Mocon Inc. has opened in-house package testing laboratories in the US, Germany and China to provide clients with a pre-purchase testing environment.
The labs have instrumentation to analyze package types, substrates and components, including flexible structures, rigid bottles, foil seals, pouches, aseptic boxes, trays and lidstock, according to the company.
Mocon is a provider of instrumentation and consulting and laboratory services to medical, pharmaceutical, food and other industries worldwide.
Showing posts with label Petfood Supply Chain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Petfood Supply Chain. Show all posts
Friday, September 4, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Couple, company plead guilty in melamine case
Husband and wife Stephen and Sally Miller, along with their company, ChemNutra Inc., pleaded guilty June 16 to distributing a tainted ingredient used to make petfood that reportedly sickened or killed thousands of pets, according to The Associated Press.
The federal indictment alleged they knowingly brought wheat gluten tainted with melamine into the US and proceeded to sell it to petfood manufacturers.
The federal indictment alleged they knowingly brought wheat gluten tainted with melamine into the US and proceeded to sell it to petfood manufacturers.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Natura requires all distributors to be AIB certified
Natura Pet Products recently announced all of its distributors will be required to pass certification with the American Institute of Baking International.
AIB Certification specifies rigorous standards for food safety. To receive certification, an organization must pass independent inspections, training and audits that demonstrate its ability to protect the safety of the food supply chain. As part of Natura’s new partnership agreements, the company is requiring all distributors to pass AIB Certification.
“The AIB certification requirement is part of Natura’s ongoing efforts to ensure our petfoods and treats meet the strictest standards for safety and quality from our manufacturing plants to our customers’ pet bowls,” said Don Scott, president of Natura.
AIB Certification specifies rigorous standards for food safety. To receive certification, an organization must pass independent inspections, training and audits that demonstrate its ability to protect the safety of the food supply chain. As part of Natura’s new partnership agreements, the company is requiring all distributors to pass AIB Certification.
“The AIB certification requirement is part of Natura’s ongoing efforts to ensure our petfoods and treats meet the strictest standards for safety and quality from our manufacturing plants to our customers’ pet bowls,” said Don Scott, president of Natura.
Scientists discover quicker test for melamine
A group of scientists from Purdue University have discovered a faster way to detect melamine levels by utilizing infrared spectroscopy in laboratory tests, according to a report in The Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
The Food and Drug Administration currently utilizes a time-consuming analysis to detect melamine levels, so researchers have been trying to find a more efficient way to spot melamine contamination.
Last year and in 2007, cases of melamine contamination emerged from Chinese-produced infant formula and pet food, due to its properties as a cheap but illegal substitute for protein.
The Food and Drug Administration currently utilizes a time-consuming analysis to detect melamine levels, so researchers have been trying to find a more efficient way to spot melamine contamination.
Last year and in 2007, cases of melamine contamination emerged from Chinese-produced infant formula and pet food, due to its properties as a cheap but illegal substitute for protein.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
CVM addresses questions about GRAS program
David Fairfield of the National Grain & Feed Association (NGFA) shared with the Pet Food Institute (PFI) answers to questions he raised with FDA regarding the GRAS notification program for animal feed announced earlier this year.
Geoffrey Wong, leader of the ingredient safety team at the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), provided the answers.
David Fairfield: Is there a planned date for when the program will be launched?
Geoffrey Wong: CVM plans to start the pilot program late summer of 2009. However, this date is not definite and will be impacted by a number of factors, such as receiving proper authorization to publish a Federal Register notice that will announce the pilot program.
DF: As I understand, this program is being characterized as a “pilot” project. I am curious as to what this means, such as will the agency initially be limiting the scope of the program to certain ingredients and to a certain timeframe?
GW: The program is considered a pilot program in the sense that the April 17, 1997 proposed rule has not yet been finalized. We intend to be operating under an interim policy similar to the one described in Section VIII of the April 17, 1997 proposed rule. The scope of the program will include substances intended for use in food for animals.
DF: Will there be an established timeframe for the agency to respond to industry GRAS notice submittals?
GW: CVM does not plan to have formal statutory deadlines of when the agency must respond to a firm’s GRAS notification. Our timeframes for reviewing the notices will be largely impacted by the resources available to CVM to implement the program.
DF: Will animal feed ingredients that receive a “no questions” review from CVM be listed in the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) Official Publication?
GW: The FDA evaluation process for AAFCO feed ingredient definitions is very different from FDA’s process to evaluate GRAS notifications and these processes result in agency conclusions which are not equivalent.
In the AAFCO ingredient definition process, CVM serves as a science advisor to AAFCO to establish ingredient safety, evaluate utility of the ingredient for specific use (claim), and determine if the manufacturer’s process in under control and analytical methods are acceptable. As part of the review, FDA often evaluates proprietary safety data, utility data, and manufacturing data submitted by the firm.
In contrast for GRAS notifications, FDA reviews summarized data and information submitted by the notifier and data and information otherwise available to the Agency, to determine whether there is a basis to question the notifier’s view that the technical element (evidence of safety) and both facets of the common knowledge element regarding the use of the substance are satisfied – i.e., general availability and general acceptance (consensus).
CVM intends to have discussions with AAFCO to understand the manner in which state feed control officials will recognize a response letter from the agency stating that it has no questions regarding the rotifier's determination that the substance is GRAS under the intended conditions of use in animal food.
Geoffrey Wong, leader of the ingredient safety team at the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), provided the answers.
David Fairfield: Is there a planned date for when the program will be launched?
Geoffrey Wong: CVM plans to start the pilot program late summer of 2009. However, this date is not definite and will be impacted by a number of factors, such as receiving proper authorization to publish a Federal Register notice that will announce the pilot program.
DF: As I understand, this program is being characterized as a “pilot” project. I am curious as to what this means, such as will the agency initially be limiting the scope of the program to certain ingredients and to a certain timeframe?
GW: The program is considered a pilot program in the sense that the April 17, 1997 proposed rule has not yet been finalized. We intend to be operating under an interim policy similar to the one described in Section VIII of the April 17, 1997 proposed rule. The scope of the program will include substances intended for use in food for animals.
DF: Will there be an established timeframe for the agency to respond to industry GRAS notice submittals?
GW: CVM does not plan to have formal statutory deadlines of when the agency must respond to a firm’s GRAS notification. Our timeframes for reviewing the notices will be largely impacted by the resources available to CVM to implement the program.
DF: Will animal feed ingredients that receive a “no questions” review from CVM be listed in the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) Official Publication?
GW: The FDA evaluation process for AAFCO feed ingredient definitions is very different from FDA’s process to evaluate GRAS notifications and these processes result in agency conclusions which are not equivalent.
In the AAFCO ingredient definition process, CVM serves as a science advisor to AAFCO to establish ingredient safety, evaluate utility of the ingredient for specific use (claim), and determine if the manufacturer’s process in under control and analytical methods are acceptable. As part of the review, FDA often evaluates proprietary safety data, utility data, and manufacturing data submitted by the firm.
In contrast for GRAS notifications, FDA reviews summarized data and information submitted by the notifier and data and information otherwise available to the Agency, to determine whether there is a basis to question the notifier’s view that the technical element (evidence of safety) and both facets of the common knowledge element regarding the use of the substance are satisfied – i.e., general availability and general acceptance (consensus).
CVM intends to have discussions with AAFCO to understand the manner in which state feed control officials will recognize a response letter from the agency stating that it has no questions regarding the rotifier's determination that the substance is GRAS under the intended conditions of use in animal food.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
CPI article prompts EPA to evaluate pet pesticides
The Environmental Protection Agency's announcement April 16, 2009 that it would intensify evaluation of spot-on pesticide products for pets comes on the heels of the Center for Public Integrity's Perils of the New Pesticides project, according to a CPI press release.
One of the project stories, Pets and Pesticides: Let's Be Careful Out There, reported that at least 1,600 pet deaths linked to spot-on pesticide treatments had been reported to the EPA over the previous five years.
The number of deaths linked to such treatments was about double the number of fatalities reportedly tied to similar treatments without these pesticides, according to the CPI article.
One of the project stories, Pets and Pesticides: Let's Be Careful Out There, reported that at least 1,600 pet deaths linked to spot-on pesticide treatments had been reported to the EPA over the previous five years.
The number of deaths linked to such treatments was about double the number of fatalities reportedly tied to similar treatments without these pesticides, according to the CPI article.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Evidence destruction claim rejected in Menu Foods case
Allegations that Menu Foods destroyed evidence are the basis of motions in several court cases, according to an article on www.consumeraffairs.com.
Menu Foods settled a $24 million lawsuit last year that grew from the largest petfood recall in US history. The case was heard in New Jersey, and parties are still wrapping up various items on the docket, but now a Washington state litigant is charging that the company illegally destroyed thousands of samples of food, potentially leaving him without evidence to pursue his claim.
During discovery for the New Jersey suit, the defendants collected thousands of cases of petfood — both recalled and non-recalled — in their warehouse. In December 2007, the defendants claimed that preserving all of these samples was an unnecessary waste of time and money. The court agreed, and allowed the defendants to destroy all but 500 units of recalled petfood.
Donald Earl, a plaintiff in a Washington state suit, filed a motion objecting to the orders in January 2008. Earl’s suit involved “cake style” cat food, which does not contain gluten and was not implicated in the March 2007 recall.
Laboratory tests of Earl’s food showed that it was contaminated with acetaminophen and cyanuric acid, nitrogen-based chemicals often used to artificially boost a food’s apparent protein content. Neither chemical was discovered in the recalled food. Despite his allegations, the court dismissed Earl’s objection without comment in February 2008.
Earl also filed a motion in Washington state court, where his own suit was pending. That court rejected his claim in February 2008.
Undeterred, Earl filed a second objection and motion to intervene in January 2009.
In a two-page order issued in February, Judge Noel Hillman denied Earl’s motion to intervene, holding that Earl “has not demonstrated that he has an interest in the ‘unorganized inventory’ requiring that this Court vacate its prior orders regarding that inventory.”
Menu Foods settled a $24 million lawsuit last year that grew from the largest petfood recall in US history. The case was heard in New Jersey, and parties are still wrapping up various items on the docket, but now a Washington state litigant is charging that the company illegally destroyed thousands of samples of food, potentially leaving him without evidence to pursue his claim.
During discovery for the New Jersey suit, the defendants collected thousands of cases of petfood — both recalled and non-recalled — in their warehouse. In December 2007, the defendants claimed that preserving all of these samples was an unnecessary waste of time and money. The court agreed, and allowed the defendants to destroy all but 500 units of recalled petfood.
Donald Earl, a plaintiff in a Washington state suit, filed a motion objecting to the orders in January 2008. Earl’s suit involved “cake style” cat food, which does not contain gluten and was not implicated in the March 2007 recall.
Laboratory tests of Earl’s food showed that it was contaminated with acetaminophen and cyanuric acid, nitrogen-based chemicals often used to artificially boost a food’s apparent protein content. Neither chemical was discovered in the recalled food. Despite his allegations, the court dismissed Earl’s objection without comment in February 2008.
Earl also filed a motion in Washington state court, where his own suit was pending. That court rejected his claim in February 2008.
Undeterred, Earl filed a second objection and motion to intervene in January 2009.
In a two-page order issued in February, Judge Noel Hillman denied Earl’s motion to intervene, holding that Earl “has not demonstrated that he has an interest in the ‘unorganized inventory’ requiring that this Court vacate its prior orders regarding that inventory.”
Monday, February 9, 2009
Non-Chinese nutrients now available
NaturaPet announced this month 100% of their ingredients will come from trusted, non-Chinese suppliers, according to an article by Examiner.com. Natura became the first petfood company in the industry to test and guarantee that all of its products are free from melamine and cyanuric acid. Supplements are needed to ensure that pets receive optimum nutrition, and among the necessary supplements - certain B vitamins and taurine - have been unavailable from anywhere other than China.
After working with its suppliers, Natura has found alternative sources and has been using them exclusively.
"We will not compromise on food safety and nutrition because both are so critical to the health of pets," said Don Scott, president of Natura.
The Natura product line includes Innova, California Natural, EVO, HealthWise, Mother Nature, and Karma.
After working with its suppliers, Natura has found alternative sources and has been using them exclusively.
"We will not compromise on food safety and nutrition because both are so critical to the health of pets," said Don Scott, president of Natura.
The Natura product line includes Innova, California Natural, EVO, HealthWise, Mother Nature, and Karma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)