Bioterrorism Threats Fuel Food Defense at the Federal Level

The LS Programs binding requirement of having in place a written and verifiable Food Defense Program could be a herald semaphore of change for the 6,000 FSIS/USDA inspected meat, poultry and egg establishments nationwide.

Although the FDA’s Bioterrorism Act of 2002 is not applicable to meat, poultry and egg plants, (because they are exclusively regulated by the USDA as per 21 CFR 1.2777 (b)), it would be sagacious for USDA establishments to register and abide in full to the regulatory requirements set by the FDA. Though statistics are not available on how many FSIS plants have a viable Plant Defense Program presently in place, it’s rather alarming that meat, poultry and egg plants are not required by FSIS, the FDA, or any other regulatory agency, to have in place a verifiable Food Defense Program.

Meat, poultry and eggs products exported into the U.S. from another country must be equivalent to all FSIS safety standards and regulations that are applied to foods produced in the United States. Imports must originate in eligible countries and from establishments certified by the country’s inspection service as being eligible to export to the U.S.

When an incoming shipment has met US Custom Service requirements. FSIS inspectors will check the documents to ensure the shipment is properly certified by the foreign country. Inspectors will examine each shipment for general conditions and labeling and then conduct inspection assignments.

Products that pass re-inspection are stamped with the USDA mark of inspection and are allowed to enter U.S. commerce for distribution. Products that do not meet U.S. requirements are stamped “U.S. Refused Entry” and are exported or destroyed within 45 days.

As a final point, the FSIS has in place a Technical Service Center, (TSC) with a well qualified staff available for both industry and the general public. The TSC serves as the agency’s hub for technical assistance and guidance regarding, among other things, the implementation of national policies, food safety and security directives.

An establishment’s Food Defense Program should be similarly structured on the guidelines of a HACCP System. There must also be total and unwavering commitment from top management. A Plant Defense committee should be developed with scheduled meetings held with a quorum developed and minutes recorded for future references.

Periodically, a documented risk reassessment of the defense program should be carried out to ensure all facets of the program are working as intended. Any deviations that occur should be corrected and noted on a correction action log, including preventive measures. Likewise, any amendments to the program should be documented with a description of the revisions.

Employers should view all of their employees as the “keystones” for their Plant Defense Programs. Employees continuously enter, meander and exit plant buildings every working day and night. They can be deterrent factors as well as a source of vigilant eyes.

The Food Defense Program should be proprietary in nature and be considered a company trade secret. In the last several years third-party customer audits, (Silliker Laboratories, AIB, Steritech. Food Safety Net Services, etc.,) have added Food Security Defense/ Bioterrorism evaluations to their audit checklists. This could create a risk of purloined documents being accessed including back-door exposures via the Freedom of Information Act.

To counter this, a company letterhead stating that a review of the plant’s written defense program is a company trade secret but a general overview can be offered. An epigrammatic synopsis highlighting the plants security program should be developed and presented to the auditor. Together with obvious visual safeguards in the semblance of hired security guards, ID cards, surveillance cameras, sign-in sheets, and posted security signs should collectively suffice in placating both the auditor and governmental inspectors.