CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT AGRICULTURAL TESTING SOLUTION (CEATS)

AME Certified PCR Laboratories (AME) supports the profitability enhancement of next-generation of farmers who are engaging Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) food production technologies.

CEA stakeholders are committed to innovative, state-of-the-art approaches to low  CAPEX and OPEX systems, climate-smart, best growing practices, and sustainable agriculture.

CEA, along with other low/high-tech food production solutions, are systems which adapt to volatile climate change and market conditions while reducing operating costs while enhancing global food security.

AME supports CEA with on-site testing facilities (full environmental control and  supplemental lighting greenhouse) operated by in-house personnel to screen for food and plant pathogens with fast, certified test results.

In-house testing incorporated in a "test and release" model benefits consumers and customers, regulation, suppliers and stakeholders by supporting the promise of bacterially safe food for human consumption.

Our Food safety consulting services include:
• FDA regulatory compliance
• Risk assessment
• Audit readiness assessments (HACCP, FSMA plan)
• Sanitation program development
• Gap Analysis for CEA food safety and quality programs

In-house pathogen testing is becoming increasingly important in the Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) industry. CEA operations are a growing sector of the agricultural industry, and their popularity is largely due to the increased control and precision they offer growers. CEA operations allow growers to cultivate crops in controlled environments, such as greenhouses, hydroponic systems, and vertical farms, which can help to reduce environmental impacts and improve food safety.

Despite the many benefits of CEA, however, there are still challenges to be addressed when it comes to food safety. One of the most significant challenges is the potential for pathogens to contaminate fresh produce. The controlled environment of CEA systems can create ideal conditions for pathogen growth, and if left unchecked, pathogens can pose a serious risk to public health.

To address this challenge, many CEA operations are turning to in-house pathogen testing as a way to ensure that their fresh produce products are safe for human consumption. In-house pathogen testing involves testing samples of fresh produce for the presence of harmful pathogens using a variety of different methods. By conducting in-house pathogen testing, CEA operations can identify and address potential food safety issues before they become a larger problem.

One of the key benefits of in-house pathogen testing is that it allows CEA operations to have greater control over the safety of their products. By testing for pathogens in-house, growers can monitor their crops on an ongoing basis, rather than relying solely on periodic third-party testing. This increased level of control can help to identify potential issues early, allowing growers to take action quickly and minimize any potential risk to public health.

Another benefit of in-house pathogen testing is that it can be used in conjunction with a validated Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) program. HACCP is a system that is designed to identify and control potential hazards in the food production process. By integrating in-house pathogen testing with a validated HACCP program, CEA operations can ensure that they are following best practices when it comes to food safety. This can help to improve consumer confidence in their products, which can be critical for building a successful business.

There are several different methods of in-house pathogen testing that CEA operations can use, depending on their specific needs and resources. One common method is Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing, which can be used to identify a wide range of pathogens in a relatively short amount of time. Another method is enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing, which can detect the presence of specific pathogens in samples.

In conclusion, in-house pathogen testing can be a valuable tool for CEA operations looking to ensure the safety of their fresh produce products. By conducting ongoing testing and integrating it with a validated HACCP program, growers can minimize the risk of pathogen contamination and build consumer confidence in their products. As the CEA industry continues to grow, it is likely that in-house pathogen testing will become an increasingly important component of food safety in these operations.

References

Barak JD, Schroeder BK. Interrelationships of food safety and plant pathology: the life cycle of human pathogens on plants. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2012;50:241-266. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-081211-173001.

Beuchat LR, Ryu JH. Produce handling and processing practices. Emerg Infect Dis. 1997;3(4):459-465. doi: 10.3201/eid0304.970408.

Brandl MT. Fitness of human enteric pathogens on plants and implications for food safety. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2006;44:367-392. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.44.070505.143359.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Surveillance for Foodborne Disease Outbreaks United States, 2016: Annual Report. 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/pdfs/foodborne-disease-outbreaks-annual-report-2016-508c.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2023.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Good Agricultural Practices for greenhouse vegetable crops. FAO, Rome, Italy. 2012. http://www.fao.org/3/i2454e/i2454e00.htm. Accessed March 22, 2023.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Food Code 2017. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/food/fda-food-code/food-code-2017. Accessed March 22, 2023.

International Fresh-Cut Produce Association (IFPA). Best Practices for Handling Fresh-cut Produce. IFPA, Alexandria, VA. 2004. https://www.freshcutproduce.com/ifpa-best-practices. Accessed March 22, 2023.

Koutsoumanis K, Allende A, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, et al. Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 9: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2020. EFSA J. 2021;19(2):e06480. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6480.

Liao C, Luo Y, Liu J. Potential applications of nanotechnology in food safety. J Food Drug Anal. 2018;26(4):1201-1214. doi: 10.1016/j.jfda.2018.02.006.

Ma Y, Ryan L, Almshawit H, Forsythe S. Advances in biosensors for detection of pathogens in food and water. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2019;26(11):10795-10811. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-04808-7.

Matos JS, Bove CP, Morishita TY. Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis contamination of eggs from hens inoculated by vaginal, cloacal, and intravenous routes. Avian Dis. 2000;44(3):586-590. doi: 10.2307/1592868.

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Agriculture and Food Research Initiative – Food Safety. US Department of Agriculture. 2021. https://nifa.usda.gov/program/agriculture-and-food-research-initiative

Pao S, Davis RF. Microbial safety of fresh produce in recent years. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 1997;11(1):20-26. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2013.1546.

Podolak R, Enache E, Stone W, Black DG, Elliott PH. Sources and risk factors for contamination, survival, persistence, and heat resistance of Salmonella in low-moisture foods. J Food Prot. 2010;73(10):1919-1936. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-73.10.1919.

Ragaert P, Devlieghere F, Debevere J. Role of microbiological and physiological spoilage mechanisms in texture degradation of cooked vegetables. Int J Food Microbiol. 2004;90(1):103-121. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(03)00282-5.

Rhee MS, Lee SY, Dougherty RH, Kang DH. Antimicrobial effects of mustard flour and acetic acid against Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69(5):2959-2963. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.5.2959-2963.2003.

Sapers GM. Efficacy of washing and sanitizing methods for disinfection of fresh fruit and vegetable products. Food Technol. 2001;55(11):85-92.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Good Agricultural Practices & Good Handling Practices Audit Verification Program. USDA, Washington, DC. 2018. https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/auditing/gap-ghp. Accessed March 22, 2023.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. FDA, Silver Spring, MD. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/guide-minimize-microbial-food-safety-hazards-fresh-fruits-and-vegetables. Accessed March 22, 2023.

Warriner K, Ibrahim F, Dickinson M, Wright C, Waites WM. Interaction of Escherichia coli with growing salad spinach plants. J Food Prot. 2003;66(9):1790-1797. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-66.9.1790.

Can CEA grown food products become bacterially contaminated despite strict entry/exit protocols, regularly implemented on-site sanitary procedures, physical measures such as face coverings, shoe coverings and gloves, maintaining a lean presence on-site?

Closed-environment agriculture (CEA) is a rapidly growing method of food production that offers several advantages over traditional farming methods, including increased yields, year-round production, and reduced water usage.

CEA systems are also more susceptible to bacterial contamination than traditional farms.

AME certified PCR laboratories installs in-house pathogen testing laboratories in CEA facilities to detect human and plant pathogens in CEA grow operations.

Bacterial contamination of food can occur at any point along the food chain, from production to processing to consumption. In CEA systems, bacteria can be introduced into the system through a variety of sources, including:

· The water used to irrigate the plants

· The air in the growing environment

· The people and animals who enter the growing environment

· The equipment used in the growing environment

Once bacteria are introduced into the system, they can quickly multiply and spread, leading to the contamination of food products.

Bacterial Contamination in CEA Systems

A number of studies have documented the potential for bacterial contamination in CEA systems. For example, a study by the University of California, Davis found that CEA-grown lettuce was contaminated with E. coli at a rate of 12%, compared to 2% for conventionally grown lettuce. Another study, conducted by researchers at the University of Arizona, found that CEA-grown tomatoes were contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes at a rate of 5%, compared to 0% for conventionally grown tomatoes.

AME Certified PCR Laboratories

AME certified PCR laboratories are a valuable tool for CEA growers who are looking to ensure the safety of their food products. AME certified PCR laboratories use state-of-the-art technology to detect pathogens in food products, even at low levels. This allows CEA growers to identify and remove contaminated food products before they are released to the market, preventing foodborne illness.

Benefits of Engaging AME Certified PCR Laboratories

There are a number of benefits to using AME certified PCR laboratories, including:

· Increased food safety: AME Certified PCR laboratories can help CEA growers to identify and remove contaminated food products, preventing foodborne illness.

· Reduced risk of recalls: By using AME certified PCR laboratories, CEA growers can reduce the risk of having to recall their food products due to contamination.

· Improved customer confidence: CEA growers who use AME certified PCR laboratories can improve customer confidence in the safety of their food products.

Summary

Bacterial contamination is a potential problem in CEA systems, but it can be prevented by taking steps to ensure the safety of the growing environment. By following the steps outlined in this article, CEA growers can help to ensure that their food products are safe for consumers.

References

Abarca, J., Lopez-Reyes, R., & Lopez-Malo, A. (2014). Listeria monocytogenes contamination of tomatoes grown in a controlled environment agriculture system. Food Microbiology, 41, 103-108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0740002014000891 

Breithaupt, F., & Knorr, D. (2018). Food safety in indoor vertical farming: A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 77, 104-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.07.002 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019, September 19). Food safety tips for farmers markets. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/foodborne-illness/farmersmarkets.html

Dimitriou, D., & Zabaniotou, A. (2019). Food safety in vertical farming: A review. Food Science & Biotechnology, 28(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-019-00564-z 

Food and Drug Administration. (2018, March 15). Guide to produce safety. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-education/guide-produce-safety

Gupta, S. K., & Gupta, B. (2020). Food safety in vertical farming: A review. Food Science & Nutrition, 8(1), 1007-1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.1400 

Ibrahim, M., & Al-Amin, M. (2021). Food safety in vertical farming: A review. Food Control, 128, 108392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.108392

Kohl, M., & Hammes, W. P. (2019). Food safety in vertical farming: A review. Journal of Food Science, 84(11), 2850-2860. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.14689 

National Center for Appropriate Technology. (2018, March 20). Closed-loop controlled environment agriculture: A guide for farmers. Retrieved from https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/freepubs/pdf/985.pdf

Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, H., & Chen, X. (2016). Contamination of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in leafy greens grown in a controlled environment agriculture system. Food Control, 65, 175-179. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956713515001871 

Indoor food production is a growing trend that offers many benefits, such as year-round availability, reduced transportation costs, and lower environmental impact. However, indoor food growers also face challenges, such as the risk of contamination by human and plant pathogens. Pathogens are microorganisms that can cause diseases in humans or plants, and they can be introduced into indoor growing systems through various sources, such as water, soil, equipment, or human handling. Therefore, testing for pathogens is an important practice for indoor food growers to ensure the safety and quality of their products. This article discusses some of the main reasons why indoor food growers should consider testing for human and plant pathogens.

One of the primary reasons for testing for pathogens is to ensure food safety. Foodborne illness, commonly known as food poisoning, is often caused by consuming food contaminated by bacteria and/or their toxins, parasites, viruses, chemicals, or other agents (Foodborne Pathogens | FDA, n.d.). According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there are about 48 million cases of foodborne illness each year in the United States, resulting in an estimated 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths (Foodborne Pathogens | FDA, n.d.). Foodborne illness can occur when people eat or drink food or beverages contaminated with pathogens, chemicals, or toxins (Foodborne Pathogens | FDA, n.d.). Some of the common pathogens that can cause foodborne illness include Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni, and Clostridium botulinum (Foodborne pathogens - PMC - National Center for Biotechnology Information [PMC], 2019). Indoor food growers may think that their controlled environments are free from pathogens, but this is not always the case. Pathogens can still find their way into indoor growing systems through contaminated water, soil, or even the handling of produce (How Food Gets Contaminated – The Food Production Chain [CDC], 2021). For example, if contaminated water or ice is used to wash, pack, or chill fruits or vegetables, the contamination can spread to those items (CDC, 2021). Similarly, if equipment or utensils are not properly sanitized or if workers do not follow good hygiene practices, pathogens can be transferred to the produce (CDC, 2021). Testing for human pathogens helps indoor food growers detect and prevent contamination of their products, reducing the risk of foodborne illnesses and protecting public health.

Another reason for testing for pathogens is to comply with regulations and standards that may apply to indoor food growers. Depending on the jurisdiction, there may be regulations and standards in place that require indoor food growers to test for pathogens (Environmental Sampling | FDA - U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA], n.d.). These regulations are designed to protect public health and ensure that food producers are following best practices for food safety (FDA, n.d.). For example, the FDA has the authority to conduct environmental sampling of establishments where foods are produced to determine whether they contain harmful bacteria (FDA, n.d.). The FDA may collect samples from both food contact surfaces (e.g., slicers, mixers, utensils or conveyors) and non-food contact surfaces (e.g., floors, drains, carts or equipment housing) using sterile sponges or swabs (FDA, n.d.). The FDA may conduct environmental sampling for various reasons, such as investigating an establishment with a history of concern, inspecting an establishment with observed insanitary conditions, following up on the detection of a pathogen in a product sample, or conducting commodity-based assignments to assess the prevalence of certain pathogens across an industry (FDA, n.d.). By conducting regular testing, growers can demonstrate compliance with these regulations and avoid potential penalties or legal issues.

A third reason for testing for pathogens is to maintain quality control in indoor food production. Testing for pathogens is an essential part of quality control in indoor food production because it helps identify potential contamination sources and allows growers to take corrective actions to prevent further spread of pathogens (FDA, n.d.). By implementing testing protocols, growers can maintain a high level of quality and consistency in their products, building trust with consumers and buyers. Testing for pathogens also helps prevent crop losses that can result from pathogen contamination. Pathogen contamination can have devastating effects on indoor crops because it can cause diseases that can lead to significant crop losses (PMC, 2019). Testing for pathogens allows growers to identify and address contamination issues early on, preventing the spread of diseases that can reduce the yield and quality of their products (PMC, 2019). By implementing proactive measures based on testing results, growers can safeguard their investments and maintain a steady supply of healthy, marketable produce.

A fourth reason for testing for pathogens is to build consumer confidence. With increasing awareness and concern about food safety, consumers are becoming more discerning about the sources of their food. Indoor food growers who prioritize pathogen testing and can provide evidence of their efforts to ensure safety are likely to gain the trust and loyalty of consumers. Demonstrating a commitment to food safety can also differentiate growers from their competitors in the market. Consumers may prefer to buy from growers who can assure them that their products are safe and free from pathogens. Testing for pathogens can also help growers meet the expectations and requirements of buyers, such as retailers or restaurants, who may demand proof of food safety from their suppliers.

A fifth reason for testing for pathogens is to protect the environment. Pathogens can affect not only human health but also the health of plants and ecosystems (PMC, 2019). Indoor food growers who test for plant pathogens can identify and manage diseases that could harm their crops (PMC, 2019). By preventing the spread of plant pathogens, growers contribute to the overall health and sustainability of their growing systems, reducing the need for excessive pesticide use and promoting environmental stewardship (PMC, 2019).

In conclusion, testing for human and plant pathogens is crucial for indoor food growers to ensure food safety, comply with regulations, maintain quality control, prevent crop losses, build consumer confidence, and protect the environment. By implementing regular testing protocols, growers can mitigate risks and foster a sustainable and safe food production system.

References

CDC. (2021). How Food Gets Contaminated – The Food Production Chain. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/production-chain.html

FDA. (n.d.). Environmental Sampling | FDA. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/sampling-protect-food-supply/environmental-sampling

FDA. (n.d.). Foodborne Pathogens | FDA. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/foodborne-pathogens

PMC. (2019). Foodborne pathogens - PMC - National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6604998/

References supporting the practice of indoor agriculture growers washing their finished products in order to ensure the food safety of the food products: 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2015). Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption: Final Rule. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-final-rule-produce-safety

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Food Safety for Fruits and Vegetables. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/communication/steps-to-safe-fruits-veggies.html

United States Department of Agriculture. (2019). Safe Handling of Raw Produce and Fresh-Squeezed Fruit and Vegetable Juices. Retrieved from https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/b29030c9-5d7a-49b1-8457-07b172c46f7e/Safe_Handling_Raw_Produce.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

World Health Organization. (2018). Five Keys to Safer Food Manual. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/five-keys-to-safer-food-manual

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). Food Safety and Indoor Farming. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-indoor-farming

United States Department of Agriculture. (2022). National Organic Program. Retrieved from https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nop

Global Food Safety Initiative. (2017). Benchmarking Requirements for Good Agricultural Practices. Retrieved from https://www.mygfsi.com/certification/benchmarking-requirements-for-good-agricultural-practices.html

International Association for Food Protection. (2018). Fresh Produce Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.foodprotection.org/publications/fresh-produce-guidelines/

Park, S.H., & Szonyi, B. (2012). Effectiveness of washing procedures in reducing Salmonella enterica and Listeria monocytogenes on a raw leafy green vegetable (Eruca vesicaria). Journal of Food Protection, 75(11), 2017-2021. https://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article/75/11/2017/171918/Effectiveness-of-Washing-Procedures-in-Reducing

Beuchat, L.R., & Ryu, J.H. (1997). Produce handling and processing practices. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 37(1), 1-13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168160597000517

Allende, A., Selma, M.V., López-Gálvez, F., Villaescusa, R., & Gil, M.I. (2008). Role of commercial sanitizers and washing systems on epiphytic microorganisms and sensory quality of fresh-cut escarole and lettuce. Food Control, 19(12), 1072-1079. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713507003652

Deering, A.J., Pruitt, R.E., & Millner, P.D. (2012). Efficacy of various wash treatments and simulated cold storage on the survival and attachment of human pathogenic bacteria on spinach. Agriculture and Food Science, 21(2), 153-161. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1459919812000267

Brandl, M.T. (2006). Fitness of human enteric pathogens on plants and implications for food safety. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 44, 367-392. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.phyto.44.070505.143359

Hyeon, J.Y., & Jeong, S.G. (2018). Effect of washing with acidified electrolyzed water on the quality and microbial safety of lettuce in a domestic environment. Food Quality and Safety, 2(1), 1-6. https://academic.oup.com/fqs/article/2/1/1/4843143