The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released the first of three installments of its long awaited Draft Guidance to support compliance with the Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration (IA) rule. Under the IA rule, the last of the major FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) rules to be released, food facilities must develop and implement a food defense plan that identifies their significant vulnerabilities and mitigation strategies to address those vulnerabilities, and they must take steps to ensure those mitigation strategies are working. This first installment includes the first four chapters of the Draft Guidance, which provide FDA’s recommendations on how to develop a food defense plan, including one particular method for conducting a vulnerability assessment to identify significant vulnerabilities and actionable process steps, developing mitigation strategies for actionable process steps, and monitoring mitigation strategies. It also contains templates for various components of a food defense plan.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently made two notable announcements regarding implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). First, FDA released a tool to assist companies with meeting supplier verification requirements under FSMA. A new section of the FDA’s Data Dashboard will help companies that perform supplier verification under FSMA by functioning as a “one stop shop” for identifying compliance and enforcement information related to specific suppliers. Second, FDA announced that the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program (VQIP) will not launch until the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 benefit year—i.e., October 1, 2019. VQIP is a voluntary, fee-based program that offers expedited review and entry of food into the United States.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently released the Spring 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory Actions for federal agencies, which outlines the rulemaking actions currently under development in each federal agency. This post summarizes the major actions that may be of particular interest to the food industry that are being planned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). After highlighting the most significant priorities, we provide charts for each agency that provide additional details on their plans.
Food product labels are under intense scrutiny from consumers, regulators, class action lawyers, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Demands for more information, as well as changes to or prohibitions on labels’ use of certain terminology, are on the rise. But do label-reform advocates fully appreciate the legal and regulatory complexities and burdens food-labeling revisions impose on the industry, especially when those changes involve state-specific rules? Martin Hahn and Samantha Dietle discuss in the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Backgrounder.
On March 29, 2018, Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the agency) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., delivered a nutrition-related policy address. The Commissioner emphasized FDA’s role in helping Americans improve their nutrition as a step towards reducing chronic disease, with a particular focus on sodium reduction. The Commissioner’s address provides important insight into the shape that FDA nutrition and health policy can be expected to take in the next few years.
There have been several recent developments regarding implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The below post summarizes the following topics:
- Guidance on application of the Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) regulation to the importation of certain live animals;
- Draft Guidance on the definition of “small business” for purposes of the Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF) and Preventive Controls for Animal Food (PCAF) regulations;
- A letter to the winegrape and hops growing industries regarding possible modifications to written assurances in the Produce Safety Rule; and
- A report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) scrutinizing FDA’s progress and implementation of key food safety-related activities.
Also, as a reminder, March 19, 2018 was the compliance date for supplier verification under the PCHF (Subpart G) and FSVP regulations when a supplier is a “small business” required to comply with the PCHF regulation. Additionally, April 6, 2018 is the compliance date for small businesses for the Sanitary Food Transportation regulation.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released an Excel file that lists all general inspection citations included on every FDA Form 483 (Inspectional Observations) issued for almost the past ten years, from October 2008 through February 2018. The information is specific to each establishment that has been inspected by FDA across all areas of the agency’s jurisdiction, including food facilities. We encourage all food companies to review their data so that they are aware of the information that is now readily available for review by the public.
The release of these inspection citations is connected to the Open Government Initiative issued by President Obama on January 21, 2009. Pursuant to this initiative, the agency’s stated purpose for now releasing this data set is to “improve the public’s understanding of how the FDA works to protect the public health, provide the public with a rationale for the Agency’s enforcement actions, and to help inform public and industry decision-making.” Pursuant to this initiative, the data set provides information on general inspection citations under all areas of FDA jurisdiction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently posted a document on its website that lists all importers that have been identified at entry in connection with the Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) regulation. As discussed in the link below, this posting is a statutory requirement under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The list simply provides all of the FSVP importer names that have been declared at entry, which means that some companies are listed multiple times with slight variations in their name. We expect the list is too general to help most companies determine whether there are any entries for which they have been declared as the FSVP importer without permission. However, the list could be helpful to companies that have never knowingly been declared as an FSVP importer so they can become aware they were declared and therefore may be subject to an FSVP inspection.
Join us in London for a food seminar, “New U.S. food manufacturing, labeling, and inspection requirements – What you need to know to export foods ”
On 19 April, Hogan Lovells will offer a seminar on recent developments in U.S. food law that affect all food companies exporting food to the U.S.
U.S. partners Maile Hermida and Elizabeth Fawell will be visiting London from Washington, DC to discuss the latest U.S. food law developments that affect foreign companies that sell food in the U.S. This session will address recent changes for food safety, nutrition labeling, import filings, and facility inspections, addressing what these developments mean for exporters and how they are affected by the political climate in the United States. Both Maile and Elizabeth have extensive experience helping companies navigate these new requirements and developing effective business solutions for managing compliance.
Topics for this two hour seminar include:
— New U.S. Food Safety Requirements (FSMA)
— New Nutrition Labeling Rules
— Impacts from and Forecast for Trump Administration
— Inspections and Enforcement
On February 9, 2018, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) submitted a petition requesting the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to establish labeling requirements that would exclude synthetic products made from alternative proteins and lab-grown meat from animal cells from being marketed as “beef” and/or “meat.” The petition requests that new regulations be adopted limiting the term “beef” to describe the tissue or flesh from animals born raised, harvested, and processed in the “traditional” way, and limiting the term “meat” to the tissue or flesh of animals that have been harvested in the “traditional” manner.