ROBOTICS The latest guideline highlights the


importance of considering robotic systems as a whole. It argues that hygiene should not be the property of individual components such as the robot arm or gripper, instead it should be a system outcome. “Movement, integration, and interaction with the surrounding environment will all influence hygienic performance,” explains Greg Przybylik-Harper, Co-Chair of the EHEDG Robotics Working Group. “Robotic motion, for example, can spread contaminants through splash or airflow, while complex geometries and moving joints can create areas that are difficult to clean or inspect.” The new guideline places a strong emphasis on application-specific risk assessment. Each robotic installation must be evaluated based on its intended use, environment, and integration.


End-effectors The guideline also addresses the growing importance of end-effectors. While robot manufacturers have made advances in hygienic robot design, end-effectors often remain the most application-specific and potentially vulnerable part of the system. Grippers, suction devices, cutting tools


and product handling mechanisms can all come into direct contact with food products and are frequently customised for individual applications. This creates a challenge because hygienic performance can vary considerably between different installations. Components that perform well mechanically may introduce cleaning difficulties or harbourage points if hygienic design principles are not applied from the outset. For this reason, EHEDG’s ongoing work


includes dedicated guidance covering hygienic design requirements for robotic end-effectors.


The importance of validation A hygienically designed robotic system also needs to be capable of being cleaned effectively in practice, which makes validation crucial. It is important to consider how cleaning procedures will be carried out – whether manual cleaning or clean-in- place (CIP) processes are appropriate, and how cleaning effectiveness can be verified. Questions that should be addressed during the design phase include the following: Can all the product contact surfaces be reached? Can cleaning operators safely access all the relevant areas? Are there hidden zones that cannot be inspected? And, how will cleaning performance be validated over time? Designing for cleanability from the outset is significantly more effective than attempting to solve hygiene issues once equipment has been installed.


ROBOTIC MOTION CAN SPREAD CONTAMINANTS THROUGH SPLASH OR


AIRFLOW, WHILE COMPLEX GEOMETRIES AND MOVING JOINTS CAN CREATE AREAS THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO CLEAN OR INSPECT


vacuum gripping or blow-off, for example, can spread contaminants if quality, filtration, and discharge direction are not managed. Similarly, it is important to prevent lubricants from entering the product area by design. In applications where it is not possible to exclude the possibility of incidental contact, then food-grade materials need to be used. The guideline also addresses issues


relating to common industry practices, such as retrofitting existing robots for food applications. Many legacy systems were not designed with hygienic principles in mind, and the use of protective covers is often seen as a workaround. EHEDG now cautions that such solutions can introduce additional risks, including the accumulation of moisture and contamination in hidden areas. In practice, hygienic performance needs to be designed in from the outset, rather than added later.


Hygienic zones A practical concept introduced within the new guideline is the definition of three hygienic zones – the product contact area, the splash area, and the non-product contact area. While the level of direct risk varies between these zones, the guideline highlights the fact that even non-contact surfaces


can influence food safety –


particularly in dynamic environments where robots move between zones. Another important consideration that is


mentioned in the guideline relates to the role of auxiliary systems. Compressed air, lubricants, and sealants, for example, can also be potential sources of contamination if not properly controlled. Air used for


Looking to the future Hygienic design will only ever be truly effective if it is maintained over time, so operation, cleaning, and maintenance all have important roles to play. Poor maintenance practices, repeated disassembly, or incorrect reassembly can compromise hygienic integrity, even in originally well-designed systems. As robotics continues to expand across the


food sector, EHEDG GL 62 provides a clear framework to support safe implementation. The key takeaway of the new guideline for


confectionery manufacturers should be that hygienic performance of robotic systems should never be assumed. Instead, it should be engineered into the system from the outset, validated through risk assessment, and maintained throughout its lifecycle.


JULY 2026 • KENNEDY’S CONFECTION • 25


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44