Application of fault tree analysis: Failure mode and effect analysis to evaluate critical factors influencing non‐GM segregation in the US grain and feed supply chain

Abstract

Background and Objective Adventitious presence (AP) or unintentional commingling of genetically modified (GM) grain in non‐GM grain lots is a concern for stakeholders who wish to produce non‐GM grain and grain‐based products. AP that exceeds tolerance levels results in the loss of product marketability as “non‐GM” and subsequent loss of a premium market price. The objective of this study was to evaluate the US commodity corn supply chain using Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) to assess factors contributing to AP in supply chains that handle both GM and non‐GM products. Findings Systematic analysis of the farm‐to‐feed supply chain identified key processes and actors involved. FTA identified 27 factors potentially contributing to AP along with their root causes. Ranking of factors using FMEA prioritized 14 factors as “critical” with a comparatively higher likelihood of occurrence and impact on AP levels. Conclusions AP contributing factors were found across the supply chain, indicating that successful segregation relies on all supply chain participants. Identification and prioritization of critical factors make it possible to target resources to a small number of significant factors to attain low AP levels rather than distributing resources across the entire set of factors. Significance and Novelty This study is an initial attempt to provide insights into the assessment and management of AP in the grain and feed supply chain with a novel application of FTA and FMEA techniques.

Assessing the Feasibility of Meeting Tolerance Limits for GM Adventitious Presence in Corn Supply Chain Using Probabilistic Modeling

“…In figure 1, the first column illustrates the supply chain processes evaluated. The second column summarizes several AP contributing factors that have been identified as important contributors to AP during corn production, handling, and processing in previous studies (Hurburgh, 2000;Ingles et al, 2003Ingles et al, , 2006Maier, 2006;Devos et al, 2009;Mosher and Hurburgh, 2010;Gupta et al, 2022), these factors are discussed in detail in the subsequent sections. To account for the variable levels of AP among handlers, each of the factors was assigned not just a single point value but a probabilistic distribution, as summarized in the third column in figure 1.…”

Integrated mycotoxin risk management strategies for grain handling and feed manufacturing industries

“…A risk rating, which indicates the degree of risk for end users, can be estimated using the frequency and criticality of the event (Hong et al, 2009). A risk assessment matrix can be employed in an FSP through different techniques, such as Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), to identify and address the potential failures and effects on the system or process before the adverse event occurs (Gupta et al, 2021).…”

“…transported to grain elevators, and 3). elevators can sell directly to food processors or export markets (Gupta, 2021;. Grain elevators handle most bulk commodity products in the US, where grains are comingled for economic purposes and to meet grade standards set by the United States Grain Standards Act USDA-AMS, 2022).…”

“…The United States grain supply chain. From Gupta et al, (2021). Most corn and soybeans that pass through the supply chain will go toward animal consumption.…”