Finished Product and Finished Product Ingredient Testing Requirements Lessons from Georgia Food Processing Plants
Natalie Adan
Georgia Department of Agriculture
International Food Protection Training Institute
2010 Fellow in Applied Science, Law and Policy: Fellowship in Food Protection
Abstract
The Georgia Department of Agriculture promulgated and implemented regulations that require finished product and finished product ingredient testing for Georgia food processing plants beginning in May 2010. The processing plants are required to conduct routine finished product and finished product ingredient testing for the presence of poisonous or deleterious substances or other contaminants that render such foods or ingredients injurious to health according to the risk(s) associated with the food(s) produced by the plant. Once a food product becomes a finished product and/or finished product ingredient, the food has reached a critical point. The food product has the potential to cause a foodborne illness if the critical control points are not successfully identified and sufficiently controlled, or if the product is adulterated and/or contaminated after this point. This study examines the opinions and resulting effects created by the finished product and finished product testing requirements on the Georgia food processing plants. An online survey was submitted to Georgia food processing plants, inquiring about the effects and reactions toward the finished product and finished product ingredient testing requirements as described in the Georgia Senate Bill 80 (O.C.G.A § 26-2-27 et seq.) and regulations developed by the Georgia Department of Agriculture to support the law. The survey results show that few negative effects were experienced by processing plants and that the processing plants have used this opportunity to make positive improvements and change various business practices. A majority of the Georgia food processing plants agree that the finished product and finished product ingredient testing requirements are beneficial for food safety.
Background
According to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 48 million people in the U.S. suffer from foodborne illnesses each year, of which an estimated 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). To reduce the incidence of foodborne illness in the United States, federal, state, and local government agencies are working together to develop a more integrated food safety system designed to better coordinate the resources available at all levels of government. One of the elements necessary to successfully implement an integrated system is regulatory reform and preventative-based food safety regulations. These regulations may include the need for food processors to conduct finished product and finished product ingredient testing as a means of verifying the safety of the products the food processors produce. Finished product and finished product ingredient testing is now a requirement for food processing plants in Georgia.
Senator John Bulloch was the author of Georgia Senate Bill 80, which was created and passed during the 2009 legislative session. Through Senator Bulloch’s approach, the Georgia Department of Agriculture received approval from the State legislature for the addition of a new food processing program geared toward strengthening the state’s food protection system. The Bill was created in response to foodborne outbreaks including the most recent outbreak involving a peanut manufacturing company in Georgia. On May 1, 2009, Governor Sonny Perdue signed into Georgia law the Georgia Senate Bill 80 (O.C.G.A § 26-2-27 et seq.). Former U.S. Representative from Georgia, Kevin Levitas, stated “Senator Bulloch broke new ground with the passage of Senate Bill 80, which has become a model food safety legislation for other states across the country to follow” (Governor Signs, 2010). The Georgia Department of Agriculture was charged with promulgating regulations to support this Bill. Chapter 40-7-18 (Additional Regulations Applicable to Processing Plants) outlines the regulations applicable to food processing plants pursuant to the Georgia Food Act and complies with Senate Bill 80 (O.C.G.A § 26-2-27 et seq.) that was passed during the 2009 legislative session. The law, and ultimately the regulations, require that the food processing plants in Georgia conduct finished product and finished product ingredient testing.
In addition to finished product and finished product ingredient testing, the food processing plants are required to report positive test results within 24 hours to the Georgia Department of Agriculture, as well as through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Reportable Food Registry. This reporting requirement allows for a comprehensive investigation to determine the reason for the positive result. The processing plants in Georgia are further required to maintain testing records, which the Georgia inspectors review during routine inspections. Processing plants that fail to conduct the required testing, to report positive results, and/or to maintain the required records will be subject to civil penalties (including monetary fines) and/or charged with a misdemeanor or felony. The food processing plants in Georgia are encouraged to have a Written Food Safety Plan, which consists of a prerequisite program, records, and other components. The inspector will review the Written Food Safety Plan and verify that the firm is implementing the firm’s plan. The additional responsibilities placed on the food processing plants in Georgia have initiated more frequent communication between inspectors and the food processing plant resulting in a stronger relationship and a more unified approach to food safety.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 4, 2011. Through the FSMA, food facilities regulated by the U.S Food and Drug Administration are required to have a written preventive control plan, to monitor the food safety controls identified, and to indicate the corrective actions to be taken in the event that the controls are not met. These requirements have the potential of identifying any discrepancies in the firms Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan and will require firms that do not have any type of structured system in place to create one. The FSMA also “recognizes the importance of strengthening the existing collaboration between federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, and foreign food safety agencies to achieve our public health goals” (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2011). Through this integrated food safety system, all parties involved will be able to get the support needed to achieve an improved food safety system.
Problem Statement
Finished product and finished product ingredient testing is not designed to be a standalone process for food safety. A food processing plant cannot rely solely on testing of finished product results, but instead should use testing as one method of verification for the facility’s overall food safety plan. The ability to detect contaminated or adulterated foods before the unsafe foods enter the market place can reduce foodborne illness outbreaks from occurring. The new requirements for finished products and finished product ingredients testing hold the food industry to a new level of accountability.
Foodborne illness is a significant public health burden that is largely preventable if everyone in today’s global food chain is held responsible and accountable at each step for controlling hazards that can cause illness. The management staff of each food processing plant must identify any potential hazards associated with producing their product and verify that these hazards have been controlled. Gombas and Stevenson state that “Verification is to the HACCP plan what monitoring is to the critical control point (CCP)” (Gombas & Stevenson, 2000). Therefore, individual facilities should have a food safety plan in place that focuses on the critical control points in each process at the individual facilities, and one that includes verification of the entire food safety system, including the HACCP plan, prerequisite programs (PRPs), and other system components (Stier & Surak, April/May 2010). The full food safety program will therefore assist in the detection and prevention of adulterated products before the food is distributed into the market place. Codex Alimentarius Commission describes verification as “the application of methods, procedures, tests, and other evaluations, in addition to monitoring, to determine whether a control measure is or has been operating as intended” (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2008).
Research Questions
When the State of Georgia’s regulations requiring finished product and finished product ingredient testing were first submitted for public comment, Georgia food processing industry members voiced several concerns. This study examined these concerns from the industry members’ unique perspectives:
1) Does a finished product testing requirement create a hardship for small businesses?
2) Are regulations, if necessary, more effective on a national level?
3) Will regulations result in any positive change?
Methodology
An online survey was submitted to Georgia food processing plants, inquiring about the effects of and the reactions toward the finished product and finished product ingredient testing requirements as described in the Georgia Senate Bill 80 (O.C.G.A § 26-2-27 et seq.) and the regulations developed by the Georgia Department of Agriculture to support the law.
A current list of small, medium, and large food processing plants licensed in Georgia was obtained from Georgia Department of Agriculture. This list consists of 722 food processing plants. Chapter 40-7-18-.10 (1) of the Additional Regulations Applicable to Processing Plants allows certain food processing plants an exemption from the testing requirements. Fluid milk, bottled water, and shellfish products are regulated by specific laws and are therefore exempt from these testing requirements. Raw agricultural products are also exempt from the testing requirements as raw agricultural products are not considered finished products. Additionally, small businesses producing low volume products are exempt from the testing requirements but must submit supporting documentation to the Georgia Department of Agriculture. Of the 722 Georgia food processing plants, 167 are exempt from the testing requirements; the remaining 555 processing facilities are affected by the new testing requirements.
The survey was electronically submitted to food processing plants that were affected by the testing requirements and had current e-mail contact information in the Georgia Department of Agriculture’s database. In order to prevent duplicate responses, the survey was sent to one individual at each company, even if a company had multiple locations and contact individuals in Georgia. As a result of this selection method, the survey was sent to 298 (53%) food processing plants, resulting in 87 responses (29%). Because the effects could be different for various-sized type operations, and since the survey was anonymous, one of the questions in the survey was related to the estimated size of the company according to the amount of product produced. The questions in the survey were written in a way to address the impacts of the testing requirements on affected industries in Georgia, the benefits of these requirements, and the overall opinion from the food industry that has been affected.
Results
The survey results illustrate the opinions and resulting effects created by the finished product and finished product testing requirements on the Georgia food processing plants. A majority (45%) of the responses to the survey was from firms that categorized themselves as producing a small amount of food products, with 39% of the responding firms producing a medium amount of food, and 16% of the responding firms producing a large amount of food.
The first question in the survey addressed the industry’s opinion of the new testing requirements. The responses show that close to half of the companies that completed the survey responded with mixed (positive and negative) feelings about the testing requirements, while 32% of the respondents indicated that the respondents’ experience was exclusively positive (Figure 1).
The next group of questions asks about any negative effects the requirements have had on the industry and any positive improvements and/or changes made due to the testing requirements. The survey results show that only 22% of the contacts at the food processing plants that responded to the survey indicated that the testing requirements had affected business in a negative way (Figure 2), and 41% made positive improvements/changes due to the testing requirements (Figure 3).
The next question asked if the food processing plant changed any business practices due to the testing requirements. As a result of the testing requirements, 37% of the food processing plants that responded to the survey made no changes in the plants’ business practices, 56% made minimal changes, and only 7% made significant changes in business practices (Figure 4).
The survey asked respondents whether or not the survey participants consider the testing requirements to be beneficial to food safety. Results show that 75% of the food processing plants that responded to the survey agree that the finished product and finished product ingredient testing requirements are beneficial for food safety (Figure 5).
The food processing plants were also asked if the survey participants thought the testing requirements would be more effective at the federal level, with 82% responding that the testing requirements would not be more effective at the federal level (Figure 6).
Conclusions
The research findings demonstrate the commitment that the food processing plants have toward food safety and the progressive methods that the food processors will use to achieve further prevention of foodborne illness. These results reinforce the conclusion that the food processing plants are committed to making the necessary enhancements to improve food safety and reduce foodborne illness. Because the testing requirements are new to Georgia, the processing plants have had a little less than a year to feel the effects on the food processing plants’ business. Of the Georgia food processors that responded to the study survey, 75% agree that the testing requirements are advantageous to food safety, although the food processors do not believe this requirement should be administered from the federal level.
Recommendations
As the US strives to build an integrated food safety system, the importance of including the food industry in this partnership is imperative. As described in an IBM Center for the Business of Government article, “closer engagement between public and private sectors can reduce the scale and scope of food contamination events by providing enhanced prevention and improved monitoring and surveillance to ensure a more efficient response.” The article goes on to say: “by working together to implement risk-based and customized process controls based on mutually agreed-upon performance standards, many food contamination events can be prevented” (Greis & Nogueira, 2010). Finished product and finished product ingredient testing is one example of a verification method for ensuring that controls are in place. This type of testing is only a portion of an overall food safety plan that each food processing plant could apply.
Currently, Georgia is the only state that requires finished product and finished product ingredient testing. Food processing plants in Georgia are not operating on a level playing field with other food processing plants operating in other states. As industry standards evolve and as the prevention of contamination and/or adulteration becomes top priority, using finished product testing as a method of verification may become the standard. John G. Surak, PhD stated, “It is interesting to note that the use of HACCP in the United States was driven by the marketplace rather than by regulations” (Surak, 2009).
Ultimately, the regulatory agencies and the food industry share the goal of providing a service to the consumer – safe food. The benefits of this type of partnership are apparent during the process of working together for an easier transition toward change. If regulatory agencies and food industry can agree on the benefits to the consumer, the efforts made to realize the goal of providing safe food will be easily met and beneficial for all parties involved, including the consumer.
Additionally, collaboration and transparency between all levels of food regulatory agencies, as well as with the food processing plants, is the critical infrastructure that will be used to build a unified force towards food safety. As the partners work together, the result will provide a safer food product and reduce the incidence of foodborne illnesses in the United States.
Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without the extraordinary efforts of many people, all of whom are passionate about achieving and furthering the food safety efforts. I would like to extend my thanks to the International Food Protection Training Institute (IFPTI) for developing and funding the Fellowship in Food Protection Program, which is the future of food safety, and the Subject Matter Experts that participated in this program. I owe a special thanks to my mentor in the Fellowship program, Joe Corby, whose knowledge and dedication is remarkable and deeply appreciated. I am grateful to the Georgia food processing plants for completing the survey to assist in a better understanding of the effects the testing requirements have had on the food industry in Georgia. I offer my sincere appreciation to Oscar Garrison, Division Director for the Georgia Department of Agriculture Consumer Protection Division, whose guidance and teaching have made my attendance and success in this program possible, and to the Georgia Department of Agriculture, which allowed me the time to participate in this program.
Corresponding Author:
Natalie Adan, Georgia Department of Agriculture. Email: Natalie.Adan@agr.georgia.gov
References
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010, December 15). New estimates more precise. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r101215.html
Codex Alimentarius Commission. (2008). Guideline for the validation of food safety control measures. CAC/GL 69 , 2.
Gombas, D., & Stevenson, K. (2000). HACCP verification and validation. Washington, DC: Food Processors Institute.
Governor signs SAFE Act into law. (2010, May 25). The Weekly Newspaper Peachtree Corners/Norcross/Berkely Lake/Duluth.
Greis, N., & Nogueira, M. (2010). Food safety - Emerging public - Private approaches: A perspective for local, state, and federal government leaders. IBM Center for the Business of Government, p. 6.
Stier, R. F., & Surak, J. G. (April/May 2010). Verification: Making sure Your food safety management system is working. Food Safety Magazine .
Surak, J. G. (2009). The evolution of HACCP: A perspective on today's most effective food safety system. Food Quality .
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2011). The FDA food safety modernization act (FDMA): Key facts. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm237934.htm