State and Territory Food Safety Regulation of Leased Commercial Kitchens (LCKs)
Odeisa Hichez
Food Inspector
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
Food Safety and Inspection Division
International Food Protection Training Institute (IFPTI)
2017 Fellow in Applied Science, Law, and Policy: Fellowship in Food Protection
Author Note
Odeisa Hichez, Food Inspector, NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets
Food Safety Division.
This research was conducted as part of the International Food Protection Training Institute’s Fellowship in Food Protection, Cohort VI.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Odeisa Hichez, NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, Food Safety Division, 55 Hanson Place, Brooklyn, NY 11217; Email: odeisa.hichez@agriculture.ny.gov
Abstract
This exploratory study gathered information from 80 food regulatory state agencies in all U.S. states and Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico, in order to describe the current nature and status of food safety regulation of leased commercial kitchens (LCKs) by state and territorial agencies. LCKs are leased or rented facilities providing space and equipment for food processing by multiple users. Based on the literature available (Hall, 2007; Heller et al., 2013; Wonka et al. 2016; “Culinaryincubator,” n.d.), and the perceptions of the population of this study, the number of LCKs has increased significantly in the past decade. This study found that regulation of LCKs is regarded as a significant issue by a majority of respondents. The five most often cited food safety concerns by states and territories were: cross contamination risks, including allergens; lack of secured and adequate storage space; off-site production; inconsistent sanitation practices and unclear accountability of all the parties involved. Despite the general concerns about food safety risks associated with LCKs among regulators across the country, there is no uniform regulatory approach specific for kitchen owners and users. The most common regulatory approach is to apply state and territorial regulatory requirements adopted from Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) or the Retail Food Code (Food Code). This study concluded that LCKs are an area of increasing food safety regulatory concern. The study recommends that regulators, professional associations, and the affected industry work together to develop best practices guidelines, or a food safety model code focused on the operation and regulation of LCK owners and users.
Keywords: LCKs, LCK owners, LCK users, food safety regulations or guidance, state and territorial agencies.
Background
Leased Commercial Kitchens (LCKs) are facilities that provide space and equipment for food processing either on a short-term or long-term rental or lease basis. LCKs may be called shared kitchens, commercial kitchens, food incubators, culinary incubators, accelerator kitchens, test kitchens, community kitchens as well as combinations of these names, due in part to the varied nature of ownership and operation. Owners may be individuals, partners, companies, universities, local government, not-for profit communities or a combination thereof. While most of these kitchens serve a commercial or entrepreneurial function, there are some that serve specific groups such as low income populations, minorities, women or immigrants. In addition, some kitchen owners provide ancillary or support services such as sources for grants, loans and investment capital, food safety training, marketing strategies, and information about regulatory requirements and expectations.
These kitchens are used by food processing operators that share the space and equipment to prepare or process food. Each processor is an individual business entity with a separate staff, business license, business insurance, and food processing permit. Uses include a variety of activities including public sales, menu reviews, taste testing, co-packing services, educational activities, product development and research. Foods processed in LCKs range from low-risk baked products such as cookies to higher risk products such as fresh baby food or a shelf stable ethnic fish-based sauce known as shito. Food processes range from assembly of salads or sandwiches to specialized acidified and low acid canned food processing. The complex nature of these kitchen operations may increase existing food safety risks or create new risks not found in conventional food processing facilities. As a result, this study sought to determine the nature of risks seen by agencies in LCKs; if those agencies are addressing the risks; how agencies are regulating these risks; and, if agency efforts are effective.
Problem Statement
The content, focus, and application of state food safety regulations or guidance for LCK owners and users on a national basis is currently unknown.
Research Questions
1. What food safety approaches are currently used by states or territories to regulate or provide guidance to owners of LCKs?
2. What food safety approaches are currently used by states or territories to regulate or provide guidance to users of LCKs?
3. What are the most common food safety issues identified by states or territories that regulate or provide food safety guidance regarding the operation of LCKs?
Methodology
This study reviewed the literature available on the subject of LCKs. In addition, the author surveyed directors or managers of state and territorial food safety programs that regulate LCKs using The Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) Directory of State and Local Officials (DSLO). 88 state agencies from all 50 states, plus Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico, were contacted vial email with a seven-question survey. A total of 80 agencies from 50 states, Guam and Puerto Rico responded to the survey primarily via email. Out of the 80 respondents, 62 reported having regulatory jurisdiction over LCKs. Two, and in some cases, three follow-up emails were sent to several agencies to ensure a comprehensive survey; some agencies received phone calls at their request.
Results
Of the 62 state agencies regulating LCKs, 45 responded with the numbers of kitchens under their jurisdiction. The number of LCKs varies among U.S. geographic regions. The West region has the greatest number of these facilities, and the highest rate of LCKs per million population, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
LCKs by U.S. Census Geographic Areas and Territories
Out of 62 respondents, 50 reported that the agency does not register, license, or permit LCK owners. However, kitchen owners are required to provide food processors with facilities and equipment that comply with state or territorial requirements based on the Food Code or Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), as well as applicable local building and plumbing regulations. All food regulatory state and territorial agencies require that food processors using these kitchens for a commercial purpose possess individual food licenses or permits. Survey results showed that only one state agency (South Carolina), and two state agencies from Georgia, in the Southeast region, have specific regulations or guidelines for LCK owners and users. The remaining 59 state and territorial agencies regulate LCKs using existing regulations adopted from GMPs or the Food Code.
This survey found the most commonly used food processing equipment were standard items such as refrigerators, freezers, stoves, ovens, and mixers. However, some LCKs provided specialized equipment such as proofers, vat pasteurizers, plate heat exchangers, or hot water vats for canning. In addition to equipment provided by the leased kitchen, some kitchen owners allow users to bring their personal food equipment, which may be potentially shared among processors.
The types of foods allowed to be processed in LCKs are limited mainly by the food processing equipment and layout available in the kitchen based on reports from 56 state and territorial agencies. A few specific restrictions were noted by 6 state agencies in the Southeast, North Central, and West regions as discussed below. The most common foods reported being processed in LCKs were baked goods, sauces, jams, and jellies. Specialty foods included fermented products such as sauerkraut, acidified pickles and condiments, juice manufacturing and bottling requiring juice HACCP, raw seafood and fish repacking requiring seafood HACCP, and canning using hot water vats.
There were a limited number of food processing restrictions for LCKs. In the Southeast, restrictions were found on animal feed, bottled water, LACF, and wholesale meats. In the North Central region, restrictions were limited to non-pressure and non-acid canned foods. In the West, restrictions were found on animal feed, marijuana infused edibles, and wholesale meat.
Numerous food safety concerns about LCKs were reported by 56 state and territorial agencies. The three most common food safety concerns were cross- contamination, storage issues, and off-site production. Sanitation, accountability of owners and users, and physical layout of the kitchen followed. Other concerns such as labeling of foods and transportation were specific to one particular region. Table 2 shows all reported concerns per geographic region, and the total number of states and territories sharing the concerns, in decreasing order.
Table 2
Food Safety Concerns About LCKs by Geographic Areas and Territories
State and territorial agencies were particularly concerned about the increased risk of cross contamination between ready-to-eat and raw foods, and cross contact with foods containing allergens, because the same equipment and space is shared by different food processors. Regulatory agencies reported difficulty monitoring proper cleaning of food equipment between uses because there is not clear accountability between kitchen owners and users. The storage issues identified by respondents were lack of secured and sufficient storage space. Kitchens lack secured storage, which increases the risk of cross contamination and protection of foods from accidental or intentional adulteration. Respondents reported the lack of sufficient storage space caused kitchen users to use off-site non-regulated locations for storage of raw, in process or finished foods. Similarly, but in an even larger context, regulatory agencies stated that processors may identify the LCK physical address as their processing address, but have been found to be processing in their homes or other non-permitted facilities. LCK users generate contracts with the kitchens and list their addresses as the processing locations. However, after a while, these processors stop going to the kitchens. Instead, processors end up processing from locations that are not regulated, causing foods, including high risk foods like acidified sauces, to be produced without any food safety regulatory supervision.
Conclusions
Parts of state and territorial regulatory agencies do not know the actual number of LCKs under their jurisdictions due to the lack of requirements from these agencies for kitchen owners to register or to be licensed. LCKs are not considered food processing facilities; only kitchen users are treated as food processing entities by state and territorial agencies. This approach leaves out one part of the food safety regulatory equation: the function of LCKs entails both kitchen owners and users.
The lack of recognition by state regulatory agencies of LCKs as a unique business model might be the reason why most state agencies do not impose restrictions specific to LCKs. Agencies use kitchen layout and food processing equipment available as the main factors to limit the type of food being processed on site. This perspective potentially fails to identify and address specialized processes that might be taking place in the kitchens as some LCK users bring their own equipment, which might not be on site at the time of an inspection.
The most commonly noted food safety issues related to LCKs were shared among U.S. geographical regions and territories, indicating the presence of a general problem.
Agencies appeared highly concerned about certain food safety risks being increased or created by the unique communal operating nature of LCKs. However, 95% of state and territorial agencies have not drafted specific guidelines or regulations for kitchen owners and users.
The current approach of the Food Code or GMPs by state and territorial agencies to regulate or provide guidance to kitchen owners and users fails to address the unique circumstances under which these facilities operate.
Recommendations
A national uniform food regulatory model or guideline specific to LCKs should be developed that includes: a formal definition of LCKs, owners, and users; requirements for licensing of LCK owners; defined responsibilities of LCK owners and users; requirements for LCK layout, including storage; requirements for equipment and restrictions on the type of food that can be processed on site.
Acknowledgments
First, I would like to acknowledge Stephen Stich, Director; John Luker, Assistant Director; Erin Sawyer, Director of Field Operations; Milford Lewis, Chief Inspector; Robert Samuel, Supervisor Inspector, and Eugene Evans, Food Inspector, from New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, Division of Food Safety and Inspection.
I would also like to thank the food safety program personnel (125+) from agencies across the country and territories who took time to answer my questions, make suggestions, and provide advice for this project.
Finally, I would like to thank IFPTI and IFPTI staff for the continuous unconditional support throughout the program, specially to subject matter expert Dr. Paul Dezendorf, and mentors Steve Steinhoff, and Dan Sowards (deceased March 29, 2017), who provided me with endless insights and motivation to fulfill this challenge.
References
Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO). (n.d.). Directory of State and Local Officials (DSLO). Retrieved from http://dslo.afdo.org/
Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.) Data retrieval. www.cia.gov
Culinary Incubator. (n.d.). Incubator map and data retrieval. www.culinaryincubator.com
Hall, E. (2007). Measuring the economic impact of a nonprofit small business kitchen incubator: A cast study of Nuestra culinary ventures. University of Pennsylvania, Urban Studies Program 2007. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/senior_seminar/10
Heller, G. L, Ahsin, T., Chaquette, J., DeMarco, K., Gromova, M., Jeske, M., Kerschensteiner, G. (2013). U.S. kitchen incubators: An industry snapshot. Retrieved from Econsult Solutions website: http://www.econsultsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ESI- SharedKitchenReport_2013.pdf
United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Data retrieval. www.census.gov
Wodka, A., Clouet, B., Hedges Goldberg, C., Heller, G. L., Huang, L., Johnson-Piett, J., . . . Witte, S. (2016). U.S. kitchen incubators: An industry update. Retrieved from American Communities Trust website: http://www.actimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/U.S.-Kitchen-Incubators-An-Industry-Update_Final.pdf