Tag Archives: FSMA

CAPA and Root Cause Analysis for the Food Industry

By Dr. Bob Strong
No Comments

A thorough and effective CAPA can provide many benefits such as providing long-term solutions, preventing recurrences, fostering continuous improvement, improving customer satisfaction, improving profitability, and having the ability to influence FDA and FSMA inspections.

Why do a Root Cause Analysis? Because unless you identify the root cause of a problem, you cannot resolve it. You need to find out what went wrong, how the problem was not detected, or what has changed.

Often times, it may seem that a Correction conceived on the fly solves the nonconformity. However, manufacturing processes—especially in the food industry—can involve a huge number of variables. As a result, problems that arise can involve multiple levels of causal relationships that must be followed in order to locate the true root cause of a nonconformity. This is why performing an RCA is essential; we may think we’re addressing the root cause of a non-conformity with a Correction, but in fact, we are only treating a symptom of a larger (and often more costly) issue.

Without an RCA, it’s anyone’s guess whether a Correction will hold. The nonconformity might be solved, or it might come back—and bring with it other issues related to the root cause.In any case, guessing is not sound strategy for dealing with non-conformities. This is why it is essential for organizations to be disciplined in their approach to investigating non-conformities. Sure, performing an RCA takes time, and nobody wants to waste time on something unnecessary. Nevertheless, organizations should understand that identifying the root cause of a nonconformity early could save a great deal of time and expense in the long run. Of course, you won’t know unless you perform the RCA, so it is always a better practice to invest time into an RCA upfront rather than get exposed to a more serious nonconformity at a later date that could threaten the safety and/or quality of product being produced or handled.

Who should perform the RCA?

Though it may be possible for a single person to perform an RCA, it is always better to have a team of minds working on the problem—people who are familiar with the relevant products, processes, equipment, and challenges of the working environment. A team also brings a greater pool of experience, knowledge, and perspectives, which can be extremely helpful in the investigative process of an RCA. It also makes sense for your RCA team to be comprised of people who canhelp represent the resulting CA or PA plan to other areas of the organization and help facilitate buy-in, consensus, and execution of the plan

CAPA: The process unpacked

A new white paper, published by SAI Global Assurance Services, describes in detail the various steps involved in CAPA. Broadly, these have been described as:

  1. Identify the problem: Before you can solve the problem, you must identify it plainly and clearly.
  2. Evaluate /Review: How big is the problem? What are the implications? What is the severity of the consequences?
  3. Investigate: Make a plan to research the problem.
  4. Analyze: Identify all possible causes using different methodologies such as It is/ It is not analysis, the 5 Why’s Method, and The Fishbone Diagram
  5. The Action Plan: Narrow the list of possible causes.
  6. Implement: Execute the action plan
  7. Review: Verify and assess effectiveness

CAPA benefits

A thorough and effective CAPA provides a lot of benefits such as providing long-term solutions, preventing recurrences, fostering continuous improvement, improving customer satisfaction, improving profitability, and having the ability to influence FDA and FSMA inspections, frequency of which will be based on on the robustness of your food safety programs.

This article is an excerpt from a white paper prepared by SAI Global Assurance Services, and has been published in Food Safety Tech with permission. Click here to download the white paper in its entirety.

Sangita Viswanathan, Former Editor-in-Chief, FoodSafetyTech

What to do Now to Migrate from HACCP to HARPC

By Sangita Viswanathan
1 Comment
Sangita Viswanathan, Former Editor-in-Chief, FoodSafetyTech

There is much talk about HARPC – Hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls – and how food companies need to either elevate their existing Hazard Analysis at Critical Control Points (HACCP) program, or formulate a new HARPC-based food safety plan, in order to comply with proposed rules under the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act in the

In a recent FSMA Fridays discussion, Dr. David Acheson and Melanie Neumann of The Acheson Group elaborated along with SafetyChain Software’s Barbara Levin, how HARPC differs from HACCP and what companies can start doing now to be prepared. We present below some excerpts.

How are HACCP and HARPC different?

The key term is that HARPC is risk –based. While HACCCP is more prescriptive, based on the seven-step process, the risk-based analysis requires moving outside of those seven steps to think of how else can I manage risk. Also, under HARPC, it’s no longer deemed sufficient to have a HACCP plan – you need to have a more exhaustive food safety plan.

How should F&B companies approach migrating HACCP to HARPC plans?

In the proposed FSMA rules, FDA has changed the language of defining how and which products should be monitored from ‘reasonably likely to occur,’ which is HACCP type terminology, to ‘significant.’ FDA is doing this in an attempt to differentiate the required HARPC-based food safety plan from traditional HACCP plans. This requires food companies to look at hazards along the whole supply chain – from when we are receiving food to when we are shipping it out (and not just at control points). For instance, environmental controls in a ready-to-eat foods processing area is covered now, which is beyond the traditional HACCP area. So look at those risks in the processing facility and ask if they are significant risks.

Who is the Qualified Individual and how does this impact the HARPC approach?

This is the million dollar question! FDA hasn’t come out with a clear definition yet – only vaguely referring to this person as ‘qualified by training or experience.’ However, this person has a lot of responsibility on their plate – they are responsible for preparing a robust food safety plan that identifies and controls risks, for putting in place corrective actions and validate these, and for doing a reanalysis of the food safety plan as needed. F&B companies need to ask if they have the right person driving this bus. You do need somebody in your business who is capable and qualified to do this, or FDA allows you to use an outside expert as the Qualified Individual.

What will FDA expect to see with HARPC when they come in to see FSMA being enforced?

Once FSMA is implemented (possibly) by August 2016, FDA inspectors can come into F&B facilities and ask to see food safety plans, and details of the HARPC plans. They would want to understand what the process is, what the hazards are, and how and if you are controlling these, and if you are thinking of these hazards from a risk-based preventive controls strategy.

What are top three things that companies should be doing to comply today?

As described often, HARPC is an evolution of HACCP or HACCP on steroids. The first thing you need to do is understand what you are being asked to do with HARPC. Make sure you get the strategy here. Step two, is to get together a team to do this to figure out where your risks are, if they are significant, and build these into food safety plan. Step 3 is look at your current systems and structure. Do you have these now identified significant risks controlled? Have you determined what the controlling steps are, and put in place these preventive controls? Ask yourself if you are controlling these risks, monitoring them, putting in place corrective actions and validating them?

Final point: we often hear people saying, ‘I am going to wait. We are going sit out and watch how the rules evolve.’ But our advice is Do Not Wait! We have a lot of insight on how the final rules are going to pan out and what the compliance requirements will be. So start working now.

For more on this discussion, click here.

Lessons Learned from the Implementation of Seafood HACCP for FSMA

By Tim Hansen
No Comments

While HACCP has been highly successful and truly promoted seafood safety and consumer confidence in these products, there are several useful lessons that may make your transition to FSMA compliance easier.

One of the tenets of FSMA is the requirement for preventive systems (AKA HACCP) for all food groups regulated by FDA. Up to the time of passage of FSMA, FDA wanted preventive systems only for seafood, fruit and vegetable juices and low-acid canned foods.

Since the requirement for preventive controls is about to be extended to all foods regulated by FDA, it may be instructive for affected food firms to consider some of the common problems experienced by the seafood industry during the implementation of HACCP. This regulation has been highly successful and truly promoted seafood safety and consumer confidence in these products. There are several useful lessons that may make your transition to compliance easier.

1. Unnecessary CCPs. Implementation of the Seafood HACCP regulation came with a great deal of uncertainty for the industry. Their response was to include a hazard as a CCP even when it did not meet the FDA “reasonably likely to occur” standard. This resulted in some cases overly complicated HACCP plans. Firms can avoid this problem through rigorous hazard analysis and following agency guidance for the commodity being processed.

2. Mixing sanitation controls with HACCP controls. The Seafood HACCP Regulation requires that certain aspects of sanitation be properly controlled, monitored and documented through records. While it is feasible to include these controls within the HACCP plan it is much simpler keep sanitation controls separate from HACCP controls. A sanitation SOP is highly recommended that show how sanitation is controlled, monitored and recorded.

3. Monitoring need to be available in their original form in an organized fashion. Inadequate or poorly organized monitoring records were a big problem. Ideally, records should not be rewritten unless absolutely necessary. Rewritten records are a red flag to FDA investigators. If records are missing do not falsify information to fill the gaps. This could be the basis for a severe regulatory action. It is much better to perform a verification review and corrective action that is available to the investigator.

4. If a new product is introduced to your processing operation the HACCP plan should be amended immediately. Do not wait until a convenient time as a regulator could show up at any time. Also, do not assume that the hazard analysis and HACCP plan for a similar product will be the same. Either can result in a finding of failure to have a HACCP plan. You should start at the beginning with a proper hazard analysis and develop the plan for that product in accordance with the hazards you identify.

5. Scientific studies used to establish a critical limit for a CCP should be readily available to the investigator. For example, a study to show the necessary heat penetration time-temperature parameters of a cooked product to achieve sufficient bacterial kill or the proper mix of salt, water and exposure time to achieve a proper level of water phase salts in a cold smoked fish products are important information for the investigator to evaluate whether the critical limit of a CCP is adequate to control the hazard.

6. Generic HACCP plans should not be used. In the past some operations adopted a generic HACCP plan to cover their processing without performing a hazard analysis. This often resulted in hazards being missed and a faulty plan. FDA expects that each firm will conduct a hazard analysis. Not doing so could result in a serious charge.

This article originally appeared in EAS-e-News, March 2015 edition. 

 

Getting Ready for FSMA: How a Laboratory Information Management System Can Help

No Comments

Investing in a LIMS will give food testing labs, growers, producers and manufacturers the traceability they need to keep their products safe from contamination and to conform to the stricter regulations and reporting required by FSMA.

Do you know where your food comes from? How sure are you that it was grown, processed or produced with your safety as the priority? Increasingly this issue is headline news as we struggle with managing the outbreak of food-borne illnesses caused by the very stuff of our daily lives: salmonella contaminated peanut butter; e-coli contaminated beef and pork; contaminated spinach, lettuce and strawberries; melamine in milk.

In each instance, the grower or producer had inadequate methods in place to trace the original source of the contamination. The Mexican tomato business was devastated in 2009 when tomatoes were wrongly blamed for an outbreak of salmonella that was actually caused by tainted jalapeño peppers. Without proper systems in place to provide traceability, there was no way to know the contamination source. Several people died, many more became ill and a major business was destroyed for lack of information. The ultimate price for those food producers is that not only have they lost revenue due to product recalls, but, more importantly, they have also lost the trust of the buying public – and governments around the world have taken notice.

In the United States, the oversight of food had fallen under a fractured network of agencies responsible for different parts of the production process, from site inspections and safe processing methods, to the documentation of calorie counts and ingredient listings. Some grown and produced foods fell under the auspices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while food groups that contained a combination of meat, dairy and produce fell under the oversight of the Department of Agriculture. Compound this regulatory environment with the fact that staffing for food inspections had been low compared to the volume of inspection needed to manage safe production. This lack of manpower and the separation of responsibilities exacerbated the ineffectiveness of the regulatory agencies and caused confusion among the consuming public.

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the most sweeping reform of our food safety laws in more than 70 years, aims to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus from responding to contamination to preventing it. The result of this legislation for consumers should be greater safety of their grown and produced foods. The impact for food producers will be mandates for upgraded business and operations plans, investments in instrumentation, software and manpower, and a safer food supply chain. This white paper discusses how to respond to FSMA, the role that traceability plays in it, and how leading food producers have implemented best practice solutions.

Employing a LIMS to meet the demanding FSMA requirements

The most important common thread throughout the FSMA is traceability. Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) play a critical role in the traceability of quality in the production process from farm to fork, providing such capabilities as:

  • Automated data collection from testing and delivering the records of proof that are required for regulatory compliance;
  • A secure environment for monitoring batch relationships between raw materials, processed materials and packaged goods;
  • A centralized system that collects, stores, processes and reports all the data generated within food laboratories, allowing a complete overview of the quality of any product;
  • Automated checks for out-of-specification results and identification of suspect products to prevent release pending investigation; and
  • Assurance that all (standard, fast turnaround and condition sensitive) samples are handled and processed correctly.

Furthermore, a LIMS provides the producer with the knowledge that the quality of the product meets the standards set by the regulator, while recording that data for any subsequent inspection. Auditors can review uniform compliance reports and the certificates of inspection stored within the LIMS whenever required to confirm consumer safety.

Ultimately, a LIMS plays a key role in the integration of the laboratory environment with critical enterprise systems to facilitate faster, more informed decisions. This makes laboratory data available to process control systems, giving managers immediate accessibility to results, as well as cascading any release data through to enterprise resource planning systems.

For some food testing laboratories, commercial LIMS have been too costly for the business to absorb and support, forcing them to rely on inefficient manual and error-prone home-grown systems, spreadsheets or paper-based methods. The new legislation will put enormous strain on these labs to remain compliant. Investing in a LIMS will give food testing labs, growers, producers and manufacturers the traceability they need to keep their products safe from contamination and to conform to the stricter regulations and reporting required of the FSMA.

Case Studies: LIMS providing traceability for food worldwide

Chr. Hansen is one of the world’s top food ingredient companies. The company standardized on Thermo Scientific LIMS across all of its six culture production sites in the United States, Denmark, France and Germany to ensure optimum quality control in starter culture production. The LIMS implementation has delivered considerable benefits, including real-time, automated entry and processing of laboratory data, and fast extraction of results, leading to increased laboratory productivity and accelerated sample turnaround. Chr. Hansen has also integrated the LIMS with its existing ERP system, so that test results authorized in the LIMS by lab personnel can be immediately available for the processing facilities technicians and laboratory administrators.

Molkerei Alois Müller produces more than a third of all yogurt eaten in the UK from the Market Drayton factory. The Müller UK labs focus mainly on production Quality Control. Every step in the process undergoes quality checks, which are managed and stored with the LIMS. Müller UK selected Thermo Scientific LIMS to manage their QC data for raw materials, in -process, and finished dairy desserts. The LIMS reduced the amount of error-prone manual paperwork processes and expedited testing, while providing the necessary reports and documentation for a complete audit trail during regulatory inspections. By using a LIMS, Müller is able to trend all data and make quality and safety decisions, as well as any necessary improvements, much faster and more reliably.

Sino Analytica in Qingdao City, China is a world-class food analysis laboratory that provides contract analytical services to a wide range of food suppliers, trading companies, and retailers from China and all over the world. Sino Analytica historically managed data manually in the laboratory with a monthly load of over 1,200 samples. The company chose Thermo Scientific LIMS to support its food safety contract laboratory and meet the internal quality standards and accreditation requirements for food exports to countries including the United States. The LIMS has helped laboratory managers achieve faster assembly, collation, and review of information and data relating to QA/QC activities. The LIMS also demonstrates that the company meets the requirements of auditors and provides documentation for processing internal QC data.

This article has been adapted from a white paper presented by Thermo Fisher Scientific. Click here to access the white paper. For More Information about Thermo Scientific informatics solutions for the food and beverage industry, visit: www.thermoscientific.com/foodsafetyresources.

No Industry Fees for FSMA – Food Groups Write to Congress

No Comments

A coalition of nearly 60 food groups, has now written to the Congress, urging the Senate and House of Representatives to fund the Food and Drug Administration without introducing new fees to the food industry.

The Obama administration budget proposal for fiscal year 2016 includes a proposal to impose a food facility registration and inspection fee to fund agency activities related to the Food Safety Modernization Act. The agency projects it would collect $60 million in fiscal year 2016. A food import fee was also proposed, with projected revenues of $103 million in FY 2016.

A coalition of nearly 60 food groups, has now written to the Congress, urging the Senate and House of Representatives to fund the Food and Drug Administration without introducing new fees to the food industry. The group — including the United Fresh Produce Association, the Food Marketing Institute and the American Farm Bureau Federation — is arguing that the new fees will hurt food producers and consumers.

Delivered before the March 4 House Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations subcommittee hearing, the letter explained that Congress has previously rejected efforts to impose new regulatory fees on food makers and distributors to fund FDA’s food safety programs and should do so again.

“We believe if FDA requires additional funds in FY 2016 to support food inspection activities and implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act, the administration should seek all such funding through the Congressional budget and appropriations process, rather than asking for authorization of new regulatory taxes that Congress has repeatedly rejected,” the letter said.

Top 3 Things to Know about President Obama’s FY 2016 Food Safety Budget Proposal

By Miranda Peguese
No Comments

Knowing the government’s increased focus on food safety means companies must continually be audit ready with program sustainability as a focus for management and employees alike. Commitment to food safety and a sound preparation plan is key for facilities as they navigate through the increasing food safety regulatory oversight.

Food safety funding has been a major focal point for the FY 2016 budget proposed by President Obama. Primarily due in support of the fact that all major Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) rules are scheduled to take effect by the end of FY 2016, the increased focus will impact each of the agencies governing food safety within the US and all entities which fall under their jurisdiction.

Here are three things to know about the proposed food safety funding allocation for FY 2016:

1. There will be a sizeable increase in the allocation of food safety funding.

President Obama’s $3.99 trillion FY 2016 budget proposal allocates $1.6 billion for food safety, a significant increase in food safety funding over previous years. This would include increases of $301 million for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to support new measures under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), resulting in a $109 million increase over the previous year as well as an additional $2.1 million increase to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) over FY 2015’s $48 million allocation going towards food safety.

USDA budget requests would decrease slightly for FY 2016, requesting $1.012 billion vs. $1.016 billion for the previous year’s budget as a result of program related cost savings and correlated efficiencies and expects that a portion of the $2.9 billion for agricultural research and extension activities would support additional food safety requirements set forth by FSMA.

2. The proposed increase in food safety funds would include a prioritized food safety spending plan.

The increases to the allocated funding for food safety do not come without guidance. The funding increase includes a detailed plan for spending to include the following allocation:

  • $32 million for Nation Integrated Food Safety System
  • $25.5 million for New Import Safety Systems
  • $25 million for Inspection Modernization Training
  • $11.5 million for Industry Education and Technical Assistance
  • $4.5 million for Risk Analytics and Evaluation
  • $4 million for Technical Staffing and Guidance Development

The top three funding allocations noted are for integration, import, and inspection. These allotments directly reflect the directives set forth in FSMA

3. The plan also includes a proposed single food safety regulatory entity.

In addition to the increase in funding, the new plan outlined by President Obama also asks for Congress to combine several programs overseeing US food safety into a single agency under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Advocates of the plan state that the combination would provide “focused, centralized leadership, a primary voice on food safety standards and compliance with those standards, and clear lines of responsibility and accountability”, citing the current food safety system as being fragmented and outdated. Currently, a total of 12 agencies enforce 30 different laws. An alternate proposal has also been put forth by two members of congress which would suggest the formation of a new food safety agency independent of HHS.

How does this affect your facility? Knowing the government’s increased focus on food safety means companies must continually be audit ready with program sustainability as a focus for management and employees alike. Commitment to food safety and a sound preparation plan is key for facilities as they navigate through the increasing food safety regulatory oversight.

To learn more about the food safety allocations within the proposed FY 2016 budget, visit http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm432576.htm and http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=BUDGET.

Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B
Retail Food Safety Forum

The Impact of FSMA on Private Label Food Retailers

By Dan Okenu, Ph.D.
No Comments
Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B

When fully implemented, possibly by the spring of 2016, the new U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) will raise the bar on food safety regulatory compliance both in the United States and around the world. The key provisions of FSMA will shift emphasis from the current reactive approach to food safety and food security, towards a more proactive science-based risk mitigation and prevention strategy. The impact will be felt across the entire global food supply delivery system from farm to fork including private label foods manufacturers, processors, suppliers, importers and retailers.

It has been projected that the sales of private label groceries in the United States alone will grow by 36 percent from $98 billion in 2011 to $133 billion in 2016. This impressive growth may be as a result of the competitive pricing of private label foods and the comparable quality with major brand products, as well as the convenience and customer trust in these in-store retail brands by today’s savvy shoppers. The consumer-friendly collaboration of private label manufacturers and retailers, or retailers that own their own private label manufacturing facilities is known to reduce the unnecessary supply chain costs by improving supply chain efficiency, enhances processes and systems, and improves the overall customer experience. These great value-proposition attributes will continue to make in-store private label products popular among consumers and profitable for businesses.

An important question however is how the new FSMA regulatory climate will impact these private label food products amid this growing popularity and in the context of the core business benefits of active management control, competitive prices, considerable return-on-investment and consumer satisfaction. On top of this list is the FSMA requirement for risk-based foreign supplier verification. This is to ensure that imported foods manufactured by foreign third party vendors or by US companies running their own facilities overseas are in compliance with the new FDA requirements, and that the food products are not adulterated or misbranded. Retailers of private label foods will be required to provide documented evidence from an accredited certification entity that shows that their foreign-supplied food products are in compliance. Frequent inspections of these foreign-based facilities and foods imported into the United States will be mandated under the new rule.

FSMA also sets the bar higher for retailers of private label foods in the key areas of food safety record keeping and documentation, traceability/recall programs, upgrading from ordinary HACCP to the more advanced Hazard Analysis and Risk-based Preventive Controls (HARPC), and implementing a verifiable supply chain management program. These provisions have the potential of making it more profitable for companies to manufacture their private label foods here in the United States instead of overseas where they lack active managerial control to ensure full compliance. Although domestic US-based manufacturers and suppliers are already covered under FSMA, retailers of private label food products manufactured in the United States are still advised to consistently verify that their suppliers are compliant, since retailers will also be liable for any infringement or negative outcome from such products.

For private label retailers that have proactively pursued industry benchmarking standards by insisting on GFSI certified facilities and who have an effective verifiable food safety management system in place, the impact of FSMA will be minimal. They will only need to re-examine their processes and systems to identify any gaps within the provisions of the new rule and put corrective actions in place. For others hoping to play catch-up, implementing the new FSMA requirements may become so overwhelming that the obvious business benefits of in-store private label foods like competitive prices and comparable quality with major brands may become severely undermined. The relationship of private label food manufacturers and processors with their retail partners could be impacted, as retailers would need to collaborate to profitably deliver what their customers want, namely, safe quality competitively priced mix of private label and brand food products.

Although the production and sale of safe quality food is mandatory to all food companies, under FSMA, small companies with less than $500k in annual sales and who sell directly to consumers within 275 miles radius of their facility may be exempt from some of the rigorous requirements of the preventive control rule. However, when large companies patronize these small local businesses, they must ensure that they are in full compliance since liability extends to retailers. National food service chains that manufacture their own private label ingredients and condiments or obtain these supplies from third party vendors are also expected to comply with the new rules. Overall, companies will be better off taking proactive steps in evaluating their suppliers’ food safety management system in line with the preventative control provisions under FSMA.

In conclusion, FSMA brings with it, a complete paradigm shift that will impact the entire global food supply chain. Retailers of private label foods must continue to assure their customers that their favorite in-store brands were produced, processed, stored and handled in a safe manner every step of the way. Thus, FSMA readiness and preparedness must include a comprehensive gap analysis to identify provisions of the new rules that must be implemented to stay ahead of the curve by next year when these regulations will potentially come into effect.

 

Sangita Viswanathan, Former Editor-in-Chief, FoodSafetyTech

Top 5 FSMA Challenges

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

The year 2015 is almost two months in, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has got its head down looking at the comments to the re-proposed rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), with the first of several deadlines – August 31, 2014 – looming ahead.

Against this backdrop, food safety experts Dr. David Acheson, and Melanie Neumann, at The Acheson Group, discussed the Top 5 Challenges for becoming FSMA Compliant with SafetyChain Software’s Barbara Levin.

The top 5 challenges were identified as:

  1. Determining exactly which rules apply to you and what compliance will involve;
  2. Building a food safety plan – migrating from HACCP to HARPC;
  3. If you are a registered firm – building a supply chain management program;
  4. Determining what testing you will need to do; and
  5. Determining recordkeeping requirements for FDA.

Why have the above been identified as the top 5?

FSMA has thrown out a number of different rules, and for food companies, figuring out where you should fit can be difficult. For instance, should you be looking at Preventive Controls, or Foreign Supplier Verification Program? The language in the Produce Rule is complicated, so if you are a mixed type facility, it can be challenging. While most companies are familiar with Hazard Analysis at Critical Control Points or HACCP, the concept of migrating into Hazard Analysis and Risk-based Preventive Controls or HARPC is not that easy.

Getting a handle around your supply chain and its various components is just difficult, and just understanding what this requirement will involve will be a huge challenge.

While testing of agricultural water was addressed in the initial Produce Rule, the re-proposed Preventive Controls rule included environmental monitoring and finished product testing as requirements for compliance. It will be a challenge for companies to determine what kind of testing they will need to do.

Keeping track of the variety and volume of records that FDA will need to for FSMA will be a huge challenge.

While we could have picked up many more than five, these were the top five that we think will be the most challenging.

To determine what rules will apply to you and what will compliance involve, what are the top things you should be doing now?

Firstly, if you are not starting already to see what applies to you, then you are already behind. Do a FSMA readiness assessment and look at all the rules to determine which ones apply to you. For instance, if you are a company that makes cereal and cookies, then you probably don’t need to worry about the produce rule.

Once you determine the rules that are applicable to you, then the heavy lifting begins. You need to do a gap analysis to see where you are now and where you need to get to. Drawing out this road map to compliance then becomes critical, and that’s what companies need to do be doing now.

Building a food safety plan and migrating from HACCP to HARPC, what are the top things that you should be doing?

The goal of the preventive controls rule is to encourage food companies to start thinking much more about prevention. While HACCP principles are a great start, in some areas, it could be limited in scope, and focused only on critical control points that we can measure. But HARPC expands our thinking to risks that we can control that are beyond classic HACCP thinking, and don’t fit nicely into the seven steps of HACCP. For instance, hand washing – we may not be able to measure this, but this would still be a critical step to control risk. So it will be a challenge for food companies to take their HACCP program and elevate it to HARPC thinking.

If you are a registered firm, building a supply chain management program has been identified as the third challenge. How do you know if you have to register? What can you do now to build a supply chain management program? And would you consider this the biggest challenge for FSMA compliance?

The requirement for food companies to register has nothing to do with FSMA; it was included as part of Bioterrorism Act. According to this, if you are packing, holding, processing or manufacturing food, you need to register with FDA. FSMA added the requirement that this registration would need to be updated every two years. This requirement is now important as several of the supply chain management program rules, which are part of the Preventive Controls rule, apply to companies that need to register.

The requirement to have a supply chain management program was in very early versions of FSMA and then got pulled out, and then now it’s back. And it’s not going away. What can you do to prepare for this rule? Look at all your suppliers, look at who they are, what they are shipping to you – do a hazard analysis of all their products, know their risks and understand what they are doing to control that risk.

For instance, your supplier Mr. Smith is supplying you ground black pepper, which you are using in a variety of products. We have determined that ground black pepper has a potential for Salmonella risk and has been historically linked to Salmonella. So you need to do a hazard analysis and determine if it is a risky food and who is controlling that risk. Is it you or Mr. Smith, and that depends on what you are using that ingredient for. If you use it as a garnish in based potato chips, then there is no cooking or kill-step involved, so the risk should be controlled by Mr. Smith. Thus, FDA will expect you to figure out that Mr. Smith is indeed controlling that risk, which you can do through site visits and data.

Another scenario is that you get that pepper from Mr. Smith, but you are using it in soup, and thus, have your own kill step to control that risk. So you don’t need to pay that visit, put have your own procedures to address risk with that ingredient.

While ground black pepper is a straightforward example, where it gets tricky is when you have to do this will ALL your ingredients. Companies typically have hundreds of suppliers and thousands of ingredients. So start NOW to understand how this little part of the preventive controls rule will affect you; you only have about 18 months to figure this out. And for that reason, I think this will be a huge challenge.

How can companies determine what testing they will need to do? What should companies starting doing now?

While the original produce rule included testing requirements for water, the other testing requirements mandated by FSMA are mostly new. The preventive controls rule now requires food companies to have an environmental monitoring program in place. FDA has also laid out a strategy in which finished product testing can be used as a risk control system. It’s not mandated per se, but it may be a way to exercise the preventive controls rule. Companies need to plan right now to determine what kind of testing they will need to do, how to document it etc. The environmental monitoring program and product testing requirements are new. So start looking at these programs, understand the rules to determine which of these rules apply to you, and do the gap analysis and FSMA readiness assessment now.

You have identified that record keeping requirements for FDA will a major challenge. How can companies prepare for this?

Record keeping will be an area where companies are most likely to struggle. There will be mounds and mounds of documents that will be generated because of the FSMA rules. The days of filing cabinets are over, and it will be really hard to do this in a manual environment. Companies need to look at technology and automation to manage all this data. If companies happen to be regulated by dual agencies, we are talking about even more information that they need to collect and keep track of. So automate NOW.

We often notice that companies are keeping track of the right data and documentation, but are unable to prove this, and retrieve the information when needed. With FSMA, the agency is going to say, ‘if you can’t prove it, it didn’t happen.’ So companies need to get smart about having effective document retrieval systems.

Are there any additional challenges that FDA isn’t talking about that companies need to look out for?

While the above challenges broadly capture the most significant challenges, we think the following may also be something that companies would need to prepare for:

  1. High-risk list: This year, we expect FDA to announce some rules regarding this.
  2. Traceability requirements: FDA may reveal more about this and how his will link to the high-risk list.
  3. Voluntary Qualified Importer Program or VQIP: The needs and requirements for this are still not clear. We expect some rules to be proposed this year.
  4. Additionally, while we don’t expect it to happen, if FDA makes any radical changes with the final rules, that could generate some new challenges.

For more on this discussion, click here.

Retail Food Safety Forum

All About Food Policy: Interview with Baylen Linnekin

By Chelsey Davis
No Comments

GMOs, FSMA and menu labeling are all hot topics right now in the world of food policy and regulation. To further discuss the latest updates,TraceGains’ Chelsey Davis sat down with Baylen J. Linnekin, Executive Director for Keep Food Legal, Adjunct Professor at George Mason School of Law, and Columnist at Reason, to explore his take on a few of these key issues.

GMOs, FSMA and menu labeling are all hot topics right now in the world of food policy and regulation. To further discuss the latest updates,TraceGains‘ Chelsey Davis sat down with Baylen J. Linnekin, Executive Director for Keep Food Legal, Adjunct Professor at George Mason School of Law, and Columnist at Reason, to explore his take on a few of these key issues.

Linnekin is a licensed attorney and is the founder and executive director of Keep Food Legal Foundation, a Washington, DC-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit that promotes food freedom of choice—the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing. He serves as an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School and an adjunct faculty member at American University, where his teaching focuses largely on contemporary food-policy issues. Along with faculty from Harvard Law School and UCLA Law School, Linnekin is one of six founding board members of the new Academy of Food Law & Policy. He is currently writing his first book, which focuses on the ways that government policies often thwart sustainable food practices, for Island Press. He is also serving as an expert witness in an ongoing First Amendment food-labeling lawsuit.

What are your thoughts on the final rules for menu and vending labeling that are set to be enforced by December 2015 (2016 for vending)? Do you think it will help fight obesity?

Linnekin: From both a theoretical and practical standpoint, mandatory menu- and vending-labeling is a lousy idea. Looking forward—from a theoretical perspective—even the chief architect of the country’s first menu-labeling law, former New York City health department head Thomas Farley, admits menu labeling “won’t stop the obesity epidemic[.]” Practically, we know Farley is right, as study after study has found that mandatory menu labeling doesn’t lead consumers to choose lower-calorie options, and may even cause them to choose options with more calories.

What is your take on “natural” labeling and advertising claims? Do you think things like this should be regulated, or better yet, more specific in regulation?

Linnekin: This is properly a matter for the courts. If someone believes they’ve been harmed by an “all natural” label—e.g., they were tricked into buying something by what they believe is a misleading label—then they should sue. The FDA should stay out of it. Instead, the FDA should permit any food label so long as it contains the required information—including an accurate list of ingredients—and doesn’t contain statements that are demonstrably false (fraudulent).

You talk about GMO labeling in a few of your recently published articles. If Congress were to pass a mandatory GMO-labeling law, what do you think would be the immediate ramifications to food manufacturers?

Linnekin: Mandatory GMO-labeling laws are bad for food manufacturers and consumers. Costs would rise for both thanks to new regulatory requirements and, for the former, threats of lawsuits. Thankfully, there doesn’t seem to be any stomach in Congress for passing a mandatory GMO-labeling law.

Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say things like, our “food freedom is under attack”?

Linnekin: I define food freedom as an individual’s right to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of his or her own choosing. Federal, state, and local government officials—both elected and working in regulatory agencies—are threatening this individual right. Many cities restrict a person’s right to plant a garden in their own yard, or to share food with the homeless and less fortunate. States have banned foods and food ingredients—from foie gras to Four Loko to raw milk. The federal government subsidizes farmers who grow some crops (i.e., corn and soy) and bans farmers from growing others (e.g., hemp). And it’s cracking down on foods that contain salt, caffeine, trans fats, and other ingredients. The list goes on. If the government were to restrict our speech—what comes out of our mouths—in the same way it does what we put into our mouths, we wouldn’t hesitate to say that free speech is under attack. That’s why I say food freedom is under attack.

With so many food recalls that occurred during 2014 and in previous years, how would you suggest food manufacturers prevent these issues while also not requiring additional regulation?

Linnekin: The U.S. food supply is remarkably safe. That’s thanks in very large part to the nation’s farmers and food manufacturers. The threat of harming consumers and consumer confidence—not to mention the lawsuits and calls for increased regulations that arise when such harm occurs—should be incentive enough for food companies to seek to prevent these issues from arising. But not all food regulations—even newer ones—are bad. I support the FDA’s mandatory recall authority under FSMA for many reasons, including because I think it makes lots of sense given the FDA’s original mission to protect food safety.

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.