DOCSLIB.ORG

444 Part 121—Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
444 Part 121—Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Pt. 121 21 CFR Ch. I (4–1–17 Edition) method entitled ‘‘Analysis for Esch- ess or its delivery is identified), the erichia coli in Citrus Juices—Modifica- processor shall take corrective action tion of AOAC Official Method 992.30’’ or as set forth in § 120.10. another method that is at least equiva- (e) If two samples in a series of seven lent to this method in terms of accu- tests are positive for E. coli, the control racy, precision, and sensitivity in de- measures to attain the 5-log reduction tecting E. coli. This method is designed standard shall be deemed to be inad- to detect the presence or absence of E. equate and the processor shall imme- coli in a 20 mL sample of juice (con- diately: sisting of two 10 mL subsamples). The (1) Until corrective actions are com- method is as follows: pleted, use an alternative process or (1) Sample size. Total-20 mL of juice; processes that achieve the 5-log reduc- perform analysis using two 10 mL tion after the juice has been expressed; aliquots. (2) Perform a review of the moni- (2) Media. Universal Preenrichment toring records for control measures to Broth (Difco, Detroit, MI), EC Broth attain the 5-log reduction standard. (various manufacturers). The review shall be sufficiently exten- (3) Method. ColiComplete (AOAC Offi- sive to determine that there are no cial Method 992.30—modified). trends towards loss of control; (4) Procedure. Perform the following (i) If the conditions and practices are procedure two times: not being met, correct those that do (i) Aseptically inoculate 10 mL of not conform to the HACCP plan; or juice into 90 mL of Universal (ii) If the conditions and practices Preenrichment Broth (Difco) and incu- are being met, the processor shall vali- bate at 35 °C for 18 to 24 hours. date the HACCP plan in relation to the (ii) Next day, transfer 1 mL of 5-log reduction standard; and preenriched sample into 10 mL of EC (3) Take corrective action as set Broth, without durham gas vials. After forth in § 120.10. Corrective actions inoculation, aseptically add a shall include ensuring no product en- ColiComplete SSD disc into each tube. ters commerce that is injurious to (iii) Incubate at 44.5 °C for 18 to 24 health as set forth in § 120.10(a)(1). hours. (iv) Examine the tubes under PART 121—MITIGATION STRATEGIES longwave ultra violet light (366 nm). Fluorescent tubes indicate presence of TO PROTECT FOOD AGAINST IN- E. coli. TENTIONAL ADULTERATION (v) MUG positive and negative con- trols should be used as reference in in- Subpart A—General Provisions terpreting fluorescence reactions. Use Sec. an E. coli for positive control and 2 neg- 121.1 Applicability. ative controls—a MUG negative strain 121.3 Definitions. and an uninoculated tube media. 121.4 Qualifications of individuals who per- (d) If either 10 mL subsample is posi- form activities under subpart C of this tive for E. coli, the 20 mL sample is re- part. corded as positive and the processor 121.5 Exemptions. shall: (1) Review monitoring records for the Subpart B [Reserved] control measures to attain the 5-log re- Subpart C—Food Defense Measures duction standard and correct those conditions and practices that are not 121.126 Food defense plan. met. In addition, the processor may 121.130 Vulnerability assessment to identify choose to test the sample for the pres- significant vulnerabilities and actionable ence of pathogens of concern. process steps. (2) If the review of monitoring 121.135 Mitigation strategies for actionable process steps. records or the additional testing indi- 121.138 Mitigation strategies management cates that the 5-log reduction standard components. was not achieved (e.g., a sample is 121.140 Food defense monitoring. found to be positive for the presence of 121.145 Food defense corrective actions. a pathogen or a deviation in the proc- 121.150 Food defense verification. 444 VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:04 Jun 30, 2017 Jkt 241071 PO 00000 Frm 00454 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\21\21V2.TXT 31 lpowell on DSK54DXVN1OFR with $$_JOB Food and Drug Administration, HHS § 121.3 121.157 Reanalysis. Contaminant means, for purposes of this part, any biological, chemical, Subpart D—Requirements Applying to physical, or radiological agent that Records That Must Be Established and may be added to food to intentionally Maintained cause illness, injury, or death. 121.301 Records subject to the requirements Facility means a domestic facility or of this subpart. a foreign facility that is required to 121.305 General requirements applying to register under section 415 of the Fed- records. 121.310 Additional requirements applying to eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, in the food defense plan. accordance with the requirements of 121.315 Requirements for record retention. part 1, subpart H of this chapter. 121.320 Requirements for official review. Farm means farm as defined in § 1.227 121.325 Public disclosure. of this chapter. 121.330 Use of existing records. FDA means the Food and Drug Ad- Subpart E—Compliance ministration. Food means food as defined in section 121.401 Compliance. 201(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and AUTHORITY: 21 U.S.C. 331, 342, 350g, 350(i), Cosmetic Act and includes raw mate- 371, 374. rials and ingredients. SOURCE: 81 FR 34219, May 27, 2016, unless Food defense means, for purposes of otherwise noted. this part, the effort to protect food from intentional acts of adulteration Subpart A—General Provisions where there is an intent to cause wide scale public health harm. § 121.1 Applicability. Food defense monitoring means to con- This part applies to the owner, oper- duct a planned sequence of observa- ator or agent in charge of a domestic tions or measurements to assess or foreign food facility that manufac- whether mitigation strategies are oper- tures/processes, packs, or holds food for ating as intended. consumption in the United States and is required to register under section 415 Food defense verification means the of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos- application of methods, procedures, metic Act, unless one of the exemp- and other evaluations, in addition to tions in § 121.5 applies. food defense monitoring, to determine whether a mitigation strategy or com- § 121.3 Definitions. bination of mitigation strategies is or The definitions and interpretations has been operating as intended accord- of terms in section 201 of the Federal ing to the food defense plan. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act are ap- Full-time equivalent employee is a term plicable to such terms when used in used to represent the number of em- this part. The following definitions ployees of a business entity for the pur- also apply: pose of determining whether the busi- Actionable process step means a point, ness qualifies as a small business. The step, or procedure in a food process number of full-time equivalent employ- where a significant vulnerability exists ees is determined by dividing the total and at which mitigation strategies can number of hours of salary or wages be applied and are essential to signifi- paid directly to employees of the busi- cantly minimize or prevent the signifi- ness entity and of all of its affiliates cant vulnerability. and subsidiaries by the number of Adequate means that which is needed hours of work in 1 year, 2,080 hours to accomplish the intended purpose in (i.e., 40 hours × 52 weeks). If the result keeping with good public health prac- is not a whole number, round down to tices. Affiliate means any facility that con- the next lowest whole number. trols, is controlled by, or is under com- Holding means storage of food and mon control with another facility. also includes activities performed inci- Calendar day means every day as dental to storage of food (e.g., activi- shown on the calendar. ties performed for the safe or effective 445 VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:04 Jun 30, 2017 Jkt 241071 PO 00000 Frm 00455 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\21\21V2.TXT 31 lpowell on DSK54DXVN1OFR with $$_JOB § 121.3 21 CFR Ch. I (4–1–17 Edition) storage of that food, such as fumigat- registered. An example of such a facil- ing food during storage, and drying/de- ity is a ‘‘farm mixed-type facility,’’ hydrating raw agricultural commod- which is an establishment that is a ities when the drying/dehydrating does farm, but also conducts activities out- not create a distinct commodity (such side the farm definition that require as drying/dehydrating hay or alfalfa)). the establishment to be registered. Holding also includes activities per- Packing means placing food into a formed as a practical necessity for the container other than packaging the distribution of that food (such as food and also includes re-packing and blending of the same raw agricultural activities performed incidental to commodity and breaking down pallets), packing or re-packing a food (e.g., ac- but does not include activities that tivities performed for the safe or effec- transform a raw agricultural com- tive packing or re-packing of that food modity into a processed food as defined (such as sorting, culling, grading, and in section 201(gg) of the Federal Food, weighing or conveying incidental to Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Holding facili- packing or re-packing)), but does not ties could include warehouses, cold include activities that transform a raw storage facilities, storage silos, grain agricultural commodity into a proc- elevators, and liquid storage tanks. essed food as defined in section 201(gg) Manufacturing/processing means mak- of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos- ing food from one or more ingredients, metic Act.
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]