Food defense is a broad term that seeks to tackle risks to the food system from food terrorism. As food systems in the US and globally continue to increase in scale and complexity, the need for comprehensive programs that address risks to food systems has also increased. Protecting the food supply is a matter of public health and national stability, but there is often some confusion about what food defense encompasses and how best to tackle it within some parts of the industry.
After a series of large-scale food recalls due to contamination, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided to overhaul the food safety system with the most sweeping reforms seen in decades. Then-president Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act into law in 2011, starting a cascade of fundamental shifts in how the FDA regulates food safety from end-to-end. Implementation of FSMA has been an ongoing process because of the size and scope of the new regulations.
Process manufacturers commonly consider numerous costs like labor, materials, and manufacturing and impact their bottom line. Often the same companies will overlook or undervalue the cost of quality, assuming that products that fall within specifications also meet quality targets. However, simply relying on conformance without examining the cost of quality can result in a few hidden expenses at best---and at worst, amount to considerable waste, negatively impacting the bottom line and subtracting from brand reputation.
With the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in place for more than a decade, the FDA has focused more heavily on regulation rather than education for FSMA rules. One rule in particular, which generated more than 550 Form 483s (issued when FDA inspectors observe violations) in 2020, is the Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) Rule.
Here, we'll provide a refresher of the FSVP Rule and review some of the main reasons for receiving a 483 so that you maintain compliance and stay audit-ready.
ISO stands for the International Organization for Standardization. This standard-setting body was created in the 1940s in London and promotes standards across a wide range of industries. As the official ISO website states, ISO standards could pertain to “making a product, managing a process, delivering a service, or supplying materials.” They apply to manufacturers, sellers, buyers, users, regulators, customers, and trade associations. Thus, they are not exclusive to the food industry, and can indeed benefit manufacturing of many types, including consumer packaged goods (CPG).
There are several types of ISO standards, including those for environmental and energy management, health and safety, IT security, and quality management. Additionally, ISO has specific food safety standards to minimize the risk of food contamination.
The Food & Beverage industry proved its resilience in 2020, perhaps more than any other time in history. Here at SafetyChain, we watched as companies overcame enormous pressures to keep shelves stocked and employees healthy in the midst of ever-evolving CDC updates and guidelines. While safety and agility have always been critical to success in the industry, COVID-19 called for quick thinking when supply chains were disrupted, as well as an even stronger commitment to safety - both of our food and employees.
Frequently, manufacturers in the industry use the terms “food safety plan” (FSP) and “HACCP plan” interchangeably. However, there are critical differences between these two concepts. Although both terms can support a robust approach to food safety in food and beverage companies, understanding the nuances of each program is essential to identifying best practices for ensuring compliance. Let’s take a close look into each type of plan and what they entail, along with key differences between the two.
Paper-based systems continue to be a challenge for many food manufacturers and processors. Yet, the transition to automated record-keeping is often put off, as the task can seem daunting at best. While the timing for a technology implementation may never seem perfect, however, it turns out that this undertaking is well worth the effort. It will lift the burdens of a paper-based system, including tedious tasks, wasted time, and missing or incomplete documents.
Such was the case for HyLife™, a leading pork producer in Canada. Discover how the company solved their paper-related challenges with SafetyChain’s efficiency-driving FSQA solution below.
The start of 2020 brings us not only into a new year, but into an entirely new decade of food safety. Now seems the most fitting time to consider how food safety will evolve through the 2020s, and which shifts will have the greatest impact on the industry.
As 2019 came to a close, a couple of new FSMA developments emerged. For one, the FDA proposed a rule in regards to Section 202 of FSMA, which would require the use of an accredited lab for eligible facilities. For instance, upon receipt of a 483 notice, facilities could be required to go through an accredited lab when performing finished product and zone 1 contact surface testing to control risk. It’s also possible this rule could give the FDA the authority to request data from lab results as soon as they’re available, which would have a significant impact on the industry.