By Francisco Hernández Ortiz, Global Food Projects Director, HRS Heat Exchangers

Pasteurization is a process which reduces the microbial load in many food products, ensuring consumer safety and prolonging shelf life. There have been significant developments in non-thermal alternatives to traditional heat-based pasteurization, such as high-pressure processing (HPP) or pulsed electric field (PEF) processing.

However, before investing in any new technology, it is worth remembering that thermal pasteurization remains the standard against which these alternative methods are judged. For many ingredients and products, thermal pasteurization is still the most suitable, efficient and cost-effective solution, particularly now that it can be combined with newer heat sources such as ohmic heating and direct steam injection. Here, we take a look at the benefits and limitations of non-thermal options, before showcasing the advantages of traditional thermal pasteurization technology.

Non-thermal processing techniques

The most common alternatives to thermal pasteurization are high-pressure processing (HPP) and pulsed electric field (PEF) processing, followed by ultraviolet (UV) light, ultrasound, cold plasma, and high-pressure carbon dioxide (HPCD).

Typical industrial HPP involves underwater pressurization of the product at ambient temperature, usually to a specific pressure between 58-87 ksi, and then holding the product at this pressure for a specific time (usually one-to-five minutes). These high pressures induce changes in the functionality of the cell membranes, resulting in inactivation of vegetative cells and some enzymes.

In contrast, PEF processing uses short bursts of high voltage electric fields (up to 30,000 pulses per second) to achieve the desired microbial inactivation or modification of the food structure. This ruptures the cell membranes, causing the contents of the cells to leak out, effectively deactivating the microbes.

Some PEF processes actually use heat exchangers to pre-heat the product before the electrical fields are applied. This is usually when less heat-sensitive products are being processed, or when the product requires relatively high specific PEF energy inputs to achieve the desired level of microbial inactivation, e.g. in the case of vegetable juices, dairy products, or products where inactivation of bacterial endospores is required.

Limitations of non-thermal options

In many cases, HPP has minimal effect on taste, texture, appearance, and nutritional value. It can also be applied to ‘solid’ products, such as sliced cooked meat and ready-to-eat meals, where it reduces contamination from the manufacturing environment. However, it is not the ‘silver bullet’ that some have suggested; it requires high capital costs and is not suitable for every application. For example, any product where the air content is important (whipped creams, mousses, sauces, etc.) needs extra caution if HPP treatment is being considered, as the pressure may force the air from the product, or be compressed (and subsequently released). Both scenarios have the potential to cause catastrophic product damage.

Dry products such as powders, nuts, etc. are also unsuitable for HPP as isostatic pressure needs water to be present inside the food product in order to achieve uniform and efficient transmission (and therefore cause the necessary inactivation of any microorganisms present). Neither is HPP suitable for many whole fresh produce items where it is either ineffective (in the case of dense products such as fruits or tubers) or causes damage (e.g. leafy salads).

Finally, there is uncertainty around using HPP for raw meat products as it can induce color and texture changes. In trials, it has also been shown to cause denaturation in key proteins in certain dairy products, such as raw milk and whey.¹

PEF processing has a number of roles in food processing, including dehydration; but as a pasteurization technique, it is most effective when used with liquid products (fruit juices, milk, liquid egg, etc.) and semi-solid foods (yogurts, fruit purees, salsa, sauces, etc.). However, there have been reports of a number of potential issues including corrosion and fouling of the electrodes, electrolysis of water, migration of electrode material components, and chemical changes in the food product.²

Another concern is that in many locations, food safety and public health regulations have not yet caught up with these new pasteurization techniques, meaning that further assessment may be required before they are widely accepted.

Benefits of thermal pasteurization

In most situations, there are several key advantages to traditional thermal pasteurization and sterilization techniques using corrugated tube, or scraped surface, heat exchangers:

• They are proven and highly effective, killing 99.9% of pathogenic bacteria, yeasts and molds, and deactivating enzymes which can spoil food and beverage products. As such, thermal pasteurization is the standard against which alternative methods are judged.
• They require lower capital costs than most non-thermal alternatives; in addition, technologies such as corrugated tube heat exchangers can offer a highly efficient process in a compact package.
• They are scalable and versatile, making them suitable for a wide range of products. In commercial situations, one unit can be used for a range of temperature and time combinations, and to treat a wide range of products with minimal adjustment or reconfiguration.
• They maintain nutritional value, particularly of many dairy and juice products. In particular, techniques such as HTST (high-temperature short-time) pasteurization and ohmic heating are particularly good at preserving product quality while providing effective and efficient control of harmful microorganisms.

Given the complexity and wide range of techniques available, it is important to seek expert advice, not only on thermal and non-thermal options, but also on how particular food and beverage products may react to these different processes. HRS Heat Exchangers offers a variety of thermal treatment options (including corrugated tube and scraped surface heat exchangers, ohmic heating and direct steam injection), as well as experience of numerous products and access to comprehensive laboratory testing facilities, making us perfectly placed to help food and beverage manufacturers choose the best pasteurization or sterilization options for their specific needs.

By: Fabiola Negrón, Director of Food Safety at Registrar Corp

Most importers feel confident in their Foreign Supplier Verification Program until one moment: the FDA issues a Notice of Inspection. What surprises companies is not the inspection itself, but the speed, precision, and thoroughness with which investigators assess whether your FSVP is in place, implemented correctly, and accurately reflects the risks in your supply chain.

FSVP audits are among the most unforgiving reviews FDA conducts. They are designed to expose gaps quickly and to hold the U.S. importer accountable, even when the foreign supplier’s systems appear strong. This guide breaks down what really happens during an FSVP audit and why importers who think they are prepared often aren’t.

Why the FDA’s FSVP Audit Model Feels Different

Most regulatory audits allow for conversation, clarification, or corrective demonstrations. FSVP is different. Almost every conclusion the FDA reaches is based on whether your records match:

• The hazards associated with your products
• The controls implemented by your foreign supplier
• The risk-based verification activities you selected

If these three elements don’t align, investigators deem the program inadequate. It’s common for importers to discover during the audit that their written procedures don’t match the actual actions of their personnel, one of the most frequent reasons for enforcement.

The Audit Trigger: How FDA Decides to Inspect You

FSVP audits may occur:

• As routine FSMA surveillance
• Following import entry reviews
• After significant supplier incidents
• In response to consumer complaints or outbreak investigations

Most companies receive no advance notice beyond Form 482, the standard notification of inspection. From that moment, the clock starts.

What Happens in the First Minutes of an FSVP Audit

Once the investigator arrives, they will immediately request:

• Your written FSVP
• Hazard analyses
• Supplier evaluations and approval rationale
• Verification activity records
• Evidence of reanalysis

Unlike facility inspections, the FDA does not tour your operations or observe production. The audit is almost entirely a document-for-document evaluation. If your records are incomplete, inconsistent, or not readily retrievable, the investigator writes the deficiency into the file.

The Core Review: What the FDA Examines Most Closely

Investigators focus on five areas because they reveal the strength or failure of an FSVP:

1. Hazard Analysis Quality

Is the hazard analysis product-specific, risk-based, and reviewed by a qualified individual? Does it identify who controls each hazard? If your analysis is generic or outdated, the FDA notes it immediately.

2. Supplier Approval Decisions

Does your supplier’s performance justify approval? Many importers list a supplier as “approved” with no written rationale, no historical review, and no evaluation of corrective actions.

3. Verification Activities

Were the activities selected appropriate for the hazards? For example, testing alone rarely satisfies verification for high-risk suppliers. The FDA expects logic, not convenience.

4. Alignment Between Records and Reality

Do your written procedures match your actual practices? If the investigator interviews staff and hears a different process than what appears in your FSVP, this misalignment is cited.

5. Qualified Individual Involvement

Was a properly trained individual involved in the evaluation and approval process? Lack of PCQI or FSVP training is one of the most consistent findings across Warning Letters. Importers who want clarity on common qualified-individual pitfalls often refer to audit risks PCQIs can prevent.

Where Importers Most Frequently Get Caught

Certain mistakes appear so consistently that investigators expect to find them. These include:

• Missing or Boilerplate Hazard Analyses

Generic hazard analyses signal to FDA that the importer has not evaluated the supplier’s actual process. This often leads investigators to review multiple product lines.

• Supplier Approval Without Documentation

“Approved” means nothing if the rationale isn’t recorded. FDA will consider the supplier effectively “not evaluated” if documents aren’t present.

• Incomplete or Inappropriate Verification Activities

When importers choose minimal verification activities or choose them for convenience, investigators note the gap immediately.

• Failure to Reassess Suppliers

Reassessment is required at least every three years. Many companies fail to document this step, even if their supplier has not changed.

• Broken Internal Communication

When procurement, QA, and leadership are not aligned, the FSVP falls apart under audit pressure. FDA expects that all responsible parties can explain the program.

• Lack of Alignment With HACCP or Preventive Controls
• If supplier controls do not logically align with the hazards in your analysis, FDA views the entire program as structurally weak.

Why FSVP Audits Create Urgency for Training

FSVP is a regulation built on interpretation—and interpretation requires training. The most consistently cited deficiencies are tied to misunderstandings of what FDA considers a risk-based verification.

Companies with formally trained FSVP personnel are significantly more likely to:

• Produce records that meet FDA expectations
• Demonstrate appropriate hazard evaluations
• Justify supplier approval decisions
• Prepare corrective actions when needed

Your Next Step: Strengthen Your Team Before FDA Arrives

An FSVP audit goes beyond merely confirming the existence of your program; it delves into its accuracy, logic, and implementation. If your team is uncertain about evaluating hazards, justifying supplier approval, or selecting verification activities with FDA-level reasoning, formal FSVP training offers immediate alignment and clarity.

Fabiola Negrón is the Director of Food Safety at Registrar Corp. She oversees regulatory specialists that assist domestic and foreign food facilities and U.S. importers with U.S. FDA food safety compliance. Registrar Corp is the world’s largest FDA compliance company, helping food, beverage, cosmetics, medical devices, and drug companies meet compliance requirements.

CFIN’s upcoming report highlights how the affordability of everyday groceries is worsened by our dependency on importing processed goods and underinvestment in modernizing our food supply chain.

The report argues that Canada needs to address three major problems:

Dependency on importing processed goods

• Grocery prices have risen roughly 22 percent since 2022 — nearly double broader inflation — with the Bank of Canada identifying import costs as the primary driver of 2025’s food price increases.
• Canada is the world’s number one exporter of dried peas, yet “88 percent of production over the past five years has been exported as a raw commodity — a significant missed opportunity for domestic value creation.”
• The processing which determines cost, quality, and supply continuity, happens disproportionately beyond our borders.
• These pressures take six to nine months to work through the supply chain, meaning current trade uncertainty has not even fully arrived at the checkout line.

Underinvestment in agri-food

• Canada’s dependency on imports would matter less if our food sector was well-capitalized or technologically advanced. It is neither. 
• Across Canadian SMEs, capital investment in machinery and equipment has declined 16 percent over the past decade, and business productivity fell 0.6 percent from 2019 to 2024 while U.S. productivity rose 10.1 percent.
• The capital gap extends beyond equipment. Although the 2025 federal budget identified agri-food as a key sector, agri-food accounts for less than 2% of government-backed growth, venture, and infrastructure funds at the federal level and captured only 4% of total growth capital invested in Canada over the past five years.

Outdated and fragmented food supply chains

• When a disruption hits, the first question is always: what do we have, where is it, and how fast can we reroute? For most of Canada’s food sector, the honest answers are we do not know, and not fast enough.
• EU-wide research found that technological progress in the food sector — including digital tools, cold chain infrastructure, real-time market information, processing automation, and logistics systems — significantly reduces both food price levels and food price inflation. 
• Countries with stronger technological capacities across these domains are better equipped to manage cost fluctuations while maintaining stable prices for consumers.

The full report is attached below.

Attachments:

Supply Chain Report Draft.doc

[ ]

1293 kB

Study demonstrates improved muscle functions 24 hours post-exercise, and significantly reduced muscle soreness 72 hours post-exercise 

In a recently in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, short-term supplementation with TurmiPure Gold^TM, has been shown to significantly increase recovery from muscle soreness 72 hours after exercise, while improving muscle function and maintaining athletic performance 24 hours after exercise in healthy male participants.¹

​​TurmiPure Gold^TM​

​​Givaudan’s TurmiPure Gold^TM is a proprietary, clean-label, 100% natural turmeric formulation that addresses common challenges in turmeric applications in the dietary supplement market, such as high dosage requirements and poor solubility. With a low daily dosage of only 300 mg, it is versatile in many different applications, including shots, gummies and sachets, as well as more conventional dietary supplement applications such as capsules and tablets.² It is supported by patents.​

​​Muscle recovery and performance following exercise ​

​​High intensity exercise, such as resistance training, can induce pain or discomfort caused by muscle damage. Delayed muscle soreness may occur within the first 24 hours of exercise and can last as long as five to seven days after the exercise, affecting muscle function and strength and impacting training programmes.^3-45-6​

Study overview 

The randomised, crossover, placebo-controlled study aimed to analyse the effects of five-day supplementation with TurmiPure Gold^TM (300 mg daily) on muscle pain and function recovery in moderately active adults. The participants included 45 healthy subjects (35 male, 10 female) aged 25 to 45 years old. 

Key findings

In healthy male participants (N=34)*, and when compared to placebo, five-day supplementation with TurmiPure Gold^TM with a dose of 300 mg:

• Improved muscle functions, with significant differences at 24 hours; strength loss (p=0.0275), work capacity loss (p=0.0195)
• Maintained athletic performance, with significant differences at 24 hours (p=0.0445)
• Reduced exercise-induced muscle soreness (ns, p = 0.0776). Increased significantly muscle soreness recovery at 72 hrs, as a % from Max pain (p = 0.0184)

Stephanie Calafat, Global Product Manager, Physical Health, Givaudan Taste & Wellbeing commented: “We are thrilled that this recent clinical study demonstrates that TurmiPure Gold™ supports faster muscle recovery and sustained performance. It complements our earlier consumer perception study in active individuals and reinforces our commitment to natural, science-backed solutions that help people stay active and perform.”

1 RECOFAST Study Proprietary Data: A Placebo Controlled, Randomised, Crossover Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Turmipure Gold® in Muscle Pain and Function Recovery in Moderately Active Adults

2 Unpublished, TURBIO GOLD MATRIX study. ‘The influence of food matrix on the bioavailability of curcuminoids from a dried colloidal turmeric suspension: A randomized, crossover, clinical trial.’

3 Cheung K, Hume P, Maxwell L. Delayed onset muscle soreness: treatment strategies and performance factors. Sports Med. 2003;33(2):145-164.

4  Romain C, Freitas TT, Martinez-Noguera FJ, et al. Supplementation with a Polyphenol-Rich Extract, TensLess®, Attenuates Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness and Improves Muscle Recovery from Damages After Eccentric Exercise. Phytother Res. 2017 Nov;31(11):1739-1746. 

5 Proske U, Morgan DL. Muscle damage from eccentric exercise: mechanism, mechanical signs, adaptation and clinical applications. J Physiol. 2001 Dec 1;537(Pt 2):333-345.

6 Clarkson PM, Sayers SP. Etiology of exercise-induced muscle damage. Can J Appl Physiol. 1999 Jun;24(3):234-248.