The Food Safety Modernization Act: How not to make food safety law

Posted: October 15th, 2011 - 5:01am by Doug Powell

It’s accepted wisdom among government workers who play hockey that Canada has an outstanding international reputation for designing regulations and is equally terrible at enforcement.

Ron Doering, a former president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency who practices food law in the Ottawa offices of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, writes in his monthly column that despite all the hype, the new U.S. Food Safety Modern¬ization Act (FSMA) signed into law by President Obama on Jan. 4, 2011, is a model of how not to make food safety law.

The Americans labored long and hard and delivered a mouse.

Under the FSMA, some powers of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are enhanced or clarified. For example, the FDA has powers to demand access to and copies of records when there is potential for serious health consequences (Canada has always had this). The FDA has also finally been given the power of mandatory recall after a Hearing (Canada has had this since 1997, without the right of a Hearing); and the FDA has the right to hold food products it has reason to believe are adulterated or misbranded (Canada has always had this).

But FMSA has two fundamental flaws, flaws so serious that the law may end up doing more harm than good. First, the Act provides a broad framework leaving to future regulations the real law. As everyone knows, the FDA is profoundly under-resourced to carry out its exist¬ing mandate — and the House Appropriations Committee recently recommended $285 million in cuts — and yet FMSA requires it to bring in more than 12 Rulemak¬ing regulations and more than 10 Guidance documents. The FDA has admitted it is already behind and that it may take many years before the regulations are enacted.

In the meantime, there will be real legal uncertainty for industry and consumers as the new law will be fully en¬forceable with little guidance on how it will be enforced.

The most serious flaw is the profound disconnect be¬tween the rhetoric about major improvements in food safety and the complete absence of new resources to walk the talk. For example, FDA is required to do 600 foreign facility audits next year and to double the number of audits every year for five years. The FDA has admitted this is completely impossible. As Peter Hutt, the dean of American food law lawyers, has recently observed: “The lack of reality in the statute is staggering.”

The import provisions of FSMA are the most relevant to Canadian exporters and, again, the law is confusing. Under section 301, every U.S. importer is required by January 2013 to carry out foreign supplier verification programs to provide assurances that the imported food meets the same level of public health protection as required of U.S. companies. Yet guidance on how this should be done will not be available on time.

In the meantime, effective immediately under section 303, the FDA has the power to require certification before the product can be imported. Certification can be provided by third-party auditors, but there are no guidelines on how this would be implemented or which entities would be acceptable third-party auditors. At the moment, the FDA is reluctant to accept private-sector audits done, for instance, under the Global Food Safety Initiative, even though they may be the best hope for improving food safety when there are more than 10 million importations of food every year into the U.S. under FDA jurisdiction carried out by over 150,000 importers.

There are lessons here for Canada. Don’t accept the facile argument that the state must move from reaction to prevention. The primary responsibility for food safety rests with industry — the role of the state is to make laws that it enforces, to audit industry’s risk management systems, and to be very good at reacting swiftly and fearlessly to protect the public when there’s a problem. Don’t mislead your citizens by telling them that you’re doing more than you are. And don’t legislate what you can’t enforce.

Ronald L. Doering, BA, LL.B, MA, LL.D, can be reached at: Ronald.doering@gowlings.com

Your rating: None (3 votes)
Bookmark and Share

Comments

Mr. Ajoy Kumar Daspurkayastha says:

If we compare food safety cop with road traffic safety cop then we will find that the road traffic safety cop when stop a speeding vehicle then first ask for the driving liscence. The very first question asked : Is the driver qualified for driving ? The food safety cops in their hands has so many food safety rules, acts ,regulations ,(Food and Drugs Act ,regulations ) programs( Food Safety Enhancement Program),systems(Compliance Verification System)but astonishingly nowhere it is clearly written what is the minimum acceptable qualifications for food safety drivers meaning technical personnel driving the food safety ? It is highly disturbing that in Canada, there is not a single college or, university who offers Bachelor's degree in Food Technology (Applied food science).Our food industry needs the knowledge of Applied Food Science(Food Technology) to tackle food safety upto its soul( to tackle the issues of food borne contaminations at grass-root levels) more than the body itself(completion of food safety paperworks) .Canadian Food Inspection Agency(CFIA) even endorses Nursing degree for applying to the post of Food Processing Specialist.This is again nothing less than an utter surprise . CFIA through Public Service Commission of Canada , undertakes about 6 hours test for Telecommunication Inspector , to get recruited for Food Processing Specialist Inspector is also highly disturbing specially when Canada has to learn lessons from 23 Listeria death in 2008 which is Anti-codex, Anti-Food and Drugs Act, Canada and any related laws, rules and regulations pertaining to food safety in Canada . In 2005, in Guelph food conference , one major recommendations was that Canada should make an organization like "Food Safety Authority of Canada" probably because "Health Canada in many cases fall short of the role of food safety judge or, broadly to act as a food safety policy making body in case we compare its role with the major food trade partner, USA's FDA(Food and Drugs Adminstration)". USA's Indra Nooyi (Pepsico's Chairman,Forbe's fame world's 4th most influential lady)brought health and nutrition research in Company's future/present food development agenda into action with money much excess of the total research and developments funds available for food research in Canadian Food science and research establishments and Canada's last three years cancer statistics says "Every fourth Canadian will die in Cancer " which is extremely disturbing when Canadian food Science and Research establishments for the reason best known to them and Health Canada has extremely low research priority for research on anti-cancer foods. Similarly , the other most disturbing fact is the every 4th Canadian child remains obese . USA has enacted Child Nutrition Act . Recently Canada has done one such not so comparable but still limitted to schools which again has got its own loopholes in terms of implementations.As on today,Canada do not have concrete enforcement/implementation strategy to monitor and enforce the excess coal-tar food dyes in processed foods which could be carcinogenic.Canada has several loopholes in the regulations related to vitamised water , health drinks which sparked controversy recently. In fine, I fully agree ,food safety requires huge qualified facilities,qualified facilitators leading to qualified enforcement which Canada has still to improve a lot beyond any doubt. Last but not the least, the safety of the people who look after the safety of food , is extremely import which USA has given in the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and Canada has yet to do one.

Posted on October 16th, 2011 - 4:48pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.