Understanding the Food Safety Modernization Act and the role of quality practitioners in the management of food safety and quality systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the key requirements of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), recently passed by the US Congress to safeguard the nation's food supply, and to ascertain the role of quality professionals in the management of food safety and quality systems for food facilities. Design/methodology/approach Since genesis of the Act emanates mainly from the recent upsurge in food disease outbreaks in North America, key lessons learnt from the 2008 Listeriosis outbreak in Canada were reviewed. Thereafter, a case study of developing a food safety and quality management system for a “very low risk facility” – i.e. a third party warehouse – was considered. Finally, potential connections between the sections of the FSMA and roles of various quality practitioners were discussed. Findings Recent study at the third party logistics warehouse revealed developing and implementing pre‐requisite programs (PRPs), i.e. mainly operational and physical controls, had a positive impact on the food safety and quality management system (FSQMS). Hence, quality practitioners may focus on PRPs to enhance compliance to FSMA requirements. Practical implications Food production, processing, packaging and/or distribution companies that export their products to the USA, as well as enterprises requiring preventive controls to ensure food safety and quality, can greatly benefit from the services of quality practitioners. Other key inputs the practitioners provide to the FSQMS include costs reduction, value addition, defects prevention, process control, maintenance and improvement. Originality/value The paper closely studies quality practitioners’ perspectives towards meeting or even exceeding the new food safety regulatory expectations in food‐related institutions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".