The results are in! A couple of weeks ago, we asked readers to take a survey to test their knowledge of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program, and most passed with flying colors. If you didn’t take the test yet, you can view it here. The following are the results:
You are only required for your foreign suppliers to meet your company requirements. FALSE
89% answered correctly
All required records for each applicable foreign-supplied product must be maintained for each shipment. TRUE
93% answered correctly
Your FSVP does not require that information for each lot of each product under the program be provided. FALSE
84% answered correctly
Just the location of the manufacturer of the product is required for the entity. FALSE
90% answered correctly
Foreign supplied shipments should include records to comprise the listing of all required information. TRUE
91% answered correctly
A qualified foreign supplier must have a Qualified Individual over the manufacturing of food product that is shipped to the United States. TRUE
83% answered correctly
A foreign supplier does not need to be registered under FDA requirements if the shipment of product is going to a registered facility in the United States. FALSE
78% answered correctly
A foreign supplier of food to the United States must ensure that all the requirements of a FSMA Food Safety Plan under cGMP117.126 be met for the manufacture of the food being exported to the United States. TRUE
94% answered correctly
The product information, including COA compliance, is not required for each lot of a product on a foreign-supplied shipment. FALSE
83% answered correctly
A food broker of foreign-supplied product to the United States does not have any responsibility of meeting the FSMA requirements. FALSE
The importance of food safety testing technologies continues to grow, as companies are increasingly testing their products for GMOs and pesticides, and pathogens and contamination. Last year the global food safety testing market had an estimated value of $12 billion, according to a recent report by Esticast Research & Consulting. Driven by pathogen testing technologies, the global food safety testing market is expected to experience a 7.4% CAGR from 2017–2024, hitting $21.4 billion in revenue in 2024, said Vishal Rawat, research analyst with Esticast.
With a CAGR of 9.3% from 2017–2024, rapid testing technologies are anticipated to lead the market. Testing methods responsible for this growth include immunoassays (ELISA), latex agglutination, impedance microbiology, immune-magnetic separation, and luminescence and gene probes linked to the polymerase chain reaction, said Rawat, who shared further insights about the firm’s market projections with Food Safety Tech.
Food Safety Tech: With the GMO food product testing market expected to experience the highest growth in the upcoming future, can you estimate the projected growth?
Vishal Rawat: The GMO food product testing market is estimated to generate a revenue of approximately $5.2 billion in 2016. The market segment is expected to witness a compound annual growth rate of 8.3% during the forecast period of 2017–2024. This is a global market estimation.
FST: What innovations are occurring in product testing?
Rawat: Nanomaterials and nanobased technologies are attracting interest for rapid pathogen testing. Sustainable technologies such as edible coatings or edible pathogen detection composition can attain a trend in the near future. Also, new rapid allergen testing kits are now emerging out as the latest food testing technology in the market, which are portable and easy to use.
FST: Which rapid pathogen detection testing technologies will experience the most growth from 2017–2024?
Rawat: New and emerging optical, nano-technological, spectroscopic and electrochemical technologies for pathogen detection, including label-free and high-throughput methods would experience the highest growth.
FST: What pathogen testing technologies are leading the way for meat and poultry in the United States?
Rawat: The presence of a microbial hazard, such as pathogenic bacteria or a microbial toxin, in ready-to-eat (RTE) meat or poultry products is one basis on which these products may be found adulterated. The FSIS is especially concerned with the presence of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157: H7, and staphylococcal enterotoxins in RTE meat and poultry products. Rapid pathogen testing for E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella, for ground beef, steak and pork sausages is going to lead the U.S. market.
FoodLogiQ has announced the launch of its API as a Service offering within the company’s Connect platform. Companies can use the platform to centralize IoT and blockchain data.
“By connecting the data our customers are gathering in FoodLogiQ with other platforms serving the food industry, our customers will achieve supply chain visibility unlike any other in the industry,” said Dean Wiltse, CEO of FoodLogiQ in a press release. “Whether it is a consumer-facing loyalty app, temperature monitoring sensors, inventory management platforms or grocery delivery services, the food industry requires a centralized technology platform to connect these many complex data sources and reduce redundancies through integrations.”
The service offerings include temperature and location monitoring, blockchain, data pools, business intelligence, and food quality and auditing technology. For more information about FoodLogiQ API as a Service, visit the company’s website.
Learn more about FSMA compliance at the 2017 Food Safety Consortium | November 28– December 1 | The 60-page draft guidance addresses the use of heat treatments as a process control, providing information on understanding potential hazards, design and validation of the heat treatment, establishing and implementing monitoring procedures (and how often), verification, and record keeping.
FDA states that it intends to publish at least 14 chapters of the guidance. In just two weeks, the compliance date for the preventive controls for human food rule falls for small businesses (fewer than 500 full-time employees).
The FSMA Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) has many elements that must be met. Do you know the correct response to these questions?
Working with Bill Bremer, principal of food safety compliance at Kestrel Management, LLC, Food Safety Tech is continuing its FSMA IQ test series. Results will be posted monthly in our Food Safety Consortium newsletter leading up to the 2017 event.
Confirm your company’s responsibility in meeting FSMA FSVP compliance by answering True or False.
In an effort to determine the prevalence of Salmonella, Listeria and E. coli O157:H7 in sprouts, FDA conducted a large sampling study of sprouts, the results of which were released last week.
The agency collected 825 samples from 37 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia and found 14 positive samples at eight of the 94 growers (10 samples came from four growers). Samples were collected from three production process points: Seeds, finished product and spent irrigation water, and tested for contamination. FDA found the following contamination:
Salmonella on 2.35% of seed samples, 0.21% in finished sprouts and 0.53% in spent irrigation water
Listeria monocytogenes on 1.28% of finished sprouts
No positive E. coli O157:H7 results in finished sprout or spent irrigation. Due to limitations of the test method, FDA didn’t test seed samples.
“Sprouts are especially vulnerable to pathogens given the warm, moist and nutrient-rich conditions needed to grow them. From 1996 to July 2016, there were 46 reported outbreaks of foodborne illness in the United States linked to sprouts. These outbreaks accounted for 2,474 illnesses, 187 hospitalizations, and three deaths.” – CFSAN
In the event that contaminated sprout samples were uncovered, FDA worked with the firms that own or released the affect sprouts to conduct voluntary recalls or destroy them. FDA inspections also followed.
Last week the South Korean government lifted its ban of imported U.S. poultry and poultry products. The country had banned poultry after detecting highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). South Korea will also temporarily allow U.S. eggs and egg products to enter the country duty free as a result of a domestic shortage.
“The United States has the strongest avian influenza surveillance program in the world and we were at once able to quickly identify, confine, and control this most recent disease outbreak. Our hope is that Korean officials will recognize that our system works and will move towards a regional approach in the event of any future findings of bird flu,” said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue in an agency press release. “South Korea is one of our best trading partners, and we want to continue being their most dependable supplier of high-quality food and farm products. Korea’s lifting of its most recent ban is an important move for our poultry and egg industries, but it is still just the first step.”
The Chicago Section of the Institute of Food Technologists (CSIFT) and Innovative Publishing, LLC, publisher of Food Safety Tech and organizer of the annual Food Safety Consortium, have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in support of each organization’s key industry events at the end of this year.
CSIFT will be holding its Annual Suppliers’ Night on Wednesday, November 1 at the Donald E. Stephens Center in Rosemont, IL. More than 500 organizations exhibit at the event, which is free to attend. “The Chicago Section IFT is the oldest and largest of the IFT sections. We are proud to host the largest regional suppliers night that draws over 3500 professionals to the Chicagoland area from around the country,” says Joy Dell’Aringa, business development manager at bioMérieux Food Pathogen and Quality Indicator Solutions. “This year, in addition to the Suppliers Night Expo, we are also hosting valuable scientific and professional development pre-show sessions.”
Attendees listen to Stephen Ostroff, M.D., deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at FDA, give the keynote presentation at the 2016 Food Safety Consortium.
CSIFT members will receive 10% off registration to the 2017 Food Safety Consortium, which will be held at the Renaissance Schaumburg Convention Center in Schaumburg, IL from November 29–December 1. The conference begins with a plenary presentation by Stephen Ostroff, M.D., deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at FDA, followed by a town hall.
Pre-conference workshops begin on Tuesday, November 28 and run through the morning of Wednesday, November 29. Educational courses include the Certified in Comprehensive Food Safety Credential Exam Review Course, a FSVP workshop, a food defense workshop, a PCQI human food blended workshop (FSPCA curriculum) and SQF Information Day.
“The Food Safety Consortium was launched in the Chicago area for multiple reasons, and we consider Chicago our home,” says Rick Biros, conference director and president of Innovative Publishing. “The Chicago Section of the Institute of Food Technologists represents a large group of local food safety professionals and this partnership provides CSIFT members benefits to a focused food safety event. The ‘Consortium’ is a collaboration of multiple organizations, and we are honored to have the CSIFT as part of the team. This partnership commits the Food Safety Consortium to the Chicago area for the foreseeable future.”
“The CSIFT is pleased to partner with the Food Safety Consortium. This will bring value not just to our membership base, but to the food safety community as a whole,” says Dell’Aringa. “We hope this partnership leads to increased collaborations and engagement between our shared member base and the food science community.”
The effect that the 1993 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak had on the food industry was tremendous. Responsible for more than 600 illnesses and the deaths of four children, the outbreak led to significant changes in the industry’s approach to food safety. “[It] drove a shift in food safety that many had been working toward for years,” said Rima Khabbaz, M.D., acting deputy director for infectious diseases at CDC during the “We Were There” CDC lecture series, adding that the focus moved to food suppliers and how they could make their products safer. “The outbreak drove a paradigm shift that opened the door to food safety,” said Patricia Griffin, M.D., chief of the CDC’s enteric diseases epidemiology branch during the lecture.
Deirdre Schlunegger, CEO of Stop Foodborne Illness, and Michael Taylor at Stop event celebrating Food Safety Heroes during the 2015 Food Safety Consortium.
Within a few years, several actions and initiatives paved the way for notable progress. In 1994, Mike Taylor, who was administrator of USDA’s FSIS at the time, made a speech that “shocked and outraged the industry,” said Griffin, where he stated, “we consider raw ground beef that is contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 to be adulterated within the meaning of the Federal Meat Inspection Act.” From there, the USDA worked on the first major advance in meat regulation. In 1996 the agency established the Pathogen Reduction Rule to improve meat inspection. The same year CDC’s PulseNet was born, the nationwide lab network that uses DNA fingerprinting to help identify outbreaks early, along with the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet), an epidemiological system that tracks incidents and trends related to food.
In a Q&A with Food Safety Tech, Mike Taylor, most recently the former FDA commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, discusses the dramatic change that industry has undergone during the past 25 years, from FSMA to technology advancements to food safety culture.
Food Safety Past, Present and Future at the 2017 Food Safety Consortium: Recognizing the 1993 Jack In the Box E. coli outbreak as the event that propelled the current food safety movement. Mike Taylor, Bill Marler, Esq. and Ann Marie McNamara (Target Corp.), who took the reins from the late David Theno at Jack In the Box, will discuss Theno’s impact on the industry. The session continues through a timeline of the evolution of food safety from 1993 to present, and then the future, where we will cover the IoT, social media, food safety culture and technology. It will be followed by the STOP Foodborne Illness Award Ceremony. Wednesday, November 29, 2017, 4:00–5:30 pm | LEARN MORE
Food Safety Tech: Reflecting on how far the industry has come since the E.coli O157:H7 outbreak involving Jack in the Box in 1993, what key areas of progress have been made since?
Michael Taylor: I think there are very major ones obviously. You have to remember where things were when the Jack-in-the-Box [outbreak] happened. We were in a place where USDA programs said it was not responsible for pathogens in raw meat and that consumers are supposed to cook the product; [and] industry was operating under traditional methods. Microbial methods were typically conducted for quality not for safety; you had the loss of public confidence and a terrible situation in which consumers were pointing at industry, and industry was pointing at consumers, and no one was taking clear responsibility for safety of the product.
Now we are in a completely different environment where not only is there clarity about industry’s responsibility for monitoring pathogens, there’s also been enormous progress by industry to put in place microbial testing, something David Theno pioneered and is now a central part of food safety management systems for meat safety.
Everything has changed.
These [institutional] arrangements exist not only in the meat industry, but now across the whole food industry. There’s the emergence of GFSI taking responsibility for managing the supply chain for food safety, food safety culture taking hold broadly across leading companies in the industry, and FSMA codifying for 80% of the food supply that FDA regulates the principles of risk-based prevention and continuous improvement on food safety.
I think it’s rather dramatic how far the industry’s food safety regulatory system has come since [the] Jack in the Box [outbreak].
FST: How has FSMA helped to align industry priorities?
Mike Taylor was on the front lines of change in the meat industry.
Taylor: Let’s focus on the events first leading up to FSMA—for example, the outbreaks or illnesses associated with leafy greens [and] peanut butter, and problems with imported products—those events in the world aligned industry priorities around the need to modernize the food safety laws and to enact FSMA. It was the coming together of industry and consumer interests, and the expert community around the principles of comprehensive risk-based prevention that vaporized into FSMA. Now FSMA is the framework within which companies are organizing their food safety systems in accordance with these modern principles of prevention.
And clearly what’s been codified in FSMA and some of the key elements are becoming organizing principles where industry is aligning our priorities for food safety. Environmental monitoring where that’s an appropriate verification control for a company’s hygiene and pathogen control—that’s clearly a priority that folks are aligning on. The issue of supplier verification for domestic and foreign supply is a priority that has been elevated by FSMA, and so has the whole issue of training and employee capacity, whether it’s in processing facilities or on farms, as well as food safety culture. If you’re going to be effectively preventive you need to deal with the human dimension of your food safety system.
These are examples of ways in which FSMA is aligning industry priorities.
Read the rest of the interview on page 2 (link below).
This week the FDA issued another guidance document to explain a waiver to the Sanitary Transportation rule and that it applies to retail food establishments that sell food for humans as well as those that sell both human and animal food. It does not apply to establishments that exclusively sell animal food.
“The Sanitary Transportation rule established a process by which FDA may waive any of the rule’s requirements for certain classes of persons, vehicles, or types of food if doing so will not result in the transportation of food under conditions that would be unsafe for human or animal health, or contrary to the public interest.” – FDA
In April, FDA announced three waivers that apply to businesses with transportation operations subject to State-Federal controls. Since this time, FDA stated that it has received questions regarding whether the term “retail food establishment” also applies to businesses that sell animal food. “The purpose of the guidance document is to clarify that the waiver is intended to apply to establishments that are covered by human food regulations based on the FDA Food Code and administered by state and local authorities,” FDA stated in a news release.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.