Tag Archives: FSVP

Steven Burton, Icicle Technologies
FST Soapbox

Could Blockchain Technology Drive FSVP Compliance?

By Steven Burton
5 Comments
Steven Burton, Icicle Technologies

From farm to fork, food produced today goes through more hands than ever before. A greater number of players in the production of even a single product could increase that the risk for foodborne illness. Not only do companies need to check incoming and outgoing products from their own facilities, but they also need to consider whether products that they are importing from other countries are compliant with local regulations, and whether the products that they are exporting are compliant with the regulations of the destination country.

The current traceability standard of “one step forward, one step back’”is less and less suited for the current global marketplace, and governments are demanding more. Handling all this information is a challenge for food producers of all sizes, around the world.

Taking Traceability Global with FSVP

Needless to say, with 600 million people contracting foodborne illnesses every year, there is a dire need for food traceability and transparency in the food supply chain. If and when something goes wrong, traceability gives oversight agencies greater visibility investigating the root causes of an outbreak to prevent further risk to the public. It also allows companies to minimize the financial impact of a recall if they are able to pinpoint exactly which lot numbers of their products are affected.

In response to the changes in the food industry, in 2011 the USFDA introduced FSMA to implement a more proactive food safety regulatory system. With FSMA came the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP), which basically extends FSMA regulations to companies supplying food to the United States. All U.S. importers are now required to monitor and manage their foreign suppliers through six steps of hazard analysis, record keeping and more. Given the complexity of the global food supply chain, this is by no means an easy undertaking and it is clear that technology is crucial to achieving this granular level of data management alone. Blockchain technology, however, might be the answer to this problem—and many other related ones.

What is Blockchain Technology?

Evolving from the digital financial world, blockchains are distributed databases that build a growing chain of ordered records, called blocks. This means that any type of information can be stored in a chronological, consistent and secure way; even if multiple users are involved, it is extremely difficult to alter a blockchain.

Since any information on the blockchain is shared with all of its users, they can view any transactions made historically and in real-time. Theoretically, this could allow authorities to pinpoint food problems within minutes, when previously it would take days, potentially saving many lives in the process.

Blockchain in Action in the Food Industry

In 2016, retail giant Walmart started using a pilot version of the technology in its stores, tracking two products using blockchain: A packaged produce item in the United States and pork in China. Walmart announced that the results were “very encouraging,” noting that using blockchain technology could dramatically increase the speed of traceability from days to minutes. In fact, Walmart is now taking it to the next level with a collaboration with one of China’s largest retailers, JD.com, and their suppliers, to bring a higher level of food safety to China.

Other major food suppliers and retailers—Dole, Driscoll’s, Golden State Foods, Kroger, McCormick and Company, McLane Company, Nestlé, Tyson Foods and Unilever—have also signalled their intention to work with IBM to create blockchain-based solutions. Blockchain technology is even being used to track the movement of tuna through the ocean and all the way to the consumer.

At the same time, implementing blockchain technology throughout the industry is a mammoth task. As of now, blockchain technology has a problem with scaling up and can only process a limited number of transactions per second, which would not be sufficient given the needs of the global supply chain. According to Coindesk, each transaction costs about $0.20, and can only store 80 bytes of data, so the bill might become quite hefty as well.

There’s also the fact that the food industry is traditionally slow to adopt new technologies. It’s not just about big players like Walmart—small, medium, and large businesses alike need to come onboard in order for this to become an industry-wide standard.

Can FSVP Unlock the Potential for Blockchain Technology?

There are several reasons why blockchain technology could be the key to tackling the complex challenge that is tracking and verifying foreign suppliers. Blockchains can help increase transparency and communication across the food supply chain, ensuring that there are no gaps and that records are widely available and up to date. When all the information about suppliers and products is easily accessible, the potential to increase the speed of recall response is very high.

Blockchain technology is also suited to FSVP’s goals, specifically. One of the main goals of FSVP and FSMA generally is to tackle the issues of food fraud, intentional adulteration and bioterrorism that are unique problems of our time, in terms of scale if nothing else. Such a modern problem requires modern solutions. Because the blockchain, forming the basis of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, focuses on security, it could mean that blockchains can help close the gaps that would be exploited by food companies employees, or other actors who harbor ill intent.

The reality, however, is that the level of industry-wide coordination—and voluntary transparency—that would be necessary to deliver real benefits is extremely high. The theoretical possibilities are exciting and hugely impactful; the practical reality is more complex. For blockchain to reach its full potential, it has to be universally mandated, which is highly unlikely given the current circumstances. It seems more likely that adoption in this area could be driven by industry organizations and/or government, but unfortunately, the recently proposed budget cuts for the FDA might block progress in the latter area.

Still, with major food suppliers and retailers leading the charge and taking blockchain technology for a test run, the rest of the industry is waiting with bated breath to see what happens next.

FDA

FDA Releases Five FSMA Guidance Documents

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
FDA

Today the FDA issued five guidance documents related to FSMA with the goal of assisting food importers and producers meet provisions in the regulation.

The first two documents are related to the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) regulation. The FDA issued the draft guidance, Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals, along with a small entity compliance guide. The third draft guidance is related to whether a measure provides the same level of public health protection as the corresponding requirement in 21 CFR part 112 or the PC requirements in part 117 or 507 . “This draft guidance aims to provide a framework for determining the adequacy of a process, procedure, or other action intended to provide the same level of protection as those required under the FSMA regulations for produce and for human or animal food,” according to FDA.

The FDA also released a final chapter in the draft guidance related to FSMA requirements for hazard analysis and risk-based PCs for human food. The chapter is intended to assist food facilities in complying with the supply chain program requirements.

The fifth guidance is an announcement of the FDA’s policy to exercise enforcement discretion related to the FSVP rule regarding certain grain importers that bring the product into the United States as raw agricultural commodities. “This enforcement discretion is meant to better align the FSVP rule with the exemption for non-produce RACs under the PC rules,” stated FDA.

Brendan McCahill

Four Ways Technology Can Ease The Burden Of New FSVP Compliance Regulations

By Brendan McCahill
No Comments
Brendan McCahill

What if it was possible for importers, or the customs broker that imports food into the U.S. on behalf of shippers, to stop salmonella-tainted food before it arrives in the hands of a consumer? While there are assorted systems in place to prevent contamination, often times, grocery stores and other businesses are unable to track the supply chain of foreign food importers, leaving customers blind to the origin of a product.

Descartes FSVP InfographicThe U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is working to address this issue with the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP). The new program makes importers responsible for better tracking hazards, identifying their suppliers and ensuring that their food is compliant with processes that meet the FDA’s standards for preventive controls and safety.

On the surface, this visibility seems like a great benefit to both consumers and businesses. But what will it mean for importers as they try and keep up with reporting requests and new regulations?

To prepare businesses for the continuing list of FSVP regulations that must be implemented by 2019, here are four ways in which technology will ease the burden and make the food industry’s supply chain even stronger.

1. Gain a holistic view of the supply chain

For navigating FSVP specifically, technology provides food importers with an efficient way to identify and better trace a supplier network, as well as and a quick and easy way to locate D&B D-U-N-S® Numbers*. For importer self-filers and customs brokers, similar solutions enable them to streamline techniques to transmit data to U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) as their goods move across borders, as well as to store details, such as D&B D-U-N-S Numbers, Harmonized System (HS) codes and more.

Ultimately, food importers and customs brokers that enlist the expertise of one technology provider can better prepare for FSVP compliance. While piecing together a technology solution using multiple logistics technology providers may work in the short term, a forward-looking, compliance-centric approach that aligns with future regulations must be adopted – one that gives a holistic view of the supply chain via one service provider.

2. Identify and better trace the supplier network

Supplier verification is an additional area of FSVP whereby suppliers must undergo periodic review and approval, and must be identified in order to perform an effective supplier hazard analysis and evaluation. Accurately identifying suppliers is a highly complex task due to intricate supply chains, compound food formulations and the number of SKUs in a product line. Plus, a supplier ecosystem evolves over time for many reasons, such as changing cost and consumer demand. Simply put, managing a complex supplier network can be a drain on resources and costly. Luckily, technology can help.

Logistics solutions that feature periodic updates that adapt to changing supply chains can help food importers better target suppliers to ensure regulations are followed. It can also help focus on suppliers with higher shipment volumes to optimize data management and prioritize compliance responsibilities.

In the event a food code is subject to FSVP, customs brokers are required to input the importers’ name, mailing address, email address and D-U-N-S Number. Because the FDA’s consumer protection function is dependent on the entry process, brokers are aware of the added scrutiny shipments subjected to FSVP-related information will be under, especially if any of the above information is noted as Unknown (UKN). Logistics technology can help automate this process and ease custom entries, booking, security filings and more.

3. Streamline techniques to transmit important data

Transmitting data to the CBP as goods move across borders can be challenging in its own right. Basic customs issues include import/entry process, tariff classification, valuation and duty assessment.

Innovative technology solutions can help businesses go beyond the bare minimum to improve the speed and accuracy of submitting entry and Partner Government Agency (PGA) data to CBP. Users can receive and react to responses and customs status messages by exception. Proactive alert functionality can notify users of actionable items including rejections, intensive exams, requests for electronic invoices, Temporary Importation Bonds (TIB) expiration notices and more. On-demand solutions also enable brokers and forwarders the ability to run complex international operations more efficiently.

4. Dedicate D&B D-U-N-S numbers for imported food product

The D&B D-U-N-S Number was selected by the FDA as the recording system to identify importers by a common reference system. The FSVP regulation indicates that a D-U-N-S Number must be provided by an importer for each line entry of food product imported into the U.S.

Today’s complex food industry means importers often work with an extensive ecosystem of subsidiaries, affiliates and Doing Business As (DBA) divisions. To comply with FSVP, technology can help quickly locate the D&B unique identifier for each member of the network, and streamline the complicated process of managing each line entry of food product offered for importation into the U.S.

A tech-driven pathway forward

There is no doubt that the new FSVP regulation is complex. U.S. food importers are now responsible for ensuring compliance in an effort to improve the safety of food entering the U.S. This will require food importers to fully understand the regulation on a practical level and react accordingly, using technology to its fullest.

Leading businesses should consider the FSVP regulation as an opportunity to look forward and prepare. With the right logistics technology and processes in place, organizations can improve their readiness to enable compliance, improve data management and execute a holistic regulatory strategy to meet the new stringent requirements.

* D&B D-U-N-S Numbers are proprietary to D&B, are licensed from D&B and are for internal use only. 
D-U-N-S is a registered trademark of D&B.

Melanie Neumann, Neumann Risk Services

Today’s Inspection and Audit Reality: The New Normal

By Melanie Neumann, JD, MS
2 Comments
Melanie Neumann, Neumann Risk Services

Food industry inspection and audit protocols are evolving at a rapid pace, and rightly so. This is not surprising given today’s regulatory, audit and ever-changing risk landscapes, which are driving further complexity and expansion of requirements to ensure the industry is, “audit ready, all the time.”

This evolution of inspections and audits has been primarily triggered by newer regulations such as FSMA and private standards, such as GFSI and its certification programme owners (CPO’s, fka Scheme Owners) like SQF, BRC, FSSC 22000, IFS, etc. Heightened customer demand and consumer visibility into food safety incidents –many thanks to mainstream and social media– and the resulting increased demand for information has also fueled this evolution, compelling industry to focus on higher levels of transparency, both internally and throughout the supply chain.

The changes above are driving the food industry to face a new reality. One where the following questions continue to rise to the surface:

  • How have “yesterday’s” inspection and audit expectations changed from what companies are experiencing today?
  • Based on this evolution, how will “tomorrow’s” inspection and audit expectations change?
  • In short, what does the new reality or the “new normal” look like now for inspection and audit readiness?

We will take a look at what some of the first inspections are shaping up to look like under the Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF) Rule and the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) Rule. Some common themes and some tips to successfully manage regulatory inspections as well as audit readiness tips are set forth below.

More Inspectors

Roll out the welcome mat because more inspectors are coming to the party. We are seeing an average of three to upwards of six regulatory inspectors performing the inspections under the PCHF rule. This may cause an initial shock wave but when you stop to consider the rationale it has a certain level of reasonableness to it. Industry has invested in its personnel for nearly two years in updated training to meet new FSMA regulations such as preventive controls qualified individual (PCQI) training, updated current GMP training and perhaps qualified auditor training, if applicable. It makes sense that FDA needs to make a similar investment in its people to ensure its inspectors are prepared to knowledgeably perform FSMA-related inspections.

FDA has implemented a robust training program for its inspectors. Regarding PCHF inspections for example, only inspectors who have successfully completed the PCQI training plus FDA’s internal training will lead other inspectors through the facility inspections as an in-field training exercise. So, the good news is at least one inspector is fully trained under FDA’s training program standards. This said, with more inspectors, there are more eyes, and with more eyes, more opportunities to see risk through different perspectives. It’s best to be on your game, with a tested playbook so you have confidence you are prepared when the team of inspectors arrive at your facility. Conduct a mock inspection against your policies, procedures and food safety plan that have been updated for the new PCHF and other applicable FSMA requirements. You will be thankful you did.

Digging Deeper

Into Records: FSMA and the seven rules that comprise it requires more controls, monitoring and verification activities by the food industry, thus naturally giving inspectors more records to access and review. Further, FDA received expanded records access authority upon the signing of FSMA. FSMA allows FDA to access records relating to articles of food for which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, the article of food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. Before FSMA the standard FDA had to meet to access records was “credible evidence”; now its “reasonable probability”—a standard that is far lower and subjective—allowing access to more types of records than before. Another new addition is FDA now may access records beyond those relating to the specific suspect food if the agency reasonably believes that other food articles are likely to be affected in a similar manner.

Example: If you have a potential problem on production line 1, and you firmly believe the issue is contained to line 1, but that line is in even arguably close physical proximity to line 2, depending on the issue an inspector may invoke this new authority and ask for all records associated with line 2 in addition to line 1 for the same time period to be sure that the situation indeed did not spread or otherwise impact line 2. (e.g. confirm no risk for cross contamination or allergen cross-contact).

This should not mean it’s open season on all your records, but it certainly means more records are open to review and scrutiny, so having a robust record retention and management system becomes mission-critical. How sound is yours? Record-keeping and document management have long been important to GFSI / CPO’s. However, many food companies do not have a certification from one of these entities, which begs the question whether the scope of your third-party audit, or that of a supplier you are currently evaluating for approval, adequately evaluates this important area.

Into your Hazard Analysis: Inspectors are spending significant time reviewing the adequacy of the hazard analysis performed as part of the requirement of the food safety plan under the PCHF Rule and as part of the foreign supplier verification plan requirement under the FSVP rule. If facilities do not identify all the hazards of concern that require a preventive control associated with their facility and foods they produce, then the rest of the food safety plan falls apart. If you work with peanuts to produce peanut butter and identify Salmonella as a hazard requiring a preventive control but not aflatoxin or peanut allergen you have likely missed the mark.You may not have the appropriate preventive controls, monitoring, verification activities, validations and corrective actions identified in your hazard analysis and food safety plan to control for the most significant hazards your facility / the finished food is facing from a food safety risk perspective. (note the identification of hazards requiring preventive controls is highly dependent on the food, facility, processing methods of the manufacturer, upstream supplier and will vary if products are RTE or nRTE)

How are auditors tackling this issue? Many third-party audit firms have invested in providing PCQI training for its auditors so they are better prepared to evaluate the sufficiency or gaps in the hazard analysis. It is a good idea to ask your audit firm what updated skills and training have been given to its auditors to ensure you are getting the assistance you need.

Continue to page 2 below.

Pages: 1 2
Bill Bremer is Principal, Food Safety Compliance at Kestrel Management LLC
FST Soapbox

FSMA Checklist: Foreign Supplier Verification Program Requirements

By Bill Bremer
No Comments
Bill Bremer is Principal, Food Safety Compliance at Kestrel Management LLC

As all the FSMA rules move to enforcement status, food companies must prepare to best respond to requirements and, correspondingly, to develop required programs such as the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) rule. The FSVP requires impacted companies to document specific verification steps to satisfy regulations and meet foreign-supplied shipment information requirements. These requirements took effect on May 30, 2017 for companies importing certain food products to the United States.

How much do you know about FSVP? Test your smarts by taking the FSMA FSVP IQ Test here Ultimately, the purpose of the FSVP is to document the shipping paperwork necessary to provide evidence and verification that a foreign supplier’s food-grade product shipped to a U.S. customer meets the requirements of FSMA. A company’s FSVP may include providing an additional level of evidence that the foreign company distributes safe foreign-supplied food products to the United States, the qualification of these suppliers, verification of supplier and shipment information, and records to verify the shipment of all imported food under FSMA and food safety plans. This information provides the U.S. customer receiving the product necessary proof of compliance and a record that the foreign-supplied material meets imported food product requirements.

Self-Diagnostic Assessment Tool

The following self-diagnostic assessment tool can help organizations better determine their current state of planning when it comes to implementing and managing FSMA FSVP requirements. To complete your own assessment, review and compare your programs to the questions in Table I.

FSMA, Foreign Supplier Verification Program
Table I. Kestrel Management’s self-diagnostic tool can help a company assess its Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) for FSMA compliance.

Get Compliance-Ready

Companies must have the appropriate systems in place to comply with FSMA FSVP requirements or face possible willful non-conformance, which can include fines and criminal penalties under FDA enforcement. The questions above will help companies identify areas to consider regarding their FSVP programs. Kestrel can also help answer questions, provide input on solutions, discuss how to better manage all your food safety requirements, and change “No” responses into “Yes” responses that promote best practices for FSMA and food safety compliance.

Results: FSMA IQ Test on Foreign Supplier Verification Program

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments

The results are in! A couple of weeks ago, we asked readers to take a survey to test their knowledge of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program, and most passed with flying colors. If you didn’t take the test yet, you can view it here. The following are the results:

  1. You are only required for your foreign suppliers to meet your company requirements. FALSE
    • 89% answered correctly
  2. All required records for each applicable foreign-supplied product must be maintained for each shipment. TRUE
    • 93% answered correctly
  3. Your FSVP does not require that information for each lot of each product under the program be provided. FALSE
    • 84% answered correctly
  4. Just the location of the manufacturer of the product is required for the entity. FALSE
    • 90% answered correctly
  5. Foreign supplied shipments should include records to comprise the listing of all required information. TRUE
    • 91% answered correctly
  6. A qualified foreign supplier must have a Qualified Individual over the manufacturing of food product that is shipped to the United States. TRUE
    • 83% answered correctly
  7. A foreign supplier does not need to be registered under FDA requirements if the shipment of product is going to a registered facility in the United States. FALSE
    • 78% answered correctly
  8. A foreign supplier of food to the United States must ensure that all the requirements of a FSMA Food Safety Plan under cGMP117.126 be met for the manufacture of the food being exported to the United States. TRUE
    • 94% answered correctly
  9. The product information, including COA compliance, is not required for each lot of a product on a foreign-supplied shipment. FALSE
    • 83% answered correctly
  10. A food broker of foreign-supplied product to the United States does not have any responsibility of meeting the FSMA requirements. FALSE
    • 92% answered correctly
Question mark

FSMA IQ Test Part I: Foreign Supplier Verification Program

By Food Safety Tech Staff
4 Comments
Question mark

The FSMA Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) has many elements that must be met. Do you know the correct response to these questions?

Kestrel ManagementWorking with Bill Bremer, principal of food safety compliance at Kestrel Management, LLC, Food Safety Tech is continuing its FSMA IQ test series. Results will be posted monthly in our Food Safety Consortium newsletter leading up to the 2017 event.

Confirm your company’s responsibility in meeting FSMA FSVP compliance by answering True or False.

Imports

Import Safe Food, Stay Out of Trouble with FDA

By Maria Fontanazza
1 Comment
Imports

Food importers have clear objectives: To successfully bring safe food into the country by clearing U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to avoid FDA detention and to conduct business competitively in the United States. Under the FSMA final rule on Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP), importers must ensure their food is as safe as if it were produced in the United States and that it is not adulterated or misbranded.

Compliance, of course, is of utmost importance when it comes to avoiding issues with the FDA. However, in a more realistic sense, the best way to stay out of trouble with FDA is to avoid two circumstances, advised Russell Statman, executive director at Registrar Corp. (the firm is a U.S. agent for about 15,000 foreign facilities)—being dishonest and not taking the requirements seriously.

“Once you fall into one of those boxes, you’ll never get out,” Statman said. “It’s important when dealing with FDA to remember that. It’s not a building; it’s people. They don’t want to stop your shipments; they want to facilitate trade.” If your company is honestly working toward and making an effort to follow the rules, “FDA will keep working with you until the cows come home,” he said.

Statman discussed practical information surrounding FSVP that importers should consider during the Food Safety Supply Chain Conference earlier this week. Although there is flexibility built into the FSVP rule (as there is with all seven FSMA rules), importers must follow the law. To start, every importer must have DUNS number (provided by Dun & Bradstreet), which is free of charge. However, this can be a challenge for foreign companies, particularly those in China, according to Statman, who also said there may be instances in which Dun & Bradstreet tries to charge a fee. “It’s supposed to be free and quick. If you have problems with Dun & Bradstreet, you want to let FDA know.” He offered key pieces of advice for the FSVP requirements:

  • Hazard analysis. “You can’t rely on other people. If you’re producing food, do your own hazard analysis. Create a pamphlet that you can give to your customers. Then you don’t have to deal with all these requests—keep updating [the pamphlet], so it’s a living document. If you’re a foreign supplier and have a booklet, you’re steps ahead of your competition.”
  • Approval and compliance status review of suppliers: Check their record with FDA to find out whether they have any warning letters or on import alert. “That doesn’t mean you can’t buy from them, it just means you have to investigate what the problem is,” said Statman, but added that a lot of U.S. companies will not buy from importers that are flagged with an alert. And in many cases, companies do not know that they’re on import alert, so visit FDA’s website frequently to make sure you’re not on the list. “FDA doesn’t tell you when you’re on import alert. You want to check [because] asking them might not be good enough.”
  • Supplier verification activities: Verify that importers follow the entire rule.
  • Corrective actions
  • Periodic reassessment of FSVP
  • Importer identification at entry (DUNS number)
  • Recordkeeping: “In a very real, practical sense, your record stays with you,” said Statman. “If you’re an importer, you don’t want your shipment detained by FDA.” FDA uses a computer system called PREDICT that determines which entries they stop. The system comes up with a score for shipments that are at the highest risk. “Your PREDICT score if very important—some of these factors are secret, [and] some are public. The most important are in your control—your record and the importers record,” he added. “Before you send your first shipment for a new product, make sure everything is correct (i.e., registration, labeling). It’s worth the time.”

 

FSMA, Food Safety Tech, FDA

FDA Releases New Guidance on Foreign Supplier Verification Program

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
FSMA, Food Safety Tech, FDA

With the first FSVP compliance rule just two weeks away, FDA has published a new guidance to help importers that are subject to the rule. “Guidance for Industry: Compliance with Providing an Acceptable Unique Facility Identifier for the Foreign Supplier Verification Programs Regulation” specifically provides information on the following:

  • How an organization identifies itself as an importer of food at entry into the United States
  • Requirement to provide a unique facility identifier that is acceptable by FDA
  • Information on what to do if the importer cannot obtain a Dun & Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System number in time for the compliance date

FDA also identified the importers that fall under the May 30, 2017 compliance date. The foreign supplier would fall into one of the following categories:

  • The supplier will not be covered by the FSMA PC or Produce Safety rules
  • The supplier is subject to the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule and is not a small business, qualified facility or subject to the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance
  • The supplier is subject to CGMP requirements in the FSMA Preventive Controls for Animal Food rule and is not a small business or qualified facility

For importers that are unsure as to whether they are required to comply with the FSVP rule, the agency released a one-page chart, “Am I Subject to FSVP?”, along with a fact sheet about the final rule and the requirements under it, compliance dates and additional information.

Erika Miller
FST Soapbox

When Worlds Collide

By Erika Miller
2 Comments
Erika Miller

The Foreign Supplier Verification requirements of FSMA have perhaps been less well advertised than those of the Preventive Controls rules, but the compliance dates are fast approaching nevertheless. On May 30, 2017, a new field will appear in Ace, the software system wherein importers declare their imports and, in so doing, fulfill the requirements of many different U.S. regulations. This seemingly innocuous event will have serious and wide-reaching implications for all entities involved in the importation of food intended for consumption in the United States, but perhaps no one will be more affected than brokers and distributors, for they have long relied on the protection of their sources to ensure a share of the profits on their imports.

Exchange knowledge about managing your supply chain at the Best Practices in Food Safety Supply Chain conference | June 5–6, 2017 | LEARN MORE

Brokers and distributors often provide an important service by taking care of the legal requirements to bring a product into the country, and by purchasing large quantities of product that can then be broken down into more manageable quantities for their customers. Nowadays, information that was used to be transmitted to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on paper forms is entered in Ace, which is a one-stop-shop software system that aggregates data on all imports. This data can then be accessed by several government agencies, including the FDA. Anyone wishing to bring food into the United States for consumption on our shores will be required to declare a Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) Importer for the food, and the names entered as FSVP Importers will then form a database from which the FDA will work to ensure enforcement of this program.

This FSVP Importer may or may not be the same as the Importer of Record (IOR). Large companies are already re-writing their import contracts to include this requirement, for it’s quite clear already that communication of expectations will be vital to the success of this program. The FDA recognizes that it is possible that unscrupulous parties may enter the name of a party as the FSVP Importer who does not realize their name has been entered; however, the main recourse for the injured party is to better communicate with their supply chain to ensure the issue does not arise again.

Although these technicalities are important to understand, it is perhaps even more interesting to consider the implications of all the FSMA requirements surrounding this rule. For example, FDA’s requirements for records are very clear, and each record must include the name and address of the facility at which it was created, in addition to other information. The rules of FSMA are also quite clear in stating that brokers or distributors cannot provide the necessary food safety paperwork on their own; rather, this documentation must come from the grower, manufacturer, processor—for a true farm-to-fork implementation, in keeping with the spirit of the rule.

What does this mean for the broker who sells to a large company that is perfectly capable of purchasing the large quantities required to “go direct”? Will they be cut out of their livelihoods by being forced to give this information to their customers? This is a question that has been raised in all the FSVP Importer classes held to date, and in reading the rule, it appears clear that the broker is expected to disclose their source. How else is it possible for them to follow the law, and assure their customer that the food was produced with the same level of food safety as if it were made here in the United States?

Foreign Supplier Verification, TraceGains A Comprehensive Guide to the Who, What & How to FSMA’s FSVP Rule

Have confusion regarding some of the specifics to FSMA’s Foreign Supplier Verification Program rule? You’re not alone… Are you the importer? What if you’re a broker? What are the actual contents of a verification program? This comprehensive guide can help answer some of these lingering questions, and will provide you with a couple real examples of FSVP in action.

This is a particularly interesting conundrum because at its heart, this is an issue of information exchange between private companies. Although the FDA does expect that some entity will keep the records to satisfy the requirements of the FSVP, they will not expect this paperwork to be transmitted to any government agency prior to approval of a load for import. Rather, the FDA will send electronic records requests to the entities declared as FSVP Importers later, wherein they will ask for the records related to previous shipments. Should the FSVP Importer declared at import not produce the required documentation at the time of this request, enforcement activities are expected to result (eventually, once the rule has gone into effect and regulation has begun).

It stands to reason that some entities may continue to operate in a fool’s paradise for some length of time, thinking nothing has really changed. This is incredibly dangerous for the business, its reputation and indeed, for the consumer. Times are obviously changing across the globe, and the FDA is doing its best to keep up with the demands of an increasingly complex global society. The broker who enters his own name without understanding the implications of what that means may find himself on the receiving end of a number of records requests from the FDA, with no records on hand with which to fulfill them. This is not an enviable position, and will likely result in an in-person visit from an investigator if the food imported is considered high-risk.

There are, of course, many brokers and distributors who are proactive and concerned about food safety. These are the companies that are sending multiple individuals to FSVP training to stay informed about the changing face of import regulations. Many of these brokers and distributors already gather paperwork such as third-party audit reports and letters of guarantee from their suppliers, but they do not transmit this information to their customers. Should these proactive companies be essentially punished for following the letter of the law? Even if a purchasing department has a warm personal relationship with their broker or distributor, if the C-suite sees an opportunity to save a substantial sum on their commodity of choice while increasing transparency in the supply chain, certainly those decisions will be made without regard for hurt feelings.

What about redaction? Can the brokers or distributors redact the sensitive information from the documents, and transmit them in that way? Perhaps, but after consultation with a brilliant and experienced legal mind, redaction may not be the panacea it first appears. For example, redaction of documents is a boring and redundant task, frequently relegated to the intern or other low-paid office worker due to its repetitive nature. These workers may perform the redaction lackadaisically, or use CTRL-F to find all appearances of the information to be redacted. In doing this, they often miss important information that appears in an image or is misspelled. Additionally, anyone who has spent much time in the food industry understands that this is a small world, and it is often easy to recognize a document simply from the style in which a particular company presents all its documentation. Clues such as colors, partial logos and incomplete redaction can lead to a shrewd individual deducing the original author of the documents quite easily.

Although there are no answers to be had at this juncture, especially considering that the compliance date for these requirements has not yet passed, it is important to think about all these implications, along with many others that are being brought to the forefront through the Importer workshops approved by the Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance. The FDA readily admits they are learning right alongside industry, and they have every intention of continuing to educate while they regulate. If these issues cannot be hammered out between industry representatives and the FDA directly, it stands to reason the issue will eventually be brought before the courts, where the demands of capitalism will be weighed against those of regulation for food safety. Is there a legal precedent for this situation? If you know of one (or several), please leave the information in the comments below to continue the discussion.