FSMA’s Record-Keeping Challenge

 

Of the many new requirements in the Food Safety Modernization Act, one of the most challenging is maintaining detailed records of compliance with the new law.

It’s a requirement that going to be especially difficult for small food manufacturers, those that typically do not operate with large administrative staffs. Even though small businesses (defined as those with less than 500 FTE employees) have until August 30, 2017 to achieve compliance, they still face a challenge: who are they going to tap to manage the array of records FSMA requires?

In fact, industry experts point out, FSMA requires that companies assign a management-level person to handle the record keeping, as well as an internal auditor to insure that the records are accurate and honest.

This will be no small assignment. FSMA’s record keeping regulations will require constant attention, for one thing, because the law says FDA inspectors can ask to review the records on just 24-hour notice. For another, once the August grace period ends and enforcement begins, operators who don’t meet the record keeping requirements could face costly fines.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) justifies the records maintenance requirement as being cost-effective in the long run. “We estimate that processed foods covered by this rulemaking are responsible for approximately 903,000 foodborne illnesses each year, at a total cost to the American public of approximately $2.2 billion,” FDA’s economic analysis of the rule explains.

Another wrinkle in FSMA is that the company’s records must be available whenever the FDA comes calling.  “Currently, the FDA only has broad records access in emergency situations when it uses authority granted by the Bioterrorism Act,” explained Maile Gradison Hermida, an Associate with the global law firm Hogan Lovells, in a 2015 Food Online blog post. “However, FSMA gives the FDA this broad records access every day, for routine inspections and without cause. The FDA will review records to assess whether you have the systems in place to make safe food and whether you are always following these programs.”

Through contractors, the FDA is offering training sessions to help companies understand the breadth of what they’ll need to keep track of: from hazard analyses to safety plans to documentation of suppliers and transporters. Still, there are common sense procedures that small and medium-sized manufacturers can implement early in 2017 (if they haven’t already been put in place):

  • Undertake a company-wide audit of existing record-keeping procedures, including how they are stored, who does the compilation, and what data might be located on cloud-based servers;
  • Assemble a FSMA compliance team that includes representatives of senior management (or ownership), operations, IT, accounting, legal and marketing. Its role would be to oversee all aspects of food safety implementation, including record-keeping and tracking. To assure efficiency, someone with the requisite experience in records handling should be designated as the team leader.
  • Invest in new technologies that will ease the record-keeping burden. Manufacturing software that monitors products throughout the manufacturing process should be a top priority. Cloud-based technology will not only provide a cost-effective way to store digital documents, but also offer an array of predictive analytics that can unearth potential production issues and also preempt alarm and failure events.

The enthusiastic buy-in of senior management to place food safety at the pinnacle of production is essential. In a very real sense, FSMA is a risk management tool intended to help companies in food production to protect their brands while maintaining product quality and safety.

Managing risk, after all, is a fundamental necessity for any business. Now, under FSMA, it can be the spur to efficient, profitable – and safe – performance.

 

 

Share

Blowing the Whistle on Dangerous Food

The new national food safety law extends whistleblower protections to employees who uncover food safety problems at their workplace. This is the first time such protection has applied to food safety issues, according to an analysis by the national law firm Thompson Coburn LLP.

food-production-workersWith little fanfare, the whistleblower provisions took effect immediately upon FSMA’s passage in 2011. The rules cover companies in food manufacturing, processing, packing, distribution, holding, importation and transportation. (Whistleblower complaints actually are managed for the FDA by the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA), which manages whistleblower actions for more than 20 federal departments). In its first three years, 144 food industry whistleblower complaints were submitted.

The protections afforded whistleblowers are straightforward: employers are prohibited from firing or discriminating against any employee who speaks up about potential or ongoing safety issues, whether publicly or privately. FSMA’s Section 402 specifically prohibits employer actions such as termination or demotion, and also protects workers from any form of reprisal that might dissuade other employees from engaging in similar activity.

Section 402 is especially relevant to food scientists and technologists, who have the scientific training in food contamination and are the individuals typically assigned to oversee food safety protocols for manufacturers, notes the Canadian-based International Union of Food Science and Technology (UoFST). Protection from reprisals against these employees is especially important, UoFST notes. This may become more of an issue in the future as larger food manufacturers bring on trained microbiologists and researchers to help pinpoint food safety vulnerabilities.

What about importers? Do these whistleblower provisions apply to overseas workers in the same way that FSMA’s safety rules directly impact foreign exporters and manufacturers whose products are sold in the U.S.?

The answer is the proverbial “it depends.” The UoFST points out that whistleblower protections outside the U.S. are uneven in effectiveness. The United Kingdom prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers under its Public Interest Disclosure Act (1998). Japan and South Africa both have dedicated legislation on whistleblower protection. But, writes Gerald Moy, a retired World Health Organization executive, many whistleblower laws worldwide are limited in scope to anticorruption. Other countries may not have the regulatory infrastructure in place to handle such complaints.

By contrast, Moy notes, the inclusion of these protections in the U.S. food safety law is another demonstration of the government’s commitment to head off food safety problems before they lead to costly recalls, consumer illness (or death) and negative news reports of “unsafe” food.

The FDA wants the industry to become prevention-oriented, but instead of purely voluntary compliance, the agency has written tough new rules into the new law requiring a host of procedures to insure safe food production and holding management personally responsible for any violations.

So, in answer to what happens next at the bakery, here’s a checklist for employers under FSMA:

  1. Make certain food safety training has been implemented throughout the organization as part of an overall management food safety system;
  2. Train supervisors to deal promptly with complaints, “shop talk” or rumors of potential food safety problems;
  3. Maintain records of logged complaints and follow-up actions;
  4. Resist the temptation to punish or criticize any employee who spots a problem.

With FSMA now the law of the land, and food-borne illness prevention the guiding regulatory goal, food manufacturs just might want to reward employees who speak up with a bonus check for a job well done.

Share