In response to a recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., announced that FDA will be issuing guidance on recall communications within the next six months. Commissioner Gottlieb’s announcement followed an OIG report that identified several shortcomings in FDA’s initiation and oversight of food recalls. OIG had issued an “early alert” in June 2016 notifying FDA of its preliminary finding that FDA lacks policies and procedures to ensure that firms or responsible parties initiate food recalls promptly. The complete report issued in December includes additional findings concerning issues such as the timeliness of FDA’s evaluation of health hazards and audit checks, as well as actions FDA has taken in response to the early alert. We summarize the report’s findings and the policy initiatives Commissioner Gottlieb has announced in response to it in the post below.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued Draft Guidance on its interpretation of what constitutes a refusal of inspection by a foreign food establishment or foreign government. Though the target audience is foreign food establishments and foreign governments, the Draft Guidance provides insight into FDA’s perspective on the legal obligations that apply to all food facility inspections. In particular, FDA describes refusal to permit photography during an inspection as a refusal of inspection. We provide an overview of the Draft Guidance, including the various actions FDA considers to constitute a refusal of inspection and the repercussions when foreign food establishments or foreign governments refuse inspection. FDA requests that comments on the Draft Guidance be submitted by February 26, 2018.
On November 16, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the agency) issued a federal register notice soliciting comments on its Draft Guidance for Industry, “Best Practices for Convening a GRAS Panel.”
The Draft Guidance is intended for persons responsible for a conclusion that a substance may be used in food on the basis of the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) when that person convenes a panel of experts (GRAS panel) to independently evaluate whether the available scientific data, information, and methods establish that the substance is safe under the conditions of its intended use in human or animal food.
FDA is continuing to release resources intended to assist industry with implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This post discusses four such documents that were released recently. First, FDA released Draft Guidance explaining the meaning of the phrase “solely engaged,” which is used in the regulations to establish several exemptions from the Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF) and Preventive Controls for Animal Food (PCAF) rules. Second, FDA finalized its Guidance on current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) requirements for animal food. Third, FDA developed a training program for carriers who are subject to the Sanitary Food Transportation rule. Finally, FDA released a new web page that lists compliance dates for rules that form the foundation of FSMA.
October 31, 2017
Listeria monocytogenes bacteria sickens an estimated 1,600 people each year and of those about 260 die. The dangers of Listeria foodborne illness impacting U.S. consumers are very real and the implications of an outbreak can be enormously costly to the food processing industry.
FDA is currently reviewing public comments to the “Draft Guidance to the Industry on Control of Listeria Monocytogenes” which was published in January 2017. The industry can expect final Guidance from FDA soon. The new Guidance coupled with the Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF) enforcement is already resulting in a much more targeted approach by FDA with focus on both industry and FDA environmental swabbing. Positive swabs for L. mono. or indicator organisms could trigger aggressive FDA enforcement action.
Join presenters representing FDA, attorneys from Hogan Lovells and an EAS Independent Consultant and internationally known research microbiologist for a webinar focusing on the challenges and new FDA regulatory requirements for the detection and elimination of L. mono. This will provide attendees with leading edge and cross-cutting information on regulatory expectations as well as control mechanisms for L. mono. With this information, the food processing industry can improve existing L. mono. control programs, ultimately benefiting the consuming public. This webinar shares the perspectives of the new FDA enforcement strategy (preventive) from FDA’s view, a microbiologist sharing the latest information about L. mono as well as food industry counsel’s view. It is a “must attend” event for anyone with responsibility for complying with FDA’s new enforcement approach.
What do we know today about the “new” dangers of Listeria? What key monitoring and corrective action measures should the industry pay attention to, adopt and implement and how can we turn today’s risk assessment results into a safer and proactive approach to Listeria control?
The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report last week detailing the results of its review the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) inspection of domestic food facilities, as well as its advisory and enforcement actions taken in response to significant inspection violations. The key takeaway from the report is that FDA should do more to ensure the food supply is safe by taking “swift and effective action” to ensure facilities promptly correct problems identified during inspections. We summarize the OIG’s key findings and recommendations and also discusses how the report may affect facility inspections and subsequent agency actions in the future. Read more.
There have been several recent developments regarding implementation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) that should be of interest to the food industry. In this post, we summarize the following topics:
- Regarding imports:
- FDA’s recognition of Australia’s food safety system as comparable to the United States, which allows for modified Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) requirements of certain foods imported from Australia;
- Information from FDA to importers about key things they need to know about compliance with the FSVP rule and what to expect during upcoming inspections;
- Launch of a website where organizations can apply for recognition as a third-party accreditation body.
- Information from FDA on the agency’s implementation of the Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food (Sanitary Food Transportation) rule;
- FDA’s plans to extend the compliance dates for the agricultural water requirements of the Produce Safety regulation; and
- Inflation-adjusted values applicable to several very small business-related definitions used in the FSMA rules.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced today on its website that it intends to extend the compliance date for the Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP) final rules. The agency action provides much needed clarity and assurance to the industry that an extension will be granted.
The current compliance dates are July 26, 2018 for large businesses and July 26, 2019 for manufacturers with less than $10 million in annual food sales. The agency intends to extend the compliance date via a forthcoming Federal Register notice. In a March 2017 letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Dr. Tom Price, a number of trade associations requested that FDA extend the compliance date until May 2021, or 5 years after the date the final rules were published. It is unclear whether FDA will provide the requested 5-year compliance period.
The intended extension comes in response to the difficulties many companies were experiencing with getting compliant labels on food products given the absence of clear guidance from FDA on added sugars, dietary fiber, and other elements of the new requirements and the limited capacity of the packaging suppliers to print new labels for the entire food industry in the limited period of time granted by the original final regulation. We will provide additional details on the compliance date extension once available. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.
On May 22, 2017, the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP), Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the agency’s final rule regarding substances that are Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for use in human and animal foods (the Final Rule). The Plaintiffs take issue with the voluntary nature of the GRAS notice program and allege the Final Rule is an “unlawful[ ] sub-delegation of authority,” an arbitrary and capricious agency action, and an abdication of statutory duty that violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
By way of brief background, on August 17, 2016, FDA published the Final Rule to comply with a consent decree with CFS from another lawsuit that claimed the agency violated the APA by “indefinitely operating under a proposed rule in lieu of promulgating a final rule.” The Final Rule clarified the criteria for when the use of a substance is GRAS and exempt from premarket approval requirements of the FFDCA for food additives. It also finalized the administrative procedure for any person to voluntarily notify FDA the basis of a conclusion that a substance is GRAS.
The Trump Administration recently released its Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget request. The FY 2018 budget request is notable because it proposes dramatic cuts to both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), among other agencies. Presidential budget proposals are at most a starting point – with Congress ultimately responsible for deciding what funds to appropriate – but often provide valuable insight into an administration’s priorities.
The FY 2018 budget request earmarks a total of $5.1 billion for FDA as a whole – an increase of $456 million or 10 percent above the funding provided by Congress in the FY 2017 Continuing Resolution. This increase, however, would consist of reducing FDA’s total budget authority by $854 million, while proposing an increase in user fees of $1.3 billion in non-food programs (which are unlikely to pass, as explained below).
The FY 2018 budget request proposes $137 billion to USDA, a decrease of $12 billion or 8 percent from an estimated $149 billion in FY 2017, and outlines plans to lower spending on USDA programs by roughly $230 billion over a decade. This memorandum discusses FDA and USDA’s plans for reducing expenditures as they relate to food safety.
As described in more detail below, the proposed FY 2018 budget calls for a sizeable reduction ($82.8 million) in FDA’s food safety program and a modest increase ($25 million) in the Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) food safety program at USDA. Notably, no new user fees are proposed for either FDA or FSIS food safety budgets, although the USDA budget alludes to a desire for legislation authorizing user fees, as have past budgets.