This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
Kevin T. Higgins joined Food Engineering in January 2000 as senior editor and has written stories on a wide variety of plant automation and food manufacturing topics. In addition to feature articles, Kevin covers food packaging and writes FE’s Engineering R&D column. Email: higginsk@bnpmedia.com.
Facing mandates to safeguard against deliberate contamination, food companies walk a fine line between implementing effective defenses and creating an uncomfortable workplace.
The joke in certain circles is that the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which explicitly cites the need to guard against intentional adulteration, should more accurately be referred to as SCFEA: the Security Consultants Full Employment Act.
If market share numbers are indicative of trade show attendance, 27,000 packaging machinery buyers from food and beverage companies prowled the aisles at the 2012 PACK EXPO event, and they had the kind of checkbook balances that make equipment fabricators’ eyes water.
