2 minutes reading time (304 words)

What is missing from the proposed rule for intentional contamination (Part 1)

People that have been working with Food Defense will notice some things that they have previously focused on that are missing from the proposed rule for intentional contamination. In this post we will discuss one of them.

The explanation of the proposed rule uses the term "terrorist attack" throughout and clarifies that it is predominantly focused on preventing that type of attack which could result in the largest possible consequence to human health.

In the recent past, training materials from the FDA have discussed multiple additional vectors from which an intentional contamination might be made. Those include disgruntled employees, angry competitors and economically motivated adulteration.

 

While the focus after 9/11 was on a potential terrorist attack, recent commentary seems to indicate that acts of disgruntled employees, while potentially smaller in scope, are far more likely and therefore worthy of additional attention. In a similar way, concern for economically motivated adulteration has increased as actual events in recent years have garnered global attention.

The proposed rule all but omits all of these other vectors with its focus on a large scale event like a terrorist attack. This focus on preventing a large-scale attack is a departure from traditional food safety where we have been cautious to avoid even a single illness or death.

The proposed rule does ask for comments regarding economically motivated adulteration, which conceivably could be addressed more directly in the future. The proposed rule also points out (correctly in my opinion) that efforts which reduce the likelihood of a terrorist attack can at least help reduce the risk of attack by a disgruntled employee.

This is a "sea change" in our traditional approach in food safety and occupational safety, where our goal for incidents is zero. It will require some adjustment in our thoughts as we build our food defense programs.

Do you need to schedule snow days in Florida?
FDA Publishes Proposed Rule for Intentional Contam...
 

Comments

Already Registered? Login Here
No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment

Most Popular Blogs

The FSMA proposed rule on intentional contamination provides two ways to determine what are called "actionable process steps."  This is a facility and process-specific "point, step or procedure" ...
13753 Hits
Missing from the proposed FSMA (Food Safety Modernization Act) rule on intentional contamination is any requirement for "broad mitigation strategies."  In this article we will explore the implica...
13622 Hits
The proposed FSMA rule for intentional contamination uses the phrase "a person knowledgeable about food defense" in several places. What it doesn't tell you is how to choose a consultant (internal or ...
13603 Hits
People that have been working with Food Defense will notice some things that they have previously focused on that are missing from the proposed rule for intentional contamination. In this post we will...
12974 Hits
In Part 1 of this blog we discussed the first of two approaches for determining "actionable process steps."  This is a facility-specific "point, step, or procedure" in a food process where there ...
12948 Hits