Perspectives on Future Food Testing Technology

Where Global Needs, Challenges and Innovation Intersect

Palmer A. Orlandi, Ph.D. AOAC Deputy Executive Director & Chief Science Officer

Food Chemicals Codex Stakeholders ForumApril 9, 2019

Assessing Future Technology Needs

➢ Defining the scope of the food testing mission;

➢ Defining the broad spectrum of applications

needed;

➢ Identifying the challenges and technological

barriers;

➢ What it will take to overcome them.

Food Testing Programs

• Advance food safety, food integrity, and public

health;

• Eliminate trade barriers; substantiate health

claims; and meet and maintain regulatory

requirements,

• Dependent upon developing and validating

standards, methods, and technologies of

global relevance.

4

Why & What is Tested

MICROBIAL HAZARDS

✓ Bacterial

✓ Parasitic

✓ Viral

CHEMICAL HAZARDS

✓ Pesticides

✓ Toxic Elements

✓ Mycotoxins

✓ Chemotherapeutics in Seafood

FIL

TH

IMP

OR

TS

INGREDIENTS

ON THE FARMSEAFOOD

PE

T F

OO

D

ANIMAL FEEDC

ON

TAIN

ER

S&

BO

TTLE

S

DIETARY SUPPLEMENTSPRODUCE

DAIRYEGGS

DOMESTIC

FIN

ISH

ED

PR

OD

UC

TS

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

LSP

ICE

S

✓ Quality Assurance;

✓ Quality Control

The Future Landscape:An expanding global marketplace; an expanding list

of food safety testing needs.

Future Needs:➢ Some are timeless; never changing

➢ “The Emergents.”; complex; unexpected;

unknown

Needs for the Future

Needs for the Future

➢ Faster

➢ More sensitive,

➢ More specific

➢ Timeliness

➢ Portable

➢ Quantifiable

➢ Multi-analyte

➢ Affordable

➢ One test workflow

➢ Etc.

The timeless needs:

The Challenge(s)

Adaptability;

Broad applicability

Fit-for-purpose

Surveillance applications

Environmental

Quality control

“Bad Actors”/Harmful Actions;

Economical Fraud

The evolution of food safety testing in an expanding

and evolving global marketplace…”the emergents”

“Farm - to – Fork”/Block Chain

Rapid response;

Trackbacks and epidemiology

New matrices, additives,

new adulterants,

new pathogens,

new public health concerns

Global disparities in resources and

technological capabilities and

capacities

Regulatory compliance criteria

Innovation and Food Testing Technology

➢Partnerships and joint ventures; differing scopes of responsibility but with a common objective;

➢“Dreamers and Collaborators;”

➢Perspectives;

➢Integration and adaptation of technological advances from unrelated applications.

The Innovation Paradigm

9

PartnershipOne of two or more entities engaged in the same enterprise;

sharing its profits and risks; each an agent for the other…

“The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”

Synergy

A Time-honored Approached for Success

10

➢ Facilitate and promote cooperation and collaboration;

➢ Leveraging resources and ideas to meet the mutual needs;

➢ Efficiency, expedience.

➢Accelerated technological advancements. Tools and applications for: research, regulatory analyses, for industry, to guarantee safety, to guarantee quality:

The Value in Partnerships

11

Future Food Testing Technology & Partnerships

➢ Convening of global stakeholders from government,

industry and academia to identify issues and

articulate analytical standards and methods;

➢ Convening organizations and experts dedicated to

developing and validating standards, methods, and

technologies of global relevance and global

applications.

12

Challenges, Research & the Future of

Food Safety Testing

becoming mired

in myopic thinking…

Research requires a keen

focus on the mission,

without….

13

➢ The process of translating an imaginative

idea(s) or invention into a good or service that

creates value.

➢ Synonymous with: transformative, a

metamorphosis, a breakthrough

➢ Establishing innovative partnerships:

➢ The “Dreamers” and the “Collaborators”

➢ Vision is the common denominator

Innovative Thinking…

14

➢ ORIGINAL OR CREATIVE THINKING; UNFETTERED BY CONVENTION;

➢ NOT GROUNDED IN REALITY; NO PRECONCEPTIONS;

➢ VISIONARY; DARING TO RISK; WILLING TO FAIL

➢ THE BENEFITS OF SUCCESS OUTWEIGH THE PRICE OF FAILURE

“BLUE SKY THINKING”

15

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

A Federal Blue Sky Thinking ParadigmRisk-taking Partnerships

16

“DARPA is designed to have a high failure rate. …. They embrace failure.”Steven Block, Stanford University

“The DARPA Model”

➢ Transformational not incremental

➢ Rapid turnaround; risky research

➢ Collaborative, robust innovation ecosystem of academic,

➢ corporate, and governmental partners

➢ Working at the boundaries of knowledge; multi-

disciplinary

➢ Time-limited management teams to instill urgency to

the mission

➢ Enlisting a wide array of public and private-sector

partners through grants, contracts and other agreements

17

The value of perspective in

assessing a common problem

among partners …

… and finding a unified solution

Partnerships, Collaboration and Perspective

…as an “Evolution of Ideas”

among interested parties; adaptive

applications…

THE COLLABORATORATIVE PROCESS:Highlighting the importance of vision …

…to bring together processes

and people to achieve a common

goal.

Meeting the Future Technological Challenges

Complex Challenges➢Acceptance, adoption, incorporation

➢Whole genome sequencing,

➢Metagenomics

➢Bioinformatic pipelines

➢Dietary supplements and botanicals

“Emergent” Challenges➢Cannabis and Hemp

➢Food Authenticity & economically-motivated

adulteration

CANNABIS AND HEMP

• Forum to reach consensus for science-based problems

• Standard Method Performance Requirements

• Performance Tested Methods(PTM) and Official Methods

• Laboratory operating recommendations

• Proficiency Testing program

• Reference materials (TDRM)

• Training workshops

CASP Objectives

/

History of Cannabis Initiative

2015: Symposium

“What’s the Buzz about Cannabis”

2016: Cannabis Advisory Panel

SCIEX, SPEX, CEM

GW Pharmaceutical, SC Labs,

Sigma Aldrich

2017: Cannabis Working Groups

* Identification and Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Dried Flower

• Identification and Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Concentrates

• Identification and Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Chocolate

• Identification of Pesticide Residues in Dried Flower

2018: First Action Methods

• Identification & Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Dried Flower

• Identification & Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Concentrates

AOAC Cannabis Projects Prior to

CASP

Three Working Groupsto be established

• Chemical contaminants in cannabis and hemp

• Pesticides, toxic elements, mycotoxins, etc

• Cannabinoids in consumables

• Microbial pathogens and spoilage microorganisms

• Additional considerations:• Education and outreach

2019

Very Exciting News from AOAC!

A place for analytical chemists working in the cannabis industry.

Dedicated work space for:

➢method development

➢stakeholder education

➢interlaboratory comparison and/or Proficiency Testing

FOOD AUTHENTICITY

FOOD INTEGRITY

FOOD FRAUD

Food AuthenticityProgram Objectives

• To address the analytical needs for combatting intentional and economically motivated food adulteration;

• Develop Standard Method Performance Requirements (SMPRs) for Targeted Testing (TT) and Non-targeted Testing (NTT);

• To develop rapid response guidance for method development in the event of an emergency.

One of these things……

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Definitions

• Food authentication*

o a process to evaluate that state of being

• Food fraud*

o the act that creates the problem;

o the deliberate and intentional substitution, addition, tampering, or misrepresentation of food, food ingredients, or food packaging; or false or misleading statements made about a product, for economic gain.

*John Spink, quality Assurance & Food Safety, 2018

Areas of Focus … Despite the Lack of

“Internationally Agreed-upon Definition”

• Food Fraud Incidents : ▪ Deliberate act

▪ Aims for economic gain in an illicit manner

▪ Meant to be hidden / not to be discovered

▪ Misrepresents the food product to consumers

• US FDA Working definition of “Economically Motivated Adulteration” (EMA)

The fraudulent, intentional substitution or addition of a substance in a product for the purpose of increasing the apparent value of the product, or reducing the

cost of its production, i.e. for economic gain.

Commodity Prioritization Survey

• Food Authenticity Advisory Panel was surveyed to determine

– Which foods have a more immediate need for functioning and acceptable Non-Targeted Testing methods?

– Which food/adulterant combinations do not have acceptable targeted analytical methods?

Non-Targeted Testing

• Concept

– Create a standardized fingerprint for an ingredient.

– Compare new lots of the ingredient to the fingerprint.

– Quantify “degree of difference”

• Small amount of difference is a yellow flag

• Large difference is a red flag

NTT Working Group

• Create Standard Method Performance Requirements

– Demonstration of Non-Targeted Testing method effectiveness

– Validation/verification guidance

• Apply to NTT tests covering prioritized commodity list

Targeted Testing (TT)

• Targeted Testing (TT) requires the prior identification of adulterants likely to be present in priority food commodities, subject to EMA and is employed to assure that such adulterants is not threatening the safety and overall integrity of the priority ingredient

• Targeted Testing (TT) protocols/procedures to: – Support authenticity assurance

– Ensure the food supply chain integrity

– Convey the message to those engaged in those practices that they will be prosecuted.

Targeted Testing Working Group

➢Assessment of gaps of current food fraud test method and develop SMPRs to validate targeted testing methods;

➢Developing standards leading to Codex Type 1 methods;

➢Prioritizing actions of adulterants and commodities of interest

Commodity Prioritization Survey

• Food Authenticity Advisory Panel was surveyed to determine

– Which foods have a more immediate need for functioning and acceptable Non-Targeted Testing methods?

– Which food/adulterant combinations do not have acceptable targeted analytical methods?

Next Steps

• Consider overlapping technologies for – targeted and – non-targeted testing procedures

• Develop a rapid response process to assist stakeholders; a process for standards development, methods development and review, in the event of a major international food fraud incident, requiring rapid resource mobilization.

Conclusion

➢ The technology needed to support future food testing programs is

largely unknown but is being developed right now;

➢ Those of greatest value will be derived from partnerships and the

leveraging of need and ideas;

➢ It will derive from a melding of traditional food testing platforms;

➢ It will be molecular, digital, compact, and require computational and

bioinformatic support on a scale unseen for food testing.

➢ It will have to adapt to the evolving expectations born from a global

marketplace;

➢ It will serve known needs on a new scale; and, emergent needs with

the level of certainty, breadth of application, and timeliness to

encompass all the reasons for food testing:

➢Food safety, food integrity, and public

health;

➢Eliminate trade barriers; substantiate

health claims; and meet and maintain

regulatory requirements

The Reason We Test

THANK YOU