Allergen Risk: Tracing the Unknown from Farm to Factory

What happens when allergen contamination starts at the farm—and no one saw it coming?

In this powerful episode of our Allergen Podcast Series, Jatin Patel from FGS Ingredients shares the real story behind a nationwide recall involving mustard contaminated with peanut traces. Hosted by Alan Cadman of Intertek Food Services UK, the discussion explores:

• Inconsistent lab results (PCR vs ELISA)
• The operational impact of unexpected recalls
• Steps to protect consumers from unknown risks

💡We can manage known risks. But what about the ones we don’t know yet?

Speakers: 

• Jatin Patel -  FGS Ingredients
• Alan Cadman - Intertek Food Services

Follow us on- Intertek's Assurance In Action || Twitter || LinkedIn.

Transcript

Speaker 00: 0:08

Welcome to our second episode in our Allergen podcast series. This episode will deal with the risk for raw material supply and supplier management. In this segment, our business development manager, Alan Cadman, is joined by Jatin Patel from FGS Ingredients to discuss a recent incident. Over to you guys.

Alan Cadman: 0:24

Thank you, Mandy. I'm Alan Cadman, as Mandy said, a business development manager for Intercept Food Services UK. It's with great pleasure I'd like to introduce Jatin Patel to talk about a recent incident where mustard was contaminated with peanut powder. So without further ado, Jatin, would you like to introduce yourself and FGS Ingredients?

Jatin Patel : 0:45

Thank you, Alan. Thank you for allowing me to share the story today. My name is Jatin Patel. I'm the Director of Operations at FGS Ingredients, a company that has proudly served customers for the last five decades, and today I'm going to talk about the mustard contamination issue. I'm here to talk about something that goes beyond numbers, protocols, and business strategy. I'm here to talk about people and their safety, their trust, and the responsibility we carry as food industry professionals to protect both. FGS Ingredients was established in Leicester in 1974. We're a family-owned business, now well in its third generation of leadership. We have grown to be a principal supplier of natural ingredients and pride ourselves in our service quality and our wealth of knowledge, allowing us to cater to all our clients' needs. I was at the airport when I was informed about the complaint regarding a possible peanut contamination. We immediately started the traceability and testing of the product, drew four samples and sent it for testing. Our initial reaction of shock and disbelief was there as historically it was never a known issue. We routinely carry out risk assessments of all our products and since historically peanut contamination in mustard was never a known risk or threat, it has never been a known issue for us or anyone else as we regularly horizon scan as well. next day i came in early to catch up on emails and complaints when our unannounced brc auditor showed up for their annual audit and without a technical manager who had left the week before to join a company closer to home um you know we carried on with our brc audit as well as the the um investigation into the peanut contamination

Alan Cadman: 2:41

absolutely

Jatin Patel : 2:43

when we received the results back of the threesome The three samples tested negative and one tested a low positive. They're positive, but even though. The BRC auditor on site, EHA and FSA were all informed about our findings. And based on the results and advised by the authorities, a decision was made as a precautionary measure to initiate a recall. As we still didn't know where the contamination was coming from, We got third parties testing carried out of the factory and the staff. Where was it coming from our factory? The results were negative. By now we had informed the supplier of the ongoing issue. GT Agro is a BRC accredited and nut free site like us. They like us were in shock and disbelief. We had also instructed him to get third parties swabbing done at the factory which had also come back negative. To give customer reassurances and confidence, we have now started testing for all products, whatever we were supplying to our customers, and also the batches of mustard we had on site from India. These batches initially tested negative, but as our testing grew, we saw some batches of mustard were testing negative and positive. With the help of the EHR and FSA, we realized that the batches of mustard had hotspots, which meant that there was no consistency. in the testing. These batches were not just from one supplier in India, we were seeing it from several suppliers. Therefore, after advice from the EHO and FSA and on the grounds of abundance of precaution, we withdrew all mustard and any blends containing mustard going back two years, even though we had results showing a negative result on certain batches. As the contamination wasn't from our factory or our supplier, our investigation took us back to the farm We realised there that there were farms were growing peanut in nearby proximity to the mustard, as well as using secondhand bags to fill the crop when harvesting. We realised that there was possible cross-contamination happening at farm level, and this was confirmed by the Indian government and the FSA as the findings of their investigation. Not all the recalls were by FGS. Customers of customers started most recalls but on the alerts they were mentioned as FGS recalls. Absolutely.

Alan Cadman: 5:10

So what have the ongoing issues really been for FGS ingredients as a result of this incident, Tim?

Jatin Patel : 5:16

Well, we have a recall policy which we follow. We regularly carry out mock product recalls, testing the process. We realise practice and reality are very different. How do you practice the wider pressure and levels of stress it creates within the business? whilst the recalls and withdrawals were ongoing the knock-on effects it created were immense some issues were dealt with we dealt with too difficult to manage we had a winding up petition initiated on us which was withdrawn within two hours as they didn't have all the correct information we didn't realize at the time that with it for 20 24 to 48 hours that our credit rating goes to zero as our credit rating went to zero most of our suppliers thought because of the recall withdrawal, we were liquidating or closing the business down. We were forced to clear all balances by the next working day, and we were put on pro forma for the next three to four months. Insurance companies notified banks. They started their own due diligences, restricting our use. We had a professional consultant showing up to the family home unannounced on Sunday morning to offer advice to liquidate and start a new business, which caused a huge amount of stress and pain to the whole family as the business was started by my grandfather and the emotional connect to the business was too big. We had daily requests of 30 traceabilities a day at the time from the EHR and customers, which was impossible for us to do along with 800 emails to answer. and everyone wanting answers as quickly as possible. I think the whole team at FGS were working 16, 17 hour days, six to seven days a week for three to four months just to get back to everyone and answer everyone's questions for the EHR included, which created its own pressure.

Alan Cadman: 7:15

You can only try and guess what it must have been like for you and the team, to be honest. So have you had to take any additional actions such as precautionary allergen labeling statements?

Jatin Patel : 7:28

Yeah, so the biggest question we try to answer since the incident is how do we protect ourselves and our customers from the unknown? We and everyone in the industry can protect itself and against known risk, but it's impossible when no one knew the risk was there from the beginning. We at FGS started testing all ingredients against peanut and and other allergens. We have implemented testing with suppliers to test the products before dispatch, and we're testing internally as well on arrival. We have started PAL statements, which we feel there is a risk, but PAL statements are very unpopular in the industry itself, and it meant we've lost many customers. We undertake regular factory and staff swabbing internally, so we've increased the number of checks we're carrying out. We've also conducted in-depth reassessments of all our suppliers, which is still ongoing. The impact it had was immense, as it meant to recreate a new or smaller pool of suppliers. Absolutely.

Alan Cadman: 8:33

So really as a result of it all, and I know that we've talked about it before and you're not fully resolved yet, is there any advice you'd want to give to other businesses as a result of what you've experienced?

Jatin Patel : 8:45

Yeah, we do. Well, every day we're reminded of the power we hold as food industry professionals. We are responsible to nourish, sustain and protect. But that power comes with great responsibility, one that we must never take lightly. Our story is a testament to the fact that no one study or process is 100% secure. Since we deal with natural products, our keen focus must be on maintaining towards a new, about knowledge and sharing information with other people in the industry.

Alan Cadman: 9:15

Yeah, thank you for explaining all this chatting. I mean, it's fantastic to hear a real-life story and, you know, that you're so willing to share your story to help other food companies now and in the future. I know you've got a question over different peanut resorts from different laboratories for the same product. So do you want to explain that a little?

Jatin Patel : 9:39

Yeah, we've experienced internally where we've had true samples from a batch of manufacturing or production we're carrying out. And the samples we drew, we've split it into three and sent it to three different labs at the same time for testing for peanut protein. And we've received varied results back. say we received two that are negative and one that are positive one is positive but it was drawn at the same time it was taken at the same time so it's you know for us it's very confusing then what do we follow we've we've had to put the batch back on hold because you you know you've got to follow the positive on it not the negative but it's uh sometimes we're getting conflicting results

Alan Cadman: 10:21

absolutely so the first step is understand exactly what methods has been used as different methods can give you different results, because they're looking at slightly different things. So there are two methods routinely available when we're looking at an allergen. There's PCR testing, which looks at levels of DNA, and ELISA testing, which looks at protein levels. The next stage is to understand if any of the kits that have been used by the laboratory have cross-reactivities against them. so that each kit manufacturer sends an instruction leaflet with the kit to the laboratory. They list cross-reactivators. Laboratories really should be looking through that and telling you if we think that any of your products may fall into that category, where there might be cross-reactivators, but they certainly will be able to provide you with that list, along with LOQs, LOD, and that basic information. But ultimately, If you're still concerned, go back to the labs and say, I've got this. I've got conflicting results. What can you do? We can repeat the sample. Certainly within Intertech, we have got both the ELISA and PCR methods available. So we can actually really on the other method and look for you as well. So really don't be afraid to challenge and go back to the laboratory would be my advice. Thank you. It's fine. So we will touch more on laboratory practices with our amazing Avid Allergen team, who are looking forward to sharing their knowledge on a future podcast. Over the next few months, we'll also touch on aspects such as site controls, labeling, codecs, and vital, along with sustainability. Thank you so much again for your time, Jatin, and sharing your story with ourselves. Thank you very much for having me.