The Alphabet Soup of Food Safety (Part I)

FSMA. FSSC22000. GFSI. HAACP. SQF. Stop! My head hurts.

This is the likely reaction of anyone performing a deep dive into the intricacies of the world’s food safety standards. But understanding the acronyms of the various entities involved in food safety is well worth the time and effort if you are a food manufacturer or supplier. Why? Because the safety standards – a mix of voluntary, industry-led guidelines and government mandated regulations – will likely play an important, perhaps even decisive role in your business going forward.

What follows is the first of a two-part blog on helping food manufacturers and their suppliers – here and abroad – understand the key organizations and programs involved in safeguarding the global food supply.

Ready? Let’s jump in . . .

FSMA — This is the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 passed by Congress and signed into law by former President Barack Obama. It is watershed legislation because of its dramatic shift in focus from dealing with foodborne illness outbreaks after they occur to preventing them (as much as possible) from happening in the first place.

The rules and procedures in FSMA took regulators from the Food and Drug Administration more than five years to draw up and finalize. Much of the work (as this post demonstrates) was based upon already existing food safety procedures and guidelines. Implementation is now underway using compliance timetables generally related to the size of companies. FSMA applies to farmers and growers (but not cattle ranchers), manufacturers and processors, as well as shippers. Its provisions also apply to companies that http://www.sqfi.comimport food into the U.S.  Food, under FSMA, is both for humans and animals.

(In the U.S., government agencies and academia have teamed up to create the Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance (FSPCA) to help train companies on how to meet FSMA’s regulations).

HAACPHazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) is an internationally accepted management program for reducing potentially dangerous hazards in food. HAACP forms the basis of the new food safety act as well as voluntary food safety certification programs.

A HACCP System requires that potential hazards be identified and controlled at specific points in the manufacturing, storing and distribution process along the global food chain. This includes biological, chemical or physical hazards. Any company involved in the manufacturing, processing or handling of food products can use HACCP to minimize or eliminate food safety issues from occurring. (The language in FSMA refers to “preventive controls,” which largely build upon HAACP principles).

GFSIThe Global Food Safety Initiative is a Paris-based association of major food companies that promulgates food safety protocols (or “schemes) for food companies.  It was formed in 2000 in response to a series of serious food safety crises. GFSI is a voluntary organization. Industry-led committees and workgroups formulate schemes, which serve as benchmarks for companies that want to gain GFSI certification. Although it has a global reach, GFSI’s schemes have been adopted more internationally than in the U.S.

SQFThe Safe Food Quality Institute is a standard-setting, voluntary organization for the food industry, with a focus on U.S. based food retailers. The SQF Program is recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) as a Food Safety Management Systems Certification program (see more below).

ISO The International Organization for Standards, based in Geneva, Switzerland, is an independent, non-governmental organization of some 163 national standard setting bodies. The standards, many thousands in all, cover a wide range of industries (including the human and animal food industry) through “best practice” specifications for products, services and systems. The standards are voluntary – they don’t carry the force of law – and are based on consensus of relevant national standard setting bodies.

Importantly, ISO itself does not provide certification that a company has met its standards; this is done by external certification bodies (such as SQF). Once certified, a company can promote its compliance with the ISO standard.

FSSC 22000 – This is a Food Safety Management System (FSMS) Certification Scheme. Certification is granted to retailers, manufacturers, suppliers and others when the companies have implemented prevention-based hazard food safety controls and a third-party auditor has audited the system to verify that it complies with its requirements.

FSSC 22000 is a certification program recognized by GFSI. In April, 2017, it issued its 15,000th certificate.

Whew! That’s a lot of information to absorb. The point is that taken as a whole, these organizations are all about establishing and maintaining worldwide food safety standards. In Part II, we’ll show you how these organizations compare to, and differ from, regulatory efforts via the new American food safety law, and why that law is both evolutionary and revolutionary in its scope and intent.

 

 

 

 

 

Share

With New Administration, Where Does FSMA Stand Now?

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) went mostly into effect last fall. Where do things stand now with a new Administration in the White House?

It’s hard to know for certain, in part because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which oversees FSMA, is hanging in limbo without a new Commissioner in place. Plus, with all the other issues and policy differences on the front burner right now, food safety has pretty much been pushed into the deep background of White House priorities. For now, the timetable for rollout and compliance remains in effect (see compliance schedule chart).

Yet careful observers should be able to spot some indicators of what might happen in the months ahead.

For one thing, the newly-approved head of the Department of Health and Human Services, former Georgia Rep. Tom Price, is well-known for his strong views against government regulation. HHS oversees the FDA (a relationship often overlooked), and with the new Republican regime hustling to assemble a new federal budget, it would hardly be surprising if FDA’s already slim budget for FSMA enforcement were cut back some more. Reducing the FDA’s budget for inspectors would create obvious enforcement problems. State governments were allocated federal budget dollars to support local inspectors; these funds also might be reduced or eliminated.

For another, while the major chunks of the sweeping new food safety act have been implemented, compliance with the new regulations was postponed for a year last September, except in cases of gross violations by food manufacturers or transporters. Between now and August, FDA is committed to “educating” the industry on the law’s many and complex requirements. As a result, the new Administration simply might extend the compliance deadline even further into the future; in effect, turning FSMA into a voluntary set of guidelines, not federal law backed by severe fines and even imprisonment for violations.

Finally, compliance on the part of small manufacturers was specifically postponed to give them more time to figure out how to cover the costs of the law’s requirements, such as creating a food safety manager at each plant site. Thus, it would be easy for the Administration to either delay compliance by small companies even farther into the future, or to exempt them from FSMA altogether.

The interesting factor in this is the influence of the major manufacturers towards the new law. The big brands who churn out thousands of manufactured food products every day got on board with FSMA early on, figuring that a position opposing food safety standards was a non-starter, but also because most of the companies felt that food safety was, in fact, a growing concern as the global supply chain grew in size and complexity.

Experience has taught manufacturers (and retailers, which aren’t under FSMA) that food contamination outbreaks and widespread product recalls can have a serious negative impact on sales and brand reputation. FSMA’s entire approach to regulation is aimed at preventing outbreaks by instilling a “safety first” mantra at every link in the food supply channel.

All of these factors point to the conclusion that the Food Safety Modernization Act, like many federal regulations enacted during the previous eight years, could face delays in actual compliance. While that may please those who object to government involvement in business, it may distress others in the food industry who see the need for across-the-board standards that promote a safe food production and transportation environment.

 

 

 

 

Share

FSMA and the Challenges for Small Business

FSMA BUSINESS COMPLIANCE DATES

April 30, 2017 — food safety verification for companies exporting product or ingredients to American-based small businesses;

August 30, 2017 — companies with fewer than 500 full-time employees;

August 30, 2018 — companies with annual sales of less than $1 million (for animal products, $2.5 million)

The big compliance date has come and gone, and food manufacturers and their suppliers are now subject to the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

Yet in many ways, the September 2016 deadline was only the start of a new countdown to compliance for small and and very small food companies and their suppliers, domestic and foreign.

Let’s take a look by examining what “compliance” actually means to the Food and Drug Administration, the agency that governs the food industry and manages FSMA:

  • ENFORCEMENT. Although FSMA is in effect for large-scale, multinational food companies, the FDA has offered industry a grace period in which education will take precedence over enforcement. Essentially, regulators are allowing manufacturers and their suppliers an extended period of time to implement the new safety law’s many requirements without fear of citation, license revocation or a mandated food recall. However — and this is a big caveat — the FDA will crack down on “egregious” FSMA violations, defined as activities that demonstrate that a food company is willfully failing to comply with the new law.
  • SMALL BUSINESS DEADLINES. The FDA’s rules offer a helping hand to small businesses in the food industry by extending compliance deadlines for nearly a year – to August 30, 2017. What constitutes a small business? Generally, the FDA says, a small business is one with less than 500 full time equivalent employees. There is also a “very small” business category, with a somewhat different definition: a company with average annual sales of less than $1 million, including the market value of inventory on hand. (For producers of animal food, the cutoff for compliance is annual sales of $2.5 million).
  • IMPORTERS. How to insure compliance for food importers is one of the trickiest aspects of FSMA. The overall intent of the law is clear: the United States wants foreign-based suppliers of food items or ingredients to be held to the same safety standards as American-based firms. Yet the various rules governing what the FDA calls the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) have differing compliance dates tied to the size of the importing company, where it is domiciled, and what it is shipping to the U.S. Suffice it to say that if a small American company is importing food items from overseas, it must verify the foreign supplier’s compliance with FSMA standards by April 30, 2017.
  • TRAINING & ASSISTANCE. A baked-in assumption in FDA’s rules is that large manufacturers will already have been close to compliance, but that smaller firms many not possess the budget, personnel or access to training to meet FSMA’s tough new safety standards. One solution is the Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance, comprised of government, industry and academic advisors who can assist small businesses understand FSMA’s requirements and schedules through seminars, distance learning and online and printed materials.

American manufacturing is by and large driven by small business. Of some 252,000 manufacturers of all types in 2013, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, the vast majority employed fewer than 500 people, the cutoff point for FDA compliance next year, not this year.

What these numbers suggest is that reaching the thousands upon thousands of employees and persuading them to make food safety a personal responsibility will take time, effort and patience. Thankfully, the FDA has recognized the scope of the task, and is rolling out FSMA compliance in a way that helps every business adjust to the new law.

 

Share

A Safer Food Supply?

Will the nation’s food supply be safer under FSMA?

The new Food Safety Modernization Act, or FSMA, which takes full effect in September, has a multitude of goals, but foremost of these is insuring that the nation’s food supply (human and animal) is safe – safer than it already is. Will the new law do that?

That was certainly the motivation for passage of FSMA in 2011. Congress recognized that the vast American food supply from farm to table was very safe, but also persistently vulnerable to microbiological contamination, accidents, and terrorist threats. FSMA addresses these dangers directly and indirectly. Here are three of the primary goals behind the new food safety regulations.

  1. Responding to the new realities of a global food chain. America’s food supply throughout much of its history has been largely self-contained: American growers, ranchers and manufacturers accounted for the vast majority of food items available to consumers. But it was never 100% domestic: Coffee from Africa and Central America; winter produce from Mexico; Canadian wheat, spice from Southeast Asia. As the consumer palate has become more varied and reflective of diverse cultures, our food supply is incredibly global in scale. FSMA is intended to insure that all food items and ingredients coming from overseas are subject to stringent safety protocols.
  1. foodmfgPlacing more aggressive regulations on suppliers, not just manufacturers. If the world’s food supply were envisioned as an iceberg, the portion above the water line would represent manufacturers, processors, and retailers. The portion of the iceberg below water – by far the largest segment – would represent the thousands upon thousands of suppliers that play a pivotal but often overlooked role in food safety. It’s a supply chain that is both widespread and granular in scope: it includes makers of conveyor equipment, as well as suppliers of lubricants for that equipment.
  1. Preventing food safety issues rather than relying upon government intervention only when there’s a problem, is at the very heart of FSMA, and one that should have the most immediate and beneficial impact on food safety over time. That’s because, for the first time, food manufacturers and processors, along with their supply chain partners, have clear direction in preventing food contamination by creating and maintaining a food safe environment up and down the supply line. One requirement alone – having in place a comprehensive food safety plan – is perhaps the single most significant of all of FSMA’s many regulations.

Of course, maintaining a 100 percent safe food supply is literally impossible. But as an aspirational goal, FSMA represents forward thinking on the part of the government and the food industry, both of which have an obvious, vested interest in producing and selling products that are as safe as they can possibly be.

Share

Time for a FSMA Checklist

Full compliance with the Food Safety Modernization Act just a few months away. Is the food industry ready?

Here’s what food manufacturers need to do:

  • Hazard Analysis — the first compliance step required of all but the smallest food manufacturers is a thorough analysis of any potential food safety problems in production plants and shipping areas. Remember, under the new FMSA, the core idea underlying regulatory oversight is prevention of food safety problems. The obvious place to start is in the production facility. Included in the hazard review are “foreseeable hazards,” which are possible trouble spots for contamination that must be dealt with. Here’s a link to hazard analysis implementation.
  • Food Safety Plan — after the hazard analysis, this is the logical next step for manufacturers, but also the requirement that will take up the most time to implement properly. FSMA requires manufacturers to lay out a step-by-step risk-based preventive control plans that identifies real and possible food contamination weaknesses, and what will be done to mitigate or address the problems. Additionally, FSMA requires that the appropriate production line employees be given thorough food safety training, with regular review sessions. A plan’s food safety plan also must include a specific recall procedure in the event one is needed. This requirement is especially important because food contamination events can create serious, even deadly, public health emergencies. How well affected product can be tracked back to the source, and how quickly it can be removed from sale, is an essential component of the new food safety law.

food-processing-industry-image-4697FSMA also applies to suppliers in the long and complex food chain. As an example, food production lines convey thousands of pounds of raw food ingredients every day. The machines that control the manufacturing process need regular maintenance to keep them in good running order. Maintenance is performed by employees assigned to the task, and these workers use lubricants that are specifically formulated for food production. The lubricants must be “food grade;” that is, they cannot be potentially harmful to food being produced. FSMA requires that suppliers of these lubricants also perform a hazard analysis in their production facilities, and then create their own food safety and recall plans — just in case. (The website you are reading was created by a leading lubricants maker, CRC Industries, Inc. to help their customers and others with FSMA compliance).

  • Management Oversight — Perhaps the most controversial requirement of FSMA is a strengthened emphasis, backed by the force of possible legal action, on top management oversight of food safety.  While this feature has long been assumed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the responsibility has been codified in the new food safety law. Top executives, including the CEO, can be held liable for food safety violations within their companies; using the so-called Park Doctrine, the FDA and the Department of Justice can mount civil and criminal actions against corporate executives whose companies become involved in a food safety crisis, even if the executives argue that they didn’t know about the safety problems and expected underlings to handle such matters.

The Food Safety Modernization Act is a watershed standard in food safety responsibility. The emphasis on prevention requires a higher level of vigilance for food manufacturers, their suppliers, as well as the companies that transport food products to warehouses and stores. It could reasonably be said that under FSMA, there can’t be enough food safety, which is a standard that could positively guide food production for years to come.

 

Share