Five Myths Of Food- Grade Lubricants

Something was wrong. Several customers complained that the smoked boneless ham they’d bought had a ‘bad taste’. Others reported ‘burning in the throat for up to three hours’ after they’d eaten the meat. The problem? The ham had been tainted with gear lubricant. The company involved had to recall 220 tonnes of the product, harming its reputation—and its profits. The problem could have been avoided or reduced if the firm had used food-grade lubrication.

The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) in the United States has ‘zero-tolerance’ policy on contamination of food by conventional oils and greases. And yet research indicates that 60 per cent of American food and beverage manufacturers have not yet switched to food-grade lubricants.

Too many manufacturers still rely on conventional oils and greases to lubricate the machinery that touches our food supply. The potential for contamination from non-food grade lubricants poses a threat to food safety.

So why do so many food processors and packagers still use non-food grade lubricants? There are legends and misconceptions about the performance of food-grade lubricants. They need to be dispelled and overcome—not only to improve production performance, but also to reduce contamination risks and guarantee safer food supplies.

There are five common myths that deserve closer examination.

Myth #1: ‘Contamination by machinery lubricants with food and beverage during manufacturing doesn’t happen.’

Fact #1: It happens more often than we think. Most contamination is detected before the product leaves the plant. But some isn’t. Take these examples of reported product recalls:

A chain of grocery stores removed a manufacturer’s soft drinks from its shelves due to possible contamination by a lubricant that might ‘cause irritation if consumed’.

A baby food producer had to recall its infant formula and milk powder after reported contamination by industrial oil and metal in their products.

Another manufacturer received complaints that a jar of baby food ‘smelled of tar’. Investigators found the food was contaminated with toxic mineral-oil lubricant during manufacturing. Besides endangering consumer health, contaminated products cause far-reaching implications to suppliers and distributors. The cost of a recall—in storage, shipping, notifying the public, and destroying bad food—is just the start. Companies sustain damage. Profits are foregone. Reputations are lost, as are consumer confidence and trust. Brand equity is reduced and it can be expensive to to regain market share. Myth #2: ‘I am pretty sure that the lubricants I use in my plant are all food-grade.’ Fact #2: Food-grade lubricants are made from components approved by food safety authorities for incidental contact with food. You can check if the lubricant is food-grade or not by asking for a declaration of the formulation from the lubricant supplier. Or you can check whether it’s ‘H1’-registered with a third-party certifier such as NSF International. (The H1 list was published in a White Book compiled by the US Department of Agriculture until 1998. Now it’s done by NSF.) Contamination can occur from drips off chains, hydraulic hose failure, oil leaks from seals and gearboxes, or a release of compressed air containing an oily mist. Myth #3: ‘Food-grade lubricant performance is inferior to traditional lubricants. The lubricants don’t meet my demands.’ Fact # 3: Synthetic food-grade lubricants are designed to meet a wide range of applications. They generally outperform traditional food-grade mineral oils. Food and beverage contamination can occur from drips off chains, hydraulic hose failure, oil leaks from seals and gearboxes, or a release of compressed air containing an oily mist. It’s inappropriate to use traditional industrial oils and greases in these settings. Food-grade synthetic lubricants have no smell or taste. They are engineered to be effective in the sub-zero cold of freezers and the high heat of ovens. Their increased oxidation and thermal stability, compared to a traditional mineral or white oil-based food grade lubricant, can extend equipment life and reduce downtime. And that lowers maintenance costs. Synthetic food-grade lubricants are designed for use in food and beverage manufacturing applications, improving lubrication properties and performance and offering excellent water resistance. Food-grade lubricants are harmless if accidentally consumed in quantities below the maximum FDA-prescribed level of 10 parts per million. Myth #4: ‘Food-grade lubricants cost more than conventional mineral oils.’ Fact #4: Synthetic food-grade lubricants actually cost less in the long run. Not only do they reduce overall maintenance costs, but they also can reduce the risk of potential liabilities from using non-food grade lubricants. Synthetics do cost more than traditional mineral oils, but the initial cost of the synthetic brings subsequent returns, against which a food grade mineral oil-based lubricant cannot compete. Further, damages that could arise from not using H1-approved food-grade lubricants are immeasurable. The Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance says that ‘up to 65 per cent of mechanical equipment failures can be attributed to some form of lubrication deficiency.’ Lubrication failures lead directly to production losses. A robust lubrication programme plays an effective part in plant management. Lubrication quality has a significant impact on equipment life. Field experience and case studies show that food-grade synthetics have a longer product life and need to be replaced less frequently in machinery. In many instances, results demonstrate up to four times more life with synthetic oils. Myth #5: ‘None of my equipment actually requires food-grade lubricants for food safety.’ Fact #5: Food-grade lubricants should be used wherever there is a chance of incidental contact with food or beverage products during manufacturing. Lubricants used in manufacturing facilities can make their way into the food we eat. Oil and grease droplets can seep from bearings and conveyors, can-seamers, ovens and other critical points of operation. Quality and maintenance managers should identify areas of potential lubricant contamination. Companies can assist by conducting a Lubrication Contamination Control Point (LCCP) survey, as part of a plant Food Safety Plan. For example, a Shell LCCP Survey is based on Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles. It examines where the risks are in a plant, what they are and what can be done to reduce and manage them. Food and beverage processing plants must prevent accidental lubricant contamination, which could potentially harm consumers and damage a company’s brand and reputation. Synthetic food-grade lubricants can help minimize these risks, adding a buffer against contaminating our food supply. *DIANA JUDGE IS SHELL LUBRICANTS GLOBAL BRAND AND SECTOR MANAGER FOR FOOD & BEVERAGE.