FDA Releases Compliance Guide for Small Businesses under FSMA Intentional Adulteration Rule (Food defense)

Small Entity Compliance Guides (SECGs) are designed to help small businesses meet federal standards. They are among the resources that the FDA is providing to support compliance with the new FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) standards.

The FDA announced today the availability of an SECG to help small businesses comply with the Final Rule on Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration (or Intentional Adulteration Rule), mandated by FSMA.

The SECG was prepared in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act. It provides nonbinding recommendations on such topics as developing a food defense plan and records management.

The compliance date for small businesses under the Intentional Adulteration Rule is July 27, 2020. Very small businesses are exempt from the rule, except for a documentation requirement described in the SECG, which has a compliance date of July 26, 2021.

Here you can find also an FDA fact sheet on the final rule on food defense.

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) final rule is aimed at preventing intentional adulteration from acts intended to cause wide-scale harm to public health, including acts of terrorism targeting the food supply. Such acts, while not likely to occur, could cause illness, death, economic disruption of the food supply absent mitigation strategies.

Rather than targeting specific foods or hazards, this rule requires mitigation (risk-reducing) strategies for processes in certain registered food facilities.

The proposed rule was issued in December 2013. 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.

In developing the rule, FDA interacted with the intelligence community and considered vulnerability assessments conducted in collaboration with the food industry.
While acts of intentional adulteration may many other forms, including acts of disgruntled employees or economically motivated adulteration, the goal of this rule is to prevent acts intended to cause wide-scale harm. Economic adulteration, on the contrary,  is addressed in the final preventive controls rules for human and animal foods.

We already treated food defense topic in a previous post regarding EU situation.

‘Natural’ claim in China: an overview and comparison with EU and US

Here you can find a recent article, drafted together with my colleague and friend Nicola Aporti, head of the food practice at HFG Shanghai, about the “non regulation” of the use of “natural” claims in China, EU and USA. It is published on New Food Magazine.

To know more about the issue and meet both the authors, participate to the 1st Food Law in Asia Conference, 12th June 2017, Amsterdam, write me at foodlawlatest@gmail.com or meet me in Thaifex, World of Food Safety Conference, Bangkok (1st-2nd June 2017).