The FDA answer to the recent recalls appears to be throwing more money at it. Although increased inspection may help in some cases, is it really the answer?

FDA backs proposal for US industry fees to fund food inspections (http://www-t.decisionnewsmedia.com/r/?id=ha404cfd,23b7c82,23bd353&p1=LPN%2Bx1fBYqbG%2FDRG%2FNld%2Bw%3D%3D)

A contentious proposal to compel US food manufacturers to contribute towards safety inspection costs took a step forward yesterday after the Food and Drug Administration signalled its backing for the idea... Read (http://www-t.decisionnewsmedia.com/r/?id=ha404cfd,23b7c82,23bd354&p1=LPN%2Bx1fBYqbljbmWf5ZmzA%3D%3D)

http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/FDA-backs-proposal-for-US-industry-fees-to-fund-food-inspections/?c=LPN%2Bx1fBYqbG%2FDRG%2FNld%2Bw%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BWeekly

Interesting news, Tim. I had heard that after the last peanut butter recall, Kellogg's were in the hole about $70M, so they went to the Feds to ask for some compensation, since clearly the inspections weren't effective.

They were asked 'Have you been monitoring/auditing the supplier......?"

Interesting news, Tim. I had heard that after the last peanut butter recall, Kellogg's were in the hole about $70M, so they went to the Feds to ask for some compensation, since clearly the inspections weren't effective.

They were asked 'Have you been monitoring/auditing the supplier......?"This would be a funny joke except I believe it, given the audacity and parched ethics of modern U.S. management style.

And so, based on that relaity I am in favor of industry paying into a pool - not as a inspection-for-fee structure. The more inspections are required, the more it costs. And I think the recent debacles have shown us inspections really are needed. Since there is an upcoming ISO security standard and the U.S. claims to be interested in protecting the food supply, security can and should be part of this oversight.
:2cents:

I think the bigger issue is the effectiveness of inspections.

I like fee-for-inspection...or rather, fee-for-certification. First level compliance across all FDA areas of responsibility should be based on certification to an appropriate ISO standard, with FDA extensions as needed, and with legally mandated audit frequency.

The FDA should perform inspections only at QSIT Level 2 and For Cause, initiated by non-conformances found in an ISO audit or by non-audit evidence of shortcomings.

NBs within the US who choose to participate in the FDA program should have legal responsibility for audit effectiveness, including forensic overview. NBs should be exposed, by law, to co-civil-liability for their clients' actions and inactions inconsistent with applicable rules and resulting in third party suit for recovery. That's an appropriate foundation for a system that rigorously links risk evaluation to costs.

NBs within the US who choose to participate in the FDA program should have legal responsibility for audit effectiveness, including forensic overview. NBs should be exposed, by law, to co-civil-liability for their clients' actions and inactions inconsistent with applicable rules and resulting in third party suit for recovery. That's an appropriate foundation for a system that rigorously links risk evaluation to costs. I fully agree. Accountability and it should extend to the auditors as well.

Accountability and it should extend to the auditors as well.Absolutely. Accountability is the underlying concept to make any process, system, program work for all stakeholders. I used that word 3 times in this post (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=241252&postcount=10) at the Should Regulatory Agencies require Accredited Certification in their Respective Areas (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=26346&highlight=regulatory) thread.