Food and Feed Safety Systems and Analysis

391 Pages·2017·4.242 MB·English

by  Steven C Ricke, Griffiths G. Atungulu, Chase Rainwater, Si Hong Park

Food and Feed Safety Systems
and Analysis
Edited by
Steven C. Ricke
Griffiths G. Atungulu
Chase E. Rainwater
Si Hong Park
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom
525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, United States
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies
and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing
Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other
than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our
understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any
information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they
should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional
responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability
for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or
from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-12-811835-1
For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at
https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals
Publisher: Andre G. Wolff
Acquisition Editor: Patricia Osborn
Editorial Project Manager: Jaclyn A. Truesdell
Production Project Manager: Maria Bernard
Designer: Matthew Limbert
Typeset by TNQ Books and Journals
List of Contributors
Soohyoun Ahn University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
Clara Assisi Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States
Griffiths G. Atungulu University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Mushin Aydin Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR, United States
Rachael E. Blevins University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Todd R. Callaway University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States
Roger Cochrane Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, United States
Nicolae Corcionivoschi Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
Philip G. Crandall University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Morgan L. Davis University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Turki M. Dawoud University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States; King Saud University,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Jia Di University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Andrea J. Etter Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States
Peixin Fan University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
Ester Grilli University of Bologna, Ozzano Emilia, Italy
Jessica C. Hacker University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Shakaree Hale Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, Huntsville, AL, United States
Anne Huss BioMatrix International, Princeton, MN, United States
Armitra Jackson-Davis Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, Huntsville, AL,
United States
Jealae Jackson Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, Huntsville, AL, United States
Joy Jackson University of Texas-Arlington, Arlington, TX, United States
Kwangcheol C. Jeong University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
Billie L. Johnson Simmons Pet Food, Emporia, KS, United States
Michael G. Johnson University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Cassie Jones Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, United States
Pravin Kaldhone University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Sun Ae Kim University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Alescia King Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, Huntsville, AL, United States
Ok Kyung Koo Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea
Young M. Kwon University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
xv
xvi List of Contributors
Shinyoung Lee University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
Keshun Liu United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Aberdeen, ID,
United States
Aubrey Mendonca Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States
Zeinab Mohammadi-Shad University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR,
United States; Nestlé Iran P.J.S. Co., Mohammadiyeh City, Iran
Russell Morgan Simmons Pet Food, Siloam Springs, AR, United States
Rkia Moutiq Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States
Mary Muckey Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, United States
Corliss A. O’Bryan University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Gbenga A. Olatunde University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Haley F. Oliver Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States
Si Hong Park University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States; Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR, United States
Sean J. Pendleton University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Andrea Piva University of Bologna, Ozzano Emilia, Italy
Chase E. Rainwater University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Steven C. Ricke University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Rafael Rivera U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, Tucker, GA, United States
Peter M. Rubinelli University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Joshua C. Saldivar Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States
Richard G. Shields Jr. Simmons Pet Food, Siloam Springs, AR, United States
Zhaohao Shi University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Michael L. Sostrin University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States; Walmart Stores, Inc.,
Bentonville, AR, United States
Christina L. Swaggerty United States Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service,
College Station, TX, United States
Lin Teng University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
Emalie Thomas-Popo Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States
Dale R. Thompson University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Brittany L. White Simmons Pet Food, Siloam Springs, AR, United States
Shantae Wilson University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Kristin L. Yearkey University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States
Chen Zhao Academy of State Administration of Grain, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
Xuhui Zhuang Academy of State Administration of Grain, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
Preface
Food safety is comprised of several rapidly changing research fields and public forums
(including microbiology, ecology, education, epidemiology, bioinformatics, economics,
globalization, among others) with numerous influences at both the scientific and the
economic level driving the directions it takes as these fields progress. In addition, the issues
associated with food safety that are considered of greatest concern continue to evolve as
food production systems become more complicated. Accordingly, food systems have
become more interconnected, resulting in many more potential sites for foodborne patho-
gen contamination that can impact other steps in food production, processing, and retail.
Foodborne pathogens possess the ability to intrude into any phase of food production and
contaminate the food products that they come in contact with. This includes animal feeds
consumed by food animals, resulting in colonization of the gastrointestinal tract and
potentially systemic infection of the host animal. Infected animals can become contami-
nated meat products that in turn can cross-contaminate processing equipment and other
meat products that are in contact with this equipment. As technologies such as whole
genome sequencing have become more common place, the ability for specifically identify-
ing and subsequently tracking a particular foodborne pathogen has vastly improved the
epidemiology and opportunity for a more complete resolution of foodborne disease
outbreaks. However, as the data sets grow, issues such as training the next generation of
food safety professionals to be proficient in data analytics and cybersecurity management
remain challenges for designing academic educational programs to efficiently accomplish
this training.
In this book, chapters have been generated to merge the concept of food safety being highly
integrated with the more recent developments in scientific research on foodborne pathogens
and the new methods developed to study them. Topics are designed to cover food systems and
foodborne ecology and how these approaches can be used to not only conduct research on
food safety and foodborne pathogens but also implement some of the emerging diagnostic
tools. This book will explore and discuss cutting edge research about emerging issues associ-
ated with foodborne pathogens and food safety systems at all levels from pet food to live
animal production, and finally food processing. Topics are designed to cover food systems
and foodborne pathogen ecology and how these approaches can be used to not only conduct
xvii
xviii Preface
research on food safety and foodborne pathogens but also develop educational materials for
training incoming professionals in the field on subjects, such as food systems data analytics
and cybersecurity.
More specifically, topics in this book will not only cover and update current food safety
thinking, but subsections of the book will also explore how to integrate food systems concepts
into pet food manufacturing and preharvest food safety practices and potential dietary amend-
ments to restrict foodborne pathogen colonization. This is followed by chapters on posthar-
vest food safety practices, current issues associated with certain foodborne pathogens, and
recent developments in interventions to limit their contamination in meat products and food
products such as juices. The last section includes chapters on application of emerging tech-
nologies such as whole genome sequencing for detection and microbial community profiling.
Finally, a chapter on the data analyses aspects of food systems as well as discussion on
cross-training education strategies to convey this knowledge to graduate students in food
science and computer engineering programs for preparing them to not only understand the
biological aspects of foodborne pathogens and food production systems but also develop their
ability to integrate these subjects into data analyses and cyberprotection programs. In sum-
mary, this book presents food safety as an integrative science among food production sys-
tems, the biology of pathogens defined by large data sets, their subsequent analyses, and
ultimately the overall interpretation and application in commercial food production.
Steven C. Ricke
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR, United States
CHAPTER 1
Changes in the Food Safety Landscape of
Pet Foods in the United States
Brittany L. White1, Billie L. Johnson2, Russell Morgan1, Richard G. Shields Jr.1
1Simmons Pet Food, Siloam Springs, AR, United States; 2Simmons Pet Food, Emporia, KS,
United States
History of Pet Food Types and Formats
In the United States, prepared food for pets actually began as table scraps, and it remains this
way in developing countries today. Feeding table scraps potentially presents food safety risks
associated with the lack of preservation, especially if the scraps are not fed immediately after
preparation. In the 1860s, James Spratt developed Spratt’s Dog Cakes which were biscuits for
pets, and initial commercial production in the United States began in 1895. This was shortly
followed by the introduction of Milk Bone in 1908. Clarence Gaines founded Gaines Food
Co. in the mid-1920s with 100-pound bags of dog meal and later introduced a pelleted
version called Gaines Krunchons. Gaines is also credited with the first food claiming com-
plete and balanced nutrition, which added nutritional adequacy to the food safety concerns
associated with pet food. Meals and pelleted diets tended to mirror processing options avail-
able for livestock feeds; however, the development of complete and balanced foods transi-
tioned the formulation to a blend of meat, milk, and cereal grains. The first canned food
emerged in the early 1920s with the launch of Ken-L-Ration by the Chappel Brothers as an
effort to find a market for horsemeat. This brand was the first to recommend mixed feeding of
dry and wet pet food in the 1930s. The canned food ultimately began to dominate the pet food
market, using coproducts of numerous meat and fish packers including Wilson Meat Packing,
Swift & Company, Armour & Company, and John Morrell & Company. In 1941, canned pet
food represented 91% of lbs sold. However, a can shortage during World War II resulted in a
transition from cans to glass containers. By 1946 the pet food market had shifted back to dry
foods, with wet pet food representing only 15% of the business volume. The initial canned
wet pet foods were primarily hermetically sealed in steel cans which were soldered, but the
can style ultimately transitioned to drawn and ironed cans of steel and more recently to
aluminum and plastic components. Today retortable pouches and semirigid tubs and trays
with heat seals compared with conventional metal seams have become quite popular and
therefore present new sealing and cooking challenges as overpressure is required to maintain
seal integrity.
Food and Feed Safety Systems and Analysis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811835-1.00001-4
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 3
4 Chapter 1
The industry changed dramatically in the 1950s with the launch of the extruded pet food
Purina Dog Chow, which almost instantly became the #1 brand nationally. Even in the
presence of this shift, wet pet food represented 60% of the volume in 1960, and today
represents closer to 25%. The 1980s brought about the addition of chunk-in-gravy style
canned food, whereas the loaf format formerly predominated. This required some formula-
tion changes to allow for chunk binding and also gravy viscosity. In the 1990s came the
introduction of Purina ONE which was the first product to have actual meat as the #1
ingredient in a dry, extruded formula. As the use of extruders in pet food application
expanded, product offerings extended beyond traditional dry kibble to shelf stable, soft
moist foods with Gaines-Burgers being the first soft moist offering in the 1960s. Soft moist
food formulation actually was an outgrowth of mink diet feeding and required extensive
use of hurdle technologies to ensure food safety at higher moistures. In 1981, Kibbles N’
Bits was introduced, which represented a new pet food format termed soft dry, which
contained dry and soft moist components mixed together in a single offering. This repre-
sented new challenges, namely how to prevent moisture migration from the soft moist
piece to the dry component. In 1996, product design changes were again required for soft
moist cat foods as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibited use of propylene
glycol in cat foods (21 CFR 589.1001) because it had been shown to cause abnormalities
in red blood cells (Christopher et al., 1989). Propylene glycol had been the most common
humectant used in soft moist formulations as it had an added benefit of being a miticide
(EPA, 2004).
There are several other emerging pet food formats that currently represent a much smaller
share of the pet food market, including pet treats. Freeze drying is a processing technique that
has been growing steadily at 45.5% per year since 2011 (Phillips-Donaldson, 2016). One pet
food processing category that has primarily been used for treats products is injection molding,
which has origins in the plastics industry. Of interest from a food safety standpoint is
Greenies, an injection molded treat that was launched in 1998 by S&M NuTec, LLC. By 2003
Greenies became the #1 treat by value sales, surpassing the long-standing top seller, Milk
Bone (http://www.petfoodindustry.com/articles/637-success-and-more). The brand was sold
in 2006 amid numerous complaints of choking and digestibility hazards associated with the
treat. Another category of pet treats that has emerged in recent years that represents unique
food safety challenges is dehydrated jerky treats. In the early 2000s, dehydrated chicken jerky
treats for dogs were primarily being produced in China. Between 2007 and 2013, the FDA
received 4500 reports of pet illness and 580 reported pet deaths due to consuming jerky treats
made in China. After extensive investigation, no specific cause was ever identified. However,
in 2013, the state of New York found traces of an antibiotic in the jerky treats made in China,
which was not allowed for consumption, so many major brands voluntarily recalled their
products being made in China, leaving shelf vacancy that was ultimately filled by jerky treats
made in the United States.
Changes in the Food Safety Landscape of Pet Foods in the United States 5
Pet Food Safety Issues Associated With Raw Materials
Alongside changes in product format, the ingredients used in pet food formulations have
changed over the years as well. Some of these changes have come either from the need to add
“good” ingredients or eliminate “bad” ingredients, when in fact many have both strengths and
weaknesses. Some ingredient components that have been traditionally considered as “antinutri-
tional” in animal agriculture because of adverse impacts on growth or food utilization, such as
tannins and phytates, may actually have some health-promoting activities (Thompson, 1993).
For the majority of pet food history, ingredients used were familiar, consistent with those used
in the animal feed industry, which were derived from domestic grains, rendered meals, or
from chemicals synthesized in countries with well-developed feed safety systems. Food safety
recalls in pet food were typically the result of lack of research on cumulative toxicity of
common feed compounds or mold toxins for pets. Ingredients with a long history of use, such
as corn, soy, and wheat, have fallen into disfavor with some pet parents and manufacturers
resulting in the need to replace their nutrient or functional contribution with other ingredients
that may have long-term effects that are not completely understood. Understanding toxicity of
nutrients and ingredient components in both pets and humans is quite challenging as chronic
effects of exposure during the lifetime of the pet must be considered. In addition, as with all
animals, researchers must also consider ingredient interactions that may either ameliorate or
exacerbate the effects of a single compound. The difficulty in understanding the long-term
safety of an ingredient is exacerbated by differences in the way in which different species
may react that may compound the effects, and utilization of pets in research, especially when
there is a risk of causing harm to the pet, has fallen into disfavor.
Use of new and different ingredients in pet foods may be driven by an effort by a brand to gain
market share. Brands have often capitalized on “free-from” claims in human and pet foods or
have focused highlighted ingredient quality or safety attributes to differentiate themselves from
ingredients used in other brands. The individualization of products for pets with special needs has
also resulted in a proliferation in the use of unique ingredients. Globalization has caused changes
in raw material sourcing as relocation of the ingredient further processing industry and a desire
for novel ingredients has required manufacturers to import many ingredients, forcing utilization
of unfamiliar materials from unfamiliar suppliers. The humanization of pets has also resulted in
use of unique and more expensive ingredients that tend to be more susceptible to economically
motivated adulteration (EMA). Because of the species dependence in food safety risks associated
with different compounds, the impact of such adulteration can have unintended effects.
Base Ingredient Selection
With increased recognition of food sensitivities in pets, there has also been increased use of
alternative meat and vegetable proteins and carbohydrate sources. In addition, the proliferation
6 Chapter 1
of clean label, simple diets with shorter history of use present an increased risk due to increased
predominance of a single ingredient in the food compared with formulas that rely on nutrient
contributions of a variety of ingredients. This issue has been exacerbated by current trends of
“wild” and “paleo” diets for pets, which are based on foods that are eaten by animals in the wild
and consist primarily of meats, fish, fruits, and vegetables and excludes grains.
The growing consumer trends of grain free foods and limited ingredient diets tend to use
alternative starch sources to replace conventional cereal grains. The risk this presents is
two-fold. First, it leads to the sourcing new raw materials outside of the United States and
also demands incorporation of ingredients that have a much less comprehensive food safety
evaluation. Even some of these ingredients that are familiar, such as potatoes, carry food
safety risks such as the presence of glycoalkaloids in coproducts derived from skins
(Nicholson et al., 1988; Smith et al., 1996). Alkaloids are also found in tomatoes and egg-
plant, which have emerged in recent pet food formulations (Friedman et al., 1996).
Humanization of Pet Food
The trend toward humanization of pet foods has also exposed pets to increased quality and/or food
safety risks. Following human food trends, there has recently been an interest in utilization of
organic, genetically modified (GM)-free, and sustainable ingredients. Meeting these needs
requires the use of a more-restricted raw material stream, which also increases susceptibility to
EMA. Furthermore, although the intent may not be an impact to food safety, negative conse-
quences can occur if harmful diluents or replacements are used. This was demonstrated by the
melamine contamination of wheat gluten and milk in 2007. In a publication by GMA (2010), it
was estimated that economic adulteration and counterfeiting of global food costs the food industry
10–15 billion dollars each year. Moore et al. (2012) reported that olive oil, milk, honey, and saffron
were the most common adulteration targets in a review of incidents occurring between 1980 and
2010. Fruit juices, especially those of superfruits, have also been known to be subject to dilution
with less costly juices. In a Congressional Research Service Report by Renee Johnson (2014), it
was also reported that fish and seafood fraud may be widespread in some markets. Even common
meats like beef were found in 2013 to be adulterated with horsemeat (Walker et al., 2013).
There has been increased recognition of the presence of several human metabolic defects in
pets such as copper storage disease and gluten intolerance in dog breeds and urinary crystals
in dogs and cats which in turn results in special dietary needs and restrictions. Many special-
ized diets with respect to nutrient content are best distributed under the direction of a veteri-
narian as, although they may be helpful to target animals, they may be inadequate for the
general pet population.
Consumption of what would be considered quality human foods by pets can cause a food
safety risk. In some cases, it results from species differences in metabolism, whereas in
others, it is from the fact that food products intended for humans are not meant to be sole