Food Factory Assessment – How it's Done and What to Look For? 

Mikkel Svold (00:08):

Hello and welcome to Behind Clean Lines, the podcast where we try and dive into what really makes food safe in production. Now today, we want to hone in on some of the caveats of creating a safe food factory. What are some of the hidden dangers that we meet out there? Where are the pitfalls, and what can be done to mitigate those pitfalls? To guide us through this, we've invited Dr. Thomas Buehler from Ecolab, a global sustainability leader offering water sustainability, infection prevention solutions, and service, and all kinds of other things that protect people, and protect the food that we eat. Welcome to you, Thomas.

Thomas Buehler (00:45):

Thank you for inviting me.

Mikkel Svold (00:51):

Now, we could probably talk about a lot of different things because Ecolab is doing so many different things, but I really think that we should start out or we should talk about food production assessment and the assessment bit of it, because I think that's really interesting. So, to begin with, what is food production assessment? What is that?

Thomas Buehler (01:07):

Very much, we take it as a hygiene assessment. So, we are looking at microbiological risks. We try to dive into plants. We have different tools and different ways of assessing plants. Look at the equipment and the installation on one side, but also at the behavioral aspects of people and the practices on site. We look at the hygiene outcome, which is the result of cleaning and disinfection. On one side, how the cleaning and disinfection is executed by the people on site, but also where we have deficits, where we probably have gaps. This is something we align with the customer in a report. We give him details on the situation on site to help him improve the situation on site.

Mikkel Svold (02:09):

In practicality, how is this carried out? Is it you guys walking around the factory, or how is that actually done?

Thomas Buehler (02:17):

Typically, we start with an introduction. We have a team's call. We discuss the topic with the customer. Sometimes he has clear ideas on where to start. Sometimes not. If not, then we need to do a mapping approach. We need to narrow down the problem zones, and then we follow up with a visit on site where we walk through the plant. We follow the process. We do it during the day, during production hours, but also during the cleaning time, which is typically done during the night. So, it's a combination of elements that are combined in a way to understand the aspects of the environmental monitoring, but also the hygienic design aspects in a plant, look at cleaning deficits in the hygiene outcome.

(03:25):

So, also in terms of checking the results, you would go differently depending on the situation on site. Is it a closed system? Is it an open system? Also, in terms of preparations, you need to do different things. In an open plant, you see much more. You can easily walk in and see things. Whereas in a closed plant, it's more hidden, and there, you need to prepare more in terms of being able to access things, do trials, do examinations of successful cleaning, stuff like that.

Mikkel Svold (04:07):

Now, I know it might seem like an obvious answer, but why are these assessments necessary?

Thomas Buehler (04:13):

There's different aspects of it. First of all, it's to focus on the trouble spots to help customers to do a root cause analysis. Typically, it's customers are coming to us if they have problems, if they have issues with food safety or with quality. Then they need to have that additional pair of eyes to troubleshoot to help them identify the root cause, and also classify what is the highest probability or the highest likeliness in causing an issue. So, you would look into areas that have a different sensitivity, high hygiene zones, for example, areas that are in direct contact with food, and do that in a different way than if you just take it from the environment, from outside on the storage locations, for example.

Mikkel Svold (05:18):

Now, when you deliver the report afterwards, and you have the classification, and you have, I guess, the prioritization of the different things that needs to be done, is it so that all of the things in the report needs to be fixed, or is it prioritized in a way that you could say, "Okay, the first 10 things you need to fix," and then they're nice to haves, and then they're if you have time kind of? How is that?

Thomas Buehler (05:43):

There's clearly priority in a way. Also, how easily can it be executed? We know that it's more difficult to change hygienic design. If you want to rewire, for example, a packaging plant, it's more difficult than if you, for example, identify hygiene gap very close to a dosing point where you normally dose your standard cultures, your starter cultures. If you find hygiene gaps, then those can be rectified relatively easily. You need to put that into the cleaning sequence. You need to make sure that the cleaners understand why this is done, and then you can move much faster. So, this is the classification. One is the priority in terms of the harmfulness or the risk that it causes. The other one is how easily can it be executed.

Mikkel Svold (06:45):

Now, just out of curiosity, do you often come across places where you have high classification or something that is extremely important that get fixed through the night? How often does that happen?

Thomas Buehler (07:01):

It can happen, and it happens regularly, I would say. This is something where the cleaning deficit is high, and then if the cleaning doesn't work, for example, then you need to stop and correct us. Before you can continue and optimize and fine tune the cleaning, you need to really get that in order to be able to continue. It's like we come in with cleaners with chemicals, with detergents and disinfectants, but they can only work if some of the prerequisites are actually in place. Sometimes it's things that are missing the maintenance that can't be more or less overcome with more detergents or different detergents where you can't rectify the situation with a different means of cleaning.

Mikkel Svold (08:04):

I can't help but think. If I get an email that is one of those emails where you know you have to... It's going to take you a long time to answer, because it's very complex, and it's just a troublesome email somehow. I tend to postpone answering that email just a little bit. I think that's a very human thing to do. I can't but wonder, if you visit these factories because the customers call you because they've identified a problem, do you ever experience that they've postponed calling you basically too long, because they might be afraid of opening Pandora's box?

Thomas Buehler (08:39):

It's one aspect opening Pandora's box. The other one is sometimes also the politics in companies where you might not be heard if you point out an issue. That's when it helps to have, let's say, an external consultant. Someone come in to document this issue, and then it's easier for them also for some of the teams to point this out to their management to correct the situation. So, I would say it's the delay as you say. Sometimes they try to postpone, but I think normally, they're willing to change it, but it's commercial pressure. It's the productivity on the site that counts first.

(09:30):

But at the same time, you might lose out on productivity if your product is not in order. If you are not producing the right quality, if your specs are not met, then you're losing productivity anyhow. So, this needs to be understood also on the management level.

Mikkel Svold (09:51):

I guess, also, just the fact that the worst the problem might get because of delay, I'm guessing, the higher the likelihood of having to close down production for X amount of time, I guess, which is also the reason why they try and delay it, because they don't want to close down production.

Thomas Buehler (10:11):

Correct. Closing down production is harming their productivity-

Mikkel Svold (10:14):

It's a vicious circle.

Thomas Buehler (10:15):

... is harming their output, and they're under pressure. So, it rises to the top. At some stage, if they notice it's not going anymore, they need to move. Then of course, it's like coming in with a fire brigade. Although you're trying not to play a fire brigade, you try to still do it under control. You start to be actionable in a way in how you write report, how you point out the problem sites, the problem locations. Also, while you go through the plants, you are training the teams. You give them some educational hints and also reasons why something could actually play a role in the issue they have at the moment.

Mikkel Svold (11:10):

Now, I want to dive into... If you're the head of production somewhere, and you want to do your own mini assessment, you want to walk through your plant just to see if you can spot yourself some of the potential contaminators, what sources would you recommend them looking for? What sources of contamination?

Thomas Buehler (11:29):

I think this is a very powerful way of, let's say, engaging your people, making them aware of spots that are not hygienic. I think they will quickly grasp on what is not working and what could be problem zones. Typically, they also know this. Sometimes it's the pressure. It's the timing that they have to complete, for example, the cleaning tasks or during production to run the production where they can't stop things. So, I would say getting those prerequisites in place in a way that people can work effectively is really key. That's also where you engage your teams. So, if you, for example, have a broken floor, and everybody sees it, everybody can understand the argument that this can't be cleaned.

(12:34):

It's something that people can quickly pick up. They also understand if this is important to the management, because if it would be important to management, it would immediately be repaired. So, gauging food safety aspects and hygiene related, quality-related aspects is very easy for people at some stage, but you need to create an environment where they exchange, where they're open to exchange, and they also... They see the results. I think it's worth discussing also about visibility of hygiene results because I think it's that-

Mikkel Svold (13:21):

What do you mean by that?

Thomas Buehler (13:22):

It's that showing the objectives, showing the targets. What do you want to achieve with your cleaning, and how are your numbers of non-compliance in your environmental monitoring plan, for example? What do you achieve? Where are you compliant, where not, with your micro spots, with your micro checks? If you do that, then you can easily also engage people, because they see this. They understand where you have the trouble spots. They also work against a clear target.

Mikkel Svold (14:04):

Now, you mentioned the team many times, and we've also talked with other people about this, and everyone says the team. I'm thinking that when I hear the word team, I think 10 people. But in reality, people working at a food production plant, that might be hundreds of people.

Thomas Buehler (14:18):

Different shifts and et cetera.

Mikkel Svold (14:22):

Yeah. How do you engage, or what would your recommendation be... Just as a final point here, what would your recommendation be to engage such a large team? Of course, you can go through middle managers, but how would you do that?

Thomas Buehler (14:35):

I think, pointing out the results is really a very strong element in engaging people. So, like you do in worker safety, you have typically displayed the days of compliance, days of no accidents. Even on building sites, you have this today. This is very similar in food safety, and it should be treated very similarly. So, you can learn a lot from the elements of worker safety, and translate them into food safety. So, it's almost the same thing, just different aspects to look for, but the engagement of people, the working culture is very similar and can be organized the same way.

Mikkel Svold (15:29):

It's a really clever suggestion, I think. I haven't thought about that, but just take something you already know how to do and you know how it works, and then apply it here.

Thomas Buehler (15:38):

It's an analogy, and because people already know the systematics, it's easy to implement this way.

Mikkel Svold (15:45):

Absolutely. Now, just summing up here before closing down. Three good advices that you would give heads of production out there concerning this assessment way of going through your plant, what would that be, two or three?

Thomas Buehler (16:00):

I think it's important to help them understand the food safety aspects that are important, because they implement also their productivity on site. This is what a production head should be. Always keep in mind, if food safety aspects are not right, then it's not easy to do, and then they need to lead with good example. So, aspects like keeping doors shut of zone transfers, making sure the hand disinfectant is filled up and used, and making sure the floors are repaired. I mentioned it already. Those are very trivial on one side, but they help lift the behavior, and they also lift the belief of people in food safety and why food safety is important.

Mikkel Svold (17:20):

Yeah, absolutely. Dr. Thomas Buehler, thank you so much for joining us today. It's been a real pleasure, and it's really interesting. Of course, to all you listeners out there, if you have any questions or future ideas for topics or ideas for future topics, that is, please do reach out to us. You can find us at podcast@ngi-global.com. That was podcast@ngi-global.com. Just please reach out if you have anything that you think you would find interesting. Also, of course, do hit that subscribe button. It really helps us spread the words of food safety, and share this podcast episode with your colleagues or friends or even family if you feel like it.

(18:02):

With that, I'm just... We are about finished, so thank you so much for listening.

Thomas Buehler (18:06):

Thank you.