Tag Archives: FDA

Dietary Supplements: Verifying Label Claims “By Input” Unacceptable

By Tara Lin Couch, Ph.D.
No Comments

FDA issued more than 400 Warning Letter citations for inappropriate specifications in dietary supplement during 2013 and 2014. Many of these violations were due to a failure to have Finished Product Specifications, but recent citations have also noted that using solely the input of a dietary ingredient for verifying the strength “By Input” is unacceptable.

The FDA regulations dictated in 21 CFR 111, Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements, require that each batch of a finished dietary supplement product must meet quality requirements for identity, purity, strength, composition, and limits of potential contaminants.

Criteria used to establish that these requirements are met are supposed to be provided in a Finished Product Specification developed by the dietary supplement company. FDA issued more than 400 Warning Letter citations for inappropriate specifications in 2013 and 2014. Many of these violations were due to a failure to have Finished Product Specifications at all, but recent Warning Letters have also noted that using solely the input of a dietary ingredient for verifying the strength “By Input” is unacceptable.

The input of a dietary supplement alone is not a scientifically valid analytical test method for determining the strength of a dietary ingredient in a finished product. Chemical testing of the ingredient should be accomplished whenever possible. If that is not possible due to the unavailability of a scientifically valid test method, the testing may be exempted provided dietary ingredient raw material testing, in-process testing, other finished product testing, process controls, and additional information can support that the strength of the dietary ingredient can be verified without testing, as allowed in 21 CFR 111.75(d)(1).

The incoming dietary ingredient raw material must be verified to meet quality requirements for identity, purity, strength, and the lack of potential contaminants. Warehouse controls must then ensure that the material is held in a condition in which its quality is not altered. The material must be formulated at an appropriate amount, with sufficient overage, to meet the label claim while taking into account manufacturing variability. This is dictated in an approved Master Manufacturing Record (MMR). Once executed, the Batch Production Record (BPR) must document that the correct amount of the dietary ingredient was actually dispensed into the product during manufacture. Established in-process examinations and tests are then used to verify that the batch is uniformly mixed and meets the unit dosage weight and weight variation requirements. Variations on weight cannot exceed the overage amount to ensure that even the smallest dosage unit still complies with the label. In-process chemical tests can also be employed to verify the amount of a dietary ingredient. This can be particularly beneficial if the reason a dietary ingredient is exempted from testing is because of matrix interferences or instrumental quantitation limits.

Other finished product testing can also be used to support that an exempted ingredient is present in the product at the correct, labeled amount. Test results from chemically similar ingredients that are determined to be as expected suggest that the exempted ingredient is also present at expected levels because these ingredients will tend to react the same way during manufacture, especially if both ingredients are introduced and processed in the same step. Results obtained from finished product testing of other ingredients whose concentrations are associated with the exempted ingredient may also support that the exempted ingredient is present as expected.

Finally, the number of other finished product ingredient tests that are performed is important. If all other test results are determined to be within specification, it indicates that the product was manufactured according to the MMR and there is no reason to expect anything different from an exempted dietary ingredient.

Dietary supplement companies that are compliant with all parts of 21 CFR 111 will already be performing these activities. A procedure that summarizes the overall process of verifying the addition of a dietary ingredient can then be created and used as the test method reference on the Finished Product Specification. A separate document that describes the details of test exemptions per product should also be generated. The actual result obtained should be acquired from the completed batch production record.

The “By Input” approach is no longer relevant.

This article originally appeared in EAS-e-News February 2015 issue.

FDA Commissioner Hamburg to Step Down

No Comments

Hamburg, one of the longest-serving FDA commissioners in the modern era, told Reuters in an interview that her decision was prompted by the heavy demands of the job and the sheer length of time she has held the position.

Dr. Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who for almost six years has overseen public health initiatives ranging from tobacco control and food safety to personalized medicine, disease control and drug approvals, is stepping down, Reuters News Agency has reported.

Hamburg, 59, is one of the longest-serving FDA commissioners in the modern era. She was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in May 2009 and last year was named the world’s 51st most powerful woman by Forbes.

Hamburg, one of the longest-serving FDA commissioners in the modern era, told Reuters in an interview that her decision was prompted by the heavy demands of the job and the sheer length of time she has held the position. “This is a very challenging job full of opportunities to make a huge and enduring difference,” she said, “but it is 24/7 and there are really really difficult decisions to make.”

Late last month, the agency named Dr. Robert Califf, a prominent cardiologist and researcher from Duke University, to oversee its drug, medical device and tobacco policy. Reuters adds that Califf may be a potential successor to Hamburg.

A long-time public health official with extensive experience fighting AIDS and tuberculosis, Hamburg, who graduated from Harvard Medical School, previously served at the National Institutes of Health before becoming New York City’s health commissioner.

Click here to read the Reuters article.

Funding Critical for FSMA, Says FDA’s Taylor

No Comments

In an FDA blog, the Deputy Commissioner for Foods describes that work must be done right now to ensure that FSMA rules are implemented smoothly and effectively in late 2016 and 2017, and lists several areas in need of additional funding that, through FSMA, will transform the food safety system into one that prevents hazards instead of just responding to them.

President Obama’s FY 2016 budget request would provide an additional $109 million for FSMA implementation. In the current fiscal year, FDA received an additional $27.5 million. And at this juncture as Congress considers the funding that will help transform all the plans and preparations for FSMA into protections that will greatly reduce the number of illnesses caused by contaminated foods and greatly increase consumer confidence in the safety of our food supply, this additional investment would be critical for the success of FSMA and its implementation, writes Michael R. Taylor is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine.

In an FDA Voice blog, Taylor describes that work must be done right now to ensure that the FSMA rules are implemented smoothly and effectively in late 2016 and 2017, and lists the areas in need of additional funding that, through FSMA, will transform the food safety system into one that prevents hazards instead of just responding to them.

  • Approach to food safety inspections and compliance will be fundamentally different. FDA will deploy inspectors who are specialized in specific food commodities, rather than covering a broad range of FDA-regulated products. Backed by technical experts, they will assess the soundness and performance of a facility’s overall food safety system. Achieving this will require a major reorientation and retraining of more than 2,000 FDA inspectors, compliance officers and other staff involved in food safety activities.
  • For vast majority of food producers want to comply and keep their products safe. FDA will be issuing guidance documents that will be essential to helping industry meet FSMA requirements. Funds are needed now for FDA to recruit additional experts who can ensure that guidance development is based on the best science and knowledge of industry practices.
  • Education and technical assistance to help farmers, processors and importers—especially small businesses—implement the new standards. FDA would use a large portion of these resources to provide financial support to state agencies and public-private-academic collaborative entities, such as the Produce Safety Alliance and the Preventive Controls Alliance. FDA has also joined with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) in providing grants that will fund food safety training for small, sustainable and organic farm owners and food processors.
  • State partnerships. There are more than 3,000 state, local and tribal government agencies involved in food safety. To align state programs with FDA’s new facility inspection and compliance approach, the agency will provide states with funds for inspector training, information sharing capacity with FDA and other states, state laboratory coordination, and inspector certification programs, and these preparations must be accelerated in 2016.
  • Modernize how we ensure the safety of imported foods. The Foreign Supplier Verification Program will require a substantial regulatory development process, increased staffing and the training of more than 400 investigative and compliance personnel within FDA to enforce the regulation. It will also require extensive training and technical assistance for importers.

Those are just the highlights; there’s much more to be done. The bottom line is that without investment now, and sustained funding afterwards, there is the risk that the implementation of FSMA will be uneven or even delayed. This would be bad for everyone, including those who must meet the new standards and those who must enforce them. Most importantly, it would be bad for consumers, who want to be sure that the foods they are eating and serving their families are safe.

Click here for the full blog. 

FDA Seeks Key Investments for Implementing FSMA

No Comments

The agency makes a case for immediate investments now, and sustained funding in future years, explaining that there is a risk of delayed, uneven, and potentially disruptive implementation of FSMA, to the detriment of public health and the food industry.

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law in January 2011. FSMA reflects the need for a modern, global food safety system that prevents problems rather than primarily reacting to them after they have occurred.

The law, which received bipartisan support, followed a series of severe outbreaks of foodborne illness. It responds to the significant burden of foodborne illness in the United States each year, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate at 48 million illnesses, 128,000 hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths. The economic losses to industry, including farmers, are enormous, estimated at over $75 billion per year.

Since FSMA was enacted, FDA has carried out extensive work to implement the law by publishing key FSMA proposed rules that would provide needed food safety protections for the American public, while at the same time making the proposed rules as flexible as possible and workable.

These proposed rules were informed by current industry practices and by conducting extensive outreach and dialogue across the country and overseas with farmers, manufacturers, commercial food handlers, consumers, and government partners.

Currently, FDA is under court-ordered deadlines to issue all seven of these key final rules:

  • The final rules for preventive controls for human and animal foods are due on August 30, 2015;
  • The final rules on produce safety, Foreign Supplier Verification Programs, and accreditation of third party auditors are due on October 31, 2015; and
  • The final rules for sanitary transportation and intentional adulteration are due on March 31, 2016, and May 31, 2016, respectively.

Implementation

Developing reasonable, effective, and flexible rules is just the first step in FSMA implementation. Much more needs to be done to ensure smooth and effective implementation in late 2016 and 2017. And additional funding is needed to support the following areas:

  • Inspection modernization and training;
  • Furthering the National Integrated Food Safety System;
  • Education and technical assistance for industry;
  • Technical staffing and guidance development at FDA;
  • Building the new import safety system; and
  • Risk analytics and evaluation.

FDA is also committed to change within the agency itself to enhance industry compliance with the FSMA rules. First, FDA is overhauling its inspection model to fulfill FSMA’s prevention mandate. To carry out the new model, FDA will increase specialization of the inspection and compliance workforce, build a new compliance culture within FDA that uses a variety of tools and incentives to achieve compliance, and invest in training to ensure expert and consistent inspections and sound decision making.

Second, the agency will assume that most in industry want to comply with food safety standards and thus will educate before and while it regulates through guidance, education, and technical assistance.

Third, the frequency and manner of FDA’s inspections will be guided by a company’s food safety culture and performance.

The allocation of funds needed in FY 2016 to make these changes is outlined below.

FY 2016 plans for requested budget authority

With a total of $1.3 billion in budget authority, an increase of $109.5 million, requested in the President’s Budget, FDA will make improvements in the following areas, continuing improvements that began with FY 2015 funds.

1. Inspection Modernization and Training – $25 million

FSMA fundamentally changes FDA’s approach to food safety oversight, from primarily reacting to problems to preventing them in the first place. New inspection and compliance strategies will be a key component of this shift. FDA is not requesting more inspectors for domestic inspections, but rather will increase efficiency and effectiveness of current inspectors through the use of new inspectional models and approaches. Inspectors are currently trained to inspect food manufacturers using a compliance model focused on finding evidence of violations and bringing enforcement cases. The new food safety paradigm will be focused on whether firms are implementing systems that effectively prevent food contamination, requiring fundamentally different approaches to food safety inspection and compliance. For example, FDA will deploy more specialized inspectors, supported by technical experts, to assess the soundness and performance of a facility’s overall food safety system and will use data to guide risk-based inspection priority, frequency, depth, and approach. FDA will also focus on ensuring consistency among inspections conducted by FDA or the states on behalf of FDA.

This new paradigm involves a major reorientation and retraining of more than 2,000 FDA inspectors, compliance officers, and other staff involved in food safety activities. FDA has also committed to improving risk-based targeting, which will require better data about facilities, new IT systems to identify and track risk, and methods for assessing and tracking inspection efficiency and inspector competency.

2. National Integrated Food Safety System – $32 million

Congress recognized that the success of FSMA implementation depends on fundamentally new approaches to collaboration among the more than 3,000 state, local, and tribal government agencies involved in food safety. Building a National Integrated Food Safety System is a complex and long-term process. To be successful in aligning state programs with FDA’s new facility inspection and compliance approach, approximately 1,000 state inspectors will need training, and the states will need real-time information sharing capacity with FDA and other states, state laboratory accreditation, and inspector certification programs. Those processes, which will be carried out mostly via FDA grants and cooperative agreements to states, have been ongoing but must be ramped up significantly in 2016 to help ensure that states conduct sound, consistent inspections when industry must comply with the new preventive controls rules starting in late 2016. In addition, to successfully implement the produce safety rule, FDA must build state partnerships and capacity in 2016 to provide education and technical assistance to growers in anticipation of the rule starting to be implemented in 2017.

3. Education and Technical Assistance for Industry – $11.5 million

With FDA’s new approach to ensuring food safety, education and technical assistance are needed to help farmers, processors, and importers—especially small businesses—implement the new prevention-oriented standards. Approximately 300,000 entities could be subject to the final FSMA rules. FDA believes that it should expend substantial financial resources to provide such assistance and will make training materials widely available to protect public health. FDA would use a large portion of these resources to provide financial support to state agencies and public-private-academic collaborative entities, such as the Produce Safety Alliance and the Preventive Controls Alliance.

4. Technical Staffing and Guidance Development at FDA – $4 million

Maintaining an adequate number of highly qualified technical staff at FDA is always a priority and challenge, but FSMA makes it essential to achieve this goal. In addition to regulatory standards for FSMA, FDA is issuing guidance documents that express the agency’s current thinking and are essential to helping industry to comply with the FSMA requirements. Funds are needed now to recruit additional experts at FDA who can ensure that guidance development, which is now underway, is based on the best science and knowledge of industry practices. More experts are also needed to conduct outreach to industry, academia, and state extension services to ensure that their concerns are heard, that their advice is solicited and utilized, and that the guidance documents reflect the most cost-effective solutions achievable. They will also play an essential role in supporting FDA’s inspection and compliance force in properly overseeing implementation of the new standards and achieving high rates of compliance.

5. New Import Safety Systems – $25.5 million

Improving oversight of imported food is crucial to protect public health and ensure consumer confidence in food safety, regardless of whether food is produced domestically or imported. The food consumed by Americans today comes from over 200,000 different food facilities, more than half of which are located outside the United States. For example, about 50% of fresh fruits, 20% of fresh vegetables, and 80% of seafood consumed by Americans is imported. The volume of imported food has increased enormously over the past 20 years, going from fewer than 200,000 line-entries in the early 1990s to an estimated 12 million in 2013. The Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) mandated by FSMA, will require importers to implement supplier verification plans to help ensure food produced overseas meets U.S. food safety standards. This shift presents an enormous challenge for both FDA and food importers, given that there were approximately 88,000 consignees receiving food shipments last year. To be successful, FSVP implementation will require a substantial regulatory development process, training of more than 400 current FDA investigative and compliance personnel, and the addition of new staff (including 50 in 2016) with the audit skills needed to assess importer safety plans. It will also require extensive training and technical assistance for importers.

6. Risk Analytics and Evaluation – $4.5 million

Focusing decisions and resources on areas of greatest risk to health is a key element of FSMA, so FDA is developing new tools that will provide the information needed to do so. This includes new tools for ranking risks, prioritizing program activities based on opportunities to reduce risk, and linking risk-based priorities more clearly with budget formulation and execution. For example, these tools will better inform FDA about which foods, including animal foods, are most vulnerable to which bacterial contaminants, and where it should invest its research efforts to most effectively identify how to reduce contamination of food. This will improve FDA’s productivity in all areas, including research and standard setting, inspections, and guidance to industry.

Note: The $109.5 million increase in the food safety budget for FDA includes $7 million for necessary infrastructure costs.

Conclusion

Developing reasonable, effective, and flexible rules to create a modern, prevention-based food safety system is a formidable job, but it is just the first step in FSMA implementation. Much more needs to be done to lay the groundwork for smooth and effective implementation of FSMA in late 2016 and 2017. Without an immediate investment now, and sustained funding in future years, there is a risk of delayed, uneven, and potentially disruptive implementation of FSMA, to the detriment of public health and the food industry. 

Source: This article has been adapted from a paper authored by FDA, which can be accessed here. 

Lawmakers Introduce Bill for Single “Food Safety Administration”

No Comments

Food safety oversight is currently split up among 15 agencies in the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Commerce. The Safe Food Act of 2015 introduced in both houses of Congress on Wednesday, aims to consolidate all the authorities for food safety inspections, enforcement and labeling into the Food Safety Administration.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced bills in Congress yesterday with a goal to establish a single, independent federal food safety agency. The aim is to improve food safety for consumers, while also cutting back on the costs of a dispersed system with overlapping responsibilities between agencies, according to Durbin.

 

“What the bill does is remedy the situation,” DeLauro said. “With a single agency, we believe our country will be able to have the ability to detect relatively minor problems before they become major outbreaks.”

The Act would provide the Food Safety Administration with mandatory recall authority for unsafe food, require risk assessments and preventive control plans to reduce adulteration, authorize enforcement actions to strengthen contaminant performance standards, improve foreign food import inspections, and require full food traceability to better identify sources of outbreaks.

DeLauro said the bill builds on the improvements made in FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

The federal agencies that would be incorporated into one include:

  • FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM); 
  • The resources and facilities of FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs that administer and conduct inspections of food and feed facilities and imports; 
  • The resources and facilities of the Office of the FDA Commissioner that support CFSAN, CVM and inspections;
  • USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service;
  • The part of USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service that administers shell egg surveillance services;
  • The part of USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics mission area related to food and feed safety;
  • The part of USDA’s Animal and Plant Inspection Health Service related to the management of animals going into the food supply; and
  • The part of the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce that administers the seafood inspection program. 

A single food safety agency is not a new concept, and the two lawmakers have sponsored Safe Food Acts five times before, though the most recent was in 2007. In addition, the Government Accountability Office has reported on the need for better coordination of food safety activities over the years.

DeLauro mentioned eggs as an example to show how complicated the current food safety landscape was: “One agency manages the health of hens, another oversees the feed that they eat, another sets egg quality standards but does not test them for Salmonella,” she said. “While still in its shell, the egg is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration, but once it’s processed into an egg product, it becomes the responsibility of Food Safety and Inspection Service.”

Durbin and DeLauro are hoping to build bipartisan support for the bills. Current cosponsors of the Senate Safe Food Act include Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Cosponsors in the House include Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), James Langevin (D-RI), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC).

NYC Food Vendors Don’t Change Gloves Enough

No Comments

A recent study noted that 57 percent of 1,804 customer transactions observed did not involve the vendor changing gloves in between handling money and the next person’s order.

The majority of New York City mobile food vendors don’t change their gloves after exchanging money and before serving the next customer, as required by law, a new study has found.

Researchers from William Paterson University in New Jersey studied 10 food carts within 10 densely populated areas of Manhattan, a total of 100 carts. They found that 57 percent of 1,804 customer transactions observed did not involve the vendor changing gloves in between handling money and the next person’s order.

Study author Corey Basch describes the results as “eye-opening from a public health perspective” because of foodborne illness risk. “Being observant to the glove-changing behaviors of the vendors as well as overall hygiene is prudent and can reveal a great deal in a short time,” she said.

The New York City Health Code 81.13 requires that food vendors change gloves “after handling raw foods, performing tasks that do not involve food preparation or processing, handling garbage, or any other work where the gloves may have become soiled or contaminated.”

FSMA: What to Expect in 2015

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Companies should start preparing for FSMA immediately, caution two food safety experts. Between the proposed and final rule, there is some concern for not knowing the future, but companies should conduct FSMA assessments and build a roadmap for compliance on track with FDA timelines. So are you prepared?

Two experts from The Acheson Group – Dr. David Acheson, and Melanie Neumann, in a recent FSMA Friday webinar, discussed what companies should expect from the FDA in 2015 and how they can adjust to comply with new rules as the final deadlines approach. FoodSafetyTech presents some excerpts:

With the FSMA comment deadline closed, what can we expect from FDA in terms of finalizing FSMA?

With the agency still answering questions and conducting FSMA related activities such as dealing with deadlines and proposals, we can expect to see the agency go silent on that. We have gone through multiple comment periods already so we should expect them to stick to their timeline of implementing rules.

What is FDA ultimately seeking to achieve with these rules?

When we look at where FDA is going in 2015, we need to look at what we should be doing in the private sector under FSMA’s prevention scheme. FDA is trying to require companies to think about preventative controls. It is about understanding where your risks are and using the appropriate controls. The main issue surfaces when regulators and suppliers have different senses of what appropriate controls really are. So, thinking about risk-based strategies, whether in the supply chain, internal systems, or whether you are a grower or importer, is going to be key in planning for the future.

When is it anticipated that the FSMA rules will be finalized?

Going from reactive to proactive and preventative strategies is the essence of FSMA’s effect on shifting the regulatory scheme. Therefore we should expect preventative control rules to come out first. We must put together a monitoring program and corrective actions in our food safety plan proactively. The FDA really wants to get these rules rolled out and enforced before the administration changes in 2016 with the next presidential election so we can safely assume they will try to stick to their published timelines (most proposed rules have a deadline in Fall 2015 with the latest in the spring of 2016).

What will some of the biggest challenges be for food and beverage companies as they begin to consider FSMA compliance?

The biggest challenges will deal with how to properly manage, store, and retrieve documentation. All the traceability data, information, and production and supplier documentation that is key in a recall should be readily presentable. Having all this data and documentation, being able to produce it quickly and turn it over to the on demand is the biggest hurdle. Companies need to leverage technology to manage this risk in documentation and data organization.

What should companies be doing now to begin to prepare for FSMA as we wait for the final rules?

Companies should start preparing for FSMA immediately. Between the proposed and final rule, there is some concern for not knowing the future, but companies should conduct FSMA assessments and build a roadmap for compliance on track with FDA timelines.

Supply chain risk control and environmental monitoring are new and challenging ventures. The behavior of FDA in the past few years have shown that any company that needs to comply with preventative control rules should really pay attention to their environmental monitoring program.

HAACP systems are likely to be fairly robust and will translate quickly, but environmental monitoring could be considered the Achilles’ heel. The other Achilles’ heel is the supply chain. This was in the original statute giving FDA the authority to require supply chain risk assessments and controls. This has resurfaced in the re-proposals, which is very reflective of the foreign supplier verification program. Look at what you know about your supply chain. The expectation will be that you control those risks.

The other challenge is FDA is expecting you to look more than one step upstream. If you are buying your ingredients from a distributor, it is your responsibility to institute preventative controls in environmental monitoring Companies need an organized central repository of all upstream, internal, and downstream documentation and data.

GFSI standards compare to the preventative control rules. The standards might be highly robust but that does not necessarily mean you comply with food defense and foreign supplier verification programs. Keep all that in mind when looking strategically toward 2016.

Summarized by Aaron Biros

Sangita Viswanathan, Former Editor-in-Chief, FoodSafetyTech

Final FSMA Rules – How to Prepare?

By Sangita Viswanathan
No Comments
Sangita Viswanathan, Former Editor-in-Chief, FoodSafetyTech

In a recent FSMA Fridays event, three experts from The Acheson Group – Jennifer Cleveland McEntire, Ph.D., Vice President and Chief Science Officer; <strong”>Anne Sherod, Director of Food Safety; and Valerie Scheidt, Director of Food Safety – talked about preparing for final FSMA rules. Food Safety Tech presents some excerpts:

FSMATo-DoListHow close are we to the final rules in terms of how much can things still change, and are we more confident about some rules than others in terms of how much change we might still see?

We anticipate some changes with the proposed Third Party Certification rules especially around the responsibility of auditors to have mandatory reporting to FDA if they find any signification non-conformances. And this covers findings from consultative audits as well, so we feel it may be counterintuitive to do this as companies are aiming for continuous improvement.

We also think they may be some changes with the Food Defense rule. The agency may consider how GFSI views food defense and some of the mitigation strategies that are being proposed.

But for the most part, we think the other proposed rules will pretty much be as is.

What are Top 3 things that companies should be doing NOW to prepare?

First, companies need to figure out who that qualified individual will be especially in manufacturing facilities that have to comply with the preventive controls or foreign supplier verification rule. It’s important that this qualified individual is adequate informed and understands their responsibilities and what they need to do.

Also it’s really important to understand thoroughly the preventive controls rule and how it applies to your facility for instance, to your pre-requisite programs, GMP etc. Analyze how the preventive control rule will go beyond process control, and CCPs.

Another aspect that companies are really struggling with is document management, and realizing how they will be used by FDA.

Adding a fourth to do, companies need to be thorough with Supplier Controls – understand who is in the supply chain, and how they have been approved. FDA will be interested to know if you know their risks and how you are managing them.

In the area of supplier control, FDA made some significant changes in this last round of revisions. Will these hold? If so, what should companies be doing now to prepare?

You will need to have strong supplier controls. Although it looks like a new component, it was always expected. While regulatory compliance is the baseline, what we are seeking in brand protection as an end result. There are two things to get started – get a supplier approval process in place, after assessing supplier risk and making decisions on what can control that risk. You will also need to have monitoring and verification programs, and corrective actions in place.

Step two will be managing all this information. Documentation needs to fully support this system. Companies can do this either manually, or leverage technology that they currently are using, or can look for new technology opportunities. Whatever option they choose, companies must have everything in writing, especially a list of non-negotiable items that they can provide to their suppliers to see what they can do to meet your requirements.

From a scientific standpoint, it looks like companies will need to validate safety processes. Will FDA will be flexible in accepting tried and true operations, or will new studies need to be conducted?

FDA will accept tried and true operations, e.g. if you are doing a cook process, and you are monitoring for end point internal temp of 160 degrees, or if you have pH control of less than 4.6, and if these help in eliminating pathogens, then you have scientific validation for what you are doing. However, if you are doing a new process or a novel product, and have no process that’s scientifically supported, such as cook process, temperature or pH control, you need to have supporting data. In such cases, you will need to reach out to a Qualified Individual, and possibility have to do those studies to to make sure you have scientific justification for validation of your food safety plan.

What are requirements for a qualified individual?

A qualified individual is someone who has the required education, training, and experience to make decisions that are needed. However, that FD training that is required, doesn’t exist yet. So there’s a little bit of ambiguity here. But you look at types of responsibilities and information they need to know, the individual primarily has to be knowledgeable and confident about food safety. Just because that training and curriculum aren’t out yet, it doesn’t mean that you cannot look intuitively, and tell and this is the appropriate person and identify any training they may need.

Click here to listen to this webinar, and get more of your questions answered.

Roberta Wagner, Director, Office of Compliance, for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at FDA

How is FDA Surveillance Keeping Pace with FSMA Changes?

By Sangita Viswanathan
No Comments
Roberta Wagner, Director, Office of Compliance, for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at FDA

Proposed rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act will mandate more inspections, more testing, and better risk-based profiling of food products – both sourced domestically and imported. How is FDA planning to keep pace with these changes? Roberta Wagner, Director, Office of Compliance, for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at FDA, provided some insights, while speaking at the recent Food Safety Consortium, organized by Food Safety Tech. 

Section 201 under the Food Safety Modernization Act requires the Food and Drug Administration to designate food facilities at high-risk and non high-risk facilities, and accordingly, establish minimum frequency of inspection of these facilities. While high-risk facilities will have to be inspected by FDA once every three years, facilities deemed non high-risk will be inspected once every five years. Wagner described that the following factors have been considered so far for determining if a domestic food manufacturing facility is determined to be high-risk or otherwise:

  • Whether the facility has been involved in a Class 1 outbreak or recall;
  • Whether the facility has a history of non-compliance (based on Official – Action Indicated (OAI) or Voluntary Action Indicated (VAI) data);
  • If the facility has had any significant violations;
  • Future data considerations (see below);
  • Type of activity the facility is involved in; and
  • Date of last inspection.

Future data for consideration of high-risk and non high-risk categorization will include:

  • Inherent risk factors at product level (for instance is the product bakery goods, or seafood/ fresh produce etc);
  • Has the facility been linked to an outbreak, recall or adverse event (if so the risk profile gets elevated);
  • If any sample testing (product or environmental) is positive;
  • If there’s a history of customer complaints;
  • Robustness of QA/QC programs and 3rd part audit reports;
  • Financial viability of the company; and
  • Food safety culture of the facility/ company.

Foreign facility inspections

Under FSMA, FDA has also been mandated to increase the number of inspections the agency does on foreign facilities, to ensure the safety of imported foods. Wagner explained that FDA currently conducts about 1200 foreign facility inspections a year to determine if those facilities meed FDA regulations. With FSMA rules, FDA will have increased authority to conduct such inspections of foreign faciligies, and look at Foreign Supplier Verification Programs, and Voluntary Qualified Importer Program records, adds Wagner.

Under the new regimen, FDA has been mandated to conduct at least 600 foreign inspections during the first year of FSMA rule implementation. And the target is to double this number every year, for the next five years, taking it to 19,200 inspections by Year 6. Wagner feels this is an impractical number as FDA does not have the resources to do so many foreign inspections. “If we get the Foreign Supplier Verification Program under FSMA rule right, we effectively place the responsibility for ensuring safety of imported foods on the food industry and importers. FDA cannot, and should not be doing this,” she explains.

Risk-based foreign facility site selection

FDA will also adopt a risk-based approach to select foreign facilities for further inspection. This approach will consider:

  • Food safety risk associated with the sector or commodity;
  • Risk associated with manufacturing process;
  • Compliance history of facilities associated with an industry sector commodity in a given country or region (for instance, look at refusal rates for products denied try into the U.S. by country);
  • Quantity or volume of imported product from country or region;
  • Robustness of food safety system in the country; and
  • Portion of resources retained by the facility for compliance, follow up inspections and emergency response situations.

Based on this FDA will continue to diversify the product that it considers high risk, for instance dairy, baby food, candy… Wagner added that economically motivated adulterated continues to be a concern and cause for focus on food products such as oils, honey and dietary supplements.

Wagner also talked about Predictive Risk-based Evaluation for Dynamic Import Compliance Targeting or PREDICT, a risk management tool used by FDA to efficiently and effectively make entry admissibility, decisions that prevent entry of adulterated, mis-branded or otherwise violative imported goods into the U.S., while expediting the entry of non-violative goods. Based on risk scores allocated to different products, this computerized tool targets entries of highest risk for further scrutiny, including field reviews and sampling.

She explained that this dynamic tool, which constantly adapts to different risk situations and products, provides automatic data mining and pattern recognition, provides automated queries of FDA databases including facility registration information, and thus, allows for risk-based allocation of FDA resources.

Sangita Viswanathan, Former Editor-in-Chief, FoodSafetyTech

FSVP: What Has Changed in the Re-proposed Rule?

By Sangita Viswanathan
No Comments
Sangita Viswanathan, Former Editor-in-Chief, FoodSafetyTech

In a recent FSMA Fridays webinar, Dr. David Acheson, and Melanie Neumann of The Acheson Group covered some of these changes and its impact on the food industry. Food Safety Tech presents some excerpts:

What is FSVP all about?

Dr. Acheson: The foreign supplier verification program is supply chain risk control for imported foods. Following the melamine in pet foods scandal that originated in China, the legislation was aimed at tightening preventive controls for imported foods. The rule concerns companies that import food from foreign manufacturers, and requires them to ensure that those suppliers are complaint with FDA requirements in the U.S. and thus, you are addressing risks along the supply chain.

How did the re-proposals change FVSP rules?

While there are several changes proposed, the entire substance of the FSVP rules haven’t changed as whole. Overall the changes seem to align the FSVP rule closer to the preventive controls rule in terms of wording and intent. Some of the changes include:

  • Approved Suppliers: As long as an importer can demonstrate that they have a process to approve suppliers, and that they follow it, there is no need for them to maintain a list of approved suppliers. However, this raises a question: If you don’t have a list of suppliers, do you know if your supplier is approved or not?
  • Supplier Risk: FDA now requires an evaluation of supplier risk along with product risk. Factors that should be considered include regulatory compliance, the history with the supplier (including test results and their willingness to correct problems), and any other relevant factors.
  • Audit requirements: In the original rules, FDA asked whether or not an initial audit and subsequent annual audits should be required when an importer identifies hazards that could cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. In the supplement, FDA has basically said that yes, audits should be required under these circumstances, but has also given the flexibility in stating that if an importer can demonstrate that the risk can be managed in some other way, and that suppliers can be just as effectively verified through other means, then the importer is free to use other tools, or to decrease frequency of the audits.
  • Duplication of efforts: FDA will not require food manufacturing facilities who are subject to preventive controls (and who rely on suppliers to control significant hazards) to keep a whole additional plan in place to comply with FSVP.
  • Definition of very small importer: In the re-proposed rule, FDA has set $ 1 million in annual sales as the definition for very small importer, which aligns with the definition in the Preventive Controls rule.

Will food and beverage importers be expected to do onsite audits of foreign suppliers?

As described above, importers are supposed to do onsite audits, but only for significant hazards. Earlier FDA had provided two options. In the re-proposal, FDA seems to going with Option 1, which requires an annual audit for those supplier with significant hazards, but had added flexibility, by which the importer can determine another way of determining risk, or a less frequent audit schedule in lieu of that annual audit. But here’ the concern: While I embrace flexibility and decision making power at the industry or importer level, but there’s no objective bar set. The new requirement seems to say, ‘You have to do this, but you don’t have to do this, if you think you don’t have to do it!’ As a lawyer, looking at this in writing, it raises some flags about enforcement.

Click here for more on this exciting and evolving topic, including answers on where GFSI audits fit in, and what should U.S. importers be doing now to be ready to comply with FSVP requirements.