Executive Summary
Reader perspectives on the topic of lubricants for food-grade facilities vary greatly. Many agree that H1 lubricants (acceptable for incidental food contact) are needed in all applications, citing the serious risks posed by potential contamination of food, beverage and pharmaceutical products. Another widely cited reason to err on the side of caution is to prevent user error with multiple lubricants in the same plant. However, a large number of responders do not believe that H1 lubricants need to be used universally in food-grade facilities, but that there is some room for discretion; each application should be reviewed individually to determine if food contact is even possible before choosing the lubricant that best meets the needs of that application. Most readers agree that cost is the top concern when deciding when to use H1 lubricants, with performance and education as secondary factors.

Q.1.Do you think it is necessary in food-grade facilities to use H1 lubricants (acceptable for incidental food contact) in all applications that require lubrication? Please explain your answer.

Yes, I do feel this is important as it has been the guideline and should not change.

Yes. Even if there is a minimal possibility of contaminating a food product, then that possibility must be eliminated.

No, only where contact is more likely.

No, only in areas that may come in contact with food. Currently, H1 products are difficult to source, so it would be great to only have to use them in certain applications and not plant wide.

Yes, I think if it’s a food facility, using H1 or H1X lubricants would be the safest practice that should be followed by all food and food contact facilities.

Yes. People on the floor can easily mix up products. It would be wise to just have the H1, unless work areas with food and nonfood contact are separate buildings.

I don’t think so, but if they aren’t all foodgrade, then lots of care has to be taken to make sure operators don’t use the incorrect lubricant.

Yes. The processing and packaging of food for human consumption must be devoid of any contaminants that may potentially be harmful to any people.

For ease of application and confusion amongst maintenance staff, yes, an H1-rated food-grade grease should be utilized in most applications (except electric motors and sealed couplings) in a food plant.

Yes. Consistency and traceability are cornerstones of quality control and product integrity, and each component used in formulation for specific applications must meet the necessary requirements.

No, it should not be necessary or mandatory but should be recommended. Even something as simple as a forklift or overhead door in the facility, where food contact would not be possible if the product is always packaged, would require H1 lubricant, which seems like overkill. However, if all lubricants met the H1 standard, the added peace of mind for the facility means the chance at a recall is significantly diminished (or eliminated). Imposing H1 lubricants for items like a forklift in the shipping bay may lead to unnecessary wear or damage when it wouldn’t be strictly a problem. However, if that forklift is transporting items like live seafood in semi-open cages, then it should be made mandatory. Plus, there is the added factor of a factory washdown, where an incidental spill is possible if an unseen spilled lubricant on a floor being washed got sprayed onto food-handling equipment.

No. While it is not necessary, there are many plants that try to do this. There are certain applications that require technologies and chemistries that are not H1 applicable.

Absolutely. After the safe growth of foodstuffs, maximizing their chance of reaching the consumer’s table at optimal food safety is paramount. Every step helps, including use of H1 products. And where possible, use products where direct food contact is possible, e.g., white mineral oils. Legislation and enforcement should be enhanced, along with education at the processing and packaging plant levels.

Yes, because lubricants do on occasion make contact with food.

Yes, to reduce the risk of using a nonfood-grade product in a critical area that could have a devastating effect.

Yes, simply because it’s the law. 

That would be a question for the facility or manufacturing company. They areultimately the responsible party for the quality and contamination-free delivery of their products.

Yes, for food safety in cases of cross contamination with humans’ and animals’ food.

No, there are many points of lubrication that have no chance of direct contact with the food material.

Yes, it is necessary. Two of the leading issues being faced by the food processing industry today are regulations and food safety. Hence, health and safety are priorities for food, drink and drug manufacturers. Lubricants can come into contact with food, beverages or drugs at any moment and contaminate an entire inventory and have the potential to create unknown health and safety risks. Lubrication is essential for the proper operation of manufacturing and processing machinery, and lubricant leakages and maintenance are an inevitable part of all industries. Lubricants do not discriminate against the materials with which they come into contact. So, the food-grade facilities have additional and unique challenges in selecting the right lubricants to do the job. Hence, H1 lubricants ensure and address the concern of lubricant contamination from production equipment.

It is not necessary but is a good idea in order to ensure that non-H1 lubricants are not inadvertently used in H1 applications.

Yes, food-grade lubricants can be as good as or better than nonfood-grade. Using all food-grade means there is less chance of cross contamination with nonfood-grade.

No, for example, if a gearbox is beside an outside wall, etc., of the facility where no food is being processed and could not come in to contact with food, no H1 lubricant should be required. 

In my personal opinion, I do not think it’s necessary to use H1 lubricants. H1 are specifically used where there is a risk for food contact, where the operating equipment or moveable equipment do not require the same classification. The cost is usually higher, and the employees should be qualified enough not to expose contamination.

Yes. Isn’t food safety the No. 1 concern in a food plant?

Not always but preferable.

Need to use H1 lubricants where there is a possibility of incidental contact.

No, it should only be necessary in lubricating systems that have a risk of coming into contact with the product. Though the use of different lubricant safety grades, and the associated lubricants, may complicate the general lubrication of the facility, it is necessary to reduce cost.

To preface, the following theory is applied to grease and other lubricants equally, in what I describe as “above and below the table” methodology, and there is a caveat that goes along with it. “Above the table,” if there is a remote possibility to food contamination, close proximity or could fall into process, then the recommendation is an H1 food-grade lubricant product. “Below the table” with no proximity, or could fall into process, then I recommend an H2 incidental-contact food-grade lubricant product. The caveat is, in the last several years, I have seen a shift in H1 food-grade lubricant product selection to mitigate plant-wide legal exposures. This change could be derived mainly from two common sense positions: 1.) Educating the customer on the correct product selection in regards to what lubricant product goes where. 2.) Mitigating plant exposure to contamination scenarios by purchasing H1 food-grade lubricants to fit all equipment throughout the facility—a cover-all-the-bases approach. As pricing for H1 products has come down over the years, it has made it palpable to spend a little more on the budget to achieve operational success—that is, if the facility can afford the elevated expense. The alternative can be even more costly through wasted product, downtime, potential fines among other costs. H1 food-grade products deployed plant-wide can be considered a form of an insurance policy when implemented in a well-executed maintenance program.

No, it’s not required to use H1 in all applications as many lubrication points have no possibility of contact with food or any chance of contact with food; in this case, the company can use H2 lubricants if they have pressure from the local municipality. In my opinion, if they use H1 in all applications, overall lubricants maintenance costs will increase.

Yes. In my opinion, any incidental food contact is expected to have to use food-grade compatible lubricants. It is like aircrafts using phosphate ester fluids for hydraulic system to withstand the thermal as well antioxidants capability—like Jet II lubricant used in aircraft turbine engines. Medical and food, if contaminated, then will endanger human or animal life. So, it is paramount to use food-grade lubricants for lubricating food-grade processing or manufacturing plants where even an incidental contamination with food items is expected.

To comply with international food regulations in the food industry, oils and greases must have NSF H1 approval in order to assure manufacturers and consumers that the use of lubricants meets food safety requirements. Rather yes, because even the best seals can wear or damage due to the presence of, for example, solid particles in the areas of contact of the lubricant (both from the H1 group and others) with these seals. Moreover, during lubricant replacement/refilling, particles of this lubricant may get into the food processed in the technological process that requires lubrication.

No, with proper precautions. There are some areas that do not have close contact with actual food, i.e., shipping, labeling, boxing.

Yes, I think it is important to use H1 lubricants in food-grade facilities. If you stick with the recommended lubricants, there would be less of a chance to have a product that doesn’t meet H1 requirements. There is a higher risk to have the wrong product being used if the plant is carrying a non-H1 lubricant.

Theoretically, no, an H2 lubricant could be used. Although, H2 lubricant category is meaningless, and in practice H1 lubricants are used along the line. 

Incidental food contact only can be present on food industrial machinery.

What are the biggest barriers to using H1 lubricants in all food-grade facilities?
Cost 61%
Availability 25%
Education/training 43%
Performance 45%
Based on an informal poll sent to 15,000 TLT readers. Total exceeds 100% because respondents were allowed to choose more than one answer.

If protocols are followed, then the answer would be no. Unfortunately there is a good deal of confusion amongst grease users in that they believe H2 lubricants also are “food-grade” or “incidental food contact.” The NSF has gone on record that they will not discontinue the category as long as someone is paying for the registrations. One way to eliminate confusion would be to eliminate the H2 category so that there is a firmer delineation between incidental food greases and industrial greases.

Each application can be reviewed for necessity.

Absolutely because it minimizes the risk of cross contamination. It’s a must.

No, hence the different categories of lubricants.

Yes, it is important to reduce the contamination and toxicity of our food source. We do not always see what is falling on our food in production plants.

Yes, because it eliminates the risk of using a non-H1 lubricant in an H1 application, hence avoiding the potential for a costly food recall.

No. There are many pieces of machinery, for example, boiler room machinery or ventilating fans and motors, that will never get near the food production, and they can benefit from the additional reliability provided by non-H1 lubricants.

No. If engineering controls are in place to eliminate contamination, then food-grade lubricants are not needed.

If the risk of contamination has been engineered out, regular greases should be an option, providing testing verifies no contamination on a regular basis. Producers also must be willing to accept recall risks with that strategy.

Yes, to ensure food safety.

No. H1 lubricants should be applied for parts that might get direct contact with the food or production. Otherwise, it is a cost benefit to apply normal lubricant for areas where there is no contact with the food or material produced.

Yes, of course. It is necessary to use H1 lubricants. It ensures that all machines are working efficiently, and, at the same time, the food is safe for consumption.

Yes, because H1 lubricants are food-grade lubricants that are suitable for incidental contact with foods or beverages in the production line up to 10 parts per million. They are considered the “true” food-grade or food-safe lubricants.

Yes. Due to the fact that 100% guarantee is not possible, some material will come in contact with food without intentions.

It is important that nontoxic substances are used in applications that can contaminate food products. Today, strangely enough, H1 is only required inside food plants, not in the field where many crops are grown. The H1 classification is the best that we have today, and, therefore, it should be followed from field to fork. That said, there is room for improved food-grade classification systems as the H1 rules are, in part, not logical.

Yes, for food safety reasons.

Yes, to avoid any mixing up with industrial lubricants.

No, only when it is strictly needed to avoid contamination/risks. A good greasing/maintenance procedure should make it possible to use regular lubricants at other maintenance points.

Depends, it is a question of risk management. H1 needs to minimize risk. Otherwise precise/conscious job attitude would be sufficient in certain cases.

Yes. Otherwise, there is always a risk of contamination of food products. Despite the H1 demands, the lubricant should have as much food compatibility as possible, preferably the lubricant is existing of food ingredients itself.

No. If there is absolutely no contact possible between the foodstuff and the lubricant, H1 is not necessary. In case of possible contact, or without a proper maintenance team and program, it is advised to use all NSF H1 products in a food-grade facility to avoid mixups.

Yes, definitely. The commonly used lubricants and greases are not safe for such applications as they are made of toxic and bioaccumulative ingredients. 

I do not think it is necessary in food-grade facilities to use H1 lubricants in all applications that require lubrication, since it can increase the price of food.

I think that it should not be necessary to use the H1 lubricants in all applications; however the use can be limited to avoid contamination and can go for a range of inbuilt protection.

No, only for sections where incidental contact with food is possible.

Depends on each specific application.

Not necessarily; however I do believe it is safer if they are all H1. It ensures that an H2 or H3 does not come into contact with the food, and it helps to prevent cross-contamination.

It depends on food category.

I do feel that it is 100% necessary to use H1 lubricants in food-grade facilities because protecting the public should be the most important consideration when selecting which lubricant to use. I would be interested in seeing if others disagree with this statement, and why/how.

That would be ideal as food-grade lubricants normally also are skin-friendly/nontoxic—a huge benefit for the health of any operator that has to handle lubricants on a daily basis and with direct skin contact. Further, you will always have the risk of cross-contamination if you use non-H1 lubricants.

Yes, food-grade lubricants should be used in all applications within a food processing facility. This may seem like overkill, but the safety of the food supply is critical. And using H1 food-grade lubricants would help ensure food safety.

Yes, it is very important for all food facilities to use H1 lubricants to protect the end-users. There are additives in H2 lubricants that are not intended to be ingested.

Yes, except when the lubrication points are placed below the food line in the case of new machine designs.

H1 lubricants have to be used “above the line.” Using H1 products for “below the line” applications eliminates the chance of contamination of the food if the wrong lubricant is used.

Yes. It is the minimum of a good standard of operation, social responsibility, public health and ethics.

Yes, because sometimes some human mistakes and confusion could end up applicating regular lubricants into places for H1 lubricants.

Q.2 What is the most important criteria in selecting a food-grade lubricating grease?

Performance, as the hardest part is a product being able to perform in these applications.

Ensuring staff are well trained and fully understand the needs, requirements and reasons for using the lubricants.

Suitability/fit for purpose, and the risk level of contamination for the application(s).

Availability with local vendors.

Viscosity.

Performance.

Whether or not it actually lubricates.

Purity and safe components of its raw material components.

High heat/steam and water resistance.

Fit for application purpose and equipment compatibility.

Food claims come first followed quickly by the lubricating properties. It really needs to pass both.

That it actually meets food-safety requirements.

Selecting a calcium sulphonate complex over an aluminum complex.

Fit for purpose (technical aspect); there are great options on the market.

Performance!

That it can nevertheless ensure the necessary lubrication functions.

Oil viscosity grade, thickener type, pumpability, seal and other material compatibility and finally any effect on the product being produced. I think all this information needs to work in concert with each other and not necessarily in this particular order.

Compatibility with the food product, safe for incidental contact, biodegradability and good physical properties.

Performance/cost.
 
The grease must provide protection from heat, wear, friction and deposits, but it also must be engineered with base stocks and additives that are compliant to industry regulations.

Performance versus the required performance profile for the application.

Base oil viscosity.

The thickener used in a food-grade lubricating grease is the most important selection criterion. The product must provide the required performance (low temperature, high temperature, water resistance, etc.) and be compatible with the product that is currently in use. Proper base fluid viscosity also is a critical criterion for grease selection.

Same as any other application—to do the job cost effectively.

That it is safe for contact with food.

Price and availability.

To me the most important criteria that needs to be considered today would be availability and cost together. These two items really dictate the usage and how things are handled in the processes.

Composition.

That its performance is appropriate given the situation.

Over the years, food-grade grease has made significant improvements. Having said that, a food-grade grease should be selected utilizing the same criteria as a nonfood-grade grease. Either way, the grease product must perform as desired in the application without fail. As far as specific applications that tend to be unique to food-grade environments, additional criteria that may be required for consideration would be water/humidity (typically related to clean in place [CIP]) and extreme cold/hot temperatures (freezers/ovens).

It should be NSF and FDA approved.
 
Greases used to lubricate machinery in food/beverage/pharmaceutical production are governed by special rules to protect product purity, health and safety. Food-grade lubricant means that the grease is not toxic when consumed and it doesn’t have toxic additives like lead, lithium and zinc. 



Will it perform as the customer requires? Do they want longevity, wear performance and ease of application? Every customer is different.

Without a doubt it’s performance. Never the price; cheap is expensive.

Besides the H1 criteria, in today’s real-world supply, sourcing the applicable product has to be a limiting concern.

I think it boils back down to risk mitigation. You want good performance in the field with the lowest change interval possible, which will directly reduce the opportunity for error and lower your risk profile. There is opportunity for error during material selection, purchasing and material change out processes in the field. So specifically for food-grade facilities, I would be most concerned with selecting materials that prolonged change intervals. The less frequently I have to change that material out, the lower my risk profile becomes. The less I need to change it out, the less opportunity I have for error when purchasing, selecting and administering the change out. For manufacturers who use Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) as part of their Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), the ability to reduce up to three RPNs through one risk analysis is a big win for risk reduction. And for one change to help facilitate all of that risk reduction, I’m certain that the most important criteria for me in selecting food-grade lubricants would be showing reduced change intervals without impact on my equipment.

You need to do a good evaluation on the application and then recommend the right grease for the application, e.g., if you are needing grease in a freezer you would need to recommend the grease that will pump in cold temperatures. Make sure the grease meets H1 specifications.

That the lubricating grease meets the safety characteristics of the final product.

Nontoxic, taste and colorless.

Public health and safety.

Certification.

The most important criteria to select a food-grade lubricant grease is to know real application of grease on machinery and all parts that require grease.

Performance.

NSF approval.

Operational conditions (ambient and operational temperature), process involved, regulatory aspects.

You should look for H1 and then take it to the next level, and make sure it also is ISO 21469 certified to ensure quality.

Performance and availability.

Water washout/spray off performance.

Correct grease (oil viscosity, base thickener, etc.) for the specific application.

Safety.

Quality of supplier and testing to ensure claims.

More various availability and cost.

If the lubricating grease is confirmed to be food-grade, the next selecting parameters will be the temperature, pressure/load, environment (water/dry) and speed of the lubricating part.

Odorless, colorless and tasteless.

Making sure it meets the equipment manufacturer’s lubrication requirements for that equipment.

The impact on incidental food contact.

NSF H1 approval.

The technical performance, operation safety.

Safety.

Compatibility/performance for the specific job at hand (given compatibility with legislation as a constraint).

Chemical safety.

As much food compatibility as possible.

The product must be fit for purpose.

Toxicity, bioaccumulation and performance.

Safety and lubrication performance.

1.) Safety for human health in incidental contacts. 2.) Biodegradability. The LETS acronym (load, environment, temperature and speed).

Depends on machine speed and food category.

Ensuring public safety, above all else, should be the most important consideration. I would like to know that the food I’m eating, and sharing with family/friends, isn’t slowly poisoning us.

Sustainable sourcing, availability, price.

Odorless, colorless and tasteless.

It’s like every other lubricant selection—load, speed and equipment design.

The most important criteria for selecting a food-grade grease is the same when selecting a lubricant for an industrial application. The lubricant must have the correct properties to suit the application, be it an oven, freezer, high-speed spindle or high-load mixer application and with the appropriate systems/risk assessments in place. The only difference is that the company must also look for H1, or even better, ISO 21469, as well as halal and kosher if they are required and if the grease is likely to have incidental contact with products for human or animal consumption.

Performance. There is no benefit to using an H1 lubricant/grease if the performance isn’t there.

Manufacturing, food preparation and packaging.

Editor’s Note: Sounding Board is based on an informal poll sent to 15,000 TLT readers. Views expressed are those of the respondents and do not reflect the opinions of the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. STLE does not vouch for the technical accuracy of opinions expressed in Sounding Board, nor does inclusion of a comment represent an endorsement of the technology by STLE.