What you need to know about the Food Safety Modernization Act

Posted on January 30, 2012 by Paul Leavoy

The world of EHS legislation, regulations and issues can be confusing at best sometimes, so it helps to have a little bit of clarity. That’s why EHS This Week is launching EHS In Depth, a new interview series designed to look at the fundamentals of a particular EHS issue.

This week we’re tackling a big one: the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) a huge piece of legislation that will revolutionize how companies in the food and beverage industry go about their business. In our inaugural broadcast I’ve invited industry specialist Jeremy Mawson to answer some key questions, including:

What the legislation means to companies in the food and beverage industry.
Where regulators are at in terms of rolling out the new rules.
What kind of costs FSMA will mean to American businesses, and more.

Don’t forget to write me at paul@ehsthisweek.com with any suggestions you have for future areas of discussion, and tune in to our weekly podcast on Friday afternoon when we discuss the week’s top stories in environment, health and safety news.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

FDA offers helping hand in FSMA compliance

Posted on August 10, 2011 by Paul Leavoy

As any American food producer knows, the landscape of food safety is changing.

Back in January, President Barack Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) into law. The act, a sweeping bill with the most significant changes to food safety in nearly 70 years, will affect thousands of food producers across the U.S. and, in light of some new stringent rules related to imports, around the world as well.

Specific requirements of the act have trickling out of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) throughout the year, including mandatory recall powers for the FDA, increased protection for whistleblowers, the ability to hold products that may be mislabeled, and more.

But the full scope of the rulemaking that follow the FSMA will only be known as the act is implemented over the course of the next year.

However, businesses who want up-to-the-minute news on implementation progress ought to head to the FDA’s FSMA online resource. This site features an array of helpful information and tools on all aspects of the FSMA, including a fantastic implementation timeline, as well as the opportunity to sign up for handy email updates on breaking FSMA news.

First FSMA rules in effect July 3. Are you ready?

Posted on May 6, 2011 by Paul Leavoy

Earlier this week the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the first set of rules under the landmark Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), legislation signed earlier this year which gives the FDA sweeping powers to prevent food safety disasters.

The two new rules, which take effect July 3, are pretty logical preventive measures that, in all fairness, probably should have been implemented a long time ago. The new rules are as follows:

Order on Administration Detention of Food: The first new rule gives the FDA the authority to hold food products that may be contaminated or mislabeled. Before now, the administration only had the right to detain food when it had sufficient evidence it was mislabeled or contaminated, thereby presenting a threat to humans or animals. Now if the FDA even suspects contamination or mislabeling, it can detain the product.
Rule on Imported Food: Organizations importing food now have to disclose whether another country has rejected or refused the product. With this information, the FDA will be better equipped to target foods that may pose a risk to public health.

The new regulations are the first in what will be an ongoing stream of new rules determining how the FSMA affects organizations across the U.S., but also adds to the Act’s current scope, which includes legislative components that took affect earlier this year when it was signed into law, including the following:

If the FDA determines a reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences in any food product, it may demand records of other food products affected in a similar manner.
If the FDA finds a “reasonable probability” food has been misbranded, adulterated, or capable of generating serious adverse health consequences, it may issue a mandatory recall.
Whistleblowers who report violations or testify benefit from increased protection from any form of reprisal.
The FDA has already increased the frequency of inspections and also uses a risk-based model to prioritize inspections.

As more FSMA rules are come down the pipes in the next 12 months, and as the new requirements take effect July 3, it is up to all U.S. Food and Beverage businesses to take action now, by implementing food safety management systems, documenting detailed food safety plans, focusing on companywide hazard identification and risk mitigation (along the lines spelled out in HACCP), and prepare for a higher frequency of inspection.

U.S. Senate prepares to modernize food safety legislation

Posted on September 14, 2010 by Paul Leavoy

Now that the U.S. Senate has reconvened after a month-long recess during which large-scale salmonella-related egg recalls made headlines across the country, food safety reform is back on the top of the agenda.

The Senate is currently reviewing S. 510, a food safety bill that would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) significant powers of oversight and regulation on the growing and production of food.

And it might be about time for this kind of reform. Not only have 85 food recalls occurred in the U.S.—not to mention this summer’s massive egg recall as well as other salmonella- and listeria-based recalls—since the House of Representatives passed a similar bill about a year ago, S. 510 is the first large piece of legislation to address food safety in more than 70 years.

In fact, currently the FDA doesn’t even really have the power to hold food growers and producers accountable when they do slip up. As Chris Waldrop, director of the Consumer Federation of America’s Food Policy Institute, noted in a press release: “Most Americans probably assume that FDA inspects farms and food processing plants are inspected regularly and that when problems arise, FDA can quickly order tainted eggs or spinach off the market. In fact, neither of those assumptions is true. The Senate food safety bill would give the FDA the authority it needs to do its job.”

Some of the features of the proposed legislation include:

Requiring producers to conduct hazard analyses and ensure preventive controls are in place to address hazards.
A demand for well-documented record-keeping procedures; recall procedures; distribution history records; supply chain compliance; corrective and preventive actions; and many other control documents
Giving the FDA the new spending powers, the authority to immediately close plants that pose a health risk, and the ability to initiate quick recalls of suspected foods.

While many, including President Barack Obama and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have lobbied to have the bill passed sooner rather than later, it has not been without its opponents.

Food safety advocate Bill Marler says the bill doesn’t go far enough and features too many exemptions, including smaller farms and restaurants where food is prepared and served directly to customers.

Others argue the bill puts small family farms at a disadvantage since they have to comply with the same rigorous standards that affect larger industrial farms (who, small producers are quick to note, are responsible for almost all recent food recalls).

However, all signs at this juncture indicate the bill will likely be passed and made into law in short order, something that should prompt food producers of any size to consider implementing comprehensive food safety management systems. By being proactive and addressing HACCP requirements (which are embedded into the bill in its current state), businesses will be better prepared to adjust to this long-overdue strengthening of food safety standards.