1. Global Trends in Food Safety November 2009 Steve DelGiorno Senior Director, Daymon Worldwide

2. 2 China Market Landscape  Government:  Law, regulation and act issued by central government Weak governance  Weak governance  Local implementation and interpretation may vary from Central policy  Open to bribery & fixing  Manufacturer:  International company/ export manufacturers with good QA expertise  But majority -> huge; immature supplier base  Local Immature process caused bad practice; Less QA/ QC investment  Products apply to multiple standard, like GB/ QB, FZ, NY etc… / DB/ Q standards  Retailers:  Very frequent random tests and challenges by local authorities on product label and safety Conservative/ limited investment in QA function  Conservative/ limited investment in QA function  Only basic knowledge and implementation on PB QA/ any QA management; QA not viewed as critical function; most retailers do not have complete QA department.  Third party May provide lower service standard due to market competitive cost  May provide lower service standard due to market competitive cost  Auditors integrity issue when doing site auditing  Professional skill varied  High Consumer Expectations - public complaints on product safety issue, particular on food That’s Why Quality Assurance Is Critical In China

3. 3 QA Initiatives-U.S. Daymon z Sharing of plant audit reports z Promote adoption of a single audit standard by working closely with FMI and SQF z CIES Technical Committee member z Development of Quality Assurance Share groups z Approval of singular testing protocols on diapers and feminine protection items z Finding traceability solutions- TraceTracker Industry z Development of singular recall system z Adoption of the CIES recognized standards (BRC, SQF, IFS, Global GAP) z Managing compliance and certification documents (Organic, Kosher, third party plant audit reports, etc.) via the internet z Sustainability and Social Accountability initiatives Retail z More reliance on sensory testing and development of Product Innovation Centers z Software systems such as Hamilton Grant to develop and store product specifications z Increased focus on store sanitation and use of third party providers to perform store audits z Review of auditing protocols on internationally sourced products

4. 4 The Audit Situation Today Retailer A Audit fatigue Retailer B Confusion Retailer C Inefficiency Auditing Firm A High Cost Auditing Firm B Focus on Audits-Not Retailer D remediation Effect Auditor Sept.12 Sept.16 Sept. 25 Oct. 7 Oct. 2 Sept. 4

5. 5 The Case For A Single Auditing Standard z Cost Effective—large suppliers have hired full time “hosts” for auditors, reduces repetitive audits z Current system is filled with redundancy and is sometimes contradictory z Uniform standard assures that all suppliers and retailers are operating from the same playbook and audits are better calibrated z Time efficient—speed to market is increased, plant visits can focus on improving quality/product development z Proven---European model for 10 years (starting with BRC) z Food Safety should not be a competitive issue-there is no reason not to share plant audit reports Certified Once, Accepted Everywhere

6. 6 Daymon’s Road to A Single Auditing Standard z We are a member of GFSI’s Technical Committee that approves standards-next meeting May 18 in Chicago z Daymon has hosted SQF (Safe Quality Food) Training Sessions for suppliers and retailers in 2006 & 2008 z Participated in a Discussion Panel supporting a single audit standard at the 2007 QAA (Quality Assurance Association) meeting z Working with SQF to meet with non food suppliers to develop a non food audit protocol z Worked with retail share group members to gain their acceptance of SQF plant audit reports Certified Once, Accepted Everywhere

7. 7 Current Food Safety Concerns-U.S. z Supplier Food Safety Audits z Melamine z Traceability z Bisphenol A z Obesity

8. 8 Peanut Corporation of America (PCA)

9. 9

10. 10 PCA Update z To date, more than 2,100 products in 17 categories have been recalled by more than 200 companies. z Many items sold under Daymon’s retail customers label have been affected-categories include ice cream, crackers and bakery products z 0ver 600 illnesses and 9 deaths attributed to contaminated peanut products z On January 27, FDA completed their investigation of the Georgia facility and issued violations z On February 9, FDA raided the PCA Georgia Facility z On February 10, PCA shut down its Plainview, Texas plant z On February 13, PCA filed for bankruptcy Jeff Almer speaking at a Congressional hearing

11. 11 Findings Stewart Parnell-Owner Company e-mails showed that PCA owner Stewart Parnell ordered shipments tainted with bacteria because he was worried about lost sales. Deibel Laboratories Inc. tested PCA’s products and notified the Georgia plant that salmonella was found in some of its peanut stock. Peanut Corp. sold the products anyway. Parnell told the manager of the Blakely, Ga. to "turn them loose" after being told that some products had tested positive for salmonella.

12. 12

13. 13 Melamine

14. 14

15. 15 Melamine z U.S. Pet food recall in March, 2007—melamine found in wheat gluten z Infant formula recall in September, 2008—Over 300,000 illnesses and 6 deaths attributed to contaminated formula. There are claims that Sanlu knew of the problem in June, 2008 z Trace amounts of melamine found in U.S. infant formula in November, 2008 z U.S. FDA sets 1 ppm limit for melamine FDA sets melamine standard for baby formula FDA finds traces of melamine in US infant formula

16. 16 A woman, whose child died from drinking tainted milk, holds a sign reading "Give me back my child" outside Shijiazhuang People's Court January 22, 2009. A newborn baby holds onto his mother's finger at a hospital in Beijing Sanlu Executives on Trial

17. 17 U.S. Reaction z Retailers sent letters to all private label suppliers: Wanted to know if any products contain melamine Wanted to know what testing procedures have been implemented z Increased scrutiny on quality assurance protocols for all imported food products z FDA issues a country-wide Import Alert on milk and milk ingredients/products from China in December, 2008---Products may enter the country if they are shown not to contain dairy OR not to contain melamine, based on tests using methods able to detect melamine at levels as low as 250 ppb

18. 18 Traceability

19. 19 2006---204 people ill with E. coli O157:H7, 3 deaths in 26 states due to contaminated spinach 2008---1442 people in 43 states confirmed ill with Salmonellosis traced to contaminated jalapeño peppers and serrano peppers (as of August 26, 2008) Traceability- Recent Causes For Concern

20. 20 Food Companies need to do more than train their employees-they need to develop a food safety culture

21. 21 Why Did It Take So Long To Trace? z No product code z No "sell by" date z No markings in most cases z The traceback can be further complicated by a lack of records or incomplete records, or in some cases, huge volumes of records that need to be reviewed for key information

22. 22

23. 23 Rethinking Traceability z Current practices document on a “one-up one-down” method (where did it come from, where did it go) z Limits each member of the supply chain to a review their own records relative to traceability. z Process can take hours or days (or weeks) to perform a full trace on product through the supply chain z Can result in: lost $ due to production lost $ due to product on hold loss of consumer confidence Incorrect decision making in a crisis management situation z We need a holistic approach to traceability

24. 24 IngredientsTransport Manufacturing Transport Retail Distribution Stores Bonded Warehouse One Up One Down

25. 25 Ingredients Transport Manufacturing Transport Bonded Warehouse Retail Distribution Stores A holistic approach allows instant access to traceability at all points in supply chain

26. 26 z Founded in 2000 z Headquartered in Norway, regional offices worldwide z Allows for real time product traceability throughout the supply chain in real time z Information accessed from your desktop z Traceability is only as effective as the weakest link in the supply chain

27. 27 Bisphenol A

28. 28 BPA-Bisphenol A z Used in plastic production z Used to make hard plastics such as baby bottles, toddler sippy cups, water bottles, and the linings of many food and beverage cans z BPA can leach from the plastic z Found to cause cancer, obesity, diabetes and other health problems in laboratory animals

29. 29 Reaction z October, 2008--Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware sent letters to companies that make baby bottles and baby formula containers, asking they no longer use the BPA in their manufacturing z October, 2008-a panel of scientists state that FDA's conclusion that BPA is safe is flawed z December, 2008-FDA announces that it will revise it’s BPA review and consider independent studies z February 2009-law makers in Washington state and on Long Island propose a ban on plastic containing BPA z March 2009-Sunoco, a producer of BPA, announces it will not sell BPA to manufacturers who will use it in products designed for use by children under 3 z September 2009-California law makers fail to pass a bill that would have outlawed use of BPA in the state in drink and food containers aimed at children

30. 30 Obesity

31. 31 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults 1985 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person) No Data <10% 10%–14% Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

32. 32 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults 1988 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person) No Data <10% 10%–14% Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

33. 33 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults 1991 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person) No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

34. 34 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults 1994 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person) No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

35. 35 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults 1997 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person) No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% ≥20% Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

36. 36 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults 2000 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person) No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% ≥20% Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

37. 37 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults 2003 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person) No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% ≥25% Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

38. 38 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults 2005 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person) No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30% Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

39. 39 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults 2007 (*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person) No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30% Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

40. 40 Overweight U.S. Children and Adolescents (Aged 2-19 years) Source: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys