How E. coli Interacts With Fresh Vegetables

 

Food poisoning outbreaks linked to disease-causing strains of the bacterium Escherichia coli are normally associated with tainted meat products. However, between 20-30% of these are caused by people eating contaminated vegetables, as was seen in the 2011 outbreak in Europe that caused 53 deaths. Research presented at the Society for General Microbiology’s Annual Meeting in Liverpool shows that the disease-causing E. coli O157:H7 interacts directly with plant cells, allowing it to anchor to the surface of a plant, where it can multiply.

 

Researchers from the James Hutton Institute in Scotland have identified that E. coli O157:H7 uses whip-link structures on its surface known as flagella – typically used for bacterial motility – to penetrate the plant cell walls. The team showed that purified flagella were able to directly interact with lipid molecules found in the membranes of plant cells. E. coli bacteria lacking flagella were unable to bind to the plant cells.

Once attached, the E. coli are able to grow on, and colonise, the surface of the plant. At this point, they can be removed by washing, although the researchers showed that a small number of bacteria are able to invade inside the plant, where they become protected from washing. The group have shown that E. coli O157:H7 is able to colonise the roots of both spinach and lettuce.

Dr Nicola Holden, who led the research, says: “This work shows the fine detail of how the bacteria bind to plants. We think this mechanism is common to many food-borne bacteria and shows that they can exploit common factors found in both plants and animals to help them grow. Our long term aim is to better understand these interactions so we can reduce the risk of food-borne disease.”

 

The researchers believe that the E. coli O157:H7 bacteria use the same method of colonising the surface of plants as they do when colonising the intestines of animals. The work shows that these bacteria are not simply transported through the food chain in an inert manner, but are actively interacting with both plants and animals.

 

While outbreaks of vegetable-associated E. coli outbreaks are rare in the UK as a result of strict control measures at all stages of the food chain from plough to plate, they do still occur, as was seen in 2013 when contaminated watercress entered the food chain resulting in seven people being hospitalised. By understanding the mechanisms of how the bacteria interact with plants, the researchers are hoping to find targeted ways to stop the binding, reducing the risk of food contamination.

 

Source:

http://www.sgm.ac.uk/

Hearty Halal: industry to be worth $2.5 trillion by 2018

Halal food and lifestyle, products manufactured or produced as per the Islamic laws, sectors are expected to grow phenomenally as Muslim population continues to grow and the companies hoping to tap into the lucrative market.

 

As per the latest State of Global Islamic Economy Report, published by Thomson Reuters in partnership with DinarStandard, consumer expenditure in 2012 for the fast-growing global halal food and lifestyle sectors was $1.62 trillion and is expected to be valued at $2.47 trillion by 2018.

 

“Global brands such as Nestle, Carrefour, Marriot, Pfizer, as well as regional investment firms and thousands of SME’s grapple with serving this fast growing, global, and complex market,” said Rafi-uddin Shikoh, Managing Director & CEO of DinarStandard, in a statement released yesterday.

 

The report defines halal as:

“Food permitted per Islamic dietary guidelines from the Qu’ran. Muslim followers cannot consume: pork or pork by products, animals that were dead prior to slaughtering, animals not slaughtered properly or not slaughtered in the name of God, blood and blood by products, alcohol, carnivorous animals, birds of prey.”

 

GCC halal food imports are set to jump from $25.8 billion in 2010 to $53.1 billion by 2020, and the UAE’s annual halal food imports is expected to reach $8.4 billion by the end of the decade – according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The UAE is all geared to position itself as the gateway of this growing industry segment. The UAE government has recently announced setting up of ‘Halal Cluster,’ a 6.7 million square feet land in Dubai Industrial City, for firms dealing in halal food, cosmetics, and personal care items, according to the CEO of Dubai Industrial City, Abdullah Belhoul.

“This industry itself, we know it is growing. So we think there is a lot of opportunity… and we need to capitalize on this,” said the CEO.

 

The report mentions that the global Muslim consumers spent about $1,088 billion in food and beverage consumption in 2012, accounting for 16.6% of global expenditure. “This expenditure is expected to grow to $1,626 billion market by 2018. This represents the Halal food potential market world-wide within its core Muslim consumer market,” according to the report.

 

*This article was originally published on albawaba Business on 15 April 2014.

An overview of the possible changes in ISO 9001:2015

ISO 9001 or also known as Quality Management System (QMS) was first published its standard in 1987, and later published an updated version in 1994. In an effort to address the constant changing needs of its users, ISO has updated its ISO 9001 standard in 2000 and again in 2008. The current version is known as ISO 9001:2008 whereby the changes were consider to be at a minimum level when compare to the previous version (ISO 9001:2000)

The upcoming ISO 9001 standard in 2015 would involve more changes when compare with the upgrading works needed to be in compliance with 2008 version. For more info, please refer to the links below:

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=Ref1633

http://www.mapwright.com.au/New-version-ISO-9001_2015.html

http://www.irca.org/en-gb/resources/iso-90012015/

http://www.lrqa.co.uk/standards-and-schemes/ISO-9001/ISO-9001-Revision.aspx

International Greentech & Eco Products Exhibition & Conference Malaysia 2014 (16-19 Oct 2014) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

More info:

http://www.igem.com.my/2014/

Strategic CSR: Linking Socially Responsible Initiatives To Business Objectives by Jeanette Teh

 

The pervasive use of “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) today is rapidly turning it into a buzzword. While some companies are genuinely interested in helping orphans or reducing their carbon footprint, others are merely engaging in CSR to enhance their corporate image or to appease customers, investors, and other stakeholders.

 

Despite corporations’ increasing involvement in CSR, however, these initiatives are generally unconnected to their organisational business strategy. This means that companies undertaking CSR activities to improve their corporate image are actually not getting optimal social or financial return on their investment.

 

A 2013 survey from Bayt.com found that almost 90 per cent of employees in the Middle East felt that corporations have a moral responsibility to engage in CSR. The respondents also believed that the lack of organisational knowledge, top management support, and legal requirements for CSR are impediments to integrating CSR into corporate strategy.

 

Creating shared value

Strategy guru Michael Porter calls for the creation of shared value — creating value for society by addressing its needs while also improving profits for the company. In other words, CSR should not be a charitable afterthought, a necessary ‘expense’, or be at the fringe of the company’s business. Rather, shared value creation should be at its very core, combining a company’s success with social progress.

 

How, then, do companies actually go about achieving this paradigm shift?

Professor John Milliman and his colleagues from the University of Colorado developed a five-step process to implement Porter’s proposition.

 

 

1. Determining if societal issues in a company’s environment could be turned into a strategic advantage

What are current social trends or issues that are of concern to a company’s stakeholders? With approximately 33 per cent of the population classified as obese, promoting a healthier lifestyle in the UAE could be a popular cause. Similarly, as many locally-based companies view CSR as the corporate form of the Islamic concept of Zakat (one’s personal duty to contribute to charity), many corporate CSR initiatives include charitable donations.

 

How does the company impact the local community? A manufacturing company in a region with a high carbon footprint could consider using environmentally-friendly technologies.

 

Are there any opportunities or threats to the corporation’s viability? As a third of the Middle Eastern population is under 30, young people represent both an opportunity (as consumers and employees) and a threat (high unemployment rates could result in disenfranchised youth), regional companies could offer internships to help train the younger generation.

 

Such analysis should be undertaken by a committee comprising representatives from legal, finance, human resources, operations, health and safety, and sales departments.

 

2. Brainstorming different ideas to address societal issues

The committee should come up with as many alternatives as possible to either leverage opportunities or reduce threats. For example, in addition to internships, providing training sessions, job shadowing programs, scholarships, and mentorships are other possible solutions to reducing youth unemployment.

 

3. Analysis of each option

Each alternative should then be analysed to determine which would yield the best impact for the company in terms of financial, human resource, social, and other relevant factors. Employee preferences should also be considered since employees, the most powerful company ambassadors, are a very important and often overlooked stakeholder.

 

4. Implementation of alternative(s)

Once the best option is selected, the corporation may wish to consult with community members, governmental organisations, and other stakeholders to confirm its selection and to assist in its implementation.

 

As the 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer indicated that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are the most trusted institutions, particularly in the UAE, engagement and partnerships with NGOs would help businesses become more trustworthy in their stakeholders’ eyes.

 

5. Measurement and reporting of strategic CSR initiatives

After the programmes are implemented, it is important to measure the outcomes to determine whether objectives have been achieved, issues resolved, and whether stakeholders are satisfied with the accomplishments. These results should be clearly communicated both within the company and externally to the community and other stakeholders.

 

A 2008 study revealed that Dubai-based companies were generally not effective at communicating their CSR activities to stakeholders. Dr. Suzanne Conner, professor at the American University in Dubai (AUD), also discovered this in her 2012 study of companies listed on the US Dow Jones Sustainability Index. While there was generally greater discussion about compliance-related activities than in 2010, companies tended not to adequately describe their commitment to social responsibility in their annual reports, an incredibly valuable lost opportunity to enhance their corporate image.

 

Getting to the Triple Bottom Line

While some maintain that the mantra of balancing People, Planet and Profits equally is just a fanciful theory, incredibly difficult to realise in practice, it is perhaps only with thoughtful incorporation of strategic CSR initiatives that the elusive Triple Bottom Line might actually be attained.

WasteMET Asia 2014 Exhibition & Conference (2-4 June 2014) in Marina Bay Sands, Singapore

Organised by Waste Management and Recycling Association of Singapore (WMRAS) and National Environment Agency (NEA), WasteMET Asia is the region's premier exhibition to launch, showcase and introduce the latest innovative equipment and technologies in waste management recycling and resource recovery solutions. The inaugural WasteMET Asia 2012 brought together over 8,000 buyers from the region, and over 100 exhibitors. The event also saw an attendance of over 19,000 global leaders and delegates, with more than 100 mayors and city leaders from 70 countries and regions participating.

 

More info:

http://www.wastemetasia.sg/home

 

 

 

Dead insect findings prompt Nestlé recall By Joe Whitworth+,

Nestlé said it was 'very concerned' to learn of a consumer complaint about a batch of its cereal in Greece containing dead insects.

More info:

http://www.foodqualitynews.com/Food-Alerts/Dead-insect-findings-prompt-Nestle-recall

Boss vs. Leader !!

Jack in the Box E. coli Outbreak: Lessons Learned the Hard Way by Bill Marler

 

I have thought a lot over the last 20 years about what lessons can be drawn from the tragedy that was the 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli O157:H7 outbreak. Knowing the children—many who are now nearing 30—who still bear the scars of eating a hamburger, and knowing the parents of those who died, makes it difficult for me to see the benefit of those losses.

 

My first reaction is, “Why does it always seem to take a tragedy before we seem to be able to act?” Whether it was reinforcing the cockpit doors after the horror of 9/11, or now finally having a dialogue about automatic weapons post-Newtown, we have seemed nearly incapable of preventing a tragedy before it has happened multiple times, or with such force that ignoring it any longer is impossible. Frankly, not being able to look ahead to prevent disasters seems so ingrained in human DNA that I am not sure of a ready fix.

 

Human evolution aside, I think there are lessons that can be learned from Jack in the Box that have meaning in the food safety world both in the past and in the future. First, like all food safety failures, and the outbreaks that stem from them, the Jack in the Box outbreak was completely preventable—in other words, Jack in the Box had warnings enough to have prevented the outbreak. And second, after the outbreak there will always be facts—and documents—that prove it.

 

In March of 1992 the Washington State Board of Health mandated that the internal cook temperature for ground beef should be 155 degrees, not the 140 degrees that all other of the 49 states used based on the Federal Food Code. Washington was ahead of the curve because health officials had investigated an earlier outbreak linked to undercooked ground beef. Officials reached out to all restaurants in the State with the new standards. Although Jack in the Box leaders initially claimed that they knew nothing of the changes—and perhaps they did not directly—but the new standards were found in files in corporate headquarters in San Diego.

 

Finding the Washington State Food Code in the bottom drawer of a cabinet was certainly not the best “find” in the litigation. Far from it; a bit of context might be in order.

 

Although the outbreak was announced in mid-January 1993, aggressive litigation and discovery did not really commence until late 1993. It lasted through the end of 1994. During that time, I received nearly 50 boxes of paper from the lawyers representing Jack in the Box and its meat suppliers. From those documents and the dozens of depositions taken, it became clear that Jack in the Box had more than just the new cook temperatures in its desk drawer. Scattered (on purpose) within the boxes were documents that showed that Jack in the Box knew of the new cook-temperature guidelines and simply chose to ignore them.

 

On June 18, 1992—five months before the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak struck its hometown of San Diego and seven months before it would hit the Pacific Northwest—Wendy Cochinella, the shift leader at the Arlington, Washington restaurant faxed the below “IN THE SUGGESTION BOX” to Jack in the Box corporate headquarters in San Diego:

 

She wrote:

“I think regular patties should cook longer. They don’t get done and we have customer complaints.”

“If we change this we will be making our burgers done and edible.”

 

After just over a month, Wendy (and most of the Jack in the Box food safety team) received the below response from corporate headquarters. Wendy also received a pen highlighter (I always thought they should have made her at least Vice-President):

 

It reads:

We have received your suggestion regarding increasing the cook time for our regular patties.

Your suggestion is currently being researched within the corporate offices. You will again be notified with more detail as soon as a decision has been made regarding this suggestion.

We would like to acknowledge the time and effort you have taken to contribute to the success of JACK IN THE BOX by enclosing this pen/highlighter. Each person submitting suggestions is eligible to receive one gift per quarter with their first suggestion.

 

But it did not end there. No, Jack in the Box wanted to see if they could make “[their] burgers done and edible.” What they found in their corporate kitchen was that sometimes they could reach internal temperatures of 155 degrees and above on new grills with the two-minute cook time, but often—too often—internal temperatures of 140 degrees or below were reached on older grills with the two-minute cook time. E. coli O157:H7 bacteria can survive at 140 degrees for two minutes, but not at 155.

So, what was the response?

Yes, you guessed it, the two-minute cook time was more important than having “burgers done and edible.” Wendy’s next communication from corporate headquarters indicated that a cook time longer than two minutes made burgers “tough.”

 

Wendy and the Jack in the Box food safety team received the following communication from superiors:

We have researched your suggestion and determined that with the variability of our grill temperatures (350° – 400°) the two-minute cook time is appropriate. If the patties are cooked longer than two minutes, they tend to become tough. To ensure that you are meeting quality expectations for regular patties, please ensure that the grill temperature is correct and grill personnel are using proper procedures.”

 

And, as they say, the rest is history—a tragic history.  Weeks after the outbreak was announced Jack in the Box changed the cook time from two minutes to two minutes and fifteen seconds – yes, fifteen seconds.

Food Innovation Asia Conference 2014 (12-13 June 2014) in Bangkok, Thailand

Intro:

The conference will provide opportunity to share experiences and strengthen networking among international food scientists and scientists in related fields from academia, government and food industries. The purpose is to highlight significant developments in research and innovations in food science and technology with an emphasis on innovation. There will be presentations and discussions in plenary, concurrent and poster sessions, informal gatherings, competitions and exhibitions.

 

Key highlights:

Food Health and Nutrition

Food Processing & Engineering

Food Microbiology, Food Safety and Quality

Food Chemistry and Analysis

Food Product Development and Ingredient Innovations

Sensory and Consumer Research

Food and Agricultural Packaging Technology and Innovations

Food Supply Chain Management

Food Security and Sustainability

Food Related Topics

More info? Kindly refer to the link below:
http://www.fostat.org/index.php/event/food-innovation-asia-conference-2014-main

IFT 14 Annual Meeting & Expo (21-24 June 2014) in New Orleans, USA

 

For more info, kindly refer to the link below:

 

http://www.am-fe.ift.org/cms/

Are secret, dangerous ingredients in your food? by Kimberly Kindy

 

Food manufacturers are routinely exploiting a “legal loophole” that allows them to use new chemicals in their products, based on their own safety studies, without ever notifying the Food and Drug Administration, according to a new report by an environmental and consumer advocacy group.

Natural Resources Defense Council identified 56 companies that were marketing products using 275 chemicals that the company’s hired experts decided met federal safety standards, known as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). However, the science behind those safety findings and the use of the chemicals was disclosed to the FDA in only six instances. The New York-based NRDC called its report “Generally Recognized as Secret” and said the lack of transparency with the GRAS process is a public health threat.

 

“If you don’t know when (an additive) is being used, how can you determine if it’s safe?” said Thomas Neltner, a chemical engineer and co-author of the study that was presented Monday at a Grocery Manufacturers Association’s Science Forum at Washington.

In a prepared statement, the GMA defended the GRAS process, saying, “It is a very thorough and comprehensive process that has, under the current law provided FDA with authority to challenge the improper marketing of an ingredient as GRAS, and if necessary, act to remove products containing that ingredient from the food supply.”

 

The FDA said that although the law allows for food manufacturers to make their own safety determinations, the agency “encourages companies to consult with the agency when developing new ingredients.” Ultimately, the FDA said, manufacturers “are responsible for ensuring that their food products are safe and lawful.”

 

NRDC said that Food Additives Amendment of 1958 was enacted, the GRAS process was meant to apply to innocuous additives like vinegar. Instead, it is commonly used for chemicals that are potentially dangerous and have never before been in the American food supply. For example, until recently, artificial transfats were considered GRAS but the FDA has now deemed them dangerous, saying they cause as many as 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year.The organization said its findings are “likely the tip of the iceberg,” since the scientific work and GRAS determinations are not publicly disclosed and therefore difficult to track down.

 

 

The organization spent more than a year reviewing trade journals and talking to food additive consultants to identify the 56 companies that frequently make their own safety determinations.

 

The FDA’s food additive process allows companies to take several paths to determine the safety of new chemicals or other ingredients.

 

The most transparent and rigorous path involves companies submitting a food additive petition – along with the science behind why they think the ingredient is safe — to the FDA in an effort to gain formal approval from the agency. Companies use the FDA approvals to promote the safety of their products.

 

The other, non-public path that NRDC examined allows companies to determine GRAS status on their own without notifying the FDA.

 

A third path allows companies to voluntarily submit their own GRAS determinations for FDA review and sign off, but they may withdraw the petition if the agency is worried about the safety of the additive. The agency announces the withdrawal but does not disclose whether it had safety concerns. The company may then go ahead and use its own GRAS determination to use the additive in products anyway. The NRDC found that one in every five GRAS petitions were either rejected by the FDA or the company voluntarily withdrew their petition.

 

NRDC’s report also calls on the FDA to petition Congress for a new law that would require manufacturers to submit their safety determinations to the agency for review and approval. The council said it is encouraging consumers to “demand” that their grocery stores and their favorite brands sell only food products with ingredients that the FDA has found to be safe.

 

At the event, the Grocery Manufacturers Association also announced a new food additive research center it has helped create at Michigan State University, which will be called the Center for Research on Ingredient Safety (CRIS). GMA’s chief science officer, Leon Bruner, said the center will operate independent of the association and will review the safety of ingredients, train future food toxicologists and serve as an “independent and credible source” for the public, news organizations and the industry.

Why Are There So Many Crazy People In Charge? by Lynne Viccaro O'Leary

 

Everyone has a horror story about a manager from hell they were forced to deal with. You cannot be in the working world for any amount of time without running into at least one. This phenomenon has been the basis of some great books, tv shows and movies. But it is not so entertaining when one of these yahoos is in charge of your day to day livelihood. The bigger question is how did they get there? Were they always that way or did the "system" turn them into a power-hungry megalomaniac? Here are some insights and observations as to why this may be:

 

1. It's not always the cream that rises to the top. The more aggressive personalities always make themselves known and have more than their fair share of ruthlessness about them. They are willing to do things to get ahead that would cost most of us a few nights' sleep. Others are blatant cases of nepotism or knowing someone to get that coveted position. Many times once they get there, they feel overwhelmed, but refuse to admit that they need help. As a friend once told me, "never underestimate someone's insecurity." This is where the micromanagement and bullying comes in -- because if THEY don't fully understand what needs to be done, there is no way that their staff could possibly know. They are also the type of managers who take credit for others' ideas and keep their best people under cover for fear they will outshine them.

2. You're looking lovely today Mrs. Cleaver. For years, the traditional hierarchical model has rewarded those who manage up well -- those who kiss up and charm their bosses right into the corner office. There was a great interview in the Corner Office section of the New York Times on April 6 with Kim Bowers, CEO of CST Brands. When asked about leadership lessons she learned, Bowers explained that she puts people in two categories: those who manage up really well and those who manage down really well. To paraphrase, if she finds someone who has a team who will walk across hot coals for them, that's the truly effective leader because they inspire loyalty and respect. She cast a wary eye on those manage up very well because their priority is only impressing those above them, i.e. those who can do something for them career-wise. They usually treat their peers and staff very differently, and rarely cultivate the kind of loyalty base to propel their team forward.

 

3. We don't need no stinkin' training. Just because someone is great at their particular job does not mean they will be great at managing a team. Traditionally, an employee's potential for a promotion is based on their performance in their current job. Many companies don't invest in management training programs like they used to - the grace period is frighteningly short and one is expected to learn on the job. So by the time it's discovered that the manager lacks the interpersonal and team-building skills required to be effective,they have already been in a position to do some real-time damage.

 

4. It's like the Roach Motel. Companies are slow to dismiss managers. Once someone is in a position, it takes months or even years to fully appreciate their abilities -- or lack thereof. I've found that it takes 3-5 years before the full effects of someone's poor management becomes a company-wide problem. And by then, the damage is done in the form of lost productivity, lost customers and the loss of your best people, who just couldn't take anymore.

INNOVA FOOD 2014 CONFERENCE (27-29 August 2014) in Penang, Malaysia

 

 

Food Technology Division of the School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang is organizing an International Conference on Food Innovation ( INNOVAFOOD-2014 ) on 27 - 29 August 2014 at PARKROYAL Penang Resort, Malaysia.

 

 

For more info, kindly refer to the link below:

http://www.mift.org.my/files/INNOVAFOOD-2014Brochure.pdf