Tag Archives: Preventive Controls

Rachel Montgomery

Keep Calm and Be Sure You Have a PCQI—Soon!

By Rachel Montgomery
No Comments
Rachel Montgomery

You will hear some new abbreviations being tossed around in questions by executives in food manufacturing and processing these days. “Do I need a PCQI? Who is my PCQI? What is a PCQI?”

Strangely, many of these executives do need a PCQI, and they need one very soon. A PCQI is the “Preventive Controls Qualified Individual” needed to oversee implementation of the HARPC rule under FSMA. Last September FDA published the final rule “Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food.” Unless a food manufacturer is specifically exempt, the date for compliance with implementation of the rule’s preventive controls portion is September 19, 2016. A facility’s PCQI is responsible for overseeing the implementation process. For companies that have yet to prepare for compliance, the good news is that several organizations, such as the Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance, offer training to meet the requirement for having a PCQI.

For large companies (those with more than 500 employees), time is of the essence to meet the September 19 compliance date; for companies with less than 500 full-time-equivalent employees, you have more time to prepare, with September 18, 2017 being the compliance date.

Whether your due date is this year or 2017, your food safety plan is the primary document that guides your preventive controls food safety system. It must be developed using a systematic and risk-based approach that uses scientific principles to identify the hazards that require preventive controls to prevent foodborne illness or injury. It is most effectively prepared not only by a single PCQI but also a cross-functional food safety team that includes individuals with executive support and leadership. In addition to including the hazard analysis in which you must analyze for hazards requiring a preventive control for your product(s), your food safety plan must have preventive controls for your process and for food allergens, sanitation, supply chain and any other appropriate areas where you identified that preventive controls were needed.

Further, your food safety plan must include a recall plan, procedures for monitoring, corrective action and verification when a hazard requiring a preventive control is identified, along with science-based validation for process preventive controls. Of course, Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) and other prerequisite programs must be in place to provide a solid foundation for your food safety plan. And there’s more news: FSMA includes significant changes in the GMPs. For example, all formerly non-binding provisions are now binding, including education and training. One of the new GMP requirements is cleaning of non-food contact surfaces “as frequently as necessary” to protect against allergen cross-contact and contamination of food contact surfaces and food packaging.

Back to the possibility that you may qualify for a specific exemption, if you heard that processors subject to the low-acid and acidified canned foods regulation are not subject to the preventive controls rule, the exemption is only for hazards that are microbiological. For physical and chemical hazards, including allergens, a hazard analysis must be conducted to determine whether hazards are an issue and whether preventive controls are needed. This analysis must be documented, even if you determine that no preventive controls are needed. And if preventive controls are needed, they must be developed and documented with verification and possibly validation as previously described. Of course the new GMPs also apply to low-acid and acidified canned food manufacturers.

If you heard that warehouses are in the clear due to a specific exemption, there is more to the story. Only facilities such as warehouses that store strictly unexposed packaged materials for which refrigeration is not required are exempt from preventive controls. Facilities that store raw agricultural commodities that are fruits and vegetables are not exempt from hazardous analysis and risk-based preventive controls. All of these facilities, and even those subject to seafood and juice HACCP and not required to do preventive controls, are not exempt from updated GMP requirements.

Take the obvious first or next step for your organization’s compliance with FSMA: Ensure you have a PCQI and start working on your hazard analysis and food safety plan now.

Kassy Marsh, Techni-K
FST Soapbox

The Solution to Combining a HACCP & HARPC Plan

By Kassy Marsh
No Comments
Kassy Marsh, Techni-K

Since the publication of the FSMA Preventive Controls Rule for Human Food, the term HARPC has become a common way of describing the type of food safety plan that is needed to comply with the requirements. On first glance its similarities to HACCP could possibly lead one to believe that the requirements for both systems are aligned. But beware, there are a number of fundamental differences and one main contradiction in the requirements, which requires a clarity of understanding when trying to amalgamate the two systems.

With the introduction of the FSMA Preventive Controls Rule, food facilities that have HACCP systems are now faced with the difficult task of trying to adapt their current food safety system to meet the HARPC requirements. These facilities will continue to be required by local law in the countries where they export to, by their customers and by standards such as those recognized by the GFSI to adhere to the HACCP principles. A straight swap from HACCP to HARPC is not going to be an option for many businesses. Therefore, a combined approach is required, one that meets both sets of requirements and has a clear, practical and effective methodology.

Structure of the Controls

One of the consequences of combining the requirements of HACCP and HARPC is that all of the control principles need to come together and work as one. For this reason, the distinctions between pre-requisite controls (PRCs), preventive controls (PCs) and critical control points (CCPs) must be fully understood.

  • Pre-requisite control: A facility-wide generic control, not specific to one particular process step
  • Preventive control: A control that prevents or significantly minimizes the hazard
  • Critical control point: A control that eliminates or reduces the hazard to an acceptable level

There is a hierarchy to the controls, with PRCs being the building blocks for facility-wide general controls; PCs are more specific controls that are typically associated with a particular step in the process; a CCP is one that is above and beyond a PC and is critical to the safety of the food (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

A PC is one that either prevents the hazard from occurring in the first place, or if the hazard has occurred, it recognizes it and minimizes the impact of the hazard by controlling it and not allowing it to be released as product.

A CCP controls a hazard that is inherently expected in the product by eliminating it or reducing it to a level at which it is safe.

Key Challenges

There are a number of differences between the requirements of HACCP and HARPC. The PC Rule is not as specific or detailed in the way in which the plan should be documented or designed, as the principles laid out in the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) or Codex Alimentarius. However, the FDA may not have directly stated that certain elements such as product description, intended use or intended user must be included, but they do elude to the fact, as the hazards that must be assessed would require this information to be understood and fed into the system. This means that in order to comply with both systems, the principles of HACCP must be adhered to as well as those of HARPC, so elements such as process flow diagram will still be required.

The key difference between the systems related to how significance is determined within the risk assessment. Both systems require a risk assessment that takes into account the severity of the hazard and the likelihood of the hazard occurring. The results of this should determine if the hazard is a significant food safety risk, where it is, and whether a PC is required. Hazards that are not significant would need to be managed through the application of PRCs.

The difficulty enters the picture when assessing the likelihood of the hazard occurring, as the two sets of requirements contradict each other:

The PC Rule asks for the likelihood to be determined in the absence of any controls.

HACCP principle states that the likelihood should be determined, taking the controls into account.

It is acceptable to HACCP principles to follow the requirement for HARPC and carry out the assessment in the absence of any controls, however there are consequences in doing so. The number of significant hazards that will be produced will be substantially higher than in a traditional HACCP plan. Each of these hazards will need to be controlled through a PC, and the CCPs will need to be determined from this set of PCs. Using the typical CCP decision tree is not a practical solution, as the result will likely mean that most of the PCs become CCPs. Nobody wants to go back to the days when facilities had many, many CCPs, as this produces an unmanageable and ineffective food safety system.

A new methodology is required for the determination of CCPs—one that is clear and does not contradict the HACCP principles.

The Benefits of HARPC

Although the introduction of HARPC makes designing and developing a food safety plan more complicated, it does have its benefits. Over time, as pre-requisite programs have developed, the number of hazards that are managed by PRCs have grown—to the point now where most facilities only have a handful, if not one or two, CCPs.

Through a HACCP plan, even very significant food safety hazards can be managed by the PRCs. These significant hazards are therefore managed, just the same as insignificant or low-risk hazards. This may be the reason that the most common recalls and withdrawals today are due to lack of control from pre-requisites.

By introducing the new tier of PCs and assessing significance without taking any controls into account, we mitigate this problem. Ensuring that the key food safety hazards, which perhaps are not critical, are managed through the application of PCs and they thus receive additional focus.

Resources

  1. “Comparing the Standards for HARPC”. Techni-k. Retrieved from http://www.techni-k.co.uk/comparing_the_standards_for_HARPC.
  2. Marsh, K. (2016). Combine Your HACCP & HARPC Plan.
FSMA, Food Safety Tech, FDA

Draft Guidance for Qualified Facilities under FSMA PC Rules Released

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

Today FDA published a draft guidance to help qualified facilities in complying with the FSMA Preventive Controls (PC) for Human and Animal Food rules. Businesses that are defined as qualified facilities are subject to modified requirements of the PC rules, which can be met by submitting a form to FDA confirming that the site is implementing PCs to address hazards related to its food or is in compliance with non-Federal food safety laws and regulations.

The draft guidance, “Qualified Facility Attestation Using From FDA 3942a (for Human Food) or Form FDA 3942b (for Animal Food)” discusses how to determine whether a business meets the “qualified facility” definition and how to submit the form that demonstrates this status.

The Federal Register is scheduled to publish the document on May 16, at which point the draft guidance will be available for public comment for 180 days.

EMAlert, Economically motivated adulteration

Food Fraud: Perps Two Steps Ahead, Innovation Needed to Keep Up

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
EMAlert, Economically motivated adulteration

Economically motivated adulteration (EMA) has considerable economic ramifications, impacting businesses from a financial and liability perspective, posing dangers to consumers, and eroding product confidence. One of the biggest issues with monitoring the volume and type of adulterated products is the fact that the landscape of food fraud is ever changing. “The perpetrators are always two steps ahead, so innovation is needed to keep up,” said Jeff Moore, Ph.D., director of science, food program at U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USP), at the GMA Science Forum last week.

GMA and Battelle have teamed up to launch EMAlert, a tool that companies can use to quantitatively assess the vulnerability of their supply chains to EMA. The secure, cloud-based platform comes with 50 commodities off the shelf (including spices, grains, dairy, seafood, meat, oils, fruits, veggies, and food ingredients). It was developed fairly rapidly (Battelle, which serves as the technology provider, started development at the beginning of this year) and still needs to be validated; full validation will be presented at the IAFP meeting this summer. And if EMAlert lives up to its potential, it could help companies be more nimble in monitoring and acting on threats in their supply chain.

The purpose of the tool is to generate quantitative vulnerability results that allow people to make actionable decisions based on numeric values. As such, it has been designed to be dynamic and customizable, since every company has its own risk tolerance. In addition, it looks at real-time environmental changes, because you can’t have a static tool to monitor vulnerability when it’s always changing, said Joseph A. Scimeca, Ph.D., vice president, global regulatory & scientific affairs at Cargill, Inc.

EMAlert, Economically motivated adulteration
A screenshot of EMAlert

“The EMA threat is changing,” said Ashley Kubatko, principal research scientist at the Battelle Memorial Institute. “A static assessment is only a snapshot in time.” EMAlert pulls live, automated data that takes into account economic drivers (value, volume, and scarcity of product), historical drivers (how often has product adulteration occurred in the past, geopolitical stability), and ease drivers (how frequently the commodity is tested; whether there are government regulations around the commodity group; how often the product changes hands or is repackaged). Data is pulled from several databases, including FDA, UN Comtrade, USP, Quandi, and Transparency International.

When creating the tool Battelle borrowed from its approach in working with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to develop models that predict terrorist decision making and used the same mathematical methodology, providing a predictive model of fraudster behavior. Keeping in mind that perpetrators are also constantly monitoring how law enforcement and industry is keeping track of their strategies, EMAlert not only requires a subscription, but Kubatko says that Battelle will also be monitoring its users to ensure there is no suspicious activity within EMAlert.

In the Food Lab

New Dynamics in Environmental Testing

By Erin Dreyling, Ph.D
No Comments

Recent recalls and outbreaks associated with Listeria coupled with FDA’s finalization of the FSMA preventive controls rule have heightened the industry’s need to focus on environmental testing programs. The need for a preventive control program with higher resolution is especially highlighted by the government’s increasing use of whole genome sequencing data to more rapidly link human illness to food processing establishments. I work with many customers who simply do not recognize all of the factors that influence their ability to detect Listeria in environmental samples. For many, an environmental sample is collected, shipped to a third-party lab, results are received within two to four days, and few questions asked. Most companies have not invested the time and resources needed to truly understand how each component of an environmental sample impacts their ability to detect Listeria. So what factors should be considered to maximize Listeria detection in the plant environment?

Learn innovative ways to mitigate the threat of Listeria at the Listeria Detection & Control Workshop | May 31–June 1, 2016 | St. Paul, MN | LEARN MOREListeria is a True Survivor

Listeria is inherently a hearty organism that can withstand highly adverse conditions in the plant environment. It is able to survive and grow across a wide range of temperatures, including refrigeration, and it is more tolerant to heat than Salmonella and E. coli. Additionally, the organism survives across a wide pH range, including extended periods in highly acidic conditions, and can survive food processing and preservation with up to 25.5% salt. These traits may result in highly injured Listeria being collected in environmental samples, and requires optimization of the sample collection and analysis process in order for detection and culture confirmation to occur.

Sanitation Programs May Not Destroy Listeria

Sanitation practices are intended to destroy Listeria in the plant environment, but not all sanitizers will be 100% effective. In some cases, sanitizers may not fully kill Listeria, leaving highly injured Listeria that may require an extended lag phase in order for growth and detection during testing. Sub-lethally injured Listeria remains a food safety concern, as the bacteria maintain the ability to recover and flourish in a nutritive environment. Additionally, Listeria readily forms biofilms in the plant environment, which many traditional sanitizers do not effectively remove. Biofilms in the plant environment may maintain low levels of Listeria that may be challenging to detect without the use of a sensitive detection method.

Sample Collection: Choose the Right Tool for the Job

The neutralizing and nutritive capacity of the collection media used with the collection device can have a significant impact on the ability to resuscitate, detect and culture stressed Listeria. When selecting a collection media, it is important to ensure that the media will effectively neutralize the sanitizers used in the plant environment. For instance, peroxyacetic acid and quaterinary ammonia-based sanitizers will not be neutralized well by commonly used collection media such as Neutralizing Buffer or Letheen Broth. Neutralization of the sanitizer in environmental samples is important in order for resuscitation and growth of any Listeria present within the sample. Additionally, use of a collection media that contains nutrients to begin the resuscitation process for Listeria immediately upon collection is also important for detection and culture confirmation of Listeria in samples. Collection media such as Neutralizing Buffer contains monopatassium phosphate, sodium thiosulfate, and aryl sulfonate complex intended only to neutralize sanitizers. Conversely, D/E Broth and HiCap Broth have components to nourish Listeria and facilitate resuscitation in addition to neutralizing sanitizers.

Enrichment Media Determines Recovery & Growth

Enrichment media plays a major role in the speed of recovery and growth of Listeria in environmental samples. Medias that facilitate faster recovery of injured Listeria allow for shortened lag phases facilitating more rapid growth. Enrichment media that facilitate faster recovery and growth allow Listeria to reach the limit of detection for screening tools more quickly. When paired with a highly sensitive method, enrichment media, which foster greater Listeria growth and recovery, can allow for significant reductions in time to results for screening methods. Additionally, faster recovery and growth of Listeria due to enrichment media can increase the likelihood of culturally confirming Listeria found at low levels pre-enrichment.

Not All Detection Methods are the Same

The ability of a detection method to find Listeria in an environmental sample is impacted by two factors: 1) method sensitivity and 2) method robustness in the presence of sanitizers. The more sensitive a rapid test method, the greater the chance of finding low levels of Listeria in an environmental sample. Low levels of Listeria in environmental samples are likely due to the injured state of Listeria in the plant environment post sanitization. Immuno-based rapid methods have a sensitivity of 105–106, DNA-based methods have a sensitivity of 104–105 and RNA based methods have a sensitivity of 102–103. Using an RNA-based method offers 1 to 2 logs greater sensitivity and greatly increases the chance of finding low-level Listeria.1 This can be particularly true when sampling conditions such as collection media or enrichment media are less than optimal for the neutralization of sanitizers and growth and recovery of Listeria.

Another important factor that influences a test method’s ability to detect Listeria in an environmental sample is the method’s ability to amplify and detect the organism in the presence of sanitizers. Most molecular-based methods do not include a sample clean up step resulting in sanitizer being present during the amplification step. For some methods, sanitizers may inhibit amplification, resulting in indeterminate or false negative results.

Confirmation Requires Optimization of the Sampling Process

The ability to culturally confirm a Listeria sample that screens positive is influenced by the entire environmental sampling process. In order to culture confirm samples with highly injured, low-level Listeria, it is necessary to optimize the sample collection media, enrichment media, and confirmation process to provide the greatest likelihood of culture recovery. If Listeria is not adequately resuscitated and able to achieve sufficient growth, the level of Listeria present in the sample post-enrichment may be below the limit of detection for culture. The likelihood of culture confirmation can be increased by incorporating steps such as a secondary enrichment or concentration via IMS capture. Culture confirmation for samples that screen positive on a rapid method can be especially challenging if a highly sensitive test method is used for screening that may detect Listeria at lower levels than culture. Thus, optimizing the environmental sample program is especially important if confirmation of screening results for highly sensitive methods is desired.

Method Sensitivity and Increased Positivity

Employing a highly sensitive screening tool for environmental samples provides a better lens to view risk within the food safety processing environment. Many companies fear that a more sensitive method will result in significant increases in positivity and cost for increased sanitation. In working with customers who have moved from immune-based methods to a highly sensitivity molecular method, I’ve observed an initial increase in positivity followed by a leveling off of low-level positivity after enhanced interventions are taken in the plant. Companies that proactively seek out and destroy Listeria in their plants are then able to maintain low level rates of positivity with routine cleaning measures, while also maintaining the confidence that they are using the best tool available for Listeria monitoring.

Understand Your Risk & Establish a Culture of Food Safety

It is important for food safety professionals to fully consider the hidden risks that may exist in their plant environment due to the environmental sample process masking the true presence of Listeria. Each component of the environmental monitoring process, sanitizer, collection media, enrichment media, detection method and culture process plays an important role in a company’s ability to be able to detect and culture confirm Listeria in the plant environment. Optimizing each step within the environmental sample process allows a company to be proactive instead of reactive. This approach creates a company culture of food safety that can seek out, detect and destroy Listeria in the plant environment, can significantly mitigate risk. The good news is that by incorporating the right food safety culture and making data-driven choices, today’s manufacturer can achieve both short-term dividends of risk reduction as well as a long-term elevation of control of its process.

Reference

  1. Culture Shift: The New Dynamics of Listeria Environmental Control and Testing. Roka Bioscience, Webinar.

Specific Training Required Under FSMA: A Look at Each Rule

By James Cook
No Comments

All seven core rules of FSMA require general training of individuals or employees and qualified individuals requiring education, training or experience to perform specific tasks. By including training in these regulations, the FDA has made specific training mandatory.

Training Required by FSMA Final Rules

In the current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) and preventive control rules, as per 21 CFR 117.4 and 507.4, all individuals engaged in the manufacturing, processing, packing and holding of food must have the education, training or experience to perform assigned duties and must be trained in the principles of food hygiene and food safety. However, the preventive controls qualified individual (PCQI) and qualified auditor, to rules 21 CFR 117.180 and 507.53, can be an individual who has successfully completed a class equivalent in curriculum to that recognized by the FDA, or have the necessary job experience. In both cases, the training must be documented, including the date of training, type of training and those personnel trained.

This means that all employees are to be trained in food hygiene and food safety to at least the standard presented in the regulations and more specifically as per the cGMP requirements. Additionally, individuals who are responsible for a specific critical control point will still need to be trained in HACCP. However, this will probably not be sufficient for an employee responsible for preventive control, as he or she may require training in Hazard Analysis Risk-Based Preventive Control (HARPC), or training specific to the area in which the employee is involved (e.g., allergens, sanitation, supply chain or recall programs, or preventive controls).

For the preventive control qualified individual and qualified auditor, the training needed may be that of the approved FDA curriculum, as developed by the Food Safety Preventive Control Alliance (FSPCA). Although this training course is not a regulatory requirement, FDA inspectors and other regulatory personnel who are auditing facilities will have completed this training, meaning qualified auditors will be expected to have this training, and eventually preventive controls qualified individuals (PCQIs) will be expected to do so too. The qualified auditor and a PCQI will still require the education, experience and other training to perform the specific job duties as listed in the regulations. Unfortunately, it is likely that neither the industry nor the government will have enough lead instructors ready to train everyone who would want or need to be trained before the compliance dates become effective. Additionally, this training course is not yet available for animal food, and the industry has been informed by FSPCA that a Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) training module will be added to the training course. The FSVP is discussed in the Supply-Chain Preventive Control module, and the fact that there are some similarities between these regulations helps individuals involved in the FSVP program, or in auditing it.

In the produce safety rule, training requirements are listed in subpart C 21 CFR 112.21, 112.22, 112.23 and 112.30. Personnel who require training are those handling covered produce and their supervisors. As with the cGMP and preventive control rules, the principles of food hygiene and food safety must be taught to these personnel. More specifically they must learn how to identify an ill or infected person, and be taught about microorganisms of public health significance, such as Salmonella, Listeria and E. coli O157 on food contact surfaces. Additionally, personnel who harvest covered produce must be trained in recognizing produce that is contaminated with known or reasonably foreseeable hazards to ensure it isn’t harvested. These personnel must be trained in the use of harvest containers and equipment to ensure that they are functioning properly, clean and maintained, and to identify when they are not. At the same time, employees must be trained in correcting any issues or in reporting them to a supervisor in order to have them corrected. All this training must be documented in the same way as the cGMP and preventive control programs.

Unlike the cGMP and preventive control rules, the produce safety rule’s requirement to have a qualified individual, supervisor or responsible party on each farm that has completed a recognized FDA course, or equivalent, is not optional. This course will be available through the Produce Safety Alliance and is anticipated to start in September 2016. The grower food safety course required for supervisors will include an introduction to produce safety, worker health and hygiene training, soil amendments, wildlife, domestic animals and land use, agricultural water, post-harvest handling and sanitation, as well as how to develop a food safety plan.

The training for produce, conducted by the Produce Safety Alliance and/or trained trainers, does not cover training for sprouts; training for sprouts is being developed by the Sprout Safety Alliance and will include topics specifically for sprouts, such as antimicrobial treatment of sprouting seeds.

In the FSVP, the qualified individuals must have the education, training or experience necessary to perform activities as per 21 CFR 1.503. These qualified individuals will develop the FSVP and those activities such as hazard analysis, supplier approval, determining verification activities and frequency, corrective actions and other activities for the FSVP. These personnel must be able to read and understand the records to be reviewed for this program. This means they must know English and may also need to know the local language at point of product manufacture or farming. 

At this time there is no structured training program for these individuals, but the FSPCA training program, alongside education and experience can provide the training necessary for these people to perform the job activities. A PCQI would be qualified for the role of a FSVP qualified individual, but the FSVP probably would not be qualified for the PCQI role. This is because the activities in the FSVP are not as complicated as those required by the cGMP and preventive controls rules, and therefore the FSVP qualifications would not need to be as stringent.

Training Under Proposed Rules

In the proposal for Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Foods, 21 CFR 1.910, the FDA requires carriers of these products to train personnel who are engaged in transportation operations. This should include awareness of potential food safety problems that may occur to food during transport, basic sanitary practices that would address those problems and the responsibilities of the carriers in the regulation. As with all training in these regulations, the type of training, who was trained and when they were trained must be documented.

Since this is a proposal, the training for teaching the carrier’s responsibility is not yet finalized but will require nothing more than explaining that section of the regulation. The training of potential food safety issues and the problems that might occur during transport are handled during standard cGMP and food safety training.

For the proposed Intentional Adulteration rule, per 21 CFR 121.160, the personnel and supervisors assigned to the actionable process steps must receive training in food defense awareness and their responsibilities in implementing the migration strategies. Also, as per 21 CFR 121.130, the vulnerability assessment is to be performed by a qualified individual, and this individual is to be qualified through experience and/or appropriate training.

For basic food defense, the FDA offers various courses and information, such as Food Defense 101, on their food defense webpage. An online course is offered in English and Spanish and covers the awareness training and the regulations for employees. Upon course completion, a certificate is provided. The agency also has a downloadable food defense plan builder that can be used to develop a food defense program. The agency also provides vulnerability assessment software, but additional training in PAS 96 or ISO/TS 22000 food defense would aid qualified personnel in making sure that this vulnerability assessment is correct and that the strategies to reduce risks are appropriate and not excessive.

There is an abundance of training courses and materials available from the FDA, USDA FSIS, associations and industry. FSMA employee training requires having personnel with the proscribed education and experience to perform specific tasks, and that they be trained as soon as possible in order for them to develop the programs. Additionally, all personnel should be trained at least annually in food hygiene, food safety and food defense.

Gary Smith, Eurofins’ Food Safety Systems

FSMA Mandates Employee Training. Are You Prepared?

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Gary Smith, Eurofins’ Food Safety Systems
Gary Smith, Eurofins’ Food Safety Systems
Gary Smith, director of food safety, Eurofins Scientific

Training plays a huge role in the effective implementation of FSMA. The preventive controls for human food final rule calls out areas in which training is now obligatory, namely ensuring that employees involved in the manufacturing, processing, packaging and holding of food are properly educated on food safety and food hygiene (mandated under Current Good Manufacturing Practices). FDA has initiated an extensive training strategy, part of which includes establishing a National Coordination Center (the agency awarded a $600,000 grant to the International Food Protection Training Institute in October), along with several collaborative efforts with other federal agencies and industry partners.

Although many food companies have been conducting training as part of their standard procedures, preparing employees for the implementation phase of FSMA may be more complicated than they anticipated. In a Q&A with Food Safety Tech, Gary Smith, director of food safety services at Eurofins Scientific, shares insights on some of the hurdles that industry is encountering (including manufacturers in the animal food arena) related to training and FSMA compliance.

Food Safety Tech: How has FSMA changed the landscape of employee training?

Gary Smith: There are a couple of updates that are very important to note for the industries as a whole. First, employee training is now mandatory for both human food facilities and, probably even more importantly, animal food facilities. Many of the human food folks may have been asked by customers or by other entities via corporate internal procedures to do training of employees and to have a training program in place. For a lot of the pet food and animal feed manufacturers, having a comprehensive training program for all employees is significantly different than what has been requested and expected of them in the past.

Second, the preventive controls rule for both human food and animal food specifically requires that animal food and human food manufacturers conduct training of all their employees on at least food safety and food hygiene topics. Now, what does that mean? We’re interpreting that to mean basic GMPs as well as common food safety hazards. Realistically, this will probably be a 30 to 60-minute training session in which everyone in the facility will have to attend, and FDA doesn’t state specifically that it has to be done more than at least once. There is no frequency for re-training. However, once the compliance dates are effective, it’s mandatory that the training has been completed. This is a new concept for the majority of industry who may have had corporate training programs or customer-driven training programs, but never a mandated regulatory requirement for training.

FST: What challenges do food companies face in ensuring that employees are prepared for the implementation phase?

Smith: There’s the challenge of putting together the training, which, in the big picture of FSMA, shouldn’t be that big of a deal.

Some of the biggest challenges companies face (especially in trying to get ahead of the game and be proactive) is the identification of the preventive controls qualified individual. Is it an internal person? Is it a consultant? Do they have to go through a specific training class? The answer is yes, they do. How do they deal with foreign suppliers? A lot of folks are really confused about the concept of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program rule and what it means. Do they need to audit [their suppliers]? Do they need to be GFSI certified? There are a lot of questions concerning the importation of ingredients from outside the United States—what’s the requirement? This is probably the biggest area in which people seek clarity.

Another [challenge] is internal supplier approval, because the new rule talks about supplier approval as one of the preventive controls that has to be in place. Again, who can do those audits? When do we have to conduct an audit? What does the audit have to cover? A lot of folks are struggling with this area as well.

The last challenge: A lot of folks have HACCP, whether they are human or animal food manufacturers, and this has been required or requested by customers for a while. But how do we transition from having a HACCP plan to a food safety plan that meets the preventive control requirements in addition to the HACCP requirements? How do I build in allergen management as a preventive control? How do I build in sanitation as a preventive control? How do I build in supplier approval as a preventive control? There are a lot of questions surrounding whether companies should scrap their HACCP plan and start over, or whether they have to add on to it.

FST: Eurofins offers an extensive training schedule for the first half of 2016. How do these offerings play into FSMA’s compliance requirements?

Smith: Eurofins is now offering the highly anticipated 2.5-day training created by the FDA’s Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance (FSPCA). The standardized curriculum is designed to meet the training requirements under Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 117.115 for the “preventive control qualified individual” who conducts certain Food Safety Plan activities. In addition, Eurofins offers core courses such as Environmental Monitoring, Internal Food Safety Auditing and HACCP to help support the development and implementation of a company’s food safety plan.

Dollar

FDA Makes FSMA Education and Training Available

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Dollar

As part of FDA’s FSMA training vision, the agency has announced two funding opportunities aimed at providing outreach, education and training on the FSMA preventive controls rules.

The Native American Tribes Outreach, Education and Training cooperative agreement will provide up to $750,000 annually for three years. “FDA anticipates that federally recognized tribes will need food safety education and training that addresses the regulatory requirements of the applicable FSMA rules and also encompasses specific cultural practices associated with produce farming and food manufacturing/processing within tribes relevant to their status as sovereign nations,” according to an FDA release.

The Local Food Producer Outreach, Education, and Training agreement will award local food producers $1.5 million this fiscal year with the potential for two more years if federal funds are available. It aims to assist small and mid-size producers/processors with particular practices related to their scale of production and management practices. The agreement will focus on those involved in local food systems while considering “account diversified, sustainable, organic and identity-preserved agricultural production and processing.”

FSMA, Food Safety Tech, FDA

Certified to FSSC 22000? You’re Ready for FSMA

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
FSMA, Food Safety Tech, FDA

If my company is GFSI-certified, is it also FSMA compliant? The answer is: With shared goals of producing safe food, coordinating preventive measures and ensuring continuous improvement, if your company is FSSC 22000 certified, you’re well on the road to FSMA compliance, according to Jacqueline Southee, Ph.D., U.S. Liaison, FSSC 22000.  Southee discussed several areas in which FSSC 22000 aligns with FSMA as part of a recent Leadership Series, “GFSI in the Age of FSMA”.

Supply Chain Visibility

FSSC 22000 is applicable to all aspects of the supply chain and requires interactive communication (all of which must be documented), from the downstream level in ensuring raw materials and suppliers meet requirements of ISO 22000 framework to communication with customers and suppliers to verify and control hazards.

FSMA controls the hazard of food within the United States, says Southee, whereas GFSI certification is a global initiative, thereby extending supply chain visibility to foreign suppliers.

The Food Safety Plan

There has been much discussion surrounding building a FSMA-ready food safety plan and the migration from HACCP to HARPC. “HARPC can be referred to as HACCP with preventive controls,” says Southee. FSSC 22000 provides a flexible yet robust approach in a framework that is applicable to all situations (i.e., different manufacturers have different issues, such as producing ice cream versus baked goods). Rather than being prescriptive, the prerequisite program has the flexibility to apply to a particular situation. In addition, validation, verification, monitoring and documentation are an inherent part of the ISO 22000 approach and the FSSC 22000 certification.

FSSC 22000 serves as an effective tool in preparing companies for FSMA compliance. “We’re not a regulatory system; FDA has that domain,” says Southee. “They’re the ones that carry the responsibility of meeting those regulations. We work with everyone…to do the best job we can.”

Audit Readiness

Being audit ready all the time is a key part of preparing for FSMA. FSSC 22000 certifies a food safety management system (a three-year certification cycle) and requires internal audits of company performance, along with helping companies ensure that their records are organized at all times. The goal is to install a management system that enables constant monitoring, reevaluation and assessment as part of an ongoing process of keeping food safe, according to Southee. “If you’re certified and have an effective ongoing management system, unannounced audits won’t be an issue,” she says.

Food Safety Culture

FSSC 22000 and ISO 22000 provide a strong foundation for building food safety culture. ISO 22000 requires proof of management commitment to the food safety process, along with accountability, and for management to make resources available to see the food safety process through. “We agree that culture has to come from the top,” says Southee. “The personnel have to see that management is committed, and the culture will come from that commitment.” It also requires constant communication, up and down the supply chain as well as internally. This includes involving all employees and making sure that they know what they’re doing (i.e., training). “Everyone needs to know they’re valued and important, and how their function contributes to the function of safe food,” says Southee.

FSMA Alignment and Gap Analysis

There are sure to be some gaps when it comes to FSSC 22000 and FSMA. FSSC 22000 has commissioned a gap analysis to compare the preventive controls for human and animal food rules with the GFSI scheme and will add addendums as needed. Areas of review include a requirement to include food fraud into the hazard analysis and a review of unannounced audit protocol.  

Tim Curran, Sample6
FST Soapbox

Putting FSMA Into Practice

By Tim Curran
1 Comment
Tim Curran, Sample6

High-profile food recalls and food-borne illnesses continue to keep food safety top of mind. Yet, many in the industry are still struggling to put the best practices we’ve learned over the years about how to properly secure our global food chain into practice. Put simply: The focus needs to be on prevention rather than reaction.

Food safety procedures must be strengthened across the board to meet increasing regulatory pressures and prevent massive recalls and illness outbreaks. FSMA puts the principles of prevention into law. The first major update of federal food safety laws since 1938, it was signed into law by President Obama at the start of 2011. After years of debate, it is now finalized and implementation can begin. The objective of FSMA is to ensure that the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus from reaction to prevention. Now, who can argue with that?

FSMA also pushes the FDA to extend beyond its traditional reactive role. For the first time, the FDA has the power to stop unsafe and possibly contaminated food from entering the food supply.

Let’s take a quick step back so we can explore how to best put it into action. FSMA is made up of five primary provisions:

  • Preventive controls
  • Inspection and compliance
  • Imported food safety
  • Response
  • Enhanced partnerships

I’d argue that the first provision is the true heart of FSMA: Prevention. The first provision focuses on preventative controls and provides a framework for an effective food safety program. In FSMA, this is broken into five key parts, including hazard analysis, preventative controls, monitoring, corrective action and verification. But what does that mean to you? You can best comply with these requirements by implementing better visualization, documentation and communication tools. Let’s walk through each section and the types of tools that you should consider.

Hazard Analysis. Most companies have strong HACCP plans in place, taking account food safety hazards at all stages of production. Risk assessment and risk management must be taken into account and critical control points defined. However, to manage this going forward, consider tools that enable visibility into the current and historical situation at those control points to allow your team to see their proximity to each other, as well as to other components in the plant.

Preventive Controls. Preventative controls are also called out as part of the FSMA requirements. This includes food allergen, supply-chain and sanitation controls in place, as well as sound recall plans. Again, critical control points (CCPs) are the key to ensuring your controls are effective. Also, consider trying indicator test points to stay one step ahead! Indicator test points, as advocated by food safety leader, John Butts, are one or more steps removed from your CCPs. By testing in these areas, you can identify possible risk areas before they even reach control points. This enables a much more proactive approach.

Monitoring. Your plant should have a monitoring plan that includes written procedures for monitoring preventive controls and how frequently they should be performed. This plan should take into account zone coverage, randomization, test frequency, test timing and sampling order. Depending on the business and regulatory rules of a plant, testing should include non-food contact and food contact surfaces. In order to ensure that testing is representative of the conditions in the plant, randomization of test points is important. In addition, test frequency and test timing should be defined, and organizations should seek tools that help to automate these business rules.

Corrective Action. Hope for the best, but always plan for the worst. What is your corrective action plan? You must have a written procedure for identifying and correcting a problem. For both your plant and for regulators, a clear record of your plan and that the steps were followed to close out any issues is required. Make sure that the team understands the steps that are required, number of re-tests and any recall requirements. Look for tools that automatically alert the relevant team members of the situation and track response and testing so that you can easily share this level of detail as needed.

Verification. Trust but verify. Having a plan is only half the job. Using your environmental and finished product testing programs to ensure that controls and corrective actions are effective turns your plan into action. Rapid testing technologies keep the time between testing and results tight. Also, communication of verification results keeps the team coordinated around food safety.

The move to more preventative food safety procedures does not have to create massive headaches. Compliance with FSMA will ultimately help your business and guarantee that you are providing safe food for your customers to consume. Many food companies have been implementing these best-practice guidelines for years. Thanks to FMSA, we all now get an easy-to-follow checklist.

Shifting from reaction to prevention makes food safer—and now, it is also the law. The first step is to make sure you have a good understanding of the components. Only then can you find the best tools and technologies to support you. Lastly, make sure that your team is well aligned around the goals and objectives of your food safety program. Together, we can make food safer.