FDA issues final rule on intentional adulteration of food

by Jay Sjerven
Share This:
Under the new rule, domestic and foreign food facilities will be required to complete and maintain a written food defense plan that assesses their potential vulnerabilities to deliberate contamination.
WASHINGTON — The US Food and Drug Administration on May 26 issued a final rule aimed at preventing the adulteration of food from acts intended to cause wide-scale harm to human health, including acts of terrorism targeting the food supply. With the issuance of this rule, the FDA has finalized all seven major rules implementing the core of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).
Under the new rule, both domestic and foreign food facilities, for the first time, will be required to complete and maintain a written food defense plan that assesses their potential vulnerabilities to deliberate contamination. Facilities will have to identify and implement mitigation strategies to address these vulnerabilities, establish food defense monitoring procedures and corrective actions, verify that the system is working, ensure that personnel assigned to these areas receive appropriate training and maintain certain records.
“Today’s final rule on intentional adulteration will further strengthen the safety of an increasingly global and complex food supply,” said Stephen Ostroff, MD, the FDA’s incoming deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine. “The rule will work in concert with other components of FSMA by preventing food safety problems before they occur.”
Stephen Ostroff, M.D., the F.D.A.’s incoming deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine. 
The rule was proposed in December 2013. The final version took into consideration more than 200 comments submitted by the food industry, government regulatory partners, consumer advocates and others.
“The changes in the final rule are largely designed to provide either more information, where stakeholders requested it, or greater flexibility for food facilities in determining how they will assess their facilities, implement mitigation strategies and ensure that the mitigation strategies are working as intended,” the FDA said.
Food manufacturers will be required to comply with the new rule within three to five years after its publication, depending on the size of the business. Businesses that are not small or very small and do not qualify for exemptions would have to comply no later than three years after the publication of the final rule. Small businesses, those employing fewer than 500 persons, would have four years to comply.
The rule does not apply to very small businesses, those averaging less than $10 million per year, except that such facilities would be required to provide for official review, on request, documentation to show that they qualify for this exemption. They will have to comply with these modified requirements within five years.
“We welcome today’s release by FDA of its final rule on prevention of intentional product adulteration, the last of the seven major foundational rules for FSMA,” said Pamela G. Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “Food and beverage manufacturers have an unwavering commitment to the safety and integrity of their products, and this final rule will further help manufacturers to ensure they have the necessary protocols in place, both at home and abroad, to protect their products from willful acts of adulteration.
“GMA will continue its work to support the effective implementation of FSMA and will maintain a leadership role on behalf of industry to educate food and beverage manufacturers on what it will take to comply with the law, both in the United States and the entire global supply chain.”


Comment on this Article
We welcome your thoughtful comments. Please comply with our Community rules.



The views expressed in the comments section of Meat and Poultry News do not reflect those of Meat and Poultry News or its parent company, Sosland Publishing Co., Kansas City, Mo. Concern regarding a specific comment may be registered with the Editor by clicking the Report Abuse link.


By William J. Hogan 5/31/2016 6:48:32 PM
To: FDA, USDA and non-compliant Processors: Really! The FDA is going to give non-compliant and therefore careless processors another 3 to 5 years to become food safety compliant, when all of these processors could do this program in one year with time left over. This is another example of a win for the lobbyists and special interest groups on behalf of non-compliant processors. Simply put, it's about processors delivering the highest quality and safest products they can, and most importantly, keeping the consumers as safe as possible from potential sickness. There are thousands of processors that follow this creed but there are also thousands that don’t. Having an above average food safety program in place (including the HACCP plan) will enable the processors to find out sooner if they have any potential issues at their facilities, while at the same time, protecting their brands. This is risk management 101, especially when the minimum costs for a recall could be in the range of USD $250,000 if the processor got hit either directly or indirectly through a 3rd party contamination. But what would dwarf the costs of a recall are the costs associated with the loss of a processors brand from a recall. The “it won’t happen to me attitude” by non-compliant processors is no different than playing Russian roulette with the health of the public. From a financial and operational business point of view, it makes absolutely no sense that every processor’s business model does not include a robust food safety program. My question to the FDA (and the USDA) and to non-compliant processors is “do you actually get it?” Or is it that you truly do not care and would rather just continue to drag your feet to save costs on a robust food safety program? Unfortunately, it appears that all of these points are the case and once again the well-being of the consumers comes out on the short end of the stick.