Proposed SEC 507.33(d)(6) would require that the hazard evaluation consider the effects of packaging activities and labeling activities on the safety of finished animal food. For example, the hazards that are reasonably likely to occur would be different depending on whether the animal food product is distributed in bulk form or packaged in bags. Labels on food for livestock would direct the person feeding animals to use the correct food product for the intended animal species. For example, it is well known that feeding food products to sheep that were intended for other ruminant animal species such as cattle can lead to copper toxicity (poisoning); proper labeling would help to guard against sheep being fed animal food products that are unsafe for sheep.
Proposed SEC 507.33(d)(7) would require that the hazard evaluation consider the effects of storage and distribution on the safety of finished animal food. For example, biological hazards are more likely to be a hazard that is reasonably likely to occur during storage and distribution in animal food products that require refrigerated storage to maintain safety than in shelf-stable foods. Shelf-stable foods are designed such that biological hazards are controlled.
Proposed SEC 507.33(d)(8) would require that the hazard evaluation consider the intended or reasonably foreseeable use on the safety of finished animal food. For example, gossypol, a natural toxin commonly occurs in cottonseed food products, can cause severe illness in immature ruminants and young pigs, but the older animals can tolerate low levels of the chemical hazard in their diets. Therefore gossypol would be identified as a hazard of concern if it is reasonably likely to occur at low levels in food for immature ruminants and young pigs but less of a concern in food for older ruminants and for mature pigs.
Proposed SEC 507.33(d)(9) would require that the hazard evaluation consider the effects of sanitation, including employee hygiene, on the safety of finished animal food. Sanitation measures and practices can impact the likelihood of a hazard being introduced into animal food. For example, the frequency with which a production line in a pet food facility is shut down for a complete cleaning can impact the potential for food residues to transfer pathogens from equipment to foods (e.g., pathogens present on raw meat products that could carry over into the next production cycle on a line). Practices directed at worker health and hygiene can reduce the potential for transfer of pathogens such as Salmonella. To the extent that these controls are necessary for the safety of the animal food product, they may need to be listed as preventive controls.
Proposed SEC 507.33(d)(10) would require that the hazard evaluation consider the effect of any other relevant factors that might potentially affect the safety of the finished animal food. For example, an unexpected natural disaster could flood some or all of a facility, creating insanitary conditions and potentially contaminating the facility with harmful microorganisms or chemical residues. Following a natural disaster, environmental contaminants that could be brought into the facility could be hazards reasonably likely to occur in a facility that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds animal food.
Further discussion of the hazard analysis, including comparison to HACCP, can be found in section XII.B of the document for the proposed rule for preventive controls for human food (78 FR 3646).
Most Popular Stories
- NSA Defends Global Cellphone Tracking Legality
- Top Websites for U.S. Hispanics
- Ad Counts Rise in 2013 for Hispanic Magazines
- Networks Vie for U.S. Hispanic TV Viewers
- Saab Gets Back into the Game; U.S. Auto Sales Soar
- Apple Activates Customer-Tracking iBeacon
- Dell Offers Undisclosed Number of Employee Buyouts
- 2013 Tech Gift Guide: iPad Mini Still Hot; Chromecast a Great Low-Cost Option
- A Biography of Jonathan Ive, Apple's Creative Chief
- Authorities Close to Deal with JPMorgan Chase over Madoff Response