Issuu

Welcome & Setting the Scene

Belinda Millard Technical Manager

Fruit & Vegetables + Protein

Commercial Update

Alyssa Dooley

Merchandise Manager Fruit

Commercial Video overlay

Fresh Produce Safety On and beyond the horizon

Dr Sukhvinder Pal (SP)

Singh

Senior Research Scientist,

NSW Department of Primary Industries

Fresh Produce Safety

Sukhvinder Pal (SP) Singh, PhD

Senior Research Scientist & Adjunct Associate Professor

Fresh Produce Safety and Traceability Program

NSW Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development sp.singh@dpird.nsw.gov.au;

A meta-analysis of produce and pathogen in outbreaks in North America and Europe (1980-2016)

• Leafy veg

• Berries

• Sprouts

• Rockmelons

Adapted from Machado-Moreira et al., 2019

"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it”

Winston Churchill

Contamination sources of produce outbreaks (1980-2016)

Fruits, vegetables and herbs- the third most recalled food category (2020-2024)

Source: https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/food-recalls/recallstats

Fresh Produce

• Proximity to ground/soil

• Raw consumption

Microbial food safety risks

Evolution of fresh produce safety standards in Australia

Volunteer QA programs Australian supermarkets Regulators

Food safety schemes (FSS), Retailers QA programs (Basic FSS+ bolt on)

Primary Production and Primary Production and Processing (PPP) Standards (leafy vegetables, melons and berries)

Fresh Produce Safety and Traceability Program

Research, Development and Extension

Mitigate food safety risks to consumers and industry

Our Program

Our team members and growers’ network across all major horticultural production hubs

Lockyer valley

Burdekin

Gascoyne

○ Water quality- preharvest and postharvest

○ Shiga-toxigenic E. coli (STEC) risks

○ Packhouse environmental management

○ Rapid risk scan

Water in Horticulture

Production Protection Processing

Water sources

• Rivers, creeks and lakes

• Farm ponds

• River/creek

• Groundwater

• Farm catchment run-off

• River + groundwater

• Suburban runoff

• Spring water/soaks

• Recycled class A

• Rainwater from roofs

• Groundwater

• Tailwater-irrigation run-off

Water quality challenges- microbial contamination

• Proximity to livestock and associated operations

• Upstream livestock

• Proximity to wildlife

• Extreme weather events (drought, ﬂoods, bushﬁres and dust storms)

Water in Horticulture

• Water source

• Surface

• Ground

• Irrigation method

• Drip

• Overhead

• Crops

• Edible part consumed raw

• Whole/peeled

Source: Haasnoot et al., 2014

Leafy Vegetables- Water Quality Guidelines

“For growing crops, water used for irrigation and for applying fertilisers, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals should not contain levels of microorganisms that would make the produce unsafe”

• E. coli <100 CFU/100mL for irrigation

• E. coli <1 CFU/100 mL for overhead irrigation within 48 hours of harvest and for postharvest purposes

N = ~1,000

Production

• Preharvest water

• E. coli count

• Coliforms count

• Pathogen detection

• Salmonella species

• Listeria monocytogenes

Processing

• Postharvest water

• Pathogenic E. coli

Detection and ID

• Real-time PCR

• MALDI-TOF

• Selective media

• Whole-genome sequencing

Surface water

Ground water

Preharvest water (N=848)

Pathogen Prevalence: Water

Pathogen

When E. coli population in water exceeds 100 CFU/100mL, the probability of detecting pathogens is higher

Microbial quality of surface water (e.g. rivers, creeks, dams) changes with season and weather conditions and deteriorates during summer months and after heavy rainfall/ﬂooding

Water quality management

• Pump from the river and store in farm ponds

• Coarse ﬁltration and frequent backﬂushing

Pumping from river Sediment control and ﬁltration (before and after storage in farm pond)

Higher-risk

Lower-risk

Water: risk assessment and management

Seasonal variation in surface water quality is high, summer months and heavy rainfall events are worst scenarios

Best practice recommendations

○ Assess upstream water contamination risks

○ Water storage in ponds/dams for sediment management

○ Coarse ﬁltration and frequent backﬂushing

○ Monthly water sampling and testing for generic E. coli count for year-around leafy production

○ Evaluate historical data trends

What does good look like?

No detection of target pathogens in overhead sprinklers

E. coli (ND to <3 CFU/100 mL)

River

Farm pond Sprinklers

Washing and Sanitisation

Produce Sanitisation Produce Washing

• Remove soil and debris

• Remove nutrient-rich exudates from cut ends

• Cooling and shelf-life

• Reduce microbial load on produce

• Surface sanitisation

Postharvest water: cross-contamination

Cross-contamination scenario (real one)

TANK 1 TANK 2 TANK 3

• E. coli- too numerous to count

• Pathogenic E. coli and Listeria innocua

• Chlorine 0.2 ppm

• E. coli- not detected

• Pathogens- not detected

• Chlorine 19.0 ppm

• E. coli- not detected

• Pathogens- not detected

• Chlorine 22.0 ppm

• E. coli- not detected

• Pathogens- not detected

• PAA 70.0 ppm

• E. coli- not detected

• Pathogens- not detected

• PAA 55.0 ppm

• E. coli- not detected

• Pathogens- not detected

• PAA 37.0 ppm

Best practice- washing and sanitisation

To minimise organic load in wash tank

Pre-washing rinse

To minimise water replenishment in main wash tanks

To minimise sanitiser consumption (e.g. chlorine)

Washing Washing Rinsing

Run-to-wast

Rinsing is essential if chlorine is used, to minimise chloramines residue on produce

STEC has been on the horizon

49 37 25 10 7 STEC outbreaks linked to leafy greens Leafy green type identified Traceback conducted Multiple farm investigations Single farm investigatio

The outbreak strain identified in 6 of 17 investigations by genomic analysis.

Source: Viazis et al, 2025

Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC)

>100 serotypes commonly linked to human illnesses

Top-7 or Top 6 STEC serotypes

○ STEC O157-commonly linked to human illness worldwide

○ STEC Non-O157

○ O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, O145 (Top-6, USDA)

○ O26, O103, O91, O146 and O145 (Top-5, EFSA)

O157 is the most commonly linked to human illnesses in Australia, followed by O111 and O26.

No recent reports/history of foodborne STEC outbreaks in Australia

No STEC strain can be assumed non-pathogenic

Very low infective dose (10-100 cells)

○ Young children and elderly are more prone to STEC

100 to 1,000,000 STEC cells per g of cattle faeces.

Disease Potential of STEC Virulence Genes JEMRA Classiﬁcation

Level Trait (gene) Potential for:

1 stx2a + eae or aggR

2 stx2d

3 stx2c + eae

4 stx1a + eae

5 Other stx subtypes

Reference: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & World Health Organization (2018). Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and food: Attribution, characterization and monitoring. FAO & WHO.

D = Mild non-bloody diarrhoea

BD = Bloody diarrhoea

HUS = Haemolytic uraemic syndrome (damages kidney blood vessels causing clotting and kidney failure)

While useful in epidemiology, serotyping (e.g. O157, O26) is not a reliable indicator for the disease severity caused by STEC with the best predictors being stx subtypes and the presence or absence of eae.

Livestock

• Majority of Australian red meat STEC fall into lower risk levels of JEMRA classiﬁcation that are less associated with severe human diseases.

Humans

Less severe STEC cases, top three STEC in humans

• O157 (>50% cases), O26, and O111

• 0157, O26 and O111 are major STEC with higher prevalence of stx1a

Common stx subtype: stx1a, in both “Top-7” and non-“Top-7” serotypes. HUS linked to either stx2a or stx2d

STEC Risk

✔ Surface irrigation water used for overhead irrigation (E. coli >100 CFU/100mL)

✔ Proximity to cattle and sheep

✔ Heavy rainfall prior to harvest

✔ Cross-contamination during postharvest washing

Leafy veg

Water

Animals

Packhouse environmental management

Cross-contamination

seeded in the field, amplified along the way

Microbial pathogen continuum

Cross-contamination

Sheep

Slope

Water pond

Lettuce

Sheep farm

Lettuce farm

Cross-contamination

Pathogens will keep entering the packhouse, but don’t let them become the residents

Transient Pathogen

Produce contaminated with Listeria

Resident Pathogen

Contact surface contaminated with Listeria

Conveyor belt

Environmental monitoring program

1. Preventing transient pathogens from becoming entrenched (residents), forming bioﬁlms and spreading

2. Verifying effectiveness of control measures

3. Detecting resident pathogens before they can spread

Seek & Destroy

4. Determining and undertaking corrective actions

Seek & Destroy

• Target pathogens?

• Where and how to sample?

• How frequent?

• Microbiological testing?

Seek & Destroy

How many samples?

• Subjective question

• Trends & history

• Sampling spots

• 5-7 swabs from each zone

• 5 processed fruit samples

Outside packhouse area (e.g. loading docks, lunch rooms)

Non-fruit contact surfaces (e.g. Floors, walls, forklifts)

Near-fruit contact surfaces (e.g. underside of conveyor belts, hollow rollers)

Fruit contact surfaces (e.g. Brushes, conveyor belts and packing tables)

Seek & Destroy

How frequently?

• One size does not ﬁt all

• Produce volumes and packhouse risk history

• weekly testing for large operations (>20 tonnes/shift)

• fortnightly for medium scale (3-20 tonnes/shift)

• monthly for small packhouses (up to 3 tonnes/shift)

• Increase the frequency

• Positive detection

• Weather events (dust storms, ﬂooding, cyclones)

Response

Speed Accuracy

Prevalence and

distribution

of Listeria monocytogenes in the supply chain

Atree fruit industry case

Number of fruit packers = 51 (N= 2,257)

study

Rapid risk scan balancing gut feeling (experience-based) with checklist (structured)

approaches

Source: Singh et al., 2025

Waste from animal operations

Field storage or holding of raw untreated organic amendments, particular in vicinity of crops near maturity

Water sources, livestock and wildlife

Wildlife incursion on a leafy veg farm

Whole genome sequencing

Salmonella Muenchen

Production field Packing shed

Salmonella Muenchen

Location Specific location Salmonella serotype Salmonella ST

Production field Iceberg lettuce field Muenchen 82

Processing area drain Receivals shed drain Muenchen 82

Packing shed

Salmonella Rubislaw

Processing area floor Receivals shed floor swab Rubislaw

Processing facility

Hygiene of produce receival area determines the fate of packhouse environment.

Produce contact surfaces such as conveyor belts, brushes and rollers.

Behavioural scan

• “We have a QA scheme in place” - complacency over caution

• “We do microbiological testing” – overreliance on testing instead of prevention

• “We have passed multiple audits”- tick-box compliance

• Production over protection – speed prioritised over safety

• Normalisation of shortcuts – unsafe practices become routine

• Resistance to change – “we’ve always done it this way”

• Poor risk perception – underestimating contamination pathways

• Inconsistent leadership signals – safety said, but not shown

• Training without buy-in – knowledge without behaviour change

• Disconnect from consequences – forgetting the consumer

Concluding remarks

● History repeats itself, learn before it costs you. The lessons from past are not just stories; they are warnings. Use them to guide your decisions today.

● Mind the “W” is a powerful tool for rapid risk assessment. It helps identify vulnerabilities before they become crises.

● Water is the most critical element in produce safety. From irrigation to washing, it can be a source of contamination if not managed carefully.

● Contamination is a spark (a few cases); cross-contamination is a wildfire (large scale outbreak).

● Our future in fresh produce safety depends on vigilance, proactive assessment, and learning from history.

FY26 Food Safety data

Produce

Maisie Wen Technical Specialist

F&V AUS Summary (up to FY26 Q3)

Severity 1 Complaints Severity 2 Complaints DC Rejections Withdrawals Recalls 1.55 Per million units 0.13 Per million units

Incidents 12 Incidents 0 Incidents

What is Withdrawal and Sev1 data telling us.

Severity 1 Withdrawals

Main drivers for Labelling:

Incorrect label/product - 67%

Main drivers for Foreign Objects: Hard Plastic - 35%; Metal - 30%

What is our Surveillance data telling us?

MRLS Micro

Failure Rate: 4.9%

Top 3 commodities

Eggplant (4), Cucumber (4) and Mint (3)

Non-Organic

Acephate

Failure Rate: 2.9%

Top commodity Sprouts / Shoots

FY26 Detections

Thermotolerant Coliforms (4)

E. Coli (2) Salmonella (1)

What are we doing differently.

Increased Supplier/Grower Visits

Trending from last FY

Being Risk ReadyPreparing for when things go wrong

Jess King

Quality Systems Manager

When things go wrong - what is the difference?

An isolated deviation from process that doesn’t pose a risk to customers

Near Miss Withdrawal Recall Crisis

Product is removed from the supply chain (stores, DCs) for an issue that does not pose a safety risk.

Product is removed from customers and our supply chain due to a potential safety risk. It involves stopping sale and letting our customers know

An evolving wide-spread event that could signiﬁcantly impact consumer health or environment.

When things go wrong - how do we know the right action to take?

1 Get in touch with us as soon as possible when an issue is identiﬁed

2 Our team will assess the issue to determine next steps. For this we need:

The t Consequence What is the potential impact to customer and / or brand?

Root Cause What has happened / suspected to have happened to cause this issue?

The ih Scope What batches are affected? Could other products be impacted?

The e e

Location

Where is the impacted stock now (i.e your site, third party, in transit, DC, store)

A lot of information in a short amount of time

Have a written process and/or checklist that steps you through everything that needs to be done

Be clear who does what Utilise a team (you do not need to do it all yourself)

Know where / who you need to get information from (i.e. systems, third parties) & how long this will take

Having the pieces is not enough - you need to practice putting it all together.

Building a Risk Ready Culture

Awareness

Are your teams and the wider business aware of the various risks that can occur and how these may change?

Understanding Do your teams understand the impact of these risks to the business, your customer and the consumer?

Exposure

How can you expose your wider teams to near misses, mock events or real events?

Building a Risk Ready Culture

A recall / withdrawal is a process; readiness is a culture

Workshop: Incident to action

Lydia Lanfear Technical Specialist

Activity 1:TerminologyTrivia

Before the exercise let's ensure everyone understands the severity of different events.

Task:

Each table has three sets of cards labelled near miss, withdrawal, recall

The challenge: Read out industry examples e.g. labelling errors vs a Listeria detection and have groups race to hold up the cards

Examples

1. Astrawberry grower realises a specific batch was harvested during a heatwave and is developing "soft rot" faster than expected

2. Salmonella is detected in a sample of pre-washed spinach during a routine test that accidentally got released

3. Asupervisor notices the "Best Before Date" on the label printer was accidentally set to a future date (post-dating).

Activity 2: Risk Assessment

Task:

TheTS has notified you have received 3 separate notifications from store feedback regarding 1kg Carrots with incorrect packaging (competitor brand)

The Challenge:Think about what information is needed so yourTS can make an informed decision and risk assessment

● The what

● The why

● The which

● The where

Activity 3: Withdrawal Checklist

Task:

TheTS has decided to withdraw the stock from stores and DCs. Create your own checklist on what needs to actioned.

The Challenge: Create your own withdrawal checklist including the below

● The what

● The who

● The when

Key Message: Maintain a Risk Ready Culture

RiskAwareness

Teams understand what the different scenarios require including a near miss, withdrawal and recall from the bottom to the top

Cross Functional

Every team has an understanding of what impact their role has on food safety and an understanding of compliance and the consequence of what happens when this is broken

Key Message: Maintain a Risk Ready Culture

Exposure & Learning

Real life mock recalls so teams are actively exposed to situations to ensure your food safety systems are maintained effectively

Consequence Training

Everybody understands the why behind the what

Product Quality & Integrity Project: Specright

Gary Holzapfel

Technical Lead

is delivering clearer, more consistent ways to manage quality ways of working for suppliers and our Woolworths teams.

We are:

Building on what already works today

Improving the tools and ways of working used to support quality decisions.

Reducing the amount of duplication and manual effort across the board

This is not about changing standards or replacing judgement, rather supporting clearer, consistent quality decisions

Specright video overlay

Goodbye HarvestMark, Hello Specright

We are decommissioning Harvestmark and introducing Specright.

It is a new online application for Woolworths that brings the management of speciﬁcations and quality assessments into the one, connected application, so teams and suppliers are working from the same system.

Specright will help reduce manual effort, improve consistency, and support clearer, more informed conversations about quality.

Speciﬁcation Management

View and print Fruit and Veg speciﬁcations with clearer, easier to read layouts.

No Build: Access Online

Use Specright on your phone, tablet, or computer with no setup required.

One Place for Variations

Request variations and review quality outcomes in one place.

Personalised Dashboard

Personalise your home screen so the information you need is easy to ﬁnd.

Self Serve Site Info

Manage your site locations through simple self service.

Improved Collaboration

Use the ‘Chatter’ feature to connect

Specifications are easier to find, view and print

We are changing how Fruit and Veg speciﬁcations are accessed and shared as part of the move to Specright. This introduces a single place for viewing and printing speciﬁcations, aligned to the Product Quality and Integrity Project.

Today

● Speciﬁcations for Fruit & Veg sit across multiple tools that were not built for how these products work.

● The UI is hard to use and printing is problematic

● Artwork and key details are managed in spreadsheets outside the system.

● Each article needs its own spec, even when products are almost the same.

● Teams re-enter the same information again and again, which slows setup and increases inconsistency.

● Quality assessments risk being done against outdated or incomplete specs.

Tomorrow

● Speciﬁcations and quality assessment tasks are in one place.

● Shared attributes, defects, and quality criteria are set up once and reused across multiple specs.

● Those shared details link cleanly to both sellable and warehouse articles, keeping common information consistent while still allowing differences where needed.

● Changes are made once and ﬂow through everywhere they apply.

● Collaboration happens in the tool, not in side spreadsheets or emails. Variations are visible and traceable.

● Quality assessments always use the current approved speciﬁcation.

We bring science and safety expertise to help partners deliver safe, quality & compliant products

Specifications in Specright

Three Things to Know

Link Specright Partner Hub Page

HOW WE HAVE COMMUNICATED SO FAR

Marie Gallagher emailed all Trade partners on the 6th March, 2026 introducing Specright.

This included a request to update all Partner Hub contact details so information is correct

Follow Up comms have been sent to the Super User in Partner Hub

ACROSS MAY AND JUNE THE SYSTEMS CHANGE OVER

All DCs will move to Specright over May and June 2026.

We will be brieﬁng and training your Super User in Partner Hub. They can nominate additional team members to attend.

WHAT WE NEED YOU TO DO IN MAY

1. Log into Specright and upload your basic Site Information

2. Start using Specright to manage quality activities with Woolworths

Fresh Produce Safety Centre

Who are we?

▪ Not-for-profit organisation

▪ Established in 2014 by PMA-ANZ (now IFPA) in partnership with University of Sydney

▪ Provide FREE food safety guidelines and resources

▪ Facilitate connections and collaboration to improve food safety knowledge in horticulture

▪ Host food safety events

Our Stakeholders

The Horticulture Food Safety Initiative

▪ 3-year Project is divided into 5 Phases

▪ 11 co-funding partners

▪ Goal is to improve food safety standards for the ANZ fresh produce industry

▪ The Project aims to provide information, guidance and training for Australia & New Zealand

Phase 1

Project Start-up

Y1, Q1

Phase 2

Food Safety Information

Stocktake &

COP Establishment Y1, Q1-2

Phase 3

Industry Survey Y1, Q3-4

Phase

Delivery of Industry Engagement Plan

Outreach specific crops (melon, berries, leafy veg and kiwifruit)

Guidelines for fresh produce food safety review

Y2 & Y3, Q1-4

Phase 5

Horticulture Food Safety Implementation

Model & Project Evaluation

Launch of 2025

Fundamental guidelines for fresh produce food safety, extension materials

Y3, Q1-4

2025 Fundamental Guidelines for Fresh Produce Safety

Simple to follow decision trees Follow the path, your food safety roadmap.

Good practice tables Clear choices,

good practice at a glance.

Good and poor practice photographs A

picture says it all,

real world examples.

Connected for impact Our growing fresh produce safety community.

Bringing food safety to you Trusted support through outreach, extension

and resources.

Here to help Our free and confidential help desk.

The Fresh and Safe Podcast Fresh produce safety

in your ears.

Food Safety Essential Guides

For more guidance on specific fresh produce food safety topics.

Flooding:A Critical Food Safety Incident

Floodwaters may contain:

§ Microbial hazards: E. coli, Salmonella monocytogenes, viruses, parasites

§ Chemical hazards: hydrocarbons, pesticides, heavy metals

§ Physical hazards: debris, sediments

Key contamination pathways:

§ Direct contact with edible portion Indirect contamination via soil, splash, irrigation systems, equipment

Risk classification:

§ Direct exposure = automatic exclusion from harvest*

§ Indirect exposure = requires risk assessment + controls

Your Incident Management Plan (IMP)

Your flood plan should include a structured, documented risk assessment framework considering:

Hazard identification:

§ Source of floodwater (river, runoff, sewage ingress)

§ Upstream contamination risks (livestock, septic, surrounding industry)

Contamination pathways:

§ Soil contamination and pathogen persistence

§ Water system impacts (dams, bores, irrigation lines)

§ Movement of people, vehicles, and equipment

Exposure assessment:

§ Crop type (leafy, tree, root)

§ Edible portion position (above/ below ground)

§ Growth stage (ready-to-harvest = highest risk)

§ Decision-making framework

Zoning and mapping

TakeAction After Flooding

§ Identify flood extent, water lines, and splash zones

§ Apply ≥ 10m buffer zones and vertical separation (≥ 30cm)

Product control

§ Segregate and label affected vs unaffected crops

§ Maintain traceability at block or lot level

Hygiene and sanitation

§ Clean and sanitise harvest equipment, bins, tools, food contact surfaces

§ Manage personnel movement (restrict access/ hygiene controls)

Water management

§ Assume water sources are contaminated until verified

§ Re-test irrigation and wash water before use

Verification Testing & Next Steps

§ Microbiological verification

§ Indicator organisms: E. coli (faecal contamination)

§ Pathogens as required: Salmonella,

§ Role of testing

§ Provides supporting evidence only

§ Must align with risk assessment and observed conditions

§ Environmental recovery factors

§ Recommended waiting period (~60 days) for high-risk crops

§ Continuous Improvement

§ Conduct a post-incident review

§ What worked well, what could be improved?

Horticulture Food Safety Initiative Acknowledgements

The Horticulture Food Safety Initiative is funded through Hort Innovation (Hort Frontiers), with co-investment from FPSC-ANZ; University of Sydney; NSW Department of Primary Industries; Agriculture Victoria; South Australia Health; Coles; Zespri International; New Zealand Food Safety Science & Research Centre; Vegetable Research and Innovation Board; Hort NZ, Woolworths and in-kind contributions from University of Sydney; Food Standards Australia & New Zealand (FSANZ); Centre for Produce Safety (USA); New Zealand Food Safety Science & Research Centre (NZFSSRC); Agriculture Victoria; NZ Food Safety (MPI (Ministry for Primary Industries)); Zespri International; NZ Vegetable Industry Research Board; AUSVEG; Berries Australia, and contributions from the Australian Government.