Page 1

SPECIAL ISSUE EDITOR, Philip G. Crandall ISSN: 2159-8967

Volume 4, Issue 1 2014


Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


Hae-Yeong Kim

University of Florida, USA

Kyung Hee University, South Korea

Walid Q. Alali

Woo-Kyun Kim

University of Georgia, USA

University of Georgia, USA

Kenneth M. Bischoff

M.B. Kirkham


Kansas State University, USA

Debabrata Biswas

Todd Kostman

University of Maryland, USA

University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, USA

Claudia S. Dunkley

Y. M. Kwon

University of Georgia, USA

University of Arkansas, USA

Michael Flythe

Maria Luz Sanz

USDA, Agricultural Research Service

MuriasInstituto de Quimica Organic General, Spain

Lawrence Goodridge

Melanie R. Mormile

McGill University, Canada

Missouri University of Science and Tech., USA

Leluo Guan

Rama Nannapaneni

University of Alberta, Canada

Mississippi State University, USA

Joshua Gurtler

Jack A. Neal, Jr.


University of Houston, USA

Yong D. Hang

Benedict Okeke

Cornell University, USA

Auburn University at Montgomery, USA

Armitra Jackson-Davis

John Patterson

Alabama A&M University, USA

Purdue University, USA

Divya Jaroni

Toni Poole

Oklahoma State University, USA


Weihong Jiang

Marcos Rostagno

Shanghai Institute for Biol. Sciences, P.R. China


Michael Johnson

Roni Shapira

University of Arkansas, USA

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

Timothy Kelly

Kalidas Shetty

East Carolina University, USA

North Dakota State University, USA

William R. Kenealy Mascoma Corporation, USA Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


EDITORIAL STAFF SPECIAL ISSUE EDITOR, Philip G. Crandall EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Steven C. Ricke University of Arkansas, USA

MANAGING and LAYOUT EDITOR Ellen J. Van Loo Ghent, Belgium


TECHNICAL EDITOR Jessica C. Shabatura Fayetteville, USA

Philip G. Crandall University of Arkansas, USA


Janet Donaldson Mississippi State University, USA

C.S. Shabatura Fayetteville, USA

Ok-Kyung Koo Korea Food Research Institute, South Korea

ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION Mailing Address: 2138 Revere Place . Fayetteville, AR . 72701 Agriculture, Food & Analytical Bacteriology (ISSN 2159-8967) is published quarterly. Instructions for Authors may be obtained at the back of this issue, or online via our website at Manuscripts: All correspondence regarding pending manuscripts should be addressed Ellen Van Loo, Managing Editor, Agriculture, Food & Analytical Bacteriology:


Advertising: If you are interested in advertising with our journal, please contact us at for a media kit and current rates. Reprint Permission: Correspondence regarding reprints should be addressed Ellen Van Loo, Managing Editor, Agriculture, Food & Analytical Bacteriology Ordering Print Copies: print editions of this journal may be purchased and shipped internationally from our website order form at

Information for Potential Editors: If you are interested in becoming a part of our editorial board, please contact Editor-in-Chief, Steven Ricke, Agriculture, Food & Analytical Bacteriology: 4

Subscription Rates: Subscriptions are not available at this time. To be advised when subscriptions plans are made available, please join our newsletter at

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


Introduction Special Issue P. G. Crandall


A Personal Hygiene Behavioral Change Study at a Midwestern Cheese Production Plant J. A. Neal, C. A. O’Bryan and P. G. Crandall


Preventing Post-Processing Contamination in a Food Nugget Processing Line When Language Barriers Exist J. A. Neal, C. A. O’Bryan and P. G. Crandall


Behavioral Change Study at a Western Soup Production Plant C. A. O’Bryan, J. A. Neal, and P. G. Crandall


Salmonella in Cantaloupes: You Make Me Sick! B. A. Almanza


The Hurricane Sandy Dilemma B. A. Almanza


Intellect-u-ale: A Smart Approach to Quality Assurance in a Micro-Brewery A. J. Corsi, M. Goodman, and J. A. Neal

Introduction to Authors 61

Instructions for Authors

The publishers do not warrant the accuracy of the articles in this journal, nor any views or opinions by their authors. Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


NEW EDITORIAL STAFF Dr. Michael Flythe appointed to AFAB editorial board Dr. Michael Flythe is a microbiologist at the USDA-Agricultural Research Service, ForageAnimal Production Research Unit in Lexington, Kentucky. He is also an adjunct assistant professor in the University of Kentucky, Department of Animal & Food Sciences. Dr. Flythe holds a Bachelor of Science degree in biology from Bridgewater College and a Doctor of Philosophy in microbiology from Cornell University. His primary research area is rumen microbiology, but he is broadly interested in the physiology and ecology of anaerobic bacteria that catabolize plant tissue. The research projects include amino acid fermenting bacteria in goats, antimicrobial plant secondary metabolites, effects of antimicrobials on hindgut microbiology in horses, and on-farm biomass fermentation. An advocate of collaborative, interdisciplinary research, Dr. Flythe has mentored students from animal science, agricultural engineering, chemical engineering, chemistry and biology departments from 5 different universities. His publications and presentations include: 20 peer-reviewed articles, 2 book chapters, 4 invited seminars and 21 proceedings or abstracts. He has been a PI or Co-PI on grants and R&D agreements totaling more than $7M.


Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

7 Copyright © 2014 Agriculture, Food and Analytical Bacteriology

Introduction to Case Studies

P. G. Crandall1 Department of Food Science and Center for Food Safety, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704


It happens to each of us almost every day; because we can’t be in two places at once, we miss something important—even a class or a training session “because of circumstances beyond our control.” However, there is a solution for today’s media-centric students and their mentality of 24/7 accessibility. On- line instructors can virtually be in two places at once and never have to miss class or a training session because something popped up unexpectedly. An effective means of instruction with long-term retention is to present trainees with real-world problems told as a stories to read, analyze, and write a solution. Known as case studies, these stories provide numerous advantages for students or trainees. For one thing, when employees analyze and write their analysis of the case, they strengthen their critical thinking and writing skills. The case studies also provide practice in solving problems employees are likely to encounter in the real life setting of a plant or work place. Mastering case-study trainings may also allow trainees to advance up the career ladder or receive other tangible rewards. For students, casestudy-based training effectively prepares them to become effective managers in the food industry.

employees and staff can increase productivity in the workplace, lower the risk of poor decision making, and boost morale. As a result, effective use of case studies can support career advancement for the trainer as well. It encourages instructors to prepare the next generation of subject matter experts who in turn will be trainers and instructors of future students and employees. OK, you’re convinced, but where do you get casestudies from the food industry? Well, you could search the internet for “food industry case studies” which will net more than 60,000 hits. However, wading through this gigantic offering is a daunting task—which may not yield a direct tie to the subject you need to teach. A better solution? Write your own case-study that is specific to your goals and to your students or trainees. All you need to get started is a little coaching and some examples given in this issue. The first step is to ask yourself, “Who am I writing this case-study for and what outcome (deliverables) do I expect?” Whatever you decide should follow the S.M.A.R.T. acronym for writing learning objectives for your students. They should be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time framed.

Trainers also benefit from using case studies in their training portfolio. Effective training of their

Such objectives are meaningful for planning and for assessing your instruction and the students’ mastery of the subject matter of your choice. Next, ask what media will best convey your message to the learners: written text, videos such as

Correspondence: P. G. Crandall,


Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

those found on You Tube, a podcast, or setting up a situation such as a crime scene investigation with clandestine excerpts from blogs or e-mail clips. In each format, case studies can give students “real world” situations with real world problems where they can develop their analytic and critical thinking skills. As the trainer, you can portray situations in your plant that you want your employees to think about, propose alternatives for, and then ask your learners to think through how they would implement and evaluate their proposed solutions.




Case studies are typically “real life stories,” often with the names and locations changed to protect their real identities. The examples presented here are “short” case study, typically no more than 4 to 6 pages, including data in the form of charts, graphs, or other visuals. The story line generally includes several elements: a. a problem, a clear definition of the problem and the environment in which the problem exists, b. characters who are described in enough detail that they seem to become real people with a real problem or people whose manager has given them the problem to solve. c. a setting or place, which may or may not add credibility and complexity to the case-study d. a solution, which is usually a less-than-desirable solution proposed by the characters who have not considered the full situation or have made a faulty judgment. It is this faulty solution that students are charged with analyzing and proposing alternatives that they can defend. How should you tell the story in the case study? Of course, the case can be organized in numerous ways tailored to fit a particular audience. However, despite the variety of presentations, most case studies are organized to have these elements:

An introduction to the case—sets the stage and gives the “thesis statement”—a streamlined summary of the problem. Background information— draws the reader in by providing a juicy rationale as to why the case was created and introduces the characters and the setting. The goal is to entice the reader to read on. Body— presents how the characters in your case went about analyzing the details surrounding the problem (the old scientific method), the solutions they proposed, and their analysis of each possible solution before selecting one to be evaluated. Conclusion— restates the problem, the solution the characters chose and the results of their choice. There may also be data and additional, outside readings. Some cases include an Appendix where the trainer presents additional information on the company, their competitive situation, governmental or regulatory policy references that have a bearing on the case, the company’s Annual Report, or the company’s form 10-K. Such information may be vitally important, but because these details could interrupt the flow of the case, these supporting details need to be put in the Appendix.

MORE DECISIONS TRAINERS NEED TO MAKE After presenting a carefully crafted case study, trainers or instructors must decide how their students are to work with the problem they are given. They can present a task to the trainees in one of several ways. For example, students can be instructed to: •

Individually come up with a different solution

to the problem and gather supporting information to support the wisdom of their solution reflect on the long-term results of the case’s proposed short-term, “Band-Aid fix” form a group or team to come up with their

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


“better solution” and justify their plan of action, thus strengthening their team-building skills. Trainers can then stand back (or log off) and let the students become fully engaged (individually or as a team) in the process of solving the problem. In fact, trainers may be shocked to find that their students blogging as they put in extra hours to conquer the problem! After students have analyzed the case study either individually or in a group, they present their analysis of the case. Warning: some groups become so enthusiastic that they seem to take on a team spirit as they

Additional reading @ casestudies/students/writing.htm


present their own solutions. Presentations of these solutions may be given orally in Skype, posted to a discussion board, or presented as a written report in an on-line class or orally in a face-to-face training.

HELPFUL HINTS In addition to this thumb-nail sketch of the elements most critical style case-studies share, we want to include some hints to help you be successful. We will provide some sample case studies, each constructed from experiences common to many food plants. Each case study includes a Note to the Instructor, giving ideas about how the case can be used. You may also find the following web sites helpful as you write engaging cases that hold the readers’ attention and heighten the readers’ engagement with the case. • case_study • • While it is beyond the scope of this presentation to coach learners on how to analyze a case, there are ample helps available on line at sites like those below when you are drafting learning objectives for the case you want to use: 10

If you want to train students online, it is best if the instructor meets with each team of students at least three times. The duration of these sessions depends on the number of participating teams. The first, hopefully face-to-face, meeting is critical to assess the preparation level of the students for the tasks at hand. The instructor must judge: oo the leadership capabilities of the team leader, oo the motivation level of the participants to become willing and participating learners, oo the level of self-motivation to accomplish their individual, assigned tasks oo and most importantly, the team’s need to devise 5 or 6 statements to serve as the Team Charter or rules they all agree to live by. If deemed advisable for the team, the Team Charter is prepared by each team, approved by the instructor and signed by each team member. This document also must state the team and individual evaluation policy, timelines and mile-markers by which all parties can measure progress on task. A suggestion for Charter is to allot at least 10% of the final grade to be determined by each team member’s assessment of every other team member. Students can evaluate each other and send their confidential peer evaluations to the instructor online at the time of the final presentation. Students sometimes balk about this requirement, but as future managers, they need this assessment experience because this is one of the things that one day in the future they will be paid to do.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

The suggested second in-person meeting is halfway through the semester, have teams report (orally or in a written report) so the instructor can evaluate each teams’ progress against their time-lines and mile stones. If everyone participates in this mid-term reporting out session, the “hot-shot” team will put peer pressure on the stragglers. The last in person meeting will be to make both oral and written final presentations of the team-work. There can be a large number of creative formats that are acceptable. The instructor needs to commit to a turnaround time of no more than 12 hours to

Tigers and Buffalo Bills. Bob is a life-long learner dedicated to the learning of others. During his work experience, Bob built relationships with his clients, one of whom was Alchemy Training Systems. During his decades of training employees and staff at all levels, Bob learned that the traditional Power Point instruction and even online, or interactive training modules typically have a short half-life, low long-term retention and a rapid decay of knowledge. What would work better? Bob favored his tried and true: training plus peer coaching combined with directed observations by a supervisor or line-lead, providing constant feedback to the trainee, and corrective coaching. He has also

grade any online course assignments and answer e-mails as soon as possible.

found that case studies fit into this scheme. In his work for clients, Bob, has focused on making:


• • •

Recently, a master employee trainer, Robert (Bob) Meyer, was hired by Alchemy Training Systems ( to conduct tailored employee trainings at food processing plants. Each training focused exclusively on a training topic selected by the plant management as being critical to their individual operations. Our sample case studies are based on the work Bob has done at plants across the country. The names and locations have been changed, but the usefulness of following a Master Trainer at work remains. First, let’s find out a bit about Bob so you can imagine him working in these scenarios. After completing his formal education at Michigan State, Bob worked as a teacher in a high school, middle school, then as an elementary school teacher before becoming a principal, superintendent, chief financial officer and chief operating officer for several school districts. Bob then moved to a small facilities management company in Pennsylvania which was later sold to a Fortune 50 facilities management company. Bob is married, has two grown children and two grandchildren. He is passionate about his family, Michigan State football and basketball; Detroit

Training that is effective for doing Bringing the learner to where they will execute sustained, superior performance Employee coaching practices that promote deliberate, reflective employee practice of the new behavior. (He has found this produces superior results as compared to the “tell and test” traditional instruction or the on-the-job training termed “next to Nelly” where new employee sits and observes the experienced trainer then is watched as they begin performing the new task.) Situational Awareness—learning for doing. Example: have learning materials that will accelerate the rate at which the novice becomes an advanced beginner, a journeyman and finally the residential expert. Learning that is the most efficient in context rich “scenario based learning” where the trainer immerses their learners in a situation where the trainee recognizes and activate their own God given ingenuity to effectively master the new task. (This is similar to what we are suggesting you do when you write your own case studies.) And finally, Learning that is meaningful, memorable, motivational and measurable.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


THE RESEARCH BASE The purpose of the Alchemy in-plant studies was to measure the effectiveness of the combination of their training methods that have been shown to be effective in combination with supervisors who made routine observations of the employees’ behavior and offered constructive coaching. Each of these trainings in separate environments followed the same general format: •

Step 1: Working together, the plant management, supervisors and line leads identified a critical production process where they wanted to make improvements. Step 2: The identified production process was then broken-down into a series of separate, sequential steps. Step 3: Next, in cooperation with the Master Trainer, the plant management determined what standards should be used to measure effective employee behavior and identify what deficient behavior looked like at each step in the training sequence. Step 4: Training of supervisors, line-leads and hourly employees was tailored to teach mastery of the behavior at each of the steps in the sequence and finally Step 5: Supervisors conducted at least three periodic employee observations using detailed compliance checklists to measure and document employee behavior. Employees began to see these observations as non-judgmental and non-punitive. Rewards were offered for mastery in the performance of the steps in the sequence. Where corrections or re-training was needed, the employees were encouraged to continue improving their training.

After completing the tailored, sequential training, employee behavior compliance rose to 82%, and after three corrective observations, long-term compliance increased to 94%. Bob’s long suite was his ability to use “ingenuity in developing new products for food and facilities management services including a unique and effective process for account assessment and relationship management.” So let’s get on with these case-based learning examples that you can use in your training of employees or students. These cases are designed to be used as part of a traditional face-to-face classroom or used with an on-line class. Enjoy and be grateful for the opportunity to positively influence the next generation of instructors.

Across the separate facilities, the study measured compliance levels at pre-training baseline, posttraining, and following each corrective observation. The average pre-training, initial base-line compliance rate for the selected behavior was about 68%. 12

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014 Copyright © 2014 Agriculture, Food and Analytical Bacteriology

A Personal Hygiene Behavioral Change Study at a Midwestern Cheese Production Plant J. A. Neal1*, C. A. O’Bryan2 and P. G. Crandall2 Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204 2 Department of Food Science and Center for Food Safety, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704


ABSTRACT High rates of employee turnover create training challenges as well as increase the risk of food-borne illness outbreaks and food product recalls. As a result, managers need tools to help them develop effective methods to rapidly and effectively train their employees. In addition, they need to combine this training with their observations and coaching to improve individual employee’s performance. This case study documents the implementation of a closed loop process of training combined with observations and continual feedback to improve employee behavior. Keywords: Food Safety Training, Identifying Behaviors, Observations, Continual Improvement Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. 4: 13-19, 2014

INTRODUCTION Even after decades of research, increased emphasis in FDA’s Model Food Code and increased spending on food safety, there has not been a significant decrease in food-borne illness outbreaks or food product recalls. According to the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website, there were over 160 food product recalls in 2013 for contamination from both pathogenic microorganisms and physical hazards. These microbial pathogens included Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli Correspondence: J. Neal,

O157:H7, Salmonella, and Norovirus (FDA, 2013). Food-borne illness continues to increaseas a health concern in the United States and throughout the world. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1 in 6 U.S. citizens gets sick each year from food-borne illness (CDC, 2001). In addition, over 128,000 persons are hospitalized and approximately 3,000 die from food borne illness (Scallan, Hoekstra, Angulo, Tauxe, Widdonwson, Roy, Jones and Griffin, 2011). The United States (U.S.) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 21 Section 110.10 describes employee health and hygiene practices within the context of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP’s) and the steps

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


necessary to prepare foods for human consumption. The Code clearly states that the management team of food processing plants must take responsible measures and precautions to ensure the following: •

• • • • • • •

Exclusion of ill employees from working who pose a risk of contamination of food products, food contact surfaces or food packing materials, Cleanliness of employees which includes wearing clean garments to protect food, maintaining adequate personal cleanliness, Proper hand washing, Removal of all jewelry, Glove maintenance, Effective hair restraints, Proper storage of employee belongings, Control of eating, drinking, chewing gum or using tobacco in appropriate locations and Most importantly, education and continual training of employees (21 CFR 110.10).

Food handlers can be a source of food contamination by microbial pathogens. Any employees who report to work having the symptoms of foodborne illness such as vomiting and/or diarrhea, pose a threat of contamination of food products or food contact surfaces and should not be permitted to work in contact with food. In addition, infected employees can unintentionally spread disease to other workers if they do not follow proper hygiene practices. A new approach to food safety training is called for because increased emphasis and training on personal hygiene have not resulted in a significant decrease in food recalls and food-borne illness outbreaks. One such approach is a “Closed-Loop” for effective training, combined with supervisory observations and coaching to improve performance (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Closed Loop for Effective Training for Employee Improvement.


Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

This model consists of the following six steps: 1. Breaking down a specific process into a sequence of smaller process or steps. 2. Determining the desired employee action/ behavior at each step and identifying potential deficiencies. 3. Observing, measuring and documenting baseline level of employee behavior compliance following current training practices 4. Training front-line employees on what constitutes acceptable behaviors. 5. Empowering supervisors to make corrective observations of individual employees. Corrective actions should be non-judgmental and non-punitive in order to focus on continual employee improvements. 6. Repeating the process on a sustained basis to validate an employee’s improvements. Management should establish proper training procedures for all new employees and conduct periodic retraining sessions to ensure all employees continue to use proper hand hygiene and food handling practices. The importance of Step 4: Training Front-Line Employees cannot be stressed enough. There are multiple products and training materials available, both in a classroom setting as well as online training. Management should take into consideration the learning styles of their employees which include auditory, kinesthetic and visual. One product that is currently available that utilizes all three learning styles is the SISTEM® approach which was developed by Alchemy Systems™ ( The SISTEM pedagogy is based on significant visual metaphors to help hold trainees’ attention, learning modules that last no more than 20 minutes, interactive involvement, group activities and workplace training that is directly related to workplace experiences. The current case study describes the implementation of a personal hygiene program using such an approach at a cheese processing plant.

IMPLEMENTATION This case study took place at a Midwestern cheese production facility and involved front line production workers and front line supervisors. The plant produces a variety of cheeses including kosher cheese, and the recipes are kept as trade secrets. The cheese is mostly distributed throughout the Midwest, but some wholesale customers are large chains that distribute to other areas of the country. Security in the plant is good. The plant has good written general management practices for personal hygiene but had inconsistent results in terms of their execution by employees before the SISTEM training. The plant environment is as a separate, for-profit organization that resides within a not- for-profit religious community. One of the missions that the religious community focuses on is an 18-month long rehabilitation program for people who have had numerous types of difficulties in their lives. The community is self-contained; that is, it includes schools, a restaurant, grocery and other shopping, housing and transportation. Amanda Green and Steven Nguyen (not their real names) are front line supervisors who have successfully completed the 18-month rehabilitation program and then stayed on to take supervisory positions within the production facility. The plant is relatively small with approximately 30 employees working all positions and all shifts at any one time. This requires Amanda, Steven and the employees to constantly “wear many different hats.” One day a supervisor may be supervising production; the next day they may have to drive a milk truck because the regular driver is absent. Given the nature of the workforce, absenteeism is low but turnover is high due to ongoing personal issues of these persons undergoing rehabilitation.

TRAINING DESIGN Amanda and Steven are very committed to the cheese factory and the employees who are trying to make positive changes in their lives. Amanda and

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


Steven realize that they need to make changes to ensure the safety and quality of the cheese they produce. They have asked the Rehabilitation Center’s Board of Directors for additional resources, and after the Director’s approval, they developed a Personal Hygiene Program for the Cheese Plant. One of the Board of Directors, a retired commercial food processor, offered to help Amanda and Steven with their assignment and gave them the following outline: •

Determine what behaviors if changed would have the most positive impact on the business. (Personal hygiene was overwhelmingly selected.)

Define the specific personal hygiene behaviors needed to be included in the additional training. (Hand Washing, Entry/Exit, Sickness/ Cuts/Abrasions, General Personal Hygiene, Clothing/Jewelry and Visitors were identified.) Determine how to measure the behaviors. (A deficiency system) What type of initial training needed to be provided? (He recommended Alchemy’s SISTEMDiary Library, starting with their Basic Hand Washing learning module) What process(s) support training? (Corrective Observation Process) What is the sequence of the behavioral change process? (Set mile markers for evaluation and measurement of change.) Set baseline for each behavior.

• •

subject matter experts (SME’s) in personal hygiene and learned to effectively coach their employees through the corrective observation process. The supervisors learned to measure employee behavior in a consistent manner. Most of the training was conducted in small groups of two or three employees. On average the SME’s spent about 3 hours each week auditing all of the behaviors and people who were part of the study. They did not feel that the auditing negatively impacted their work schedule because they spent most of their time observing the employees during the cheese production process as part of their regular job. The only additional task was documenting deficiencies as they were identified. However, there were a number of difficulties that arose. The main one was very high employee turnover due to the nature of the plant operating within a rehabilitation program. Many employees would get a baseline measurement and take the training and then have a personal crisis that caused them to leave before long-term changes in behavior could be documented.


Amanda and Steven decided that the first step would be for them to observe the current personal hygiene practices of their employees. The next step would be for all employees to receive personal hygiene training using the Alchemy’s SISTEM- Diary Library for hand washing. Next, they would observe and measure employee-hand washing behaviors. Amanda and Steven would then give individual feed-

The results for the hand washing behaviors are summarized in Figure 2. The hand washing behaviors measured were: wet hands and forearms, scrub hands and forearms, rinse hands and forearms, dry hands and forearms, use paper towel to open door, do the process in the proper sequence and wash hands at the right time. The red line on Figure 2 represents the base line (percentage attainment) for all of the hand washing behaviors for all employees that were part of the program. Note that the baseline measurement was taken before SISTEM training was administered. The yellow line represents the level of performance attainment after the initial training had taken place.

back or implement interventions when they discovered discrepancies between the desired behavior and what they just observed. Results were tracked and reported to management. Amanda and Steven quickly became effective

Note the improvement in level of attainment between the red line (baseline) and yellow line (training intervention). The average level of performance across all hand washing behaviors at the baseline was 68%. That is, the performance was 68% of the


Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

Figure 2. Hand washing data for employees at a cheese manufacturing plant before and after training

employee performing the behavior exactly right. After training was administered but before any corrective observation process, the average level of correct performance of proper hand washing was 82%. From the average performance level at the baseline of 68% after training and 4 corrective observations all of the employees’ hand washing behaviors were measured at the 100% compliance level. The corrective observation process alone accounted for an 18% improvement in employees correctly performing hand washing. Individual behaviors such as wetting hands and forearms and scrubbing hands and forearms exhibited more dramatic results. For example, the wetting hands and forearms behavior training alone accounted for a 15% increase in behavior, and the overall process of training and corrective observation accounted for a 39% improvement in behavior. Throughout the process some individuals temporarily regressed on their individual behavioral performance, but all at the end made significant improvement.

THE NEXT STEP: PERSONAL HYGIENE Amanda and Steven identified the following personal hygiene deficiencies: Keeping good personal hygiene in all food processing areas 1. Smoking in a food processing area 2. Chewing tobacco in a food processing area 3. Eating in a food processing area 4. Drinking in a food processing area 5. Chewing gum in a food processing area 6. Touching a cell phone in a food processing area 7. Touching keys in a food processing area 8. Not being clean shaven or not wearing a beard net in a food processing area 9. Spitting in a food processing area 10. Blowing nose in a food processing area 11. Picking nose in a food processing area 12. Wearing false fingernails or fingernail polish when handling food

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014




Select one of the behaviors (from the letters “a” through “l”) in the list above. How would you advise Amanda and Steven to break down the selected behaviors similar to the way they broke down the hand washing practices shown above? Behaviors can be credibly measured on a consistent basis. How would you measure these behaviors on each part of the behavior you selected? Employees appreciate and want to be involved in the process. How would you include

Center for Disease Control. 2001. CDC estimates of food borne illness in the United States. Available at: Accessed 3 January 2014. Scallan, E., R. M. Hoekstra, F. J. Angulo, R. V. Tauxe, M. Widdonwson, S. L. Roy, J. L. Jones, and P. M. Griffin. 2011. Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States—Major Pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 17:7-15. United States Food and Drug Administration. 2013. Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts

employees and encourage them to participate in the training and improvement program for the behavior selected? Turnover and absenteeism can cause a lot of stress in a work environment. How would you investigate the reasons why the turnover of employees remains high? What negative impact is there on employees having to “change hats” to do the work of absentee workers? There should be an intrinsic change in the “culture” of the employees at this work place. Improving sanitary conditions is important; but the desire to “own” the work they do at any work place is more important for the employees as well as the employer—irrespective of being profit or non-profit organization. How would you suggest changing the culture of this organization?

Search. Accessed: December 28, 2013. Available at: cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=110.10

Although initially effective, a pencil and paper process to record observations is typically not easily sustainable. The process needs to be operationalized through technology that minimizes the supervisors’ time commitment and produces records that can reinforce the employees’ accomplishments. What technology could be utilized to ease the process?

This case study offers a unique perspective of a for-profit operation working within a not-for-profit structure. This scenario is not a traditional food processing facility; however, students may find themselves either supervising either of these types of operations or inspecting them in a regulatory or third party auditor situation. The following discussion top-

• •


Identify Apps that may be used for monitoring. Identify websites or companies that provide these services.

TEACHING NOTES This case study discusses the implementation of a personal hygiene program by breaking processes down into specific behaviors and how to observe, monitor and measure the employees’ compliance with the desired behaviors. It permits students the opportunity to think through the various behaviors as well as ways to communicate them to employees.


ics are provided as a guideline to generate a deeper understanding of this case study. • Discuss employee turnover. • List some of the negative effects of high turnover with employees and/or, supervisors.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

• •

• •

What suggestions would you offer for improvements in the hiring process and documentation of proper initial training and follow up List ideas for Increasing Quality Assurance Where can you find additional information when beginning the process of Establishing Quality Assurance Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Write an outline of the steps in developing critical limits for the behavior you need to see changed What steps will Reduce Risk of Food Borne Illness Outbreaks Identify key behaviors to monitor, creating steps, monitoring protocols and record keeping

TEACHING STRATEGY This unique case study has been developed to challenge undergraduate and graduate students pursuing careers in quality assurance, food safety, food science and technology. Students should be encouraged to take holistic systems approach when addressing these challenges. To enhance the learning experience, students may be encouraged to work in teams or role play to represent the various groups represented in the case. Other variables to consider within the case may include communication barriers, including language barriers, differences between shifts (morning crew vs. evening crew), proper glove use, how frequently should hands be washed, and how many hand washing stations should be available within the facilities. This case study is intended to facilitate a realistic conversation and exercise in food production problem solving.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

19 Copyright © 2014 Agriculture, Food and Analytical Bacteriology

Preventing Post-Processing Contamination in a Food Nugget Processing Line When Language Barriers Exist J. A. Neal1*, C. A. O’Bryan2 and P. G. Crandall2 Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204 2 Department of Food Science and Center for Food Safety, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704


ABSTRACT Post-processing contamination of food items may pose a potential risk to consumers; however, contamination may be minimized with proper employee training, supervision and commitment from the management of the food processing facility. The work force in the United States is consistently changing. Language barriers and communication are additional challenges and complications for front-line managers. This case study documents the implementation of an in-process hygiene training program that was developed based on inputs from employees identifying critical control points, corrective actions and monitoring procedures. Keywords: Good Manufacturing Practices, Language Barriers, Post-Processing Contamination Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. 4: 20-26, 2014

INTRODUCTION The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines post-process contamination by pathogens, chemicals, allergens, or foreign objects as the adulteration of a finished food product after processing at the manufacturing facility so that the food is no longer wholesome or safe, therefore rendering the finished product unsafe to eat (FDA, 2013). Post processing contamination may occur between a lethality treatment, for example cooking to a prescribed internal temperature and packaging or post packaging contamination at the processing plant. Correspondence: J. Neal,


While post-process contamination is responsible for spoilage of many canned foods, it has also caused of a number of outbreaks of food-borne disease. In 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a study in Europe which indicated that approximately 25% of all food-borne illness outbreaks could be traced back to post-process contamination. The most significant factors contributing to the presence of pathogens in the food were: poor personal hygiene (1.6%), cross-contamination (3.6%), inadequate storage (4.2%), contaminated equipment (5.7%) and contamination by personnel (9.2%) (1995). More recently, the FDA published the Retail Food Risk Factor Study and reported similar findings. While the results suggested that the control of food-

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

borne illness risk factors has improved over the past ten years, there is still a need for improvements concerning poor personal hygiene, improper holding of food and contaminated food surfaces and equipment (FDA, 2010). Post-process contamination has also occurred as a result of ineffective or inadequate cleaning and disinfection (Reij and Den Aantrekker, 2004). Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs) are key elements in the production of safe foods (Reij and Den Aantrekker, 2004). SOPs and SSOPs adopted by a food manufacturing facility are essential to insuring safe food man-

tration which reduces their effectiveness as managers (Loosemore and Lee, 2002). As such, language barriers can affect the quality and effectiveness of the message (Yu and Huat, 1995). Tension, misunderstandings about work, safety risks, inefficiencies and the inability to communicate effectively with supervisors can escalate when people speak in different languages (Bahls and Bahls, 1998). Additionally, non-English speaking groups are more reluctant to communicate problems with managers than Englishspeaking employees (Loosemore and Lee, 2002). Employee attitudes toward specific behaviors have been identified as a consistent predictor for overall employee behaviors and food safety in gen-

ufacturing as well as to correcting errors that may occur during production. (Reij and Den Aantrekker, 2004). It is imperative for food production managers to conduct thorough hazard analysis assessments to identify potential risks and to provide employees adequate training to minimize those risks. Once the SOPs have been identified, proper training of every employee must be provided. Effective training of hourly employees can be challenging even under the best of circumstances. However, in most modern food processing plants there is typically a diverse workforce with cultural and language barriers. Immigration is continuing to diversify the profile of the nation’s workforce, and increasingly, the workforce is made up of persons for whom English is a second language (Canziani, 2006). According to the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics (2013), 25 % of service employees are foreign-born compared to 16% for all other occupations. The Hispanic population is the fastest growing ethnic minority group in the U.S., and a high percentage find their initial employment in food service (Humes, Jones, and Ramirez, 2011). This creates an environment where many non-English languages are spoken at home and on the job, including Spanish, Chinese and Vietnamese (Jackson, 2002).

eral (Pilling et al., 2008). Although attitudes may be an important factor in predicting behavior, we must ask the question whether attitudes of English and non-English speaking employees differ about food safety, therefore, making it more challenging for managers to communicate safe food handling procedures. Food safety classes are offered in multiple languages such as Spanish or Chinese; however, many of these classes do not address behaviors tempered by cultural upbringings (Niode et al., 2010). Mitchell et al. (2007) reported that cultural background and upbringing, justification, and/or motivation for the particular behavior may predispose certain employees to improper food safety behavior; therefore, there may be common cultural misconceptions concerning food safety. Cho et al. (2010) stated that male Latino or female Latina restaurant employees believe that when they followed proper food safety practices, both customers and management’s satisfaction and efficacy in the kitchen would increase. It has been suggested that this is a result of the cultural characteristics of the Latino population. Santiago-Rivera (2002) noted that collectivist cultures, such as those found in Mexico and other Latin American countries have a tendency to focus on the interest

According to economists, limited English skills of foreign born U.S. workers cost U.S. corporations $65 billion annually in lost productivity (Bahls and Bahls, 1998). Many managers feel that this lack of a common language is a significant source of their frus-

of a group, a family or extended relationships rather than on individual interests or concerns. Hence, not only do food service managers need to address communication barriers, they need to be culturally aware of cultural misconceptions concerning food

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


safety that must also be addressed. Other challenges that managers face when teaching food safety practices include working with a lowskilled labor force and high employee turnover rates. Based on levels of education, non-English speakers may or may not be able to read or write in their native language; therefore, translating written food safety training materials to additional languages may not be completely effective. The U.S. Census Bureau noted that by 2015, the Hispanic population will be double the size it was in just 1990 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). As one of the largest employers of Hispanics, the food service industry must focus its efforts on training non-English speakers in food

risk assessment to determine the areas that demonstrated the greatest risk of food-borne illness in order to focus their initial training efforts. After the assessment and some discussion, the group decided that the main focus should be preventing post processing contamination. The feeling was that this was the most important area to be keep at a consistently high standard. The Midwestern plant manufacturing chicken nuggets was selected partly because it was a new addition to the company and did not have any formal employee training systems in place. The corporate directive to focus employee training on preventing post process contamination was sent to the company’s training manager, Frank Nelson.

safety. Offering training material in Spanish may be a limited start but may not be a complete solution. By doing so, the assumption is made that all workers (not just Hispanic workers) are visual learners and that all have similar reading levels. In addition, young people entering the workforce may be more familiar with computers and online training. Another factor is that due to the notoriously high turnover rates of the food industry, managers may not want to invest a lot of time, money or effort into developing food safety training programs for an individual employee because within a few months of receiving this training, the employee may leave (Niode, 2010). Front line managers must identify where cultural barriers to food safety occur, learn effective methods for communicating proper food safety practices to nonEnglish speakers and develop a delivery method that are rapid and effective.

This case study focuses on a Midwestern food production facility involving front line production workers and front line supervisors. The plant is located in a small town in Wisconsin. The workforce is a mix of

Frank had recently completed his Bachelor’s Degree in Food Science at a large Midwestern university. While attending college, Frank spent his summers as a line employee at this same plant but when he graduated, he was hired in as their Training Manager. Accomplishing this corporate directive will be Frank’s first big assignment, and he wants to do his best. However, despite Corporate’s insistence on their ideas for training, Frank has never seen post process contamination as being the major issue and considers this yet another case of management being out of step with actual day to day operations. Not knowing where to start, Frank discusses this dilemma with Sergio Hernandez, the product line foreman who has worked at this facility since the day it opened. Over lunch, Sergio reminded Frank of all the steps that go into the process of making the chicken nuggets. Sergio then draws out the steps on a paper napkin showing all of the potential areas he thought could be a source of post processing contamination. Once Frank looked at Sergio’s diagram, he was able to visualize the potential areas that would need to be addressed in employee training. Sergio also recommended that Frank should call an employee meeting with all of the employees who work on this production line to get their feedback before

Caucasian and Hispanic workers. Most of the training is conducted only in English; however, the majority of employees have limited English speaking skills. An executive team from the company’s corporate office in Chicago conducted a hazard analysis and

developing an action plan. Frank was a little hesitant at first because over the past summers when he worked on the production line, he had personal communication issues with employees who did not speak English. Sergio reassured Frank that he would



Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

be at the meeting to help translate and that this could potentially be a good team building exercise. Sergio also explained to Frank that from a cultural perspective, the Hispanic community tends to focus on the interest of their group rather than individuals. If approached from this group perspective, not only would the employees work to reduce the risk of food-borne illness, it would also strengthen the food safety culture of the entire organization. Frank was very appreciative of Sergio’s advice and mentoring. The next week, Frank scheduled a meeting at shift change between first and second shift when everyone would be there. He had chairs placed around round tables to encourage group discussions. Frank

how when she started three years ago, they had specific training on when to wash their hands and proper handling of the chicken nuggets once they were weighed and then the tray wrapper sealed the product. She also mentioned that the tray wrapper had not been working properly and how they often had to re-work the finished nuggets in trays that did not get sealed properly. Frank had no idea that this was happening and then many of the employees started discussing the challenges they were having with the packaging equipment. Frank looked at Sergio for help because the conversation was quickly becoming negative, and Frank wanted this to be a productive meeting and not just a complaint session. With-

also provided coffee, donuts and breakfast tacos to thank the employees for coming to work a little early. Lastly, Frank took Sergio’s napkin drawing of the line process and created a PowerPoint slide to show the employees the entire process (Figure 1). Frank was a little nervous that no one would show up but right before the meeting was supposed to start, the room filled and almost every employee was in attendance. Frank welcomed them all and then explained how the production plant’s new owners were concerned about post processing contamination but that he really didn’t think it was a big deal. One of the employees then raised her hand and she politely told Frank that she disagreed with him and that the corporate office was wise in being concerned about post-process contamination. She then explained

out hesitation, Sergio went to the dry erase board and wrote out the following plan: A. Determine the sequence of behaviors for each important in-process hygiene step B. Identify the critical behaviors to measure C. Determine the possible deficiencies for each critical behavior D. Develop micro-pinpoint training courses for the identified critical behaviors E. Develop plant process for setting baseline and doing corrective observations F. Set up the following process: 1. Set baseline for each behavior and each employee 2. Train employees 3. Observe and measure

Figure 1. Diagram of chicken nugget processing operations.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


4. Give feedback and implement intervention 5. Continue to train, measure, give feedback and implement intervention 6. Track results and report G. Train the supervisors to be on-line Subject Matter Experts (SME) and effectively coach through the corrective observation process. The employees were amazed with the clarity in which Sergio captured the problem and developed a written plan of action. They were also very excited about it and were ready to get started because they felt like they had been asked for their input and they

taken for each behavior per each employee – Develop this checklist. 10. Training will be administered to each employee in the relevant areas of in-process hygiene. What language should the training be delivered in? What role do pictures play in this training? 11. What are the “cultural’ issues leading to communication barriers with supervisors and understanding the job description and training materials? 12. How will recruiting and hiring supervisors who are fluent in the language of the front line workers impact the operation?

felt that this plan of action would solve a lot of their frustrations.



1. What were the processes that need to be improved? 2. Are there specific behaviors that needed to be identified? 3. The nugget processing system could be broken down into small, discrete steps. What are these steps? 4. For each step, write a sequence of ++measurable behaviors should be identified 5. Within each sequence of behaviors, the critical in-process hygiene behaviors needs to be identified 6. For each set of critical in-process hygiene behaviors a comprehensive list of possible deficiencies needs to be identified and documented in a check list 7. Mini Pin-Point Courses will need to be developed for each area of in-process hygiene be-

Bahls, S.C. and J. E. Bahls. 1998. Watch your language if you require employees to speak only English, you’d better beware the EEOC. Available at: Accessed 31 December, 2013. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Foreign-born workers: Labor force characteristics in 2012. Available at: Accessed 28 January, 2014. Canziani, B.F. 2006. Managing language policies in the foodservice workplace: a review of law and EEOC guidelines. J. Foodserv. Bus. R., 9:27- 47. Cho S, M. Erdem, J. Wertzman, P. Garriott. 2010. Changing food safety behavior among Latino(a) food service employees; the food safety belief model. International CHRIE Conference, San Juan. Puerto Rico. Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. 2011. Overview of race and Hispanic and underrepresented origin: 2010. U. S. Census Bureau: Washington, DC.

haviors – what are they? 8. Supervisors should be trained as Subject Matter Experts to effectively execute the process – how should this be accomplished? 9. A baseline measurement will need to be

Jackson, J. 2002. The restaurant industry, the largest employer of immigrants in the nation, hoping “Guest Worker Program” is a part of immigration reform. Hotel Online: News for the Hospitality Executive. Available at: http://www.hotel-online.

What should be included in the final process?


Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

com/News/PR2002_1st/Mar02_RestrEmployees. html. Accessed 31 December, 2013. Loosemore, M. and P Lee. 2002. Communication problems with ethnic minorities in the construction industry. I. J. Project Manage, 20:517 – 524. Mitchell, R. E., A. M. Fraser, and L. B. Bearon. 2007. Preventing food-borne illness in food service establishments: Broadening the framework for intervention and research on safe food handling behaviors. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 17:9-24. Niode, O., C. Bruhn, and A. H. Simmone. 2010. Insight into Asian and Hispanic restaurant manager needs for safe food handling. Food Control, 22, 34-42.


Pilling, V. K., L. A. Brannon, C. W. Shanklin, A. D. Howells and K. R. Roberts. 2008. Identifying specific beliefs to target to improve restaurant employee’s intentions for performing three important food safety behaviors. J. Amer. Diet. Asso., 108:991-997. Reij, M. J. and E. D. Den Aantrekker. 2004. Recontamination as a source of pathogens in processed foods. Int. J. Food Micro., 91, 1-11. Santiago-Rivera, A., P. Arredondo, and M. CooperGallardo. 2002. Counseling Latinos and la famila: a practical guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage. CGMP/ucm110966.htm United States Food and Drug Administration. 2010. FDA Retail Food Safety Risk Factor Study. Available at: Accessed 28 January, 2014. World Health Organization 1995. Surveillance Program. Sixth Report of WHO Surveillance Program for Control of Foodborne Infections and Intoxications in Europe. FAO/WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Food Hygiene and Zoonosis, Berlin. Yu, L. and G. S. Huat. 1995. Perceptions of manage-

This case study offers a unique opportunity for students to identify post processing contamination risks and include the additional but realistic challenge of language barriers in the workforce. This scenario is becoming more a reality each year as the U. S. labor force diversifies and students may find themselves either supervising these types of operations or inspecting them in a regulatory or third party auditor situation. The following discussion topics are provided as a guideline to generate a deeper understanding of this case study.

ment difficulty factors by expatriate hotel professionals in China. Int. J. Hospit. Manage., 14:375 – 388.

proper initial training and follow up Increasing Quality Assurance oo Establishing Quality Assurance Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) oo Reducing Risk of Outbreaks

This case study discusses the implementation of a processing plant hygiene program where language barriers exist by breaking processes down into specific behaviors and how to observe, monitor and measure these behaviors. It permits students the opportunity to think through a realistic scenario and to identify the various behaviors as well as ways effective to communicate them to employees.


Post-processing contamination risks oo Proper hand washing, glove use and uniforms oo Proper equipment and layout design oo Properly functioning equipment—like the tray overwrap in this case Language Barriers oo Proper training materials oo Written forms of communication may not be sufficient. Employee Turnover oo The effect of high turnover with employees, supervisors oo The hiring process and documentation of

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


oo Identifying key behaviors to monitor, creating steps, monitoring protocols and record keeping

TEACHING STRATEGY This unique case study has been developed to challenge undergraduate and graduate students pursuing careers in quality assurance, food safety, food science and technology. Students should be encouraged to take holistic systems approach to addressing these challenges. To enhance the learning experience, students may be encouraged to work in teams or role play to represent the various groups represented in the case. Other variables to consider within the case may include communication barriers including language barriers, differences between shifts (morning crew vs. evening crew), proper glove use, how frequently should hands be washed, and how many hand-washing stations should be available within the facilities. This case study is intended to facilitate a realistic conversation and exercise in food production problem solving.


Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014 Copyright © 2014 Agriculture, Food and Analytical Bacteriology

Behavioral Change Study at a Western Soup Production Plant C. A. O’Bryan1, J. A. Neal2, and P. G. Crandall1* Department of Food Science and Center for Food Safety, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704 Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204 1


ABSTRACT The food processing industry bears major responsibility and liability for ensuring the safety of commercially available food products. Effective employee training in food safety is a critical element in meeting those responsibilities. More and more workers in food processing plants do not use English as their primary language, making training and corrective actions more complex. The case study presented here reports on a training and corrective action study performed in a food processing plant where the predominant language was Spanish and where most training was performed in Spanish. Keywords: Employee training, non-English language speakers, NES, food safety training, behavior modification Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. 4: 27-34, 2014

INTRODUCTION According to recent information regarding foodborne illnesses, foodborne diseases caused by known and unknown pathogens total 47.8 million illnesses, 127,839 hospitalizations, and 3,037 deaths annually in the United States (U.S.) (Scallan et al., 2011). While much of the responsibility for preventing consumers’ foodborne illnesses and deaths lies in safe food handling in the home (Marsden, 2009), the food processing industry bears a major responsibility and liability for ensuring safety of commercially available food products. As the numbers of non-English speaking (NES) laborers employed in Correspondence: P. G. Crandall,

food manufacturing plants continues to grow, the challenge of culturally appropriate training these individuals in safe food handling behaviors also grows (Po et al., 2011). Documenting effective employee training in food safety is a critical element in meeting that responsibility and is required by recent regulations. This point was reinforced by the Washington law firm of Kelley, Drye and Warren: “The expansion of FDA authority in these areas (including documenting employee training) is expected to increase the odds that regulatory compliance and product safety missteps will be exposed and result in adverse FDA findings, enforcement, publicity, litigation, and related liability.” (

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


Figure 1. The kettle operator process in a Western soup and sauce plant.

Employee training programs must emphasize the importance of safe food, implement effective manufacturing practices, and enforce Standard Sanitary Operating Procedures (SSOPs) in the plants so as to provide safe and wholesome finished products (Mikel et al., 2002). Food processors must continue to develop and improve the methods they use to produce safe foods (Jol et al., 2006); however, it is difficult to teach employees about food handling techniques as prescribed in the Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP; FDA, 2013) when workers’ native language is not used, such as for Spanish-speaking laborers in an English-speaking work environment (Nyachuba, 2008). Employee education programs must be designed using proven educational methods and adapted to meet the needs of the diverse cultures comprising today’s work force.


Attention must be given to the communication skills and educational levels of all employees, including the growing non-English speaking population employed in many food plants. The case study reported here took place at a West Coast food production facility involving front line production workers and front line supervisors. The study was designed to evaluate a methodology

initiating this study, management ensured that each of the workers had been trained in general hygiene processes and some company specific training in the area of kettle hygiene. The training consultant worked, in conjunction with the plant manager and the quality management team at the plant, to determine that the study would encompass the operation of the first shift of the ket-

for sustainably changing the behaviors of front line workers regarding the in-process hygiene of a kettle operation in this plant that produces soups and sauces. The plant is located in a small town where the workforce is mostly Hispanic.

tle operation. The study was designed to include the full kettle operation from the gathering of ingredients to the final cleaning and sanitation of the kettle, inlet and final product exit piping.


An executive team from the soup company composed of safety, food safety and training experts was gathered to determine the focus of the employee training study. After discussion and a few facilitative exercises, the group decided that the main focus should be in-process hygiene of their kettle operation. It was determined that the impact of the chosen process would be of great business benefit to the company. The plant already had Alchemy training fully implemented and in place (see Neal et al., A Personal Hygiene Behavioral Change Study at a Midwestern Cheese Production Plant in this same issue for an explanation of the Alchemy training system). Before

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

Figure 2. The kettle operator process in a Western soup and sauce plant.

TRAINING DESIGN The study at the soup and sauce processing plant had the following goals: A. To develop a documented system for specific, sustained behavioral change of front line workers for all of the hygiene processes for the making soups and sauces in the kettle operation. B. To train supervisors to become skilled at corrective observation, coaching and to become subject matter experts for all hygiene behaviors related to kettle operations. C. To make sure the entire operation was examined thoroughly and changed where neces-

E. The operation chosen for study was the kettle operation (Fig. 1), with the specific step within that operation to be the “build the kettle” step (Fig. 2). The kettle operation process was broken into the following sets of behavioral steps in sequence: 1. Confirm the work order 2. Compare recipe with ingredients 3. Confirm quality 4. Confirm material 5. Confirm weights and quantities 6. Confirm cut size 7. Pre-cook operational check 8. Stage Ingredients 9. Follow recipe routing instructions

sary to ensure the most effective and safest hygiene practices were being trained and measured D. To achieve positive, measurable long-term results in employee behavioral change

10. Pre-cook prepare certain ingredients 11. In-process hygiene 12. Cook, add ingredients in sequence, change heat in sequence 13. Monitor kettle building process

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


Figure 3. The average level of deficiencies at the baseline measurement and during 6 corrective observations.

Next, specific performance steps were determined for the sequence of behaviors and specification for the best behaviors were written within each sequence of behaviors. Then the team identified the critical behaviors to be measured and determined a list of the possible deficiencies for each critical behavior. Using this information, they then developed micro-pinpoint training courses to teach each critical behavior and developed plant processes for setting baseline and corrective observations. The management team and training consultant set a baseline for each behavior for each employee, trained the employees, observed and measured each worker, and gave individual feedback. They then implemented intervention and continued to train, measure, give feedback and implement interventions. They tracked results and reported on progress. The supervisors were trained to become Subject Matter Ex-

quickly to become effective SMEs and learn to effectively coach through the corrective observation process. It should be noted that the supervisors played a pivotal role in determining the most effective employee behaviors so they could become subject matter experts well before the employee training process was implemented. Many of the traditional employee training processes were replaced with new processes that were created by the consultant and supervisors (and approved by management), which created a great deal of motivation for the supervisors because they were given control to implement their own processes. The training consultant worked with the plant quality control leaders until they learned to measure employee behavior in a consistent manner. The training system was set up rapidly, and the employees learned to access and use it effectively. It should be

perts (SME) in kettle hygiene and to effectively coach their employees through the corrective observation process. The process described above was executed efficiently and effectively. The supervisors were trained

noted that given the organizational dynamics of the soup and sauce processing plant, it was not possible to have a control group (an untrained, minimally supervised group was not allowed by management).


Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

Figure 4. Improvement of level of attainment of the Build the Kettle process from Baseline through training and corrective observation.

Figure 5. Improvement of verifying critical control point 1 (CCP1) from baseline through training and corrective observations.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


RESULTS For readers familiar with other case studies in food processing which focus on studying employee behavior change, the measurement process for the Building the Kettle process was different. The baseline measurements were employee performance deficiencies by category for each kettle build. Observations were made of the team on a whole kettle build and all of the deficiencies were noted. Due to the speed of work and the number of people working on a kettle build, it was not possible to assign deficiencies to individuals. This process did create a measure of the whole team building the kettle and caused very useful discussion regarding team improvement. It should also be noted that the team members working on the kettle build changed somewhat between measurements. Figure 3 represents the average level of deficiencies observed for a group doing one kettle build operation. The chart also represents the maximum and minimum employee behavior for each category. The data represents the following specific processes which compose the kettle building process: • Pre-Op Checklist • Build the Kettle Process • Verify CCP1 Process • Spec Checking Process • Kettle Cleaning Process • Transfer Pump Cleaning Process Due to the observations, the average level of deficiency from the baseline measurement diminished from the initial 6 deficiencies per kettle build down to an average of 0.5 deficiencies per kettle build. The maximum level of deficiency at the baseline before the study was 12, and the maximum diminished to 1 by the time of the 6th corrective observation. The deficiencies were measured over about an hour of time which was typically the amount of time to carry out the kettle building and cleaning process. For the specific Build the Kettle process the base line level of attainment was 64% (Figure 4), and after training, the level of attainment jumped to 80%. 32

The corrective observation process improved the level of attainment from 80% to 98%. The Verify Critical Control Point 1 (CCP1) process increased from the base line level of attainment of 73% to 93% after training to 100% after the corrective observation process went into effect (Figure 5). The results of the Kettle Operation study were very encouraging. All baseline parameters showed significant improvement and brought the employee compliance in all behaviors into at least the 90% level of superior performance. Although the quality control staff believed the corrective observation process improved the employees’ level of performance, plant management never totally bought into the study process and results, partly because the pen and paper record keeping of employee observations was very labor intensive.


How might a highly controlled study be set up in a manufacturing plant environment? Is it theoretically possible? Are there more automated ways Supervisors and QA personnel can document employee behavior observation and comply with the spirit of the Food Safety Modernization Act (http:// ? Since any improvement process in a plant cannot be sustained without the continued support of plant management, what methods could be used to generate “buy in” from management?

REFERENCES Jol, S., A. Kassianenko, J. Oggel, and K. Wszol. 2006. A country-by-country look at regulations and best practices in the global cold chain. Food Safety Retrieved from: http://www.foodsafetymagazine. com/article.asp?id=561&sub Marsden, J. 2009. Consumers slacking off on food safety. Meatingplace. Retrieved from: http://www.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

tail.aspx?blogID=11&topicID=4041 Mikel, W. B., P. White, and M. Senne. 2002. Findings of the National Pork Board Salmonella Intervention Assistance Program for small and very small plants. National Pork Board/American Meat Science Association Fact Sheet. National Pork Board, Des Moines, IA. Nyachuba, D. 2008. Project plans FY 08 food safety. University of Massachusetts Amherst Center for Agriculture. Retrieved from: Po, L. G., L. D. Bourquin, L. G. Occeña, and E. C. Po. 2011. Food safety education for ethnic audiences. Food Safety 17: 26-31, 62. Scallan, E., R. M. Hoekstra, F. J. Angulo, R. V. Tauxe, M. Widdonwson, S. L. Roy, J. L. Jones, and P. M. Griffin. 2011. Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States—Major Pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 17:7-15.

TEACHING NOTES This case study discusses the implementation of training Hispanic employees in a food processing plant where English was not the primary language spoken by supervisors. It will give students the opportunity to discuss various realities of working in a food processing plant and various approaches to training employees to become better aware and prepared for critical thinking once they enter the work force. The workforce in the U.S. becomes more diverse each year. Students will need not only the ability to work in a diverse environment, as future managers, they will need to communicate, train and lead a diverse workforce.

Training oo Identification of job specific tasks that need to be taught oo Training method oo Use of non-verbal communication Food Safety oo Prevention of Foodborne illnesses oo Standard Operating Procedures oo Good Manufacturing Practices oo Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)

TEACHING STRATEGY This case study is based on a real world situation faced by many food producers. It is intended for undergraduate and graduate students pursuing degrees in food science as wells as a training tool for managers and trainers currently working in the food processing industry. The discussion topics are provided as a suggestion and to help stimulate and facilitate a candid and productive discussion. This case study may be used as part of an in class assignment which may include a lecture or as an in class exercise where students can role play the various roles such as the manager, trainer or non-English speaking employee. This may help facilitate empathy for nonEnglish speakers, which has been demonstrated to reduce employee turnover. Additional research articles on this topic have been provided. For more information concerning the importance of management support or the consequences of not supporting an initiative, please see: http://www.analytictech. com/mb021/taylor.htm


1. Neal, J. A., M. Dawson, & J. M. Madera. 2011. Identifying food safety concerns when communication barriers exist. J. of Food Sci.Educ.

This case study combines, processes, training and language barriers. The following discussion topics are provided as a guideline to facilitate discussions on this reality faced by managers.

10: 36-44. 2. Dawson, M., J. M. Madera, & J. A. Neal. 2011. Managing a bilingual workforce: effective communication strategies for hospitality managers. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


Themes, 3: 319-334. 3. Dawson, M, J. A. Neal, & J. M. Madera. 2011. Preparing hospitality and tourism students to lead a diverse workforce. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 11: 195-2010. 4. Madera, J. M., J. A Neal & M. Dawson. 2011. A strategy for diversity training: focusing on empathy in the workplace. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 35: 469-487.


Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014 Copyright © 2014 Agriculture, Food and Analytical Bacteriology

Salmonella in Cantaloupes: You Make Me Sick! B. A. Almanza1* School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907


ABSTRACT Food recalls have become an all too common occurrence -- to the point that consumer confidence in the safety of foods is diminishing. The food processing and food service industry must be prepared to manage product withdrawals and recalls while continuing to maximize their reputation. No company wants to be associated with the negative image associated with a recall. However, they must take steps to continue to be perceived as a quality operation offering safe food to their customers. This case study documents a 2012 multi-state Salmonella outbreak and illustrates one restaurant’s reaction to that situation. Keywords: Food-borne illness outbreak, Salmonella, restaurant, liability, reputation, investigation, marketing, recall Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. 4: 35-42, 2014

INTRODUCTION Approximately one in six consumers in the United State becomes sick every year with a food-borne illness. Of the food-borne illnesses commonly associated with food, Salmonella infections cause 1 million people to become sick and cost $365 million in direct medical costs every year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2011). Unlike the declining rate of some food-borne illnesses such as E. coli, the rate of infections with Salmonella has not declined (CDC, 2013). Known as salmonellosis, Salmonella infections can be reduced. However, reducing the incidence is difficult because Salmonella is found in many foods, Correspondence: B. A. Almanza,

including eggs, fruits, vegetables, and meats. The most commonly associated foods with reported outbreaks are poultry (29%), eggs (18%), and vegetables fruits, and nuts (12%), pork (12%), and beef (8%) (CDC, 2011). Other foods account for the remaining 20% and include sprouts, leafy greens, roots, fish, grains and beans, shellfish, oils and sugars, and dairy foods (CDC, 2011). Because Salmonella is found in so many foods, contamination can occur at multiple points in the marketing channel. For this reason, prevention of Salmonella contamination begins with Good Agricultural Practices. GAP’s http://www.gaps.cornell. edu/ and continues through processing, storage, and transportation to the final stages of food handling in the restaurant or family kitchen.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


Symptoms of salmonellosis usually begin 12 to 72 hours after eating the contaminated food and include fever, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps (FDA, 2012). The illness generally lasts about four to seven days. Most people recover without medical treatment; however, some people become more ill and need to be hospitalized. In fact, Salmonella is the most common cause of hospitalization as a result of food-borne illness (CDC, 2013). For patients who require hospitalization, the diarrhea becomes much more severe as the illness moves from the intestines into the blood stream (bacteremia) and then throughout the body. Each year about 400 people die from salmonellosis. People most likely to be

In summary, Salmonella, a common cause of food-borne illness, often is thought of as a short term food-borne illness. However, far too often Salmonella is responsible for hospitalization as well as death, particularly for vulnerable and immunecompromised individuals. Because of this established risk, regulations require restaurants to handle foods carefully and follow approved procedures for purchasing, storing, preparing, and serving food. In particular, to prevent Salmonella contamination, restaurant employees must wash hands when handling food, not allow bare hand contact of food if it will not be further heat treated, thoroughly cook those foods that are heat treated, and prevent cross-contamina-

seriously affected are young children (less than five years old), the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems. Currently, there are no vaccines to prevent salmonellosis in humans. Instead, prevention measures include making sure that foods are thoroughly cooked and minimizing the possibility of cross-contamination by thoroughly cleaning tools and food-contact surfaces, as well as washing hands before and after handling raw foods (CDC, 2010). Foods that are eaten uncooked, such as fruits, require special handling so that they are not exposed to Salmonella contamination. Recommendations for melons, for example, include washing hands before and after handling the fruit; washing and drying the outer surface of the melon with a clean cloth or paper towel prior to cutting the melon; and refrigerating any melons that have been cut (CDC, 2012b). People with salmonellosis should not prepare food for others. The Food and Drug Administration’s Food Code (the foodservice sanitation guidelines used to develop state regulations for health inspectors) states that restaurant employees diagnosed with a particularly severe type of Salmonella called Salmonella typhi must be excluded from working in the foodservice preparation operation (FDA, 2013b). In addi-

tion by cleaning equipment and other food contact surfaces. The target of the National Healthy People Guidelines is to reduce Salmonella infections from the 2006-2008 baseline of 15 cases per 100,000 population by 24% to 11.4 Salmonella cases per 100,000 population (

tion, because of the serious nature of this food-borne illness, the regulatory authority must be notified. To determine when the employee will be allowed to return to work, the employee must be released by their medical practitioner and regulatory authority.

Samples of cantaloupe were sent to PulseNet, a national network of laboratories that assists with molecular subtyping of microbial pathogens with the purpose of fingerprinting the outbreak strain. On August 17, 141 people were reported to be in-


SALMONELLA OUTBREAK The following timeline describes a Salmonella outbreak that started in the late summer of 2012.

Initial Announcement - August 17, 2012 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a press release announcing they were cooperating with public health officials in several states and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate a multi-state outbreak of a known pathogenic strain of Salmonella called Salmonella Typhimurium (CDC, 2012a). Trace back analysis suggested that the likely source of the outbreak was cantaloupe grown in southwestern Indiana. The farm agreed to stop distributing cantaloupes for the rest of the growing season.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

fected with Salmonella Typhimurium in 20 states. The number of people and the states that were affected included: Alabama (7), Arkansas (3), California (2), Georgia (1), Illinois (17), Indiana (13), Iowa (7), Kentucky (50), Michigan (6), Minnesota (3), Missouri (9), Mississippi (2), New Jersey (1), North Carolina (3), Ohio (3), Pennsylvania (2), South Carolina (3), Tennessee (6), Texas (1), and Wisconsin (2). Illnesses were reported to have started on July 7. Eighteen (75%) of 24 people interviewed reported eating cantaloupe in the week before they became sick. Affected people ranged in age from less than one year old to 92 years, with a median age of 49 years old. Of these, 55% were female. Among the 64 people for whom medical information was available, 31 (or 48%) were hospitalized. Two deaths attributable to this outbreak strain were reported in Kentucky.

August 22, 2012 Chamberlain Farms Produce, Inc. of Owensville, Indiana, voluntarily recalled cantaloupe shipped by their farm (CDC, 2012a). Their records indicated that their cantaloupes were shipped to Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin. This recall was expected to facilitate removal of all of the contaminated product from the marketplace and to increase public awareness of the cantaloupe contamination. The FDA warned consumers to: • ask their retailers if the cantaloupe had been grown on Chamberlain Farms in Owensville, Indiana; • not to eat the recalled cantaloupe • to discard the cantaloupe if they had purchased it from this farm; • to consult their health care provider If they believed themselves to be sick with this illness (FDA, 2012).

August 23, 2012 The number of cases of Salmonella continued to climb. By August 23, there were a total of 178 cases from 21 states (CDC, 2012a). These included 37 new cases. Ill persons were from: Alabama (6), Georgia (2), Illinois (4), Indiana (5), Kentucky (6), Massachusetts (2), Minnesota (1), Mississippi (3), Missouri (3), New Jersey (1), Ohio (1), Texas (1), and Wisconsin (2). People who became sick ranged in age from less than one year to 100 years; the median age was 48 years old. As of August 23, 59% were female, and of the 121 people with available medical information, 62 (51%) were hospitalized. No new deaths were reported.

August 28, 2012 PulseNet analysis results were released (CDC, 2012a). Samples of cantaloupe collected at Chamberlain Farms were reported to contain the same Salmonella Typhimurium fingerprinted strain as the outbreak strain found among those that were sick with salmonellosis (CDC, 2012a).

August 30, 2012 Twenty-six new cases were reported (CDC, 2012a). Data showed these new cases to be from: Arkansas (2), Florida (1), Georgia (1), Illinois (3), Indiana (4), Iowa (1), Kentucky (7), Minnesota (1), Missouri (1), North Carolina (2), Ohio (1), and Tennessee (2). People who were sick again ranged from less than one year to 100 years old. The median age was 50 years old, and 59% of those ill were female. Of the 149 people with medical records, 78 (52%) were hospitalized. Fortunately, no new deaths were reported.

September 10, 2012 Consumers were told that they could call a toll free phone number provided by the FDA with questions or consult the FDA website. State health agencies also made information available on-line and/or offered a toll free number for consumer questions. Investigation of the outbreak continued.

Chamberlain Farms issued a second recall, asking stores to remove their watermelon from store shelves because of possible contamination with investigated different strain, Salmonella Newport (CDC, 2012b).

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


September 13, 2012 A total of 270 people were reported to be sick with either of two strains of Salmonella (CDC, 2012a). These outbreak strains were Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Newport. Based on ongoing investigations at Chamberlain Farms, FDA collected and tested samples and both of these microorganisms were detected. As a result, CDC grouped these two bacteria together as the “outbreak strains” although the investigations continued for the link among Chamberlain Farms, the bacteria, and the illnesses. Twenty-six states were now affected. New cases included 66 people from 18 states: Alabama (3), Arkansas (1), Georgia (5), Iowa (2), Illinois (10), Indiana (11), Kentucky (7), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Missouri (8), Mississippi (2), Montana (1), North Carolina (2), Ohio (4), Oklahoma (1), South Carolina (2), Virginia (1), and Wisconsin (4). The median age was 49 years old, and 55% were female. Hospitalization rate was 52%. One new death was reported in Kentucky.

October 3, 2012 Results of the FDA observations were released to the public. The purpose of the environmental assessment inspection, done in cooperation with Chamberlain Farms and the Indiana State Department of Health, was to gather more information that would help identify the contributing factors to the initial contamination, growth, or spread of Salmonella on cantaloupe (FDA, 2013a). The report stated that the initial contamination was likely to have occurred in the production fields and was spread by operations and practices in the packing house. In addition, the bacteria were likely to have continued to grow during storage and transport to the marketplace. Salmonella was found in numerous samples from the fields, but was not found in the agricultural water sources; however agricultural water may have helped to spread the contamination once it was introduced into the fields. Additional observations included: poor sanitary practices in the packing house, food contact surfaces that did not allow for effective cleaning, cleaning that was not done fre38

quently enough, standing water in the packing shed, a poorly constructed water pro¬cessing line, inadequate monitoring of chlorine sani¬tizer in the water of a concrete dump tank, and inadequate removal of litter and waste where insects and vermin could live.

Final Case Count Update – October 5, 2012 Because the particular strain of Salmonella Typhimurium and the Salmonella Newport linked to this outbreak was fairly common, further laboratory analyses were conducted (CDC, 2012a). As a result of these more detailed analyses, the outbreak summary included 261 people with food-borne illness as a result of Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Newport in 24 states. These states were mostly located in the Midwest, East, and South (CDC, 2012a), and included: Alabama (25), Arkansas (6), Florida (1), Georgia (13), Illinois (36), Indiana (30), Iowa (9), Kentucky (66), Maryland (1), Michigan (8), Minnesota (2), Mississippi (7), Missouri (17), Montana (1), New Jersey (2), North Carolina (5), Ohio (5), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (2), South Carolina (4), Tennessee (8), Texas (2), Virginia (1), and Wisconsin (9). Time of onset for these cases ranged from July 6, 2012, to September 16, 2012. The median age was 47 years with a range from less than one year old to 100 years old. Slightly more than half (55%) of the victims were female, and 51% of the cases where information was available resulted in hospitalizations. Three deaths were reported (all in Kentucky). These illnesses were linked through DNA testing from PulseNet to the cantaloupes grown at Chamberlain Farms in Owensville, Indiana, and distributed to several states before the contamination was discovered. The CDC reported that the outbreak appeared to be over.

December 14, 2012 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to Chamberlain Farms (FDA, 2013a). The letter detailed the results of their observations and laboratory analyses, noted the corrective actions that Chamberlain Farms had already taken,

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

and noted what corrective actions still needed to be done. Furthermore, the FDA outlined the required response that Chamberlain Farms was to send FDA regarding additional needed corrective actions and their plan to prevent these or other similar violations in the future.

November 5, 2013 The FDA sent a “close-out” letter to Chamberlain Farms to state that they had completed their evaluation of the Chamberlain Farms corrective actions (FDA, 2013a). The letter stated that it appeared that the violations contained in the warning letter had been addressed by the management at Chamberlain Farms.

to close for the evening, Rocco had forgotten what his employee had told him. The next morning when he arrived at work, Rocco was unprepared for the phone call he received. The elderly woman told Rocco that she had eaten in his restaurant two days before and was now feeling sick. She asked if his cantaloupes were the recalled cantaloupes being mentioned in the news. Rocco became worried and told his customer he would find out. He grabbed a piece of paper and wrote down her name and phone number. As soon as he hung up the phone, it rang again. This phone call was a customer who had reserved a room for 50 people for Friday night, August 31st for a groom’s dinner celebration.

The following paragraphs highlight an example of a restaurant manager’s experience during this same time period in 2012. The name of the restaurant and the specific details do not describe an actual restaurant, but can illustrate what might happen in any restaurant. On Thursday August 30th, less than 2 weeks after the initial public announcement, Rocco D ’Angelo, the owner of a small but popular family-owned restaurant, Papa D’s, in the outskirts of Louisville, Kentucky heard about the cantaloupe recall from one of his employees. The dinner rush was just starting, and Rocco did a quick run through in his head. He did not know if they purchased food from the company whose food was being recalled, but he did know that cantaloupe was served in several popular menu selections at his restaurant. These included: a fruit salad used as a side dish, a fresh fruit entree, and a single slice on some of the breakfast entrée plates. “I

They also were concerned about the recalled cantaloupes and were considering cancelling the reservation. Rocco assured them he would not serve any dishes containing cantaloupe so they decided to keep their dinner reservation. As soon as he hung up the phone, it rang again with another concerned customer who said that two deaths had occurred in Kentucky as a result of the recalled cantaloupes, and they also were worried about the cantaloupes they had eaten at his restaurant. By this point, Rocco knew that he had to get serious about the situation. He had never been involved in anything like this before so he immediately called his local health department to find out what he should do. Their lines were busy, and he called several times without being able to talk to anyone. Meanwhile, he looked back through his purchasing records and found the phone number of the produce company that he ordered from. He called them and found out that they had received cantaloupes from Chamberlain Farms, the very farm that had recalled their products. Now Rocco was really worried. He talked to the chef and told him to stop serving the cantaloupes. The cantaloupes were placed in a cooler and labeled that they were not to be used. Products that had already been prepared that con-

hope I don’t have to change the menu,” he thought aloud, groaning that he had recently paid to update and reprint menus. However, with the evening dinner business in full throttle, he couldn’t stop to do more research. By the time the restaurant was ready

tained cantaloupe were pulled and placed in the cooler as well. Rocco hoped he would get his money back by turning in the recalled product. Next he had to find a substitute food for the cantaloupes. He called the produce company back


Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


again and asked them about getting different fruits, such as grapes, bananas, and strawberries. He did not want to serve any melon at this point as an extra precaution against further food contamination. Besides, he thought his customers would feel safer if there were no melon products. He also asked the produce company how he could get a refund for the cantaloupes already in his restaurant. He wished he would have known about this earlier and tried to think of other things he should do. He finally was able to get through to the local health department. They advised him to not serve the cantaloupe (which is what he had already decided to do). They also suggested that he post informa-

that he had contacted his produce supplier and the health department and that he was no longer serving any kind of melon product as a safety precaution. On October 5th, the end of the outbreak was announced. Rocco had been regularly reading information about the outbreak on the FDA website and had signed himself up to receive notices if future recalls were to happen. He had stopped serving all melon products since August because he wanted customers to view his restaurant as only serving safe food without having to ask where his cantaloupe was obtained from. Thankfully, no other customers reported being sick after eating in his restaurant. The one customer who was hospitalized was later

tion about the recall on the door of his restaurant and give contact information for the health department in case of questions. Rocco was not sure he wanted to do this as it might suggest his restaurant was to blame for the outbreak. “I wish I already had a policy in place for how to handle this kind of situation,” he told his chef. However, things only got worse that evening. The evening newspaper published a story about local ties to the Salmonella outbreak. And they quoted his customer who had called him earlier that day. The newspaper stated that the customer had eaten in Papa D’s restaurant and had been hospitalized. By the next day, Friday, it was clear that the situation was getting worse for Papa D’s Restaurant. Despite the fact that Friday usually meant a waiting crowd at the door, there were very few customers other than the groom’s dinner group reservation. One day into this situation, and business had drastically declined. Rocco was worried. He worried that the reputation of his restaurant was being seriously harmed and that customers were deliberately staying away and might never come back. In addition, he worried about the cantaloupe he had already served after the recall was issued. He wondered what his liability was in these cases. He decided to call his lawyer. However,

released from the hospital. A possible lawsuit was still pending according to Rocco’s lawyer because he continued to serve the contaminated cantaloupe after the first annoucement was issued 13 days earlier. Customers had slowly started returning to his restaurant, but business was still lower than before the incident happened. He suspected that his reputation was still affected and planned to do some advertising to see if that would bring back some of his business. He continued to ask himself what he should have done differently.

before he could pick up the phone, it rang. “Good grief, can it get worse?” he thought to himself as he realized the call was from the news reporter who had written the story the day before about his customer—and his restaurant. He explained to the reporter 40

TO PROVOKE THOUGHT To maximize the students’ case study experience, the trainer will need to encourage them to think in depth. They need to gather information, analyze the information they gather, then come up with alternative solutions. Based on your knowledge of your students, it may be helpful to offer some questions to jump-start their thinking. However, if you give students such questions, be sure to tell the students that these questions are only the beginning of their quest. • • •

What things were done appropriately in Papa D’s restaurant? What else should have been done to protect the safety of consumers? How should the restaurant have handled the

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

• •

• •

public relations situation so that their reputation was less affected? What was the restaurant’s liability? What should the response of the restaurant have been when the outbreak started happening? Should the restaurant have done anything differently in terms of the recall? How should the restaurant have been prepared for this kind of situation happening?


Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/ FoodCode/ucm374275.htm Accessed December 2013.  

TEACHING NOTES This case study discusses the need for a policy on handling a food-borne illness outbreak, how a restaurant should respond to a food recall, and the impact on a restaurant’s reputation when an outbreak does occur. It allows students the opportunity to discuss various responses to these situations in order to become better prepared for handling this type of

CDC. 2010. Prevention. Accessed December 2013. CDC. 2011. Making food safer to eat. http://www. Accessed December 2013. CDC. 2012a. Multistate outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Newport infections linked to cantaloupe (final update). http://www.cdc. gov/Salmonella/typhimurium-cantaloupe-08-12/ index.html Accessed December 2013. CDC. 2012b. Multistate outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Newport infections linked to cantaloupe (final update), Advice to consumers, retailers, and others. http://www.cdc. gov/Salmonella/typhimurium-cantaloupe-08-12/ advice-consumers.html Accessed December 2013. CDC. 2013. CDC 2011 Estimates: Findings. http:// Accessed August 2013. FDA. 2012. FDA news release. NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ ucm316665.htm Accessed December 2013. FDA. 2013a. FDA investigation summary: Multistate outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Newport infections linked to cantaloupe

crisis situation. Recalls are becoming more frequent, and it is important to understand how this might impact a restaurant’s operation.

grown at Chamberlain Farms in southwest Indiana. Accessed December 2013. FDA. 2013b. Food Code 2013.

bursement Marketing strategy oo Appropriate methods to communicate with the public during a food-borne illness outbreak


This case study is complex in that it draws together day to day operations (how do you safely substitute one product for another) as well as more long term strategic issues, such as brand management in relation to damage to a restaurant’s reputation and how that might be repaired, and liability in relation to customers who become sick after eating in one’s restaurant. The following discussion topics are provided as a guideline to generate a deeper understanding of this case study. •

Operational management oo The effect of product substitution on food cost, food preparation, the menu, and customer perceptions of food safety and quality oo The process of eliminating the recalled food from the menu and receiving reim-

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


oo Strategies to protect one’s reputation and how customers’ perceptions of brand are influenced by a food-borne illness outbreak Crisis management oo How to establish a policy for crisis management oo What should be included in a crisis management policy Legal issues oo What are the liability issues for restaurants in food-borne illness outbreaks oo How should restaurants respond to customers in food-borne illness outbreaks

ing each of these roles or in directing discussion in each of these areas. National Restaurant Association. 2012. ServSafe coursebook, 6th edition. Pearson Publishing, Boston, MA. 319 p. Almanza, B. and Ghiselli, R. (Editors). 2014. Researching the hazard in hazardous foods (Advances in hospitality and tourism). Apple Academic Press, Waretown, New Jersey. 331 p.

These questions are given simply as thought provoking ideas. It is recommended that the students first gather information. Then they should discuss and understand the information they gathered. Lastly, they should develop alternative solutions. They may want to recommend their best solution depending on the specific case they are faced with, most importantly; they have to “take home” with them what they learned from the case they studied together.

TEACHING STRATEGY This case study is based on a timely issue that may be faced by foodservice operations. It is intended for undergraduate and graduate students pursuing degrees in various disciplines such as business, food science, food service, and hospitality. Discussion may vary with the students for which it is intended. The discussion topics have been provided as a guideline to stimulate and direct discussion. This case study may be used as part of a class lecture where further discussion will enrich the learning experience, or may be handed out to students to respond to for examination purposes. Finally, it may be used for a more in-depth exercise in class where students are assigned the various roles to play, such as the restaurant owner, customers, the health department, news reporter, lawyer, etc. Further information is provided in the following textbooks for assistance in develop42

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014 Copyright © 2014 Agriculture, Food and Analytical Bacteriology

The Hurricane Sandy Dilemma

B. A. Almanza1* School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907


ABSTRACT Natural disasters and other crises create special challenges for foodservice operations. Foodservice managers need to understand how they can safely operate under such conditions. They also need to be prepared to make decisions about how and when to close if they cannot safely provide food for their customers and keep their employees safe. This case study documents the impact of the October 29, 2012 natural disaster created by Hurricane Sandy and describes a restaurant’s reaction to that situation.

Keywords: Hurricane Sandy, natural disaster, crisis management, restaurant, liability, food safety

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. 4: 43-49, 2014

INTRODUCTION Natural disasters are a recognized threat to homes and businesses and the people who live and work in them. The restaurant industry is no exception. Snow, ice, fire, tornadoes and hurricanes can occur without much warning and play havoc with the health and safety of restaurant clientele and workers alike. This case study showcases a fictitious restaurant that withstood the brunt of Hurricane Sandy in the fall of 2012. Hurricanes are a type of severe cyclone or tropical storm that typically starts in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, eastern Pacific Ocean or southern Atlantic Ocean according to the Federal Emergency ManCorrespondence: B. A. Almanza,

agement Agency (FEMA, 2013b). Hurricanes are noted for their wind speeds, which may exceed 155 miles per hour (FEMA, 2013b). In addition, hurricanes can cause storm surges along the coast, which have been said to cause the greatest potential for loss of life (FEMA, 2013g). Because much of the coastline along highly populated areas of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast is less than 10 feet above mean sea level, extensive damage from storm surges is possible (FEMA, 2013g). In addition to flood damage, storm surges can erode beaches and coastal roads. In major storms, complete destruction of coastal communities may occur (FEMA, 2013g). The hurricane peak season is from mid-August to late October, although the season may start as early as June and last into November (FEMA, 2013b). All areas of the Atlantic

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


coast and the Gulf of Mexico coast are considered to be subject to the threat of hurricanes (FEMA, 2013b). The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale Summary and the types of damage that may be caused by each category of hurricane are shown in Table 1. Extensive recommendations for individuals and businesses are provided on the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) website (FEMA, 2012a; 2012b; 2012c; 2012d; 2012e; 2012f; 2013c; 2013d; 2013e; 2013f; and 2013h). General recom-

mendations include making advance plans and emergency supply kits, learning whether property is flood-prone, knowing evacuation routes, securing property (including covering windows, reinforcing roofs, garage doors, etc.), bringing loose items such as lawn furniture inside, installing an emergency generator and determining the safe area to shelter in (for high-rise buildings, better areas would include those on or below the 10th floor).

Table 1. Saffir-Simpson Hurricane wind scale and expected damage SCALE NUMBER (CATEGORY)





Very dangerous winds will produce some damage • Minor damage to exterior of homes • Toppled tree branches, uprooting of smaller trees • Extensive damage to power lines, power outages



Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage • Major damage to exterior of homes • Uprooting of small trees and many roads blocked • Guaranteed power outages for long periods of time – days to weeks



Devastating damage will occur • Extensive damage to exterior of homes • Many trees uprooted and many roads blocked • Extremely limited availability of water and electricity



Catastrophic damage will occur • Loss of roof structure and/or some exterior walls • Most trees uprooted and most power lines down • Isolated residential due to debris pile up • Power outages lasting for weeks to months


157 or higher

Catastrophic damage will occur • A high percentage of homes will be destroyed • Fallen trees and power lines isolate residential areas • Power outages lasting for weeks to months • Most areas will be uninhabitable


Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

Persons in areas subject to hurricanes need to also think through needed preparation for keeping food safe as long as possible. For example, the refrigerator should have been turned to its coldest setting with the doors kept closed prior to the emergency (FEMA, 2013c). Recommendations for individuals include storing at least a three-day supply of non-perishable food and avoiding foods that create thirst. Salt-free crackers, whole grain cereals and canned foods with high liquid content, for example, are suggested as well as canned foods, dry mixes and other staples that do not require refrigeration, cooking, water, or special preparation (FEMA, 2013f). These might include ready-to-eat canned meats, fruits,


vegetables, protein or fruit bars, dry cereal or granola, peanut butter, dried fruit, nuts, crackers, canned juices, non-perishable pasteurized milk, high energy foods, vitamins, and any needed food and formula for babies or infants as well as an adequate supply of individual prescription drugs. Preparations for providing a safe supply of water for sanitary purposes (such as cleaning and flushing the toilets) could include filling the bathtub or other large containers with water (FEMA, 2013c). The amount of drinking water needed for each individual varies with their age, physical activity, physical condition and time of year (FEMA, 2013d). The minimum recommendation for water per person is one quart per day, but FEMA’s recommendations are to store at least one gallon of water per person per day (FEMA, 2013h). Water that is known to be safe may be stored in clean, plastic two-liter soda bottles or food grade water storage containers. Carbonated beverages do not meet individual water requirements according to FEMA (FEMA, 2013d). In addition, drinks containing caffeine and alcohol actually dehydrate the body and increase the need for drinking water (FEMA, 2013d). If water is suspicious, very specific guidelines are given by FEMA or the health authorities for how to treat water prior to consumption, if this is

never reopen (FEMA, 2013e). Catastrophic storm insurance is only a partial solution because it generally will not cover all the losses to food, equipment, or buildings. In addition, insurance may not cover lost sales or replace customers who went to competitors and did not return (FEMA, 2013e).

considered possible. Generally boiling and distillation are considered some of the safest methods, but specific guidelines by FEMA or the health authorities should be followed for detailed information (FEMA, 2013d).

sheltering in place, lockdown, or plans for other types of threats), a crisis communication plan (with employees, customers, and the news media), a business continuity plan (recovery strategy),

If businesses are to continue to operate during an emergency, they must be prepared in advance. Preparation starts far in advance of the crisis or emergency and includes a thoroughly tested emergency plan and policies that are ready to implement when an emergency starts. Such emergency plans even include asking suppliers for their preparedness plans (FEMA, 2013e). Unfortunately, one survey suggests that almost two-thirds of businesses (62%) do not have an emergency plan (FEMA, 2013e). It has been estimated that up to 40% of businesses affected by a natural or human-caused disaster

Goals for typical foodservice preparedness policies include the following (FEMA, 2013e): • protect the safety of employees and customers from hazards, • maintain customer service by minimizing interruptions or disruptions of operations, • protect the building, equipment, food, water and electronic information, • prevent environmental contamination and • protect the foodservice’s brand, image and reputation. Full implementation of the preparedness policies and plan include eight areas that must be coordinated in advance of the crisis or emergency (FEMA, 2012c). They are: • effective resource management (the supplies that are needed to continue business), • an emergency response plan (evacuation,

• •

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


an information technology plan (recovery of computer hardware, connectivity, and electronic data), employee assistance and support (to help support the needs of employees following an emergency so that they may continue to work in your operation), incident management (to define responsibilities and coordinate activities before, during, and following the emergency), and training and practice (so that appropriate actions are taken during the emergency). After these eight areas have been coordinated into the preparedness plan, practice is generally considered important to assess the readiness of the plan and identify needed improvements (FEMA, 2012f; FEMA, 2012e).

In addition, it should be stressed that foodservices should never operate without an adequate supply of safe food and water.

HURRICANE SANDY TIMELINE (FEMA, 2013A) October 22, 2012 NOAA issued public advisories about a Tropical Depression which later in the same day became known as Tropical Storm Sandy.

October 23, 2012 NOAA indicated that a tropical storm watch for Sandy was issued for portions of Florida. Residents were warned to initiate disaster preparedness plans.

October 25-28, 2012 Updates continued on the progress of Hurricane Sandy. Preparedness plans continued to be implemented. Tropical storm watches and warnings expanded to additional affected areas.

October 29, 2012 Hurricane Sandy made landfall on the east coast of the U. S. (FEMA, 2013a). It hit directly in southern New Jersey, but its impact was felt in more than 12 states. Particularly hard hit were the densely-populated areas of New York and New Jersey. Heavy rain, strong winds, and record storm surges created an enormous amount of damage. More than 23,000 people found refuge in temporary shelters, and more than 8.5 million people lost power in the aftermath of the storm. Numerous roads and tunnels were blocked. According to the Huffington Post (Fahey, 2012), it took 13 days to restore power to 95% of the customers in New York and 11 days to restore power to a similar percentage in New Jersey. The monetary cost was huge with numbers almost too large to comprehend in real terms. One year after Hurricane Sandy, more than $1.4 billion in individual assistance had been provided to 182,000 individuals. An additional $2.4 billion in low-interest disaster loans was provided by the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the National Flood Insurance Program made payments of $7.9 billion. FEMA approved more than $3.2 billion for emergency work, debris removal, and repair and replacement of infrastructure (FEMA, 2013a).


October 24, 2012 The following case study highlights an example Tropical Storm Sandy became Hurricane Sandy, the 18th named storm of the 2012 Atlantic Hurricane Season.


of a restaurant experience during this time period in 2012. The name of the restaurant and the specific details do not describe an actual restaurant, but may be considered to illustrate a typical experience of a restaurant to such disaster.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

THE ATLANTIC SEABOARD RESTAURANT Jennifer Riley had been ecstatic when she had been hired as the manager of the upscale Atlantic Seaboard Restaurant. Only five years post-graduation with her B.S. from a highly ranked restaurant management program, she had moved from Minnesota only the year before and had quickly established a local reputation. Apparently, she was talented enough for The Atlantic Seaboard Restaurant, located on the first floor of the Columbia Hotel in Jersey City, New Jersey, and nationally known for fine cuisine and exacting presentation.

Because the restaurant was on the first floor and they were located so near the ocean, flooding could also be a problem. “I wonder if food and water could be moved to a higher floor level,” she mused. Some employees would also want to be home with their families so finding an adequate number of people to work during the emergency was also going to be a problem. She was sure that there were other things that they had not thought of yet. She went back to the FEMA website for more information and also checked the NOAA website for an update on the storm. Meanwhile, John came to her office and told her that he did not want to close the hotel unless they

Jennifer had never seen a hurricane before, being raised in Minnesota, but she remembered hearing some scary details, mostly about storms to the south of New Jersey. However, she became worried on October 22 when she first heard the news of a tropical storm headed their way. John Battaglia, the general manager of the hotel, was able to calm her down. John had lived in the area for many years and told her, “It probably won’t amount to much. It never does.” However, the next couple of days seemed to contradict what Mr. Battaglia had told her. Her nerves and common sense told her not to ignore the warnings, despite her colleague’s confidence that all would be fine. Jennifer looked through her office and found very little information about a preparedness plan for the restaurant. She knew that FEMA generally provided assistance in these situations and went on-line to find out what typically happens. There appeared to be a lot of good information available, but there wasn’t a lot of time to prepare. “Why didn’t I start worrying sooner?” she asked herself with each weather report sounding threats of the impending storm. She gathered the two assistant managers of the restaurant and worked out a plan for operations if they were to lose power or water pressure.

absolutely had to. That meant that guests would require the restaurant to remain open, too. Now her planning would have to gear up to a critical stage.

It seemed that safely staying in operation was only possible if they could get certain things accomplished. Clearly they would need a stored supply of potable water and shelf-stable foods that could be stored without refrigeration and prepared with little or no heat.

for this emergency? What steps should the restaurant take to control for loss of refrigerated and/or frozen foods? How can the restaurant be prepared for the financial impact of such a situation?


• •

• • • •

What are the restaurant manager’s main responsibilities in this situation? What should the management team consider to determine whether they should stay open or close? Can the foodservice provide safe foods for their customers? Can the hotel provide a safe place to stay for the guests? Do they have a responsibility to help the community by remaining open? Are there other reasons why they would want to remain open? How might their reputation be affected if they remain open or if they close? Is there a unique opportunity for the hotel and restaurant? Could/should they raise their prices? What things did the restaurant do that helped prepare for the emergency? What else should the restaurant do to prepare

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


• •

What should the restaurant have done differently to prepare for the emergency? What long term plans could have been made to rebound and reopen if they do need to close? What factors contribute to the fact that so many restaurants don’t reopen following disasters?

REFERENCES Fahey, J. 2012. Hurricane power outages after Sandy not extraordinary, according to report analyzing Katrina, past storms. http://www.huffingtonpost. com/2012/11/16/hurricane-power-outages-aftersandy_n_2146393.html Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2012a. Business continuity planning suite. Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2012b. Business testimonials. http://www. Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2012c. Implementation. http://www.ready. gov/business/implementation Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2012d. Planning. Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2012e. Program improvement. http://www. ready/gov/business/program Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2012f. Testing and exercises. http://www. Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2013a. Hurricane Sandy one year later. http:// Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2013b. Hurricanes. hurricanes Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2013c. Know the terms. http://www.ready. gov/hurricanes Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2013d. Managing water. http://www.ready. gov/managing-water Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2013e. Program management. http://www. Accessed December 2013. 48

FEMA. 2013f. Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2013g. Storm surge. hurricanes Accessed December 2013. FEMA. 2013h. Water. Accessed December 2013. NOAA. 2011. What is a microburst? http://www.srh. Accessed December 2013. NOAA. 2013. Tropical cyclone naming history and retired names. Accessed December 2013.

TEACHING NOTES This case study introduces the idea of emergency preparedness. Discussion is encouraged in the areas of: emergency policies, a preparedness plan, how the restaurant should respond to an emergency, and the decisions that need to be made about safe operation during an emergency. It allows students the opportunity to discuss various responses to these situations in order to become better prepared for handling this type of crisis situation. Because emergencies require advance preparation and planning, this case study gives students an opportunity to discuss this critical area and explore available electronic resources to improve their understanding of how an emergency might impact a restaurant’s operation.

TEACHING OBJECTIVES This case study is complex in that it draws together day to day operations (providing safe food and water during an emergency) critical decision making (whether it is possible to safely provide food and water), as well as strategic issues (emergency preparedness, financial impact). The following discussion topics are provided as a guideline to generate a deeper understanding of this case study.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

Operational management oo Emergency preparedness policies and plans that should be created well in advance of the emergency or crisis oo Preparations done prior to the emergency oo Safe operational procedures during the emergency oo Follow-up procedures after the emergency (which will vary with the damage to the restaurant and the surrounding area) Decision making oo Emergency policies oo Criteria used to make the decision of whether to remain open oo Communicating with the regulatory authorities, the public, and the media Strategic issues oo Emergency preparedness and crisis management - The importance of emergency preparedness - Areas to be included in a crisis management policy oo Financial and legal issues - Possible financial impacts on the foodservice - Procedures that foodservices should do to lessen the possible financial impact - The restaurant’s responsibility to customers and the community

spond to for examination purposes. Finally, it may be used for a more in-depth exercise in class where students are assigned the various roles to play, such as the restaurant manager, customers, the health department, news reporter, lawyer, etc. Further information is provided in the following textbooks for assistance in developing each of these roles or in directing discussion in each of these areas. The student teams may need to first gather information relating to disaster preparedness and risk management then develop several alternative methods of managing a business operation during disaster times. This is applicable to most businesses such as hotel and motel business, in which the safety of the customers will be the responsibility of the hotel manager. The students will need to investigate all these aspects of the business and come up with their plan and most importantly learn from what they studied and be able to apply what they learned if and when disaster strikes.

REFERENCES National Restaurant Association. 2012. ServSafe coursebook, 6th edition. Pearson Publishing, Boston, MA. 319 p. Almanza, B. and Ghiselli, R. (editors). 2014. Researching the hazard in hazardous foods (Advances in hospitality and tourism). Apple Academic Press, Waretown, New Jersey. 331 p.

TEACHING STRATEGY This case study is based on a timely issue that may be faced by foodservice operations. This case study is intended for undergraduate and graduate students pursuing degrees in various disciplines such as business, food science, food service, and hospitality. Discussion may vary with the students for whom it is intended. The discussion topics have been provided as a guideline to stimulate and direct discussion. This case study may be used as part of a class lecture where further discussion will enrich the learning experience, or may be handed out to students to reAgric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

49 Copyright © 2014 Agriculture, Food and Analytical Bacteriology

Intellect-u-ale: A Smart Approach to Quality Assurance in a Micro-Brewery A. J. Corsi1, M. Goodman1 and J. A. Neal1* Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204


ABSTRACT The United States (U.S.) is seeing an explosion of micro-breweries, craft brewers, and brew pubs. These small producers may not have the budgets or staff for quality assurance teams, which may cause delays in identifying quality flaws. The following case study describes how a quality assurance programs can be developed regardless of the size of the operation and how to implement a food and beverage recall. Keywords: Microbreweries, Beer Spoilage Bacteria, Quality Assurance

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. 4: 50-54, 2014

INTRODUCTION Beer is the world’s most widely consumed alcoholic beverage and is believed to be the oldest as well (McFarland, 2009; Pattinson, 2010; Wilcox et al., 2013). It has been recognized for centuries as a safe beverage that does not easily spoil and has significant microbiological stability (Sakamoto et al., 2003). This is due in part to the presence of ethanol, bitter compounds from hops, high carbon dioxide levels, a low pH and minimal oxygen content. The United States (U.S.) beer industry accounts for $98 billion in Correspondence: J. Neal,


sales annually, and 85% of alcoholic consumption by volume is beer (Adams, 2008). Despite beer’s microbial stability, several microbial contaminants can grow in beer. These beer spoilage bacteria can cause turbidity issues as well as negative sensory changes including off odors and tastes (Sakamoto et al., 2003). Preventing these unwanted microbial contaminants will maintain the quality of the final product, consumer perception and ultimately the reputation of the brewery. These microbial spoilage organisms have been identified as both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria as well as wild yeasts. The Gram-positive spoilage bacteria include Lactobacillus and Pedio-

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

cocus that are responsible for approximately 70% of the microbial beer spoilage (Back, 1994; Sakamoto et al., 2003). The Gram-negative spoilage bacteria include Pectinatus and Megasphaera, both of which are anaerobic. While wild yeast does not cause as many spoilage problems as bacteria do, they are challenging for brewers to distinguish from their brewing yeast (Sakamoto et al., 2003). Large breweries employ laboratory technicians and microbiologists as part of their Quality Assurance Team which establish Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs). In addition, environmental and product samples may be tested for microbial contamination

this process is the addition of cultured Brettanomyces bruxellensis strain. The addition of B. bruxellensis gives the beer a unique sour and tartness with a hint of “barn-yard” aromatics. This style of beer was first brewed by monks on the west coast of Europe. The sour taste was not originally intended but rather a flaw introduced into the beer through Brettanomyces infected wooden barrels the monks used to age and store their beer. These sour beers became popular in the regions where they were first brewed, and as the craft beer movement grew, sour beers found their way to the U. S. Recently, Erick, the brew master for the past ten

but these grow-out assays can take several days. Thus, spoiled beer may already be in distribution, forcing a market withdrawal that may cost the brewery thousands of dollars and damage to their brand name and reputation. Simultaneously, the United States (U.S.) is seeing an explosion of micro-breweries, craft brewers, and brew pubs. These small producers typically do not have the budgets or staff for routine quality assessment that may cause delays in identifying a spoilage problem. The following case study describes such an incident.

Goose Decoy Beer is a small craft brewery in the Midwestern U.S. and is gaining regional acclaim. They have won awards at several beer festivals and are developing a loyal fan base and devoted customers. They produce several European style beers, but their most popular is a unique, Belgian Strong Pale Ale, with 7.1% alcohol by volume (ABV), 27 international bittering units (IBU), and a distinct sour note. This unique beer style goes through a two stage fermentation process. First, a commercial strain of Belgian Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast, a

years at Goose Decoy, started receiving complaints that their beer was too sour, both through phone calls and through the brewery’s social media outlets; Facebook and Twitter. Erick tried to explain that it was intentional and characteristic of this style of beer. He recommended that the customers try a different varietal should they not like the Belgian style ale. As he posted his comments on Facebook, he read that several followers mentioned that they had been fans of the beer for some time but that they felt something at Goose Decoy was “off.” Erick was confused since the brewery had not received complaints on this beer in the four years since its introduction. He knew that there had been no process changes or issues reported during fermentation. He checked with the manager’s log (cellaring notes) and all looked normal. The primary Saccharomyces yeast strain was a repitch (reused) on its 3rd generation, and the secondary Brettanomyces strain was on its 5th generation. Brewers will often reuse (repitch) yeast from previous batches but first conduct a process known as yeast washing where food grade phosphoric acid is added to the previous yeast slurry until the mixture reaches a pH of 2.4. The yeast is then added to the wort within 30 minutes of this acid washing.

top-fermenting ale yeast, is used to convert the majority of the wort’s sugar into alcohol. This first step not only creates alcohol in the beer but produces an abundance of ester compounds which give the beer an above average fruity aroma. The second step in

Since yeast can survive at this lower pH than many of the common beer spoilage organisms, this process is routinely done to insure a clean inoculation—free from spoilage organisms. Yeast is commonly reused for ten or more generations.


Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


Erick found that the beer was fermented at 71°F and the gravity readings fell at a rate that indicated proper yeast fermentation. He also checked to see if any of the vendors or suppliers had changes, if any new employees had been hired, or if any new equipment had been purchased, and all of his answers returned with a resounding “No.” While struggling to find an answer, Erick opened one of the beers to taste it, and to his surprise his beer was spoiled, it was extremely turbid, the color was all wrong and it was extremely sour. Erick then went about the arduous task of tracking down the cause spoilage. He quickly realized this process would be even harder than he first thought.

today’s “real time” environment where consumer’s social media comments can destroy a company’s future in hours or days, he needed to respond. Erick called an emergency meeting of the business partners to discuss their options. They had many questions with the first being “How much is this going to cost?”

The beer in question was an unfiltered and unpasteurized beer that had active B. bruxellensis and trace amounts of Saccharomyces c still alive in it. The inclusion of these yeast strains gave the beer its unique properties that after bottling allowed the beer to slowly develop new aromas and flavors as the B. bruxellensis continued to ferment in the bottled beer. Erick decided to test a bottle of the spoiled beer using Lee’s Multi Differential Agar/Schwarz Differential Agar (LMDA/SDA) using basic serial dilution techniques. Actidione (cycloheximide) was added to the media to suppress the growth of the added culture of Saccharomyces c yeast. Unfortunately the Actidione addition does not significantly change the growth rate of B. bruxellensis on the beer, so this would have to be taken into consideration. He also decided to check for wild yeast using Lin’s Cupric Sulfate Medium (LCSM), as well as Lactobacillus and Pediococcus using Hsu’s Lactobacillus / Pediococcus Medium (HLP). After incubation Erick found that the LMDA/SDA plates where hard to read due to the immense quantity of Brettanomyces colonies that had formed on his plates. The LCSM media had the same issue. Erick did find a clue to the spoilage organism when the HLP media showed signs of

beer also were contaminated. He randomly selected 3 beers from each style of beer and ran LMDA/SDA, LCSM, and HLP analysis. He also sampled other batches of the Strong Pale Ale to determine if this was an isolated incident or if other batches were affected. While he waited on the results, he needed to track where the Strong Pale Ale had been distributed. Thankfully, both the cardboard boxes the beer was shipped in and the 6-pack packaging had individual lot numbers to identify when they had been made. Erick then had one of the brewery employees contact their distributors, warehouses, retailers and possible customers who purchased the product. Unfortunately, Erick did not know when the problem started, so he decided to recall all Strong Pale Ale sold over the past three months. Looking over the past three month’s sales helped Erick to get an idea of how much beer was involved. The LMDA/SDA, LCSM, and HLP results indicated that the Strong Pale Ale was the only varietal beer that was contaminated, but it occurred in several batches with lot codes 08/27/11 and 10/22/11 in the 12oz format and 10/27/11 and 11/27/11 in 16oz format. In the meantime, Erick also decided to halt production of the Strong Pale Ale until they could deter-

Lactobacillus greater than the industry standard of 10 colony forming units, CFU for 100ml in the finished beer sample. Erick realized that the product offered no health threat, but the brewery’s reputation was at stake. In

mine where the source of contamination came from and how it could be prevented. Erick mentioned to the General Manager that they might want to consider offering a refund or replace the bad beer but would leave that decision up to the other managers.


WHO RECALLS BAD BEER? Erick agreed to take the lead on organizing a recall, but first he would have to collect a lot of information quickly. First, Erick had to determine if only the Strong Pale Ale was affected or if other styles of

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

Goose Decoy also needed to make a statement to explain what happened, so the marketing director/ social media director posted the following statement: “Our Strong Pale Ale is more sour than usual which does not meet our quality standards, and we are recalling the batches with lot codes 08/27/11 and 10/22/11 in the 12oz format and 10/27/11 and 11/27/11 in 16oz format. This poses no health risk and no other Goose Decoy beers are affected.” Goose Decoy survived this recall and marketing nightmare but vowed that they would never put themselves in this position again. In order to accomplish this, Goose Decoy implemented an annual mock recall drill. This readiness and action plan


helped Goose Decoy recall another batch of beer that used Brettanomyces two years after the first recall. Due to lessons learned from the first recall, the brewery discovered the issue through in-house testing instead of through customer’s social media complaints.

Mcfarland, B. 2009. World’s best beers: one thousand craft brews from cask to glass. New York, NY: Sterling Innovation. Pattinson, R. 2010. European Beer Statistics. European Beer Guide: Pubs, Bars, Beer halls, Beer Gardens and Breweries throughout Europe. Retrieved June 27, 2012 from Sakamoto K, Konings WN. 2003. Beer spoilage bacteria and hop resistance. Int J Food Microbiol 89: 105–124 Wilcox, B. R., G. D. Cordua y Cruz, and J. A. Neal. 2013. Can consumers taste the difference between canned and bottled beers? J. Culinary Sci. Tech. 11, 286-297.


• • • • •

What are the most reliable methods of finding out potential spoilage issues by a brewing company? Once the quality issue is confirmed, what do you believe would be the proper corrective action? Repair, replace, refund, post-sale warning? Is it safer, easier, or less expensive to delay distribution of a product than it is to ship the product and have to recall it from the retail outlets? Who needs to be notified in your recall process? Once the corrective action is underway, how do you manage the process? What would have happened if the beers did not have lot codes? What could the brewery have done differently if the issue was found before packing? Could the beer have been salvaged?

American Society of Brewing Chemists. 1992. Methods of analysis of the American Society of Brewing Chemists. St. Paul, Minn: Am. Soc, Brew. Chem. Adams. 2008. Beer Market Overview. Retrieved December 8, 2010, from jsp. Back, W. 1994. Farbatlas und Handbuch der Getrankebiologie, Teil1, Hans Carl Verlag, Niirnberg.

TEACHING NOTES This case study discusses quality assurance and the decision making process when initiating a recall of a food product. This will permit students to discuss quality assurance from both a scientific perspective (LMDA/SDA, LCSM, and HLP counts) and from an ethical perspective (product does not meet standards) to determine if there is an obligation to address it and/or correct the issue. In addition, student should discuss the financial implications of a recall as well as other costs associated such as loss of reputation.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


TEACHING OBJECTIVES This case study offers students the opportunity to discuss how to develop a quality assurance team as well as an emergency response team. Students can be put into response teams and create an action plan including a media response kit. Students can also be encouraged to role play a legal scenario to demonstrate the legal implications of this process. The following discussion topics are provided as guidelines to generate a deeper understanding of this case study. •

Costs oo What are the financial burdens for initiating a recalls? oo What are the reputational costs associated with a recall, and what are the costs if there is not a response? Increasing Quality Assurance oo What steps can be implemented to prevent this incidence from reoccurring? oo What resources are needed to implement this plan? oo What should be included in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)? Mock Recalls oo Implement a mock recall. What resources are needed?

the distribution chain, the legal team, the marketing team, as well as the consumer. This case study is designed to initiate a conversation on the complexities associated with initiating a food recall even when no real health threat is involved. It is ideal if various student teams would discuss and create in-class presentations. Some of the questions presented above may not have an absolutely right or wrong answer, but it is important for students to take the time to think about the issue at hand seriously, discuss alternative methods of solving the issue, write about it and make a convincing presentations on the solution they propose beforehand as opposed to coming up with some hasty solution made after the fact.

TEACHING STRATEGY This case study has been created to challenge undergraduate and graduate students pursuing degrees in food science, quality assurance, and supply chain management. It is also suitable for those currently working in the beverage industry. This case study can be used in a traditional educational setting or may be adapted to be used as a team building exercise where students can either form their own or be placed into “response teams” to determine the course of action in the instance of a recall. Students can be placed into multiple types of teams including playing the role of the company initiating the recall, 54

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014



Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock and Poultry C. S. Dunkley and K. D. Dunkley


Can Salmonella Reside in the Human Oral Cavity? S. A. Sirsat


Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) Ecology in Cattle and Management Based Options for Reducing Fecal Shedding T. R. Callaway, T. S. Edrington, G. H. Loneragan, M. A. Carr, D. J. Nisbet


Growth of Acetogenic Bacteria In Response to Varying pH, Acetate Or Carbohydrate Concentration R. S. Pinder, and J. A. Patterson


Independent Poultry Processing in Georgia: Survey of Producers’ Perspective E. J. Van Loo, W. Q. Alali, S. Welander, C. A. O’Bryan, P. G. Crandall, S. C. Ricke

Introduction to Authors 79

Instructions for Authors

The publishers do not warrant the accuracy of the articles in this journal, nor any views or opinions by their authors. 56

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


Consumers’ Interest in Locally Raised, Small-Scale Poultry in Georgia E. J. Van Loo, W. Q. Alali, S. Welander, C. A. O’Bryan, P. G. Crandall, and S. C. Ricke

129 Isolation and Initial Characterization of Acetogenic Ruminal Bacteria Resistant to Acidic Conditions

P. Boccazzi and J. A. Patterson

145 Linoleic Acid Isomerase Expression in Escherichia coli BL21 (DE3) and Bacillus spp S. Saengkerdsub

REVIEW 103 Current and Near-Market Intervention Strategies for Reducing Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) Shedding in Cattle.

T. R. Callaway, T. S. Edrington, G. H. Loneragan, M. A. Carr, and D. J. Nisbet

121 Potential for Rapid Analysis of Bioavailable Amino Acids in Biofuel Feed Stocks D. E. Luján-Rhenals, and R. Morawicki

Introduction to Authors 162 Instructions for Authors

The publishers do not warrant the accuracy of the articles in this journal, nor any views or opinions by their authors. Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


VOLUME 3 ISSUE 3 BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS 186 Vibrio Densities in the Intestinal Contents of Finfish from Coastal Alabama J.L. Jones, R.A. Benner Jr., A. DePaola, and Y. Hara-Kudo


Antimicrobial Activity of Red Clover (Trifolium pratense L.) Extract on Caprine Hyper-Ammonia-Producing Bacteria M. D. Flythe, B. Harrison, I. A. Kagan, J. L. Klotz, G. L. Gellin, B. M. Goff, G. E. Aiken

230 Suitability of Various Prepeptides and Prepropeptides for the Production and Secretion of Heterologous Proteins by Bacillus megaterium or Bacillus licheniformis S. Saengkerdsub, R. Liyanage, J. O. Lay Jr.

REVIEW 195 Utility of Egg Yolk Antibodies for Detection and Control of Foodborne Salmonella P. Herrera, M. Aydin, S. H. Park, A. Khatiwara and S. Ahn

218 Potential for Dry Thermal Treatments to Eliminate Foodborne Pathogens on Sprout Seeds T. Hagger and R. Morawicki

Introduction to Authors 252 Instructions for Authors

The publishers do not warrant the accuracy of the articles in this journal, nor any views or opinions by their authors. 58

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

VOLUME 3 ISSUE 4 ARTICLES 268 The Role of Cellular Prion Proteins (PrPC) on Neuronal Brucella Infections M. Aydin, D. F. Gilmore, S. Erdogan, V. Duzguner, and S. Ahn

281 Prevalence of Foodborne Pathogens and Spoilage Microorganisms and their Drug Resistant Status in Different Street Foods of Dhaka

Z. Tabashsum, I. Khalil, Md. N. Uddin, A.K.M. M. Mollah, Y. Inatsu and Md. L. Bari


Development of Non-Forage Based Incubation System For Culturing Ruminal Lipase-Producing Bacteria In Vitro H. D. Edwards, R. C. Anderson, T. M. Taylor, R. K. Miller, M. D. Hardin, N. A. Krueger, D. J. Nisbet

303 Effect of Citrus Pulp on the Viability of Saccharomyces boulardii in the Presence of Enteric Pathogens

J. G. Wilson, T. C. McLaurin, J. A. Carroll, S. Shields-Menard, T. B. Schmidt, T. R. Callaway, and J. R. Donaldson

312 Persistence of erythromycin resistance gene erm(B) in cattle feedlot pens over time A. R. Mantz, D. N. Miller, M. J. Spiehs, B. L. Woodbury, and L. M. Durso

Introduction to Authors 327 Instructions for Authors

The publishers do not warrant the accuracy of the articles in this journal, nor any views or opinions by their authors. Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014



Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014



Authors must submit their papers electronically ( According to instructions provided online at our site: www.afabjournal. com. Authors who are unable to submit electronically should contact the editorial office for assistance by email at

We invite you to consider submitting your research and review manuscripts to AFAB. The journal serves as a peer reviewed scientific forum for to the latest advancements in bacteriology research on Agricultural and Food Systems which includes the following fields:

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Aerobic microbiology Aerobiology Anaerobic microbiology Analytical microbiology Animal microbiology Antibiotics Antimicrobials Bacteriophage Bioremediation Biotechnology Detection Environmental microbiology Feed microbiology Fermentation Food bacteriology Food control

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Foodborne pathogens Gastrointestinal microbiology Microbial education Microbial genetics Microbial physiology Modeling and microbial kinetics Natural products Phytoceuticals Quantitative microbiology Plant microbiology Plant pathogens Prebiotics Probiotics Rumen microbiology Rapid methods Toxins

• • •

Food microbiology Food quality Food Safety

• • •

Veterinary microbiology Waste microbiology Water microbiology

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


With an open access publication model of this journal, all interested readers around the world can freely access articles online. AFAB publishes original papers including, but not limited to the types of manuscripts described in the following sections. Papers that have been, or are scheduled to be, published elsewhere should not be submitted and will not be reviewed. Opinions or views expressed in papers published by AFAB are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the AFAB or the editorial board.

MANUSCRIPT TYPES Full-Length Research Manuscripts AFAB accepts full-length research articles containing four (4) figures and/or tables or more. AFAB emphasizes the importance of sound scientific experimentation on any of the topics listed in the focus areas followed by clear concise writing that describes the research in its entirety. The results of experiments published in AFAB must be replicated, with appropriate statistical assessment of experimental variation and assignment of significant difference. Major headings to include are: Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion (or Results and Discussion), Conclusion, Acknowledgements (optional), Appendix for abbreviations (optional), and References. Manuscripts clearly lacking in language will be returned to author without review, with a suggestion that English editing be sought before the paper is reconsidered. AFAB offers a fee based language service upon request. Please contact for more information about our fees and services.

Rapid Communications Under normal circumstances, AFAB aims for receipt-to-decision times of approximately one month or less. Accepted papers will have priority for publication in the next available issue of AFAB. However, if an author chooses or requires a much more rapid 62

peer review, the journal editorial office has the capability to shorten the review timing to one week or less. Any type of manuscript whether it be a full length manuscript, brief communication or review paper can be submitted as a rapid communication. There will be additional costs for processing and page charges will be double the normal rate. Authors who choose this option must select Rapid Communications as the paper type when submitting the paper and the editors will judge whether a rapid review is possible and let the author know immediately.

Brief Communications Brief communications are short research notes giving the results of complete experiments but are considered less comprehensive than full-length articles with three (3) figures and/or tables or less. Manuscripts should be prepared with the same subheadings as full length research papers. The running head above the title of the paper is “Brief Communications.”

Unsolicited Review Papers Review papers are welcome on any topic listed in the focus section and have no page limits. Reviews are assessed the same pages charges as all other manuscripts. All AFAB guidelines for style and form apply. Major headings to include are: Abstract, Introduction, Main discussion topics and appropriate subheadings, Conclusions, Acknowledgements (optional) and References. Review papers shorter than 20 pages of double spaced text and references will be considered mini-reviews with the subheading above the title on the first page. The running head above the title of the paper is either “Review” or “Mini-review”.

Solicited Review Papers Solicited reviews will have no page limits. The editor-in-chief will send invitations to the authors and then review these contributions when they are submitted. Nominations or suggestions for potential timely reviews are welcomed by the editors or edito-

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

rial board members and should be sent to submit@ There will be no page charges for solicited review papers but the solicitation must originate from the editor-in-chief or one of the editors. Requests from authors will automatically be classified as unsolicited review papers. The running head above the title of the paper will be “Invited Review.”

Conference and Special Issues Reviews AFAB welcomes opportunities to publish papers from symposia, scientific conference, and/or meetings in their entirety. Conference organizers need simply to contact AFAB at and a rapid decision is guaranteed. If in agreement, the conference organizers must guarantee delivery of a set number of peer reviewed manuscripts within a specified time and submitted in the same format as that described for unsolicited review papers. Conference papers must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines for review articles and are subject to peer review. The conference chair must decide whether or not they wish to serve as Special Issue Editor and conduct the editorial review process. If the conference chair/organizer chooses to serve as special issue editor, this will involve review of the papers and, if necessary, returning them to the authors for revision. The conference organizer then submits the revised manuscripts to the journal editorial office for further editorial examination. Final revisions by the author and recommendations for acceptance or rejection by the chair must be completed by a mutually agreed upon date between the editor and the conference organizer. Manuscripts not meeting this deadline will not be included in the published symposium proceedings but if submitted later can still be considered as unsolicited review papers. Although offprints and costs of pages are the same as for all other papers, the symposium chair may be asked to guarantee an agreed upon number of hard copies to be purchased by conference attendees. If the decision is not to publish the symposium as a special issue, the individual authors retain the right to submit their papers for consideration for the journal as ordinary unsolicited review manuscripts.

Book Reviews AFAB publishes reviews of books considered to be of interest to the readers. The editor-in-chief ordinarily solicits reviews. Book reviews shall be prepared in accordance to the style and form requirements of the journal, and they are subject to editorial revision. No page charges will be assessed solicited reviews while unsolicited book reviews will be assigned the regular page charge rate.

Opinions and Current Viewpoints The purpose of this section will be to discuss, critique, or expand on scientific points made in articles recently published in AFAB. Drafts must be received within 6 months of an article’s publication. Opinions and current perspectives do not have page limits. They shall have a title followed by the body of the text and references. Author name(s) and affiliation(s) shall be placed between the end of the text and list of references. If this document pertains to a particular manuscript then the author(s) of the original paper(s) will be provided a copy of the letter and offered the opportunity to submit for consideration a reply within 30 days. Responses will have the same page restrictions and format as the original opinion and current viewpoint, and the titles shall end with “Opinions.” They will be published together. Letters and replies shall follow appropriate AFAB format and may be edited by the editor-in-chief and a technical editor. If multiple letters on the same topic are received, a representative set of opinions concerning a specific article will be published. A disclaimer will be added by the editorial staff that the opinion expressed in this viewpoint is the authors alone and does not necessarily represent the opinion of AFAB or the editorial board.

COPYRIGHT AGREEMENT The copyright form is published in AFAB as space permits and is available online (

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


AFAB grants to the author the right of re-publication in any book of which he or she is the author or editor, subject only to giving proper credit to the original journal publication of the article by AFAB. AFAB retains the copyright to all materials accepted for publication in the journal. If an author desires to reprint a table or figure published from a non-AFAB source, written evidence of copyright permission from an authority representing that source must be obtained by the author and forwarded to the AFAB editorial office.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS Authors will be requested to provide the names and complete addresses including emails of five (5) potential reviewers who have expertise in the research area and no conflict of interest with any of the authors. Except for manuscripts designated as Rapid Communication each reviewer has two (2) weeks to review the manuscript, and submit comments electronically to the editorial office. Authors have three (3) weeks to complete the revision, which shall be returned to the editorial office within six (6) weeks after which the authors risk having their manuscript removed from AFAB files if they fail to ask the editorial office for an extension by email. Deleted manuscripts will be reconsidered, but they will have to be processed as new manuscripts with an additional processing fee assessed upon submission. Once reviewed, the author will be notified of the outcome and advised accordingly. Editors handle all initial correspondence with authors during the review process. The editor-in chief will notify the author of the final decision to accept or reject. Rejected manuscripts can be resubmitted only with an invitation from the editor or editor-in chief. Revised versions of previously rejected manuscripts are treated as new submissions.

PRODUCTION OF PROOFS Accepted manuscripts are forwarded to the editorial office for technical editing and layout. The manuscript is then formatted, figures are reproduced, and author proofs are prepared as PDFs. Author proofs of all manuscripts will be provided to the correspond64

ing author. Author proofs should be read carefully and checked against the typed manuscript, because the responsibility for proofreading is with the author(s). Corrections must be returned by e-mail. Changes sent by e-mail to the technical editor must indicate page, column, and line numbers for each correction to be made on the proof. Corrections can also be marked using “track changes” in Microsoft Word or using e-annotation tools for electronic proof correction in Adobe Acrobat to indicate necessary changes. Author alterations to proofs exceeding 5% of the original proof content will be charged to the author. All correspondence of proofs must be agreed to by the editorial office and the author within 48 hours or proof will be published as is and AFAB will assume no responsibility for errors that result in the final publication.

PUBLICATION CHARGES AFAB has two publication charge options: conventional page charges and rapid communication. The current charge for conventional publication is $25 per printed page in the journal. There is no additional charge for the publication of pages containing color images, micrographs or pictures. For authors who wish to have their papers processed as a rapid communication, authors will pay the rapid communication fee when proofs are returned to the editorial office in addition to twice the conventional page charges. Charges for rapid communications are $1000 per manuscript for guaranteed peer review within one week and $100 per journal page.

HARD COPY OFFPRINTS If you are wishing to obtain a physical hard copy of the AFAB journal, offprints are available in any quantity at an additional charge: $100/page for black-white and $150/page for color prints. You may order your offprints at any time after publication on our website. Scientific conference organizers may be expected to agree to a set number of offprints as a part of their agreement with AFAB.

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

MANUSCRIPT CONTENT REQUIREMENTS Preparing the Manuscript File Manuscripts must be written in grammatically correct English. AFAB offers a fee based language service upon request ( Manuscripts should be typed double-spaced, with lines and pages numbered consecutively. All documents must be submitted in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx, PC or Mac). All special characters (e.g., Greek, math, symbols) should be inserted using the symbols palette available in this font. Tables and figures should be placed in separate sections at the end of the manuscript (not placed in the text). Failure to follow these instructions will cause delays of the processing and review of the manuscript.

Title Page At the very top of the title page, include a title of not more than 100 characters. Format the title with the first letter of each word capitalized. No abbreviations should be used. Under the title, the authors names are listed. Use the author’s initials for both first and middle names with a period (full-stop) between initials (e.g., W. A. Afab). Underneath the authors, a list affiliations must be listed. Please use numerical superscripts after the author’s names to designate affiliation. If an authors address has changed since the research was completed, this new information must be designated as “Current address:”. The corresponding author should be indicated with an asterisk e.g., * Corresponding author. The title page shall include the name and full address of the corresponding author. Telephone and e-mail address must also be provided for the corresponding author, and emailaddresses must be provided for all authors.

at the beginning of the manuscript. In vivo, in vitro and bacterial names must be italicized (obligatory). Authors must avoid single sentence paragraphs and merge such paragraphs appropriately. Authors must not begin sentences with “Figure or Table shows…” as these are inanimate objects and cannot “show” anything. When number are reported in text or in tables, always put a zero in front of decimal numbers: “0.10” instead of “.10”.

MANUSCRIPT SECTIONS Abstract The abstract provides an abridged version of the manuscript. Please submit your abstract on a separate page after the title page. The abstract should provide a justification of your work, objectives, methods, results, discussion and implications of study or review findings . Your abstract must consist of complete sentences without references to other work or footnotes and must not exceed 250 words. On the same page as your abstract, please provide at least ten (10) keywords to be used for linking and indexing. Ideally, these keywords should include significant words from the title.

Introduction The introduction should clearly present the foundation of the manuscript topic and what makes the research or the review unique. The introduction should validate why this topic is important based on previously published literature, and the relevance of the current research. Overall goals and project objectives must be clearly stated in the final sentence of the last paragraphs of the introduction.

Materials and Methods Editing Author-derived abbreviations should be defined at first use in the abstract and again in the body of the manuscript. If abbreviations are extensive authors may need to provide a list of abbreviations

Information on equipment and chemicals used must include the full company name, city, and state (country if outside the United States or Province if in Canada) [i.e., (Model 123, ACME Inc., Afab, AR)].

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


Variability, Replication, and Statistical Analysis To properly assess biological systems independent replication of experiments and quantification of variation among replicates is required by AFAB. Reviewers and/or editors may request additional statistical analysis depending on the nature of the data and it will be the responsibility of the authors to respond appropriately. Statistical methods commonly used in the bacteriology do not need to be described in detail, but an adequate description and/or appropriate references should be provided. The statistical model and experimental unit must be designated when appropriate. The experimental unit is the smallest unit to which an individual treatment is imposed. For bacterial growth studies, the average of replicate tubes per single study per treatment is the experimental unit; therefore, individual studies must be replicated. Repeated time analyses of the same sample usually do not constitute independent experimental units. Measurements on the same experimental unit over time are also not independent and must not be considered as independent experimental units. For analysis of time effects, assess as a rate of change over time. Standard deviation refers to the variability in the biological response being measured and is presented as standard deviation or standard error according to the definitions described in statistical references or textbooks.

Results Results represent the presentation of data in words and all data should be described in same fashion. No discussion of literature is included in the results section.

Discussion The discussion section involves comparing the current data outcomes with previously published work in this area without repeating the text in the results section. Critical and in-depth dialogue is encouraged.


Results and Discussion Results and discussion can be under combined or separate headings.

Conclusions State conclusions (not a summary) briefly in one paragraph.

Acknowledgments Acknowledgments of individuals should include institution, city, and state; city and country if not U.S.; and City or Province if in Canada. Copies being reviewed shall have authors’ institutions omitted to retain anonymity.

References a) Citing References In Text Authors of cited papers in the text are to be presented as follows: Adams and Harry (1992) or Smith and Jones (1990, 1992). If more than two authors of one article, the first author’s name is followed by the abbreviation et al. in italics. If the sentence structure requires that the authors’ names be included in parentheses, the proper format is (Adams and Harry, 1982; Harry, 1988a,b; Harry et al., 1993). Citations to a group of references should be listed first alphabetically then chronologically. Work that has not been submitted or accepted for publication shall be listed in the text as: “G.C. Jay (institution, city, and state, personal communication).” The author’s own unpublished work should be listed in the text as “(J. Adams, unpublished data).” Personal communications and unsubmitted unpublished data must not be included in the References section. Two or more publications by the same authors in the same year must be made distinct with lowercase letters after the year (2010a,b). Likewise when multiple author citations designated by et al. in the text have the same first author, then even if the other authors are different these references in the text and the references section must be identified by a letter. For example

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

“(James et al., 2010a,b)” in text, refers to “James, Smith, and Elliot. 2010a” and “James, West, and Adams. 2010b” in the reference section.

Book Chapter: Examples:

Author(s) of the chapter. Year. Title of the chapter. In: author(s) or editor(s). Title of the book. Edition or volume, if relevant. Publisher name, Place of publication.

b) Citing References In Reference Section In the References section, references are listed in alphabetical order by authors’ last names, and then chronologically. List only those references cited in the text. Manuscripts submitted for publication, accepted for publication or in press can be given in the reference section followed by the designation: “(submitted)”, “(accepted)’, or “(In Press), respectively. If the DOI number of unpublished references is available, you must give the number. The year of publication follows the authors’ names. All authors’ names must be included in the citation in the Reference section. Journals must be abbreviated. First and last page numbers must be provided. Sample references are given below. Consult recent issues of AFAB for examples not included in the following section. Journal manuscript: Author(s). Year. Article title. Journal title [abbreviated]. Volume number:inclusive pages.

Inclusive pages of chapter.

O’Bryan, C. A., P. G. Crandall, and C. Bruhn. 2010. Assessing consumer concerns and perceptions of food safety risks and practices: Methodologies and outcomes. In: S. C. Ricke and F. T. Jones. Eds. Perspectives on Food Safety Issues of Food Animal Derived Foods. Univ. Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, AR. p 273-288. Dissertation and thesis:

Author. Date of degree. Title. Type of publication, such as Ph.D. Diss or M.S. thesis. Institution, Place of institution. Total number of pages.

Maciorowski, K. G. 2000. Rapid detection of Salmonella spp. and indicators of fecal contamination in animal feed. Ph.D. Diss. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Examples: Chase, G., and L. Erlandsen. 1976. Evidence for a complex life cycle and endospore formation in the attached, filamentous, segmented bacterium from murine ileum. J. Bacteriol. 127:572-583.

Donalson, L. M. 2005. The in vivo and in vitro effect of a fructooligosacharide prebiotic combined with alfalfa molt diets on egg production and Salmonella in laying hens. M.S. thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Jiang, B., A.-M. Henstra, L. Paulo, M. Balk, W. van Doesburg, and A. J. M. Stams. 2009. A typical one-carbon metabolism of an acetogenic and hydrogenogenic Moorella thermioacetica strain. Arch. Microbiol. 191:123-131.

Van Loo, E. 2009. Consumer perception of ready-toeat deli foods and organic meat. M.S. thesis. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. 202 p.

Book: Author(s) [or editor(s)]. Year. Title. Edition or volume (if relevant). Publisher name, Place of publication. Number of pages.

Examples: Hungate, R. E. 1966. The rumen and its microbes Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY. 533 p.

Web sites, patents: Examples: Davis, C. 2010. Salmonella. /article. htm. Accessed July, 2010. Afab, F. 2010, Development of a novel process. U.S. Patent #_____

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014


Abstracts and Symposia Proceedings: Fischer, J. R. 2007. Building a prosperous future in which agriculture uses and produces energy efficiently and effectively. NABC report 19, Agricultural Biofuels: Tech., Sustainability, and Profitability. p.27 Musgrove, M. T., and M. E. Berrang. 2008. Presence of aerobic microorganisms, Enterobacteriaceae and Salmonella in the shell egg processing environment. IAFP 95th Annual Meeting. p. 47 (Abstr. #T6-10) Vianna, M. E., H. P. Horz, and G. Conrads. 2006. Options and risks by using diagnostic gene chips. Program and abstracts book , The 8th Biennieal Congress of the Anaerobe Society of the Americas. p. 86 (Abstr.)

Data Presentation in Tables and Figures Figures and tables to be published in AFAB must be constructed in such a fashion that they are able to “stand alone” in the published manuscript. This

means that the reader should be able to look at the figure or table independently of the rest of the manuscript and be able to comprehend the experimental approach sufficiently to interpret the data. Consequently, all statistical analyses should be very carefully presented along with variation estimates and what constitutes an independent replication and the number of replicates used to calculate the averages presented in the table or figure. Each table and figure must be on a separate page in the submitted paper. In addition, you will need to submit all data for charts, tables and figures in native format when possible (e.g., Microsoft Excel, Powerpoint). Photographs should be submitted as high-resolution (600 dpi) .jpg or tif. files. All figures should be clearly presented with well defined axis and units of measurement. Symbols, lines, and bars must be made distinct as “stand alone” black and white presentations. Stippling, dashed lines etc. are encouraged for multiple comparison but shades of gray are discouraged. Color images, micrographs, pictures are recommended and there is no additional fee for their submission.

AFAB Online Edition is Now Available!

• Free Access • Print PDFs • Flip Through Issues • Search Article Archives • Order Reprints • Submit a Paper 68

Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol. • • Vol. 4, Issue 1 - 2014

Online Publication:

AFAB Volume 4 Issue 1  

This journal is a peer reviewed scientific forum for the latest advancements in bacteriology research on a wide range of topics including fo...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you