California Ag Network

Category: Food Safety

  • Meat Institute Partners with IT-ISAC to Improve Cybersecurity with New Food & Ag ISAC

    The North American Meat Institute (Meat Institute) today announced a new partnership with the Information Technology-Information Sharing and Analysis Center (IT-ISAC) on the launch of a Food and Agriculture ISAC to enhance cybersecurity for the meat and poultry industry.

    “We are grateful for the leadership of several of our members who helped found the Food and Agriculture ISAC to better prepare the industry to fight against the increasing threat of cyber attacks on our nation’s critical food infrastructure,” said Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts. “As a partner, the Meat Institute will support the Food and Ag ISAC and will promote its value among our membership. It is important to collaborate across all of agriculture because we all make significant contributions to each of production in the food value chain.”

    An ISAC is a non-profit established by critical infrastructure owners and operators to foster information sharing and best practices about physical and cyber threats and mitigation. These member-lead organizations collaborate with each other, partners such as the Meat Institute, other sector ISACs, the Department of Homeland Security, academics and other stakeholders.

    The Food and Ag-ISAC provides threat intelligence, analysis, and effective security practices that help food and agriculture companies detect attacks, respond to incidents, and share indicators so they can better protect themselves and manage risks to their companies and the sector.

    Food and Agriculture industry companies may apply to join the Food and Ag-ISAC and those who are already members of the IT-ISAC can join the newly launched center for no additional cost. Founding Board members of the Food and Ag-ISAC are Bunge Limited, Inc., Cargill, Conagra Brands, Corteva Agriscience, Inc. PepsiCo, and Tyson Foods.

    For more background on ISAC’s, go here.

    In 2021, the Meat Institute’s Executive Board voted for cybersecurity to be a noncompetitive subject and established a Cybersecurity Committee.

    About North American Meat Institute
    The Meat Institute is the United States’ oldest and largest trade association representing packers and processors of beef, pork, lamb, veal, turkey, and processed meat products. NAMI members include over 350 meat packing and processing companies, the majority of which have fewer than 100 employees, and account for over 95 percent of the United States’ output of meat and 70 percent of turkey production.

  • Lab-Grown Meat’s Carbon Footprint Potentially Worse Than Retail Beef

    Lab-grown meat, which is cultured from animal cells, is often thought to be more environmentally friendly than beef because it’s predicted to need less land, water and greenhouse gases than raising cattle. But in a preprint, not yet peer-reviewed, researchers at the University of California, Davis, have found that lab-grown or “cultivated” meat’s environmental impact is likely to be “orders of magnitude” higher than retail beef based on current and near-term production methods.

    Researchers conducted a life-cycle assessment of the energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted in all stages of production and compared that with beef. One of the current challenges with lab-grown meat is the use of highly refined or purified growth media, the ingredients needed to help animal cells multiply. Currently, this method is similar to the biotechnology used to make pharmaceuticals. This sets up a critical question for cultured meat production: Is it a pharmaceutical product or a food product?

    “If companies are having to purify growth media to pharmaceutical levels, it uses more resources, which then increases global warming potential,” said lead author and doctoral graduate Derrick Risner, UC Davis Department of Food Science and Technology. “If this product continues to be produced using the “pharma” approach, it’s going to be worse for the environment and more expensive than conventional beef production.”

    The scientists defined the global warming potential as the carbon dioxide equivalents emitted for each kilogram of meat produced. The study found that the global warming potential of lab-based meat using these purified media is four to 25 times greater than the average for retail beef.

    A more climate friendly burger in the future?

    One of the goals of the industry is to eventually create lab-grown meat using primarily food-grade ingredients or cultures without the use of expensive and energy-intensive pharmaceutical grade ingredients and processes.

    Under that scenario, researchers found cultured meat is much more environmentally competitive, but with a wide range. Cultured meat’s global warming potential could be between 80% lower to 26% above that of conventional beef production, they calculate. While these results are more promising, the leap from “pharma to food” still represents a significant technical challenge for system scale-up.

    “Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It’s not a panacea,” said corresponding author Edward Spang, an associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology. “It’s possible we could reduce its environmental impact in the future, but it will require significant technical advancement to simultaneously increase the performance and decrease the cost of the cell culture media.”

    Even the most efficient beef production systems reviewed in the study outperform cultured meat across all scenarios (both food and pharma), suggesting that investments to advance more climate-friendly beef production may yield greater reductions in emissions more quickly than investments in cultured meat.

    Developing the technology that would allow the leap from “pharma to food” is among the goals of the UC Davis Cultivated Meat Consortium, a cross-disciplinary group of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and educators researching cultivated meat. Other goals are to establish and evaluate cell lines that could be used to grow meat and find ways to create more structure in cultured meat.

    Risner said even if lab-based meat doesn’t result in a more climate-friendly burger, there is still valuable science to be learned from the endeavor.

    “It may not lead to environmentally friendly commodity meat, but it could lead to less expensive pharmaceuticals, for example,” said Risner. “My concern would just be scaling this up too quickly and doing something harmful for the environment.”

    Other authors include Yoonbin Kim and Justin Siegel of UC Davis and Cuong Nguyen of the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

    The research was funded by the UC Davis Innovation Institute for Food and Health and the National Science Foundation Growing Convergence Research grant. — By Amy Quinton, UC Davis

  • North American Meat Institute: PRIME Act is a Food Safety Risk

    The North American Meat Institute (Meat Institute) again announced its opposition to the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act, or the PRIME Act, for the risk it poses to food safety.

    “American consumers rely on rigorous USDA inspection to ensure the safety and quality of their meat and poultry,” said Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts. “Allowing meat to enter commerce without inspection – and without alerting consumers they are buying uninspected meat — jeopardizes food safety and will undermine consumer confidence in all meat products.”

    The PRIME Act was reintroduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Thomas Massie (R- Ky.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). U.S. Senators Angus King (I-Maine) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced the same bill in the Senate.

    The PRIME Act would amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to allow custom slaughter facilities to sell uninspected meat directly to consumers, to restaurants and food service, and at retail.

    Under The Federal Meat Inspection Act, custom slaughter facilities harvest livestock for the personal use of the owner of the animal. The food produced may not enter commerce. There is no continuous inspection and no veterinarian required to assess the health of the livestock.

    Federally inspected facilities, and state inspected facilities with cooperative agreements with USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), have inspectors continuously conducting oversight of operations to ensure the safety and quality of meat and poultry and the health and wellness of the livestock. Should a problem occur, products bearing the mark of USDA inspection can be traced to protect consumers.

    “It is important for the American economy and the entire meat value chain that the safety of our meat and poultry is never taken for granted. The meat and poultry industry, and the taxpayer, has invested billions of dollars in food safety protections, research and infrastructure to ensure we have the safest meat in the world,” said Potts. “While this bill may be well intentioned, it poses especially unnecessary risks given the many resources available to help new and small facilities gain inspection from FSIS.”

    Those resources include more than $1 billion in federal technical assistance and financial assistance in the following USDA administered programs:

    Meat and Poultry Inspection Readiness Grants:
    Meat and Poultry Processing Capacity – Technical Assistance Program
    Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program

    Background:

    There are more than 6,500 federally inspected facilities throughout the United States.

    There were 946 plants slaughtering under federal inspection on January 1, 2023

    States with and Without Inspection Programs

    About North American Meat Institute
    The Meat Institute is the United States’ oldest and largest trade association representing packers and processors of beef, pork, lamb, veal, turkey, and processed meat products. NAMI members include over 350 meat packing and processing companies, the majority of which have fewer than 100 employees, and account for over 95 percent of the United States’ output of meat and 70 percent of turkey production.

  • FDA Issues Guidance for Qualified Exempt Farms that Utilized Temporary Flexibilities During COVID-19

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will be transitioning away from its policy regarding flexibilities available to qualified exempt farms under the Produce Safety Rule during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE).

    Under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Produce Safety Rule, farms are eligible for a qualified exemption and associated modified requirements if they meet the below criteria:

    1. The average annual value of the farm’s direct sales of food to qualified end-users exceeded the average annual value of the farm’s food sales to all others during the previous three years. A qualified end-user is either (a) the consumer of the food (where the term consumer does not include a business) or (b) a restaurant or retail food establishment that is located in the same State or the same Indian reservation as the farm or not more than 275 miles away; and
    2. The farm’s food sales averaged less than $500,000 (adjusted for inflation) per year during the previous three years.

      During the COVID-19 PHE, state and local governments across the United States instituted public health orders, and some businesses took other mitigating efforts, that resulted in many restaurants, retail food establishments and schools significantly limiting their operations, leaving many farmers without their usual qualified end-user customers. In May 2020, the FDA issued temporary guidance regarding available flexibilities under which affected farmers could shift their sales away from qualified end-users while still being considered eligible for the qualified exemption, as long as they continued to meet the requirement that their average annual food sales during the previous three years totaled less than $500,000 (adjusted for inflation).Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it is planning for the COVID-19 PHE declaration to expire at the end of the day on May 11, 2023. Soon after HHS’ announcement, FDA announced that the temporary Qualified Exemption guidance (among others) would remain in effect until November 7, 2023. Today the FDA issued guidance to help explain how farms may transition from the temporary policy back to the qualified exempt criteria in the Produce Safety Rule.

      In the guidance, the FDA notes that the preamble to the Produce Safety Rule acknowledges that, under some circumstances, farms may have less than three years of records to support their eligibility for the qualified exemption, during which time the FDA would consider it reasonable for the farm to base their calculations on the records they have (such as records for the preceding one or two calendar years). For farms that have no records regarding direct sales to qualified end-users for any of the preceding three calendar years, but that meet the other criterion for the qualified exemption (average annual food sales for the previous three years less than $500,000), the FDA will restart the clock beginning January 1, 2024.

      This means that in 2024, farms should begin collecting data regarding their direct sales to qualified end-users as described in the first criterion above. In 2025, farms will be able to use their records from 2024, without averaging in other years, to demonstrate that they meet the criteria for the exemption. In 2026 and 2027, farms should be able to average their sales from the previous 2-3 years to demonstrate eligibility for the qualified exemption. Farms that fail to demonstrate eligibility will no longer have qualified exempt status and will need to come into compliance with the full requirements of the Produce Safety Rule unless another exemption applies.

      Farms that have questions about this transition process can contact their local Produce Safety Network representative or the FDA through the FSMA Technical Assistance Network.

  • New USDA Investments in School Meals to Support Healthy Kids

    U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced several actions to expand support for and access to the school meal programs, including awarding $50 million in grants that will increase collaboration between schools, food producers and suppliers, and other partners to develop nutritious, appetizing school meals for kids. The department also announced $10 million in grants for schools to expand nutrition education, as well as a proposed regulatory change to give more schools the option to provide healthy school meals to all students at no cost.

    These forward-thinking, innovative actions were all highlighted by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack at an event at Maplewood Elementary in Greeley, Colo. where he spoke with school and district leaders about how these USDA actions will benefit their communities.

    “The Biden Administration believes that a healthier future for our country starts with our children,” said Vilsack. “Continuing to make school meals healthier and available to more students are some of the best ways we can help our children thrive early in life.”

    As part of the USDA’s Healthy Meals Incentives Initiative, Vilsack announced that the department is awarding $50 million to the following organizations to manage the School Food System Transformation Challenge Sub-Grants:

    These grants will foster innovation in the school food marketplace to get a wider variety of healthy, appealing foods into the marketplace and onto kids’ lunch trays. Schools and other eligible organizations can apply for the challenge sub-grants later this year and are encouraged to check the USDA’s Healthy Meals Incentives website for updates.

    “USDA is taking a holistic approach to supporting school meal programs, which includes strengthening the food supply chain that supports them,” said Stacy Dean, deputy under secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services. “We’re hopeful that these grants will accelerate and expand innovation in the school food marketplace, so that schools – and ultimately our children – have better access to healthier food products.”

    Also today, USDA opened applications for up to $10 billion in Fiscal Year 2023 Team Nutrition Grants, which support nutrition education for school-aged children. The grants will extend nutrition education efforts beyond the cafeteria, incorporating it into all parts of the school day and even enrichment activities outside of school. The resources also support another component of the Healthy Meals Incentives Initiative by helping school districts introduce additional nutritious menu options, and eventually qualify for a Recognition Award.

    Secretary Vilsack also announced that the department is proposing a change that would give more schools the option to provide healthy school meals to all students at no cost. The rule would expand the number of schools eligible to opt into the Community Eligibility Provision, also known as CEP, which could result in more children receiving tasty, nutritious school meals.

    “Many schools and even some entire states have successfully provided free meals to all their students,” said Vilsack. “We applaud their leadership in nourishing children and hope this proposed change will make it possible for more schools and states to follow suit.”

    While the proposed rule does not increase federal funds for school meals, President Biden’s 2024 budget requests an additional $15 billion over 10 years to support schools participating in CEP and reach 9 million more children. Vilsack added, “Together, these actions are one of many efforts the Biden-Harris Administration and USDA are taking to ensure the federal government, states, and local schools are working together to support child health.”

    FNS encourages all interested parties to comment on the CEP proposed rule during the 45-day comment period that begins tomorrow.

    These announcements are part of USDA’s ongoing efforts to support schools and strengthen school meals to improve children’s health. They also build on commitments made in the Biden-Harris Administration’s National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health:

    • The expansion of CEP advances a pathway for healthy school meals to more students at no cost.
    • The School Food System Transformation Challenge Grants unite the public and private sector in expanding healthier food options in the K-12 school food marketplace.
    • The Team Nutrition Grants help schools expand nutrition education to students and introduce healthier food options into their meals.

    USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

  • Hating On Big Food: Transparency Is Key

    Are there antibiotics in my meat? Should I be afraid of genetically modified organisms? How is food production impacting our environment? Where are ingredients sourced?

    Decades ago, we gave little thought to our food. But today, despite food being safer, more affordable and more available than at any time in human history, we’re increasingly skeptical and critical of today’s food system. It’s not surprising.

    Food production doesn’t look like it used to. Over the past 40 years, food and agriculture companies and farms have consolidated, integrated and industrialized — they’ve become “big.” And in the minds of many, big is bad.

    Trust research at The Center for Food Integrity (CFI) consistently shows a “big is bad” bias — a belief that mass production creates more opportunity for error, that industrialized food production is inherently impersonal and that big companies will put profit ahead of public interest every time.

    The latest research from CFI’s Illuminate Digital Cultural Insights sheds additional light as consumers consider sustainability factors. Consumers are seeking clearer information about their food, especially protein sources. They believe a lack of transparency around ethical protein sources makes it difficult for them to be sure they are eating sustainability. They also want to know about labor practices for food and agriculture companies. They believe a human-centered approach to sustainability requires a tangible commitment to promote a thriving future for everyone.

    It’s a phenomenon driving change in the food system. We all want and deserve to know who’s producing our food — a farmer or food company that we believe is committed to doing the right things for people, animals and the planet, not just the bottom line.

    Layer on the rise of tribal and contentious social media and an avalanche of conflicting information, and it’s no wonder we question whether we should trust our food.

    Innovation Angst

    New technologies, while they can help farmers grow the food we need using fewer resources, are causing angst, too. The sentiment was expressed during a CFI consumer panel where all participants indicated they avoid foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

    The moderator asked if their opinion about GMOs would change if, for example, they knew the technology could be used to introduce a naturally occurring gene from an arid plant to create corn that could grow using less water — not only resulting in the use of fewer natural resources but allowing corn to grow in dryer climates where populations couldn’t grow their own food before.

    One panelist replied: “I find it hard to believe that scientists would spend time and money to use the technology to help something grow faster and easier, more than for profit.”

    Seeds created with new technologies are developed to use less water and fewer pesticides, provide enhanced nutrition and grow in changing climates. But that same technology causes some of us to question the motives of “big food.”

    We love innovation when it comes to our smartphones, cars, and televisions, but not necessarily when it comes to our food — food that we’re putting in our bodies and feeding our children. There’s nothing quite as personal.

    Innovation and technology will allow us to meet one of humanity’s most basic needs — safe, accessible, nutritious food — while protecting our planet. But if the food industry doesn’t step up to earn trust, the public will continue to push back and perhaps delay or stop progress in its tracks.

    We Deserve Transparency

    We’re living in an era of unprecedented disruption in the food system as technology and consumer demand drive rapid change. The food system is working diligently to provide us with what we want and in a sustainable way.

    It’s a delicate balance.

    Consider the push for slower-growing chickens. With an animal welfare group calling for replacing fast-growing chickens (broilers bred for rapid growth and increased breast meat yield), many companies plan to increase production of slow-growing birds. In fact, more than 200 companies, including Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. and Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc., have made “better chicken” commitments – pledging to make the switch by 2026.

    However, moving to slower growing birds means higher production costs and higher price tags for consumers. If only one-third of broiler chicken producers switched to a slower growing breed, nearly 1.5 billion more birds would be needed annually to produce the same amount of meat currently produced — requiring a tremendous increase in water, land and fuel consumption.

    As appealing as it might seem to return to the “good old days” of agriculture, rolling back productivity improvements would impact consumers and have a devastating impact on the environment at a time when we need to produce more healthy, affordable food for people around the world using fewer natural resources. We need to produce more food in the next 30 years than has been produced in the last 8,000 years.

    As consumers, we deserve authentic transparency that will allow us to better understand our food, where it came from and how it was grown, so we can make informed choices about potential trade-offs.

    How can the food industry step up?

    The traditional food industry approach of attacking the attackers or leading with science doesn’t work in a world where there is greater interest and skepticism about food and everyone with a smartphone expects instant access to unlimited information. Facts and data alone don’t build trust.

    There’s a better way.

    CFI’s peer-reviewed and published trust model shows that communicating shared values is three to five times more important to earning trust than communicating science and facts. In fact, simply sharing science and facts galvanizes the opposition and makes it harder to find common ground.

    As consumers, we simply want to know the food industry shares our values for safe, healthy food, caring for animals and protecting the environment, for example.

    We want the ability to engage, too — to be heard, acknowledged and get straight answers to our questions. We also want the good, the bad and the ugly; what’s going well, not so well and where can improvements be made? The industry must be forthcoming and more transparent to build trust. Farmers and food companies can demystify processes by showing consumers the sustainability practices taking place today. Be willing to show progress when perfection is not yet achievable.

    While strides are being made, there are many opportunities for those in farming and food to bridge the gap and earn trust with a public that wants assurances that we’re all in this together. Long-term, transparent and values-based engagement is the key to building trust that will unlock the potential for agriculture and food production. — By Charlie Arnot, CEO, Center for Food Integrity  

    The Center for Food Integrity is a not-for-profit organization that helps today’s food system earn consumer trust. Our members and project partners, who represent the diversity of the food system, are committed to providing accurate information and working together to address important issues in food and agriculture. The Center does not lobby or advocate for individual companies or brands. For more information, visit www.foodintegrity.org.

  • What Growers & Handlers Should Know about Preventing Tree Nut Theft

    There are a lot of risks involved in farming, such as weather, insect/disease pressure and a tightening labor force; and a crop finally getting harvested is generally accompanied by a sigh of relief.  However, the risks aren’t completely over yet, especially with the threat of postharvest crop theft in California. Watch this brief interview with Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux who addresses this issue and read more about in Pacific Nut Producer Magazine.

    Please thank this video’s sponsor Suterra for their industry support.

  • New Egg Regulatory Program Standards for Improving Egg and Egg Product Safety

    The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Egg Regulatory Officials (NERO) are announcing a new program for state egg and egg product regulators entitled the Egg Regulatory Program Standards (ERPS). The standards are designed to integrate the regulatory activities of partner agencies into an efficient and effective process for improving egg and egg product safety in the U.S.

    The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act called for enhanced partnerships of government agencies and provides a legal mandate for developing an Integrated Food Safety System (IFSS). A key principle of an IFSS is the uniform application of model program standards so that regulatory agencies conduct inspections under the same set of standards. As the U.S. moves toward integrating food safety resources, uniform standards across egg and egg product regulatory programs are critical.

    The program standards are for egg and egg product regulatory programs, not for manufacturers or growers of eggs. The ERPS are comprised of 10 individual standards: regulatory foundation, training program, inspection program, inspection audit program, egg-related illness, outbreak and emergency response, compliance and enforcement program, outreach activities, program resources, program assessment and laboratory support. The 10 standards, designed to strengthen the safety and integrity of the U.S. egg and egg product supply, are also the core elements of a state’s regulatory program. The ERPS will provide a framework that every state can use to determine the strengths and challenges of their program. The ERPS also provide the foundation for mutual reliance on inspections and other work conducted by federal and state agencies.

    Additional information on the ERPS is available on the FDA’s Egg Regulatory Program Standards (ERPS). You may also download a copy of the ERPS. You will need to have a PDF viewer installed on your computer or mobile device. If you do not have a PDF viewer, you can receive an electronic or hard copy of the standards by emailing FDA’s Office of Partnerships at OP.Feedback@fda.hhs.gov.

  • ComBase Bioinformatic Tool Reduces Scourge of Foodborne Illness

    For many, the science of food preservation is not terribly exciting, but each year researchers save thousands of lives and countless belly aches. Although the United States has one of the world’s safest food supplies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says foodborne illness affects about 48 million Americans each year, resulting in 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths. Food poisoning is most often caused by eating food that’s been contaminated by bacteria or other pathogens.

    No one can control how private citizens prepare and store their own food, but America’s commercial food industry is closely monitored by several state and federal agencies. These agencies have many tools to accomplish that mission, including something called ComBase.

    ComBase is an online quantitative food microbiology database that contains more than 65,000 records collected from research organizations and published scientific articles. The information includes graphical data on how microbes grow, survive, and die under specific conditions, such as temperature and acidity. ComBase also contains food and broth models that predict the growth or inactivation – death – of microorganisms in food.

    ComBase was created in 2003 from a collaboration among the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the United Kingdom’s Institute of Food Research, and Australia’s University of Tasmania. Since 2020, ComBase has been managed by ARS and hosted by the Eastern Regional Research Center (ERCC), in Wyndmoor, PA.

    “Representatives from the regulatory agencies, food companies, allied industry, academic institutions, and consumers in the United States and foreign countries help identify types of information needed to better predict and manage food safety,” said Vijay Juneja, ARS microbiologist at ERCC.

    ComBase data allows food companies to use predictive microbiology to help them design and implement food safety programs, document regulatory compliance, and test new model interfaces. Predictive microbiology states that microbial behavior, under a specific set of environmental conditions, is reproducible and can be predicted with mathematical equations. “In other words,” Juneja said, “it uses mathematics to describe how microorganisms will respond to specific environmental conditions.”

    For example, a food safety professional can search ComBase and retrieve specific information on the growth of a pathogen found in the food. This information could then be used to determine whether the food is safe to sell or consume; all without the need for an expensive and untimely microbiological test.

    “The result,” Juneja said, “is safer food, less foodborne illness, better public health, fewer product recalls, less litigation, and greater consumer confidence, health, and well-being.

    “ComBase saves the food industry millions of dollars a year in testing and other associated costs, as well as helping to prevent recalls and foodborne illness,” Juneja said. — By Scott Elliott, USDA-ARS Office of Communications

  • AFFI Commemorates World Food Safety Day with Expansion of Food Safety Zone

    The American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI) announced today the expansion of its Food Safety Zone to include a new Enteric Viruses Control Program(EVCP) aimed at preventing and controlling Norovirus and Hepatitis A throughout the global frozen fruit supply chain. Created for the international community of food safety professionals, the EVCP is a free interactive, online tool with downloadable resources for ease of incorporating into a company’s food safety plan.

    “On the journey from farm to table, it takes many people to keep food safe and AFFI is committed to advancing food safety practices throughout the food chain,” said AFFI President and CEO Alison Bodor. “The launch of AFFI’s Enteric Viruses Control Program is the latest example of how AFFI is advancing food safety by developing and disseminating science-based best practices to ensure frozen foods and beverages are safe.”

    The best practices that encompass the EVCP are focused on six key areas from the farm to the facility to ensure the safety of the global berry supply chain:

    Key recommendations were developed by industry professionals and include a variety of supporting resources curated from across the food and agriculture sector. The program is intended to be a one-stop platform for a full complement of food safety information and knowledge to address risks associated with enteric viruses.

    “While foodborne illness associated with frozen foods is extremely rare, action needs to be preventative when it comes to food safety,” said AFFI Senior Vice President of Scientific Affairs Dr. Sanjay Gummalla. “It’s with this preventive action in mind that the EVCP was created to cover risks associated with enteric viruses in frozen berry production on the farm and inside manufacturing facilities.”

    In addition to AFFI’s EVCP, the Food Safety Zone also is home to AFFI’s ListeriaControl Program.

    “AFFI plans to continuously update the Food Safety Zone with additional resources and year-round education for the control and prevention of enteric viruses and Listeria,” added Bodor. “It’s this level of awareness and education that drives a food safety culture that empowers employees to make critical food safety decisions and take preventive actions to protect consumers and reduce the odds of their companies becoming a recall statistic.”

    The American Frozen Food Institute is the member-driven national trade association representing all segments of the frozen food supply chain from manufacturers to suppliers and distributors. AFFI advocates before legislative and regulatory entities on the industry’s behalf, serves as the voice for the industry and convenes industry leadership to create an environment where frozen foods are essential in a dynamic marketplace. www.affi.org