Stephen Ostroff, M.D. will keynote at the 2017 Food Safety Consortium | Learn moreCriminal liability has been a hot topic in food safety over the past year. During the 2016 Food Safety Consortium, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine Stephen Ostroff, M.D., clarified FDA’s stance on enforcement.
“Our goal is for us to promote food safety, not to resort first and foremost to enforcement actions,” said Ostroff.
For Ostroff’s full comment, watch the video.
Over the past year and a half, much attention has been given the federal government’s commitment to prioritizing prosecution of food companies that engage in criminal behavior. In some instances, this has been used as a scare tactic, shining a spotlight on the executive responsibility of company executives. Although focusing on executive liability isn’t necessarily a bad thing, Stephen Ostroff, M.D., deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at FDA, wants food manufacturers to know that FDA isn’t out to get them.
During yesterday’s opening keynote presentation at the 2016 Food Safety Consortium, Ostroff commented on FDA’s approach to enforcement. “I often have to scratch my head as why this has been such a tremendous concern in a regulated industry…sitting at FDA, we have not had any change in our thinking and approach about liability,” said Ostroff. “FDA pursues legal action against companies that are clearly negligent and clearly violating the law.” He emphasized that FDA’s goal moving into the FSMA compliance phase hasn’t changed; it’s about implementing a food safety system focused on preventive controls.
Ostroff encouraged attendees to look at the areas in which their food safety system is vulnerable, take proactive action and build redundancies into their system. “The best defense is to comply with the new requirements, and document how you are creating a food safety culture where everyone understands the expectations,” he added. “If you’re making a good faith attempt—our goal is to help you accomplish that goal, not to punish you for the attempts that you’ve made in good faith.”
The deputy commissioner also commented on the agency’s progress since FSMA’s seven rules were finalized in May, pointing out that these rules are foundational, and additional rules are to come. These rules will address lab accreditation, traceability related to imported products and a reportable food registry tool.
“If when we visit we identify very significant food safety hazards that we think pose an imminent risk of foodborne illness, we will have to take action.” – Stephen Ostroff, M.D.
Other key areas Ostroff discussed regarding agency progress and initiatives included:
During the Town Hall part of the presentation, Ostroff was asked, with the finalization of the FSMA rules, are they cast in stone? His answer: Not necessarily. “It took five years to get in place…because we did it in a very systematic way with a lot of stakeholder input. When you put together rules that are this complicated, there’s no guarantee that you got everything right,” he said. “[We] have to recognize that sometimes some of the flaws don’t become apparent into you implement them. You always have to be of the mindset that if everything didn’t work out exactly the way things were anticipated…we always have to be open to the fact that as we move forward and implement the rules, we might have to make course corrections.”
Today FDA released a new draft guidance related to FSMA: Draft Guidance for Industry, Describing a Hazard That Needs Control in Documents Accompanying the Food as Required by Four Rules Implementing the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) details the agency’s current thinking related to “disclosure statements made by an entity, in documents accompanying food, that certain hazards have not been controlled by that entity as required by certain provisions in four final rules”. These rules are the PC rules for human and animal food, the Produce rule and the Foreign Supplier Verification Program.
“This guidance provides our current thinking on how to describe the hazard under each of the four rules and which documents we consider to be “documents of the trade” for the purpose of the statements accompanying the food,” according to an FDA release.
The draft is available on the Federal Register and is open for comment 180 days after publication (October 31).
The first major compliance dates have arrived for the preventive controls rules for human and animal food under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Some members of the food industry have expressed concern and uncertainty about enforcement measures that may accompany September 19, 2016. That’s the date when larger businesses must comply with certain new standards. Human food facilities must meet preventive controls and Current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements (CGMPs); animal food facilities must meet CGMPs. (The larger animal food businesses have an additional year to meet the preventive controls standards.)
Joann Givens, co-chair of the FSMA Operations Team Steering Committee and director of FDA’s Food and Feed Program in the Office of Regulatory Affairs, addresses questions that have been raised about what the next few months will look like for human food facilities required to comply with the CGMP and preventive controls requirements and animal food facilities required to comply with the CGMP requirements.
What happens next in terms of FDA enforcement of these new standards?
We know that this is new territory for food companies; it’s new territory for us too. For years we’ve been talking about the FSMA rulemakings and our implementation plans. Now, an important compliance date is here for some companies. As we enter this new chapter, the FDA’s primary focus will continue to be on education, training and technical assistance to help companies comply with the new requirements.
A top priority for FDA is providing the framework for industry’s implementation of preventive controls and CGMP requirements. We recently issued draft guidance documents that provide more detail on how to comply with the new standards, and there are more guidances to come, about two dozen planned over the next few years. We intend to continue this dialogue and collaboration with regulated industry to ensure that everyone understands and engages in their respective roles in food safety.
This first year of compliance will affect the larger businesses, generally those with 500 or more employees. Many businesses of that size already have a HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) program; we don’t expect them to need to make many changes to come into compliance. Aspects of the CGMP and preventive controls rules are similar to HACCP, a food safety system that started with industry. (The human and animal food rules have staggered compliance dates; smaller businesses have a year or more additional time to comply.)
Does the focus on education mean that companies won’t really be held to these standards yet?
No. The FDA’s mandate is to protect public health and, when necessary, the agency will act swiftly. But keep in mind that our primary goal, not just in the first months but going forward, is to work with the food industry to create a culture of food safety, a culture of compliance with procedures, processes, and practices that we know will minimize the risk of serious illness or death.
What is the best thing covered food facilities can be doing now?
The best thing that people in the food industry can do is take the measures required by the new rules – not just the letter of the law but what it represents in terms of transforming the food safety system. They should look at the big picture, at areas in which they could be vulnerable and proactively take action. Promptly responding to problems, even if they aren’t yet violations, can prevent them from getting to the point at which there is a concern about the safety of the food.
In addition, facilities should set up a thorough system for documenting what they do. The better the records, the more a company can demonstrate that it is meeting the legal standard. Put processes and procedures in place to prevent problems in the first place, and consider having some redundancy in the system so that if one measure fails, another can take its place.
If there is a problem, state or federal investigators will ask questions like: When problems came to your attention, what did you do? Were you proactive in looking for the problems in the first place? If you could not find a solution, did you get the right expertise? Did you educate your employees?
Where can companies go wrong?
A company’s approach should not be: “The government was here and did our inspection. We’re safe for X amount of time.” Rather we want facilities to be confident that if FDA or the state walks in tomorrow, they’ll be able to demonstrate what they’re doing to meet the new food safety requirements.
And it really is up to the management of a company to create that culture by attending to the facility and its production processes and making sure that everyone in the production chain understands what is expected and has the training and education they need to get the job done.
What is the ultimate goal?
The purpose of these rules is to create a preventive, food safety system that is self-sustaining. Everybody in a food facility should be systematically operating in a way that complies with the law.
The preventive controls requirements fulfill the paradigm shift toward prevention that was envisioned in FSMA and, in combination with CGMPs, will help protect consumers into the future.
We want to see people doing the best they can. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. They’re learning; we’re learning. We are very committed to educating while we regulate to align understanding and expectations.
This article has been republished with permission from FDA. The original version can be viewed on FDA’s website.
Need help understanding FSMA? Attend the 2016 Food Safety Consortium, December 7–8 in Schaumburg, IL | LEARN MORE In a 22-page report released last week, FDA outlined its findings from three public meetings held in June about the implementation of the FSMA import safety programs. The report, “Focus on Strategic Implementation of Prevention-Oriented Import Safety Programs”, reviews the questions asked to participants about challenges and understanding in complying with the Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP), Accredited Third-Party Certification, and the Voluntary Qualified Importer Programs (VQIP) under FSMA. The agency analyzed data from 350 participants, and made the following conclusions:
Industry wants help in understanding what is required under the FSMA provisions, including clearer, concise information from the FDA
Today FDA issued the final rule, “Substances Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS). The rule outlines what kind of scientific evidence can be used to demonstrate safety, along with the role of publications in assessing whether scientific evidence of safety is “generally available and accepted”, according to an FDA release. “The GRAS criteria require that the safe use of ingredients in human and animal food be widely recognized by the appropriate qualified experts.”
GRAS substances are not subject to FDA premarket approval but must meet the same safety standards as approved food additives. The agency “strongly encourages” companies to tell FDA of GRAS conclusions through the notification procedure found in the final rule, because the procedure provides the agency with important food safety monitoring information. The document will be published on the Federal Register on Wednesday, August 17.
This year is a big year for food safety at FDA. All seven of the FSMA rules have been finalized, and the first compliance date is right around the corner (compliance with the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule starts in September for large companies). Stephen Ostroff, M.D., just took the helm from Michael Taylor as the agency’s deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine. And finally, FDA is taking a hard line in both improving the tools and methods used to detect outbreaks as well as working with the Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement actions against companies that introduce adulterated foods into the supply chain.
Yesterday Ostroff provided an update on FDA’s recent initiatives and its plan of action to achieve success in FSMA implementation and pathogen detection at the IAFP annual meeting in St. Louis. Ostroff highlighted several tenets of FSMA:
Industry can expect three more rulemakings as required by FSMA in the areas of lab accreditation, a reportable food registry and product tracing. In addition, FDA is working on guidances related to the preventive controls, produce, and foreign supplier verification program rules. “We’re tantalizingly close so stay tuned,” Ostroff said.
Expect to see more program alignment with the Office of Regulatory Affairs as well. The inspection and compliance staff will be trained as specialists and there will be horizontal integration of programs between field activity and agency headquarters. Although the next fiscal year will be a transition year, Ostroff is hopeful that changes that need to be made at the agency, along with program alignment, will be in place by fiscal year 2018.
Other notable actions at FDA over the past year include:
Ostroff emphasized FDA’s strategic 10-year plan, released this year, pointing to public health as a first priority, maintaining partnerships as a key to success (including re-establishing overseas offices), continuing research as a foundation, and maintaining transparently.
FDA posted the FSMA rule on the Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food in April. The majority of retailers, wholesalers, suppliers and carriers will have one year to comply with this new rule. The sanitary transportation rule sets out to prevent practices that would introduce contamination risk during the transportation of food through the supply chain.
For retailers, wholesalers, suppliers and carriers, the final rule is really the sleeper regulation among the new FSMA laws. You probably have your HAACP plans and preventative control procedures in place, but do you have the necessary documents in place with your carriers to meet the FDA’s requirements? And, are those documents easily accessible?
Under FSMA, you must address all FDA record inquiries within 24 hours, and these inquiries can go back two years, plus 12 months beyond the expiration of related service agreements. Failure to respond to an FDA records inquiry is considered a “prohibited act” and can land you in hot water with both the FDA and Department of Justice, which acknowledged they will enforce FSMA through civil and criminal penalties. That’s a game changer.
You are now required to ensure that transportation equipment does not cause the food it is carrying to become unsafe. You must also maintain adequate temperatures throughout your portion of the supply chain and prevent cross contamination. And, you must train your personnel in sanitary practices. All of these factors—processes and procedures, agreements and formal training of personnel—must be documented and made available to the FDA. Put simply, compliance with FSMA is proven through documentation because according to the FDA, if it is not documented, it did not happen!
So what’s the best way to comply with the new rules? Having the information on paper in filing cabinets simply won’t do. Can you imagine searching for specific confirmation that an employee received the proper training in a bank of file cabinets? Even with an efficient system, that could be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Collecting the information in spreadsheets is only slightly better, as it simply digitizes the disorganization.
Retailers, wholesalers, suppliers and carriers need to start their compliance process by reviewing and understanding all of the FSMA rules, guidance procedures and responsibilities. You ignore them at your own peril.
Then, consider automating your recording keeping system. It is really the only way to efficiently collect and manage the documentation needed to comply with the new law. When reviewing technology options, make sure you choose a system that is not only easy to use by frontline workers, but also provides sophisticated reporting and alerts to point out potential problems in real time. And, if possible, the solution should do more than just report on food safety activities. As long as you’re investing in a technology to meet FSMA requirements, you might as well implement a system that can potentially save money in other areas such as managing business or training documentation, new vendor approvals, or carrier optimization.
The bottom line is that the sanitary transportation rule will require that you devote additional resources to make the entire extended grocery channel more risk free for consumers and companies alike. And the best way to do that is to implement new technology that gives visibility to product transfers from point of production or processing to the point of purchase, and documents each step along the way.
Consumers should check their pantry. As a result of newly reported illnesses connected to raw dough or batter consumption, General Mills has expanded its recall of Gold Medal flour, Wondra flour and Signature Kitchens flour to include products made last fall. The FDA and CDC have warned consumers against eating any raw products made with flour.
According to the CDC, the multi-state outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing E. Coli O121 has sickened at least 42 consumers (with 11 hospitalizations) across 21 states. No deaths have been reported. The bacteria was isolated from samples of General Mills flour that was collected from the homes of those sickened in Arizona, Colorado and Oklahoma.
General Mills has already conducted a voluntary recall of 10 million pounds of flour (unbleached, all purpose and self rising). A full list of the products included in the recall are available on FDA’s website.
As a result of an ongoing audit of FDA’s food recall program, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has concluded that FDA does not have the policies and procedures in place to ensure that voluntary food recalls are initiated in a prompt manner.
“This issue is a significant matter and requires FDA’s immediate attention,” the letter stated. “We suggest that FDA update its policies and procedures to instruct its recall staff to establish set timeframes for (1) FDA to request that firms voluntarily recall their products and (2) firms to initiate voluntary food recalls.”
The audit follows a report from June 2011 that reviewed FDA’s monitoring of imported food recalls. That particular report also found the agency’s food recall program to be inadequate due to the fact that FDA did not have the authority to require companies to recall certain foods. FSMA has changed this aspect of recall authority.
The OIG’s letter, addressed to FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, M.D., specifically calls out two recall cases:
The OIG issued the letter to Califf as an early alert. The audit of FDA’s food recall process is continuing and the OIG will be issuing a draft report at the conclusion of the audit.
