DOCSLIB.ORG

Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration; Proposed Rule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration; Proposed Rule Vol. 78 Tuesday, No. 247 December 24, 2013 Part III Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 16 and 121 Focused Mitigation Strategies To Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:30 Dec 23, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM 24DEP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 78014 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// A. Framework of the Rule HUMAN SERVICES www.regulations.gov. Follow the B. Activities That Occur on Produce Farms instructions for submitting comments. C. Transportation Carriers Food and Drug Administration Written Submissions D. Food for Animals Submit written submissions in the E. Acts of Disgruntled Employees, Consumers, or Competitors 21 CFR Parts 16 and 121 following ways: • F. Economically Motivated Adulteration Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for G. Low-Risk Activities at Farm Mixed-Type [Docket No. FDA–2013–N–1425] paper or CD–ROM submissions): Facilities Division of Dockets Management (HFA– H. Activities That Occur on Dairy Farms RIN 0910–AG63 305), Food and Drug Administration, I. Other Ways To Focus on Foods With a 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, High Risk of Intentional Adulteration Focused Mitigation Strategies To MD 20852. Caused by Terrorism Protect Food Against Intentional Instructions: All submissions received V. The Proposal Adulteration A. Definitions must include the Agency name and B. Exemptions AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Docket No. FDA–2013–N–1425 and C. Food Defense Measures HHS. Regulatory Information Number (RIN) D. Requirements Applying to Records That 0910–AG63 for this rulemaking. All Must Be Established and Maintained ACTION: Proposed rule. comments received may be posted E. Compliance VI. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis SUMMARY: The Food and Drug without change to http:// VII. Analysis of Environmental Impact Administration (FDA or we) is www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For VIII. Federalism proposing to require domestic and IX. Comments foreign food facilities that are required additional information on submitting X. References to register under the Federal Food, Drug, comments, see the ‘‘Comments’’ heading and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Executive Summary address hazards that may be section of this document. This proposed regulation implements intentionally introduced by acts of Docket: For access to the docket to three provisions of the Federal Food, terrorism. These food facilities would be read background documents or Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, as required to identify and implement comments received, go to http:// amended by the FDA Food Safety focused mitigation strategies to www.regulations.gov and insert the Modernization Act (FSMA), that relate significantly minimize or prevent docket number, found in brackets in the to the intentional adulteration of food. significant vulnerabilities identified at heading of this document, into the Section 418 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. actionable process steps in a food ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts 350g) addresses intentional adulteration operation. FDA is proposing these and/or go to the Division of Dockets in the context of facilities that requirements as part of our Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. manufacture, process, pack, or hold implementation of the FDA Food Safety 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. food and are required to register under Modernization Act (FSMA). Further, as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: section 415 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. part of the proposal, FDA discusses an Regarding the provisions with respect to 350d). Section 419 of the FD&C Act (21 approach to addressing economically human food: Ryan Newkirk, Center for U.S.C. 350h) addresses intentional motivated intentional adulteration. We Food Safety and Applied Nutrition adulteration in the context of fruits and expect the proposed rule, if finalized as (HFS–005), Food and Drug vegetables that are raw agricultural proposed, would help to protect food Administration, 5100 Paint Branch commodities. Section 420 of the FD&C from intentional adulteration caused by Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240– Act (21 U.S.C. 350i) addresses acts of terrorism. 402–2428. Regarding the provisions intentional adulteration in the context of high risk foods and exempts farms DATES: Submit either electronic or with respect to food for animals: Alfred except for farms that produce milk. FDA written comments on the proposed rule Montgomery, Center for Veterinary is implementing the intentional by March 31, 2014. Submit comments Medicine (HFV–200), Food and Drug adulteration provisions in sections 418, on information collection issues under Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., 419, and 420 of the FD&C Act in this the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by Rockville, MD 20855, 240–453–6836. rulemaking. January 23, 2014, (see the ‘‘Paperwork SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Reduction Act of 1995’’ section of this Table of Contents Scope of Coverage of the Proposed Rule document). Executive Summary The subject of this proposed rule is ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, protection of food against intentional identified by Docket No. FDA–2013–N– Scope of Coverage of the Proposed Rule adulteration caused by acts of terrorism. Summary of the Major Provisions of the 1425 and/or Regulatory Information Proposed Rule This proposed rule would apply to both Number (RIN) 0910–AG63, by any of the Costs and Benefits domestic and foreign facilities that are following methods, except that I. Introduction required to register under section 415 of comments on information collection II. Background the FD&C Act. However, as explained in issues under the Paperwork Reduction A. Incidents of Intentional Adulteration of the remainder of this document and Act of 1995 must be submitted to the Food shown in Diagram 1 and Table 1, the Office of Information and Regulatory B. Interagency Approach to Food Defense proposed rule contains several Affairs, Office of Management and C. Resources for the Food Sector exemptions. (The diagrams and table Budget (OMB) (see the ‘‘Paperwork D. Outreach below are intended to illustrate the E. Industry Standards Reduction Act of 1995’’ section of this F. International Food Defense Guidelines proposed scope and requirements of this document). III. Legal Authority rule, and do not include all aspects of the proposed regulation.) These Electronic Submissions A. Section 103 of FSMA B. Section 106 of FSMA exemptions are: Submit electronic comments in the C. Intrastate Activities • The proposed rule would not apply following way: IV. Regulatory Approach to a qualified facility, except that the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:30 Dec 23, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM 24DEP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 78015 facility would be required to provide for to qualified end-users (as defined in this • This proposed rule would not apply official review, upon request, part) during such period exceeded the to activities of a facility that are subject documentation that was relied upon to average annual monetary value of the to section 419 of the Federal Food, Drug, demonstrate that the facility qualifies food sold by such facility to all other and Cosmetic Act (Standards for for this exemption. As proposed, a purchasers; and (b) the average annual Produce Safety). qualified facility would be: (1) A very monetary value of all food sold during • This proposed rule would not apply small business (i.e., a business that has the 3-year period preceding the with respect to alcoholic beverages at a less than $10,000,000 in total annual applicable calendar year was less than facility that meets certain conditions. sales of food, adjusted for inflation), or $500,000, adjusted for inflation. • • This proposed rule would not apply This proposed rule would not apply (2) a facility that meets two to the holding of food, except the to the manufacturing, processing, requirements, i.e., (a) During the 3-year holding of food in liquid storage tanks. packing, or holding of food for animals period preceding the applicable • This proposed rule would not apply other than man. calendar year, the average annual to the packing, re-packing, labeling, or We seek comment on these exclusions monetary value of the food re-labeling of food where the container and whether additional exclusions are manufactured, processed, packed or that directly contacts the food remains warranted. held at such facility that is sold directly intact. BILLING CODE 4160–01–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:30 Dec 23, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM 24DEP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 78016 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules BILLING CODE 4160–01–C VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:30 Dec 23, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM 24DEP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EP24DE13.026</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 78017 TABLE 1—SCOPE OF INTENTIONAL ADULTERATION AND PROPOSED EXCLUSIONS AND EXEMPTIONS Coverage within scope of proposed Brief rationale, and relevant corresponding Type of intentional adulteration 21 CFR 121 section of the rule * I. Types of Intentional Adulteration Considered in this Proposed Rulemaking 1. Acts of disgruntled employees, consumers, Not within the scope of intentional adulteration D Not considered ‘‘high risk’’ because not in- or competitors intended to attack the reputa- covered under proposed 21 CFR 121. tended to cause widespread, significant tion of a company, and not to cause public public health harm. health harm, although public health harm D See section IV.E of this document.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Food Defense Fact Sheet
    Food Defense Fact Sheet What is Food Defense? Food defense is the protection of food products from intentional contamination or adulteration where there is an intent to cause public health harm and/or economic disruption. Highlighted Food Defense Tools and Resources Food Defense 101 provides training in preparedness against an intentional attack against our food supply. The courses provide an understanding of and guidance for developing a Food Defense Plan(s) based on a common sense approach. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodDefense/ToolsEducationalMaterials/ucm353774.htm Employees FIRST is an initiative that food industry managers can include in their ongoing employee food defense training programs. Employees FIRST educates front-line food industry workers from farm to table about the risk of intentional food contamination and the actions they can take to identify and reduce these risks. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodDefense/ToolsEducationalMaterials/ucm295997.htm FDA Food Defense Plan Builder is a user-friendly software program designed to assist owners and operators of food facilities with developing personalized food defense plans for their facilities. This user-friendly tool harnesses existing FDA tools, guidance, and resources for food defense into one single application. The Food Defense Plan Builder guides the user through the following sections: Company Information; Broad Mitigation Strategies; Vulnerability Assessment; Focused Mitigation Strategies; Emergency Contacts; Action Plan; and Supporting Documents. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdplanbuilder/ Food Related Emergency Exercise Bundle (FREE-B) is a compilation of scenarios based on both intentional and unintentional food contamination events. It is designed with the intention of assisting government regulatory and public health agencies in assessing existing food emergency response plans, protocols and procedures that may be in place, or that they are in the process of revising or even developing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Need for Food Defense in the Post-9/11 Era Can the Risk Be Ignored? Many People Are Familiar with “Food Safety.” It Has Been Likely to Occur in the Food Supply
    The need for food defense in the post-9/11 era Can the risk be ignored? Many people are familiar with “food safety.” It has been likely to occur in the food supply. recognized for many years as being essential for businesses The key words are obviously “unintentional” for food that supply food products anywhere in the supply chain. safety and “intentional” for food defense. The food The term “food defense,” however, is another issue. industry has the personnel and infrastructure in place for food safety, but many in the industry are struggling with Shortly after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, how to approach food defense. the U.S. government became concerned that terrorist organizations might seek to contaminate parts of the Long before 2001, there was documentation of intentional American food supply. In December 2001, the Food food contamination incidents throughout the world. A and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States study by the Centre of Excellence for National Security Department of Agriculture (USDA) began a dialogue with (CENS) in Singapore, written by G.R. Dalzeil, reported that a number of security professionals in the food industry between 1950 and 2008, there were approximately 398 to determine the current state of readiness against an confirmed incidents of contamination and approximately intentional attack. The information gathered was not 125 unconfirmed incidents. The information for this study encouraging. Prior to 2001, security departments in the was gathered worldwide; however, 42 percent of the food industry were mostly concerned with protecting incidents occurred in the U.S.; the U.S., UK, and Australia people and assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Defense Survey & Report
    Food Defense Survey & Report Food Defense Prepared by Catherine L. Feinman Foreword by Amy Kircher December 2013 © Copyright 2013, by IMR Group, Inc. publishers of DomesticPreparedness.com, the DPJ Weekly Brief, and the DomPrep Journal; reproduction of any part of this publication without express written permission is strictly prohibited. IMR Group Inc., 517 Benfield Road, Suite 303, Severna Park, MD 21146, USA; phone: 410-518-6900; email: [email protected]; also available at www.DomPrep.com ~ This page was left blank intentionally ~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Food, like water and air, is essential to sustain life. For the past three years, DomPrep has focused on protecting the food supply in one manner or another. Each time we achieved better results. Early this year, in a conversation with Scott Becker, executive director at the Association of Public Health Laboratories, he remarked, “If you really want to learn about food preparedness, you must go to the University of Minnesota.” He was right. This report is the result of an Insiders Roundtable held at that prestigious venue. Thank you Scott, for your important suggestion. Additionally, DomPrep’s staff Susan Collins and Catherine Feinman did a terrific job in producing this report. Catherine researched, compiled, drafted, analyzed, and edited a huge amount of content into the final product. Susan coordinated and organized the design, layout, and production. A special thank you goes to them. Select advisors from the DomPrep40 provided thought leadership, insight, and professional contacts to increase the report’s importance, credibility, and relevance to planners and policy professionals alike. A warm thank you goes to Amy Kircher, DrPH, director of the National Center for Food Protection and Defense at the University of Minnesota, Maureen Sullivan, emergency preparedness and response laboratory coordinator of the Minnesota Department of Health, and Craig W.
    [Show full text]
  • FOOD DEFENSE Election Outcomes
    FI RST RESP0N DE RS TOO LBOX Complex Operating Environment - Food and Agriculture Food and agriculture infrastructure is a $1 trillion industry, TARGETED INFRASTRUCTURE: Food infrastructure is considered FIRST RESPONDER AND PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE PLANNING • Identify medical centers in and around the region and assess almost entirely under private ownership and comprises an a “soft target” for deliberate attack because of the decentralized CONSIDERATIONS: It is highly recommended that frst responders capabilities for food contamination response; estimated 2.1 million farms, 935,000 restaurants, and more nature of the infrastructure nodes. Nodes often provide multiple establish rapport with the appropriate local public health, law • Report unusual illnesses or deaths with quick onset than 200,000 registered food manufacturing, processing, and entry points into the food continuum and have limited to no security. enforcement, and private-sector food supply entities before of symptoms; storage facilities. Intentional contamination of the food supply Examples of nodes with limited security include processing, an incident. Establishing information-sharing relationships • Enhance lab testing (some routine testing does not test for all could have signifcant public health and economic consequences transportation, and distribution mechanisms and facilities, while and participating in preparedness exercises can help ensure potential contaminants, so enhancing testing would need to depending on the commodity, the agent used, and where in the nodes with little or no security might include restaurants, cafeterias, suffcient laboratory capacity, technical capability, and medical be balanced with beneft); and supply chain the contaminant was added. This product provides grocery stores, and food service and storage. countermeasures are in place to address properly a potential • Train for evidence handling (it is important to obtain samples intentional food-contamination attack.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae John Williams Spink
    EXTERNAL Curriculum Vitae CONTACT INFORMATION [email protected], 517-381-4491 ResearcherID (Thomas Reuters): J-5535-2015 John Williams Spink SciVal: John Williams Spink ORCID: 0000-0003-4142-3352 Scopus Author ID: 366.0340.4600 ORGANIZATION POSITION TITLE Department of Supply Chain Management Assistant Professor (Fixed-Term) Eli Broad College of Business INSTITUTION Degree YEAR FIELD OF STUDY Michigan State University B.S. 1988 Packaging Michigan State University M.S. 1991 Packaging, Thin Film Polymer Science Michigan State University Ph.D. 2009 Packaging, Anti-Counterfeit Strategy (#34/57 Worldwide) Top Food Related Entries are HIGHLIGHTED; 2019 are noted in RED Narrative: Dr. John W. Spink is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Supply Chain Management in the Eli Broad Business College at Michigan State University (USA) where he redeveloped and teaches all sections of “Introduction to Supply Chain Management” and a section “Procurement and Supply Chain Management.” His 2009 Packaging PhD work, within the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at MSU, was on Anti- Counterfeit Strategy and his broad research expands from Food Fraud to product fraud related business risks (including Enterprise Risk Management ERM and COSO), and a range of outreach activities that cover policy and trade issues. Previously he was an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminal Justice in the College of Social Science at MSU. Later he was an Assistant Professor (Fixed-Term) in the College of Veterinary Medicine where he was the created, developer and instructor for graduate courses of: Packaging for Food Safety, Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection (Food Fraud), and Quantifying Food Risk.
    [Show full text]
  • FSIS Food Safety and Food Defense
    Food Contamination Can Be Either USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Unintentional or Intentional FSIS is the regulatory agency within USDA responsible for The U.S. food supply is potentially vulnerable to protecting public health by ensuring that meat, poultry, intentional contamination. As such, CIs also conduct and processed egg products distributed in-commerce are surveillance activities related to food defense. The safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged. main goal of these activities is to identify potential security vulnerabilities that increase the risk of intentional contamination for meat, poultry, and processed egg products at in-commerce facilities. FSIS Food Safety What Is the Difference Between and Food Defense Food Safety and Food Defense? Information for In-Commerce Firms Food safety refers to protecting the food supply from unintentional contamination because of pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E. coli O157:H7 and chemical and physical hazards. Food defense refers to protecting the food supply from service which through a Web-based intentional contamination with chemical, biological, physical, or radiological agents. Food defense activities can include implementing additional security measures askFSIS, FSIS Compliance Investigators to: Resources for Additional Information FSIS Compliance Investigators (CIs) are responsible reduce the risk of someone intentionally for carrying out the statutory authorities of the agency contaminating the food supply, and through surveillance, investigation, product control, and minimize the impact of an incident. enforcement to ensure public health protection. The main goal of these activities is to protect consumers Guidance on developing a food plan defense developing on Guidance distributors and processors food for defense on Guidance warehouses and transporters food for defense on Guidance measures mitigation risk on Guidance through Guidance Food Defense is VOLUNTARY.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 103/Friday, May 27, 2016/Rules
    34166 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND C. Require Measures Only in the Event of pack, or hold food and are required to HUMAN SERVICES a Credible Threat register under section 415 of the FD&C D. General Comments on Implementation Act (21 U.S.C. 350d). Section 419 of the Food and Drug Administration and Compliance FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350h) addresses E. Comments on Requests for Additional Exemptions intentional adulteration in the context 21 CFR Parts 11 and 121 F. Other General Comments of fruits and vegetables that are raw [Docket No. FDA–2013–N–1425] G. Other Issues Discussed in the Proposed agricultural commodities. Section 420 of Rule the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350i) addresses RIN 0910–AG63 IV. Subpart A: Comments on Specific intentional adulteration in the context Provisions of high-risk foods and exempts farms Mitigation Strategies To Protect Food A. Revisions to Definitions Also Used in except for farms that produce milk. FDA Against Intentional Adulteration Section 415 Registration Regulations (21 is implementing the intentional CFR Part 1, Subpart H) and Section 414 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Recordkeeping Regulations (21 CFR Part adulteration provisions in sections 418, HHS. 1, Subpart J) 419, and 420 of the FD&C Act in this rulemaking. ACTION: Final rule. B. Other Definitions That We Proposed To Establish in Part 121 The purpose of this rule is to protect SUMMARY: The Food and Drug C. Additional Definitions to Clarify Terms food from intentional acts of Administration (FDA or we) is issuing Not Defined in the Proposed Rule adulteration where there is an intent to D.
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDE to DEVELOPING a FOOD DEFENSE PLAN for Food Processing Plants
    Adapted from information provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service GUIDE TO DEVELOPING A FOOD DEFENSE PLAN FOR Food Processing Plants March 2008 BY COMPLETING PAGE 11 IN THIS GUIDE, FOOD PROCESSORS WILL HAVE A FOOD DEFENSE PLAN FOR THEIR OPERATION Guide to Developing a Food Defense Plan for a Food Processing Plant What is Food Defense? Food defense is putting measures in place that reduce the chances of the food supply from becoming intentionally contaminated using a variety of chemicals, biological agents or other harmful substances by people who want to do us harm. These agents could include materials that are not naturally-occurring or substances not routinely tested for in food products. A terrorist’s goal might be to kill people, disrupt our economy, or ruin your business. Intentional acts generally occur infrequently, can be difficult to detect, and are hard to predict. Food defense is not the same as food safety. Food safety addresses the accidental contamination of food products during storage and transportation and focuses on biological, chemical or physical hazards. The main types of food safety hazards are microbes, chemicals and foreign objects. Products can become contaminated through negligence and contamination can occur during storage and transportation. Some of the information you will use to create your Food Defense Plan will already exist in your Sanitary Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point plan (HACCP) and other documents relating to emergency response procedures. Make sure to consult these documents for information. There is no need to “reinvent the wheel” when developing your Food Defense Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to Congress on the National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy (NAFDS)
    Report to Congress Report to Congress on the National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy (NAFDS) Submitted pursuant to Section 108 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), Public Law 111-353 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 Background ......................................................................................................................... 6 NAFDS - Scope and Guiding Principles ............................................................................ 7 GOAL 1 - Preparedness: Enhance the preparedness of the agriculture and food system ... 8 GOAL 2 - Detection: Improve agriculture and food system detection capabilities ......... 10 GOAL 3 - Emergency Response: Ensure an efficient response to agriculture and food emergencies....................................................................................................................... 11 GOAL 4 - Recovery: Secure agriculture and food production after an agriculture or food emergency ......................................................................................................................... 13 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Food Fraud Do You Know What You Are Eating? National Coalition for Food and Agriculture Research (C-FAR) Monday, May 9, 2011 / Noon to 1:00Pm John Spink, Phd
    Food Fraud Do You Know What You are Eating? National Coalition for Food and Agriculture Research (C-FAR) Monday, May 9, 2011 / Noon to 1:00pm John Spink, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University Associate Director, Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection Program (A-CAPPP) Adjunct Assistant Professor, Program in Public Health, College of Human Medicine Instructor, National Food Safety & Toxicology Center (NFSTC) Chair, Packaging Committee, State of Michigan’s Ag & Food Protection Steering Committee Chair, US Delegation, ISO TC 247 Fraud Controls and Countermeasures Member, USP/FCC Food Ingredient Intentional Adulteration Expert Panel Michigan State University [email protected] 517.381.4491 www.A-CAPPP.msu.edu © 2011 Michigan State University 1 Food Safety Modernization Act • 11 Mentions of “Intentional Adulteration” • Section 106. Protection against intentional adulteration – “103 (1) identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards that may be associated with the facility… (2) identify and evaluate hazards that may be intentionally introduced, including by acts of terrorism… (3) develop a written analysis of the hazards.” – “106 (b)(1) [HHS w/ DHS & USDA]… shall issue guidance documents related to protection against the intentional adulteration of food, including mitigation strategies or measures to guard against such adulteration as required under section 402 of the FD&C… © 2011 Michigan State University 2 MSU and Criminal Justice •MSU – Original Land Grant School, 1855 – 17 Degree Granting
    [Show full text]
  • Food Defense: What It Is, Why We Need It, and Where It’S Going?
    Food Defense: What It Is, Why We Need It, and Where It’s Going? by Ray Gilley, President and CEO ISI Security Introduction As CEO of ISI Security, one of my jobs is keeping up with current security trends surrounding different industries and there is almost no other industry in which security impacts more people than the nation’s food supply. For the purposes of this discussion, food includes all commercially produced consumables (i.e. food, water, beverages, pharmaceuticals). Food Safety / Food Defense Food safety laws began to take shape in the early 1900s after the publication of the novel, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. In that novel, the author exposed the appalling unsanitary conditions in America’s meat packing industry, and by extension the nation’s food industry as a whole. Following that publication, the public outcry demanding changes to address the conditions forced government at all levels to establish laws to protect the public from accidental or careless practices that could result in premature spoilage or dangerous adulteration of food products. These laws, while extremely important, are not broad enough in scope to protect the public from the modern terrorist age. Food safety differs from food defense in that it is only concerned with unintentional acts. Food defense is defined as activities associated with protecting the nation's food supply from deliberate or intentional acts of contamination or tampering (http://www.fda.gov/food/fooddefense/training/ucm111382.htm). The concept of food defense as a unique and separate study from food safety came in the wake of the terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Law Enforcement's Role in Protecting American Agriculture
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Defining Law Enforcement’s Role in Protecting American Agriculture from Agroterrorism Author(s): Terry Knowles, James Lane, Dr. Gary Bayens, Dr. Nevil Speer, Dr. Jerry Jaax , Dr. David Carter, Dr. Andra Bannister Document No.: 212280 Date Received: December 2005 Award Number: 2003-IJ-CX-1024 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ Research Report Defining Law Enforcement’s Role in Protecting American Agriculture from Agroterrorism Prepared for: National Institute of Justice Washington, D.C. 30 June 2005 Researched and Written by: Terry Knowles Kansas Bureau of Investigation James Lane Ford County Sheriff’s Office Dr. Gary Bayens Washburn University Dr. Nevil Speer Western Kentucky University Dr. Jerry Jaax Kansas State University Dr. David Carter Michigan State University Dr. Andra Bannister Wichita State University Dr. Sandra L. Woerle NIJ Research Project Manager This research project was supported by Grant No. 2003-IJ-CX-1024 awarded by the National Institute of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]