Will FSVP Shed Light on Food Safety or Keep it in the Dark?

From the standpoint of consumers, Option 1 is without question the only option. As noted above, we often fear what we cannot see. Option 1, for all practical purposes, is the only option that actually “turns on the lights” with respect to foreign food products. If enacted, each foreign supplier of high risk foods will be required to have an audit. In order to pass that audit, the foreign food product supplier will be required to establish it satisfies, with only a few exceptions, each of the more stringent requirements of FSMA. Unless this option is selected for enforcement by FDA, importers will be able to select any one of the less stringent verification procedures requiring only “periodic” checks of records or testing, and many foreign food product suppliers who remain unable to pass a simple audit will continue to exist unregulated and unsupervised in the shadows. From the standpoint of the consumer, choosing the wrong path could have catastrophic consequences.

So, if you join me in the basement to escape for a moment the politics of global food safety and foreign trade (which in this business is nearly impossible to do), I offer the following advice: If the real goal is to improve the safety of foreign food product imports, then Option 1 is the best choice. Option 1 will quickly and brightly illuminate noncompliant suppliers, will improve the quality and safety of all imported foods, and, in doing so, will save lives.

FDA has given stakeholders until November 26, 2013 to comment on the two competing rules. I urge you to comment on the option you like best, but warn that the choice you make could, quite literally, mean the difference between someone’s life and death.

Stevens, an attorney at Gass Weber Mullins LLC in Milwaukee, Wis., counsels food industry clients nationally on food safety regulatory and liability issues. He can be reached at [email protected].