This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updatedprivacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy.Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updatedprivacy and cookie policy to learn more.
The U.S. and Canada are melting pots of cultures, and one of the most evident expressions of this diversity can be found in the variety of ethnic foods available in markets. While the influx of these foods has brought new and exciting flavors to North American palates, it has also brought the risk of new microbial hazards.
As leaders in food safety, it is our responsibility to develop the influential skills to "manage up" and "train upper management" on food safety risks and opportunities to secure the necessary funding for continued development.
Cultivated meat (i.e., cell-cultured meat) has been promoted as an alternative to the livestock industry as a more sustainable, safer, and healthier means of food production. However, several regulatory and safety hurdles must be addressed for cultivated meat to reach the commercial market, as it has not yet been declared safe for consumption in the U.S. Safety considerations for cell-cultured meat include the components utilized (the raw ingredients, the source of cells, scaffolds, and bioreactors), the introduction of adventitious agents, and the presence of drug/chemical residues in the final food product.
Cleaning program validation that primarily relies on adenosine triphosphate (ATP) monitoring can yield poor results if a few basic strategies are not incorporated into the sampling program to eliminate bias. These include probability sampling, uniformity of the sample, as well as understanding the limitation of the test instrument and the interpretation of results.
Threat information should be disseminated as rapidly as possible, especially between businesses that may otherwise be restricted by anti-competitive laws or regulations. This article discusses the nature of the information that should be and is typically shared by businesses participating in an Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC).
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs are a policy approach where producers are given a significant responsibility for the treatment of post-consumer products. They involve building the cost of disposal into the cost of the product. These programs are meant to boost collection and recycling. They can also result in increased reusable and refillable packaging and encourage material reduction in packages. Any EPR program for food packaging needs to take into account food safety requirements and comply with applicable food packaging regulations. Any changes in food packaging must continue to protect the food after filling, during transportation and storage, and throughout its shelf life. Currently, four states—Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California—have food packaging EPR laws, with more states expected to follow. However, EPR laws impacting food packaging are still in their infancy. States are looking for the most efficient ways to meet the requirements in the statues.
In food safety, multiple issues always need to be addressed. To get things done, however, food safety professionals need to prioritize certain projects over others. What are those priorities now? The Food Safety Magazine audience shares their views on a number of topical issues to give an idea of where their focus will be in the coming months and years.