PMA Comments On FDA’s Proposed FSMA Implementation Work Plans

In written comments submitted today to the FDA proposed Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) implementation work plans (Focus on Implementation Strategy for Prevention-Oriented Food Safety Standards), Produce Marketing Association (PMA) again supported the need for increased funding for FDA’s food safety budget, including the appropriation of an additional $109.5 million in new budget authority. However, PMA clearly outlined its opposition to funding FSMA implementation through the imposition of user fees, inspection fees, or registration fees by federal or state governments.

Advertisement

Click here for PMA’s FSMA Overview…

“PMA and its members absolutely understand that FDA needs sufficient budgetary resources for food safety tools, infrastructure, and personnel to appropriately implement FSMA,” said Dr. Jim Gorny, PMA’s vice president of food safety and technology. “However, we believe these financial resources should come from the Federal budget rather than unfairly and disproportionally falling on the food industry sector.”

The comments also highlighted three areas of most concern to members:

  • Education And Technical Assistance For Industry: Gorny outlined that the Administration’s Federal Budget appropriations request of $11.5 million for industry education and technical assistance is, “[…] woefully inadequate given the sheer number of regulated business that will be affected by the FSMA regulations.”

    The association suggested greater federal government resources need to be authorized and appropriated for FSMA education and technical assistance to industry particularly for Land Grant University Cooperative Extension Services. “It is imperative that sufficient resources be allocated to educate industry about FSMA implementation and compliance before FDA regulates,” said Gorny.

  • Guidance Development At FDA: The comments expressed a strong desire to engage early, often and repeatedly with FDA on the development of guidance documents for produce industry operations. Gorny requested that, “[…] FDA consider routinely convening a group composed of industry, academia and government subject matter experts to draft and update model compliance guidance for each of the FDA FSMA implementing regulations […].” The comments suggest that group would make recommendations to the agency as to what preventive controls, policies, procedures or practices would address “hazards” appropriately and deem a business to be “in-compliance” with applicable regulations.
  • National Integrated Food Safety System: In the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2016 Federal Budget, the President proposed the possibility of a single Federal Food Safety Regulatory Agency. “While the concept has some merit it would simply be too much, too fast with the impending implementation of FSMA. What’s really needed is a truly national integrated food safety system involving federal, state, local and tribal food safety agencies,” said Gorny.

    PMA expressed support for the role of state governments assisting with education outreach to produce growers and to perform routine FSMA compliance inspections, “[…] because state governments are best positioned to have in-depth working knowledge about produce growers’ and packers’ procedures, policies and practices in their state.”

    Top Articles
    Researchers Look At Challenges to and Solutions for Indoor Farming

    Additionally, the comments requested that FDA provide sufficient time and resources to train produce industry businesses so that they can comply with final rules, as well as training FDA and state regulatory officials regarding agricultural practices. Gorny encouraged FDA to work with stakeholders to harmonize independent third party produce safety market access audit requirements, and to strongly consider the results of those safety audits to reduce redundant inspections by FDA or states that are verifying compliance with the FSMA produce rule.

To read PMA’s comments, visit http://www.pma.com/topics/food-safety/fsma.

Source: PMA press release

0

Leave a Reply

Avatar for Southern Tier Farmer Southern Tier Farmer says:

I think the govt should develop blueprints for a govt approved processing facilities of different sizes based on the size of the farm.. Then the govt should take hard earned tax money from the citizens and build a facility for each farmer who wants one paying 100% of the cost. The govt should also pay 100% of the cost of training each farmer as well as paying for the additional equipment and supplies each farmer would need to meet the govt demands. If “Joe Public” and the govt want safe produce then this is they way can pay for it.

Avatar for keithsrv keithsrv says:

Don’t count on any state or other agency not to go too far. They really do not have the right training anyway and are usually only interested in increasing their regulatory power and selling licenses to get more money. In Ohio they have been issuing food processing licenses to wineries and regulating them as if they are producing a hazardous food product, when there has been no history of any food safety issues as wine kills human pathogens. For information on the unnecessary, superfluous, duplicate (of licensing and sanitation in liquor codes), and discriminatory (in favor of out of state wineries and in state ones producing grape juice) regulation of Ohio wineries by the Ohio Department of Agriculture please see: http://www.FreeTheWineries.com or http://www.facebook.com/FreeTheWineries Do not expect any common sense.

Advertisement