Summiting Mt. Quality

Then, the product goes through a roller press that rapidly flattens and freezes it in 90 seconds. This process reduces dehydration, locks in freshness and maintains microbiological characteristics in the finished product. From there, it goes through a metal detector and is then formed into 60-pound blocks and packaged.

And just as a hiker puts his or her trust in a Sherpa, food processors like BPI ascend up Mount Quality with the help of QA managers and microbiologists, the proverbial Sherpas of safety and quality.

“The biggest challenge is that people must have the right mind set to have quality assurance as an asset to the company and maintain it,” Jochum says. “Protect the company, protect the customers and protect the consumer.”

Roth agrees, saying QAs, who communicate and cooperate, help make the trek to Quality easier for others.

“There has to be dedication to food safety and quality,” he adds. “Some people just want to police people. They become one-sided. That’s a weakness, and because they have a police badge it becomes a cops-and-robbers scenario, which creates animosity. The best QA managers work for the common goal. It’s easy to say, but hard to accomplish.”

Peak Shape for Journeys Ahead

Being on the same path and having a common goal is must for would-be Everest conquistadors. And the better shape one is in before hitting the trail, the better experience he will have. The same holds true for those who expect to summit and remain a king of the quality hill.

Like Roth says, a cops-and-robbers scenario wrought with lagging logistics and unorganized departments can hinder Quality climbers, and it indeed takes a team to reach the highest of peaks.

That’s why when Tyson Foods Inc. acquired IBP’s Foodbrands America in 2001, senior management quickly deployed a plan to merge the philosophies of not only three companies, but two laboratories, the right arm of a quality system. That endeavor involved 3,000 people in 18 different laboratories handling quality systems for a host of different products.

“On the lab end, we had two separate cultures, two separate mentalities and two separate sets of rules,” says Dr. Neal Apple, vice president of Tyson’s Food Safety and Laboratory Services. “Considering all that, we handled it very systematically, taking the good out of all the organizations and we’re better for it.”

Dr. Rick Roop, Tyson’s senior vice president of science and regulatory affairs, echoed Dr. Apple’s sentiment, explaining that a company-wide dialogue among quality system Sherpas was sparked to hammer out organizational dynamics for the integration expedition.

“We got everyone together to talk about their responsibilities and why systems were in place to preserve safety and quality,” Dr. Roop says. “We also talked about strength and weaknesses. Then, we developed a number of teams that were charged with evaluating various aspects of the quality systems, with respect to beef, chicken and pork enterprises.”

The result, Drs. Apple and Roop say, was a Tyson lab manual, penned to preserve AOAC and BAM procedures, that brought consistency and strength.

“The biggest hurdle was probably the difference in approach and corporate philosophies. We looked at all the policies and procedures and in some cases we adopted IBP’s and in some cases we adopted Foodbrands’ as well as some of Tyson’s,” Dr. Roop says. “In other cases, we merged a few, modified others and made some hybrids.”

While some of the systems in the chicken business do not apply to the beef business, the policies, described by Drs. Apple and Roop as merged, modified and hybrid, can be applied generally and serve as the basis for procedures developed specifically for beef, chicken, pork and ready-to-eat products.