Posts

By Kathy Knutson, Ph.D., Lead Instructor for Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF), Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI), and trained in the prevention of Intentional Adulteration (IA)

Looming on the FDA horizon is the enforcement of the last of seven foundational rules in the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Intentional adulteration, commonly called food defense, is the deliberate addition to an ingredient or food of a hazard to cause illness or injury which makes the food adulterated. This criminal act could be the work of an outside group or individual who gains access before an ingredient crosses the perimeter of your facility and is delivered at Receiving. Thinking inside the box requires you to consider the access of a disgruntled or temporary employee from Receiving through to the sealing of packaging, i.e. an inside job. Addressing both perspectives is required.

The deadline is July of 2019 for businesses with more than 500 employees. The description of the first companies to come under enforcement aligns with the PCHF rule. In July of 2020, small businesses with an annual revenue of $10,000,000 come under enforcement. You can see where is says ten million here. Yes, that means that businesses with an annual revenue under $10,000,000 are defined as very small businesses by FDA and are exempt from requirements other than providing documentation of the very small business status. The very small business exemption aligns with the PCHF rule. I have written more on the food defense rule in a previous blog post on ConnectFood.

Businesses with more than 500 employees are writing their food defense plan. Quality managers schooled in Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) will see the parallel of steps in a vulnerability assessment to the hazard analysis process in HACCP or PCHF. However, a food defense plan and program have completely different outcomes compared to food safety. Your food safety team may not be the right people to address food defense, so now you have another team, and most companies bring in food defense experts for a fresh pair of eyes and their experience. I have previously written about resources for food defense. I teach a one-day workshop on food defense. My recommendation is to bring on-site a food defense trainer and consultant for one day of training with your cross-functional team, followed by two days in the facility for a vulnerability assessment with the food defense team leaders-no more than three people. Our own Matthew Botos, CEO of ConnectFood, is an excellent source of information on food defense.

“Any supply chain has the potential of being vulnerable from a multitude of unstable individuals who have both the operational capability and the behavioral resolve to inflict damage on products, people, or facilities. We have the most sophisticated and safest food supply in the world and FDA is only trying to bolster that with their continually proactive regulations. Companies need to not only look after food safety in a traditional sense, (look for hazards and protect the consumer) but also look at non-traditional methods that may impact the safety of the food supply. ConnectFood stands ready to help companies and protect people.” – Matthew Botos, CEO.

Food defense plans are facility-specific. My recommendation is that you choose one site from your company and completely finish its food defense plan. Once the team has learned the process, you can get the other sites started and either bring in the trainer again or create a corporate food defense team that goes to each of the sites to implement food defense with the local team. Because this is the first time that your food facility is required by FDA to address food defense, be prepared for large investments in monitoring of employees, capital expense, or reconstruction. One company I worked with is way ahead of the curve on food defense, yet I left them with a long action item list following one day of training and one day of touring the facility to identify vulnerabilities. We needed another day. After the company completes the action item list, I will review their draft food defense plan.

To get started on your food defense plan, FDA has publicly available and free documents. Go to the webpage for FSMA Final Rule for Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration. You want to start with the Fact Sheet and the Explanatory Diagram. The Question and Answer document is good. Scroll down to the questions on Intentional Adulteration, because the Q & A covers all FSMA rules. When you are ready, go through the first Guidance document. Others will be published through this next year. Matthew, the other ConnectFood food safety experts, and I can guide you through the system using the Expert Services; the folks at ConnectFood are here to help! Contact us.

About the Author
Kathy Knutson, Ph.D.
Kathy Knutson Food Safety Consulting LLC
Dr. Kathy Knutson works nationwide with food manufacturers on recall investigations, problem-solving, training, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compliance. After being trained in 2016 as a Lead Instructor with the FDA-recognized curriculum for Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals, she has delivered over 20 workshops to the food industry. With 35+ years in microbiology and 15 years of full-time teaching, Dr. Knutson is passionate about training and is an active communicator at all levels of an organization. She has taught and consulted with companies on laboratory methods, interpretation of lab results, quality assurance, sanitation, environmental monitoring, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). As a life-long learner, Dr. Knutson is trained in the prevention of intentional adulteration, a topic on the horizon for the food industry. Dr. Knutson is a contributing author at CannabisIndustryJournal.com. Dr. Knutson writes a food safety blog and contributes expert services to manufacturers through ConnectFood.com, an online site for writing HACCP and food safety plans. When Dr. Knutson is not traveling, she works from home in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where she lives with her husband, two sons, and an adorable Bernedoodle. Learn more about her at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyknutsonphd.

By Dave Seddon, MBA RD LD (PEAKCORE, a ConnectFood Partner)

For many, change can be daunting. This includes the new FDA Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food Rule. With increasing regulations, such as with the implementation of Electronic Logging Device (ELD), transportation companies are wondering what impact will this new rule have on the bottom line and operations. Fortunately, the changes that have come about since the 2005 Sanitary Transportation of Food Act, provide more flexibility and a preventative scope on top of the existing industry’s best practices.

The FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) final rule on Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food’s foundation is a “risk-based” model for food safety, clearly defines who is covered by the rule, and highlights certain preventative operational areas that help to ensure product food safety, such as temperature, is being maintained throughout the course of transport. The final compliance date for most businesses, barring any waivers, are upon us. We have provided a few bullet points of those requirements that are now being monitored to help you implement an improved food safe environment.

    ● The final rule establishes clear definitions of the transport role you play in transport. Those identified are Shippers, Carriers, Loaders, and Receivers. Some of the operational guidelines also will enhance and impact cGMPs (Current Good Manufacturing Practices) and SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures). Since, businesses can play multiple roles, a food safety plan should state each of these.
    ● FDA states “any movement of food in commerce by motor vehicle or rail vehicle,” all Transport Operations, Vehicles, and Transport Equipment are subject to the requirement.
    ● Temperature monitoring operations for foods are now required for temperature control safety. Thus businesses need to be able to provide temperature maintenance documents upon request. Clearly, these requests are becoming more prevalent and you should be prepared to show evidence for your clients.
    ● Training certificate and internal training programs are a few ways that businesses can illustrate compliance for training employees on food safe handling practices.
    ● The final rule requires maintenance and retention of records of written procedures, agreements, and trainings have been completed. Procedures should include ways to address pre-cooling, prior cargo handling (post), and vehicle/transport vehicle cleaning records. Cleaning, sanitizing, and inspecting of vehicles and transport equipment procedures must be written and maintained. Retention length depends upon the type of record and when the activity occurs.

Raising the bar for food transport adds to the increasing awareness that improved food safety transport systems strengths the diverse and complicated food procurement system. Creating a Sanitary Food Safety plan is a great way and first step for some to help your company meet many of these new requirements and ease the burden of compliance. Tools, such as ConnectFood, provide a resource for templates, models, and a framework to develop your own plan in short period of time. Best of all, all records can be maintained for ease of access for your client and the regulatory bodies. If you need further assistance, experts are available as well.

As always, ConnectFood is ready to help. A transportation plan guidance is available on the ConnectFood website, and a template with information is available to be loaded for your company upon request. Contact us.

About the Author
Dave Seddon, MBA RD LD (PEAKCORE, a ConnectFood Partner) is a food safety consultant with 25+ years of financial, operational, and managerial experiences in for-profit and non-profit organizations. He is well versed in food safety, SQF, HACCP, operational control, business development, entrepreneurship, M/A, risk analysis, and ERP/system implementation. Dave is a ConnectFood partner as part of the Expert Services.

In this blog we are going to talk about logs and record keeping. If you seem to continue seeing this topic as a constant theme within the food safety industry, it is because it is the way that all companies have to keep “score” in the food safety world. Documentation is what allows us to benchmark our progress. Records and logs exist so that an organization can tell their food safety story to both regulators and to their customers. Logs are a necessity for your food safety chain, and you can find example forms for logs and record keeping on ConnectFood.com.

An example of where records are important is if you have a deviation in the food production process. An instance of this would be that your chart recorder ceases to work during a thermal process, say batch heating a product with a pH below 4.1, and at the end of the run you realize that you do not have the chart-recorded log. In this case, other measurements such as handheld temperature monitoring or visual readouts of a redundant thermocouple could be used to showcase that you still have a safe product for the target consumer. You will then use these records and logs to show that you did, in fact, follow your process and that with adequate testing and record review the product would be safe to ship.

    “Implementation records document the actual implementation of the Food Safety Plan. In other words, implementation records demonstrate that you did what you were supposed to do. Examples of implementation records include, where applicable, records that document the actual monitoring of preventive controls, corrective actions taken, different verification activities performed, validation activities performed (if needed), the supply‐chain program checks and applicable training records.” –FSPCA Preventive Controls for Human Food course curriculum.

Records and logs tell a story: from the time a supplier provides an ingredient until the time the product is delivered to the consumer, there is documentation. This story can include a manufacturer asking for the records and logs of how an ingredient was processed to how it was shipped and stored before arriving. This story could follow the documentation of a low moisture ingredient that is shipped at ambient temperature but needs certain humidity controls. Or, it could be an example of fresh fish where the records must show temperature control and amount of time the product has been in transit. These records are all things that an FDA regulator will ask for and that a facility must be able to provide within the 24-hour restriction set by the Food Safety Modernization Act’s Preventive Controls for Human Food rule.

Another area that companies wonder about in regards to record keeping is: how long do I need to keep records, and what if I want to use electronic records?

“Electronic or computerized records are acceptable in a preventive controls system as long as they are equivalent to paper records and electronic signatures are equivalent to traditional handwritten signatures. Controls are necessary to ensure that records are authentic, accurate and protected from unauthorized changes.” – FSPCA Preventive Controls for Human Food course curriculum. ConnectFood talked about the move towards electronic records in a recent online interview with Food Safety News.

When it comes to how long records need to be kept, the answer is a minimum of two years from the date the log or the record was created. The records that relate directly to the food safety plan and the product’s completed food safety plan must be kept on site. Collecting proper records and logs and having them readily available is how companies demonstrate that the food safety plan is working. You can find many of these best practices in the FSPCA manual.

Most important to remember when it comes to records and logs are that, 1. you know what you are monitoring and, 2. you have trained personnel in your facility. All the logs and records in the world will not make a difference if the person tracking and monitoring the records do not know why they are taking these records and how they impact the food safety plan. Having A Preventive Controls Qualified Individual on site that can review and sign off on logs is a critical part of your food safety process. The worst-case scenario is to have a complete plan and a detailed hazard analysis but then have records and logs that do not reflect the accuracy of your production. This can lead to recalls and other issues that jeopardize the company and the consumer.

Your recordkeeping is your product’s story: make sure you’re telling a good one. ConnectFood can help you get your documentation in order and provide you with example sheets for logging. Send us a message.

About the Author

Matthew Botos is the CEO and Founder of ConnectFood. ConnectFood offers a step-by-step, “Do-It-Yourself” food safety plan generator to help companies comply with the Food Safety Modernization Act and On-Demand plan reviews from a national network of food experts. Mr. Botos is currently on the Food Safety and Preventive Controls Alliance (FSPCA) International Subcommittee. He is also one of few approved Train the Trainer instructors of the FSPCA Lead Instructor program launched in October 2015 and has taught over 800 of the nation’s leading food safety experts.

The FDA published the first of three announced guidance documents on June 19, 2018 for food defense. This release was less than one month after announcing they were “tantalizingly close” to releasing the first guidance at the 2018 Food Protection and Defense Institute conference. In the past, “tantalizingly close” has not been anywhere near soon, so I am happy for the FDA team that got this guidance done. The food defense rule for the prevention of intentional adulteration (IA) is the last of seven foundational rules of the Food Safety Modernization Act to be rolled out. If you are thinking “Whoa, I just figured out PCQI and my food safety plan,” then I suggest you start with the excellent FDA Final Rule Fact Sheets that summarize the FSMA rules and then go to the guidance documents.

Who needs to follow the Intentional Adulteration rule?
The FDA was very clear that the owner, operator or agent in charge is responsible.

    The IA rule applies to the owner, operator, or agent in charge of a domestic or foreign food facility that manufactures/ processes, packs, or holds food for consumption in the United States.

Here are some specific details. Just like the other FSMA rules, FDA rolls out the enforcement of the rule based on three sizes of businesses:

Businesses with more than 500 employees must comply in July 2019 by following a written food defense plan. FDA allows great flexibility on how a food defense plan is written and implemented, while providing detailed guidance. The food defense plan is a program for a facility and does not include the farm. The facility does not consider transportation to their location or transportation from their location in the food defense plan.

$10,000,000 is not a typo! The IA rule has a different definition of very small from the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule, the Produce rule or the Foreign Supplier Verification Program rule. Any business with less than $10,000,000 in annual revenue is exempt from compliance, and the business does not have to submit documents annually to the FDA to qualify. The business does have to provide documentation of annual revenue in person to an FDA inspector upon request for review and confirmation of the size of the business. Why, you ask?

The Intentional Adulteration rule is meant to prevent wide scale harm to public health.

From the guidance: Acts intended to cause wide scale public health harm are associated with intent to cause significant human morbidity and mortality… acts of disgruntled employees, consumers, and competitors are generally intended to attack the reputation of a company, and EMA [i.e. economically motivated adulteration] is intended to obtain economic gain.

Note! Businesses whose sole operation is the storage of packaged food are exempt, except for the holding of liquid food in tanks. See the guidance IV. Exemptions B. Holding of Food.

Note! Once the food has been wrapped in its initial food-contact packaging, subsequent packaging and labeling of the individually-wrapped portions into packs or cases for sale is not included in the food defense plan.

What training is available now?
FREE training is available now. Ahead of the guidance document, online and free training was posted. The training was designed for line workers and their supervisors for food defense awareness. The best defense is a trained and informed workforce. At the end of the 20-minute session, a certificate is printed and added to the employee’s personnel file. Additional training will be rolled out over the next year from the Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance and other organizations.

The first guidance from FDA has so much more information. Even if you are exempt from the rule, I encourage you to read over the guidance and provide the free training to your employees. The ConnectFood website has free resources, and the folks at ConnectFood are here to help! Contact us.

About the Author
Kathy Knutson, Ph.D.
Kathy Knutson Food Safety Consulting
Dr. Kathy Knutson works nationwide with food manufacturers on recall investigations, problem-solving, training, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compliance. After being trained in 2016 as a Lead Instructor with the FDA-recognized curriculum for Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals, she delivered over 20 workshops to industry. With over 35 years in microbiology and 15 years of full-time teaching, Dr. Knutson is passionate about training and is an effective communicator at all levels in an organization. She has taught and consulted with companies on laboratory methods, interpretation of lab results, quality assurance, sanitation, environmental monitoring, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). As a life-long learner, Dr. Knutson is trained in prevention of intentional adulteration, a topic on the horizon for the food industry. Dr. Knutson is a contributing author at CannabisIndustryJournal.com. Dr. Knutson writes a food safety blog and contributes expert services to manufacturers through ConnectFood.com, an online site for writing HACCP and food safety plans. When Dr. Knutson is not traveling, she works from home in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where she lives with her husband, two sons, and an adorable Bernedoodle. Learn more about her at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyknutsonphd

It has been two weeks since the CDC updated the case count and epi curve on their website. The reasoning is good, because the outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 associated with Romaine lettuce is mostly over and data are arriving more slowly. There is no Romaine lettuce from the Yuma, Arizona growing region being harvested. All Romaine lettuce from the Yuma growing region is beyond its shelf-life and is no longer being consumed. The public health community is waiting for the reporting of any new cases and the fate of those stricken with the illness. It is sad to report that the death count raised from one to a total of five souls.

A look at the epi curve shows a normal distribution of cases, a week where the number of cases dwindled to single digits and days without new cases, great signs that the outbreak will soon be declared over by the CDC. An onset time of three weeks is possible coupled with time for medical diagnosis and reporting to CDC means there may be more cases reported. The case count currently is 197.

There are several striking features of this E. coli O157: H7 outbreak:

    • 89 people have been hospitalized. A hospitalization rate of 45% is high.
    • Similarly, the rate of patients developing hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a form of kidney failure, is high at 13% for 26 people.
    E. coli O157:H7 with the same DNA fingerprint and associated with Romaine lettuce caused illness in Canada.
    • Illnesses have been reported in 35 states, including Alaska.

While the CDC continues to monitor the outbreak and many organizations, including the FDA, are investigating, one of the most striking features is that no Romaine lettuce is available for pathogen testing. Because of the typical, long onset time for the illness, any unconsumed Romaine is long discarded. Most outbreak investigations will gather samples from consumer homes, restaurants and grocery stores. In this outbreak, the implicated product availability is very limited. The outbreak investigation is very difficult as illustrated in the traceback model created by the FDA and showing some of the traceback for Romaine lettuce. With no common point of service, distribution center or processor, the source of contamination may be found in the growing region.

All this news should cause us to take a hard look at our own recall plans. If your company is audited, mock recalls are conducted at some frequency, and there are always learnings from mock recalls. If you are under compliance for the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule, a written recall plan is required as part of the food safety plan. I encourage you to take time now to review and update the recall plan. From my experience of working with companies on recall investigations, it is better to take time now to be prepared than to be figuring this out during a recall. The ConnectFood website has free resources, and the folks at ConnectFood are here to help! Contact us.

About the Author
Kathy Knutson, Ph.D.
Kathy Knutson Food Safety Consulting
Dr. Kathy Knutson works nationwide with food manufacturers on recall investigations, problem-solving, training, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compliance. After being trained in 2016 as a Lead Instructor with the FDA-recognized curriculum for Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals, she delivered over 20 workshops to industry. With over 35 years in microbiology and 15 years of full-time teaching, Dr. Knutson is passionate about training and is an effective communicator at all levels in an organization. She has taught and consulted with companies on laboratory methods, interpretation of lab results, quality assurance, sanitation, environmental monitoring, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). As a life-long learner, Dr. Knutson is trained in prevention of intentional adulteration, a topic on the horizon for the food industry. Dr. Knutson is a contributing author at CannabisIndustryJournal.com. Dr. Knutson writes a food safety blog and contributes expert services to manufacturers through ConnectFood.com, an online site for writing HACCP and food safety plans. When Dr. Knutson is not traveling, she works from home in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where she lives with her husband, two sons, and an adorable Bernedoodle. Learn more about her at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyknutsonphd

Food defense is not food safety – defined, food defense is “the protection of food products from intentional contamination or adulteration by biological, chemical, physical, or radiological agents introduced for the purpose of causing harm.” Being a food safety geek, I recently returned to Minneapolis to attend the conference of the Food Protection and Defense Institute. FPDI is a Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence, serving the food industry in the fight against intentional adulteration since 2004. As a food safety geek, I am intrigued about food defense and want to learn more. Maybe you are intrigued too. Here I have compiled five key resources for you to start your own journey down the path of food defense.

    1. Food Protection and Defense Institute

      I love the folks at FPDI. For people who think about crime for a living, they are really nice, normal people. At the conference they showcased local to international speakers, but their website is the star of the show. Here are some of the features of the FPDI website:

        • Food Defense Online Training
        • Food Adulteration Incidents Registry (FAIR)
        • World Factbook of Food
        • Food Defense Readiness Assessment
        • Focused Integration of Data for Early Signals (FIDES)
        • Intentional Adulteration Assessment Tool

      Finally, collaboration through two platforms:

        • CoreSHIELD
        • FoodSHIELD

      The platforms allow secure sharing of resources among the food defense community. FPDI works globally to monitor food defense.

    2. FDA at a Glance: FSMA Final Rule for Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration

      While most government documents are good for sleepless nights, I have learned to pay attention to fact sheets and question-and-answer publications from the FDA. These documents condense the information down to the most important facts. FDA published At a Glance documents for each of the seven foundational rules of FSMA. The Intentional Adulteration rule, AKA food defense rule, focuses on who is covered, what the key parts are for a food defense plan, compliance dates, and exemptions. As always, industry is welcome to submit questions to FDA about the rule through its Technical Assistance Network.

    3. FDA Voice, by Scott Gottlieb, M.D., March 28, 2018

      In FDA Commissioner Gottlieb’s blog post, We’re Committed to Guarding Against the Intentional Adulteration of Food and Implementing the New Rule Efficiently, we get the latest information straight from the top. I have seen and heard this article cited many times since its release. There is reference to FDA guidance in the article. At the FPDI conference, we were told the FDA guidance for the Intentional Adulteration rule is close to publication. Once available, that guidance will be another resource for industry.

    4. Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance

      For food safety geeks, FSPCA is the go-to source for training and other resources. FSPCA is the hub for writing the curriculum for the Preventive Controls for Human Food, Preventive Controls for Animal Food and Foreign Supplier Verification rules. The food defense rule requires training also. The first food defense training from FSPCA is available now, and it is FREE! From the FSPCA website, According the IA rule, individuals assigned to work at actionable process steps and their supervisors, are required to receive training in food defense awareness (21 CFR 121.4(b)(2)). This training is called Food Defense Awareness for the IA Rule. Your employees will need about 20 minutes to complete the online training and a printer to print the training certificate.

    5. Matthew Botos, CEO, ConnectFood

      After September 11, 2001 ConnectFood‘s own Matthew Botos developed a food defense program for the food industry. He was ahead of the curve, as usual, taking action before the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 or even the signing in 2004 of Homeland Security Presidential Directive-9-Defense of United States Agriculture and Food.

Either food defense or food safety, we are all in this together. The ConnectFood website has free resources, and the folks at ConnectFood are here to help! Contact us.

About the Author
Kathy Knutson, Ph.D.
Kathy Knutson Food Safety Consulting
Dr. Kathy Knutson works nationwide with food manufacturers on recall investigations, problem-solving, training, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compliance. After being trained in 2016 as a Lead Instructor with the FDA-recognized curriculum for Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals, she delivered over 20 workshops to industry. With over 35 years in microbiology and 15 years of full-time teaching, Dr. Knutson is passionate about training and is an effective communicator at all levels in an organization. She has taught and consulted with companies on laboratory methods, interpretation of lab results, quality assurance, sanitation, environmental monitoring, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). As a life-long learner, Dr. Knutson is trained in prevention of intentional adulteration, a topic on the horizon for the food industry. Dr. Knutson is a contributing author at CannabisIndustryJournal.com. Dr. Knutson writes a food safety blog and contributes expert services to manufacturers through ConnectFood.com, an online site for writing HACCP and food safety plans. When Dr. Knutson is not traveling, she works from home in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where she lives with her husband, two sons, and an adorable Bernedoodle. Learn more about her at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyknutsonphd

This week was a historic week for the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Three times since the signing of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011, FDA has used its new authority, i.e. new tools to prevent illness or injury from food. In 2012, FDA suspended the facility registration of Sunland, Inc. of Portales, New Mexico, a manufacturer of peanut butter. In 2013, FDA sent a Notification of Opportunity to Initiate a Voluntary Recall to Kasel Associates Industries, Inc., a manufacturer of pet treats. This week, FDA ordered a mandatory recall of kratom products from Triangle Pharmanaturals, LLC of Las Vegas, Nevada.

The FDA used its authority under FSMA to order a recall. This is a big deal. In all the history of food safety and the FDA, this is the first time the FDA has announced a mandatory recall. There have been thousands of recalls in FDA’s history, and before this week, every single recall has been voluntary and announced by the company.

What were FDA’s options before FSMA? Traditionally, FDA has followed up inspections with Form 483. Observations are detailed on Form 483, and the company must respond with corrective action to each observation. FDA has written soft letters, had phone conversations and sent email messages to communicate. Beyond communication and for more action, the FDA sends Warning Letters and can go to federal court to seek either an injunction to halt sale of product or an order for seizure of product. Product seizure can be taking product off store shelves or stopping finished product from entering commerce. Those are a lot of options! In the three cases stated above, FDA used many tactics to communicate and work with the companies, before getting to the last straw.

Case 1. Sunland peanut butter sold finished product containing Salmonella.
A little research on Sunland shows a long history of peanut butter recalls and FDA communication from 2009 to 2012. Just a year and a half after President Obama signed FSMA and four years before the food industry came under compliance and enforcement, the FDA exercised its new authority. For my readers who favor less government and less rules, look at what FDA did before pulling Sunland’s registration:

    1. 2007: Form 483 following inspection 10/25/2007
    2. 2009: Form 483 following inspection 3/10/2009
    3. 2010: Form 483 following inspection 9/23/2010
    4. 2011: Form 483 following inspection 3/25/2011
    5. 2012: Form 483 following inspection 10/29/2012

For the 2012 inspection, FDA was on-site for one month and listed the details of ten observations. Given authority under FSMA, FDA was able to stop production of Salmonella-laden peanut butter. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported the Salmonella outbreak from Sunland peanut butter covered 20 states and was responsible for 42 cases. Children under 10 were 61% of the cases, and 28% of cases were hospitalized. We know that diagnosed and reported illnesses represent a small portion of all persons with illness from an outbreak. Dozens of companies using peanut butter in their products went through subsequent recalls because of the peanut butter recall. I know, because it was my job to follow recalls and post them to ConnectFood’s Twitter.

Case 2. Kasel dog treats recalled after Salmonella found.
FDA has authority for enforcement and compliance over animal food. In February of 2013 Kasel was manufacturing dog treats and was re-inspected. In a 2012 inspection, Salmonella was found in the dog treats, in the processing environment, and on food contact surfaces. FDA inspectors cited problems with Kasel’s Good Manufacturing Practices including building repair, pest control and cleaning and sanitizing procedures. The dog treats had either a one-year or two-year expiration date. Kasel was given two days to initiate a voluntary recall after receiving FDA’s Notification of Opportunity to Initiate a Voluntary Recall, and Kasel complied by announcing a voluntary recall on February 19, 2013. Here’s my favorite sentence from the Notification: If you do not voluntarily cease distribution and conduct a recall in the time and manner described in this section, FDA may, by order, require you to immediately cease distribution of the affected pet treats. Fast-forward to 2018. FDA is rigorously inspecting animal food manufacturers, and we have seen a wave of pet food recalls [author’s note: choose Animal Health for from the drop down menu of recall categories], primarily of raw pet food.

Case 3. Triangle Pharmanaturals’ kratom products contain Salmonella.
Remember all those options available to the FDA? It seems the FDA used them and got no response from the company in return. FDA sent Triangle Pharmanauturals a Notification of Opportunity to Initiate a Voluntary Recall with no response from the company. All companies in the past which have received this letter from the FDA have followed up with a voluntary recall, because this is the first company which has not! This is the evidence I have gathered against Triangle Pharmanaturals. There is currently (April 2018) a multi-state outbreak of Salmonella. During interviews in March of people ill from Salmonella, when specifically asked, 40 of 55 reported consuming kratom before getting sick. Salmonella has been isolated twice from Triangle Pharmanaturals’ products by the state of Oregon and four times by FDA. Triangle Pharmanaturals’ competitors have recalled their kratom products. As I am writing this, I received updated recall information to include 38 states and 132 confirmed cases.

These three companies have in common that their products contained Salmonella. To me as a microbiologist, that is interesting. More importantly, their company names are forever tied to the history of FDA in the fight of foodborne illness. Personally, I am thankful for the work of the FDA and CDC.

The ConnectFood website has free resources, and the folks at ConnectFood are here to help! Contact us.

About the Author
Kathy Knutson, Ph.D.
Kathy Knutson Food Safety Consulting
Dr. Kathy Knutson works nationwide with food manufacturers on recall investigations, problem-solving, training, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compliance. After being trained in 2016 as a Lead Instructor with the FDA-recognized curriculum for Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals, she delivered over 20 workshops to industry. With over 35 years in microbiology and 15 years of full-time teaching, Dr. Knutson is passionate about training and is an effective communicator at all levels in an organization. She has taught and consulted with companies on laboratory methods, interpretation of lab results, quality assurance, sanitation, environmental monitoring, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). As a life-long learner, Dr. Knutson is trained in prevention of intentional adulteration, a topic on the horizon for the food industry. Dr. Knutson is a contributing author at CannabisIndustryJournal.com. Dr. Knutson writes a food safety blog and contributes expert services to manufacturers through ConnectFood.com, an online site for writing HACCP and food safety plans. When Dr. Knutson is not traveling, she works from home in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where she lives with her husband, two sons, and an adorable Bernedoodle. Learn more about her at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyknutsonphd

I subscribe to alerts for Class I recalls from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The message goes to my email with a link to the press release. It’s a great automated system, and the number of alerts is small enough to manage daily in email. The FDA recalls more than just food – their recalls include biologics (medical products), animal health products (pet food), medical devices, drugs, cosmetics and tobacco. I didn’t sign up for everything, and the subject of the emails I receive helps me decide which ones I can delete without opening… efficient.

Class I recalls are announced when there is a large possibility a consumer will become ill or be injured from a food they have ingested; think of glass shards or pathogens in food. This is where the food industry spends research dollars and companies take measures to prevent biological, chemical, and physical hazards. Class I recalls are the ones we see in social media, which are heavily communicated on the news and posted about on the FDA website. Class I recalls must be entered into the Reportable Food Registry. Do you know what hazard is the number one cause of Class I recalls? The answer is… allergens: a chemical hazard. You cannot put too many resources into allergen management if your product contains an allergen.

I was recently reminded by a colleague to keep up with the Class I notices (done!) and enforcement reports. Hmmm, enforcement reports? In FDA’s words:

    “All recalls monitored by FDA are included in the Enforcement Report once they are classified and may be listed prior to classification when FDA determines the firm’s removal or correction of a marketed product(s) meets the definition of a recall. Once FDA completes the hazard assessment, the Enforcement Report entry will be updated with the recall classification.”

“Classified” does not mean the recall is top secret! There are three classes; Class I is discussed above as the most serious among the classes. A Class II recall is a situation where the probability of illness or injury is remote. Only the manufacturer can make the call on if the recall will be classified as Class I or II based upon the specifics of what went wrong. The situation has a possibility of illness or injury, but the chances are so small that the conditions for illness or injury are unusual or unlikely. A Class III recall is not likely to cause any illness or injury. Period. It absolutely will not happen. The fourth option in an enforcement report is “pending.” This means the FDA is still considering the class for the recall. You would think this is pretty straight forward, but recalls are one big bell curve. Class I and Class III extremes are easy to get right, but there is a huge bump in the middle for Class II. This leads me to the FDA website.

Enforcement reports are posted weekly. When you go to the previous link, click on the week of interest, then sort with the ‘Product Type’ dropdown menu for ‘Food’ or another category. Dietary supplements are posted under ‘Food,’ even though they are not food and are separately regulated. If you really want a scare, choose the category of ‘Drugs’ to see all the problems in that industry, or see pending recalls of drugs. In addition to the Class I recalls, the other classes are of interest as well.

We use enforcement reports to keep up with our industry. What problems do others in your commodity experience? When we read the Class II and Class III recalls, we see what problems are occurring in our industry. Are you in dairy, flour, nuts, or produce? Look for companies with similar commodities as both your ingredients and your products. As part of reviewing your written food safety plan, the food safety team is required to keep up with current science and potential hazards. One way to know what is going on in your commodity is to keep up with enforcement reports.

Have you heard all the recalls of pet food? These are not coming to my email, so I need to update my alerts. The ConnectFood website has free resources, including the ability to create a recall plan for your facility and products using the online software. The folks at ConnectFood are here to help! Contact us.

About the Author
Kathy Knutson, Ph.D.
Kathy Knutson Food Safety Consulting
Dr. Kathy Knutson works nationwide with food manufacturers on recall investigations, problem-solving, training, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compliance. After being trained in 2016 as a Lead Instructor with the FDA-recognized curriculum for Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals, she delivered over 20 workshops to industry. With over 35 years in microbiology and 15 years of full-time teaching, Dr. Knutson is passionate about training and is an effective communicator at all levels in an organization. She has taught and consulted with companies on laboratory methods, interpretation of lab results, quality assurance, sanitation, environmental monitoring, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). As a life-long learner, Dr. Knutson is trained in prevention of intentional adulteration, a topic on the horizon for the food industry. Dr. Knutson is a contributing author at CannabisIndustryJournal.com. Dr. Knutson writes a food safety blog and contributes expert services to manufacturers through ConnectFood.com, an online site for writing HACCP and food safety plans. When Dr. Knutson is not traveling, she works from home in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where she lives with her husband, two sons, and an adorable Bernedoodle. Learn more about her at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyknutsonphd

FDA published the draft guidance Determining the Number of Employees for Purposes of the “Small Business” Definition of Parts 117 and 507: Guidance for Industry on March 19, 2018. The comment period is through May 20, 2018. The purpose of the guidance is to raise awareness of exemptions for Part 117, the human food rule, and Part 507, the animal food rule. There is also a later compliance date for small businesses under the animal food rule of September 17, 2018, than originally set. I am addressing human food within this blog.

Why did FDA publish this draft guidance?
I’m having a difficult time understanding the publication of this Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) draft guidance at this time. It is helpful in defining subsidiary, affiliate, facility and full-time equivalent (FTE) employee. There are clear examples to showcase types of facilities and calculations of FTEs. The purpose of calculating FTEs is to determine if a facility is defined as a small business of less than 500 FTE employees. This is a concern when multiple facilities are related and if there are part-time or seasonal employees. This is a question I have tried my best to address in PCQI workshops for my participants. It’s nice to have the draft guidance. The reason I am having a difficult time is that it is a moot point for industry now. All small businesses came under enforcement in September 2017 for human food. Small businesses must meet the same requirements their larger competitors met in September 2016.

    I believe the reason for the publication of the draft guidance
    is not as much for industry as it is for the FDA.

Will my facility be inspected?*
FDA prioritizes their inspections, so FDA must know if a facility is a small business or larger. In fiscal year 2016-2017 when businesses with more than 500 employees came under enforcement, FDA’s goal was to complete 300 FSMA inspections. Facilities with more than 500 employees were under inspection first, because of the potential public health impact to a larger number of consumers. A total of 165 domestic and foreign FSMA inspections were completed. All other inspections-the majority-were Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) inspections. That trend will continue with most inspections being GMP inspections. The FDA continues to train its inspectors on FSMA, and FDA inspectors are primarily in a FSMA educator mode with industry. In fiscal year 2017-2018 the goal is higher at 500 FSMA inspections; the pace is faster.

In addition to the number of FTEs, there are other factors used by FDA to prioritize inspections.

    • Domestic and foreign facilities goals are 400 and 100 inspections, respectively.
    • Facilities with a current or previous Class I recall or warning letter
    • Facilities in the same market as a facility with a Class I recall
    • Facilities making a high-risk ingredient or product

      1. Ready-to-eat foods
      2. Foods identified in FDA’s Listeria risk assessment
      3. Foods otherwise with a history of risk

While it is not possible to know if your facility will be inspected until the FDA inspectors are at your door, you can determine the likelihood by using the same tools FDA has to prioritize inspections.

*The author participated in a Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance quarterly webinar for Lead Instructors on February 8, 2018, in which FDA inspection data was shared.

The ConnectFood website has free resources, and the folks at ConnectFood are here to help! Contact us.

About the Author
Kathy Knutson, Ph.D.
Kathy Knutson Food Safety Consulting
Dr. Kathy Knutson works nationwide with food manufacturers on recall investigations, problem-solving, training, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compliance. After being trained in 2016 as a Lead Instructor with the FDA-recognized curriculum for Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals, she delivered over 20 workshops to industry. With over 35 years in microbiology and 15 years of full-time teaching, Dr. Knutson is passionate about training and is an effective communicator at all levels in an organization. She has taught and consulted with companies on laboratory methods, interpretation of lab results, quality assurance, sanitation, environmental monitoring, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). As a life-long learner, Dr. Knutson is trained in prevention of intentional adulteration, a topic on the horizon for the food industry. Dr. Knutson is a contributing author at CannabisIndustryJournal.com. Dr. Knutson writes a food safety blog and contributes expert services to manufacturers through ConnectFood.com, an online site for writing HACCP and food safety plans. When Dr. Knutson is not traveling, she works from home in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where she lives with her husband, two sons, and an adorable Bernedoodle. Learn more about her at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyknutsonphd

I first learned that Listeria monocytogenes is a foodborne pathogen in 1985 during the Jalisco cheese outbreak in Los Angeles and Orange Counties in California. There were 29 deaths from 86 documented cases. The veterinary world was very familiar with Listeria in cattle, long before food microbiologists. Industry and the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took this emerging pathogen seriously. Since 1985, there has been active research and investigations at universities and food companies. We know that Listeria is ubiquitous, and current lab methods improve our chances of finding Listeria.

FDA Listeria Draft Guidance for Ready-to-Eat Foods: Part 1, published previously at ConnectFood.com, discussed Listeria testing on food contact surfaces (FCS) and non-food contact surfaces (NFCS) and from finished product. We encourage you to study FDA’s draft guidance, Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods: Guidance for Industry. Here, I present three concepts needed to understand the information in the guidance.

A positive Listeria test from a FCS assumes the presence of Listeria in your product.

The guidance for ready-to-eat food recommends FCS be sampled after three hours of production and five FCS samples be collected per week per line. First consider these sample sites. The FCS sites should be after the final kill step. It does no good to sample FCS sites before the final kill step. If the test is positive, the assumption is that the final kill step killed the pathogen. The FCS sites are before the final product is sealed in packaging. Think about the distance where your product travels after the final kill step to where the package is sealed. In that distance, think about where the product is open to the environment. Listeria is an environmental pathogen. What I mean is if the product is in tubing, the product is not exposed to the environment, and these would not be FCS sites for Listeria. I am thinking about an ice cream plant. The mix travels through tubing until carton filling. The distance the product travels from the end of the tube to the carton is small, and the distance the open carton travels until sealed is small. Compare that to a large bakery. After leaving the oven on conveyor belts, the baked goods travel open to the environment for cooling and the addition of toppings. I have seen distance as long as 50 yards with the transfer onto multiple conveyor belts.

Once you have your FCS sites identified and if a FCS test is positive, it is assumed the product is positive, even without direct sampling and testing of the product. This makes sense. If a FCS is positive, the product touched the FCS. At that point it’s a chicken-and-the-egg discussion of whether the product contaminated the surface or the surface contaminated the product. It doesn’t matter until you do your root cause analysis. What you do know is that you have contaminated product.

A positive Listeria test from an environmental sample has an isolate identified as Listeria innocua or another Listeria species; consider Listeria monocytogenes as present.

Listeria monocytogenes is one of 17 species of Listeria. Only the species Listeria monocytogenes is considered a foodborne pathogen. When your contract lab tests for Listeria genus or spp., a positive test does not tell you the species. Further testing can identify the species, if needed. It is very common for the lab to report negative for Listeria monocytogenes and report the presence of Listeria innocua instead. In no way can you rest easy with a positive Listeria test and negative Listeria monocytogenes test. When the lab reports a positive Listeria test, consider Listeria monocytogenes present.

Consider the sampling site and technique. Let’s use the example of a drain swabbed with a sterile sponge. Assume Listeria monocytogenes is there. Perhaps the sponge did not swab the location of the pathogen. Perhaps the sponge did not get through the layers of goo where the pathogen is harbored. There are many reasons for missing the pathogen in the procedure for swabbing. If the test is positive for a different Listeria species, the conditions at that site are conducive for the presence of Listeria monocytogenes. Corrective action must be done in the same way as if the test were positive for Listeria monocytogenes.

Consider the variety of microflora at the site. The site was not sterile and does contain diverse types of bacteria at different numbers and proportions to each other. Listeria monocytogenes is the wimpy kid on the playground. Listeria innocua outcompetes Listeria monocytogenes not just 10-to-1, but as much as 20:1 or 50:1! The mere chance of finding Listeria innocua instead of Listeria monocytogenes is simply greater. Listeria monocytogenes may have been present in the sample, in the testing, and simply not detected.

An environmental sample tests positive for Listeria genus or Listeria species (spp.); react as if the sample were positive for Listeria monocytogenes.

You will direct the lab in what method to use and at what point to stop the testing. Work with the contract lab in making this determination. After a positive test for Listeria genus or spp., you have the option to continue testing to identify the isolate of Listeria. This costs more money and time. Will you do something different with that information? No! It is not necessary to confirm the presence of Listeria monocytogenes from a positive Listeria genus or spp. test, when your corrective action is the same. Think this through before testing. Know the action the plant will take when a Listeria genus or spp. test is positive. Expect to get positives from zones 3 and 4. FDA inspectors should not have a problem with seeing occasional positive tests. Since Listeria is ubiquitous, you are expected to find it. The important part is what you do as corrective action. Follow-up testing should be negative to prove Listeria is eliminated from the site and the area adjacent to the site.

As you work through the FDA Listeria guidance, the ConnectFood website has free resources, and the folks at ConnectFood are here to help! Contact us.

About the Author
Kathy Knutson, Ph.D.
Kathy Knutson Food Safety Consulting
Dr. Kathy Knutson works nationwide with food manufacturers on recall investigations, problem-solving, training, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compliance. After being trained in 2016 as a Lead Instructor with the FDA-recognized curriculum for Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals, she delivered over 20 workshops to industry. With over 35 years in microbiology and 15 years of full-time teaching, Dr. Knutson is passionate about training and is an effective communicator at all levels in an organization. She has taught and consulted with companies on laboratory methods, interpretation of lab results, quality assurance, sanitation, environmental monitoring, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). As a life-long learner, Dr. Knutson is trained in prevention of intentional adulteration, a topic on the horizon for the food industry. Dr. Knutson is a contributing author at CannabisIndustryJournal.com. Dr. Knutson writes a food safety blog and contributes expert services to manufacturers through ConnectFood.com, an online site for writing HACCP and food safety plans. When Dr. Knutson is not traveling, she works from home in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where she lives with her husband, two sons, and an adorable Bernedoodle. Learn more about her at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyknutsonphd