alliedfoodsafety.com/) founding parter with national food safety consulting experience.
- Serves FDA- and USDA-inspected food manufacturers who process domestically and export.
- Hands‑on auditing and compliance training expertise.
- Specialist trainer in [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/), PCQI, GMPs, sanitation, and [internal auditing](https://fsns.com/product/internal-auditing/).
#### Courses
Course
Register
Basic HACCP
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/)
Course
Register
FSPCA PCQI Preventive Controls for Human Food V2.0
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/fspca-preventive-controls-for-human-food/)
Course
Register
Advanced HACCP
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/advanced-haccp-preventive-controls/)
Course
Register
Sanitary Design
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/sanitation-design-course/)
### Brittney Bullard, Ph.D.
- Ph.D.‑trained food safety microbiologist with over ten years industry experience.
- University‑level instructor teaching [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/), meat safety, and [food microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/).
- Lead consultant training FDA, USDA, and GFSI‑aligned food safety systems.
- Expert instructor in pathogen control, validation, and antimicrobial interventions.
#### Courses
Course
Register
Basic
HACCP
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/)
Course
Register
Advanced HACCP
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/advanced-haccp-preventive-controls/)
Course
Register
FSPCA PCQI Preventive Controls for Human Food V2.0
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/fspca-preventive-controls-for-human-food/)
Course
Register
Implementing SQF Systems Edition 10
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/implementing-sqf-systems-ed-10-training-course/)
Course
Register
Internal Auditor Training | SQF or BRCGS Food Safety
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/internal-auditing/)
### Tanya Ward
- Food safety and quality consultant and partner at [Allied Food Safety](https://alliedfoodsafety.com/) with 11 years of industry experience.
- Consultant to food and packaging companies since 2016, specializing in certification and compliance.
- [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) lead instructor with graduate and undergraduate degrees in food-related disciplines.
- Industry trainer and auditor focused on [BRCGS](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/), GMP, internal auditing, sanitary design, and sanitation.
#### Courses
Course
Register
Sanitation Design
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/sanitation-design-course/)
### Ask The
Tough
Questions
Small classes and open discussion help you get real answers.
### Matt Taylor, Ph.D.
- Ph.D. food safety microbiologist and Associate Professor at Texas A&M.
- University instructor teaching [food microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and foodborne disease prevention.
- Research leader training antimicrobial interventions and pathogen control validation.
- Extension educator delivering industry food safety training and outreach.
#### Courses
Course
Register
Basic HACCP
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/)
Course
Register
FSPCA Preventive Controls for Animal Food Course
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/fspca-preventive-controls-for-animal-food/)
### Aaron Pleitner, Ph.D.
- Food safety scientist specializing in microbial risk management and sanitation.
- Trainer in EMPs, hygienic zoning, allergen and foreign‑material control.
- Expert instructor in [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/), FSMA Preventive Controls, GMPs.
- Leads science‑based method validation, challenge studies, shelf‑life training.
#### Courses
Course
Register
Microbiology and Food Safety 101
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/microbiology-and-food-safety-101-course/)
Course
Register
Microbiology and Food Safety 202
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/microbiology-and-food-safety-202-course/)
### Ryan Welsh, M.S.
- Food microbiologist with 10 years of cross‑industry laboratory and technical experience.
- Instructor specializing in microbiology and environmental monitoring across dairy, produce, RTE, protein, and more.
- Expert at diagnosing microbiological risks for diverse regulated food manufacturers.
- Longtime trainer delivering practical, operations‑focused food safety education.
#### Courses
Course
Register
Microbiology and Food Safety 101
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/microbiology-and-food-safety-101-course/)
Course
Register
Microbiology and Food Safety 202
[Sign Up](https://fsns.com/product/microbiology-and-food-safety-202-course/)
### Decades
of Industry Experience
Learn from experienced instructors, not just slides.
### Bob Delmore, Ph.D.
- Colorado State University professor teaching meat science, meat processing, and food safety.
- Research leader addressing national and global meat safety challenges.
- [American Meat Science Association](https://meatscience.org/) Fellow with applied industry training experience.
### Lauren Olson, MS
- Quality and food safety leader managing multi‑facility meat and RTE systems.
- Expert instructor in [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/), [USDA](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/)[‑](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/)[FSIS](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/) compliance, audits, and prerequisite programs.
- Proven trainer skilled at translating complex regulations into practical operations.
- BRC implementation leader with hands‑on team training and coaching experience.
### Melissa Everhart
- Food safety professional with 15 years of [USDA](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/)[‑](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/)[FSIS](https://www.fsis.usda.gov/) and FDA industry experience.
- Instructor specializing in [HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/), PCQI/PCHF, GMPs, and best practices.
- Expert trainer in GFSI programs, audits, and corrective action implementation.
- Consultant teaching regulatory compliance across meat, produce, and food manufacturing.
### Training that Fits
Your Role
Explore food safety training courses in HACCP, PCQI, SQF, and more.
## Virtual (Live, Instructor-Led) and In-Person Food Safety Training
Some virtual food safety training courses mute participants and limit interaction. That’s not how FSNS operates.
Our virtual (live, instructor-led) and in-person courses are designed for engagement. We keep class sizes small, encourage discussion, and invite real‑world questions – especially the tough ones. You’ll interact directly with instructors and fellow professionals, creating a dynamic learning environment that mirrors real operational challenges.
Our goal isn’t just to issue a certificate. It’s to equip you with practical knowledge and implementation strategies you can take back to your site to strengthen your food safety programs. If you want training led by industry experts who focus on real‑world application – not checkbox compliance – then [register for FSNS food industry training now](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/).
[Register for Food Industry Training Today](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
---
### [Case Studies](https://fsns.com/resources/case-studies/)
**Published:** June 17, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Case Studies
## Challenge Studies Help Dairy Products Manufacturer Expand Product Line and Boost Revenue
[Read The Case Study](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Dairy-Case-Study_1122.pdf)
## Strain Typing Helps Beef Slaughter Plant Quickly Identify E. coli O157:H7 Source
[Read The Case Study](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Bruker-IR-Case-Study_1122.pdf)
## Industry Leading TAT Leads to Faster Beverage Product Release
[Read The Case Study](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CLFS-Bev-Bev-TAT.pdf)
## Reliable Allergen Testing Empowers Protein Drink Manufacturer
[Read The Case Study](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/CLFS-OWYN-CS-091123.pdf)
## Faster Response Time Highlights Excellent Customer Service
[Read The Case Study](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CL-FB-Food-and-Bev-TAT-1023.pdf)
## Emma® EMP Application Streamlines Environmental Monitoring at CTI Foods
[Read The Case Study](https://fsns.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/CLFS-FB-emma-Testimonial-CTI-Foods-073124.pdf)
## Short-Notice SQF Audit Keeps Hilmar’s Certification Plans on Track
[Read The Case Study](https://fsns.com/short-notice-sqf-audit-keeps-hilmars-certification-plans-on-track/)
---
### [Resources](https://fsns.com/resources/)
**Published:** May 24, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Resources
## Food Safety Training
[Learn More](https://fsns.com/resources/food-industry-training/)
## Events
[Learn More](https://fsns.com/events/)
## Blogs
[Read More](https://fsns.com/resources/blogs/)
## Case Studies
[Read More](https://fsns.com/resources/case-studies/)
## Press Releases
[Read More](https://fsns.com/press-releases/)
---
### [Protein](https://fsns.com/industries/protein/)
**Published:** May 23, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Protein Testing
FSNS provides protein testing services that support regulatory requirements and food safety decision-making for processors of poultry, beef, pork, plant-based protein, and more. With three decades of experience, we offer a broad menu of protein testing to support product release, environmental monitoring, investigations, and ongoing verification activities within your food safety program.
## Why Choose FSNS for Your Protein Testing?
FSNS supports protein companies with protein testing across beef, poultry, and pork programs. Customers rely on our responsive support, fit-for-purpose methods, and turnaround options designed to keep production schedules and release decisions moving for both large national brands and smaller producers.
## All Your Protein Testing Needs Covered
Our protein testing options support food safety program goals and regulatory expectations across products and production environments. Standard service categories include qualitative and quantitative pathogen testing, microbial toxin testing, [special microbiology services](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), [chemical contaminant testing](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/), [nutritional analysis](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/), and more..
## Qualitative Protein Testing – Pathogens
- *Campylobacter* spp.
- *Clostridium perfringens*
- *Escherichia coli* O157:H7
- “Top 6” Non–O157 STEC
- *Listeria monocytogenes*
- *Listeria* spp.
- *Salmonella* spp.
- *Shigella* spp.
- *Staphylococcus aureus*
- *Yersinia enterocolitica*
## Quantitative Protein Testing – Indicators, Spoilage Organisms, and Quantitative Pathogens
- Aerobic/Anaerobic Plate Counts
- *Bacillus cereus*
- BAX System SalQuant™ for *Salmonella* quantification
- *Clostridium perfringens*
- Coliform Counts (Total, Fecal)
- *Escherichia coli* O157:H7 MPN
- Enterobacteriaceae Count
- Gas Forming Anaerobes
- Generic *Escherichia coli* Count
- *Lactobacillus* spp. Count
- Lactic Acid Bacteria Count
- *Listeria monocytogenes* MPN
- Mesophilic Aerobic/Anaerobic Spore Counts
- *Pseudomonas* spp.
- Psychrotrophic Plate Count
- Rapid Aerobic Plate Count
- Rapid Coliform Count
- Rapid Yeast and Mold Count
- *Salmonella* spp. MPN
- *Staphylococcus aureus*
- *Streptococcus* spp. Counts (Total, Fecal)
- Sulfide Reducing Sporeformers
- Yeast and Mold Counts
## Microbial Toxins
##### *Staphylococcus* Enterotoxins
##### *Bacillus* Enterotoxin
## Special Microbial Services Available
Specialized microbial services support investigations, validations, and continuous improvement in protein operations.
Bacterial and fungal speciation
Bacterial and fungal subtyping
Customer complaint sample analyses
Cooling process deviation modeling
Environmental monitoring assessments
Foreign material identification
HACCP Critical Control Point process validation testing
Inoculated pack and challenge studies
Meat speciation
Microbial serology
Microscopic evaluations
Proficiency testing services
Spoilage investigations
Thermal death time (TDT)/cooking instruction validation studies
Thermal process deviation testing (acid phosphatase)
## Chemical Contaminants
FSNS performs chemical contaminant testing to support protein product safety and compliance requirements.
#### Antibiotics and pesticides
#### Quantification of food additives and preservatives
#### Chemical residues left behind in production and manufacturing
#### Identifying foreign objects such as metal, plastic, wood, or glass
#### [Ractopamine Analysis by LC-MS/MS](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/ractopamine-analysis-by-lc-ms-ms/)
#### Import assistance for detained products
## Food Safety Certification and Audit Services
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) supports protein operations with facility audits against recognized food safety certification platforms. Our auditors conduct audits for [SQF](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/), [BRCGS Food Safety](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), and [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/), and we also perform [GMP audits](https://fsns.com/gmp-audits-food-industry-guide/) across industries. We additionally offer animal welfare and on-farm livestock auditing services, including beef, poultry, swine, and customer-specific audit programs.
Beef
Process Verified Programs
Poultry
Livestock Show & Rodeo
Swine
Customer-specific audits
American Humane Certified
## Ditch the Spreadsheets and Binders for Good!
emma® is FSNS’ Environmental Monitoring and Mapping Application that streamlines EMP execution and documentation. emma® automates scheduling, supports customizable swabbing plans, and provides real-time data visualization and remediation management for failed sites. Centralized cloud-based recordkeeping reduces manual tracking and simplifies audit readiness. [Get more information about emma® here.](https://fsns.com/emma/)
## Protein Testing FAQs
##### What types of tests does FSNS offer for protein products?
FSNS offers a full suite of [microbiological](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and [analytical chemistry tests](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) for protein products, including Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), Salmonella, Listeria, moisture, fat, protein, ash, calcium, amino acids analysis, PDCAAS, phosphorus, and [ractopamine](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/ractopamine-analysis-by-lc-ms-ms/). We also perform meat speciation and pesticide residue testing to support regulatory compliance and quality assurance.
##### How do FSNS’ testing protocols ensure the safety of protein products?
Our testing protocols employ cutting-edge technologies and validated methods to identify bacterial pathogens and chemical contaminants. This rigorous approach guarantees that your protein products adhere to food safety standards, safeguarding consumer trust.
##### What are the common contaminants or hazards in protein processing, and how are they detected?
Protein processing is labor-intensive, increasing the risk of contamination from Salmonella, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) Listeria, and foreign materials. FSNS uses both rapid and traditional [microbiological methods](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) to detect and confirm pathogenic microorganisms.
##### How does FSNS support traceability and quality control in protein manufacturing?
Our systems integrate with your ERP and our LIMS for seamless data exchange, minimizing transcription errors. With our secure digital portal, you maintain real-time access to results and documentation, supporting robust traceability.
---
### [FSNS Services](https://fsns.com/services/)
**Published:** May 24, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Laboratory Services
Food Safety Net Services, a [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company, operates a North American network of food safety testing labs that provide accurate, timely results that you can trust. Our experts use validated methods and advanced equipment throughout our 30+ ISO 17025-accredited food safety labs. Alongside our fellow Certified Group company, [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), we operate 24/7/365 and work closely with our clients to ensure you obtain the information you need when you need it. Our standard [food safety testing services](https://fsns.com/resources/importance-of-food-safety-testing/) are summarized below; [contact us](https://fsns.com/contact-us/) if you don’t see what you need.
## Microbiology Testing Services
We provide a full range of [microbiology testing services](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) to support finished product test-and-hold programs, environmental monitoring programs, and other food safety initiatives. We also perform microbial toxin testing, provide microbial identification services, and offer microbial strain typing for real-time quality control and source tracking. Our full range of microbiology testing services is intended to provide the comprehensive support you need for maintaining your food safety programs.
[Read More](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/)
## Chemistry Testing Services
Our extensive offering of [chemistry testing services](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) satisfies a wide array of demands, whether it is determining the nutritional composition of your finished products or detecting trace-level contaminants in your raw materials. Our results help you demonstrate compliance with customer specifications, maintain food safety programs, and can provide critical information for R&D teams. Our capabilities include testing for contaminants, allergens, additives, heavy metals, nutritional panel information, and more. Our experts use validated methods and state-of-the-art analytical instruments to provide accurate, timely chemistry testing results.
[Read More](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/)
## Nutritional Labeling
We offer the full-range of testing services that is required to generate nutritional labels for food and beverage products. Our [nutritional analyses](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/) include macronutrients, micronutrients, and allergens. We use state-of-the-art equipment and official methods for analysis such as AOAC, USDA-FSIS, and FDA. Our team of experienced scientists provides timely and accurate results to help ensure that you are meeting regulatory compliance requirements and consumer demands for transparency.
[Read More](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/)
## FSNS Lab+
[Lab+, the contract research division of FSNS](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), offers a wide range of research study capabilities that can be customized to meet your unique needs. Our experienced scientists work closely with you to design high-quality research studies that can be used to satisfy the requirements of your customers and regulatory bodies. Services include shelf-life studies, challenge studies, process validation studies, method validation studies, and more. We keep you apprised throughout the entire process to ensure you meet your research goals on time and within budget.
[Read More](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/)
## Proficiency Testing Services
Our microbiology and chemistry [proficiency testing programs](https://fsns.com/services/proficiency-testing/) provide you with a comprehensive report of your laboratory’s performance. These programs include a wide range of matrices and analytes, covering many different commodities. You receive feedback on your performance, as well as opportunities for improvement through various training options. Our proficiency testing programs are designed to help laboratories maintain compliance with regulatory requirements and ensure the accuracy and consistency of their testing results.
[Read More](https://fsns.com/services/proficiency-testing/)
---
### [Industries](https://fsns.com/industries/)
**Published:** August 6, 2024
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Food Testing Labs: Accurate, Timely Results
Food Safety Net Services provides a broad range of [microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/), [chemistry](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/), [nutritional analyses](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/), [contract research](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), and other food testing services for manufacturers and distributors. With 30+ ISO 17025-accredited food testing labs across North America, we work with our fellow [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company, [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/food-beverage-services/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), to serve a variety of industries, including beverage, dairy, FDA imports, produce, protein, ready-to-eat, and more.
[View Lab Locations](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
[](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
## National Network of ISO 17025-Accredited Food Testing Labs Near You
Need a food testing lab near you? Our network includes food testing laboratories across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico that offer a comprehensive range of lab services. Whether you’re searching for food lab testing near you or a partner that can support multi-site operations, our network provides data you can trust.
## Beverage Testing
As a comprehensive beverage testing laboratory, we offer extensive testing capabilities for various beverages, including juice, energy drinks, bottled water, iced tea, soft drinks, and more. Our services provide precise [microbiological](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and [chemical analyses](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) with competitive turnaround time. Our testing facilities evaluate pathogens, spoilage organisms, indicator organisms, authenticity, pesticide residues, and beverage-specific properties. We support every facet of your quality assurance programs, from environmental monitoring to verifying label claims.
[Learn More](https://fsns.com/industries/beverages/)
## Cheese Testing
We assist cheese product manufacturers with a comprehensive suite of [microbiology testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/), [analytical chemistry](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/), and [contract research projects](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/). Our services include pathogen testing (including *Listeria*, *Salmonella*, *Staphylococcus enterotoxin*, *Bacillus cereus*, *Cronobacter sakazakii*), evaluation of indicator organisms, spoilage organisms, shelf-life studies, challenge studies, allergen testing, sensory analysis, and additional specialized tests.
[Learn More](https://fsns.com/industries/cheese/)
## Dairy Products Testing
We offer a broad portfolio of [microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and [chemistry assays](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) for dairy products, including Standard Methods for Examination of Dairy Foods (SMEDP) and methods validated by AOAC, FDA-BAM, GB, Health Canada, ISO, AFNOR, and APHA.
Our services include testing for pathogens, indicator organisms, and spoilage organisms, including *E. coli*, *Listeria*, *Salmonella*, *Staphylococcus aureus*, *Bacillus cereus*, *Cronobacter sakazakii*, coliforms, and more. We also offer chemistry testing, including proximate analysis, butterfat, lactose, melamine, heavy metals, and more.
[Learn More](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/)
## FDA Import
Our partner company under the [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) banner, [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/import/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), assists in getting your products released from FDA import detention quickly. Leveraging 40+ years of experience and an expert team that includes several former FDA employees, we offer FDA-accepted testing methods, expert consultation, and nationwide sampling services, ensuring fast, effective resolution to your import detention issues.
[Learn More on the Certified Laboratories Website](https://certified-laboratories.com/import/)
## Nuts & Spices Lab Testing
Our fellow [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company, [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/nuts-spice-analysis/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), offers a comprehensive range of microbiological testing services for nuts and spices. Analyses range from Total Plate Count, Yeast & Mold, and Aflatoxin analysis to pathogens such as *E. coli*, *Salmonella*, and *Listeria*.
Testing for spices and seasonings include analyses for Sudan and other dyes, covering spices and other products both by HPLC and HPLC/MS-MS. Our team helped establish and validate the current method for ASTA (American Spice Trade Association). Our staff is well trained in all spice analyses including Piperine, Heat by HPLC, and Steam Volatile Oil (SVO).
[Learn More on the Certified Laboratories Website](https://certified-laboratories.com/nuts-spice-analysis/)
## Pet Food Testing
We support manufacturers of pet food and animal feed with accurate [microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and [chemistry testing](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/). Chemistry services include AAFCO profile, minerals, heavy metals, allergens, meat speciation, melamine & related compounds (MARC), and more. Microbiology testing includes pathogens, indicators, and spoilage organisms. We also provide [ractopamine analysis by LC-MS/MS](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/ractopamine-analysis-by-lc-ms-ms/).
[Learn More](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/)
## Poultry and Eggs Testing
We are a leader in food testing for the poultry and egg industries, offering a variety of traditional and rapid-result assays that are validated for poultry and egg products. Our full range of services include testing for pathogens (*Salmonella*, *Campylobacter*, *E. coli*, and *Staphylococcus aureus*), indicator organisms, coliforms, egg pool testing, proximate analysis, antibiotics, pesticides, and more.
[Learn More](https://fsns.com/industries/poultry-and-eggs/)
## Produce Testing
Our [microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and [chemistry services](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) for the produce industry include testing for soil amendments and water, pre-harvest tissue testing, and environmental monitoring for your post-harvest packing facility. We offer assays for a broad range of pathogens, spoilage organisms, indicator organisms, and contaminants, such as pesticide residues and heavy metals.
[Learn More](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/)
## Protein Testing
FSNS is a leader in [microbiology testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) and [chemical analysis](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) of all types of meat products, including beef, pork, poultry, and more. Services include qualitative and quantitative pathogen testing, microbial toxins, contaminants, and more. In addition, our [contract research team](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) conducts challenge studies, shelf-life studies, microbial strain typing, and other studies that help you verify product safety.
[Learn More](https://fsns.com/industries/protein/)
## Ready-to-Eat (RTE) Food Testing
FSNS serves processors of RTE foods with accurate test results and competitive turnaround time to support your food safety programs. Services include [microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) (pathogens, indicators, spoilage organisms), [analytical chemistry](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) ([nutritional analysis](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/), allergens, contaminants), [contract research projects](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), [food safety audits](https://certified-laboratories.com/certification-audit/), and more.
[Learn More](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/)
## Refrigerated and Frozen Food Testing
FSNS offers a broad range of assays for processors of refrigerated and frozen foods in support of your environmental monitoring program and food safety initiatives. Food testing services include [microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) (pathogens, spoilage organisms, indicator organisms), [chemistry](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) ([nutritional analysis](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/), allergens, contaminants), shelf-life testing, [organoleptic analysis](https://certified-laboratories.com/organoleptic/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), and more.
[Learn More](https://fsns.com/industries/frozen-foods/)
## Restaurant and Retail Food Testing
We offer an extensive range of food testing services to help you verify supplier compliance and support your food safety programs. Services include traditional and rapid-result methods to [test for pathogens](https://fsns.com/pathogen-testing/) and indicator organisms. We also provide nutritional analyses for menu labeling, in addition to a variety of food safety training courses, including customized training.
[Learn More](https://fsns.com/industries/restaurants/)
## Seafood Testing
[Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/seafood/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), our fellow [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company, is a leader in U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-related seafood analyses and is recognized by every FDA District in the country. Our team can handle any type of analysis required by the FDA on your merchandise, including [filth testing](https://certified-laboratories.com/filth-testing/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), decomposition, and antibiotics. Our national sampling capabilities and our [organoleptic testing and sensory analysis](https://certified-laboratories.com/organoleptic/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) make us the most proficient laboratory for these services.
[Learn More on the Certified Laboratories Website](https://certified-laboratories.com/seafood/)
## Frequently Asked Questions
##### Does Food Safety Net Services (FSNS) offer food lab testing nationwide?
Yes. We partner with [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), our fellow [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks) company, to provide laboratory testing for food and beverage products at our network of 30+ ISO 17025-accredited laboratories across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. [View lab locations and contact us here](https://fsns.com/contact-us/).
##### How do I submit samples to a food testing lab near me?
[Contact our team](https://fsns.com/contact-us/) with a few details about your lab testing needs and we will provide details about sample submission to a food lab near you.
##### What types of food testing can FSNS perform?
We offer a full range of lab testing for food and beverage samples, including [microbiology](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) (pathogens, indicator organisms, spoilage organisms, etc.), [analytical chemistry](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) ([allergen testing](https://fsns.com/allergen-testing/), pesticide residues, artificial colors, heavy metals, etc.), [nutritional analysis](https://fsns.com/services/nutritional-labeling/), [contract research](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) (shelf-life studies, challenge studies, etc.). We test a wide variety of samples types, including protein, dairy, produce, nuts, spices, seafood, confectionary, ready-to-eat, and more. View our capabilities by sample type above.
##### Are your food testing labs accredited?
Yes, all our laboratories are ISO 17025 accredited. Many labs also hold additional industry certifications and accreditations. [View FSNS ISO 17025 accreditations here](https://fsns.com/accreditations-certifications-and-awards/) and [Certified Laboratories ISO 17025 accreditations here](https://certified-laboratories.com/accreditations-and-certifications/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks).
---
### [Aaron Pleitner, Ph.D. | Director of Microbiology Technical Services, Certified Group](https://fsns.com/author-aaron-pleitner/)
**Published:** December 3, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Aaron Pleitner, Ph.D.
## Aaron Pleitner, Ph.D.
### Director of Microbiology Technical Services, Certified Group
Dr. Aaron Pleitner is a food safety scientist with deep expertise in microbial risk management, [environmental monitoring](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/), sanitation strategy, and product safety across a wide range of food categories, including [dairy](https://fsns.com/industries/dairy/), [meat](https://fsns.com/industries/protein/), [produce](https://fsns.com/industries/produce/), plant-based proteins, [pet food](https://fsns.com/industries/pet-food/), bakery, confectionary, aseptic, and [RTE products](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/). His work centers on developing practical, science-based programs that strengthen food safety, improve product reliability, and reduce risk throughout manufacturing environments.
**Areas of Expertise**
- Rapid and molecular method validation (AOAC, AFNOR).
- Microbiological criteria for food safety and quality.
- Microbiological food safety, risk assessment, and root-cause investigation.
- [Environmental Monitoring Programs (EMP)](https://fsns.com/environmental-monitoring-programs-emp-for-food-safety-your-complete-guide/), hygienic zoning, and contamination control.
- Sanitation strategy, SSOP development, and sanitizer efficacy optimization.
- Microbial behavior modeling (Sym’Previus, ComBase, PMP).
- [Challenge studies](https://fsns.com/challenge-studies-in-foods-and-beverages-your-complete-guide/), shelf-life modeling, and stability assessments using FDA/USDA guidelines.
- [Regulatory compliance](https://fsns.com/regulatory-consulting/) for FDA, USDA, EU, USP products.
- Hygienic design and equipment sanitation evaluation.
- Allergen management and verification programs.
- Foreign-material prevention, verification, and characterization.
**Professional Focus**
- Designing and improving standards for raw ingredients, intermediates, and finished goods.
- Best-fit solutions for test methods and test requirements based on scientific justification.
- Translating complex microbiological risks into actionable, operational solutions.
- Strengthening food safety plans ([HACCP](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/), FSMA Preventive Controls, GMPs).
- Supporting R&D, operations, and commercialization with clear scientific guidance.
- Leading cross-functional scientific teams in high-risk or time-sensitive situations.
###### *Certification & Audit and Regulatory Consulting are separate entities. Use of Regulatory Consulting services does not provide an advantage nor is it linked to the granting of Certification.*
---
### [Cheese Testing](https://fsns.com/industries/cheese/)
**Published:** June 1, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Food Safety and Testing Services for Cheese
Mitigating the risk of food safety issues in cheese products requires testing throughout the production lifecycle. Our North American network of 30+ ISO 17025 accredited labs works 24/7/365 to support your food safety programs. We conduct a full range of microbiology and chemistry tests to support your environmental monitoring program and provide a clear picture of product composition and quality for all types of hard and soft cheese products.
## FSNS Cheese Testing Capabilities
Safety, quality, and shelf-life are three important testing considerations for the cheese industry. Our experts use state-of-the-art instruments and validated methods, including Standard Methods for Examination of Dairy Foods (SMEDP), to test your cheese products, helping you verify safety and attain the desired sensory qualities and shelf life.
### Microbiology Testing for Cheese Products
- Pathogens
- *Listeria* spp.
- *Listeria monocytogenes*
- Enterobacteriaceae
- *Salmonella* spp.
- Coagulase Positive *Staphylococci*
- *Staphylococcus* Enterotoxin
- *Bacillus cereus*
- *Cronobacter sakazakii*
- Indicator Organisms
- Standard Plate Count
- Generic *E. coli*
- *Staphylococcus aureus*
- Coliform
- Fecal Coliforms
- Yeast & Mold
- Lactic Acid Bacteria
- Spoilage Organisms
- Psychrotrophic Plate Count
- Spore testing
- Shelf-Life Studies
- Challenge Studies
- Starter Enumeration
- Non-Starter Lactics
- Quality Indicators
- Fermentation Profiles
### Chemistry Testing for Cheese Products
- Total Fats
- Free Fatty Acid Profile and Quantification
- Volatile Analyses
- Fat Globule Size Distribution
- Lactic Acid
- Calcium Status
- Proteins
- Contaminants
- Allergens
- Food Fraud
### Sensory Testing for Cheese Products
- Texture
- Taste
- Viscosity
- Rheology
- Functionality
- Color
- Density
- Mastersizer
## Accurate Data to Make the Best Decisions
[FSNS Lab+](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), our contract research division, designs and conducts shelf-life studies, challenge studies, and other scientific studies that provide the data you need to verify product safety and make good business decisions.
Cheese product manufacturers use this information to establish use-by and expiration dates that promote customer safety and product quality. This data also helps you verify the efficacy of a new ingredient or formulation change. Our scientists work with you to provide data according to your timeline and in a fashion you can understand.
## Challenge Studies Help Dairy Products Manufacturer Expand Product Line and Boost Revenue
[Read the Case Study](https://eadn-wc05-2540179.nxedge.io/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Dairy-Case-Study_1122.pdf)
## Food Safety Training & Education
Our food safety and education courses help your employees understand food safety, conduct in-house audits, and promote a food safety culture in your organization. Virtual and in-person training is available.
[Audit training for GFSI, SQF, BRCGS, & FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/resources/education/)
[HACCP Courses](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/)
[Microbiology & Food Safety Courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/microbiology-food-safety/)
[Sanitation Courses](https://fsns.com/product-category/sanitation/)
[FSPCA Preventive Controls for Animal Food & Human Food (PCQI)](https://fsns.com/product-category/fspca-preventive-controls/)
[Customized training available](https://fsns.com/resources/edu/)
## Food Safety Certification & Audit Services
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) can perform audits against the most common GFSI-benchmarked food safety certifications.
### Food Safety Audits:
- BRCGS Food Safety
- SQF
- FSSC 22000
- GMP Audits
Our auditors have an average of 14 years of experience working in food manufacturing. They provide impeccable service, which is why they receive a 99% satisfaction rating from our clients.
## Cheese Testing FAQs
##### What unique tests are recommended for cheese products during production and aging?
We offer [microbiological testing](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) for Listeria, Salmonella, STEC, Cronobacter, Staphylococcus aureus, and Bacillus cereus, along with [analytical testing](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/) for salt, moisture, protein, fat, and water activity.
##### How does FSNS manage the challenges of microbial control in cheese making?
We test brine and environmental samples for spoilage organisms and pathogens to verify the efficacy of sanitation procedures throughout the cheese-making process.
##### What steps are involved in ensuring consistency in cheese quality?
We analyze key parameters like salt, moisture, and water activity, and support starter culture enumeration to help manufacturers adjust formulations for consistent product outcomes.
##### How does FSNS support both artisanal and industrial cheese manufacturers?
Whether you’re a small-batch cheesemaker or an industrial producer, we tailor testing programs to your specific process and risk profile as each product type is vastly different
---
### [FSNS Locations | Contact Us](https://fsns.com/contact-us/)
**Published:** May 12, 2016
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# FSNS Locations | Contact Us
As part of [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/), [FSNS](https://fsns.com/) operates 30+ ISO 17025-accredited testing laboratories across North America, with several locations dedicated solely to food & beverage testing and other labs dedicated to testing cosmetics, OTC products, supplements, and hemp. Use the map to view FSNS locations and contact us using the form below.
## Contact FSNS
Let us know what you need and someone from our team with reach out as soon as possible. Thanks for considering FSNS for your food testing needs
[](tel:8885259788)
#### [888.525.9788](tel:8885259788)
# FSNS Locations
## Burbank, CA
## San Antonio, TX
## Chicago, IL
## Kitchener, ON, Canada
## Amarillo, TX
## Allentown, PA
## Melville, NY
## Atlanta, GA
## Carrolton, TX
## Calgary, AB Canada
## Brooks, AB Canada
## Boise, ID
## Columbus, OH
## Edmonton, AB Canada
## Dodge City, KS
## Dallas, TX
## Greeley, CO
## Fresno, CA
## Logan, UT
## Green Bay, WI
## St. Louis, MO
## Los Angeles, CA
## Omaha, NE
## Minneapolis, MN
## Phoenix, AZ
## Plainwell, MI
## Turlock, CA
## Springdale, AR
## Tustin, CA
## Irapuato, MX
### Allentown, PA
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍7020 Snowdrift Rd.
Allentown, PA 18106
##### 📞 610.295.0210
### Amarillo, TX
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 331 N Nelson St.
Amarillo, TX 79107
##### 📞 806.220.0449
### Atlanta, GA
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 1707 Stone Ridge Dr.
Tucker, GA 30083
##### 📞 770.788.1940
### Boise, ID
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 351 North Mitchell St., Ste 300
Boise, ID 83704
##### 📞 208.513.2020
### Brooks, AB, Canada
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 193002 Range Rd. 150 House A
Brooks, Alberta T1R 1C6
##### 📞 888.525.9788
### Burbank, CA
###### *Dietary Supplements & NHP*
*Cosmetics, OTC & Personal Care*
##### 📍 3125 N Damon Way
Burbank, CA 91505
##### 📞 818.845.0070
### Calgary, AB, Canada
###### Food & Beverage
##### 📍 Building 70
5000 64th Ave, SE
Calgary, Alberta
T2C 4V3
##### 📞 587-506-6068
### Carrollton, TX
###### *Dietary Supplements & NHP*
*Cosmetics, OTC & Personal Care*
##### 📍 3218 Commander Dr #100
Carrollton, TX 75006
##### 📞 972.250.2902
### Chicago, IL
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 2505 Diehl Road
Aurora, IL 60502
##### 📞 630.783.8600
### Columbus, OH
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 4130 Fisher Rd.
Columbus, OH 43228
##### 📞 614.274.2070
### Dallas, TX
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 2545 114th St.
Grand Prairie, TX 75050
##### 📞 972.602.2078
### Dodge City, KS
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 1519 S. 2nd Ave.
Dodge City, KS 67801
##### 📞 620.682.7202
### Edmonton, AB, Canada
###### *Dietary Supplements & NHP*
*Cosmetics, OTC & Personal Care*
##### 📍 1938-94 Street
Edmonton, Alberta, T6N 1J3
##### 📞 780.469-9009
### Fresno, CA
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 186 S. West Ave., Ste 104
Fresno, CA 93706
##### 📞 559.443.1046
### Greeley, CO
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 8750 W 20th St.
Greeley, CO 80634
##### 📞 970.372.3800
### Green Bay, WI
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍3400 S Packerland Dr. Ste 102
De Pere, WI 54115
##### 📞 920.465.4165
### Irapuato, Guanajuato MX
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍Av. Héroe de Nacozari 474 Fracc. Real del Lago, CP 36690
##### [ciertoyseguro.com.mx](https://ciertoyseguro.com.mx/)
### Kitchener, ON, Canada
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 52 McIntyre Place Unit B
Kitchener, Ontario N2R 1H9
##### 📞 519.748.5409
### Logan, UT Laboratory
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍1073 W 1700 N.
Logan, UT 84321
##### 📞 435.514.9040
### Los Angeles, CA
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 6281 Chalet Dr.
Commerce, CA 90040
##### 📞 562.806.2143
### Melville, NY
###### *Food & Beverage Cosmetics, OTC & Personal Care*
*Dietary Supplements & NHP*
##### 📍 65 Marcus Drive
Melville, NY 11747
##### 📞 516.576.1400
### Minneapolis, MN
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 3900 Annapolis Lane N.
Plymouth, MN 55447
##### 📞 612.486.9604
### Omaha, NE
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 5303 F St.
Omaha, NE 68117
##### 📞 402.970.0280
### Plainwell, MI
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 11 Eleventh St
Plainwell, MI 49080
##### 📞 269.685.8195
### Phoenix, AZ
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 6215 West Van Buren
Phoenix, AZ 85043
##### 📞 602.385.4030
### San Antonio, TX
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 199 W. Rhapsody Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78216
##### 📞 210.308.0675
### Springdale, AR
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 1738 Louisiana Place, Suite G
Springdale, AR 72764
##### 📞 479.231.1250
### St. Louis, MO
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 11608 Lilburn Park Rd
St. Louis, MO 63146
##### 📞 314.824.0107
### Turlock, CA
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 3241 Liberty Square Parkway
Turlock, CA 95380
##### 📞 209.664.1100
### Tustin, CA
##### *Dietary Supplements & NHP*
##### 📍 1169 Warner Ave.
Tustin, CA 92780
##### 📞 714.259.0384
## Frequently Asked Questions
##### Where are FSNS labs near me?
FSNS operates several ISO 17025-accredited food testing laboratories across the United States. Locations include:
- - FSNS Allentown, Pa.
- FSNS Amarillo, Texas
- FSNS Atlanta
- FSNS Boise, Idaho
- FSNS Columbus, Ohio
- FSNS Commerce, Calif.
- FSNS Dallas
- FSNS Dodge City, Kan.
- FSNS Fresno, Calif.
- FSNS Greeley, Colo.
- FSNS Green Bay, Wis.
- FSNS Logan, Utah
- FSNS Minneapolis
- FSNS Omaha, Neb.
- FSNS Phoenix
- FSNS Plainwell, Mich.
- FSNS San Antonio
- FSNS Springdale, Ark.
- FSNS St. Louis.
##### Are there FSNS labs in Canada?
Yes. FSNS operates food testing labs in:
- - Calgary
- Brooks, Alberta
- Kitchener, Ontario
View details for each location in the list above.
##### Are there FSNS labs in Mexico?
Yes. FSNS partners with [Cierto y Seguro](https://ciertoyseguro.com.mx/), which operates a laboratory in Irapuato, Guanajuato. The laboratory also maintains sales offices in multiple locations to serve the Irapuato lab, including: Mexico City, Toluca, Zamora, Michoacán, Guadalajara, and Monterrey.
##### Does FSNS do more than just food safety testing?
FSNS is part of [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), which includes [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com), and [Labstat International](https://labstat.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks). Labs within the Certified Group network provide laboratory testing for a variety of regulated products besides foods and beverages, including dietary supplements, over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, cosmetics, nicotine products, hemp, and more. Choose your Industry in the contact form and our team will reach out with details.
---
### [An In-Depth Guide to Food Safety Standards (SQF, FSSC 22000, BRCGS) & Value-Added Programs (PVP)](https://fsns.com/food-safety-standards-guide/)
**Published:** August 7, 2023
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# An In-Depth Guide to Food Safety Standards (SQF, FSSC 22000, BRCGS) & USDA Process Verified Programs
## 1-Minute Summary
[?](#overview)
#### [SQF, BRCGS Food Safety, and FSSC 22000 are key food safety standards in the industry.](#overview)
[?](#BRCGS)
#### [BRCGS Food Safety certification ensures rigorous global standards, enhancing a company's reputation and promoting consumer trust in their products.](#BRCGS)
[?](#GMP)
#### [GMPs uphold food safety and quality in food production processes.](#GMP)
[?](#SQF)
#### [SQF certification provides businesses distinct benefits across the supply chain.](#SQF)
[?](#FSSC22000)
#### [FSSC 22000 fosters compliance, process improvement, and international recognition.](#FSSC22000)
[?](#PVP)
#### [USDA Process Verified Programs assure product quality and differentiate businesses.](#PVP)
Ensuring food safety and quality is one of the most critical aspects of the food and beverage industry. At the same time, you need to position your products for success in the market.
This guide explores the top food safety and quality standards to support your first goal: the Safe Quality Food (SQF) program, British Retail Consortium Global Standards (BRCGS), and Food Safety System Certification (FSSC) 22000.
We also explain the importance of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) to food safety. Finally, to support your goal of increased profitability, we dive into USDA Process Verified Programs.
As always, [reach out to the FSNS Certification & Audit team with questions about food safety certifications or third-party audits](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-lp).
Let’s get started.
## SQF: Safe Quality Food Program
## Introduction to SQF
The [Safe Quality Food (SQF) program](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/) is a globally acknowledged, rigorous food safety and quality program. Designed to meet the needs of all sectors within the supply chain, it provides businesses with a tool for managing food safety risks and demonstrating compliance with regulatory requirements. SQF Food Safety Audit edition 9, released in 2021, is the current edition of the code.
SQF was developed by the [Safe Quality Food institute](https://www.sqfi.com/), driven by a vision to create a reliable food safety and quality certification program that is recognized internationally. The program has evolved and grown over the years, reflecting the complex nature of the food supply chain and the need for stringent safety and quality control measures.
## SQF Standards and Certification Process
SQF certification is based on government and industry food safety requirements. It allows suppliers to assure their customers that food has been produced, processed, prepared, and handled according to the highest possible global standards.
SQF uses five different Programs, each with a different area of focus and goals, so nearly any business can find a Program to suit its needs.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/1c216274-b691-4d60-b5df-e409e5d00683)
## Unpacking the 5 SQF Programs
### SQF Food Safety Program
- **Who It’s For:** All food producers in the food industry.
- **Goals & Features:** Emphasis on the systematic application of HACCP.
- **Prerequisites:** None
- **GFSI Benchmarking:** Yes
- **Details:** Helps integrate robust food safety standards into existing practices; often required for entry to market.
### SQF Fundamentals Program
- **Who It’s For:** Small and medium-sized enterprises.
- **Goals & Features:** Protects brand from the risk of recall; satisfies buyer’s requirements.
- **Prerequisites:** None
- **GFSI Benchmarking:** No
- **Details:** Addresses buyer’s food safety requirements; provides solutions for businesses supplying local and global food markets.
### SQF Quality Program
- **Who It’s For:** Sites that have already implemented a robust food safety plan.
- **Goals & Features:** Addresses process controls for product quality; identifies and controls quality threats.
- **Prerequisites:** SQF Food Safety Plan or similar.
- **GFSI Benchmarking:** No
- **Details:** Uses a risk-based method like *Codex* HACCP.
### SQF Foodservice Program
- **Who It’s For:** Businesses in the foodservice industry.
- **Goals & Features:** Creates a food safety culture and program; reduces and eliminates food safety risks.
- **Prerequisites:** None
- **GFSI Benchmarking:** No
- **Details:** Can be used for internal and external inspections; includes audit options for multi-sites.
### SQF Food Retail Program
- **Who It’s For:** Food retailers
- **Goals & Features:** Builds transparency and internal confidence; protects brands.
- **Prerequisites:** None
- **GFSI Benchmarking:** No
- **Details:** Verifies processes and systems; connects corporate policies to store practices.
The 5 SQF Programs provide a range of options so your business can choose the most appropriate Program to fit your size, customer needs, and food safety & quality goals.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/1ff47086-428a-4178-8e38-3daa4814c747)
## Benefits of SQF
Achieving SQF certification offers a variety of benefits for businesses. A certified organization can assure its customers that they are committed to producing safe, quality food. It also signifies a level of professionalism and credibility in the market, which can strengthen the business’s reputation and help increase its customer base.
Moreover, SQF certification can lead to more streamlined operations by minimizing the likelihood of a product recall, reducing inconsistency risks, and helping businesses meet regulatory requirements. This level of control leads to more efficient use of resources, thus saving costs over the long term.
[For a deep dive on how to get SQF certified and how an SQF audit works, check out this blog post](https://fsns.com/what-is-sqf/).
And, when you’re ready for your audit, [get tips on preparing for an SQF certification audit here](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-an-sqf-certification-audit/).
## BRCGS Food Safety: British Retail Consortium Global Standards
## Introduction to BRCGS
British Retail Consortium Global Standards, or [BRCGS](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/), is a leading safety and quality certification program, recognized by thousands of manufacturers, brands, and retailers worldwide.
Developed by the British Retail Consortium, the world’s leading trade association for retail, BRCGS includes specific standards for Food Safety, Packaging Materials, Storage and Distribution, Consumer Products, Agents, and Brokers.
## BRCGS Food Safety Standards and Certification Process
BRCGS Food Safety has been developed to specify safety, quality, and operational criteria required within a food-manufacturing organization to fulfill its obligations regarding legal compliance and consumer protection.
The standards are organized into seven sections:
#### Senior Management Commitment and Continual Improvement
#### Site Standards
#### The Food Safety Plan – HACCP
#### Product Control
#### Personnel
#### Food Safety and Quality Management System
#### Process Control
Achieving BRCGS certification involves meeting the requirements specified in these seven areas.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/8cdce96e-285a-45de-9a15-28ce47baf0a7)
## Benefits of BRCGS
Achieving BRCGS certification has numerous benefits. It helps ensure the consistent manufacture of safe food and reduce waste, recalls, reworking, and withdrawal. BRCGS certification also encourages a reduction in duplication of audits, as food retailers and wholesalers accept the BRCGS certification from suppliers.
Furthermore, it provides a tool for food businesses to assess their suppliers, thus improving integrity, safety, and legality. BRCGS certification also provides a significant advantage in the market by boosting consumer confidence in the safety and quality of the product.
[We further explain how to achieve BRCGS Food Safety certification here. ](https://fsns.com/what-is-brcgs/)
[And, when you’re ready to take the next step, get tips for preparing for your BRCGS audit here.](https://fsns.com/how-to-prepare-for-a-brcgs-food-safety-audit/)
## FSSC 22000: Food Safety System Certification 22000
## Introduction to FSSC 22000
Food Safety System Certification 22000, or [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/), is an ISO-based food safety management system. Recognized by the [Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)](https://mygfsi.com/), it provides a comprehensive approach to food safety, covering…
#### Responsibility
#### Realization of safe products
#### Updating of the food safety management system
#### Resource management
#### Validation
#### Planning
#### Verification and improvement
This certification scheme applies to all organizations, regardless of size or complexity, involved in the food chain from farm to fork, including manufacturers of packaging material, pet food, and feed for food-producing animals.
Given that FSSC 22000 is entirely built upon ISO 22000, along with some extra requirements, it’s a great option if you’re already ISO 22000 certified.
## FSSC 22000 Standards and Certification Process
FSSC 22000 incorporates several ISO standards, including ISO 22000 for food safety management system requirements, ISO/TS 22002-1 for prerequisite programs on food safety for food manufacturing, and additional FSSC 22000 certification requirements.
The certification process includes an evaluation of the Food Safety Management System (FSMS), including…
#### Management commitment to food safety
#### FSMS planning
#### Food safety policy
#### Management review
#### Food safety objectives
#### Continual improvement
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/cfff9de0-0057-4811-b471-7814de63e541)
## Benefits of FSSC 22000
FSSC 22000 certification offers several advantages for organizations.
First, it aids in compliance with food safety legislation and reduces the risk of food safety incidents and the cost associated with recalls.
Second, it drives improvement within the organization, leading to improved processes and operational efficiencies.
FSSC 22000 also provides international recognition, promoting trust with consumers and other stakeholders. It helps organizations to demonstrate a real commitment to food safety, which can open doors to new business opportunities.
[This blog post explains how an FSSC audit works and how to get certified](https://fsns.com/what-is-fssc-22000/).
## GMPs: Good Manufacturing Practices in the Food Industry
## Introduction to GMPs
Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) are the practices required to conform to the guidelines recommended by agencies that control the authorization and licensing of food and beverage manufacture and sale.
In other words, GMPs are a system of standards used to ensure products are consistently produced and controlled according to established quality standards. To pass any food safety certification audit, you will need to follow GMPs.
## GMP Standards and Compliance Process
GMPs cover all aspects of production, from the starting materials, premises, and equipment to the training and personal hygiene of staff. They provide detailed written procedures that are essential for each process that could affect the quality of the finished product.
To comply with GMP requirements, businesses must record every aspect of the process, the premises, the products, and the staff involved in production. This comprehensive recordkeeping helps prevent errors and contamination, enables the business to investigate issues, recall products, and implement corrective actions when needed.
## Benefits of GMPs
Implementing GMPs can bring various benefits to an organization, such as…
#### Management commitment to food safety
#### Management review
#### Food safety policy
#### Food safety objectives
Many companies have a GMP audit to ensure their facilities are operating according to GMPs. [Find out more about Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) audits for food and beverage companies and how they’re done here](https://fsns.com/gmp-audits-food-industry-guide/).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/37959b00-f4be-4492-9f4d-6208f32a4d58)
## GMP Regulatory Requirements for Food and Beverage Companies
Good Manufacturing Practices for food and beverage companies are outlined in regulations set forth by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
## FDA Regulations
The FDA, which regulates most of the U.S. food supply, outlines its GMP requirements for food in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 110 ([21 CFR 110](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=110)), also known as the “Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Human Food”
Key components of these regulations include:
#### Plant and Grounds
The facility must be in a suitable location, properly maintained, and cleaned regularly to minimize the risk of contamination.
#### Sanitary Operations
Businesses must maintain cleanliness, ensure trash is properly stored and disposed of, and sanitize equipment and utensils.
#### Sanitary Facilities and Controls
This includes providing adequate water supply, plumbing, sewage disposal, restroom and hand-washing facilities, and rubbish and offal disposal.
## USDA Regulations
The USDA, which regulates meat, poultry, and processed egg products, outlines its GMP requirements in [Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 416 and 417](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=7dd34619c7a1e4602523b7e6e9bb58f8&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title09/9cfrv3_02.tpl#0).
Part 416, “Sanitation,” includes requirements for:
#### General Rules
This section mandates regular cleaning and sanitizing of all equipment and utensils.
#### Maintenance of Sanitary Conditions
Companies must prevent the adulteration of product and the creation of insanitary conditions.
#### Sanitary Operations
This section covers cleanliness of facilities and equipment, as well as pest and bird control.
Part 417, “Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems,” includes requirements for:
#### Hazard Analysis
Companies must conduct a hazard analysis to identify and list the food safety hazards reasonably likely to occur in the processing plant and what preventative measures can be applied.
#### HACCP Plan
Each plant must develop a [written HACCP plan](https://fsns.com/what-is-haccp/) outlining the food safety hazards, critical control points, and corrective actions.
It’s essential for food and beverage companies to familiarize themselves with these GMP requirements and to maintain compliance with them to ensure the safety and quality of their products.
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/e3d863ef-b1b9-4e21-9eb9-d962af94d536)
## USDA Process Verified Programs
To this point, we’ve talked about food safety certifications that organizations can achieve to help promote safety and bolster their brand. Now, let’s shift gears and talk about another great option for certain producers – USDA Process Verified Programs and how third-party certification bodies perform audits against the standards of the program.
This is a great way to help command a higher price for your products in the marketplace. Let’s dive in.
## Introduction to USDA Process Verified Programs
USDA Process Verified Programs are voluntary programs that provide suppliers of agricultural and other products the opportunity to assure customers of their ability to provide consistent quality products or services.
This is done by having their written manufacturing processes confirmed through independent, third-party audits, such as [process verified program audits provided by FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/).
[](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/7650917/c1ebb222-a3d6-48f3-bed4-d06c5941018c)
## Benefits of USDA Process Verified Programs
USDA Process Verified Programs enable businesses to differentiate themselves in the marketplace by making verified claims about specific aspects of their products or processes. This can include claims about feeding practices, absence of animal by-products, animal raising practices, and more.
This also gives customers confidence in the products they purchase, allowing businesses to potentially increase their market share and customer base. This differentiation can provide a significant advantage, particularly in a market where consumers are increasingly interested in how their food is produced.
[We provide a rundown of the most popular USDA Process Verified Programs for livestock producers here](https://fsns.com/usda-process-verified-program-guide/).
## Choosing the Right Food Safety Certification for Your Business
When it comes to [selecting the right food safety certification](https://fsns.com/which-gfsi-certification-is-right-for-my-business/), making an informed decision involves assessing various factors such as your organization’s size, complexity, resources, nature of the products or services provided, and the specific demands of customers and regulators. With multiple certifications available, it’s crucial to understand the unique benefits of each and their relevance to your specific operational needs.
## Role of the Global Food Safety Initiative
Central to the understanding of food safety certification is the [Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)](https://mygfsi.com/).
Launched in 2000 by the Consumer Goods Forum, the GFSI aims to improve food safety worldwide by providing a platform for collaboration between some of the world’s leading food safety experts from retail, manufacturing, and food service companies, as well as international organizations, governments, academia, and service providers to the global food industry.
GFSI itself is not a certification program but rather a key driver of recognized food safety management schemes. It benchmarks these schemes to ensure they meet a minimum set of requirements, thus creating a globally recognized acceptance for food safety certification schemes.
SQF, FSSC 22000, and BRCGS Food Safety are the three most popular GFSI-recognized food safety certification programs.
## Importance of GFSI-Recognized Certifications
GFSI-benchmarked certifications carry significant weight in the food industry because they adhere to high international standards and have a broad level of acceptance globally. They can enhance market access and acceptance by retailers and other businesses along the supply chain that require GFSI-recognized certifications from their suppliers.
The stringent standards required for GFSI recognition mean that obtaining a GFSI-recognized certification, such as SQF, FSSC 22000, or BRCGS Food Safety, involves demonstrating a strong commitment to food safety, implementing a rigorous system of food safety management, and passing an intensive audit process.
[FSNS Certification & Audit performs audits for all GFSI-benchmarked food safety platforms.](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/)
## Choosing the Right Certification
Each of the certifications discussed offers unique advantages, but all aim to enhance food safety and boost customer confidence in the food supply chain. The choice of certification should align with your business objectives, customer requirements, and the nature of your operations.
## Enhance Safety & Competitiveness with Food Safety Certifications and USDA Process Verified Programs
Food safety certifications are more than just meeting regulatory requirements. They provide a platform to assure consumers and stakeholders that your organization is dedicated to producing safe, high-quality food.
With the backing of globally recognized certifications, your commitment to food safety becomes visible, allowing your business to differentiate itself in a competitive market and build enduring relationships with consumers.
USDA Process Verified Programs, meanwhile, offer you a great option to distinguish your products from the competition and command a higher price.
Whichever is right for you, [our experts with FSNS Certification & Audit can answer your questions and set up your next audit](https://info.fsns.com/certification-and-audit-lp).
[BACK TO TOP](#section-1)
---
### [Tradeshows and Events](https://fsns.com/events/)
**Published:** September 18, 2025
**Author:** Nick Munguia
**Content:**
# Events & Tradeshows
## Come meet us at our next tradeshow!
We exhibit and attend several tradeshows alongside our fellow [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/) companies, [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/) and [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com/). Meet us at the next show to talk to our experts and discover how our laboratory testing and regulatory consulting services can help your business.
September 9-10, 2025
### Meat Institute 2025 Food Safety Conference
*Event Sponsor*
Kansas City, MO
September 9-11, 2025
### AAFP 2025 17th Annual Meeting & Conference
*Event Sponsor, Exhibiting*
Fayetteville, AR
September 14-16, 2025
### North American Food Safety & Quality Conference 2025
*Event Sponsor, Exhibiting*
Austin, TX
September 23-24, 2025
### WI Lab Association Fall Conference 2025
*Exhibiting, Speaking*
LaCrosse, WI
October 2, 2025
### Rocky Mountain Section IFT Supplier’s NIght
*Exhibiting*
Denver, CO
October 2, 2025
### St Louis Section IFT Supplier’s Night
*Exhibiting*
St Louis, MO
October 8, 2025
### Certified Laboratories Melville Open House
Melville, NY
October 8, 2025
### Minnesota Section IFT Suppliers Expo 2025
*Event Sponsor, Exhibiting*
Minneapolis, MN
October 8-10, 2025
### Meat Institute – Protein PACT Summit 2025
*Event Sponsor*
Los Angeles, CA
October 19-21, 2025
### Food Safety Consortium (AFFI & Food Safety Tech)
*Exhibiting*
Los Angeles, CA
October 27-30, 2025
### SupplySide Global (West) 2025
*Exhibiting*
Las Vegas, NV
November 5, 2025
### Chicago Section IFT Suppliers’ Day
*Event Sponsor, Exhibiting*
Rosemont, IL
November 12, 2025
### Intermountain Section IFT Boise Symposium
*Exhibiting*
Boise, ID
November 20, 2025
### Longhorn Section IFT Supplier’s Expo
*Exhibiting*
Frisco, TX
December 8-10, 2025
### The 17th Annual NLS Food Quality Symposium 2025
*Event Sponsor, Exhibiting, Speaking*
San Antonio, TX
December 10-12, 2025
### Almond Conference 2025
*Exhibiting*
Sacramento, CA
---
### [Locations](https://fsns.com/contact-us/locations/)
**Published:** June 8, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# FSNS Locations | Contact Us
As part of [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/), [FSNS](https://fsns.com/) operates 30+ ISO 17025-accredited testing laboratories across North America, with several locations dedicated solely to food & beverage testing and other labs dedicated to testing cosmetics, OTC products, supplements, and hemp. Use the map to view FSNS locations and contact us using the form below.
## Contact FSNS
Let us know what you need and someone from our team with reach out as soon as possible. Thanks for considering FSNS for your food testing needs
[](tel:8885259788)
#### [888.525.9788](tel:8885259788)
# FSNS Locations
## Burbank, CA
## San Antonio, TX
## Chicago, IL
## Kitchener, ON, Canada
## Amarillo, TX
## Allentown, PA
## Melville, NY
## Atlanta, GA
## Carrolton, TX
## Calgary, AB Canada
## Brooks, AB Canada
## Boise, ID
## Columbus, OH
## Edmonton, AB Canada
## Dodge City, KS
## Dallas, TX
## Greeley, CO
## Fresno, CA
## Logan, UT
## Green Bay, WI
## St. Louis, MO
## Los Angeles, CA
## Omaha, NE
## Minneapolis, MN
## Phoenix, AZ
## Plainwell, MI
## Turlock, CA
## Springdale, AR
## Tustin, CA
## Irapuato, MX
### Allentown, PA
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍7020 Snowdrift Rd.
Allentown, PA 18106
##### 📞 610.295.0210
### Amarillo, TX
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 331 N Nelson St.
Amarillo, TX 79107
##### 📞 806.220.0449
### Atlanta, GA
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 1707 Stone Ridge Dr.
Tucker, GA 30083
##### 📞 770.788.1940
### Boise, ID
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 351 North Mitchell St., Ste 300
Boise, ID 83704
##### 📞 208.513.2020
### Brooks, AB, Canada
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 193002 Range Rd. 150 House A
Brooks, Alberta T1R 1C6
##### 📞 888.525.9788
### Burbank, CA
###### *Dietary Supplements & NHP*
*Cosmetics, OTC & Personal Care*
##### 📍 3125 N Damon Way
Burbank, CA 91505
##### 📞 818.845.0070
### Calgary, AB, Canada
###### Food & Beverage
##### 📍 Building 70
5000 64th Ave, SE
Calgary, Alberta
T2C 4V3
##### 📞 587-506-6068
### Carrollton, TX
###### *Dietary Supplements & NHP*
*Cosmetics, OTC & Personal Care*
##### 📍 3218 Commander Dr #100
Carrollton, TX 75006
##### 📞 972.250.2902
### Chicago, IL
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 2505 Diehl Road
Aurora, IL 60502
##### 📞 630.783.8600
### Columbus, OH
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 4130 Fisher Rd.
Columbus, OH 43228
##### 📞 614.274.2070
### Dallas, TX
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 2545 114th St.
Grand Prairie, TX 75050
##### 📞 972.602.2078
### Dodge City, KS
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 1519 S. 2nd Ave.
Dodge City, KS 67801
##### 📞 620.682.7202
### Edmonton, AB, Canada
###### *Dietary Supplements & NHP*
*Cosmetics, OTC & Personal Care*
##### 📍 1938-94 Street
Edmonton, Alberta, T6N 1J3
##### 📞 780.469-9009
### Fresno, CA
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 186 S. West Ave., Ste 104
Fresno, CA 93706
##### 📞 559.443.1046
### Greeley, CO
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 8750 W 20th St.
Greeley, CO 80634
##### 📞 970.372.3800
### Green Bay, WI
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍3400 S Packerland Dr. Ste 102
De Pere, WI 54115
##### 📞 920.465.4165
### Irapuato, Guanajuato MX
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍Av. Héroe de Nacozari 474 Fracc. Real del Lago, CP 36690
##### [ciertoyseguro.com.mx](https://ciertoyseguro.com.mx/)
### Kitchener, ON, Canada
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 52 McIntyre Place Unit B
Kitchener, Ontario N2R 1H9
##### 📞 519.748.5409
### Logan, UT Laboratory
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍1073 W 1700 N.
Logan, UT 84321
##### 📞 435.514.9040
### Los Angeles, CA
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 6281 Chalet Dr.
Commerce, CA 90040
##### 📞 562.806.2143
### Melville, NY
###### *Food & Beverage Cosmetics, OTC & Personal Care*
*Dietary Supplements & NHP*
##### 📍 65 Marcus Drive
Melville, NY 11747
##### 📞 516.576.1400
### Minneapolis, MN
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 3900 Annapolis Lane N.
Plymouth, MN 55447
##### 📞 612.486.9604
### Omaha, NE
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 5303 F St.
Omaha, NE 68117
##### 📞 402.970.0280
### Plainwell, MI
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 11 Eleventh St
Plainwell, MI 49080
##### 📞 269.685.8195
### Phoenix, AZ
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 6215 West Van Buren
Phoenix, AZ 85043
##### 📞 602.385.4030
### San Antonio, TX
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 199 W. Rhapsody Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78216
##### 📞 210.308.0675
### Springdale, AR
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 1738 Louisiana Place, Suite G
Springdale, AR 72764
##### 📞 479.231.1250
### St. Louis, MO
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 11608 Lilburn Park Rd
St. Louis, MO 63146
##### 📞 314.824.0107
### Turlock, CA
###### *Food & Beverage*
##### 📍 3241 Liberty Square Parkway
Turlock, CA 95380
##### 📞 209.664.1100
### Tustin, CA
##### *Dietary Supplements & NHP*
##### 📍 1169 Warner Ave.
Tustin, CA 92780
##### 📞 714.259.0384
## Frequently Asked Questions
##### Where are FSNS labs near me?
FSNS operates several ISO 17025-accredited food testing laboratories across the United States. Locations include:
- - FSNS Allentown, Pa.
- FSNS Amarillo, Texas
- FSNS Atlanta
- FSNS Boise, Idaho
- FSNS Columbus, Ohio
- FSNS Commerce, Calif.
- FSNS Dallas
- FSNS Dodge City, Kan.
- FSNS Fresno, Calif.
- FSNS Greeley, Colo.
- FSNS Green Bay, Wis.
- FSNS Logan, Utah
- FSNS Minneapolis
- FSNS Omaha, Neb.
- FSNS Phoenix
- FSNS Plainwell, Mich.
- FSNS San Antonio
- FSNS Springdale, Ark.
- FSNS St. Louis.
##### Are there FSNS labs in Canada?
Yes. FSNS operates food testing labs in:
- - Calgary
- Brooks, Alberta
- Kitchener, Ontario
View details for each location in the list above.
##### Are there FSNS labs in Mexico?
Yes. FSNS partners with [Cierto y Seguro](https://ciertoyseguro.com.mx/), which operates a laboratory in Irapuato, Guanajuato. The laboratory also maintains sales offices in multiple locations to serve the Irapuato lab, including: Mexico City, Toluca, Zamora, Michoacán, Guadalajara, and Monterrey.
##### Does FSNS do more than just food safety testing?
FSNS is part of [Certified Group](https://www.certifiedgroup.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), which includes [Certified Laboratories](https://certified-laboratories.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks), [EAS Consulting Group](https://easconsultinggroup.com), and [Labstat International](https://labstat.com/?utm_source=FSNS&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=backlinks). Labs within the Certified Group network provide laboratory testing for a variety of regulated products besides foods and beverages, including dietary supplements, over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, cosmetics, nicotine products, hemp, and more. Choose your Industry in the contact form and our team will reach out with details.
---
### [Ractopamine Analysis by LC-MS/MS](https://fsns.com/services/chemistry-testing/ractopamine-analysis-by-lc-ms-ms/)
**Published:** May 24, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
[Food Safety Net Services (FSNS)](https://fsns.com/) is certified by the USDA-AMS Laboratory Approval Program for the Export of Meat and Poultry Products. This includes the analysis of the Beta-Agonist Ractopamine in Animal Muscle and Liver Tissues by LC-MS/MS (Trace Residue Level). The fully validated FSNS method references USDA CLG-AGON1.10; Screening, Determination and Confirmation of Beta-Agonists by LC/MS/MS. The highly selective method has precise quantification capabilities for ractopamine determination below the USDA action level of 0.1 ppb to support regulatory and export compliance.
## **How FSNS can support your needs**
Ractopamine testing is performed at the FSNS Corporate Chemistry Laboratory in San Antonio, Texas.
**Product Scope Coverage**
- Beef, pork, and turkey
- Muscle and organ tissues
**The FSNS difference!**
- USDA-AMS Approved Methodology and Lab Quality Procedures
- ISO 17025:2005 Accredited Lab
- Trace level detection below the required USDA Action Level of 0.1 parts per billion
- Rapid Turnaround Time Options Available
- State of the art LC-MS/MS systems for accurate low-level detection, with ample redundancy
- Fully validated and robust methodology
We offer competitive pricing, options for rush testing, high-quality ISO 17025 regulated testing, and a team of resources to discuss results and assist you along the way. FSNS is your trusted partner in food safety and is proud to offer USDA-AMS Approved Ractopamine testing for the industry. If you have any questions about testing or would like more information, please contact [**customerservice@fsns.com**](mailto:customerservice@fsns.com) or call 888-525-9788.
## **Ractopamine Testing and Analysis**
The presence of ractopamine in your processed meat products can affect your business.
While the FDA does not ban this chemical compound, more than 160 countries restrict this feed additive. These countries prohibit importing foods with ractopamine due to the health risks it may pose to humans.
If your business involves exporting meat products, whether processed or not, you should make sure you know if they contain ractopamine. LC/MS/MS Ractopamine testing can help you identify if your products have even trace levels of the compound. Even if you’re a B2B meat supplier, you should consider ractopamine testing if your customer exports their processed meat to ensure compliance.
## **What is Ractopamine?**
Ractopamine is an animal feed additive. It belongs to a drug classification known as beta-adrenergic receptor agonists. As a beta-agonist, ractopamine mimics the effects of adrenaline, increasing protein synthesis in mature animals. Administration of this drug is typically done a few weeks before slaughter.
The significant benefits of using ractopamine are:
- Increased muscle growth on animals
- Higher ratio of lean meat to fat
- Improved feed efficiency
With livestock growing at a faster rate, farmers also spend less on feed.
For food processing businesses, this drastically increases the availability of leaner meat. As a result, there’s an increased rate of production.
## **Why Should You Test for Ractopamine?**
Many US pork producers have elected to have their products be ractopamine-free even if the U.S. FDA does not restrict its usage. Also, with the European Union, China, and other countries enforcing a zero-tolerance policy for ractopamine in beef and pork, the export industry needs to comply and impose the same restrictions.
However, complete elimination of the ractopamine compound is not always possible due to situations like cross-contaminations. The FDA tolerance allows a low level of ractopamine in muscle (50 ppb), however the export level is far lower for many countries (as low as <0.1 ppb). Your products are considered ractopamine free for export if you stay below the 0.1 ppb limit.
The standard practice is to feed ractopamine to animals for a short time and stop a few days before slaughter to reduce the level in the meat and organs. Testing should be done to assure the levels in the meat and organs are below FDA or export MRLs (maximum residue level).
### Business Implications
Large-scale meat producers and food industry leaders continue to find ways to certify their products meet other nations’ ractopamine-free requirements. Even though the U.S. FDA approves the use of ractopamine, you need to avoid this feed additive if you want to export your products.
To maintain access to international markets, some U.S. processors even announced that they would only process pigs free of ractopamine.
The [Codex Alimentarius Commission](https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/en/) set the maximum residue limits (MRLs) for ractopamine at 10 parts per billion (ppb). Muscle cuts of beef and pork for trade in the international market should not exceed this limit. As a comparison, FDA set a 30 ppb limit on beef and 50 ppb limit on pork.
For this reason, you can never be sure that the carcass or meat your processing plant receives is free from ractopamine – until you test them.
### Health Implications
Ractopamine-fed pigs are [safe for human consumption](https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/pork-from-ractopamine-fed-pigs-is-safe-for-consumption) as long as they don’t exceed the MRL set by the U.S. FDA.
Safe concentrations of ractopamine showed no adverse health effects. However, high levels of consumption may cause cardiovascular risks to humans. China’s Sichuan Pork Trade Chamber of Commerce reports 1,700 people were poisoned by eating pork with a high concentration of ractopamine.
Ractopamine, however, can have significant health impacts on animals when fed with excess amounts. Around 80 percent of pigs in the U.S. meat industry consume substantial quantities of ractopamine, which may lead to various health issues.
Pigs fed with high levels of ractopamine can experience any of the following health risks:
- cardiovascular
- reproductive
- musculoskeletal
- endocrine problems
- behavioral changes
Incorporating ractopamine testing and analysis for your products helps ensure that they remain at safe levels. Even if your products are for local consumption only, it is important to ensure your product contains ractopamine levels below the U.S. FDA’s MRL.
## **What to Look for in a Ractopamine Testing and Analysis Lab**
An trusted ractopamine testing lab should be approved by the USDA-AMS Laboratory Approval Program for Export of Meat and Poultry Products. It should also have the capabilities to perform testing for low level presence in both animal liver and muscle tissues.
Prioritize laboratories with a team of experts that use LC-MS/MS systems to perform tests. Furthermore, they should have a strong method validation that supports the accuracy and precision of their results.
The laboratory should be able to precisely determine ractopamine levels to at least 0.1 ppb, which is the USDA export action level.
Here’s what you should expect if you choose the right company for your ractopamine testing and analysis:
- Lab-quality procedures and methodology approved by the USDA-AMS
- A laboratory accredited for ISO 17025:2005
- A trace level detection that goes beyond the required USDA export action level
- Validated for both liver and muscle tissues
- Rapid turnaround times to meet your needs
## **Ensure your Meat Products are Safe for Consumption**
Proper ractopamine testing, together with other [food testing](https://fsns.com/industries/) procedures, can help ensure your meat products are safe for human consumption. Your business will be able to comply with the international regulations, allowing you to expand to larger markets. FSNS is here to help you with all your testing needs. Most major businesses in the food industry trust FSNS to perform ractopamine tests on their products.
#### If you have questions about testing or would like additional information, please complete the form below or call [ 888-525-9788. ](tel:888-525-9788)
---
### [Sitemap](https://fsns.com/sitemap/)
**Published:** November 14, 2016
**Author:** jbaker
---
### [Interactive Map](https://fsns.com/interactive-map/)
**Published:** December 18, 2024
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
## Burbank, CA
## San Antonio, TX
## Chicago, IL
## Kitchener, ON, Canada
## Amarillo, TX
## Allentown, PA
## Melville, NY
## Atlanta, GA
## Carrolton, TX
## Calgary, AB Canada
## Brooks, AB Canada
## Boise, ID
## Columbus, OH
## Edmonton, AB Canada
## Dodge City, KS
## Dallas, TX
## Greeley, CO
## Fresno, CA
## Logan, UT
## Green Bay, WI
## St. Louis, MO
## Los Angeles, CA
## Omaha, NE
## Minneapolis, MN
## Phoenix, AZ
## Plainwell, MI
## Turlock, CA
## Springdale, AR
## Tustin, CA
## Irapuato, MX
---
### [My Bookings](https://fsns.com/my-bookings/)
**Published:** June 30, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
CONTENTS
---
### [Tags](https://fsns.com/tags/)
**Published:** June 30, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
CONTENTS
---
### [Ready to Eat](https://fsns.com/industries/ready-to-eat/)
**Published:** June 8, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Ready to Eat (RTE) Product Testing Capabilities
Our North American network of 30+ ISO 17025 accredited labs works 24/7/365 to provide processors of RTE foods with accurate test results and industry leading turnaround time to support your food safety programs. With decades of experience in microbiology testing, chemical analysis, contract research, and food safety auditing, we have the expertise and full range of services to help you verify the safety of food products and production processes.
## Testing to Support Your Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP)
Designing and running your EMP is vital to food safety, but it can pose challenges. Where should your team take swabs? How often should you swab? Which assays should you run?
Our team of laboratory testing and regulatory consulting experts can provide guidance to assist in designing a robust and effective EMP that meets regulatory requirements and maximizes safety. Our laboratories provide accurate results with industry leading turnaround time using validated methods and a wide array of instrumentation to provide a better understanding of facility conditions.
## Pathogens
Microbes can enter your facility from anywhere, including raw materials, packaging material, dust, and even employees. They can persist in harborage sites for years, posing a threat to food safety. We use a variety of traditional and rapid-result assays to test for a variety of pathogens to help you verify safety. Molecular strain typing is also a proven, valuable tool in determining a potential harborage or transient isolate.
*Salmonella* spp.
Generic *E. coli*
*Listeria* spp.
*E. coli* O157:H7
*Listeria monocytogenes*
*Campylobacter*
## Spoilage Organisms
Testing for spoilage organisms assists in determining the effectiveness of sanitation while establishing a baseline of presence and quantity. These organisms can contribute to reduction in shelf-life and quality issues.
Yeast & Mold
Lactic Acid Bacteria
## Indicator Organisms
Testing for indicator organisms provides information about the general hygienic state of food production facilities. Their presence can help you verify process controls and the efficacy of sanitation procedures.
Aerobic Plate Count
Coliform
*Staphylococcus aureus*
*Staphylococcus* Enterotoxin
Enterobacteriaceae
## Food Safety Certification and Audit Services
[FSNS Certification & Audit](https://fsns.com/fsns-certification-audit-services/) uses experienced auditors to audit your facility against the top food safety certification platforms in the industry, including SQF, BRCGS Food Safety, and FSSC 22000. We also perform GMP audits for a variety of industries. We focus on delivering the best service possible, which is why our clients give our auditors a 99% satisfaction rate.
## Ditch the Spreadsheets and Binders for Good!
Our proprietary Environmental Monitoring and Mapping Application, emma®, automates your EMP and provides real-time data visualization, customizable swabbing plans, and remediation management for failed sites, simplifying your EMP and saving you time and money. It also stores all information securely in the cloud so you can lose the binders for good!
## Data to Empower Your Business Decisions
In addition to routine testing, we provide contract research services through [FSNS Lab+](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/). Our team of scientists designs and conducts stability studies, shelf-life studies, process validations, microbial strain typing, and other studies that provide the data you need to verify product compliance and confirm the efficacy of your production processes. We communicate with you throughout the process and provide results in terms your team can understand.
## Shelf-Stable Ready to Eat (RTE) FAQs
##### What are the critical tests for ensuring the safety of shelf-stable ready-to-eat products?
Testing includes Listeria spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, and allergens. Even shelf-stable products like crackers, chocolate, and peanut butter should be tested to verify contamination controls.
##### How does FSNS help you mitigate the risks associated with RTE food contamination?
We offer [environmental monitoring testing](https://info.fsns.com/emp-services), [microbial strain typing, and process validation studies](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) to verify the effectiveness of your kill steps and other process controls.
##### What rapid response services does FSNS offer if you have a contamination event?
We provide surge testing capacity and on-site investigations to identify contamination sources. FSNS can quickly scale up testing to help you respond to recalls or quality concerns.
##### How does FSNS help you improve overall quality and extend the shelf-life of RTE items?
FSNS [conducts both accelerated and real-time shelf-life studies](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) tailored to your product. We help validate your shelf-life claims and monitor for quality degradation over time.
---
### [Frozen & Refrigerated Foods](https://fsns.com/industries/frozen-foods/)
**Published:** May 31, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Food Safety Testing for Frozen & Refrigerated Foods
Freezing and refrigerating foods increases their shelf life, but precautions must be taken to ensure foods that are cooked from frozen or after being thawed are suitable to eat and meet sensory requirements. Numerous hazards can affect food safety, taste, smell, and texture, both prior to food processing and after thawing or cooking. Understanding risks and mitigation strategies can help protect your consumers and make your products more enjoyable.
FSNS offers a broad portfolio of assays conducted in state-of-the-art laboratories to help ensure that the quality of your frozen and refrigerated foods meets your highest standards. We provide accurate results with industry leading turnaround times to help you meet your food safety goals.
## Why Test Frozen & Refrigerated Foods?
Once frozen food is thawed, it suffers the same safety risks as refrigerated and fresh foods. In addition, taste and texture may become compromised.
Laboratory testing is an important component of product development and ongoing operations for the frozen and refrigerated foods industry. Whether it is testing raw ingredients, providing nutritional information, analyzing environmental monitoring program samples, or validating cooking instructions, FSNS uses an array of validated testing methods and expert scientific knowledge to ensure your product formulations meet compliance requirements while still remaining delicious.
## Frozen Food Safety Testing
Frozen foods must undergo the same rigorous food safety testing as fresh foods because their hazards are similar once they are thawed. Though freezing can inhibit the growth of many microbial pathogens and spoilage organisms, it does not provide full lethality. Thus, thawing can reactivate microbial growth, allowing microorganisms to grow to levels that have the potential to make consumers ill or to spoil products.
## Refrigerated Food Safety Testing
Cooling can prolong the shelf-life of foods, but it is not without risks. Understanding which food ingredients can be preserved in cool environments and for how long can help protect your consumers from dangerous pathogens.
## Shelf-Life Testing
The quality and sensory appeal of frozen and refrigerated foods can deteriorate over time. FSNS Lab+, the contract research division of Certified Group, designs and conducts shelf-life tests that can provide the data needed to help you establish “best by” dates for your products. This helps you ensure that consumers receive the highest quality products, while also helping prevent unnecessary waste, saving money.
## Challenge Studies and Other Validations
While refrigeration and freezing can slow the growth of microorganisms, certain pathogens like Listeria monocytogenes, can still grow during cold storage and reach levels that have the potential to make consumers ill. [FSNS Lab+](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) can perform challenge studies with Listeria monocytogenes and other microorganisms to help you establish “use by” dates for your products where they will no longer be able to inhibit growth of these critical pathogens.
In addition, FSNS Lab+ can perform cooking instruction validations and complete validation studies for thermal and non-thermal processes in order to support your food safety programs.
## Organoleptic Analysis of Taste, Texture, and Odor
While the safety of frozen and refrigerated foods is of utmost importance, the quality and sensory appeal of products are also critical. Consumers will only purchase products that are appealing to them. FSNS organoleptic testing assesses product taste, texture, and odor to ensure your frozen foods will retain the highest level of quality.
## Nutritional Assessments
FDA requires food packaging to reflect the nutritional information of the products inside. FSNS provides complete nutritional analysis for vitamins, minerals, fat, protein, carbohydrates, and more to ensure your labeling is complete and accurate.
## Frozen & Refrigerated FAQs
##### What specialized tests are required for frozen and refrigerated products?
Testing focuses on Listeria spp., Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella, as these pathogens can survive or grow under cold storage conditions. Environmental monitoring is also essential.
##### What services does FSNS provide to help you keep your temperature-sensitive products safe?
We offer sensitive pathogen testing, microbial strain typing to track contamination sources, and [EMP software to manage environmental monitoring data](https://fsns.com/emma/). We also [provide contract research, including challenge studies and process validation](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/), to provide data about your products’ preservative systems and the efficacy of your processes.
##### What are the challenges associated with testing frozen foods, and how are they overcome?
Thawing must be carefully controlled to recover sub-lethally injured bacteria. FSNS uses precise thawing protocols and [validated microbiological methods](https://fsns.com/services/microbiology-testing/) to ensure accurate pathogen detection.
##### How does FSNS help optimize shelf-life for frozen and refrigerated products?
Our [shelf-life testing services](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/) are tailored to your needs, whether for regulatory studies or internal validation. We offer both detailed reports and streamlined data sheets
### Contact FSNS to begin testing your frozen and refrigerated foods and to find out how we can help improve your product’s safety and quality.
---
### [Categories](https://fsns.com/categories/)
**Published:** June 30, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
CONTENTS
---
### [FSNS Privacy Policy](https://fsns.com/privacy-policy/)
**Published:** November 14, 2016
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
## Information Collection, Use, and Sharing
We are the sole owners of the information collected on this site. We only have access to/collect information that you voluntarily give us via email or direct contact from you. We will use the information you provide to us to respond to you regarding the reason you contacted us. We will not sell or rent this information to anyone. Unless you ask us not to, we may contact you via email in the future to tell you about events or services we provide, or changes to this privacy policy.
Personal information from those who communicate with us online via any of our technology platforms, including this website, interactive sites, or social media networks (“Platforms”), may be collected for the purposes of responding to specific questions; advising visitors of new online activities and events. Personal data such as your e-mail address, telephone number, company, address, and services may be collected in order to respond to your specific request for information and for the purposes outlined above. Like many online services, we use cookies to collect information.
## Your Access to and Control Over Information
You may opt-out of any future contacts from us at any time. You can do so by contacting us via the email address given on our website or at the bottom of emails.
## Security
We are committed to ensuring that your information is secure. In order to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure, we have put in place suitable physical, electronic, and managerial procedures to safeguard and secure the information we collect online.
## Cookies
A cookie is a small file which asks permission to be placed on your computer’s hard drive. Once you agree, the file is added and the cookie helps analyze web traffic or lets you know when you visit a particular site. Cookies allow web applications to respond to you as an individual. The web application can tailor its operations to your needs, likes, and dislikes by gathering and remembering information about your preferences.
We use traffic log cookies to identify which pages are being used. This helps us analyze data about web page traffic and improve our website in order to tailor it to customer needs. We only use this information for statistical analysis purposes and then the data is removed from the system.
Overall, cookies help us provide you with a better website, by enabling us to monitor which pages you find useful and which you do not. A cookie in no way gives us access to your computer or any information about you, other than the data you choose to share with us. You can choose to accept or decline cookies. Most web browsers automatically accept cookies, but you can usually modify your browser setting to decline cookies if you prefer. This may prevent you from taking full advantage of the website.
## Analytics information
We may directly collect analytics data, or use third-party analytics tools and services, to help us measure traffic and usage trends for our website. These tools collect information sent by your browser or mobile device, including the pages you visit and other information that assists us in improving our website. We collect and use this analytics information in aggregate form such that it cannot reasonably be manipulated to identify any particular individual user.
## Links
Our website may contain links to other websites of interest. However, once you have used these links to leave our site, you should note that we do not have any control over that other website. Therefore, we cannot be responsible for the protection and privacy of any information which you provide whilst visiting such sites and such sites are not governed by this privacy statement. You should exercise caution and look at the privacy statement applicable to the website in question.
---
### [COVID-19 Environmental Swab Testing](https://fsns.com/services/technical-services/covid-19-environmental-swab-testing/)
**Published:** May 24, 2021
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
FSNS offers environmental swab testing for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2). The test method allows for the detection of the presence of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) viral particles on environmental surfaces within production facilities. This new capability will help companies better understand the effectiveness of their sanitation practices against the virus.
The viral transport swab kits are easy-to-use and come with step-by-step instructions for seamless submission to our laboratory. The turnaround time is 48 hours once the samples have been received.
#### For more information regarding FSNS Special Projects
- [888-525-9788
](tel:888-525-9788)
- [Email Us
](mailto:info@fsns.com)#### If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact customerservice@fsns.com or call 888-525-9788.
[ 888-525-9788 ](tel:888-525-9788) [ customerservice@fsns.com ](mailto:customerservice@fsns.com)
---
### [Press Releases](https://fsns.com/press-releases/)
**Published:** June 17, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Content:**
# Press Releases
## [Secretary of Agriculture Names Certified Group Board Member John Bellinger as Senior Advisor for New World Screwworm Preparedness ](https://fsns.com/secretary-of-agriculture-names-certified-group-board-member-john-bellinger-as-senior-advisor-for-new-world-screwworm-preparedness/)
Jun 22, 2026
Appointment brings proven food safety, beef industry, and animal agriculture leadership to a national effort to protect U.S. livestock and the...
[read more](https://fsns.com/secretary-of-agriculture-names-certified-group-board-member-john-bellinger-as-senior-advisor-for-new-world-screwworm-preparedness/)
---
## Products
### [FSPCA PCQI Preventive Controls for Human Food V2.0](https://fsns.com/product/fspca-preventive-controls-for-human-food/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** This FSPCA PCQI training course meets the FDA-recognized curriculum requirement and provides the knowledge needed to earn your FSPCA certification. It is ideal for food safety professionals in FDA-regulated facilities who need to understand how to develop, implement, and maintain a compliant food safety plan using risk-based preventive controls. Live, online, and taught by industry experts.
**Content:**
# FSPCA PCQI Preventive Controls for Human Food V2.0
**Product categories:** FSPCA Preventive Controls, Training
---
### [FSPCA Preventive Controls for Animal Food Course](https://fsns.com/product/fspca-preventive-controls-for-animal-food/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** This FSPCA preventive controls for animal food course provides FDA-recognized PCQI animal food training under FSMA and 21 CFR Part 507. In live online sessions, you’ll learn CGMPs, hazard analysis, preventive controls, and how to build and maintain a compliant Animal Food Safety Plan for feed, pet food, and by-products.
**Content:**
# FSPCA Preventive Controls for Animal Food Course
**Product categories:** FSPCA Preventive Controls, Training
---
### [Implementing SQF Systems Ed 10*](https://fsns.com/product/implementing-sqf-systems-ed-10-training-course/)
**Published:** June 25, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** Provided by an SQF licensed trainer, this course prepares participants to meet the SQF Practitioner requirements as defined in the SQF Code, Edition 10. The SQF Vision is to be the single most trusted source for global food safety and quality certification. Participants will receive detailed information for the successful implementation and maintenance of an SQF System.
This course applies to all sectors of the food industry including primary production through distribution. We encourage plant management, quality personnel, or anyone that is seeking to be or is a SQF practitioner to take this course.
**Content:**
# Implementing SQF Systems Ed 10\*
**Product categories:** Internal Auditing, Training
---
### [Sanitation Short Course](https://fsns.com/product/sanitation-short-course/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** Targets front-line sanitors, janitors and FSQA techs performing pre-op inspection. Focus is on cleaning and sanitizing chemicals, safety, sanitation methods and pre-op technique.
**Content:**
# Sanitation Short Course
**Product categories:** Sanitation, Training
---
### [Sanitation: Management of Cleaning & Disinfecting in Food Environments](https://fsns.com/product/sanitation-management-of-cleaning-disinfecting-in-food-environments-covid-19/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** This course outlines the requirements for FDA and USDA regulations regarding cleaning and sanitizing. It addresses the science of cleaning and sanitation, how to prevent biofilm formation, and how to maintain sanitary conditions before and during operations, and things that should be emphasized in the management of sanitation procedures.
**Content:**
# Sanitation: Management of Cleaning & Disinfecting in Food Environments
**Product categories:** Sanitation, Training
---
### [Microbiology and Food Safety 202 Course](https://fsns.com/product/microbiology-and-food-safety-202-course/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** Designed for experienced personnel to review microbiology fundamentals. Focusing on key pathogens that affect human health.
Overview of advanced technologies of whole genome sequencing will be covered along with an overview of GeneTracker.
**Content:**
# Microbiology and Food Safety 202 Course
**Product categories:** Microbiology Food & Safety, Training
---
### [Microbiology and Food Safety 101 Course](https://fsns.com/product/microbiology-and-food-safety-101-course/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** This course will provide the fundamentals of food microbiology and an understanding of how microorganisms behave, how to
control them, and raise awareness of the importance of process control, hygiene, and sanitation in the food processing environment.
**Content:**
# Microbiology and Food Safety 101 Course
**Product categories:** Microbiology Food & Safety, Training
---
### [Internal Auditor Training | SQF or BRCGS Food Safety](https://fsns.com/product/internal-auditing/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** Internal Auditing is a one-day food safety internal auditor training course that builds the skills needed to plan, conduct, and document effective internal audits for GFSI-benchmarked programs. Each session is taught as either SQF internal auditor training or BRCGS Food Safety internal auditor training, depending on the scheduled date. Learn how to gather objective evidence, report nonconformities clearly, and verify corrective actions so site programs remain audit-ready and continuously improving.
**Content:**
# Internal Auditor Training | SQF or BRCGS Food Safety
**Product categories:** Internal Auditing, Training
---
### [Advanced HACCP / Preventive Controls](https://fsns.com/product/advanced-haccp-preventive-controls/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** Designed to help HACCP-knowledgeable food production management individuals improve their food safety systems. This course covers in-depth information regarding hazard analysis, risk assessment decision making, and robust verification and validation to support USDA and FDA food safety systems.
A HACCP or PCQI course is a prerequisite for this course.
**Content:**
# Advanced HACCP / Preventive Controls
**Product categories:** Training
---
### [Basic HACCP Training Course](https://fsns.com/product/haccp-training-course/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** The Basic HACCP course is designed to educate individuals in HACCP systems development, implementation, and management. The course is ideal for Plant HACCP Team Members, Plant Management Teams, Corporate Executives, and anyone whose job function will impact the facility HACCP Plan.
**Content:**
# Basic HACCP Training Course
**Product categories:** Training
---
### [BRCGS Training | Food Safety Issue 9 Sites (Online)](https://fsns.com/product/brcgs-food-issue-9-sites-training-and-internal-auditing/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** This two-day BRCGS training course is part of the BRCGS Professional Recognition Programme and designed to enable participants to gain a full understanding of the general principles of the current BRC Standard and how to comply with the requirements. Attendees will also gain an understanding of what to expect during the process of certification and actions needed prior to, during and after the audit.
**Content:**
# BRCGS Training | Food Safety Issue 9 Sites (Online)
**Product categories:** Internal Auditing, Training
---
### [Sanitary Design Course](https://fsns.com/product/sanitation-design-course/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** This interactive class will present the 10 Principles for Equipment Sanitary Design and the 11 Principles of Facility Sanitary Design. By the end of the class, participants will have a clear understanding of potential microbiological and allergen hazards, regulatory requirements for sanitary operations and the benefits of sanitary design.
**Content:**
# Sanitary Design Course
**Product categories:** Sanitation, Training
---
### [Printed Course Materials](https://fsns.com/product/printed-course-materials/)
**Published:** January 14, 2026
**Author:** Sarah Waters
**Content:**
# Printed Course Materials
**Product categories:** Training
---
### [HACCP Training Course in SPANISH](https://fsns.com/product/spanish-haccp-training-course/)
**Published:** February 5, 2025
**Author:** Certified Group
**Excerpt:** The HACCP course is designed to educate individuals in HACCP systems development, implementation, and management. The course is ideal for Plant HACCP Team Members, Plant Management Teams, Corporate Executives, and anyone whose job function will impact the facility HACCP Plan.
**Content:**
# HACCP Training Course in SPANISH
**Product categories:** Training
---
### [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/product/fssc-22000/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** FSSC 22000 is a Food Safety Management System (FSMS) Certification program that is recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI). In this course, participants will learn how to meet the requirement of the FSSC 22000 scheme.
A HACCP or PCQI course is a prerequisite for this course
**Content:**
# FSSC 22000
**Product categories:** Internal Auditing, Training
---
### [Preventive Maintenance](https://fsns.com/product/preventive-maintenance/)
**Published:** June 24, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** This course covers the requirements of the BRC and SQF, USDA and FDA regulators, and provides essential understanding of the management of microbiological, chemical, and physical hazard risks that can present on a process floor and in the maintenance shop. It will cover a range of topics including: procedure writing, management of lubricants, tool programs (including reconciliation),
break downs, start-up and hand-offs, planned and emergency repairs, and essential components for internal auditing.
**Content:**
# Preventive Maintenance
**Product categories:** Training
---
### [Best Practices Series](https://fsns.com/product/best-practices-series/)
**Published:** September 20, 2023
**Author:** jbaker
**Excerpt:** Join us virtually (through Zoom) for our webinar series to learn about the following "Best Practices" topics: Allergen Management, GMPS, Pest Management, Recalls, Foreign Material Prevention, Root Cause Analysis & Regulatory Responses. Classes are every Wednesday starting November 1st. We will skip November 22nd for Thanksgiving.
Classes will be 11:00am-1:00pm Central Time
Register 4 weeks prior to the first day of the training course and receive a 5% discount.
Register two or more employees from the same company receive a 10% discount
Class registration fee is per person.
**Content:**
# Best Practices Series
**Product categories:** Training
---
## Categories
### [General](https://fsns.com/category/general/)
---
### [News](https://fsns.com/category/news/)
---
### [Newsletter](https://fsns.com/category/newsletter/)
---
### [Press Release](https://fsns.com/category/press_release/)
---
## Tags
### [challenge studies](https://fsns.com/tag/challenge-studies/)
---
### [food and beverage](https://fsns.com/tag/food-and-beverage/)
---
### [FSSC 22000](https://fsns.com/tag/fssc-22000/)
---
### [Certification and audit](https://fsns.com/tag/certification-and-audit/)
**Description:** Latest articles and content related to food safety certification, food safety, audits, animal welfare audits, and similar content.
---
### [Food safety](https://fsns.com/tag/food-safety/)
---
### [Regulatory Consulting](https://fsns.com/tag/regulatory-consulting/)
---
### [supplements](https://fsns.com/tag/supplements/)
---
### [cosmetics](https://fsns.com/tag/cosmetics/)
---
### [OTC](https://fsns.com/tag/otc/)
---
### [food fraud](https://fsns.com/tag/food-fraud/)
---
### [BRC](https://fsns.com/tag/brc/)
---
### [BRCGS](https://fsns.com/tag/brcgs/)
---
### [HACCP](https://fsns.com/tag/haccp/)
---
### [SQF](https://fsns.com/tag/sqf/)
---
### [GFSI](https://fsns.com/tag/gfsi/)
---
### [GMP](https://fsns.com/tag/gmp/)
---
### [heavy metals](https://fsns.com/tag/heavy-metals/)
---
## Product categories
### [Training](https://fsns.com/product-category/training/)
**Description:** Food industry training courses available from Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), a Certified Group company, to strengthen your food safety program.
---
### [Sanitation](https://fsns.com/product-category/sanitation/)
---
### [Microbiology Food & Safety](https://fsns.com/product-category/microbiology-food-safety/)
---
### [FSPCA Preventive Controls](https://fsns.com/product-category/fspca-preventive-controls/)
---