Tag Archive for: fsma

,

Food Defense: A Shield for Businesses and Consumers

In an era of globalization, the world has become a smaller space. It has become easier to travel and transport things from one corner of the world to another. Likewise, the complexity, diversity and dependency on intertwined domestic and global processes continue to grow in the food system. At the same time, there are increasingly possible causes of deliberate adulteration that continue to develop, become more complex, and will simultaneously have a direct effect on public health. So: to prevent, plan, respond to, and recover from acts of deliberate adulteration of the distribution of food, Food Defensebecame an important part for shielding food businesses and consumers from any potential threats. 

Food Safety and Food Defense

To protect and prevent food from any adulteration – whether it is intended or not, regulatory requirements have been put into place, which are based on food safety and food defense procedures. In other words, food defense and food safety contribute to the prevention of adulteration. The key difference between these two types of training is that food safety prevents food from unintentional adulteration. Food defense is responsible for protecting and preventing the public from intentional adulteration, which in turn may cause harm to consumers. 

What is Food Defense?

The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) states “Food defense is the effort to protect food from acts of intentional adulteration.” So, more basically stated, it prevents consumers’ health from any physical, chemical, and biological impurities deliberately added to food that could harm the consumers’ health. Due to increasing need for food defense, FDA issued a rule in May 2016 under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The main objective of the rule is to prohibit deliberate adulteration of actions designed to cause systemic damage to public health, including acts of terrorism targeted at food sources. Although these actions are unlikely to occur, they could potentially cause disease, death, and economic destruction to the food chain if there are no prevention strategies in place. Additionally, FDA has developed a range of instruments and tools to help food facilities prevent, plan, respond to, and recover from acts of deliberate adulteration of food facilities. 

Food Defense Plan

In accordance with FDA, it is required for both domestic and foreign companies that are registered with FDA as food facility to formulate and execute food defense plan. A food defense plan must include a vulnerability assessment, mitigation strategies, food defense monitoring of the implementation of mitigation strategies, corrective actions, verification procedures, and logs or records. Every three years or where conditions have failed (such as mitigation techniques that are found to be poorly applied) a reanalysis is required. A detailed overview of what needs to be included in a food defense plan is outlined in 21CFR121. This plan will help the facility to find out what precautions one must take to reduce the risk of food items in the facility being tampered with or deliberately poisoned. A food defense plan will strengthen the preparedness of a food processor. These protocols will also enhance the ability to respond efficiently during a crisis, where stress levels are elevated and reaction time is minimal. As it is a very new concept for the industry, FDA has published a number of tools and assistance on their website (https://www.fda.gov/food/food-defense).

Future and Present Situation

With intentional food adulteration and food fraud on the rise, it is crucial for food facilities to keep their food defense plan updated. Manufacturers should make sure to revisit and review their food defense plans for any improvements to facility designs or techniques, product changes, and protection upgrades. Facilities should also track their workers on a daily basis, both in terms of satisfaction and understanding. This will benefit the facility, the health of consumers, and eventually the economy of the country. 

A Note from ConnectFood CEO Matthew Botos:

Food Defense is the protection of food products from contamination or adulteration intended to cause public health harm or economic disruption. The mission of the Food Defense Programs is to protect the U.S. food supply from dynamic and evolving threats. ConnectFood and the Institute for Food Safety and Health conducted a two-day workshop on Food Defense last week. The workshop focused on how Food Defense is developed and the fundamental building blocks of our existing food safety plans. We taught with the understanding that we are facing trying times locally and globally. The class was interactive across abroad range of companies and allow for discussion and training allowing companies to supplement their existing best practices. Food is a vector that has long been used to disrupt supply chains and cause unfavorable conditions for consumers. ConnectFood.com strives to keep the food supply safe and secure by providing documentation that meets requirements for Food Defense.

About the Author

Saloni Shah 

Saloni Shah received a Bachelor’s degree in Biotechnology from India. She is currently pursuing an M.S. in Food Safety and Technology from the Illinois Institute of Technology. She is also a research assistant working on a thesis focusing on food packaging materials and additives under a FDA scientist and is currently working as part of the Food Safety Specialist internship at ConnectFood.com.

/by
,

FDA Responds to Failures in Recall Process

Caliente! Hot Topic!
Have you heard? FDA is going to initiate recalls and announce recalls to consumers. Technically, the FDA initiating a recall is not new, because FDA gained the authority to initiate a recall in 2011 with the signing of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). FDA has pumped out three new guidance documents on public notification of a recall. The last of the three, Public Warning and Notification of Recalls Under 21 CFR Part 7, Subpart C, Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff February 2019, was recently published.

What is the Purpose of the February 2019 Guidance?
FDA is communicating to industry and providing recommendations for its own staff for when they will initiate a recall and publish a public warning of a recalled food. FDA has seen, in rare cases, where there is not cooperation from the recall firm or there is slow announcing of a recall. FDA calculated the average time for a firm to announce a recall is four days; it is implied that four days is too long for hazardous food to be in commerce. FDA intends to work cooperatively with the recall firm. The FDA must first provide the responsible party with an opportunity to voluntarily cease distribution and recall the article of food. FDA gives the first opportunity for initiating and announcing a recall to the Owner, Operator, or Agent-in-charge. Infant formula recalls are mandated separately, but all food, ingredients and chewing gum are otherwise covered by the guidance.

It’s not all bad news!
For fiscal year 2018, there were 7420 recalls and 831 classified as a high risk. Since 2012, the 2018 numbers are the lowest number of recalls. What happened after 2012? February 2013 was the start of FDA uploading whole genome sequences to GenomeTrakr and the transition away from PulseNet which uses the method of pulsed field gel electrophoresis. The greater sensitivity of whole genome sequencing has led to more recalls.

Timeline: April 2016
Given a head’s up on a pending report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), FDA created a team of senior leaders with oversight of recalls; the team meets at least weekly. Named Strategic Coordinated Oversight of Recall Execution (SCORE), SCORE expediated the process for suspending the registration of two facilities as of December 2017.

This is where the E. coli hit the fan.
The Food and Drug Administration’s Food-Recall Process Did Not Always Ensure the Safety of the Nation’s Food Supply, December 2017. The 2017 report published from the OIG found FDA failures in food recall practices. The OIG made a series of recommendations on how the agency might improve its management of recalls.

Timeline: January 2018
FDA draft guidance [the January 2018 draft guidance is no longer available] on FDA’s policy and notification of recalled products and posting recalls to the FDA Enforcement Reports was published to assist the food industry in working with FDA through a recall.

What products are covered?
Food, drug, or device intended for human or animal use; cosmetic and biologic intended for human use; tobacco product; and any item subject to quarantine regulation. Radiation emitting electronic products are not covered.

Timeline: April 2018
I wanted to know when and how FDA used its new authority under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011. Last year I wrote what I learned in a ConnectFood blog post, which included 3 cases:

    1. Sunland peanut butter sold finished product containing Salmonella.
    2. Kasel dog treats recalled after Salmonella found.
    3. Triangle Pharmanaturals’ kratom dietary supplements contain Salmonella.

One of my favorite sentences from the Kasel recall notification is as follows:

    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.

Timeline: September 2018
FDA Draft Guidance, Public Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees to Effectuate Certain Human and Animal Food Recalls Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff September 2018, was the first of three guidance documents published by the FDA. If known, FDA will notify the public of stores where recalled food was sold. Retail consignees include grocery store, pet food stores, convenience stores, but not restaurants or distributors.

Timeline: November 2018
In this FDA Statement, Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on FDA’s effort to make more robust use of mandatory recall authority to quickly remove unsafe foods from the market November 2018, two examples were given for when FDA has notified the public of a recall:

    • FDA Investigated Multistate Outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus Linked to Fresh Crab Meat Imported from Venezuela, September 2018
    • FDA Alerts the Public Regarding Recalled Vegetable Products, October 2018 McCain’s Ready-to-cook and ready-to-eat (RTE)

While I appreciate the explanation, the following sentence stopped me in my tracks:

We’ve already acted on these draft guidances.

I had previously heard that FDA was acting on a different unpublished draft guidance document, but here I saw it in print. It is not clear if the FDA is working from the published draft guidance shared with the food industry or from unpublished, draft guidance documents.

The second guidance document was published: Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Food Recalls: Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff, November 2018. The Q & A addresses three questions.

1. When will the FDA publicize retail consignee lists?
FDA will determine the likelihood of serious adverse health consequences or death of humans or animals (SAHCODHA) resulting in the food being adulterated and in most cases a class I recall. Some class II recalls or unclassified recalls will be publicized. I was very interested to see examples of what FDA considers high risk foods:

    Listeria monocytogenes-smoked salmon, pumpkin seeds
    Salmonella in ready-to-eat food-peanut butter, alfalfa sprouts, deli products
    Certain undeclared allergens in food
    E. coli O157:H7 in leafy greens
    Botulinum toxin- e.g. under processed canned chili
    Choking hazard in baby food, and
    Misbranded food with missing or incorrect food allergen labeling

For notification by FDA and in most cases, the retail packaging will make recalled food difficult to identify, and the food will be likely to still be in homes or stores. For example in the spring 2018 Romaine lettuce recall, much of the Romaine was beyond its shelf life and was not expected to be available in stores or homes by the time the recall was announced. From the Q & A guidance: There may be situations where both criteria are not met and FDA notifies the public. The FDA is not required to contact the firm before issuing a public warning or allow its review of the proposed statement. FDA may supplement or correct [the] warning.

What information will the FDA provide?
When FDA notifies the public of a recall, they wish to have information that help the consumer identify the product. Such information includes name of the food, lot or code dates, product description, photographs, geographic information, retail-related information, e.g. by naming the retail store chain, and potentially store specific information such as city and state. FDA will describe the risks and information about similar food that is not affected by the recall. FDA will state that the information may be under or over inclusive.

How will the FDA publicize this information?
FDA Public Warnings will come as a press release posted on the FDA website, alerts, and public notices by email, web or social media. Public notification of a recall is published in the weekly FDA Enforcement Report.

Timeline: February 2019
The FDA Statement, Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on new steps to strengthen the agency’s process for issuing public warnings and notifications of recalls February 2019, and FDA Guidance, Public Warning and Notification of Recalls Under 21 CFR Part 7, Subpart C, Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff February 2019, detail the FDA’s current thinking on when FDA will notify consumers of a recall. Companies which do not cooperate with the FDA for a recall or communicate a recall slowly to the public may experience the FDA announcing a recall.

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.

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.

References

    1. Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) January 2011
    2. FDA Rule, Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food September 2015
    3. Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Report, The Food and Drug Administration’s Food-Recall Process Did Not Always Ensure the Safety of the Nation’s Food Supply December 2017
    4. FDA Statement, Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. on efforts to support more efficient and effective food recalls December 2017
    5. FDA Statement, Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on new policy steps for strengthening public warning and notification of recalls January 2018
    6. ConnectFood blog post, FDA Uses New Authority Under FSMA to Order a Mandatory Recall, April 2018
    7. FDA Draft Guidance, Public Availability of Lists of Retail Consignees to Effectuate Certain Human and Animal Food Recalls Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff September 2018
    8. FDA Statement, Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on FDA’s effort to make more robust use of mandatory recall authority to quickly remove unsafe foods from the market November 2018
    9. FDA Guidance, Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Food Recalls: Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff November 2018
    10. FDA Statement, Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on new steps to strengthen the agency’s process for issuing public warnings and notifications of recalls February 2019
    11. FDA Guidance, Public Warning and Notification of Recalls Under 21 CFR Part 7, Subpart C, Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff February 2019
    12. 21 CFR Part 7 FDA Enforcement Policy, Subpart C–Recalls (Including Product Corrections)–Guidance on Policy, Procedures, and Industry Responsibilities
/by

HACCP vs. Preventive Controls

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.

/by
,

Food Safety in 2019

The Food Safety Modernization Act has changed the food manufacturing landscape and will continue to do so in the new year. The industry has embraced the proactive approach by the federal government, but there is still much work to be done. ConnectFood’s customers had a banner year in 2018 with the launch of several new technologies and the adoption of the small and medium-sized industries realizing that the federal, state, and local regulators will be looking to work with industry to ensure that the food supply continues to be safe.

The food industry has spread from a local community to a global community and then back to a local community. I know that is an interesting statement, but as we look at the globalization of food from local farms and communities to the spread of large manufacturing and a global society we have also trended back to small manufacturers selling to restaurants and restaurants selling small batches to grocery stores.

The Government Shutdown has also recently had an impact on inspections. With that being said, FDA is still on point for the rest of this new year.

The partnership between the segments of the food industry has never been stronger. We must focus on fundamentals. As we have previously discussed, there are key areas we as a food industry will need to focus on as we move forward.

FSMA focuses on seven basic areas:

    • Preventive Controls for Human Food.
    • Preventive Controls for Food for Animals.
    • Standards for Produce Safety.
    • Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP)
    • Accredited Third-Party Certification.
    • Sanitary Transportation.
    • Intentional Adulteration (Food Defense)

It is my belief that the backbone of the act is the Preventive Controls for Human Food – and my personal favorite graphic is:

Each component of The Food Safety Modernization Act is asking and at times telling our industry that we must look at all of the hazards that could be possible in our facilities. A hazard is defined as:

    • Hazard requiring a preventive control: a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard for which a person knowledgeable about the safe manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding of food would, based on the outcome of a hazard analysis (which includes an assessment of the severity of the illness or injury if the hazard were to occur and the probability that the hazard will occur in the absence of preventive controls), establish one or more preventive controls to significantly minimize or prevent the hazard in a food and components to manage those controls (such as monitoring, corrections or corrective actions, verification, and records) as appropriate to the food, the facility, and the nature of the preventive control and its role in the facility’s food safety system.
    • Known or reasonably foreseeable hazard: A biological, chemical (including radiological), or physical hazard that is known to be, or has the potential to be, associated with the facility or the food.
    Human Food asks us to look at facilities that process, package and hold food. This is just asking what all components are that could potentially harm humans during consumption.

The Animal Food Regulation

“The final rule was published in September 2015 and larger animal food facilities were required to comply with the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements by September 2016.
Now larger animal food facilities have been required to comply with the preventive controls requirements since September 18, 2017, and facilities that are small businesses were required to implement the CGMPs by that date.

Because compliance dates are staggered by the size of the business, the next major compliance dates come in September 2018, when small businesses will also have to meet preventive controls requirements and very small businesses must implement the CGMPs.
This rule requires animal food facilities to have a food safety plan in place that includes an analysis of hazards to determine which ones need control and risk-based preventive controls to minimize or prevent those hazards” (FDA.gov)

Produce Safety

This rule establishes “science-based minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of fruits and vegetables” for human consumption.

The Produce Safety Rule has six core components – as all of the rules are, they are connected to reducing the risk of contamination of produce:

    • Agricultural water.
    • Biological soil amendments.
    • Sprouts.
    • Domesticated and wild animals.
    • Worker training and health and hygiene.
    • Equipment, tools, and buildings.

This rule has a long list of exemptions and variances which can be found at this link.

The Transportation Regulation

The Sanitary Transportation Rule establishes requirements for sanitary practices, this helps to reduce the risk of food becoming contaminated during transportation. This rule applies to “shippers, receivers, loaders, and carriers who transport food in the United States by motor or rail vehicle.”

Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP)

Foreign Supplier Verification applies to companies that are importing food into the United States. These companies must have verified food safety plans and need to have evaluated their hazards for their products. Once again, this rule is set up to protect the United States consumer. The ultimate goal is to establish program that make foreign manufacturers as responsible as domestic manufacturers.
Accredited Third-Party Certification

This rule establishes the framework, procedures and requirements for accreditation bodies seeking recognition by the FDA, as well as requirements for third-party certification bodies seeking accreditation. As discussed by the FDA, this helps promote international consistency when all the components are used together.

Intentional Adulteration (Food Defense)

One of the most important components in my mind is making sure we keep out food supply from being compromised. FDA is working hard at putting components that will allow for companies to protect themselves from intentional acts of contamination and potential terrorism. Some of these components include:

    • Vulnerability assessment.
    • Mitigation strategies.
    • Mitigation strategy management components.
    • Training and record keeping.

All of these components together have created a proactive environment for the food industry. In the past we had been in a position to be rather reactive. Following these components, having active management commitment and working with your regulators will continue to help create he safest food supply in the world. We must now become more proactively involved.

The important thing from 2018 is that we have seen more reported recalls due to the diligence of the consumer, the industry, and the government. This means that the trend of understanding the importance of food safety is increasing, allowing more people easy accessibility to food safety information. The trends in local manufacturing, produce, and the security of our food supply will continue to increase.

In the coming weeks, connectfood.com will be covering all of these topics while highlighting the ways to tackle those food safety topics within our software. Our experts will weigh in and give you the information you need as it is available.

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.

/by
,

FDA Will Initiate A Recall if a Company Does Not

“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.

/by
,

Fresh-Cut Produce: Part II

As a high school teacher in Chicago, in a past career, I was on a school bus headed south to the university campus of Champaign-Urbana, riding through the flat cornfields of Illinois. One of my students pointed out the window and asked, “Dr. Knutson, what are those… factories over there?” My reply was, “that is a farm.” In light of the new FDA guidance, the question is valid. Do on-farm processing steps change a location from a traditional farm to a factory? My previous blog post started with the definitions of supplier, receiving facility, and farm mixed-type facility. Farms are not required to implement a food safety plan, and farm mixed-type facilities have been under enforcement discretion while FDA figures this out. FDA took a giant step in sharing their current thinking on the definitions of produce covered by the Produce Safety rule and the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule. FDA recognizes the variety of produce grown on farms and approaches to building in food safety.

Produce Safety Rule Exemptions:

Farms with an annual average revenue under $25,000 are exempt. This makes sense from a public health view. Small farms are not going to cause wide-scale harm, in general. There are other exemptions for farms with an annual average revenue above $25,000 and based on how much is sold directly to customers through a farm stand-like store, local grocery store or restaurant. Another exemption is based on the sale of other products like hay or wine. For farms that don’t know where they fall, my advice is to ask an accountant and attorney to interpret the farm’s sales of commodities regarding the rule. See COVERED FARMS.

Produce is the edible portion of fruits and vegetables for human consumption. Produce grown for animal feed or other uses is exempt from the Produce Safety rule.

Grains are exempt from the Produce Safety rule because grains are always going to be further processed. Produce that is rarely consumed raw (RCR) is exempt from the Produce Safety rule. Examples include potatoes and beans.

Don’t worry about your backyard garden. Produce that is grown for personal use or on-farm consumption is exempt from the Produce Safety rule.

Farm Mixed-type Facilities:

The bottom line is that as soon as produce is processed in any way to make it a new food, the activity is under the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule. Most of us understand that roasting of nuts is a processing step that requires preventive controls to create a safe product. The same is true for making bags of chopped lettuce and sliced apples. These raw agricultural commodities (RAC) have been changed into processed food, and processed food is under the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule.

Until now, FDA has been hands-off on processing of RAC on the farm. If processing is done on a farm in a farm mixed-type facility, the process is under the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule. The facility must have a written hazard analysis, implement a food safety plan, and have a Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI). The FDA is seeking comments on their published guidance for farm mixed-type facilities. In some ways, the FDA guidance seems like too much. Do we really need this for farms? Then I am reminded of Salmonella outbreaks from cantaloupe. In one outbreak the melons were only washed as a processing step, but in such a way as to not remove or kill pathogens. The outbreak covered 28 states with 143 hospitalizations of 147 documented cases. There were 33 deaths. Yes, we need this.

    “If you’re a farmer or anyone processing food whose company is interested in using ConnectFood to write or compile your food safety plan, check out our Enterprise tier. This Enterprise-level subscription allows you to experience full systems management, including having multi-facility supplier management, multi-facility records management, and direct access to food safety experts.” – Matthew Botos, CEO.

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 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

Insight into FDA’s Fresh-Cut Produce Draft Guidance: What is a Farm, Farm Mixed-type Facility, or Receiving Facility?

As Romaine lettuce is planted in Arizona, the FDA has overwhelmed the produce industry with draft guidance documents. When the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed in 2011, the importance of growing, harvesting and processing of fruits and vegetables was recognized as the start of food safety for the familiar term of farm-to-fork. One of FSMA’s foundational rules is the Produce Safety rule. Today we deviate from the traditional focus of the ConnectFood blog at the middle step of the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule to start at the very beginning where crops are grown.

As a Lead Instructor grounded in the latter rule, I have presented dozens of times the difference between a farm as a supplier and a food factory as a receiving facility. In the simple world of instruction those two are obvious. Consider a farm that harvests melons and then washes the melons. Is the location of washing considered a farm and under the Produce Safety rule or considered a receiving facility and under the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule? I don’t want to leave you hanging; I identify the washing facility as a receiving facility and subject to the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule. FDA has made my choice clearer with their guidance documents. Across the nation and internationally there are hundreds of examples of farms harvesting a crop and then another step being applied, before the fruits or vegetables reach a traditional food factory.

FDA has done a momentous job in publishing draft guidance for the farm and food industries. See my resources listed below. In keeping with starting at the beginning, key definitions are discussed here.

Supplier: the farm that grows the crop or raises the animal. A supplier to a food factory can in turn be a food factory, e.g., when a food factory purchases dried ingredients. For the purpose of discussion here, the supplier is a farm that grows a crop.

Receiving facility: food factory that receives the crop and registers with FDA as a facility that processes, manufactures, packs or holds food. The draft guidance documents are FDA’s current thinking on the definition of receiving facilities that handle crops. Facilities which in the past have been considered farms must now register as a food facility.

Farm mixed-type facilities: this is the location of the next step after harvesting, but before getting to a traditional food factory like a spaghetti sauce manufacturer. FDA looks at processing, packing and holding. For example, located conveniently to fields are packing houses. In our grocery stores, we find fruits and vegetables that have been washed and chilled, sorted and packed into wrapped trays, mesh bags or boxes. Those steps are considered processing. In the past, FDA has left farm mixed-type facilities as farms, and now FDA sees farm mixed-type facilities as receiving facilities under the enforcement of the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule. This is a big change and will cause hundreds of facilities to register as a food facility, implement a food safety plan, and have a trained Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI) to oversee food safety.

In my next blog post, read about different types of produce and exemptions from the rules.

Matthew Botos, CEO of ConnectFood, and the whole Expert Services team can guide you.

    “As with all food manufacturing we must focus on “basics done well”, this mean employee training and a focus on Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs). The FDA has set a very good standard for all produce companies.” – Matthew Botos, CEO, ConnectFood

The folks at ConnectFood are here to help! Contact us.

Resources:
Guide to Minimize Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-cut Produce: Draft Guidance for Industry

Statement by FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on FDA’s new steps to help produce farmers, processors more effectively comply with food safety requirements

Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption: Guidance for Industry, Draft Guidance

AT A GLANCE: KEY POINTS IN THE PRODUCE SAFETY RULE DRAFT GUIDANCE: CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS (SUBPART A)

FSMA Final Rule for Preventive Controls for Human Food

FSMA Final Rule on Produce Safety

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

Foreign Supplier Verification

We continue to do blogs on the importance of food safety and the regulatory environment that we, as a food-manufacturing ecosystem, find ourselves. Products come into the United States from all over the world and from many different cultures with many different ways to process food. In September of 2018 FDA produced an introduction in which the beginning stated:

“The final rule requires that importers perform certain risk-based activities to verify that food imported into the United States has been produced in a manner that meets applicable U.S. safety standards. This rule is the product of a significant level of outreach by the FDA to industry, consumer groups, the agency’s federal, state, local, tribal and international regulatory counterparts, academia and other stakeholders. The FDA first proposed this rule in July 2013.”

Foreign supplier verification is a method for assuring that these products from all over the world adhere to the best practices and regulation being implemented in the United States. We will be walking you through the fundamentals as listed on the FDA website. These areas include:

    • Scope
    • Hazard Analysis
    • Evaluation of Food Risk and Supplier Performance
    • Supplier Verification
    • Corrective Actions
    • Exemptions and Modified Standards
    • Unique Facility Identifier

Each of these areas is define as a key requirement and we will walk through some of the basics included. A comprehensive overview can be found at https://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/fsma/ucm361902. connectfood.com is not here to interpret guidance but is here to help food manufacturers and importers on their journey towards a globally safe food supply.

Scope:
The scope covers making sure that an importer understands the responsibility of food safety. The importer must collect the information that they will have to provide regarding the safety of incoming products. The companies that are shipping products into the country must have food safety plans for the incoming products that matches the current standards of preventive controls and produce safety.
“Importers must establish and follow written procedures to ensure that they import foods only from foreign suppliers approved based on an evaluation of the risk posed by the imported food and the supplier’s performance or, when necessary on a temporary basis, from unapproved suppliers whose foods are subjected to adequate verification activities before being imported.” FDA.gov

The scope is not a simple process and it requires detailed information reaching into countries across the globe.

Hazard Analysis:
The importer must understand what reasonable hazards are like likely to occur in a food and make sure that these hazards are addressed by a food safety plan and controls. The importer does not necessarily have to “do” the hazard analysis but must be able to review the documents that have been done by a qualified individual assuring the safety of the food. Ultimately the importer is the gatekeeper of food safety for products that are coming into the country.
Evaluation of Food Risk and Supplier Performance
There is a set list of task that an importer must look at to help assure supplier performance and this will allow them to understand what the companies supplying products are doing to protect the integrity of the food supply. The below points are straight from the FDA website mentioned above:

    • The hazard analysis
    • The entity that will be significantly minimizing or preventing the hazards, such as the foreign supplier or the supplier’s raw material or ingredient supplier
    • A foreign supplier’s procedures, processes and practices related to the safety of food,
    • Applicable FDA food safety regulations, and information regarding the foreign supplier’s compliance
    • The foreign supplier’s food safety history, including the responsiveness of the foreign supplier in correcting past problems
    • Other factors as necessary, including storage and transportation practices

Supplier Verification:
An importer must be confident that that a supplier is doing the right thing and has a food safety plan that has analyzed hazards and controlled them. There different ways to go about this including annual audits by a qualified individual, sampling and testing. Review of the food safety plan by outside experts and the supplier.
“What supplier verification activities must be conducted? Based upon the evaluation of risk conducted, the importer must establish and follow written procedures to ensure, in most instances, that it only imports from approved foreign suppliers and must conduct appropriate supplier verification activities.” FDA.gov

Corrective Actions:
If something happens that is outside of the food safety plan the issue must be evaluated and decided if the product is a danger to the consumer. When this happens it must be decided what to do with the product and how much product was adulterated and where that product is in the supply chain. This will also impact if the supplier should continue to be used by the importer.
“The appropriate corrective measure will depend on the circumstances, but could include discontinuing use of the foreign supplier until the cause of noncompliance, adulteration or misbranding has been adequately addressed.” FDA.gov

Exemptions and Modified Standards:
The exemptions are listed on the FDA website and should be reviewed; however, it is our viewpoint that all products should have GMP’s and a food safety plan. Some of these exemptions could include the size of the establishment or the type of product being supplied such as dietary supplements but all of these products must be evaluated by the importer and compared with the FDA requirements.

Unique Facility Identifier
The FSVP rule requires information about importer and the products that are coming into the country so that if there is an issue it can be stopped and contained before there are any human health issues. Below is some of the information from the FDA.

    • The final FSVP rule requires that an importer provide its name, electronic mail address, and unique facility identifier (UFI) recognized as acceptable by the FDA for each line entry of food product offered for importation into the United States.
    • The FDA has recognized the Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number as an acceptable UFI for FSVP.
    • DUNS numbers, assigned and managed by DUN & Bradstreet, are available free of charge to importers by visiting FDAdunslookup.com.

In conclusion, the FSVP Rule is set up so that there are checks and balances for the importers and the companies that are supplying them from all over the world. The FSVP requirements are right in line with the rest of the Food Safety Modernization Act that is assuring the safety of consumers and protecting the safest food supply in the world. Remember, as an importer you must understand risk associated with the products coming in and understand what is being done by the supplier to control any hazards. It is the importer’s job to set up a system that complies with the above points.

ConnectFood is here to help. Contact us.

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.

/by

FSMA Intentional Adulteration Rule

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
,

Don’t Fear the New FDA Sanitary Transport Rule

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.

/by