NCFPD newsletter March 2014

This is a March newsletter from National Center for Food Protection and Defense.

I find myself in a constant search for an extra week, day, or hour to work on a plan, assessment, or lecture that is due. Since I read the third book of the Harry Potter series, I have longed for the Time-Turner necklace that Hermione Granger uses to take extra classes. Oh, the gift of an hour free of email and meetings to just “catch up” sounds incredibly delightful. As I learned of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) extensions for several proposed rules based on the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act, I realized we had been given a gift of time to thoughtfully review and comment on the proposed rules. We can now think about the big picture of how the rules will work together to protect the food systems. Comment extensions include:

Focused Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration, 90-day extension. June 30, 2014.
Qualitative Risk Assessment, 90-day extension. June 30, 2014.
Designation of High-Risk Foods, 45-day extension. May 22, 2014.

Related rules on produce safety and preventive controls will be re-published with revised language in the early summer of 2014. This is being done due to public input that will likely lead to significant changes.

The Center has spent significant effort discussing and debating the rule with many of you. We have found ourselves assessing it from an industry perspective, a regulatory perspective, and as the average citizen buying food from a local grocery. Over these past three months we have had fruitful discussions on what should be in the rule and what is missing. Here is some of the dialogue we have had with stakeholders in the room, live-chatting, or over the phone:

Almost without exception, most believe the entire food supply should have some responsibility to do food defense. This conversation has lead to a debate about whether the $10 million dollar threshold is too high or may even need to be removed.
What is intentional adulteration? Some include economically motivated adulteration (EMA), while others do not. The Center’s definition is that it is any intentional act, whether it is motivated by terrorism, EMA, economic disruption, or a disgruntled employee. The proposed rule is currently focused on terrorism. Most agree EMA also needs a place; however, we have found disagreement on where it should go. Possibilities include putting it in the intentional adulteration rule, the preventive controls rule, or creating an entirely separate rule.
The proposed rule appears more facility-focused than supply-chain focused. This potentially limits a holistic approach to food defense where interdependency and supply risks can be addressed.
A significant number of participants in our forums have discussed the ability to conduct their own vulnerability assessments to identify specific concerns. This is not being required in the proposed rule. Instead, the proposed rule requires that companies with any of the four key activity types have focused mitigation strategies implemented.
In all of our forums, there was a desire to have more language describing training or the criteria indicating which employees should be trained.

So, what to do with this gift of time? The extension gives us the opportunity to consider these points and provide thoughtful comments to aid FDA in their next revision of this rule, within the larger context of the series of rules on preventive controls, high-risk foods, and intentional adulteration. Integration of these rules will improve defense of our food system. Throughout this process, the Center will be listening to each of you, our collaborators, to hear your perspective. Feel free to reach out to us via phone, find us at the Food Safety Summit or the GMA Science Forum, or drop us a line at ncfpd@umn.edu.

And, if on your travels you find a Time-Turner necklace, pick one up for me. I am not sure this gift of time will come again!