DOCSLIB.ORG

Food Defense Plans

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Food Defense Plans Food Safety and Inspection Service Ensuring that the Nation's Commercial Supply of Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products are Safe Domestically and Internationally Melanie Abley, MS, PhD Senior Staff Officer Office of Policy and Program Development Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA Regional Occupational Health Conference: It’s a Small World: from Global to Local Threats John Hopkins University October 22, 2016 2 Food Safety and Inspection Service Overview • Background on FSIS • Foodborne pathogens – threats domestically and internationally • Tips to avoid travelers diarrhea • FSIS international equivalency process • Food borne outbreak investigations • Food defense plans 3 Food Safety and Inspection Service: Mission in Action We are the public health agency in the USDA responsible for ensuring that meat, poultry, and processed egg products are safe, wholesome, and accurately labeled. Our Authority • Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), 1906 •Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA), 1946 Through a series of Acts, Congress empowers FSIS to inspect all meat, •Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), 1957 poultry, and processed egg products •Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA), 1958 in interstate commerce. •Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA), 1970 4 Food Safety and Inspection Service: One Team, One Purpose We work together More than to accomplish our mission of 9,600 employees protecting strong public health. 5 Food Safety and Inspection Service: The Threat of Foodborne Illness Each year, foodborne illness. Sickens Results in Causes Costs consumers 1 in 6 128k 3,000 $6.9 Americans Hospitalizations deaths billion Shiga toxin-producing E. coli pathogens Listeria monocytogenes most frequently affect Salmonella our regulated products. Campylobacter 6 Food Safety and Inspection Service Foodborne Pathogens ‐ Bacteria Multipliers Laboratory‐ Under‐ Under‐ Total, mean Travel‐ related, Pathogen confirmed reporng† diagnosis‡ (90% CrI) % Bacteria Bacillus cereus, 85# 25.5 29.3 63,623 (15,770– <1 foodborne¶ 147,827) Brucella spp. 120** 1.1 15.2 2,003 (1,302– 16 2,964) Campylobacter 43,696†† 1.0 30.3 1,322,137 20 spp. (530,126– 2,521,026) Clostridium 25** 1.1 2.0 56 (34–92) <1 botulinum, foodborne¶ Clostridium 1,295# 25.5 29.3 969,342 <1 perfringens, (192,977– foodborne¶ 2,492,003) 7 Food Safety and Inspection Service Foodborne Pathogens ‐ Bacteria Multipliers Laboratory‐ Total, mean (90% Pathogen confirmed Under‐reporng† Under‐diagnosis‡ CrI) Travel‐ related, % Bacteria STEC O157 3,704†† 1.0 26.1 96,534 (26,982– 4 227,891) STEC non–O157 1,579†† 1.0 106.8 168,698 18 (17,163– 428,522) ETEC, 53# 25.5 29.3 39,781 (53– 55 foodborne¶ 102,250) Diarrheagenic E. 53 25.5 29.3 39,871 (53– <1 coli other than 102,378) STEC and ETEC Listeria 808†† 1.0 2.1 1,662 (582– 3 monocytogenes 3,302) 8 Food Safety and Inspection Service Foodborne Pathogens ‐ Bacteria Multipliers Laboratory‐ Total, mean (90% Pathogen confirmed Under‐reporng† Under‐diagnosis‡ CrI) Travel‐ related, % Bacteria Mycobacterium 195†† 1.0 1.1 208 (177–241) 70 bovis Salmonella spp., 41,930†† 1.0 29.3 1,229,007 11 nontyphoidal‡‡ (772,129– 2,008,076) S. enterica 433†† 1.0 13.3 5,752 (299– 67 serotype Typhi 17,357) Shigella spp. 14,864†† 1.0 33.3 494,908 15 (93,877– 1,420,877) Staphylococcus 323‡# 25.5 29.3 241,994 <1 aureus, (72,584– 9 foodborne¶ 531,398) Food Safety and Inspection Service Foodborne Pathogens ‐ Bacteria Multipliers Laboratory‐ Total, mean (90% Pathogen confirmed Under‐reporng† Under‐diagnosis‡ CrI) Travel‐ related, % Bacteria Streptococcus 15# 25.5 29.3 11,257 (15– <1 spp. group A, 78,104) foodborne¶ Vibrio cholerae, 8** 1.1 33.1 277 (94–630) 70 toxigenic V. vulnificus 111** 1.1 1.7 207 (138–287) 2 V. 287** 1.1 142.4 44,950 (23,706– 10 parahaemolytic 74,984) us Vibrio spp., 220** 1.1 142.7 34,585 (21,756– 11 other 51,535) Yersinia 950†† 1.0 122.8 116,716 7 enterocolitica (36,363– 10 204,898) Food Safety and Inspection Service Foodborne Pathogens ‐ Parasites Multipliers Laboratory‐ Total, mean (90% Pathogen confirmed Under‐reporng† Under‐diagnosis‡ CrI) Travel‐ related, % Parasites Cryptosporidium 7,594†† 1.0 98.6 748,123 9 spp. (162,961– 2,135,110) Cyclospora 239†† 1.0 83.1 19,808 (239– 42 cayetanensis 65,135) Giardia 20,305** 1.3 46.3 1,221,564 8 intestinalis (892,393– 1,633,965) Toxoplasma 1.0 0 173,995 <1 gondii (134,593– 218,866) Trichinella spp. 13** 1.3 9.8 162 (44–355) 4 11 Food Safety and Inspection Service Foodborne Pathogens ‐ Viruses Multipliers Laboratory‐ Total, mean (90% Pathogen confirmed Under‐reporng† Under‐diagnosis‡ CrI) Travel‐ related, % Viruses Astrovirus NA NA NA 3,090,384 0 (2,350,589– 3,833,232) Hepatitis A virus 3,576** 1.1 9.1 35,769 (21,505– 41 60,715) Norovirus NA NA NA 20,865,958 <1 (12,842,072– 30,743,963) Rotavirus NA NA NA 3,090,384 0 (2,350,589– 3,833,232) Sapovirus NA NA NA 3,090,384 0 (2,350,589– 3,833,232) 12 Food Safety and Inspection Service: FSIS ensuring safe meat, poultry and egg products internationally - What is Equivalence? Equivalence is the process of determining whether a country’s food safety inspection system achieves an appropriate level of protection for public health as applied domestically in the US 14 Food Safety and Inspection Service: Why is This Important? Importance Of Equivalence • World Trade Organization (WTO)/Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures • Protects public Agreement health • Ensures • Equivalence determinations of international an exporting country’s compliance with regulatory food safety food safety policies inspection system for meat, poultry, or egg products is a • Facilitates trade prerequisite for trade with the US 15 Food Safety and Inspection Service: Initial Equivalence Initial equivalence is undertaken when a country wants to export meat, poultry, or egg products to the US for the first time Initial Equivalence Process: 1. Country Submits Written Request to FSIS 2. Document Submission through Self‐Reporting Tool 3. Document Review 4. On‐Site Verification Audit 5. Public Notification‐Proposed Rule in Federal Register 6. Final Determination of Equivalence‐ Final Rule in Federal Register; FSIS sends the country a letter • Requesting a sample health certificate and list of eligible certified establishments approved by the CCA to export to the US; and • Instructions about exporting meat, poultry, or egg products to the US 16 Food Safety and Inspection Service: Ongoing Equivalence Ongoing equivalence applies to countries currently eligible to export meat, poultry or egg products to the US FSIS Verification of Ongoing Equivalence: • Routine audits of the country’s inspection system • Information to provide FSIS annually no later than May 18 • Updated SRT responses OR communicate to FSIS that the country has verified its SRT responses and the responses are accurate and complete • Up‐to‐date list of all certified establishments eligible to export to US • Updated government residue control program, including previous year’s test results and reactions to residue findings • Updated microbiological sampling and testing program, including previous year’s test results and reactions to findings • Reinspection of product at point‐of‐entry • Country’s response to US Point‐Of‐Entry (POE) violations 17 Food Safety and Inspection Service: An Example of an Equivalent Food Safety Procedure Different from FSIS Using a Sanitary Dressing Program to Ensure Raw Beef Products Are Free of Shiga Toxin‐Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) • FSIS has a food safety objective‐based criterion that the CCA ensures that raw beef products are free of STEC at the end of the production process. • In the US, beef slaughter and processing establishments use a combination of antimicrobial treatments and sanitary dressing procedures to control STEC. o Controls implemented focus on carcasses and other conditions (i.e. High Event Periods) and classes of raw beef products with increased likelihood of detecting STEC. 18 Food Safety and Inspection Service: An Example of an Individual Sanitary Measure Equivalence Determination Using a Sanitary Dressing Program to Ensure Raw Beef Products Are Free of Shiga Toxin‐Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) • Other countries prohibit the use of antimicrobial treatments and have submitted requirements that raw beef establishments are to implement robust sanitary dressing procedures to prevent STEC . o The CCA has verification procedures (including rigorous microbial sampling) that demonstrate sanitary dressing procedures ensure that raw beef products are free of STEC at the end of the process. o The CCA’s controls include a focus on carcasses as well as other conditions (high event periods) and classes of raw products that collectively increase the likelihood of detecting STEC if present. o Based upon the evaluation of the CCA’s verification procedures, controls, and receipt and evaluation of ongoing microbial results from the CCA, FSIS has determined this approach to be equivalent because the CCA demonstrates that it meets the food safety criterion. 19 Food Safety and Inspection Service: Food Borne Outbreak Investigation Essentials • In collaboration with public health partners, FSIS collects and evaluates epidemiological, Environmental microbiological, and traceback Health evidence • Epidemiology: Who, what, when, where, and how Laboratory • Laboratory: Food, environmental, and clinical Epidemiology samples • Environmental Health: Traceback in addition to assessments and inspection Source: http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/foodsafety‐2015/infographic.html#infographic Food Safety and Inspection Service: Federal Effort
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]