Traceability coverage

I've been frustrated in finding the complete record of testimony provided at the Oct. 16 FDA traceability hearing, as the FDA site has not been updated to reflect the testimony, and the presentations have not been posted on any federal docket. Thanks to Luis of the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group for his post this morning on the "FDA wish list" for produce traceability. Note that the FDA doesn't believe the Bioterrorism Act is good enough; David Acheson has given up on winning total agreement on what should be done and instead is invoking the 80-20 rule. Once 80 percent of stakeholders agree, worry about the other 20 percent later. From InsideHealth Policy and the post:

The Bioterrorism Act falls short of giving FDA the power it needs to trace foodborne outbreaks back to the source, leaving the agency to address challenges that the legislation wasn't designed to address, an FDA official said Thursday (Oct. 16).

"The Bioterrorism Act is certainly a significant improvement over what we had in the past; basically we didn't have any requirements," food center Emergency Coordinator Sherri McGarry said at a public meeting in College Park, MD. But she said challenges remain.

For example, McGarry said current invoicing procedures make it difficult to track products moving in and out of warehouses, and urged industry to help find a solution.

She noted that produce arriving at a warehouse is noted on invoices, and within those invoices there are multiple line items for different types of produce, each with its own code. Then when the produce leaves the warehouse, it often is given a different code.

McGarry referred to this situation as a lack of "connectivity."

FDA doesn't want all types of produce to be identified the same way because that would make it impossible to tell them apart. But McGarry said it would be nice if, within invoices, items coming into a warehouse could be matched with items leaving the warehouse.

Read more of FDA's comments at the Discussion Group...