TSCA Reform Center
TSCA Reform Center
Professionals By Name
Professionals By Practice Area
Professionals By Location
Advertising and Promotion
California's Proposition 65
Business Counseling and Transactional
Chemical Control REACH
Employment and Labor
Environmental and Toxic Tort Litigation
Food and Drug
Tobacco and E-Vapor
Health and Safety Compliance Audit
International Regulatory Affairs
Nanotechnology Strategy, Regulation and Defense
Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR)
Privacy and Internet
Product Stewardship, Green Chemistry and Sustainability
Trade and Professional Associations
Workplace Safety and Health
Washington, DC Office
San Francisco Office
News & Events
Summer Associate Program
FDA Extends Enforcement Discretion on Certain FSMA Provisions
Jan 09, 2018
On January 5, 2018, FDA published a Guidance for Industry, "
Policy Regarding Certain Entities Subject to the Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Preventive Controls, Produce Safety, and/or Foreign Supplier Verification Programs
" and associated
83 Fed. Reg. 598
. The guidance immediately extends enforcement discretion to four types of entities and activities as follows:
Facilities that conduct farm-related activities that are subject to the preventive control (PC) requirements;
Written assurances in the "customer provisions" in the PC Human Food, PC Animal Food, foreign supplier verification program (FSVP) and Produce Safety rules;
Importation of food-contact substances (FCSs) under FSVP; and
Certain manufacturing/processing activities for human food by-products for use as animal food.
FDA is extending enforcement discretion and possibly changing the definition of "Farm" to clarify whether the food is subject to the Produce Safety, PC Human Food or PC Animal Food rules. As currently defined, Farm activities are limited to:
Growing crops or raising animals,
Other "farm-related activities"
Drying/dehydrating Raw Agricultural Commodities (RACs) to create a distinct commodity (like raisins or dried beans),
Treating RACs to manipulate ripening, and
Packaging and labeling RACs and RACs that have been dried/dehydrated to create a distinct commodity or treated to manipulate ripening.
Further, to be a Farm these activities must be performed where the crop is grown (the "primary production farm") or at a second site that is majority owned (singly or jointly) by the primary production farm(s) that grows, harvests, and/or raises the majority of the RACs harvested, packed, held, or undergoing farm-related activities at the facility.
FDA is re-evaluating whether facilities should be treated as Farms for the purposes of the CGMP and PC rules if the operation would be a Farm except that any or a combination of the following are true:
The operation would be a secondary activities farm except that it fails to meet the common ownership requirement;
FDA acknowledges that the purposes for requiring common ownership may be met despite a lack of common ownership and it wishes to consider whether the requirement should be changed
The operation colors RACs;
FDA defines RAC as including
but failed to include this operation within the definition of Farms
FDA wishes to consider whether this discrepancy should be remediated
The facility would meet the definition of a secondary activities farm except that it packs, packages, labels, or holds processed food that consists only of RACs that have been dried or dehydrated to create a distinct commodity;
The act of drying is a farm-related activity if performed on a primary production farm, but a secondary activities farm must be harvesting, holding, packing, labeling, or taking farm-related activities to RACs and not the distinct commodities resulting from drying or dehydrating
FDA wishes to consider whether to include such operations within the definition of Farm
The operation makes silage food for animals
FDA has received comments from industry that this activity is considered part of harvesting within the industry and FDA wishes to consider whether to include this operation within the definition of Farm.
Until it has a chance to undertake rulemaking, FDA is exercising enforcement discretion with regard to:
PC Human Food, PC Animal Food, Animal Food CGMPs, Human Food CGMPs for non-produce RACs for facilities that would be secondary activity farms, but for the common ownership;
PC Human Food and Human Food CGMPs for non-produce RACs for facilities that would be Farms, but that they color RACs;
PC Animal Food and Animal Food CGMPs for facilities that would be Farms, but that they color RACS, and that generate by-products for use as animal food as a result of their coloring operations;
PC Human Food and Human Food CGMPs for non-produce RACs for facilities that would be Farms, but that they pack, package, label, or hold processed food that consists only of RACs that have been dried or dehydrated to create a distinct commodity;
PC Animal Food and Animal Food
for facilities that would be Farms, but that they pack, package, label, or hold processed food that consists only of RACs that have been dried or dehydrated to create a distinct commodity and that generate byproducts for use as animal food as a result of their coloring operations; and
and PC Animal Food for facilities that make silage food for animals.
Written Assurances under the "Customer Provisions"
Under the current PC Human Food rule, where a hazard will be controlled by a downstream processor, the manufacturer must identify which hazards have not been controlled and get written assurances that its customer will control for those hazards. 21 CFR §§ 117.136(a)(2) - (a)(4). There are equivalent provisions within the PC Animal Food rule (21 CFR §§ 507.36(a)(2) - (a)(4)), Produce Safety rule (21 CFR §§ 112.2(b)(2) - (b)(4) and (b)(6)), and FSVP rule (21 CFR § 1.507). FDA has received many comments that the requirement for written assurances will result in vastly more customer assurances being issued than FDA had considered when making the rule. Thus, FDA is extending enforcement discretion to the written customer assurance provisions. Manufacturers, processors, importers
farmers must still disclose to their customers which relevant hazards have not been controlled. Customers are still required to not introduce or deliver for introduction adulterated food into interstate commerce, which means that they will still have to handle these hazards in their own food safety plan. In the meantime, FDA will consider rulemaking regarding the written assurance provisions.
Importation of Food-Contact Substances (FCSs) under FSVP
The FSVP requires that food importers analyze the hazards of the foods imported and evaluate their foreign suppliers. Under the FSVP rule, the definition of "food" includes food contact substances (FCSs; any substance that is intended for use as a component of materials used in manufacturing, packing, packaging, transporting, or holding food if such use is not intended to have any technical effect in the food). FDA is extending enforcement discretion with regard to the application of FSVP to imported FCSs. FDA will continue to enforce the prohibition against the introduction or delivery for introduction of adulterated food into interstate commerce. FDA decided to exempt FCSs from FSVP for the following reasons: (1) FCSs generally are demonstrated to be safe through food contact notifications (FCNs) or food additive petitions (FAPs); (2) the PC Human Food rule does not include FCSs in the supply chain requirements (21 CFR Part 117 Subpart G); and (3) FCSs present a low risk to health. Keller and Heckman
published a more detailed
regarding FSVP and FCSs.
Certain Manufacturing/Processing Activities for Human Food By-Products for Use as Animal Food
Facilities that manufacture human food, but which also separate and hold by-products for use in animal food are subject to PC Human Food rule, Human Food CGMPs, and Animal Food CGMPs related to holding and distribution (21 CFR § 507.28) or the equivalent for human food (21 CFR § 117.95). If there is any additional processing, all animal food CGMPs must be followed. FDA has made it clear that the only permissible further manufacturing permitted to remain within the former scenario is passive dewatering and holding by-products at
to facilitate transportation. FDA received comments describing other activities that may also be done to facilitate holding (see below) and has determined that
these processes will not affect safety if done in compliance with CGMP requirements (either human or animal food). More complex manufacturing steps that might impact safety, however, may require the additional protections. As a result, FDA intends to consider changes to the requirements and is exercising enforcement discretion in the following circumstances:
Drying/dehydrating, evaporating, pressing, chopping, and similar activities to reduce weight, bulk, or volume, and/or
, combining different vegetable culls and trimmings, combining juice and dairy by-products, stirring), centrifuging, and similar activities to combine ingredients or separate components (
, water and solids).
The enforcement discretion does not apply when these activities are performed to prevent or significantly minimize animal food hazards or when these activities introduce animal food hazards.
If you have any questions about the guidance document or any other Food Law issues, please contact Mel Drozen (202.434.4222,
), Devon Hill (202.434.4279,
), Eve Pelonis (202.434.4106,
), or Benjamin Wolf (202.434.4103,
). For more information on our Food Law Practice in general, visit
Melvin S. Drozen
Devon Wm. Hill
Evangelia C. Pelonis
Benjamin K. Wolf
Food & Drug
Join our Mailing List
© 2018 Keller and Heckman LLP. All rights reserved