• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Skip to navigation
Close Ad

The Spoon

Daily news and analysis about the food tech revolution

  • Home
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Newsletter
  • Connect
    • Custom Events
    • Slack
    • RSS
    • Send us a Tip
  • Advertise
  • Consulting
  • About
The Spoon
  • Home
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Events
  • Advertise
  • About

contamination

April 14, 2020

Will Fear of Grocery Contamination Boost Sales of CSAs and Specialized E-Grocers?

I knew it was going to be a great day when I opened up my Twitter feed morning and immediately saw a CNN story about a woman who was arrested for licking $1,800 worth of merchandise at a Safeway store in California. She was purportedly licking jewelry, not food, but there have been multiple other instances of people coughing on and contaminating aisles of food in grocery stores around the country. These stories are heightening our already heightened fears around grocery shopping — and the risk it poses during the coronavirus pandemic.

Those are just stories of people who are contaminating food on purpose. Goods in supermarkets are handled not just by employees but also by perhaps dozens of other shoppers before they make it to your grocery cart. That’s one of the reasons we’re seeing a spike in online grocery delivery sales as well as curbside pickup — contactless delivery programs cut down on the literal touchpoints before food even reaches your home, hopefully lessening the risk of contamination.

All this contamination-mania makes me think that COVID-19 will not only transform how we shop for groceries, but also where we shop for them.

One avenue that could see growth as people take steps to avoid contamination is smaller, more specialized online grocers. These operations, which focus on a more selective array of products, are already seeing a spike in demand. Services like bean marketplace Rancho Gordo and online flour purveyor Maine Grains are selling out or having to delay shipments due to sudden increases in shoppers. Localized grocery delivery services, like Farmstead and SPUD.ca, are also extending delivery hours, waitlisting customers and hiring new staff to try and keep up with the new demand.

Peter van Stolk, CEO of SPUD.ca, told me that one reason these smaller operations are seeing such an increase in demand is that they can “feel safer” than the big box stores.

The key word is “feel.” He noted that, regardless, “the supply chain is the supply chain” — if you buy a box of Annie’s Mac & Cheese from Amazon Fresh or a local e-commerce site, both had to go through the same number of steps (warehouse, distribution center, etc.) to get to the retailer.

SPUD.ca goes to great lengths to ensure the safety of their warehouses — locked doors, gloves and masks, etc. — but Amazon has the same safety measures in place. So if you’re buying foods from established brands, they’ll likely have gone through quite a few (hopefully gloved) hands to reach you, regardless of which store you purchase from.

One thing you can control is whether you purchase from e-commerce services that ship directly from warehouses or from grocery stores. Instacart, for example, uses Shoppers to pick up your groceries from a physical store, meaning all the goods they’re getting are open to contamination from regular old shoppers. Walmart operates in a similar manner, for both delivery and curbside pickup. Services like Amazon Fresh (and Whole Foods), Farmstead, or SPUD.ca, however, fulfill your online orders directly from their warehouses, where all the handlers have to adhere to safety protocol.

Fear over grocery contamination could be one reason that we’re seeing an increase in sales is Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs). Food purchased through CSAs often go through significantly fewer hands than food purchase from large grocery chains, which typically travel through warehouses, distribution trucks and more before ending up on your doorstep. The number of touchpoints varies farmer to farmer, but Simon Huntley, CEO of online farm share platform Harvie, told me over the phone that “people have this perception that if they buy from a local farm or retailer there are less hands on their food.”

There are other benefits to buying food sourced nearby, specifically when it comes to produce. Executive Director of ReFed Dana Gunders also noted via email that “another upside to buying local or from a CSA is that the product is typically fresher, so can last longer (thus accommodates less frequent shopping).”

Obviously, even smaller, more localized e-commerce stores are not guaranteed to be COVID-free. As Huntley admitted: “I don’t know if we can prove that it is safe to buy from a local retailer.” They’re also often more expensive, so they won’t be a feasible retail channel for all budgets. And since many of the stores are more specialized or feature a smaller range of products, you’ll still have to turn to your local grocery store (or e-commerce store, or bodega) to get some essentials, like trash bags and hand soap.

But in a time when we’re trying to be as cautious as possible and also support local businesses, trust is more important than ever. With that in mind, COVID-19 could set up smaller, specialized grocery delivery services for a boom — one that could linger even after the pandemic passes.

February 8, 2019

Tech From MIT Uses RFID to Reveal Food Contamination

Given the job I have, my parents like to tell me about food tech-related news they come across. Last night they were trying to explain a story from CBS This Morning that aired yesterday, but they had trouble relaying it. “It’s a scanner, you use it at the market… something about e. coli and…”

Intrigued, I found the report they were talking about. It’s no wonder they couldn’t explain it: the story was vague and provided almost no details as to how the technology works. So, for my parents and anyone else who saw the CBS Story and wanted a little more information, here are some details.

The technology in question is RFIQ (radio frequency IQ). Here’s a brief explainer from the MIT RFIQ research page:

Our system leverages RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) stickers that are already attached to hundreds of billions objects. When an RFID powers up and transmits its signal, it interacts with material in its near vicinity (i.e., inside a container) even if it is not in direct contact with that container. This interaction is called “near-field coupling,” and it impacts the wireless signal transmitted by an RFID. Our system, RFIQ, extracts features from this signal and feeds it to a machine learning model that can classify and detect different types of adulterants in the container.

You can read the full RFIQ paper.

According to the research overview, the technology can detect fake alcohol (like if methanol is mixed into a drink) with 97 percent accuracy, and tainted baby formula with 96 percent accuracy. In the CBS story, MIT Assistant Professor, Fadel Adib said RFIQ could be used for a broader set of applications including finding lead in water or e. coli on lettuce.

The bones of RFIQ sound akin to hyperspectral imaging, which studies how light reflects off objects to assess freshness, quality and foreign objects. But companies like ImpactVision and P&P Optica, which use hyperspectral imaging, don’t tout the technology as a way to detect foodborne illnesses.

The drawback to the RFIQ technology as it is envisioned now, is that in order for it to work, each item has to have a RFID sticker on it, and the user would have to carry around a small device that would plug into their phone to scan each item. This seems cumbersome and a big ask for food producers and consumers alike.

I’m sure Mr. Fadel and his team have thought about this and way beyond what I’m pondering. There is probably a more industrial grade solution that can be implemented in bulk throughout the supply chain. The RFIQ technology is still five years out from reaching the market anyway, so who knows what breakthroughs and advancements the MIT team will make by then.

For now, I’m just happy that there are researchers going about solving the problem of food contamination from different angles, and I’m happy to help fill in the blanks of my parents’ news watching.

October 17, 2018

No More Poop Hands! PathSpot Checks How Well Restaurant Employees Wash Up

In every (decent) restaurant bathroom, there is a big bold sign that reminds employees to WASH THEIR HANDS. Exactly how well they wash those hands is a bit less definitive. And poorly washed hands touching your food after a trip to the bathroom, well, I’m getting nauseated just writing this.

You’re supposed to scrub your hands for as long as it takes to hum the “Happy Birthday” song twice, but life, work and general antipathy towards that horrible song often cut that time short. And dirty hands can be a big problem.

According to the Center for Disease Control, 48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases each year in the United States. To put it in cold, monetary terms, a single foodborne illness outbreak can cost a fast casual restaurant anywhere between $6,330 to $2.1 million.

To help restaurant employees and owners get a handle on clean hands, PathSpot has developed a special scanner that uses visible fluorescent spectroscopy to check washed hands for pathogens that may carry foodborne illnesses. After an employee washes their hands, they stick them under the device (installed in the back) which shines a purple light on them.

Once lit up, PathSpot can “see” any contaminants not visible to the naked eye still left on the hands. PathSpot looks for indicators behind 98 percent of all food borne illness types and protects against a broad range of food borne illness such as E.Coli, Salmonella, Norovirus, Hep A, Listeria, and many others. If contaminants are found, the PathSpot screen displays a red X and employees should re-wash and re-test their hands. Sites can choose whether they want people to identify themselves at the scanner or not. PathSpot then collects this data and gives it to restaurant management to determine where any breakdowns are in their sanitation procedures.

Right now, PathSpot is running pilots in forty food-related sites such as packaging locations and restaurants. According to Christine Schindler, CEO & Co-Founder of PathSpot Technologies, early results show that on average, 20 percent of workers (that’s one in five!) fail the hand wash scan during the first week of using PathSpot. As they use the scanner more, the number of failures drops by 75 percent over the course of the first month.

PathSpot joins a number of companies using light in clever ways to improve the food chain. ImpactVision is using hyperspectral imaging to determine food quality. SomaDetect uses light scattering analysis to determine milk quality and detect cow disease. And the handheld SCiO device uses near-infrared spectrometry to analyze cow feed for dry matter.

Based in New York City, PathSpot has raised $2 million in seed funding. The company charges a subscription fee for the service ranging from $100 – $150 per month and includes the PathSpot scanner as well as access to all the analytics.

Schindler’s sights are set beyond the bathroom sink, however. She said using light and their algorithms, future PathSpot devices could scan for allergens like peanuts, or be installed on a conveyor belt to scan plates or even food for contaminants.

But those applications aren’t even in development yet as the company focuses on scaling their current product. And if it works as promised, hopefully more restaurants find a spot for PathSpot in their kitchens.

Primary Sidebar

Footer

  • About
  • Sponsor the Spoon
  • The Spoon Events
  • Spoon Plus

© 2016–2025 The Spoon. All rights reserved.

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
 

Loading Comments...