Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. is recalling Entenmann’s Little Bites Soft Baked Cookies (5 pack Mini Chocolate Chip variety) due to the potential presence of visible, blue plastic pieces in the individual packaging pouch. The plastic is not baked into the product since it was introduced during the packaging process. [so the plastic was generated by the packaging equipment / process.]
The company announced the recall after receiving consumer reports of visible, blue plastic pieces found on or packaged with the product. There are no reports of injury to date.
https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/bimbo-bakeries-usa-voluntary-recall-entenmanns-little-bites-cookies-due-potential-presence-plastic
Bimbo Bakeries USA Voluntary Recall of Entenmann’s Little Bites Cookies Due to Potential Presence of Plastic Pieces
When a company announces a recall, market withdrawal, or safety alert, the FDA posts the company's announcement as a public service. FDA does not endorse either the product or the company.
Summary
Company Announcement Date: August 01, 2019
FDA Publish Date:August 01, 2019
Product Type:Food & Beverages
Reason for Announcement: Due to the potential presence of visible, blue plastic pieces
Company Name:Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.
Brand Name: Entenmann’s
Product Description: Soft Baked Chocolate Chip Cookies
Showing posts with label packaging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label packaging. Show all posts
Friday, August 2, 2019
Friday, April 6, 2018
Addressing Packaging Risks in The Food Safety Plan
An article in this month's Food Safety Magazine (April 3, 2018), "How Should Packaging Be Addressed in Your Food Safety Program:, discusses the risk associated with packaging. In general the risk of hazards from food packaging is low.
Foreign objects - low. Perhaps for glass if packaging in glass containers.
But there are a number of controls in place to help reduce issues including washers and detectors.
Allergen management can pose a bigger risk especially when food manufacturers are handling multiple labels covering multiple allergen combinations. Issues include poor execution in creating labels, not checking labels at receiving, using the wrong labels when processing.
In their summary, "So, is packaging a significant risk in the overall food safety management system? The answer is no. The overall risk is probably even lower today with the emphasis on adoption of GFSI audit schemes or ISO 22000. "
Food Safety Magazine FSM eDigest | April 3, 2018
https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/enewsletter/how-should-packaging-be-addressed-in-your-food-safety-program/#References
How Should Packaging Be Addressed in Your Food Safety Program?
By Richard F. Stier
Foreign objects - low. Perhaps for glass if packaging in glass containers.
But there are a number of controls in place to help reduce issues including washers and detectors.
Allergen management can pose a bigger risk especially when food manufacturers are handling multiple labels covering multiple allergen combinations. Issues include poor execution in creating labels, not checking labels at receiving, using the wrong labels when processing.
In their summary, "So, is packaging a significant risk in the overall food safety management system? The answer is no. The overall risk is probably even lower today with the emphasis on adoption of GFSI audit schemes or ISO 22000. "
Food Safety Magazine FSM eDigest | April 3, 2018
https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/enewsletter/how-should-packaging-be-addressed-in-your-food-safety-program/#References
How Should Packaging Be Addressed in Your Food Safety Program?
By Richard F. Stier
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Colors and Printing on Food Packaging
An article in Food Safety Magazine, Colorants in Food Packaging: FDA Safety Requirements (Oct/Nov 2016), reviews the FDA safety requirements of food packaging colors and printing. In summary, "The rules of thumb for determining the regulatory status of a pigment or dye are as follows: A substance that colors the food, even if it is in a packaging material, is a color additive and may be used only as permitted by an applicable FDA color additive regulation. Substances that color only a packaging material, and do not impart color to the food, are regulated as food additives if components of the substance are found to migrate into food. No premarket clearance by FDA is required, however, if the substance is not reasonably expected to become a component of food, is GRAS or is included on the list of “pre-1958 colorants.”
There are always questions about printing on the primary packaging and what is the concern. So, the primary question is whether that printing material can migrate to the food. If it can, then that color needs to be approved for use.
There are always questions about printing on the primary packaging and what is the concern. So, the primary question is whether that printing material can migrate to the food. If it can, then that color needs to be approved for use.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Corrugated Packaging Process Sufficient to Eliminate Pathogenic Bacteria
The Corrugated Packaging Alliance (CPA) sponsored a study that evaluated the impact of the corrugation process on bacterial pathogens. The study found that the high temperatures used (180 to 200ºF were sufficient to achieve a 5 log reduction of bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella. We normally would not have considered corrugated boxes an issue, well, now here is the documented proof.
If you want this study for your validation files, you can download that document here.
Corrugated Packaging Alliance
http://www.corrugated.org/ViewPage.aspx?ContentID=88
TEMPERATURE, TIME TESTING PROVES CORRUGATION PROCESS DESTROYS BACTERIA
ITASCA, IL (FEBRUARY 2, 2016) – A new study shows the process of combining linerboard and medium to make corrugated packaging is sufficient to destroy common food pathogens, effectively meeting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) requirements for chemical sanitizers.
If you want this study for your validation files, you can download that document here.
Corrugated Packaging Alliance
http://www.corrugated.org/ViewPage.aspx?ContentID=88
TEMPERATURE, TIME TESTING PROVES CORRUGATION PROCESS DESTROYS BACTERIA
ITASCA, IL (FEBRUARY 2, 2016) – A new study shows the process of combining linerboard and medium to make corrugated packaging is sufficient to destroy common food pathogens, effectively meeting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) requirements for chemical sanitizers.
Monday, August 3, 2015
Kraft Cheese Product Recalled Due to Packaging Choking Hazard
Kraft Heinz is recalling packs of individually wrapped cheese product due to the fact the wrapping for the cheese slice does not completely come off in one motion...that is, a strip of plastic film can be missed by the consumer when then unwrap the cheese product slice. The wrapping deviation is only found in the 3lb and 4lb packages. There have been 10 complaints and 3 reports of consumer choking.
One would wonder if this hazard had considered prior to this event and was it included on the facility's hazard analysis? Certainly now it would be need to be added along with some type of control. This is a good point of discussion for any facilities that have wrapping that adheres directly to the product, especially individually wrapped - single-serve units.
FDA Recall Notice
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm456883.htm
The Kraft Heinz Company Voluntarily Recalls Select Varieties of Kraft Singles Products Due to Potential Choking Hazard
Only 3-Lb. and 4-Lb. Packages of Kraft Singles Included in Recall
Contact: Consumer: 1-800-432-3101
Media: Jody Moore 847-646-4538, News@KraftHeinzCompany.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – July 31, 2015 – Northfield, Ill. – The Kraft Heinz Company is voluntarily recalling select code dates and manufacturing codes of Kraft Singles individually-wrapped slices due to the possibility that a thin strip of the individual packaging film may remain adhered to the slice after the wrapper has been removed. If the film sticks to the slice and is not removed, it could potentially cause a choking hazard.
The recall applies to 3-lb. and 4-lb. sizes of Kraft Singles American and White American pasteurized prepared cheese product with a Best When Used By Date of 29 DEC 15 through 04 JAN 16, followed by the Manufacturing Code S54 or S55.
One would wonder if this hazard had considered prior to this event and was it included on the facility's hazard analysis? Certainly now it would be need to be added along with some type of control. This is a good point of discussion for any facilities that have wrapping that adheres directly to the product, especially individually wrapped - single-serve units.
FDA Recall Notice
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm456883.htm
The Kraft Heinz Company Voluntarily Recalls Select Varieties of Kraft Singles Products Due to Potential Choking Hazard
Only 3-Lb. and 4-Lb. Packages of Kraft Singles Included in Recall
Contact: Consumer: 1-800-432-3101
Media: Jody Moore 847-646-4538, News@KraftHeinzCompany.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – July 31, 2015 – Northfield, Ill. – The Kraft Heinz Company is voluntarily recalling select code dates and manufacturing codes of Kraft Singles individually-wrapped slices due to the possibility that a thin strip of the individual packaging film may remain adhered to the slice after the wrapper has been removed. If the film sticks to the slice and is not removed, it could potentially cause a choking hazard.
The recall applies to 3-lb. and 4-lb. sizes of Kraft Singles American and White American pasteurized prepared cheese product with a Best When Used By Date of 29 DEC 15 through 04 JAN 16, followed by the Manufacturing Code S54 or S55.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Controversy Over the Safety of Reusable Food Containers
A battle has begun between the corrugated container provides and the reusable plastic container (RPC) providers with regard to safety for handling produce. The corrugated container people cite two studies (that they paid for) that show contains can carry bacteria, while the RPC cite a history of use where there has been no documented cases of food safety issues related to these reusable plastic containers.
I guess my approach is more simplistic. If food surfaces are contaminated, they can be the source of contamination to the food the carry. That contamination can be pathogens or even spoilage organisms depending upon the application. So if you are willing to properly clean those containers, then that is great, but you better be able to validate that cleaning process. If not, there is the possibility of issues (depending on the application of use). Or you can consider using one-time-use corrugated containers that eliminate the risk.
Having worked in the industry for many years, I have seen reusable plastic containers that are down right disgusting. And I think the RPC industry is doing itself a disservice by not stating that these containers need to be properly cleaned and sanitized, especially in applications where that contamination can be harmful (for example, in refrigerated RTE applications where Listeria biofilm formation can lead to contamination).
In a world where sustainability is becoming a necessity, reusable containers will become an important part for reducing waste. But we cannot give those containers a pass because they are considered 'more sustainable'. For operations that wish to go in this direction, part of that investment must be the means for cleaning and sanitizing.
Even done to the consumer level where people have used reusable plastic containers for storing food. One company is selling reusable zip lock bags (bottom). That is great, as long as the consumers can adequately clean them.
The Packer
http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/RPC-corrugated-groups-spar-over-food-safety-283218931.html?llsms=1051551&c=y
RPC, corrugated groups spar over food safety
11/19/2014 11:56:00 AM
Tom Karst
Two recent studies of bacteria on reusable plastic containers — both sponsored by corrugated carton groups — question the cleaning process used on RPCs before they enter the supply chain again. RPC supplier IFCO and the Reusable Packaging Association has countered that no foodborne illness outbreak has been traced to RPCS. Keith Warriner, professor of food safety at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, said the study of RPCs — commissioned by the Canadian Corrugated and Containerboard Association — was an extension of one he performed in 2013. The first study tested 50 RPCs, while the 2014 study involved 160 RPCs. In the 2014 study, RPC samples from five Canadian packing facilities were pulled from different lots of trays that had been delivered on pallets wrapped with plastic film. Corrugated cartons from those facilities were not tested for comparison, Warriner said.
I guess my approach is more simplistic. If food surfaces are contaminated, they can be the source of contamination to the food the carry. That contamination can be pathogens or even spoilage organisms depending upon the application. So if you are willing to properly clean those containers, then that is great, but you better be able to validate that cleaning process. If not, there is the possibility of issues (depending on the application of use). Or you can consider using one-time-use corrugated containers that eliminate the risk.
Having worked in the industry for many years, I have seen reusable plastic containers that are down right disgusting. And I think the RPC industry is doing itself a disservice by not stating that these containers need to be properly cleaned and sanitized, especially in applications where that contamination can be harmful (for example, in refrigerated RTE applications where Listeria biofilm formation can lead to contamination).
In a world where sustainability is becoming a necessity, reusable containers will become an important part for reducing waste. But we cannot give those containers a pass because they are considered 'more sustainable'. For operations that wish to go in this direction, part of that investment must be the means for cleaning and sanitizing.
Even done to the consumer level where people have used reusable plastic containers for storing food. One company is selling reusable zip lock bags (bottom). That is great, as long as the consumers can adequately clean them.
The Packer
http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/RPC-corrugated-groups-spar-over-food-safety-283218931.html?llsms=1051551&c=y
RPC, corrugated groups spar over food safety
11/19/2014 11:56:00 AM
Tom Karst
Two recent studies of bacteria on reusable plastic containers — both sponsored by corrugated carton groups — question the cleaning process used on RPCs before they enter the supply chain again. RPC supplier IFCO and the Reusable Packaging Association has countered that no foodborne illness outbreak has been traced to RPCS. Keith Warriner, professor of food safety at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, said the study of RPCs — commissioned by the Canadian Corrugated and Containerboard Association — was an extension of one he performed in 2013. The first study tested 50 RPCs, while the 2014 study involved 160 RPCs. In the 2014 study, RPC samples from five Canadian packing facilities were pulled from different lots of trays that had been delivered on pallets wrapped with plastic film. Corrugated cartons from those facilities were not tested for comparison, Warriner said.
Monday, April 2, 2012
FDA will not ban BPA at this time
The controversy will continue as FDA has decided not to ban BPA from food packaging materials at this time (due to inconclusive evidence). A ban would have had a huge impact on the food supply, as companies rushed to find suitable replacements. Continued study will occur.
U.S. Denies Request to Ban Chemical in Food PackagingBloomberg
By Jack Kaskey - Mar 30, 2012 6:07 PM ETFri Mar 30 22:07:58 GMT 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-30/u-s-denies-request-to-ban-chemical-in-food-and-drink-packaging.html
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected a request to ban a contested chemical from cans and other packaging because opponents didn’t provide enough data to support a rule change.
Continued study of bisphenol A, known as BPA, including completion of federal studies currently in progress, is the most appropriate course of action, the agency said in an e-mail today. The chemical has been used in epoxy linings since the 1960s to extend the shelf life of canned foods and beverages.
Manufacturers of baby bottles and cups have stopped using polycarbonate containing BPA in response to consumer concerns it may affect children. Campbell Soup Co. (CPB) is among food makers phasing out the use of BPA, while beverage companies such asCoca-Cola Co. (KO) have kept the chemical, saying it’s safe.
“The information provided in your petition was not sufficient to persuade FDA, at this time, to initiate rulemaking to prohibit the use of BPA in human food and food packaging,”David H. Horsey, an acting associate FDA commissioner, said today in a letter to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
NRDC, a New York-based environmental advocacy group, petitioned the FDA in 2008 to ban its use in food and drinks packaging. BPA, produced by combining phenol and acetone, mimics the female hormone estrogen and may affect the brain and prostate gland in fetuses and young children, according to theNational Institutes of Health.
Quickly Processed
A ban would hurt profits at can-maker Silgan Holdings Inc. (SLGN)and others in the $60 billion industry, Ghansham Panjabi, an analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co., said before the FDA announcement. The biggest U.S. producer of BPA is Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC), followed by Bayer AG (BAYN) and Dow Chemical Co. (DOW)
About 4.7 million metric tons of BPA valued at about $8 billion will be produced this year, according to a report by GlobalData, a London-based publisher of business intelligence. Three times as much BPA goes into polycarbonate plastics, used in items ranging from plastic bottles to DVDs, as is used in epoxy resins.
The FDA plans to complete an updated safety review of BPA this year and will make any changes to the chemical’s status based on the science, Douglas Karas, an agency spokesman, said in an e-mail. People of all ages metabolize and rid their bodies of BPA faster than rodents used in studies, he said.
Federally funded research confirms that the human body quickly processes and eliminates BPA, making it “very unlikely” that the chemical causes harm, the American Chemistry Council, a Washington-based industry group, said in a statement today.
‘Dangerously Off Course’
Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the NRDC, said the FDA’s denial of a ban shows “a major overhaul” of chemical regulation is needed. The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group, said consumers can no longer trust the FDA to protect the health of their families.
“The agency has veered dangerously off course,” Jane Houlihan, the group’s senior vice president for research, said today in a statement. “Pregnant women and new parents should no longer think FDA has their backs.”
The North American Metal Packaging Alliance, a Washington-based industry group, praised the FDA’s decision.
“A ban without conclusive scientific evidence of risk would compromise the safety of canned foods and beverages,” John Rost, the alliance’s chairman, said in an e-mailed statement.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jack Kaskey in Houston at jkaskey@bloomberg.net
U.S. Denies Request to Ban Chemical in Food PackagingBloomberg
By Jack Kaskey - Mar 30, 2012 6:07 PM ETFri Mar 30 22:07:58 GMT 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-30/u-s-denies-request-to-ban-chemical-in-food-and-drink-packaging.html
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected a request to ban a contested chemical from cans and other packaging because opponents didn’t provide enough data to support a rule change.
Continued study of bisphenol A, known as BPA, including completion of federal studies currently in progress, is the most appropriate course of action, the agency said in an e-mail today. The chemical has been used in epoxy linings since the 1960s to extend the shelf life of canned foods and beverages.
Manufacturers of baby bottles and cups have stopped using polycarbonate containing BPA in response to consumer concerns it may affect children. Campbell Soup Co. (CPB) is among food makers phasing out the use of BPA, while beverage companies such asCoca-Cola Co. (KO) have kept the chemical, saying it’s safe.
“The information provided in your petition was not sufficient to persuade FDA, at this time, to initiate rulemaking to prohibit the use of BPA in human food and food packaging,”David H. Horsey, an acting associate FDA commissioner, said today in a letter to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
NRDC, a New York-based environmental advocacy group, petitioned the FDA in 2008 to ban its use in food and drinks packaging. BPA, produced by combining phenol and acetone, mimics the female hormone estrogen and may affect the brain and prostate gland in fetuses and young children, according to theNational Institutes of Health.
Quickly Processed
A ban would hurt profits at can-maker Silgan Holdings Inc. (SLGN)and others in the $60 billion industry, Ghansham Panjabi, an analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co., said before the FDA announcement. The biggest U.S. producer of BPA is Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC), followed by Bayer AG (BAYN) and Dow Chemical Co. (DOW)
About 4.7 million metric tons of BPA valued at about $8 billion will be produced this year, according to a report by GlobalData, a London-based publisher of business intelligence. Three times as much BPA goes into polycarbonate plastics, used in items ranging from plastic bottles to DVDs, as is used in epoxy resins.
The FDA plans to complete an updated safety review of BPA this year and will make any changes to the chemical’s status based on the science, Douglas Karas, an agency spokesman, said in an e-mail. People of all ages metabolize and rid their bodies of BPA faster than rodents used in studies, he said.
Federally funded research confirms that the human body quickly processes and eliminates BPA, making it “very unlikely” that the chemical causes harm, the American Chemistry Council, a Washington-based industry group, said in a statement today.
‘Dangerously Off Course’
Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the NRDC, said the FDA’s denial of a ban shows “a major overhaul” of chemical regulation is needed. The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group, said consumers can no longer trust the FDA to protect the health of their families.
“The agency has veered dangerously off course,” Jane Houlihan, the group’s senior vice president for research, said today in a statement. “Pregnant women and new parents should no longer think FDA has their backs.”
The North American Metal Packaging Alliance, a Washington-based industry group, praised the FDA’s decision.
“A ban without conclusive scientific evidence of risk would compromise the safety of canned foods and beverages,” John Rost, the alliance’s chairman, said in an e-mailed statement.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jack Kaskey in Houston at jkaskey@bloomberg.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)