food safety testing

Where Has the Growth in Food Safety Testing Gone?

Recent earnings reports from large industrial diagnostic companies in the food safety sector indicate a slowing of growth in this typically robust market. What’s going on? Has growth in the food safety testing market peaked, paused with the economic downturn, or just moved elsewhere?

Strategic Consulting (SCI) has just released our 19th market research report on the industrial microbiology market. Industrial Microbiology Market Review: Global Review of Microbiology Testing in the Industrial Market (IMMR-4) examines the industrial diagnostics market, which includes the food, beverage, pharmaceutical, personal care products, environmental water and industrial process sectors. You can read more about IMMR-4 here.

In addition to a detailed analysis by test volume, market value, organisms tested and methods used, IMMR-4 also provides a thorough discussion of market trends, drivers, and regulatory and topical issues specific to each sector. IMMR-4 also includes a business review of competition, consolidation and key success factors, and profiles 20 leading test manufacturers serving the industrial diagnostics market.

Extensive Primary Research in the Industrial Market

industrial market, primary research, strategic consultingIMMR-4 is based on extensive primary research into all aspects of the industrial microbiology market, including detailed interviews with producers, regulators and diagnostics competitors. SCI conducted more than 650 interviews in 23 countries around the world, with close to one-third of those interviews conducted in Asia (China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam) due to the region’s economic importance, in both production and consumption, in the industrial market sectors.

Interview data and other information were analyzed using a combined bottom-up and top-down approach. For example, overall market estimates were derived from the test volume numbers given by production companies, and then triangulated with other information gathered through SCI interviews and pubic information research.

In hundreds of interviews over the last two years, when QA/QC managers in production plants were asked about test volume growth, the general response was “yes, growth”. The drivers for test volume growth, such as new regulations and ongoing customer demand, are not consistent across all geographies however. North American and Asian/ROW plants report growth in test volumes, while test volume in European facilities remain flat. Although somewhat diminished, growth in micro test volumes continues even in the face of world economic issues.

In fact, the total market for industrial microbiology tests is projected to increase 25.7% over the next five years, from 2.0 billion tests in 2014 to 2.5 billion tests in 2019. This represents a 4.7% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in test volumes, which is slower than over the past 20 years. In other words, testing is increasing but not as robustly. With many production companies implementing process improvements over the last decade, growth in test volume may be tied to increased consumption alone going forward.

What’s Up with Recent Financial Reports from Diagnostics Companies?

Given the test volumes and projected growth reported by food production companies, I was a bit surprised by the financial reports of some key companies in the food safety testing market. Roka Bioscience had no new sales of its Atlas System last quarter. Neogen reported that their food safety business grew only marginally (3%) for the current quarter. And although we can’t isolate the food safety business of industry giant bioMérieux, overall their industrial business was flat for the first nine months of the year.

With leading businesses showing little or no growth in the sizeable food safety testing market, are we seeing a market that has become overcrowded, with little or no growth remaining? Based on financial reports, it’s hard to know specifically where growth remains and where things are flat or declining, as these large companies do not report on a geographic or product basis.

Is it time to recalibrate expectations for the traditionally robust food safety testing market? Has the food safety diagnostics business reached its peak in spite of major drivers such as continued media coverage of foodborne outbreaks, ongoing implementation of FSMA, industry-wide efforts such as the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), and the increased consumption of food that is sourced from all over the world?

Perhaps it’s time to recalibrate expectations for the traditionally robust food safety testing market.

I’m going to venture an uncharacteristic answer and say “perhaps”. Perhaps the increased focus on industry testing over the last ten years means that for the most part, major food producers have their testing programs (and thus volumes) in place. Perhaps the five-year economic malaise that has impacted so many countries and businesses is now affecting the until now unmatched growth engine of food safety diagnostics? Or perhaps it is all of the above.

Food Contract Labs Taking Market Share

One other possibility comes out of SCI’s recent review of a particular segment of the market, contract test labs. Over the past few years, there has been a shift in where analysis is performed with some sectors sending a greater percentage of samples outside to corporate facilities or contract testing labs. The Food Sector, driven by lab accreditation requirements among other factors, is utilizing contract labs more heavily in certain geographies.

Is competition for diagnostic manufacturers coming from businesses that had previously been among their best customers? Eurofins reported 15% growth in revenues for the first nine months of 2014. As food contract labs grow their market share in food safety testing, they are able to increase their influence over the test methods and products in use, and their purchase patterns can be different from food plant labs.

Stay tuned. As 2015 approaches, we’ll continue to watch, report and comment, here and on Linked In and Twitter.

And in the meantime, let us know what you think. Are the days of double-digit growth in food safety testing a thing of the past?

Tagged , , , , ,

Troubling Times for Food Safety Diagnostic Companies

Increased competition, the growing dominance of food contract testing labs, and changes in product mix are turning good times to troubled ones for some food safety diagnostic companies.

For much of the past 20 years, the food safety market has been very, very good to the diagnostic companies, especially those making pathogen testing instruments and consumables. A number of dramatic shifts in the market, however, resulting from increased competition, the growing dominance of food contract testing labs and the subsequent change in product mix, have turned good times to troubled ones for some pathogen test manufacturers.

The story of big changes for pathogen testing and the food safety diagnostics industry begins with the Jack-in-the-Box disaster in 1993. Described by Jeff Benedict, author of the 2011 book, Poisoned, as “far and away the most infamous food poison outbreak in contemporary history,” the E. coli outbreak from tainted ground beef sickened 732 people and killed four children, and set a number of pivotal market drivers in motion.

Most importantly, this incident (and a number of other egregious recalls later the 1990s) raised food safety to a top-of-mind issue and compromised the public’s trust in the safety of their food. This drove major changes in government regulation as well as food industry processing and testing practices, and greatly increased the level of pathogen testing conducted by food processing companies worldwide.

food safety testing, pathogen testingAt the same time, the food supply chain was growing increasingly complex, with imports accounting for 15-20% of U.S. food consumption. The increase in imports led to even more pathogen testing to monitor food safety at every point along the global food chain.

As seen in the chart at right, these factors have driven worldwide pathogen testing volumes up by more than 400% in the past 15 years.

Competition Among Diagnostic Companies Increases

As test volumes increased, food diagnostic companies began to introduce new technologies to help food plant labs (FPLs) handle the growing workload and testing requirements. The higher cost of these new test methods sent the market value for pathogen testing up, faster even than the impressive 9.4% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for test volume seen over the same period.

The increased sales and success of the food diagnostic companies with their new, “rapid” pathogen systems attracted many other participants to the market. The number of companies providing pathogen-testing products went from a handful in the 1990s to more than 20 a decade later. While each new participant offered advances in testing technology, most were evolutionary and not revolutionary. And every improvement—for example, reduced enrichment time or increased system sensitivity/specificity—would soon be matched by others manufacturers.

With numerous pathogen systems on the market and competitors finding it hard to differentiate themselves, many pathogen diagnostic companies were forced to compete on price. Their customers at food industry plant labs (FPLs) and corporate labs, and particularly at food contract labs (FCLs), soon saw that price per test had become a very big lever they could use with competing pathogen diagnostic companies having somewhat interchangeable systems. Price per test has been under pressure ever since, and the profitability of pathogen test diagnostic companies has suffered as a result.

Fewer—and Bigger Laboratories Drive Test Costs and Requirements

Compounding the increased price competition has been the concentration of pathogen analysis (and other food safety testing) in fewer and larger facilities. As discussed in the three previous blogs in this series, more and more pathogen analysis is now conducted at FCLs or in larger FPLs. Small and mid-sized food plant labs seem to be closing, and looking to third-party contract testing labs for their food safety analytical needs. This concentration puts more buying power in fewer—and bigger—hands, and further exacerbates price competition among test manufacturers.

Customer concentration also is changing the requirements for pathogen testing systems, as automation, throughput and matrix versatility become increasingly important for large volume testing laboratories. Some pathogen diagnostic companies are having difficulty matching the revised product requirements, and as a result are not competing as effectively in the new environment.

Although pathogen diagnostic companies are already challenged, SCI sees another big change in the market with the potential for even greater profit impact. IEH Laboratories, one of the larger FCLs, has been producing their own “home brew” reagents for pathogen test analysis for the past 10 years. By making their own reagents, at a cost of roughly $1-$2 per test, IEH avoids the added costs of purchasing reagents from diagnostic companies, with prices ranging from $4-$8 per test. As a result, IEH has had a lower cost basis—and greater profits—than its competitors. This “home brew” approach is also affecting profits for the pathogen diagnostic companies.

Other FCLs are aware of their competitor’s “home-brew” reagent approach. With the leading FCLs running 100+ labs worldwide, to avoid paying full price to diagnostic companies for reagents is compelling. While a country-by-country approval of this approach would need to be secured (e.g., AOAC approval is required in the U.S.), the leading FCLs have the critical mass/size—and profit incentive—to move forward. IEH has, in fact, received AOAC approval for its methodology/system for pathogen analysis. If and, most likely, when more of the larger FCLs follow the “home-brew” route, the impact on the food diagnostic companies could be significant.

It should be noted that not all pathogen diagnostic companies are being equally impacted by these trends. Anticipating the increasing importance of FCLs, some diagnostic companies already have introduced automated sample prep and analysis systems with higher throughput, targeted to the needs of larger corporate and food contract labs. Others diagnostic companies are using a different strategy, developing and selling pathogen-testing approaches that specifically target small and medium food plant labs. The hope is to get FPLs to keep pathogen analysis at the food plant or, even better, to bring it back from the FCLs because of lower costs, better control and quicker results.

From the good times of the 1990s and early 2000s to the increasing price competition over the past 3-5 years and the possibility of being cut out of the food safety testing market completely—these are troubling times for some diagnostic test companies. Some are positioned with differentiated products, and others have strong market channels and broad product lines. They should be fine. Many diagnostic companies, however, could find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. For them, the recent evolution of the food safety testing market, and the lucrative pathogen testing market in particular, could prove costly.

Tagged , , , , ,

SCI Research Poster Compares Global Food Micro Testing

Download the research poster “Comparison of Current Food Microbiology Testing Practices in North America, Europe, and Asia” presented at the 2014 American Society for Microbiology (ASM) General Meeting in Boston.

Food safety is a concern worldwide, particularly with the increased globalization of the food supply. Strategic Consulting, Inc. (SCI) investigated food micro testing practices in food plants around the world to document similarities and differences in food safety testing. Tom Weschler, president of Strategic Consulting, presented a summary of the research findings at the 2014 American Society for Microbiology General Meeting in Boston.

food micro testing, food safety, research, SCI

Download SCI’s research poster on global food micro testing.

A detailed report on the research, entitled “Food Micro, Eighth Edition: Microbiology Testing in the Global Food Industry (Food Micro—8),” also is available from Strategic Consulting.

Get more information on Food Micro—8.

The data presented in the SCI poster and in Food Micro—8 is compiled from 450 detailed interviews conducted in 19 countries. Strategic Consulting has accumulated in-depth information on food microbiology testing trends and practices over the last 15 years, and has published the information in eight food micro market research reports. All SCI market research reports deliver extensive new data as well as detailed historical perspective and, as a result, are widely accepted by leading diagnostic manufacturers and investors as highly credible analyses of the industry.

Visit Our Market Reports page for more information on all of Strategic Consulting’s market research reports, or call Bob Ferguson at 1-443-244-5245.


    Poster Download

    The poster will be delivered immediately to the email address you provide.

    Your Name

    *

    Title

    Company

    *

    Phone Number

    *

    Email

    *

    Verification

    captcha -> *


    * required fields

    Tagged , , , ,

    Microbiology Testing for Food Safety Differs Around the World

    Given the increased globalization of the food supply, Strategic Consulting, Inc. investigated food microbiology testing practices in food plants around the world to document similarities and differences in food safety testing. The findings were presented last week at the American Society for Microbiology General Meeting in Boston.

    Food safety is a concern worldwide, and one that is growing in visibility for the public, food companies and regulators. Food recalls are frequent, and regulations to help address food safety do not always meet expectations. Consumer concern grows along with the increasing recalls and resulting media coverage. Food producers continue to make sizable investments in food safety improvements but still remain at risk, and food service and retail companies continue to increase requirements of food producers. These issues are exacerbated as the global sourcing of the food we eat increases.

    Strategic Consulting, Inc. (SCI) investigated global food microbiology testing to better understand variations in food safety testing practices across the globe. A summary of SCI findings were presented in a poster delivered last week at the American Society for Microbiology General Meeting in Boston. A detailed report on the findings entitled “Food Micro, Eighth Edition: Microbiology Testing in the Global Food Industry (Food Micro—8)” also is available from Strategic Consulting.

    Download SCI’s research poster on global food micro testing.

    The specific areas investigated were:

    • Food microbiology test volume
    • Routine versus pathogen testing
    • Points in the production process where food microbiology samples are collected
    • Microbiology methods used for test methods

    Similarities in Food Safety Testing Around the World

    Overall, food microbiology testing is high and growing all around the globe. Food microbiology test volumes are similar in North America (NA), Europe (EU) and Asia. The populations of these regions are quite different, however, and the ratio of tests/population varies, from highest in North America to lowest in Asia.

    microbiology testing, food safety, world

    Food microbiology testing is divided between routine microbiology, which tests for indicators of contamination in food plants and finished products, and pathogen testing, which looks for specific pathogenic organisms known to cause foodborne illness. The split between routine and pathogen testing is similar in all regions. In North America routine microbiology accounts for 76% of test volume, and in the EU and Asia it accounts for 81% and 72% of test volume respectively. The testing by organism for both routine and pathogen tests also is generally similar around the world.

    Greatest Differences Are in Sample Collection and Test Methods

    SCI research found that where food safety samples are collected is one of the major areas of difference around the world, and food plants in Asia differ most from those in other regions. In-process/environmental testing accounts for just 9% of total test volume in Asian food plants, while worldwide 25% of test samples are collected in process and in the production environment. Other regions collect more in-process/environmental samples to support proactive HACCP programs among other reasons. In all regions, testing of end-products accounts for 44% to 59% of test volume.

    For pathogen tests, food plants in North America collect just 8% of samples from raw materials, and in-process/environmental sampling is much more prevalent at 44% of samples. In contrast, 8% of pathogen samples are collected from in-process/ environmental sources in food plants in Asia.

    There are also major differences in the microbiological methods used for analysis of food safety tests. For routine testing, NA uses more easy-to-use “convenience methods” (e.g. PetrifilmTM), which account for 52% of all routine testing. The EU uses more traditional, culture-based methods, which make up 63% of routine test analysis. Pathogen testing in NA also is highly oriented toward rapid methods, with 94% of test analysis conducted with molecular and antibody-based methods. The EU still relies heavily on traditional or convenience culture methods for pathogen tests, with 61% of tests analyzed using them. Asia relies most heavily on traditional methods, for both routine and pathogen testing, of all the regions studied.

    Food Micro—8 is based on 450 detailed interviews conducted in 19 countries by Strategic Consulting, Inc. SCI has researched and integrated data on food microbiology diagnostics trends and practices over the last 15 years, and published the data in eight market research reports. Delivering both extensive new data and a detailed historical perspective, Strategic Consulting market research reports are widely accepted by leading diagnostic manufacturers and investors as highly credible analyses of the industry.

    Tagged , , , ,

    Food Contract Labs Are Taking a Big Bite Out of Food Safety Testing

    In the past 5 years, food contract labs (FCLs) have shown a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) that exceeds overall growth in the food safety testing market. Clearly, FCLs are taking market share from food plant labs (FPLs).

    As covered in last week’s blog, the 40,000 food plants worldwide are finding the running of in-plant food labs to be increasingly complex. Faced with FSMA and the possible requirement of lab accreditation, particularly for analysis of food safety compliance samples, more and more food companies are questioning the role and scope of their food plant labs (FPLs)—and considering alternatives.

    One alternative is to utilize a food contract lab (FCL) for all compliance samples while continuing to analyze other food safety samples at the FPL. Another is to shut down the food plant lab entirely and utilize FCLs for all food safety test analysis. Yet a third is to have a food contract lab locate a ‘lab-in-a-box’ just outside the food plant or to have the FCL take over the food plant lab operations.

    Salmonella, food safety testing, food contract lab

    Strategic Consulting, Inc. (SCI) has been monitoring food safety testing for 15+ years, and has documented this shift in business from FPLs to outside labs. Based on data from SCI’s thousands of interviews with food plant QA/QC managers, there is a clear trend in food plants to send samples outside for analysis. The following chart is based on SCI interviews with U.S. food plants regarding where Salmonella samples are analyzed. In 2013, 61% of U.S. food plants sent Salmonella samples outside for analysis. Just twelve years ago, in 2001, the reverse was true, and 63% of the U.S. food plants did the analysis at food plant labs.

    At one point all food plants had laboratories. In the 1970s, a few entrepreneurs began what has now grown into a thriving food contract lab industry. Many of the early entrepreneurs established outside laboratories with their own expertise as the foundation. Acting as subject matter experts and consultants, these scientist-entrepreneurs provided knowledge that helped their food industry clients solve food safety issues. Many of the early food contract labs were microbiology-based, due to industry needs and the lower cost of entry for micro versus other types of testing. These early FCLs grew through personalized service, expert consulting, scientific proficiency and strong client relationships. Over time, FCLs added basic chemistry services as necessary to support the needs of food company clients.

    food contract lab, food safety testing

    According to Strategic Consulting’s newest market research report, Food Contract Lab Report, there are 2,350 FCLs worldwide and they generated revenues of more than $3.0 billion in 2013. In fact, over the past five years, the food contract lab industry has shown a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) that exceeds overall growth in the food safety testing market. Clearly, FCLs are taking market share from the food plant labs.


    Food Contract Lab Market

    The FCL growth rate varies slightly by geographic region and business area (microbiology, chemistry, services) but frankly, all areas are growing well.

    FCL Geographic Region Analysis

    • Europe is the largest region based on total FCL revenues, but is showing slower growth than other geographic regions. Chemistry revenues remain strong in the EU.
    • North America is second in total revenues, but is catching the EU, driven by large increases in microbiology revenues.
    • Asia and the rest of the world (ROW) have the smallest total revenues but the greatest growth potential of the four geographic regions.

    FCL Business Area Analysis

    • The microbiology business area is second in total revenues but growing quickly, with increases in both routine micro and pathogen analysis.
    • Chemistry is the largest business area but slowing in growth compared to the other business areas.
    • Currently the smallest, the Services business area is growing quite quickly due to increasing demand from food companies.

    The future for food contract laboratories looks strong, and five years out, SCI expects FCLs to have continued their growth in market share. FSMA will push companies outside the U.S. (OUS) to utilize accredited labs for compliance testing, which will drive rapid growth for FCLs particularly in the markets in Asia and Latin America.

    Next: The evolving nature of the food contract lab business.

     

    Tagged , , , , , , ,

    FSMA & Lab Accreditation: Tipping Point for Food Safety Testing Labs?

    Will FSMA and the push for accreditation of food safety testing laboratories be the tipping point in moving analysis of food samples from food plant labs to contract testing labs?

    Food safety is constantly in the news, especially in the U.S. Food recalls happen with too much frequency, and when they do, they grab front-page headlines. The underlying concern is that the food we eat each day isn’t as safe as it could be. Given this fear, food production, food service and food retail companies and government regulators have increased efforts to ensure food safety, which translates into increased food safety testing.

    In fact, the global market for food safety testing has grown roughly 5-10% annually, with growth in some geographic regions and testing areas (North America and pathogen testing, for example) at even higher rates. Strategic Consulting has documented this growth in food safety testing over the last 15 years in 18 market research reports.

    Food Safety Test Analysis in Food Plant Labs

    Until about 30 years ago, food safety testing was conducted in laboratories based at the food processing plant. Food samples collected from raw materials, the production environment or final products were taken to the food plant lab (FPL) to be analyzed. SCI research estimates that there are approximately 40,000 food plants worldwide with 25 or greater employees and, at one point, all of them had FPLs.

    food safety testing, pathogen analysis, food industry labToday’s food safety tests and analysis are more complex. Test instruments are more expensive, operator training needs have increased, and documentation requirements are more extensive and involved. In addition, some food companies have restricted the types of tests (e.g. pathogen tests) that can be analyzed in the plant, further impacting the value of in-plant labs. All in all, running a FPL and generating quality data has gotten tougher.

     

    food industry, food safety testing, micro labAs a result, food plants are debating whether to conduct food safety test analysis themselves, or to send the analysis outside to corporate labs or independent food contract labs (FCLs). As of 2013, SCI research found that just 86% of food plants still run FPLs.

    In response to the public’s growing concerns about food safety, there have been a number of regulatory and food industry initiatives in recent years. In the U.S., the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law in 2011 and implementation is ongoing. Industry alliances like the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and the Food Laboratory Alliance also have emerged. A common goal of many of these initiatives to regain consumer confidence is the accreditation of food safety testing labs, to ensure that accurate and consistent data is being used to assess food plant safety.

    Accreditation of Food Safety Testing Laboratories

    Currently, most FPLs are not accredited. Recent SCI research found that just 18% of QA/QC managers said their food plant labs were accredited, and other sources have reported this percentage even lower.

    food industry, food safety testing lab, accreditation

    Lab accreditation is not trivial, and brings added responsibilities and costs. A sizable initial investment is usually required in order to put systems in place and provide proper training for staff. The review fee for accreditation can run $15,000 or more and, once accredited, labs can expect additional ongoing costs for staffing, management and overall compliance.

    Merriam-Webster defines the “tipping point” as the critical point in a situation, process or system beyond which a significant and often unstoppable effect or change takes place. Will the drive for lab accreditation be the tipping point for food plant labs, the point at which the bulk of analysis of food samples moves outside the plant to corporate labs or contract testing labs? We think so.

    In our conversations with food plant QA/QC managers and executives, we hear more and more questioning whether running a food plant lab is part of the plant’s core competencies. Are they truly adding value by having a FPL or are they just adding costs and complexities?

    Food plants can get fast, quality test results from corporate labs or from increasingly sophisticated (and competitive) food contract testing laboratories. Some FCL companies are even willing to locate food safety testing services in a trailer right at the food plant, or to come in and operate the food plant’s lab outright. Additionally, more and more food company customers, including global food retail and food service companies, are requesting analytical results provided by an accredited third-party lab rather than the food plant itself.

    Data from our new report, Food Contract Lab Report (FCLR), indicate that things have tipped, and that the food contract lab market is growing faster than the food safety testing market on the whole. Clearly FCLs are taking market share.

    In our next post: Growth in the independent food contract laboratory market

    Tagged , , , , , , ,

    Food Safety Testing Shifts to 3rd Party Contract Testing Labs

    A new report from Strategic Consulting, Inc. details the growing trend in food companies to send quality and safety testing offsite to third party contract testing laboratories. The volume of food testing conducted at contract labs is growing at a faster rate than the total food testing market, and is expected to continue to do so over the next five years.

    Food companies around the world increasingly rely on 3rd party contract testing laboratories for their food quality and safety testing. In 2013, worldwide revenue for food contract testing labs will exceed $3 billion, with a compound annual growth rate of 9.4%. SCI’s Food Contract Lab Report (FCLR) is the first report to examine this market segment in detail, and reviews test volumes, revenues and emerging trends in quality and safety testing conducted by third party laboratories for food companies around the world.

    With the volume of food testing conducted at contract labs growing at a faster rate than the food testing market as a whole, this trend has implications for both food companies and diagnostic test manufacturers. read more…

    Tagged , , , ,

    Food Microbiology Market Increases 40% in 5 Years to Reach $2.9 Billion in 2013

    The food microbiology testing market is healthy and robust, driven by an increasingly global food supply and focus on safe food. Strategic Consulting, Inc. projects the market value of food microbiology testing worldwide to reach $2.9 billion in 2013—an increase of 40%, or $832 million, in the past five years.

    A new publication from Strategic Consulting, Inc., Food Micro, Eighth Edition: Microbiology Testing in the Global Food Industry puts the 2013 market value of worldwide microbiology testing for food safety at $2.9 billion. The market value for food micro testing has increased 40%, or $832 million, in the past five years.

    In total, the global food industry will conduct 966.5 million microbiology tests this year to ensure the safety of food products and detect dangerous pathogens in food. read more…

    Tagged , , , , ,

    Food Safety—Is It As Bad As Reported?

    Marked by major food recalls, stalled regulations, a continued decline in public confidence and ever-present media coverage, 2012 won’t be remembered as a banner year for food safety.

    But, what is the truth about the safety of our food? Is it as bad as reported? read more…

    Tagged , , , , ,