13th European Food and Feed Law Conference . 24–25 October 2019 | Brussels

Véase: https://app.box.com/s/ppdpj5dw6tr74rxqo1a7oig4galdzrdy

Reducing Plastics Contamination In Food Manufacturing

Source: Eriez

By John Collins

Regardless of its size, any type of plastic contamination found in a finished food product can become a public relations nightmare for both the brand and the food manufacturer. After all, just a small piece of plastic contamination can result in a recall and potential lawsuits.

For those that keep track of food recalls, “plastic contamination” is an all-too-familiar phrase. From cake to tuna to dog food, the discovery of plastic contaminants is a familiar and troubling event for both the customer and the producer.

Ensuring effective measures to prevent contamination of food products is a major concern for food manufacturers. Not only do contamination accidents require production line stoppages and incur huge costs, they also involve vast amounts of time and money to regain consumer trust and rebuild a shattered brand image.

Since ordinary plastics cannot be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines, finding a solution to plastic contamination issues has been a longtime challenge. However, today there is a solution. By incorporating new additives during manufacturing, broken pieces or fragments of plastic materials mixed in with food products can be detected by a metal detector or x-ray inspection system, enabling manufacturers to prevent contaminated products from reaching the market.

This white paper explores how detectable additives are helping food processors detect and reject unwanted elements before the final product reaches consumers to preserve product safety and quality while reducing the risk of unwanted media attention and legal snafus.

Product Purity and Safety are Catalysts behind Early Detection of Contaminants within a Supply Chain

Food safety vigilance and increasingly stringent government guidelines continue to drive the importance of keeping foreign material out of food and food ingredients. More often than not, the threat to food safety comes when some unwanted element—a fragment of metal, piece of rubber, plastic or grain husk—enters a food ingredient or its package.

Pen caps, pens, gloves, band-aids, etc. are prospective contaminants that can show up in a finished product, acting as choking hazards, laceration hazards, biological hazards, and as a shock to those consuming the product or to those serving it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers hard objects equal to or greater than .28" (7 mm) in length as potential choking hazards.

Food Safety Magazine featured an article on plastic contaminants titled, “Identification of Plastics in Food: Challenges and Solution.” Part of the article stated, “Needless to say, plastic contaminants are a large driver of consumer complaints across our industry. There has been a flurry of recall activity originating from undetected plastic contaminants passing unnoticed through supply chains in North America…The recall actions taken by the processors involved represent the last line of defense in protecting public health. Unfortunately, these actions have contributed to millions of dollars of profit erosion, obsolescence and lost sales at the retail level.”

Foodservice safety guidelines are affecting not only how food is prepared, but the types of products used in food manufacturing. For example, major restaurant chains insist that food processors now use plastic and rubber articles that are metal and x-ray detectable. This has become part of many company's HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) programs.

Metal detectors and x-ray systems have long been used to detect metal and non-metal contamination in food processing operations. The trend today is the continued improvement in the detectability of supplies and equipment—including those made of plastic or rubber.

Detectable additives can be infused during manufacturing to slightly magnetize some of the plastics so they can be separated by magnetic separators or detected by metal detectors or x-ray systems.

This technology significantly augments the safety culture in a foodservice operation by adding detectability to items that are not naturally detectable or separable. Parts or pieces that can potentially contaminate food products can be detected, located and isolated using standard metal detectors or x-ray systems.

The use of metal and x-ray detectable plastics in food processing and packaging operations is rapidly spreading to other industries where product purity is also a concern. Cable ties and tie mounts, labels, shovels, ear plugs, pens, measuring cups, wear strips, guide rails on processing equipment, and general processing and packaging equipment machinery parts, are just a few of the products now available in metal/x-ray detectable plastic materials.

How the Additive Process Works to Detect Plastic Particulates in Food Production

Food manufacturers rely on a variety of tools and equipment to assist in production and packaging. The list includes gaskets, seals, o-rings, scrapers, gloves, scoops, shovels, spatulas, totes, returnable containers, pallets, warning tags, buckets and more.

Gaining momentum are new resin additives that impart metal detectability, x-ray contrast and magnetic susceptibility into plastic moldings to protect consumers from plastic contaminated food products. Molders, suppliers and distributors of foodservice equipment are offering detectable versions of existing products—or introducing new lines—because food manufacturers are demanding it.

The Eriez® PolyMag® Additive Process renders the plastic resin magnetically susceptible with an additive (high-concentration pellets) in a process similar to adding color concentrate.

All resins, including thermosets and thermoplastics, are candidates for metal/x-ray detectable additives. To make plastic and rubber articles detectable, the first step is to blend the additive into the resin. By including the additive during compounding or molded part manufacturing, plastic and rubber products can be detected using standard metal detectors and x-ray inspection systems.

The additives are available in a dry, free flowing pellet, with a variety of polymer carriers that are compatible with a wide range of resins, or in powder form for compounding.

Resins containing the PolyMag Gray HSCP can be pigmented darker colors like blue, gray, green, red and purple. The lower cost PolyMag Black HSCP is suitable for black applications. PolyMag Beige XRD is preferred for applications that require a high level of x-ray contrast.

To verify the safety of the PolyMag Additives for food contact, Eriez had the FDA review PolyMag Additive ingredients for FDA compliance in both single and repeat use food contact plastics and rubber applications. In a letter of opinion issued by the FDA, the agency stated that all PolyMag Additive compounds are regulated for this intended use.

How detectable is the material? Typically, the PolyMag Additive is included at ten to 20 percent loadings by the molder. Tests in 1/8” plastic cubes with a 10 percent PolyMag loading produces detectability similar to a 1 mm mild steel sphere as tested on a metal detector in wet or conductive products.

Keep in mind that it is much easier to locate detectable plastic in wet or conductive food products. Detection in dry foods like flour is more difficult because the phase angle of the dry food and the detectable plastic is nearly the same. Oils, margarine, dry spices and frozen foods also have phase angles similar to detectable plastics. To isolate detectable plastics in these food products, the plastic piece must have a longer signal than the food product so a larger piece of plastic with a higher metal loading is required.

Metal/X-Ray Detectable Additives Help Curtail Foreign Contamination in Processed Foods

The notion of a physical hazard potential is typically where many food manufacturers initiate standard operating procedures (SOP) to reduce this risk. When a contaminant is discovered, there are many questions to answer. What is it? Where did it come from? When did this happen? How much product is potentially contaminated? As part of a thorough investigation, determining the source of the contamination is the key to initiating swift and effective corrective and preventive actions.

Food manufacturers that purchase and use metal/x-ray detectable products can readily identify plastic contamination and work quickly to reduce impact on consumers and their brand. Resin additives, such as the Eriez PolyMag Additives, are a growing part of the plastic manufacturing process and should be a part of any SOP when it comes to food manufacturing. Food products inadvertently containing plastic fragments, which can be scanned by a metal detector or x-ray machine, can quickly be taken out of the stream before reaching the marketplace, thus ensuring product safety and purity.

USA - Mississippi Joins States Enacting Stricter Labeling Requirements for Food Products Developed from Animal Cell Cultures

On July 1, Mississippi legislators passed a bi-partisan bill to prohibit certain animal-derived food products from being labeled as “meat” or a “meat food product.” While Senate Bill 2922 also imposes the same new restriction on plant-based and insect-based food products, its passage was driven at least in part to address recent developments in biotechnology that allow the growth of animal-derived food products in laboratories, rather than from livestock raised on farms and ranches. Specifically, SB 2922 amends Mississippi state law to prohibit meat labeling for any “plant-based” or “insect-based” food products, together with food products containing “cultured animal tissue produced from animal cell cultures outside the organism from which it is derived.” Its passage in Mississippi follows similar regulatory action in other states over the last year, including Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Wyoming.

Cell-cultured animal products – also referred to as “clean meat” or “cell-cultured meat” – are developed by scientists from a biopsy of a living or recently slaughtered animal in a sterile laboratory environment. These cells are then grown into products that mimic meat products in taste, texture, and aesthetics. Scientists have begun to differentiate and mature cells to resemble traditional meat products such as hamburgers, chicken nuggets, steak, and fish while reducing reliance on, and in some cases replacing, modern animal agriculture and industrial production practices.

Mississippi’s latest action was immediately followed by a lawsuit filed in federal court by several public interest groups. Led by the Institute for Justice, Upton’s Naturals Co., and the Plant Based Food Association, the complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on July 1, 2019, alleging that Mississippi’s new law places an unconstitutional limitation on freedom of speech under the First Amendment. In their complaint, plaintiffs focus on the labeling of plant-based products, rather than clean meat products. A similar legal action was brought in August 2018 against Missouri’s meat labeling restrictions; it remains pending as of this date.

Alan Sachs and Sarah Kettenmann

Beveridge & Diamond's Biotechnology and Pesticides Regulation practice group and Biotechnology and Pesticides industry groups help clients develop and commercialize newer, safer, and petter ways of achieving plant vitality, pest control, and animal breeding. We help companies address cutting-edge issues where agriculture, livestock, pesticides, and biotechnology converge with the law. For more information, please contact the authors.

Big Food and Plant-Based Protein: Potential MEATing of the Minds?

Capitalizing on an increasingly health and environmentally conscious era, plant-based meat substitute companies are positioning themselves as the future of protein. On May 2, 2019, Beyond Meat became the first plant-based product company to go public. Its stock skyrocketed to become the highest performing first-day public offering in nearly two decades. Impossible Foods is also performing well. While the company is in no rush to go public, they just secured $300 million in their latest funding round.

In light of these recent successes, the meat industry is grappling with how to address the new food phenomenon. With the long-term viability of the alternative meat market yet to be seen, traditional meat companies are taking both an offensive and defensive approach.

Many Big Food companies view cell-based meat as an opportunity rather than a liability. Taking the “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” approach, these companies are integrating plant-based protein investments into their own portfolio. For example, Tyson was an early investor in Beyond Meat. Tyson recently sold its 6.52% stake in the company, but Tyson is still fully committed to competing in the plant-based protein space. Tyson announcedthat it plans to launch an “alternative protein product” with market testing as early as this summer. The fact that Tyson is a household name synonymous with meat could impede its ability to build brand loyalty in the alternative meat space. That said, the producer’s well-established distribution networks and manufacturing facilities will enable them to hit the ground running—an advantage that start-up companies in the emerging market necessarily lack.

Simultaneously, however, the meat industry is taking active measures to hedge against what, on its face, appears to be an impending threat of market erosion.

The meat industry is also lobbying for laws banning any non-slaughterhouse-derived protein product from being labeled “meat.” Last year, Missouri was the first state to formally do so. Lawmakers in 17 states—including Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming—have followed suit. Laws in Montana, Georgia, Nebraska, and Oklahoma are also on the horizon.

Legislators and meat industry lobbyists are touting these laws as necessary consumer protection measures. Not surprisingly, proponents of plant-based meat disagree and are fighting back against legislation they say is aimed to protect cattle and livestock producers’ bottom line. Tofurkey, the Good Food Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund are challenging the Missouri law on constitutional grounds. Jessica Almy, director of policy for the Good Food Institute believes that the appeal should put other states on notice “that there are significant constitutional problems with these laws” because labeling is a form of “commercial speech, which is protected as long as it’s truthful.” The constitutional issue has yet to be resolved.

If Big Food is on board as a champion of plant-based protein rather than an opponent, the future for the protein industry certainly looks bright. But, it appears—at least for the time being—that meat alternative companies will have their work cut out for them as they navigate a newly developing (and often times conflicting) patchwork of state laws designed to stifle their marketing efforts. These uncertainties will continue to trigger disputes about what producers (that often operate in multiple states) can say about their products without misleading consumers, and just how far states can go to regulate commercial speech.

    

EU - Dual Food Quality: Commission releases study assessing differences in the composition of EU food products

Today [24.6.2019], the Commission published the results of a pan-European testing campaign of food products showing that some products are identically or similarly branded while having a different composition.

Analysing nearly 1,400 food products in 19 EU countries, the study, carried out by the Commission’s in-house science and knowledge service, the Joint Research Centre, shows that 9% of the compared products differed in composition, although the front-of-pack was identical.

A further 22% of products with a different composition had a similar front-of-pack. The study did not show a consistent geographical pattern.

Based on the new methodology developed, national competent authorities will now be able to perform the case by case analysis required to determine misleading practices prohibited under EU consumer law. The study thus supports the work initiated by the Juncker Commission to address the issue of dual quality of products through different initiatives. 

Tibor Navracsics, Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, responsible for the Joint Research Centre, said: "Some Europeans feel branded food products they buy are different, perhaps worse, compared to those available elsewhere. The Commission called on our scientists to help objectively assess the extent of such differences on the single market. The results are mixed: while I am happy that they found no evidence of an East-West divide in the composition of branded food products, I am worried that they uncovered up to one third of tested products having different compositions while being identically or similarly branded.”

Věra Jourová, Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, said: "There will be no double standards in Europe’s single market. With the new laws penalizing the dual quality and strengthening the hands of the consumer authorities, we have the tools at hand to put an end to this practice. European consumers will be able to do their shopping in full trust that they buy what they see.”

Main findings

The study assessed 1,380 samples of 128 different food products from 19 Member States. The sample is, however, not representative of the vast diversity of food products on the EU market. The study found that:

• In the majority of cases, the composition matched the way products were presented: 23% of products had an identical front-of-pack and an identical composition, and 27% of products signaled their different composition in different EU countries with a different front-of-pack.
• 9% of products presented as being the same across the EU had a different composition: they had an identical front-of-pack, but a different composition.
• A further 22% of products presented in a similar way had a different composition: they had a similar front-of-pack, yet a different composition.
• There is no consistent geographical pattern in the use of the same or similar packaging for products with different compositions. Moreover, the difference in the composition found in the products tested do not necessarily constitute a difference in product quality.

Commission action on this issue

Since the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has been addressing the issue of dual quality of products in his State of the Union Address in 2017, the European Commission has taken forward different initiatives by:

• clarifying when dual quality of products is a misleading practice through legislation under the recently agreed New Deal for Consumers;
• establishing a common methodology for the testing of food products;
• issuing a set of guidelines to help national authorities apply EU consumer and food legislation;
• dedicating over €4.5 million to solve this issue;  
• testing products across the EU with the same methodology to get a better understanding of dual quality of goods.

Next steps

The European Commission launches today a new call for proposals with a total budget of €1.26 million to strengthen consumer organisations’ capacities to test products and identify potentially misleading practices. The deadline for applications is 6 November 2019.

Background

According to EU legislation, marketing a  good as identical to one marketed in another Member States while that good has a significantly different composition or characteristics which cannot be justified by legitimate and objective reasons could unfairly and illegally mislead consumers.

The study, conducted by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre, describes the situation found on the markets of the nineteen participating Member States during the period the survey was carried out (November-December 2018). The testing campaign was part of the European Commission's response to concerns about dual quality foods. The products were selected based on Member States’ suggestions, following complaints to consumer protection authorities or associations.

Testing was based on a harmonised methodology developed in cooperation with Member States by the Joint Research Centre. This methodology allows for comparable sampling, testing and data interpretation across the EU. All EU Member States were invited to collect information regarding the composition of the selected food products offered on their markets. Nineteen EU Member States submitted information on 113 branded and 15 private label products. As a first step, this analysis is based on information from the product labels and the front-of-pack appearance of the products.

The report published today will provide a better basis for the discussion of dual quality in the EU. However, further steps and research are needed to make the assessment more representative, and to better understand the link between composition and quality.

The Member States that participated in the survey were: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and The Netherlands.