Attend the Food Defense Plenary Panel Discussion at the 2019 Food Safety Consortium | Tuesday, October 1, 2019Today FDA released an updated version of its Food Defense Plan Builder in efforts to help companies comply with the International Adulteration FSMA rule. Version 2.0 of the tool includes the following sections to help food facility owners and operators in developing a facility-specific food defense plan:
Facility Information
Process/Product Description
Vulnerability Assessment
Mitigation Strategies
Food Defense Monitoring Procedures
Food Defense Corrective Action Procedures
Food Defense Verification Procedures
Supporting Documents
Signature
The tool is for use on a computer, and FDA states that it does not have access to any content or documents used with the tool, nor does it track or monitor how the tool is being used. The agency also emphasizes that use of this tool is not required by law and its use does not mean that a company’s food defense plan is FDA approved or compliant with the IA rule requirements.
The original version of this tool was released in 2013. FDA will be conducting a demonstration of the Food Defense Plan Builder v. 2.0 during a webinar on October 10.
What is FMEA? What is a vulnerability assessment (VA)? How can these two be linked? Despite what you may think, there are similarities between these two methods. FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) methods can be utilized to help objectively assess the vulnerable steps within your process.
After July 26, 2019, businesses other than small and very small businesses (defined by FDA) must comply with the FSMA Intentional Adulteration (IA) Rule. The rule is intended to enforce industry regulation to conduct vulnerability assessments and address proper mitigation plans to prevent any potential fraud risks within the food defense plan. For small businesses, the compliance date is July 27, 2020; for very small businesses, the compliance date is July 26, 2021.
Although the IA rule does not specify a particular method that you must use to conduct your VA and address proper mitigation plans, the following elements must be considered during your evaluation and mitigation strategy and must be implemented at each actionable step afterwards:
The potential public health impact (e.g., severity and scale) if a contaminant were added (21 CFR 121.130(a)(1))
The degree of physical access to the product (21 CFR 121.130(a)(2))
The ability of an attacker to successfully contaminate the product (21 CFR 121.130(a)(3))
During the 2019 Food Safety Consortium, Melody Ge will present: How to prepare ourselves in this data-driven transitioning time for the smart food safety era? | October 2 @ 10 am FMEA is a Six Sigma method widely used in operations when implementing a new process. It is a structured approach to discover potential failures that may exist within the design of a product or process. Within FMEA, the RPN (Risk Priority Number) score is used to prioritize risks and is calculated by Severity × Occurrence × Detection. RPN is a quantified number that helps you prioritize risks when determining actions. If we employ the same mentality, FMEA is a useful method in helping to identify vulnerable steps based on the risk within your process. Take a close look at how the RPN is generated; the following three components are also important during the vulnerability assessment.
Severity or the potential public health impact (e.g., severity and scale) if a contaminant were added.
Severity is identified when considering the consequence of when a processing step goes out of control; or thinking about the severity of the health impact. We can consider those impacts or consequences using four common categories:
Biological contaminants
Chemical contaminants
Physical contaminants
Intentional adulteration for economic gain contaminants
Occurrence or the degree of physical access to the product.
Occurrence is identified when considering how frequently a process step is expected to go out of defined controls. Is it once a week or once a month? Depending on how often the step goes out of defined controls, this will trigger different action steps as well as mitigation plans.
Detection or the ability of an attacker to successfully contaminate the product.
Detection is considered by how easy it can be detected when the failure occurs. For example, within the food production operation, mixing steps is relatively easier than a CIP step to be detected. More references could be found in FDA’s definition of KAT (Key Activity Types, as discussed in the draft guidance, “Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration”), such as:
Bulk and liquid receiving and storage
Liquid storage and handling
Secondary ingredient handling
Mixing and similar activities
Once the RPN is identified, then the vulnerable steps can be sorted based on the RPN. To utilize this approach, Table 1 provides a template to be considered using FMEA for the vulnerability assessment.
Process Step
Description
Is it KAT? (Y/N)
RPN
Action Process Step
Mitigation Strategy
Explanation
Sev
Occ
Det
RPN
Table 1: Determine the vulnerable steps (for reference)
As IA rules regulate, a mitigation plan must be generated once a vulnerable step is identified. The intention of the plan shall ensure those risks identified are mitigated and controlled so that the final finished products are not impacted or contaminated. One tip to begin this process is to start with reviewing your current control plan for potential food safety risks. As FSMA Preventive Controls are fully implemented, all food plants shall have a food safety plan in place with validated control plans that are intended to reduce risks for potential physical, chemical, biological and adulteration for economic gain. Sometimes, these risks are highly associated with potential vulnerable steps for intentional adulteration, especially those processing steps associated with potential economic gain hazards. If those controls are not working properly, then we can seek out other mitigation plans. Nevertheless, regardless of what steps are taken, they have to be validated to show that the IA risks are effectively mitigated. Monitoring and verification shall be conducted as well once the mitigation plan is implemented.
Of course, like all food safety management systems, every food plant should have its own designated plans based on the products being produced, operations implemented and the nature of the production. Ultimately, it will be your choice to find an effective method that fits your production culture. However, the intention should always be in compliance with the IA rules: Identify the vulnerable steps within the process, and conduct mitigation plans to control the risks of intentional adulteration.
Learn more about food fraud at the Food Labs Conference | June 2–4, 2020 | Rockville, MDThis week FDA made an announcement during a public meeting that the agency’s routine inspection to verify compliance with the FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule will start next March.
The first compliance date for the rule is this July. It is a requirement for food facilities covered under this rule to develop and implement a food defense plan that identifies vulnerabilities and the consequent mitigation plan.
FDA stated that it has received feedback on the “novel nature” of the rule’s requirements and that stakeholders want more time to develop their food defense plans. “ To allow industry time with the forthcoming materials, tools, and trainings, and because the IA rule represents new regulatory territory for all of us, we will be starting routine IA rule inspections in March 2020,” FDA stated and added that it is working on developing more resources as well as the final part of draft guidance to continue to assist industry.
The FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule (Mitigation Strategies To Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration) requires companies that fall under the rule to implement a written food defense plan, identity vulnerabilities and establish mitigation strategies based on those vulnerabilities. This is new territory for FDA as well as for many companies in the industry—and for this reason, the agency has established a longer compliance timeline. However, that doesn’t mean companies should wait—the time to prepare is now.
Christopher Snabes, senior manager, food safety at the The Acheson Group (TAG) and Jennifer van de Ligt, Ph.D., associate director at the Food Protection & Defense Institute (FPDI) sat down with Food Safety Tech to discuss some of the challenges they see industry facing related to intentional adulteration and food defense.
In addition, TAG and FPDI are interested in gauging the industry’s level of readiness in this area and have put together the survey, Intentional Adulteration & Food Defense Industry Preparedness. We encourage you to take the survey. And don’t miss subject matter experts from TAG and FPDI at this year’s Food Safety Consortium as they discuss Food Defense: Lessons Learned from Recent Incidents + Key Steps to Mitigating Risks.
Food Safety Tech: Given the subject matter of the survey, what do you feel is the current preparedness level regarding compliance with the FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule?
Christopher Snabes, The Acheson Group
Christopher Snabes: I see this from a variety of fronts. Some companies established food defense solely on the events of 9/11, putting initial food defense plans in place [that involved] fences, installing security guards and gates, and locking the outside doors. Some companies we’ve worked with feel this is sufficient enough to meet the IA rule, and that’s not correct.
TAG has assessed several companies that are in the process of conducting food defense assessments, and they’re doing them based on best industry practices, and preparing for the inside attacker and/or a terrorist getting into key production areas.
TAG has worked with some companies that are fully waiting for the second and third guidance documents from FDA to come out before they do the full food defense plan. We’ve worked with some companies doing a mix of the above—they’re not waiting for the guidance but are actively testing their plans and having an outsider test their vulnerability, and then they’re rewriting plans based on the findings. They’ll also update their food defense plans, once the second and third FDA guidances are released to the public.
We feel these are the most prepared facilities; there are not a lot of companies at this point, but they’re starting to pick up steam. At this point, I would say most companies are actively pursuing a food defense plan as well as beginning to test their vulnerability.
Jennifer van de Ligt, Food Protection and Defense Institute
Jennifer van de Ligt: I agree with Chris and would add that in the past two years or so, there’s also been a shift in how the industry is viewing the Intentional Adulteration rule. Many companies currently have food defense plans based on the events of 9/11 and, for the first couple of years, as the new Intentional Adulteration rule was being written, there was still a heavy emphasis on “that should be enough.” I very rarely hear that now when discussing the Intentional Adulteration rule with our industry partners. I think companies are more prepared from an understanding perspective to move beyond perimeter security and guards to really think about the risks in the facilities that would come from people with legitimate access— what the rule defines as “insider attackers”. Although understanding is increasing, Chris is correct that different parts of industry are on different paths. Some just now understand that they have to do more, while others are well on the way on to looking at how they need to structure themselves internally and are already moving towards vulnerability assessments.
FST: Are you seeing company size play a role in the readiness level?
Join the Food Protection and Defense Institute and The Acheson Group (TAG) at the 2018 Food Safety Consortium for an interactive discussion as they explore recent food defense events, highlighting key components of the incidents relative to government interactions, FSMA regulations, brand reputation, financial interests, and public health response. van de Ligt: The larger companies thinking about a multi-international approach seem to be further along in the process. I think they started thinking about the vulnerability assessment, how they’re going to structure it in their company, and how they’re going to come to compliance because of the breadth and the scope that impacts them. But we’re also seeing, at least in our training, some of the mid-sized companies beginning to take action. I think again, they realize that even though they’re smaller, they’re going to need additional resources, and they might not have those resources in house, so it might take them a bit longer.
Snabes: In general I would agree with Jennifer. I think a lot of it is because they have additional resources, and they can leverage them across many facilities as needed. I don’t see as much action being taken outside the United States on the facilities that are importing into the United States. I think that’s just starting to ramp up. I’m also seeing very small businesses that aren’t required to follow the IA rule implementing this because they want to protect their brand.
FST: What challenges are you seeing companies experience in understanding food defense, IA, and the appropriate preventive actions they should be taking?
FSMA Checklist: Intentional Adulteration ruleSnabes: Just understanding how the rules can apply to the business. For some companies, that’s still a challenge. Other companies, like the large ones, get it. Other small- and mid-sized companies are still trying to figure out how it applies to them. After that, the challenge is realizing there are expenses involved. For example, they have to install key fobs, cameras in critical areas, etc. They also have to realize they can meet the IA rule by not spending an exorbitant amount of money. For example, within a budget there are things companies can do without having to spend a lot of money, such as food defense awareness training.
Another challenge is educating all workers in food defense; enforcing the food safety culture within the facility and the idea that their job can be at risk. They have to realize that if they don’t recognize an individual inside the premises, or if something is out of place in a critical area, they need to inform their supervisor. If they see something, they need to say something—and ensure that the intentional adulteration is not taking place.
Educating employees is the least expensive way to invest in food defense, and it is the most effective. However, this can be a challenge for the companies that, for example, have a high turnover rate—if you have a lot of employees coming in and out, that means constant training, enforcement and re-educating. We see quite a bit of companies with a large turnover rate.
van de Ligt: I agree with those points. In our training, we also talk about food defense culture and how it needs to be supported across the business, similar to the way food safety culture is already in many of our businesses, and how to incorporate food defense awareness training, and on-boarding and refresher training.
The other challenges I see is that once you get to the understanding of what needs to be done and you get the buy in, there are some logistical issues at some of the companies—from big to small. Some companies are struggling with understanding which part of the business should be responsible for this (the food safety group, the security group, etc). Because we are talking about legitimate access and who is responsible for putting the plan together: How do these groups that may not have worked closely within the bigger companies now create that shared collaborative environment?
At the smaller companies, where they may not have that breadth or resources, now you’re asking a specialist in one area to pick up a completely different expertise and discipline. With a food safety and quality person, part of their job may be supply chain and sourcing, and now they also have to learn food defense. How are they managing and balancing all the different FSMA rules in their portfolio—because you have one person actually thinking about the breadth of them all. This presents a challenge to the logistics of implementation.
The other challenge I see is that FDA has done a really good job in providing input, guidance and listening sessions, and has been open and available to answer questions—more so for this rule than any of the other rules that I’ve watched go through industry. However, with the guidance being published so close to the compliance date it presents a challenge—companies that are waiting on the guidance will have to comply very quickly without the best understanding on what FDA’s thoughts are—because they’re waiting on the pending guidance.
FST:What steps should companies take to mitigate the IA risk?
van de Ligt: I have three action items for every company to take.
Read the IA rule, including the preamble if they haven’t. There’s a lot of information there that will help them understand the mindset and how the IA rule came about.
Read the guidance document when it comes out. The first guidance contains many clarifying examples that will help understanding and implementation.
Train the key people who are going to be responsible for writing the food defense plan and all employees on food defense awareness.
There are resources out there, whether it’s talking with FDA or coming to a sponsored training, for folks to get assistance in understanding and interpretation, and it would be great for them to take advantage of it.
Snabes: I agree with those three points. In general—do an FDA food defense assessment of your facility. Look for and concentrate on the key activity types that are critical. At least get a list of what areas are going to be the ones you have to mitigate. For example: The offloading of liquids, open vats, hand applied additives, etc. The most important thing I suggest doing right away is food defense awareness training for not just the supervisors, but all the employees—everyone from receiving to shipping to supply chain, etc. Everyone should be aware of the importance of food defense training and how their job depends on it.
In general, with food defense or IA—the rule is a brand new concept to FDA. It’s something they never tackled before. Because of that, there is going to be a longer time of educating before regulating. FDA is going to bend over backwards to work with companies so they understand how this rule is going to be implemented.
Any company out there can have a “strong employee” who wants to cause intentional adulteration, so the time to plan for that is now. Don’t wait for the rule to come into effect before you start planning.
Question 1: Is food fraud addressed in the FDA’s Intentional Adulteration rule (“Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration”)?
Karen Everstine: Food fraud, or what the FDA calls “economically motivated adulteration” (EMA), is certainly an intentional act. However, recent U.S. regulations for food fraud/EMA are outlined in the Preventive Controls (PC) rules (“Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food” and “Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals”) and not in the Intentional Adulteration (IA) Rule. FDA indicated that the IA rule was intended to “prevent acts intended to cause wide-scale harm.” Therefore, new requirements related to food fraud/EMA are included in the hazard analysis requirements in the PC rules. FDA indicated they anticipate EMA preventive controls to be needed only in rare circumstances and “usually in cases where there has been a pattern of EMA in the past.” It is important to note that these requirements are specific to hazards that may be introduced for the purposes of economic gain. EMA that only affects product quality is outside the scope of the PC rules. However, there are misbranding and adulteration provisions of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act that apply to EMA more broadly (whether or not the substance used may be a hazard).
Question 2: If my facility includes food fraud/EMA in our hazard analysis, will we be compliant with global food fraud requirements?
Everstine: Addressing food fraud/EMA only in your hazard analysis is not sufficient for GFSI compliance. Therefore, if your facility needs to be GFSI compliant, you will need to implement a food fraud vulnerability assessment and mitigation plan that covers all types of fraud. This includes fraud that only affects quality and it includes counterfeiting, theft, diversion, and gray market production. While FDA has indicated they are primarily focused on food fraud/EMA that has a known pattern of occurrence and could be a hazard, GFSI requires that industry evaluate vulnerability more broadly. This includes identifying fraud opportunities (such as complex supply chains), individual capability, and “weak signals” of fraud that could include indicators such as price changes for commodities.
As we look to 2018, the need for food defense activity remains. Increased adulteration incidents in 2017, consumer purchasing trends and FSMA rules implementation drive this need and the work necessary to complete it in 2018.
Intentional Adulteration of Food. It was evident that intentional adulteration of food did not diminish over the past year and likely increased. Adulteration cases of spices with undeclared ingredients to extend the product or boost color were documented. Terrorists plans and food adulteration tests were uncovered and publicized. In Germany, a man threatened to put antifreeze in the nation’s baby formula supply chain. And disgruntled employees continued to adulterate food to get revenge on their employer or co-workers. Given the complexity of our food system and the limited transparency of supply chains from farm to fork, those willing and able to adulterate will continue to do so in 2018.
Consumer Demands. Look in your local grocery aisles and you will find an ever-increasing section of “freedom foods”. These are foods that claim to be free of something whether it be gluten, lactose, pesticides or GMOs. With increasing frequency consumers are also asking questions about the sustainability and agriculture practices of the food they buy. How have the oceans been fished? Are my eggs from cage-free chickens? Does the food I buy protect the environment. Based on current trends, consumers will continue to spend their food dollars on organic, free-of, and sustainability produced food. This means food defense needs to have a keen eye on where fraudsters could adulterate products representing these food trends.
Company Food Defense. Two things have increased in the requests we are getting from companies: New incidents and the nearing deadline for compliance of the FSMA Intentional Adulteration (IA) rule. First, adulteration incidents that affect your product or the ingredients you use changes the lens you see food defense through. Even an adulteration in an ingredient or product similar to yours makes you look twice at how protected you are. With the continued incidents, companies are taking a hard look at how they are affected. Second, food companies have completed their work to prepare for the early FSMA rules such as Preventive Controls and Foreign Supplier Verification moving their attention to the next rules. The IA rule compliance dates begin in July 2019, and we anticipate increased activities, questions and food defense efforts in 2018.
As you can see, there is a nexus of need to accomplish defense work in our food system. Perhaps 2018 will be “the” year of food defense where individually and collectively we close vulnerability gaps.
The FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule is focused on preventing intentional adulteration from acts intended to cause wide-scale food safety impacts to public health, including acts of terrorism, economic adulteration and disgruntled employees. Such acts, while unlikely, could cause illness, death and economic disruption of the food supply absent mitigation strategies. This rule requires mitigation strategies to reduce risk versus specific food hazards.
How much do you know about the Intentional Adulteration Rule? Test your smarts by taking the FSMA IQ Test here The Intentional Adulteration rule is established to address large companies with products that reach many people, while exempting smaller companies. This rule requires covered facilities to conduct a “vulnerability assessment” to identify vulnerabilities and actions to take for each type of food manufactured, processed, packed or held at the food facility. For each point, step, or procedure in the facility’s process, these vulnerabilities must be identified and evaluated. Covered facilities must also prepare and implement a Food Defense Plan. This written plan must identify the vulnerabilities and actionable process steps; mitigation strategies; and procedures for food defense monitoring, corrective actions and verification. A reanalysis is required every three years or when certain criteria are met, including mitigation strategies that are determined to be improperly implemented.
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 Intentional Adulteration requirements. To complete your own assessment, review and compare your programs to the questions in Table I.
Table I. Kestrel Management’s self-diagnostic tool can help a company assess its Intentional Adulteration program for FSMA compliance.
Get Compliance-Ready
Companies must have the appropriate systems in place to comply with FSMA Intentional Adulteration requirements or face possible willful non-conformance, which can include fines and criminal penalties under FDA enforcement. The questions in Table I will help companies identify areas to consider regarding their program. 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.
The results are in for this year’s final FSMA IQ test on the intentional adulteration rule. If you didn’t take the test yet, follow this link. Find out how you fared below.
The Intentional Adulteration program that must be developed can rely on food security issues addressed by Preventive Control programs.
FALSE
39.51% answered correctly
In developing your Intentional Adulteration Plan, you must determine vulnerabilities to your food product risks.
TRUE
98.81% answered correctly
Your written program is called a Food Security Plan.
FALSE
62.65% answered correctly
There is no reanalysis provision for Intentional Adulteration programs and Food Defense Plans under the rule.
FALSE
89.29% answered correctly
The Intentional Adulteration compliance plan must include the monitoring of certain key areas.
TRUE
95.18% answered correctly
Only large food companies over a certain size need to develop and establish a Food Defense Plan under the FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule.
TRUE
6.02% answered correctly
There is now risk assessment associated with the Intentional Adulteration rule requirements.
FALSE
10.84% answered correctly
Mitigation strategies within the Food Defense Plan are key components to a compliant program.
TRUE
96.43% answered correctly
Each point, step, or procedure in the facility’s process must be included in the Intentional Adulteration vulnerability assessment process.
TRUE
80.72% answered correctly
Economic adulteration is a key component of the FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule?
The FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule provides a new level of compliance in food security and defense with specific requirements to be determined, implemented and maintained. The planning must include effective assessments on possible risk areas and steps for responding to these. Do you know the correct response to these questions?
Working with Bill Bremer, principal of food safety compliance at Kestrel Management, LLC, Food Safety Tech is continuing its FSMA IQ test series. Results will be posted monthly in our Food Safety Consortium newsletter leading up to the 2017 event.
Confirm your company responsibility in meeting FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule compliance by answering True or False.
The Food Protection and Defense Institute held its annual Food Defense Conference on May 3 and 4. This unique conference focused on food fraud detection, food crime, intentional adulteration FSMA updates, advocacy for food protection and defense, and big data and how to use it. The event garnered active discussion and collaboration among speakers and attendees representing six international government agencies, 11 domestic federal, state and local government agencies, 33 private food sector partners, and many academic partners.
The keynote address by Andy Morling, head of the UK National Food Crime Unit, led off the conference with discussion on food fraud and food crime. He profiled the tremendous work being taken to bridge the food regulatory and criminal systems to curb food crime in the UK. The UK response to food crime is guided by the 4P approach: Prevent, Protect, Prepare and Pursue. The Protect (reducing vulnerabilities) and Prepare (investing in capacity and capability building) components of the 4P approach embody key concepts of successful food defense plans.
Economically Motivated Adulteration and Food Fraud will be discussed at the Food Safety Supply Chain Conference | June 5–6, 2017 | Learn moreThe food crime discussion was followed by insight on food fraud detection in the European Union from Franz Ulberth, Ph.D., head of the Fraud Detection and Prevention Unit at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. This included results from Operation Opson in which Europol and INTERPOL coordinated with 61 countries. The goal of Operation Opson is to protect public health and safety through international cooperation to combat counterfeit and substandard food and drink. In Operation Opson VI, more than 9,800 tons, 26.4 million liters, and 13 million units/items of potentially hazardous food worth an estimated €230 million were seized between December 2016 and March 2017. The scope of products seized spans the range of all foods and beverages such as mineral water, alcohol, olive oil, seasonings, seafood and caviar, and includes both every day and luxury items. In addition, Dr. Ulberth outlined key characteristics of food fraud, the most common foods susceptible to fraud, and types of vulnerability and mitigation in the food fraud area.
Defense against food fraud through the use of genomics and ingredient supply chain understanding were presented by Robert Hanner of the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario at the University of Guelph and Cheryl Deem, executive director of the American Spice Trade Association, respectively. Genomics have been particularly helpful in identifying and quantifying the prevalence of seafood fraud. The most common seafood fraud is when one species of seafood is marketed and sold as a different species. The primary driver for this deception is to promote lower quality or illegal seafood species as a species of higher quality, premium location, or simply allowed in commerce. The genomics technique has been used successfully in the food fraud arena. It identified puffer fish, which produces a toxin, being deceptively marketed as monkfish. The accurate identification allowed public health officials to confirm that consumer illnesses accompanying this deception were caused by puffer fish toxin consumption. Similar to analytical techniques, supply chain understanding can help protect food manufacturers and consumers from food fraud. For example, major spice providers worked together to develop a guide to identification and prevention of adulteration because spices are often a target for adulteration. One aspect of the guide is a decision tree used to protect against supply chain vulnerabilities.
The conference also featured the authors of the FSMA Mitigation Strategies to Protect Against Intentional Adulteration Rule. They are part of the Food Defense and Emergency Coordination Staff at CFSAN. The author of the Intentional Adulteration rule discussed updated information on FDA efforts to develop both guidance for industry and training materials to support implementation of the regulation. In addition, they provided insight on the use of key activity types as an appropriate method for vulnerability assessments. For inspection and compliance, the authors indicated a two-step approach will be taken. The two-step approach will include a quick check at all registered facilities that is followed by a food defense inspection at a limited number of prioritized facilities. Inspection will occur in a tiered and staged approach after compliance dates pass. The FDA presentation at the Food Defense Conference was the launch of the new information campaign with additional detail and insight on guidance, training, inspection and vulnerability assessment approaches.
The knowledge and passion of the professionals gathered at the conference allowed appreciation of and connection between the incredible global efforts dedicated to improving defense and protection of the food system. The future of food defense to protect and create a resilient food system will be assured by continued efforts and expertise shared like those at this conference.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.
