|
Flying Insect Monitoring
in the Food Industry
By Abe Thomas This
article covers in considerable detail just exactly what is involved in the successful use
of monitoring, and the many advantages of using monitoring to coordinate a fly management
program - especially in food industry settings.
Overview
Insect light traps (ILTs) have been a common sight in food handling facilities for
quite some time. And more recently, it’s been difficult to turn around without
bumping into the acronym HACCP(Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) and all the
procedures and record-keeping it entails. But in this era of more rigorous scientific
methods for dealing with food safety issues, those ILTs can provide a service besides
flying insect control which is almost as valuable as the control itself: information.
Information is power. Wars are lost, civilizations fall for the lack of a critical
piece of knowledge. And on a more mundane level, the information available from ILTs can
provide a critical edge in the battle against contamination for sanitation coordinators
and pest control operators.
The present regulatory environment seems tailor-made for programs that can document the
effectiveness of flying insect control efforts. Yet pest control operators tend to think
of insect light traps primarily as control devices. However, ILTs can also be used to
monitor the infestations they help to control. And a properly implemented monitoring
program can be a tremendous help in formulating and maintaining successful control
strategies. This is especially true where the "environmental management"
strategies of an Integrated Pest Management program are appropriate.
Monitoring and the use of "action thresholds" are standard practice in
agriculture. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case in urban settings, where inconsistent
and unfocused applications of the concept have fostered some skepticism and controversy.
This is to be expected, because monitoring will be of little benefit if conducted in a
random, haphazard manner. It must be part of an integrated systematic approach to achieve
real effectiveness.
But there are clearly numerous advantages to retrieving the data available from a light
trap. At a bare minimum, it can show whether the control program as a whole is gaining or
losing ground. Additional information, such as the particular species present, their
relative abundance, and the locations of greatest activity can be used to target control
actions, and identify deficiencies in exclusion and sanitation efforts. The cyclical
nature of various infestations can be documented over the long term, allowing preemptive
measures at appropriate times of the year.
All this adds up to more consistent and efficient control that minimizes the
introduction of chemical hazards. And ILTs also provide quantitative evidence of the
effectiveness of control measures. Can the industry really afford to disregard ILT
information in the systematic, data-conscious environment of HACCP? |
 |
Monitoring Basics
Effective monitoring does not happen by accident. The pest control operator and/or the
sanitation staff must design a strategy that takes into account the unique requirements of
a particular facility. Initiating a successful program involves three basic elements:
interviewing management, inspection of the facility, and the proper deployment and
servicing of traps. |
|
The Interview
Defining the responsibilities of the facility is important. Management and employee
participation and cooperation are essential to realizing the full potential of the
program. They will be responsible for correcting many of the conditions contributing to
infestation which the visual inspection and the monitoring program reveal.
In general, most of these non-chemical measures will bolster the overall
pest management effort. Good exclusion and sanitation are critical for fly control, but
are also helpful for a wide variety of other pests.
In larger facilities, especially those with many employees, a pest
sighting log can be established to provide the building's employees with a means to report
pest activity. This log is used to target areas that need immediate attention.
The workers in food handling accounts are unlikely to be well-versed in
pest identification. If management’s approval can be secured, basic information about
the flies commonly encountered and their sources can be posted on the bulletin board. |
|
Visual Inspection
An on-site inspection will be required to determine infestation levels, locate access
points and probable larval breeding sites, and allocate resources and service time
according to the risk level of particular areas. Some low risk areas may be designated for
service on an "as needed" basis, with monitoring traps serving primarily as
"sentinel" devices to ensure that pest activity is not increasing.
The efficacy of the visual inspection can be greatly enhanced by expertise
in pest identification, and knowledge of the biology and behavior of the pests that are
commonly found in the area. For example, the source of fruit flies is usually different
from that of drain flies.
Familiarity with basic entomology will improve overall efficiency by
enabling the pest control operator or sanitation coordinator to apply control at specific
sites. If monitoring personnel are not qualified to evaluate catches from traps, the
catches may be submitted to an outside source for interpretation. |
|
Deploying Traps
Monitoring with traps is not a random process. A plan must be formulated which determines
the areas where traps will be placed, the type of trap to be used and how traps will be
identified and serviced. This planning requires an understanding of what the primary and
potential pests are in a given area, and the use of the building and its impact on
monitoring. |
|
Placement
Many variables must be considered in properly deploying light traps. Care must be taken
that traps are not placed where they will invite additional invaders. This could happen if
they were placed facing the entrance of a loading dock for instance, rather than at an
appropriate angle within the building.
If intercepting invaders is a top priority, wall-mounting at lower heights
in areas safe from accidental damage is appropriate. When used primarily in a monitoring
capacity for a spacious facility, large ceiling-suspended installations may be preferable.
Traps that use pheromones (sex attractants) are suitable for monitoring some species, and
are commonly used in applications ranging from food storage rooms to warehouses.
Competing light sources are a major factor in the performance of light
traps, and should be kept in mind when evaluating monitoring data. UV-A meters that
measure the differential between the ambient ultra-violet light and the ILT’s
attractant UV are a handy tool for optimizing placements, as well as for calculating the
total bulb wattage necessary to compete with surrounding light sources. They can also
determine whether the deterioration of the UV output of the bulbs necessitates replacement
before the standard one year period.
Traps may be impractical in certain areas for various reasons, ranging
from aesthetics to the presence of small children. The more stylish wall sconce models may
be a solution in some of these situations, and also allow the option of switching to
decorative bulbs in the "off-season". Other areas may not be suitable for traps
because they are damp, dusty or washed regularly. FDA guidelines may apply to the proper
installation of electrocuting models in some food-handling situations.
The cost of installation and maintenance, and the time available for
servicing the system may also be issues.
All these factors must be taken into account as the pest control operator
or the sanitation coordinator devises a practical strategy for trap placement, which type
of trap to use, how many traps to use, and a schedule for servicing. |
|
Servicing
Accurate records are an essential element in the use of ILTs as monitoring devices. When
traps are serviced, they should be dated, numbered, initialed by the technician, and
identified by location. This information will be useful later in identifying areas in the
building that are prone to infestations of a particular species at certain times of the
year. Logs should include data on the species captured, the general numbers of each,
and should be correlated with dates and locations. In addition to suggesting appropriate
areas and methods for control, the data will chart the progress of specific strategies.
The standard frequency for checking traps is generally once per month unless traps are
being checked as a follow-up for previous or current pest activity in that area. Levels of
infestation, along with other factors such as the accumulation of dust and debris may
dictate variations in the frequency of glueboard replacement and trap inspection. In
critical areas, or in areas with heavy fly problems, a more frequent inspection cycle
(such as weekly - or per production batch) may be necessary. |
|
Monitoring In Action
There are numerous benefits to be gained from a well designed and maintained monitoring
system. Let’s examine exactly how monitoring improves control, reduces the need for
hazardous chemical treatments, and provides valuable information for food-handling
facilities.
|
|
Improved Control
Data available from ILTs can be used to enhance their own suppression capabilities by
providing feedback on the effectiveness of different deployments. Identifying particular
species will sometimes enhance performance by allowing the use of pheromone lures. For
example, detection of the Indianmeal Moth would warrant employing a Plodia interpunctella
specific lure. Species-specific data, combined with knowledge of the habits and morphology
of the species involved, can be applied to properly tailoring both chemical and
non-chemical control measures to the particular situation. One insect may be resistant to
a particular insecticide, while a similar form is not.
The data will also suggest where sanitation and exclusion may be falling short, and
pinpoint areas for treatment. For instance, if bean weevils are identified, only storage
areas containing beans and peas are of concern, since this insect only attacks those two
hosts.
When species-specific data is correlated with time and location it may reveal cycles of
infestation that can be anticipated, and allow timely preventive measures. At the same
time it allows the operator to evaluate the progress of whatever countermeasures he
employs and adjust them in an efficient manner. |
|
Reduced Pesticide
Use More accurately targeted sanitation and exclusion efforts allow
reductions in the frequency of chemical use. And restricting pesticide treatment to the
chemicals, areas, and times that monitoring indicates are most effective yields better
control with reduced environmental damage.
Many companies require the use of Integrated Pest Management strategies as a matter of
policy. Monitoring is vital in an IPM program because preventive insecticide applications
are not regarded as routine procedure. IPM dictates that the use of pesticides should be
directed primarily at active pest harborages. Monitoring is essential to determine which
pests, if any, are present, the extent of activity, where pest harborages might be
located; and where pests may be entering.
NON-CHEMICAL PEST CONTROL METHODS are the watchwords in IPM. ILTs are a non-chemical
method of suppression in their own right and, as we have seen, allow increased reliance on
environmentally benign methods. Such methods include:
Sanitation: Removing food &
water sources.
Exclusion: Effective screens at
all access points, properly functioning door closing devices, plastic strips and door
sweeps, blowers to counter indrafts.
Harborage denial: Tight-fitting
trash lids, sealed plastic garbage bags etc..
Harborage removal: Clearing
organic debris and vegetation.
Lighting: Lighting directed
away from doorways, sodium vapor lamps for exterior lights to minimize attraction.
|
|
Answers for the Food Industry
Two quotes from the FDA 1997 FOOD CODE will illustrate the dilemma faced by the food
industry when it comes to insect control:
Annex 3: Public Health Reasons/Administrative Guidelines
6-501.111 Controlling pests: Insects and other pests are capable of transmitting
disease to man by contaminating food and food-contact surfaces. effective measures must be
taken to control their presence in food establishments.
6-202.13: Insect control devices, design and installation. Insect electrocution
devices are considered supplemental to good sanitation practices in meeting the code
requirement for controlling the presence of flies and other insects in a food
establishment.
Flies in particular have been proven to be mechanical vectors for a wide variety of
serious bacterial, viral, and parasitic pathogens. But what exactly constitutes
"controlling the presence of flies and other insects in a food establishment"?
While it would seem that no infestation is tolerable in food-handling areas, in the
real world this is simply not a feasible goal. The only way to avoid arbitrary and
capricious enforcement of the regulations is to establish an "acceptable level of
infestation" (as incongruous as that might sound). This would be analogous to the
"action thresholds" commonly used in agricultural IPM. Or perhaps it might come
under the heading of FDA "defect action levels" currently used for establishing
limits on natural or unavoidable contaminants.
The only practical way of establishing and maintaining such standards is monitoring.
Besides offering greater flexibility and efficiency in establishing control, ILT
monitoring offers the unique capacity to quantify and document the status of that control.
The facility is in a position to offer regulators evidence of the progress of control
measures and the maintenance of "acceptable levels of infestation".
Long term records can also demonstrate the cyclical variations of some infestations,
and offer comparative results for similar conditions. That data could be crucial in
proving reasonable diligence when regulators attempt to use inevitable fluctuations as
justification for punitive measures. Overall, monitoring provides a solution to the
arbitrary nature of individual perceptions of control by documenting it numerically.
The systematic approach inherent in the monitoring process is certainly appropriate in
the era of HACCP, now mandated by the 1997 Food Code for the seafood, meat and poultry
industries. HACCP’s rigorous scientific methodology for food safety issues is bound
to have repercussions for food industry pest control. Monitoring should be a powerful tool
for coping with the new regulatory environment. |
|
Summary As we have just seen,
monitoring has a great deal to offer in food industry settings, especially those where IPM
is applied. So it is no wonder that these days many insect light trap manufacturers have
begun referring to their products as monitoring devices. Integrated Pest Management and
HACCP are having a dramatic impact on the food industry, one of the pest control
industry’s most important clients.
Many government and private sector sanitation contracts require IPM. There can be no
mistaking the trend towards environmentally friendly strategies for pest control.
Monitoring plays a crucial role in the success of these strategies.
HACCP methodology is currently in force in the seafood, meat, and poultry sectors, but
planning has already started for the fruit and vegetable juice industries - prompted by
several contamination episodes. In the current regulatory environment, pest control that
is systematic, less hazardous, and well-documented has obvious advantages.
Perhaps the food industry should take a new look at those familiar blue lights on the
wall and consider: does it really make sense to ignore the information that is so readily
available from insect light traps?
Abe Thomas is an international marketing consultant. He currently serves as Director of
Marketing for Actron, Inc. and International Marketing Director for Gardner International.
He may be reached at Actron, Inc. at 818-654-9744 or via our contact
form. |
|
