From the Advisory Board

Neil Marshall

Coca-Cola’s Neil Marshall Joins QA Advisory Board
QA Magazine would like to welcome Coca-Cola’s Global Director, Quality & Food Safety Strategy, Policy and Programs Neil Marshall as the newest member of its executive Advisory Board.

At The Coca-Cola Company, Marshall is responsible for defining global strategy, policy, programs, requirements, and initiatives for quality and food safety to ensure product integrity, while reducing risks across the supply chain. Since joining Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd in the UK in June 1999, Marshall has held several quality and supply chain technical lead roles within the UK and Europe before moving to a global position in Atlanta, Ga., in 2009. In 2007-2008, Marshall led a global food safety project team to mitigate supply chain risks prior to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and he was the technical crisis management lead for the 2010 South Africa World Cup and for the 2012 London Olympics. Marshall also led the development of a collaborative food and packaging industry steering group responsible for the development of PAS 223: Prerequisite Programs and Design Requirements for Food Safety for Food Packaging, which was published in July 2011. He is a long-standing member of the GFSI Technical Working Groups and is now a GFSI Board member and the vice president and Board member of SSAFE. Marshall has a Master of Science degree from Sheffield Hallam University in the UK.
 

In 2008, Quality Assurance & Food Safety (QA) magazine created its Editorial Advisory Board with executives from across the food industry to provide periodic input and perspective into the editorial content, direction, and market involvement of the magazine. Since then, we have continued to expand our board, with many of the executives having joined the board after being profiled as a food quality and safety industry leader in a QA Cover Profile. (See Advisory Board list on page 4.)

In each issue of QA, we include a column featuring the insights of a member of the Advisory Board. In this special issue, we bring you insights on the past 10 years from three of QA’s Advisory Board members, as well as from David Acheson in Legislative Update (page 6) Bruce Ferree and Brian Honigbaum in From the Plant Floor (page 58).

Bradd Eldridge

Defining Food Safety Standards Around the World
by Abbott Nutrition Director of Quality Bradd Eldridge

Over the past 10 years, our world population has grown by more than 12 percent, and it is expected to approach 10 billion people by the year 2050. As the world population grows, so does the need to bring food that is high in quality and nutrition to new areas of the world. And in this past decade, we have seen more companies recognize the importance of building a presence in emerging markets to bring nutritious products to people around the world.

However, food and nutrition companies still face a multitude of challenges while expanding their business worldwide. Each country or region may have differing food import regulations or food safety testing methods that require new technologies. Managing these different regulations can add additional costs for the business, or even the consumer.

Abbott has successfully entered several new markets, including expanding its presence in key emerging markets like India and China, by incorporating a collaborative mindset when developing the business strategy, and by investing in the markets, including working with employees and suppliers to improve food safety standards and access to technology.

To continue growth in emerging markets in the next 10 years, there are two calls to action that can help food and nutrition companies grow while ensuring safe, quality food:

Normalizing global regulations. Food safety should be defined the same way everywhere around the world, but often, it is not. How a safe practice is defined in one part of the world may not be consistent with the definition in other regions. But establishing consistent and common global regulations and food safety standards can help break down many of the barriers to expanding the global food supply chain.

Food safety starts with the manufacturer and should be considered another form of brand management. Food manufacturers that wish to expand their businesses should have brands known for their commitment to high quality and safe products. To achieve this requires food safety standards that are clear, simply stated, and internationally accepted. Unified standards offer predictability and consistency for manufacturers, which allows for greater efficiency and continued food safety effectiveness.

In the past 10 years, we’ve seen a greater focus of industry collaboration to set global safety standards. One example in which Abbott has played a role is the Stakeholder Panel on Infant Formula and Adult Nutritionals (SPIFAN) initiative to help develop unified standards for infant and adult nutritional products.

Formed in 2010, SPIFAN is a project governed by AOAC and supported by the Infant Formula Industry to establish International Reference Standards for key nutrients found in infant and adult nutritionals. Forming these globally accepted standards can help facilitate international trade of these nutritional products for the benefit of all stakeholders, including consumers.

When manufacturers collaborate with other food manufacturers—such as the SPIFAN initiative—to develop standardized processes and practices, it can have a number of positive effects. It can:

• Reduce regulatory food trade disputes with internationally accepted analytical methods.
• Enhance harmonization and avoid duplication of work.
• Promote an understanding among manufacturers, authorities, and contract laboratories on analytical methods to use.
• Harmonize compliance testing of products by all stakeholders.

Organizational Standardization. Unified activity also is important within the organization, especially when the company has multiple locations. Abbott Nutrition implemented a standardized training program that is the same for every employee around the world. We look at training the same way we look at food standards: if it is a safety protocol for one site, it should be accepted at all sites. This allows for an efficient training roll-out and consistency of activity at all manufacturing locations.

The theme of harmonization and education extends to our suppliers. Although suppliers may not be part of one’s organizational structure, they should be treated as such. Suppliers should have full knowledge and understanding of how their products or materials will be used in the finished goods, and clear expectations for success. Companies should take the time to work with their suppliers if concerns arise. Providing solutions to potential pitfalls, instead of only identifying them, can enhance the relationship and create a stronger bond.

As the supplier relationships continue to grow, they become more integrated into the core manufacturing process. Ultimately, the relationship is best when a manufacturer and supplier form a strategic partnership. This kind of partnership cultivates stronger commitments and encourages a shared interest in the success of the finished good.

The Future. Change is the one thing that has remained constant over the past 10 years. To remain relevant and competitive in the future, organizations must be adaptable and willing to modify as necessary. Above all, it is important to play a role in developing harmonized food safety standards worldwide. A positive, real example that standardization can happen is the SPIFAN initiative. This model demonstrates that industry, academia, and governments from all over the world can work together toward a successful outcome.

Ensuring a manufacturer’s safety methods are shared with its suppliers also can help create a sustainable business model that benefits all stakeholders. Through these efforts, we can ensure consistent food safety standards around the world and help bring high-quality, nutritious foods to our growing population.
 

Roger Lawrence

Global Supply – A Look Back
By McCormick & Co. Corporate Vice President, Quality Assurance and Regulatory Roger Lawrence

On the 10th Anniversary of QA, I have been asked by our editor, Lisa Lupo, to provide comments from my personal viewpoint as an advisor on the topic of global supply. For context, we must look at this subject against a background of rapid expansion and growth of food ingredients and products moving across national borders. The most noticeable result has been increased variety, abundance, and availability in our food supply, and generally a lower cost for food as a percent of our disposable income. It is difficult to deny that this is in the best interest of the consuming public. I believe we are fortunate to have a modern food supply that is underpinned by industry-led technological advancements that have resulted in superior quality and yield. It is also apparent we will need continued advancements to feed the world in coming years.

With respect to controversy over quality and food safety discussion in recent years with imports and the global supply, it is essential that we put things in perspective and not overreact or under react to individual incidents. There has been a geometric increase in the volume of imported food ingredients and finished products into the U.S. Although I haven’t worked up any specific numbers, I would suspect that while the absolute numbers of quality/food safety issues have increased in recent years, there is not necessarily an increase as a percent of total imports. Don’t get me wrong, we must take each individual incident very seriously in order to find the root cause and develop and apply solutions. But constructive continuous improvement is possible without overreacting.

I believe our food supply is safer than ever. Exaggeration serves no useful purpose, rather it is prone to lead to increased regulation and oversight that is not well targeted and adds more cost to the food supply than value.

My main concern with the current environment is that we risk over regulation around the world, and reaching for an unrealistic and unnecessary standard. It seems that there is a notion that it is possible to prove a negative, i.e. achieve “zero risk of harm” versus a more sensible and realistic standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.”

When it comes to food safety, we should be seeking continuous improvement of the global supply for all people, including consumers in the less developed parts of the world. If we are going to bring the standard of water and food up to a minimum safe level for all, we cannot afford overkill with developed world regulations. Regulations must result in an obvious addition of value with minimal unintended consequences in order for them to make sense.

We live in world bounded by finite resources. As the population increases, there is a growing threat of demand further outstripping supply, and it stands to reason that we must use our resources wisely and in a results-oriented, targeted manner to assure a sufficiently abundant food supply for all.

Deni Naumann

A Decade of Pest Evolution and Pest Management Challenges
By Copesan President Deni Naumann

In today’s world, it feels that our lives are moving at an extremely fast pace with the need for instant data, on-time information, and immediate access to email, text, social media, and mobile connections. However, our fast pace seems like a glacial pace when compared to insect pests that are evolving at warp speed. In the last 10 years, there has been an estimated 600 generations of flies alone! With over 1,000 offspring (maggots) from each female, the opportunity for natural selection is enormous.

Cockroaches and ants are also rapidly evolving, becoming “resistant” to the latest outstanding pest control product or strategy. In the last 10 years, we’ve seen a few new products to control filthy flies, dirty cockroaches, and persistent ants, but we’ve also seen a significant decrease in effectiveness of favored products since 2003.

There’s an evolution going on! There have been as many evolutionary changes in pests in the last 10 years as there have been in humans since the last glacial ice age more than 12,000 years ago.

As challenging as the reproductive rate of pests, the resurgence of old pests (e.g., bed bugs), and the introduction of difficult new pests (e.g., tawny crazy ants) from overseas has become, we also contend with challenging pesticide regulations. Recent re-registration and labeling requirements established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have significantly changed the materials available to pest management professionals to address important pest issues.

Today, impacted by an increase in global raw material supply, stored product pest issues have worsened, with the exception of Indian meal moths which can be controlled with mating disruption.

However, critical fumigation tools, such as methyl bromide, have been phased out in the past 10 years. Not having a good fumigant to eliminate pests in a food facility is a challenge because alternative methods, such as fogging and ULV treatments, do not have the same degree of control for serious pest infestations. They help with the symptoms, but don’t necessarily correct the problem over the long term.

Rodenticide-usage restrictions have increased the challenge of keeping rodents out of food facilities. Controlling rodent numbers indoors has become more challenging with the elimination of perimeter rodent bait stations or their replacement with snap traps or non-toxic bait.

Technology provides tools to collect and assess data to determine effective treatment. One of the most important and exciting changes in the last decade has been the influx of technology utilized by pest management professionals.

Ten years ago, service was recorded on paper service tickets. Today, handheld technology is used to electronically document inspections, conditions, pests, treatment applications, etc. The huge increase in paperless documentation, including immediate electronic notification of pest concerns sent to smart phones as well as laptops, provides data that can be very useful in implementing scientific approaches to pest management. For example, reviewing the trending data as to where pest activity is located provides insight on how to treat the area currently and over the long term. Gathering data, metrics, trending, auditing, verification, and training is critical because, as noted, the pests are keeping up with the changes.

Service technicians are required by their companies, as well as by state and local regulations, to complete an increased number of continuing education courses and technical training. The benefit of this knowledge is that a more qualified pest management professional services your facility, who is abreast of the ongoing changes in pest pressures and behaviors as well as new regulatory compliance information.

Effective pest management is critical to food safety and security. What is the importance of all of these pest management changes and challenges? The increase in numbers of pests inside a food facility is directly correlated to the increase in food safety risks. A majority of the most dangerous human pathogens today are animal-borne.

Pests carry these bacteria on the outsides of their bodies, contaminating any foods or food surfaces that they touch. They also may carry human pathogens inside their bodies and contaminate foods or food surfaces with their excretions and secretions (e.g., urine, droppings, pheromones, digestive fluids, etc.).

Effective pest management is critical to food safety and security—especially now with the continuing implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)—to ensure that we are minimizing risk and protecting property, the environment, and, most importantly, people.

In pest management, as in life, change is one of the only certainties. Being prepared and continuing to evolve to meet these future challenges is key.