Showing posts with label guidance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guidance. Show all posts

Friday, September 1, 2017

FDA Updates Preventive Controls Guidance With Chapter on Heat Processing PC

FDA updated their Preventive Controls Guidance document with a chapter on addressing the use of heat treatments as process controls.  To this point, the guidance provided somewhat similar information to that in the FSPCA manual, although the information is split differently among the chapters. However, the information covered in Chapter 6 goes into more detail, providing more information on heating, including examples for baking cookies, heating soup, and processing salsa.  This information covers how one would validate that information, and then implement and manage the process - monitoring, corrective actions, verification, and records.

Currently, the Guidance has 5 previous chapters, while Chapters 7 to 14 are yet to be released.

  • Chapter 1 is an introduction
  • Chapter 2 discusses how to conduct a hazard analysis.
  • Chapter 3 provides additional information on hazards in foods. For example, it discusses pesticides, animal drugs, and mycotoxins as chemical hazards and when you may want to consider those hazards.  While it does not provide complete information on each of the hazards, it does provide some additional information.
  • Chapter 4 overviews the preventive controls - Process, Sanitation, Allergen, and Supply Chain controls - highlighting primary types for each.  Under Process Controls, the chapter covers leathality treatments (heat, HPP, irradiation, fumigation), cold holding, formulation control, etc.  Again, not a complete listing of types, but give information on the major types.
  • Chapter 5 is the application and management of preventive controls...provides some additional information to the preventive controls discussed in chapter 4.
Each of the coming chapters will expand upon the preventive controls as was done in Chapter 6 for heat processing.

This will become more of a companion reference document as examples of the process controls are expanded upon.  This guidance will give information on the types of things an FDA inspector will be looking for as they conduct inspections.  Certainly a document worth printing or bookmarking.  Be sure to watch for updated sections as they are released.

Monday, January 16, 2017

FDA Releases Draft Guidance: Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-To-Eat Foods

FDA released its Draft Guidance for the control of Listeria monocytogenes in RTE foods. This document applies to facilities that are subject to the Preventive Controls as well as smaller firms only subject to cGMPs. This document is open for comments before becoming finalized.

This is a necessary read for any FDA regulated company producing RTE product where there is exposure of the product to the environment before packaging. This document discusses control, environmental monitoring, and corrective action. While less prescriptive than the earlier version (it puts more responsibility on the processor for determining risk), it is more aggressive in terms of expected controls and monitoring.

The guidance does differentiate high risk from low risk product (low risk will not support more than one log of growth), and this impacts the monitoring regiment as well as corrective action, although both low risk and high risk product require both monitoring and corrective action.

The guidance discusses product formulating for control of Listeria where that formulation must limit the growth of Listeria to less than one log. It also discusses reduction processes, and processes that are considered Listeria reduction must reduce by 5 logs.

Environmental monitoring should cover both food contact surfaces (FCS) and non-food contact surfaces (non-FCS) and they recommend Listeria ssp. FDA suggests 5 FCS and 5 non-FCS taken several hours into production. This is more aggressive than doing pre-operational swabs. They suggest a sampling frequency of monthly for low risk products and weekly for high risk products.

There is a lengthy discussion on corrective actions should an environmental sample be found positive, but much of this, as they point out, is dependent upon the particulars of the facility and the product. This passage is important to point out:
"As discussed in section II.C, L. monocytogenes is widespread in the environment, has been isolated from food packing and processing environments, and has been shown to persist in equipment and the processing environment in harborage sites. As a result, you should expect to detect the presence of Listeria spp. or L. monocytogenes on an occasional basis in environmental samples collected from your plant. As discussed in section XIII.A, the goals of an environmental monitoring program include finding L. monocytogenes and harborage sites if present in your plant and ensuring that corrective actions have eliminated L. monocytogenes and harborage sites when found in your plant. If you consistently see negative test results in environmental samples collected from your plant, we recommend that you revise your environmental monitoring procedures to add, substitute, or both add and substitute other surfaces in your plant for sample collection and testing to ensure you are not missing a source of contamination."
There is also a section on finished product testing.


Please contact us if you have any questions on this document.

Thursday, November 3, 2016

FDA Guidance - Small Company Version of Preventive Controls for Human Foods

FDA released their guidance titled: Guidance for Industry: What You Need to Know About the FDA Regulation: Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food; Small Entity Compliance Guide.   LINK

This guide was developed to help small companies comply with the FSMA Preventive Controls Rule.

The guide does not introduce anything new.  It is basically a simplified version of the original rule.  Being simplified, the document does make the regulation more approachable.  One particular area is On-Farm Packing and Holding of Food (pg 22).  The guidance discusses those activities not subject to the requirements for Hazard Analysis and Preventive Controls when conducted on farms.

It also reviews the Qualified facility -  a facility that does not need to comply with the Preventive Controls component of the rule (21 CFR 117).  It has been our opinion however, for companies who fit into that definition to consider taking the step and completing the Preventive Controls component.  Why?  If the company grows, looks to gain sales from a customer requiring a HACCP type plan, or just wants to improve the safety of their product, they really need to consider taking this step.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

FDA Withdraws the Draft Guidance for Acidified Foods (2010)

The FDA published notice that they are withdrawing the Acidified Foods Draft Guidance which was issued in  2010.  The draft guidance was intended to support acidified foods regulations by helping commercial food processors in determining whether their food products are subject to these regulations.  "The draft guidance also was intended to help processors of acidified foods in ensuring safe manufacturing, processing, and packing processes and in employing appropriate quality control procedures. " 

They are withdrawing the draft guidance, because it will be covered in part within FSMA``Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food'' in conjunction with guidance documents that are being developed to support that rule. 


Federal Register
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-12-30/html/2015-32781.htm
Acidified Foods; Draft Guidance for Industry; Withdrawal of Draft
Guidance


AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

Monday, November 16, 2015

FSIS Updates Allergen Guidance with Focus on Incoming Ingredients

FSIS issued an updated version of their Allergen Control Guidance.  Allergen issues remain on the leading causes for recalls.  According to FSIS:
What is causing undeclared allergen recalls?
  • New Ingredient
  • New Supplier
  • Misprinted Label
  • Product in Wrong Package
  • Product Reformulation
  • Ingredient Reformulation
 A focus of this update involves ingredient related allergen issues. Inspectors are discovering issues as they evaluate incoming ingredients and a company's formulation. 
"FSIS has found that many of these recalls occurred because of a change in product formulation by the establishment or a change in a supplier’s ingredient formulation that was not reflected on the labeling of the finished meat or poultry product. "
A noted change was an explanation of a Letter of Guarantee (LOG) and a Certificate of Analysis (COA). Too many rely on a LOG to protect them against a supplier related allergen issue, but a LOG cannot be counted on to prevent allergen issues.
"An establishment should review and update the LOGs regularly to ensure that the decisions made in the hazard analysis are supported and to ensure that any formulation changes made by its suppliers are detected prior to incorporating the associated ingredient into the production process. Generally, an annual LOG will not be sufficient to support decisions made in the hazard analysis."
One of the nice additions is Appendix 6 - Allergenic Ingredients in Foods.  In this appendix, there is a list of common ingredients that contain specific allergens that may be missed.  This is a nice reference.  (For example, marzipan may contain eggs).
 
FSIS Website
FSIS Compliance Guidelines 
Allergens and Ingredients of Public Health Concern: Identification, Prevention and Control, and Declaration through Labeling 
November 2015

[from the document - page
Purpose 
 
This document provides guidance to assist establishments in addressing the hazard posed by allergens in their products. In doing so, establishments must comply with the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) and labeling regulations. 

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Applying the Drug Guidance "Circumstances that Constitute Delaying, Denying, Limiting, or Refusing a Drug Inspection" to Food Operations

FDA recently issued a guidance for drug related companies titled "Circumstances that Constitute Delaying, Denying, Limiting, or Refusing to Permit Drug Inspection". Some have suggested that this type of guidance may be extended to food processing facilities that fall under FDA jurisdiction.

It is stated in this guidance:
It is a prohibited act under sections 301(e) and 301(f) of the FD&C Act to refuse to permit entry or inspection or refuse to permit access to or copying of certain specified records.10 New section 501(j) of the FD&C Act, as added by FDASIA section 707, now deems a drug to be adulterated if "…it has been manufactured, processed, packed, or held in any factory, warehouse, or establishment and the owner, operator, or agent of such factory, warehouse, or establishment delays, denies, or limits an inspection, or refuses to permit entry or inspection."
 Basically, if they can't see what they want, when they want, that product is adulterated.

The categories defined in the guidance include 1) Delay of inspection (pushing back an inspection, holding up during an inspection, delaying of getting records), 2) Denial of inspection, 3) Limiting an inspection (limiting access, limiting photography, limiting access to records or the copying of those records, and limiting or preventing the collection of samples, and 4) Refusal to permit entry.

It may be worth the time to gain an understanding of this guidance and what constitutes the definitions in preventing access.  http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM360484.pdf