Posts

The world of HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) versus Preventive Controls is an interesting conversation we are seeing at ConnectFood.com and across the entire food industry. FDA has trained hundreds of inspectors in Preventive Controls for Human Food and there are thousands of Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals (PCQI’s) across the country and the world. There are tens of thousands of HACCP trained individuals. I have used the analogy that food safety best practices are like a sport; the more you train and the more you focus on “basics done well,” the better your plan will be on a day-to-day basis. The focus is making the food supply safer. This does not mean that HACCP is not valid, as a matter of fact HACCP and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP’s) should be looked at as the foundation of Preventive Controls for Human Food. Local departments of public health still rely on HACCP as their main line of defense for the food safety industry. We have seen so many small processors and restaurants that have inspections at which HACCP is still the focus, even though Preventive Controls has some more advanced techniques for protection.

Both HACCP and Preventive Controls focus on making sure you have good sanitation practices, employee training and have done a hazard analysis for biological, chemical and physical hazards. I feel like the lines are blurring a bit as companies, academics, and regulators don’t often understand the differences between the two and – to be honest, the differences are not that great from a fundamental level. Here is where I come in with some definitions for you…

    “HACCP: A systematic approach to the identification, evaluation, and control of food safety hazards.

    HACCP Plan: The written document which is based upon the principles of HACCP and which delineates the procedures to be followed.

    HACCP System: The result of the implementation of the HACCP Plan.

    HACCP Team: The group of people who are responsible for developing, implementing and maintaining the HACCP system.

    Hazard: A biological, chemical, or physical agent that is reasonably likely to cause illness or injury in the absence of its control.

    Hazard Analysis: The process of collecting and evaluating information on hazards associated with the food under consideration to decide which are significant and must be addressed in the HACCP plan.” FDA.gov

The fundamental principles of HACCP come through in Preventive Controls with some additional areas to focus on as we enhance our food safety plans.

    “In general, you are a covered facility if you are required to register with FDA under section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act. Covered facilities are required to have and implement a written food safety plan that includes:

Hazard analysis: The first step is hazard identification, which must consider known or reasonably foreseeable biological, chemical, and physical hazards. These hazards could be present because they occur naturally, are unintentionally introduced, or are intentionally introduced for economic gain (if they affect the safety of the food).

If the hazard analysis reveals one or more hazards that require a preventive control, the facility must have and implement written preventive controls for the identified hazards.

Preventive controls: Facilities have the flexibility to tailor preventive controls to address hazards that occur in the products they manufacture. The preventive controls, which must be written, must be implemented to ensure that any hazards requiring a preventive control will be significantly minimized or prevented and help ensure that the food is not adulterated. The rule includes the following preventive controls:

Process controls include procedures that ensure the control parameters are met. Process controls can include operations such as cooking, refrigerating, and acidifying foods. They must include parameters and values (e.g., critical limits), as appropriate to the nature of the applicable control and its role in the facility’s food safety system.

Food allergen controls are written procedures the facility must have and implement to control allergen cross-contact and ensure allergens are appropriately listed on the labels of packaged food products.
Sanitation controls are procedures, practices, and processes to ensure that the facility is maintained in a sanitary condition to minimize or prevent hazards such as environmental pathogens, hazards from employees handling food, and food allergen hazards.

Other Controls are controls that are not described above but are necessary to ensure that a hazard requiring a preventive control will be significantly minimized or prevented.

Oversight and management of preventive controls: Once a facility has identified a preventive control for a hazard, the facility must make sure that the controls are being met.

Monitoring: These procedures are designed to provide assurance that preventive controls are consistently performed. Monitoring is conducted as appropriate to the preventive control. For example, monitoring of a heat process to kill pathogens would include recording temperature values. Monitoring must be documented.

Corrections: These are steps taken, in a timely manner, to identify and correct a minor, isolated problem that occurs during food production.

Corrective actions: These include actions to identify and correct a problem implementing a preventive control, reduce the likelihood the problem will recur, evaluate affected food for safety, and prevent that food from entering commerce if you cannot ensure that the affected food is not adulterated. Corrective actions must be documented with records.

Verification: These activities are required to ensure that preventive controls are consistently implemented and effective in minimizing hazards. Examples of verification activities include scientifically validating process preventive controls to ensure that the control measure is capable of effectively controlling an identified hazard and calibrating (or checking the accuracy of) process monitoring and verification instruments such as thermometers. Verification activities also include reviewing records to ensure that monitoring and corrective actions (if necessary) are being conducted. Verification activities must be documented.

Product testing and environmental monitoring are also possible verification activities, required as appropriate to the food, facility, nature of the preventive control, and the role of that control in the facility’s food safety system. Environmental monitoring is required if the contamination of a ready-to-eat food with an environmental pathogen is a hazard the facility identified as requiring a preventive control.

Supply chain program: Manufacturers must have and implement a risk-based supply chain program if the hazard analysis identifies a hazard that

    (1) requires a preventive control and
    (2) the control will be applied in the facility’s supply chain.

Facilities do not need to have a supply-chain program if they control the hazard in their own facility, or if a subsequent entity (such as another processor) will control the hazard, and the facility follows applicable requirements.

Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that raw materials and other ingredients requiring a supply-chain-applied control are received only from approved suppliers, or on a temporary basis from unapproved suppliers whose materials are subject to verification activities before being accepted for use. (Suppliers are approved by the facility after the facility considers several factors, such as a hazard analysis of the food, the entity that will be controlling that hazard, and supplier performance.)

Another entity in the supply chain, such as a broker or distributor, can conduct supplier verification activities, but the receiving facility must review and assess that entity’s documentation that they verified the supplier’s control of the hazard.

Recall plan: If the hazard analysis identifies a hazard requiring a preventive control, the facility must have a written recall plan that describes the procedures to perform a recall of the product. The recall plan must include procedures to notify consignees, to notify the public when necessary, to conduct effectiveness checks and to appropriately dispose of recalled product.” FDA.gov

In conclusion, HACCP and Preventive Controls are both food safety risk management systems. ConnectFood.com provides the ability for all facilities that handle or process food to create a plan depending on what the regulatory authority or a clients needs. Contact us and let us assist you in your food safety planning.

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.

“FDA Seizes Food and Medical Products Held Under Insanitary Conditions at an Arkansas Grocery Warehouse.” This FDA News Release grabbed my attention. I have known since my first year of Food Science courses that FDA has the authority to seize product but does so rarely. After the Department of Justice filed the complaint in a U.S. District Court, armed marshals of the U.S. Marshals Service entered the Alma, Arkansas warehouses to detain products and keep products from entering interstate commerce. Does this sound like too much authority? This is from the FDA News Release:

    The complaint alleges that an inspection of J and L Grocery that the FDA conducted in September and October 2018 revealed insanitary conditions including multiple live and dead rodents, rodent nesting, live racoons, live cats, a dead possum, animal feces, and urine-stained products in and around the company’s seven warehouses and sheds used to store food, medical products and cosmetics.

The FDA got its hand slapped when the Office of Inspector General published findings in a 53-page report in 2017 detailing:

    FDA could not always ensure that firms initiated recalls promptly and that FDA did not always
    (1) evaluate health hazards in a timely manner,
    (2) issue audit check assignments at the appropriate level,
    (3) complete audit checks in accordance with its procedures,
    (4) collect timely and complete status reports from firms that have issued recalls,
    (5) track key recall data in the RES [Recall Enterprise System], and
    (6) maintain accurate recall data in the RES.

Remarkably, FDA agreed with the findings and started addressing the deficiencies before the final report was published. FDA was given more authority under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). My previous blog post described the first uses of FDA’s FSMA authority, including the first mandatory recall for a dietary supplement, kratom.

FDA has stepped up the game by publishing FDA Statements from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb [author’s note: I find these FDA Statements very helpful], a final guidance of Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Food Recalls, and two draft guidance documents – Public Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees to Effectuate Certain Human and Animal Food Recalls and Public Warning and Notification of Recalls. These documents coming from FDA allow us to get inside the head of FDA, learn the expectations for a recall, and work cooperatively with FDA in recall situations. I have been present at the start of recalls with industry and have been brought in for root cause analysis after the announcement of recalls. During crisis management in the food industry there is always the question of what FDA will do. Through these documents, FDA is telling us what they plan to do. Here is part of the Commissioner’s statement:

    The guidance further outlines how the FDA will give the responsible party an opportunity to conduct a voluntary recall before ordering a mandatory recall, as the law requires. It offers more detail about the evidence or circumstances the FDA may consider when deciding to move forward with a mandatory food recall and provides clarity around situations when the FDA would deem a food product a serious health risk. Providing this additional clarity can enable the FDA to make more robust use of this recall authority.

Recalls are stressful situations. The Preventive Controls for Human Food rule under FSMA requires a written recall plan. ConnectFood can help you meet the requirement of the rule and be prepared for a potential recall. The ConnectFood website has free resources, and the folks at ConnectFood are here to help! Contact us.

From Dr. Kathy Knutson, a photo from the U.S. Department of Justice, Marshals Service.

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.

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

Start with the Written Food Safety Plan
As a member of the Expert Services team for ConnectFood, I recently completed a project writing a food safety plan in cooperation with a company owner. My perspective is always that the company I am working with remotely is doing the right things for food safety, and I am here to get plans written down and to put in place documentation of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) or preventive controls. I believe the company to be innocent of any food safety shortcomings, until proven “guilty”, i.e. the identification of a gap in food safety. Since this company was complex, members of the Expert Services team logged on for a real-time walk through the facility as seen remotely on our computer screens. I found this step of working with the company to be very helpful. The food safety plan was written, edited, and revised until we had a final product. The company is doing a respectable job of recording the specifics of a kill step. In the past, that may have satisfied requirements for HACCP supported by GMPs, but the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act requires so much more.

Supply Chain Preventive Controls
There are two areas this company needs to expand, and your company may be in the same boat. One is the supplier approval program to prove safety of foods and ingredients where the supplier is controlling the hazards. These are supply chain preventive controls for which control is proven by verification, and verification generates copious logs and records. The inspector will ask to see your Standard Operating Procedure for supplier approval, Certificates of Analysis (COA) for every delivery of an ingredient or food with a supply chain preventive control, verification of the COA, an audit or inspection of the supplier, and any other records which build the case of food safety.

Environmental Monitoring Program
The second area is the environmental monitoring program for control of Listeria in ready-to-eat (RTE) products. All facilities manufacturing RTE products have documentation of a sanitation preventive control. The cleaning and sanitizing program is designed to obliterate biofilms and microbial niches and kill pathogens on equipment and in the manufacturing environment. Validation is not required by the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule, but a validation study is highly encouraged. How do you know cleaning and sanitizing is working, if not validated? Verification of the sanitation preventive controls requires swabbing for indicator organisms and Listeria itself. The goal of the environmental monitoring program is to detect Listeria. Some companies have a fulltime employee dedicated to monitoring and recordkeeping to stay on top of the environmental monitoring program. The inspector will ask how many swabs are tested weekly and from which sites, where were the positives, and what was the corrective action. A robust program is expected to find Listeria. The key is to take appropriate corrective action and follow up to verify the problem was eradicated.

Templates for Standard Operating Procedures, logs, and records are available in the ConnectFood Library. If you are new to ConnectFood, take inventory of all the resources. If you have been working with ConnectFood already, take a minute to see what is new that can support you in your job. As always, we are real humans here to support you in food safety. Reach out at any time; 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

Most food manufacturers do not have a supply chain preventive control and will not have supplier verification in their written food safety plan. A separate blog post of mine, Supply Chain Preventive Controls, discusses identification of a supply chain preventive control.

    1. Supply chain preventive controls are required for ingredients where YOUR suppliers control the hazards.
    2. A supply chain preventive control is required for imported packaging when a hazard is identified.

The safety of imported ingredients and imported packaging is enforced under the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) rule. See the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule for supplier verification.

I get a Certificate of Analysis (COA) with my ingredient. I’m good, right?

Good, but you are not done. The way I approach supplier verification is as an attorney collecting evidence to build a case that a jury will decide. You are the attorney, and FDA is the jury. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the ingredient is safe. Yes, it is all about verification. Your FDA inspector will review your supplier verification.

Before we go on to the requirements and just checking in, have you identified a hazard requiring a supply chain preventive control? If the answer is yes, read on!

Requirements for Supplier Verification

    1. Supplier approval
    2. COA or similar document with receipt of every shipment
    3. Sampling and testing for hazard
    4. On-site supplier audit

      a. Use of a qualified auditor
      b. Proof of corrective action implementation

This is an extensive list and a lot of work to prove the hazard was controlled by the supplier. Let’s look at an example with peanut butter as an ingredient in a candy bar. The peanut butter is not further processed to control hazards, and supplier verification for the peanut butter is required for the control of hazards like pathogens Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes, aflatoxin, and physical hazards. The United States had two major outbreaks from Salmonella in peanut butter, and other nut butters are under heavy scrutiny by the FDA.

Supplier approval. The approval process is not mandated, so you have flexibility on how you determine the supplier is approved. Include the written Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for supplier approval in your food safety plan. You are required to document the supplier is approved. You are encouraged to complete this process before using the ingredient from this supplier. If not approved before you’re your Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI) must document in the food safety plan the timeline and justification for later approval.

In both peanut butter outbreaks, part of the blame lies with the customers not doing enough for supplier approval and verification. If you are purchasing an ingredient in which the pathogens are killed, the supplier is required to use a validated process preventive control. Ask for the results of the validation study and documents proving the process is validated, monitored and verified. Some suppliers are not willing to share this information. If a supplier is not willing to share food safety data, you may want to start searching for another supplier. Will you share with your customers?

Written procedures are required for Receiving for ingredients with a supply chain preventive control.

Specifications and COAs. Once the supplier is approved, you will set specifications for the absence of the hazard; that would be the absence of Salmonella and Listeria in the ingredient of peanut butter in our example. When the peanut butter is received, the Receiving personnel should inspect the vehicle for sanitary conditions and the containers to ensure they are intact. The bill of lading is checked against the goods received upon arrival. Every shipment of peanut butter must include a document stating the hazard is absent. With every shipment received, you get a COA, a Certificate of Conformance (COC), or letter of guarantee regardless of repeating a lot code. The ingredient container or pallets should be clearly labeled at Receiving, then moved and stored in a manner to prevent cross-contamination and cross-contact.

You cannot continue to just file away COAs for ingredients where a hazard is controlled by a supplier.

Sampling and testing. FDA requires verification of COAs at some frequency determined by you. Are you still with me that this is for ingredients where the hazard is controlled by the supplier? Develop a sampling plan for each ingredient to include:

    • who is responsible for sampling and how they are qualified,
    • the location where samples are taken,
    • the methods for sampling and shipping,
    • the number and size of samples,
    • the coding of samples,
    • the exact location of the laboratory, and
    • the method of the test.

Often the customer drives the sampling plan and orders too many samples and too many tests. Please do not order tests where you do not use the data. Don’t get me started on this! As the customer, you must be confident in samples being taken and shipped properly. You must trust the results of the laboratory. Work with experts to develop your sampling plan.

On-site audit. At first glance, the requirement for an on-site audit of the supplier seems daunting. However, you do not personally have to do the audit. You may use the audit of another body for your documentation. That means you can use the audit report from a state inspector, federal inspector, broker, consultant, or auditing firm. There is a requirement for a qualified auditor, not a certified auditor. You are required to prove to an inspector how an auditor was qualified to inspect your supplier. After the initial inspection, an annual audit is required, unless there is justification for a less frequent audit that is based on evidence. Work with a qualified auditor to put together your auditing plan. After you have agreed upon the scope of the audit and how the audit will address the hazard, you must obtain all corrective action and implementation documents to address problems.

Your job is to collect evidence to prove your case for safety. Confidence will climb for your case before an FDA inspector, when you have an approved supplier, documentation of receipt of the ingredient, verification of COAs for the hazard, and results of on-site audits.

If you want to read the requirements for supplier verification, find Subpart G in the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule. However, I recommend starting with the FDA At-a-glance document which provides a neat summary of the rule. Still not sure if you are meeting the requirements for supplier verification? 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

With formidable GMPs, you lay the foundation for HACCP and Food Safety.

When the FDA or state inspector steps inside your facility, they may not want to immediately go to a conference room and review your written Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) or food safety plan. The written plan is important, but the inspector will potentially want to walk the facility for a current Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) inspection. There will be inspection checklists and notes of observations. Shortcomings could result in a Form FDA-483 to the facility from the inspector. Companies should continue to work hard on their risk management programs and that starts with the food safety fundamentals of GMPs.

In the same way that you can’t run a business without funds, people, equipment and supplies, you can’t have a functioning HACCP or food safety plan without a foundation of good current GMPs.

Lynn Knipe of Ohio State University said it well,

    GMPs can support a processors’ HACCP programs, however, they cannot be used to directly control a hazard.

As I work with clients on HACCP or food safety plans, I have been reminded several times this week of the importance of GMPs in my work, which brings me to write about GMPs again. In a previous post, I wrote a review of GMPs on ConnectFood.com. When I reviewed the weekly post of FDA Warning Letters for food issues, I found mostly GMP issues, not HACCP or preventive controls issues. In most cases, a food facility receives an Warning Letter as a follow up to an inspection and Form 483, when the FDA is not satisfied with the actions taken to address the issues. Sometimes it is a matter of timeliness in that the facility has not responded by a deadline or is lacking documentation to prove corrective action. Warning Letters can be juicy reading for those of us that live food safety and for customers and clients because they are very specific in naming the issue.

Let’s play a game of “Name the GMP that was not followed.”

Case study: Cakes and Biscotti Bakery

    [a] live rodent was observed running across the east end of the production area, into the laundry room and into a hole in the wall at the northeast corner of the room.

Name the GMP that was not followed: Pest Management & Plant and Grounds

    [d]ough residues were observed on the edge of the (b)(4) north prep station and on the (b)(4) south prep station after (b)(4) sanitation was conducted.

Name the GMP that was not followed: Sanitary Operations

    [t]he interior of the stove hood was observed with a build-up of dust and debris directly above the stove and prep table where uncovered in-process foods are prepared. Employees were observed melting chocolate and gelatin, heating cream, and preparing blueberry topping on the stove directly below the hood.

Name the GMP that was not followed: Plants and Grounds

    [i]n the men’s restroom, the floor was observed soiled in front of both toilets, the urinal, and both sinks. One of the toilets was observed soiled. A toilet brush was observed on the hand wash sink. No hot water was available at the hand wash sinks and no paper towels or hand drying device were observed. The trash can was observed with overflowing toilet paper tubes, used paper towels, and other waste.

Name the GMP that was not followed: Sanitary Facilities and Controls

    [a]n employee was observed handling biscotti with a bare hand that was bandaged. She was observed removing the bandage and continuing to package biscotti without washing her hands.

Name the GMP that was not followed: Personnel

In the latter example, there are so many problems to address. Because of the bandaged hand, the employee should be removed from the packaging station. Without the need for a bandage, the employee should be following hand washing procedures and the glove use policy. This observation shows a lack of food safety culture and the need to train the entire workforce at packaging.

This food safety culture is key. Being part of the team in the position of writing a HACCP or food safety plan, please take time for an internal audit of GMPs. Without good GMPs, food safety cannot be realized. The search for GMP forms and checklists can be overwhelming, and the ConnectFood website has free resources. Sign in and find information under cGMPs. Do you have questions about GMPs? 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

Radiological hazards are chemical hazards.
Radioactive chemicals emit harmful radiation that at large doses is harmful soon after exposure and at small doses is harmful years or decades later. Our food may become contaminated through the absorption of radioactive chemicals found in soil or water. Radioactive chemicals in air may settle onto food, water, or soil. Terms used to describe radioactive chemicals include: radioactive isotopes, radioactive elements, and radionuclides. Examples include: radioactive cesium, uranium, and strontium.

You may be familiar with radon testing before purchase of a home; this is standard practice in real estate. I was at the house we were purchasing when the radon test was done – it was a beautiful day, but I could not open the windows or the test would be invalid. Radon is a gas. When a radon test is done inside a house, the air is tested for a given time. (Our house passed the radon test.) Radon is not a chemical hazard of major concern in the food industry.

Radioactive chemicals are naturally present in some rock formations. As rainwater filters through soil and is collected in aquifers below the surface, the water may pick up radioactive chemicals. If your facility uses well water, research the location of the aquifer. What is known about the soil and rock formation surrounding the aquifer? Is the location known to have a risk of radioactive chemicals? If your facility uses municipal water, your water treatment facility tests for radioactive chemicals. Add your annual water report from your water treatment facility to your food safety plan. If you have questions on the report, talk with your local water treatment facility.

When you write your hazard analysis, include radiological hazard as a chemical hazard once for your water supply.
In the hazard analysis you may determine that the hazard does not require a preventive control and will remain as a Good Manufacturing Practice for potable water.

Approve suppliers using your own criteria.
If ingredients for your product include a crop, you may have concerns about the location of the field and water used for irrigation. Theoretically, there could be an uptake of radioactive chemicals if present in the soil or if present in the water used for irrigation. Know the location for the crop and communicate with your supplier if you have any concerns.

Radioactive chemicals are of concern after nuclear power plant accidents. In the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in what is now the Ukraine, plumes of radioactive material were sent into the air in updrafts from a steam explosion and resulting fire. The radioactive material settled into the surrounding area as the wind blew away from the facility. In the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in Japan, a tsunami hit the coast. Loss of electricity to cooling pumps caused a reactor meltdown, explosions, and release of radioactive material to the air, ground water, and the Pacific Ocean.

What can you do about the potential for a nuclear power plant accident near you? First, locate the nearest nuclear power plant to your facility. The website for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a feature for locating nuclear power plants. Second, determine if you are within an emergency planning zone and review the plume exposure pathway. If your facility is within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant and an accident occurs, there is a ban of contaminated water and food.

When you write your hazard analysis, include radiological hazard as a chemical hazard for your location.
If your facility is within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant, identify a hazard requiring a preventive control and write an emergency plan. Being prepared for an emergency is the best insurance that it won’t happen.

Please comment on this blog post below. I love feedback! Still have questions? The ConnectFood website has free resources, and the folks at ConnectFood are here to help! Contact us.

Kathy Knutson, Ph.D., Lead Instructor for Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF), Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI), and trained in prevention of Intentional Adulteration (IA). She has food safety expertise in microbiology, hazard analysis, and risk assessment. As a recovering academic, she resides in Green Bay home-of-the-Packers, Wisconsin with her brilliant husband and two handsome sons. Learn more about her consulting services at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyknutsonphd.

I was on a flight to Boston, and in my hand was the FDA draft guidance, Seafood HACCP and the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act: Guidance for Industry. HACCP is hazard analysis and critical control points, and the Seafood HACCP rule was published in 1995. I had received the FDA guidance document at the previous Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF) workshop that I taught in Seattle. In Seattle, I had several workshop participants who worked in the seafood industry. I had dined on delicious salmon in Seattle and was dreaming of eating fresh seafood in Boston.

A substantial difference between the Seattle workshop and the Boston workshop was that the Boston workshop was comprised of people from the milling and baking industry, not seafood. Darn. Seafood HACCP has a life of its own in regulation, and I was looking forward to learning more about seafood from the workshop participants. Reading the guidance would not further my expertise as a Lead Instructor for the Boston workshop, but nevertheless I was in the mood to read this compact document. As I skimmed the introductory material, I came to a nice question and answer (Q & A) format. The FDA always does a nice job of communicating important information through the format of Q & A. Sometimes it is just nice to see plain English from the FDA, and that’s what a Q & A provides.

I did learn some information specific to the seafood industry from the guidance document, but it was the general information from the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) that piqued my interest. Do you know the following three facts?

    1. Training and training records are now required.
    FDA is making a big deal out of training. Every person employed in the manufacturing, processing, packing or holding of food must be trained in food safety. There must be training records kept for each individual showing the individual is a “qualified individual” to perform his or her job. Supervisors must have additional training to demonstrate they are qualified to do their job.

    Who organizes the training records at your facility? The inspector will ask to see training records of employees. The more organized your company is, the easier it will be to show these records to the inspector. Training records can be paper, electronic, or a combination. FDA is focusing on training, so be prepared.

    2. Written sanitation procedures are not required for GMPs.
    Subpart B of the PCHF rule is Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) and replaces GMPs found in 21 CFR 110. Subpart B does not require written sanitation procedures. This means that the chemical concentrations, equipment, times and temperatures for a cleaning or sanitizing procedure are not required to be written, but you should. See my previous blog post on Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs).

    The sanitation crew at most facilities has a lot of turnover and little supervision for an extremely important job. Writing the procedures will facilitate training, consistency and effectiveness of cleaning and sanitizing. Written monitoring procedures and corrective action records are required.

    3. Written sanitation procedures are required for sanitation preventive controls.
    In Subpart C of the PCHF rule, this is how the logic flows in the rule:

    1. A written food safety plan is required 21 CFR 117.126(a)(1).
    2. A food safety plan includes preventive controls 21 CFR 117.126(b)(2).
    3. Preventive controls must be written 21 CFR 117.135(b).
    4. Sanitation preventive controls are procedures, practices and processes 21 CFR 117.135(3).

Therefore, if a facility identifies a sanitation preventive control in the hazard analysis, written sanitation procedures are required.

If a facility has an allergen in one product, but not in another product from the same line, the facility will have a sanitation preventive control for the allergen clean procedure. If a facility produces a ready-to-eat product, the facility will have a sanitation preventive control for the cleaning and sanitizing procedure to control pathogens. Like Subpart B, written monitoring procedures and corrective action records are required.

Even with plain English, information can be confusing. When I am teaching the PCHF course, I warn the participants that the answer to a question may be, “You have to take that to legal.” I encourage you to visit the FSMA website and review FDA guidance documents. Boston was my 17th PCHF workshop, and I am still learning.

Please comment on this blog post below. I love feedback! Still have questions? The ConnectFood website has free resources, and the folks at ConnectFood are here to help! Contact us.

Kathy Knutson, Ph.D., Lead Instructor for Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF), Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI), and trained in prevention of Intentional Adulteration (IA). She has food safety expertise in microbiology, hazard analysis, and risk assessment. As a recovering academic, she resides in Green Bay home-of-the-Packers, Wisconsin with her brilliant husband and two handsome sons. Learn more about her consulting services at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyknutsonphd.

Preventive controls are actions your company takes to ensure the product is safe. The FDA recognizes five types of preventive controls in the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule. They are process, allergen, sanitation, supply chain, and other preventive controls.

Food companies with more than $1 million in annual revenue are required under FSMA’s Preventive Controls for Human Food rule to conduct a hazard analysis and identify preventive controls. The company will consider biological, chemical, physical, and radiological hazards. The hazard analysis drives the discussion and decisions on preventive controls. For every hazard, there are actions the company takes to control the hazard.

Most food companies have a process preventive control and monitor time and temperature. The time and temperature are combined to control a biological hazard. Most companies have a metal detector, inspection of packaging to match the product and label allergens for an allergen preventive control, and monitoring of sanitation preventive controls for the control of environmental pathogens. FDA’s current thinking on environmental monitoring is detailed in the draft Listeria guidance. Process preventive controls and sanitation preventive controls may be designed to prevent foodborne illness, but did you know most recalls are due to the hazard of allergens? The food may be perfectly made, but if the packaging is wrong, the company will have a recall. Follow this link for just one example.

Some companies have so many redundant steps that it is difficult to name the step which is a preventive control. In this case, the food safety team should talk through their process and imagine taking away a step. I talked with a company that had multiple filters for their stream of product. To name every filter as a preventive control creates a lot of work and is unnecessary. Failure of the first filters was not a food safety issue because later filters work. The company visualized which filters were the most important for food safety by visualizing the removal of each individually. Where failure could result in a food safety hazard, the step was named as a preventive control.

If the hazard is controlled by the supplier, the receiving company must verify the hazard was controlled. An example is ice cream inclusions, like nuts. Imagine how the receiving company could verify the safety. COAs of course. Will the supplier share their food safety plan? An audit is required. Does the supplier have a validated process? Supply chain preventive controls are all about verification.

In addition to the four types of preventive controls mentioned above, the FDA also gives industry the option of other preventive control. I look at this type in two ways. First, your food safety team may disagree on naming the type of preventive control. For example, is an allergen clean a sanitation or allergen preventive control? It doesn’t matter! It only matters that it gets done. The second way that other can be used is if new scientific information emerges and does not fit into one of the four types of preventive controls. Current scientific understanding (below) means that we are always learning, and new information on hazards is always emerging. With the latest information, a company may need to reanalyze their food safety plan.

Here is the definition of preventive controls from the rule:

Preventive controls means those risk-based, reasonably appropriate procedures, practices, and processes that a person knowledgeable about the safe manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding of food would employ to significantly minimize or prevent the hazards identified under the hazard analysis that are consistent with the current scientific understanding of safe food manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding at the time of the analysis.”

The knowledgeable person ultimately is a Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI) in cooperation with engineers, microbiologists, and other food safety experts. The PCQI works with his or her food safety team to write the hazard analysis and identify preventive controls. The food industry has trained over 40,000 PCQIs in less than two years. PCQIs are your go-to people for food safety. If you are a small company in need of food safety expertise, the folks at ConnectFood are here to help.

Please comment on this blog post below. I love feedback! Still have questions? The ConnectFood website has free resources; click here to Contact us.

Kathy Knutson, Ph.D., Lead Instructor for Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF), Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI), and trained in prevention of Intentional Adulteration (IA). She has food safety expertise in microbiology, hazard analysis, and risk assessment. As a recovering academic, she resides in Green Bay home-of-the-Packers, Wisconsin with her brilliant husband and two handsome sons. Learn more about her consulting services at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyknutsonphd.