FDA Funds States’ Efforts to Implement FSMA Produce Rule

FDA awarded almost $31 million in funding last month to help states implement FSMA produce safety programs — on top of the almost $22 million the agency awarded last fall for that purpose. The year-two funding underscores the importance of state partnerships as the agency moves forward with prevention-based oversight of U.S. food safety.

Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said the agency’s partnerships with states are especially critical for fresh fruits and vegetables. Transformation of the U.S. food safety system “can’t happen without the support of state partners who are helping food producers and growers understand and achieve the new requirements promulgated at Congress’ direction,” he said, in announcingthe new funding.

The states applied for funding under two tracks – one covering infrastructure, education, technical assistance, and inventory, and the other also including inspection, compliance and enforcement activities. The level of funding was based on the number of farms growing covered produce within the jurisdiction. So, for example, California ($1.9 million), Pennsylvania ($1.3 million) and Washington state ($1.3 million) were among the top recipients of the 43 total states to receive funds.

Using the new funding, states will, among other activities:

  • Establish a process to develop and maintain a produce farm inventory.
  • Formulate a multi-year plan to implement a produce safety system.
  • Develop a performance measurement system, plan, and/or process to measure progress towards the goals of the cooperative agreement.
  • Evaluate legislative or regulatory authority for produce safety.
  • Provide education, outreach, and technical assistance, prioritizing farming operations covered by the rule.
  • Implement a compliance program for applicable produce safety regulations at the state level.

The funding will help awardees provide education, outreach and technical assistance, Gottlieb said. The agency will also continue its own outreach. “We want to hear from farmers and other food producers to understand what challenges remain and how the FDA can best support their efforts to enhance produce safety,” Gottlieb said.

The agency also recently announced plans to extend the compliance dates for agricultural water standards under the produce rule, and it is considering simplifying those standards.

There are no certainties for future funding, but broad support from states will be a major influence on upcoming appropriations.

Getting Your Medical Device Into the U.S. Market

By EAS Independent Consultant, Joe Ouellette

If you are a manufacturer whose medical device is either a Class I, or a 510(k) exempt device Class II device, consider yourself and your company lucky that you do not have to try to “thread the needle” of the litigious and arduous process known as 510(k) clearance. Getting a device ready for 510(k) submission is usually time-consuming, costly, and full of challenges.

All 510(k)’s are based on the concept of substantial equivalence (SE) to a legally marketed (predicate) device. If you are the maker of a Class II medical device or an IVD and want to launch it in the U.S. market, you must submit a 510(k) to the FDA. For Class III devices, a premarket approval (PMA) submission is needed.

510(k)’s have unique content and format requirements – they are not identical to a European Technical File – and the FDA’s recent changes to 510(k) requirements make the submission process more rigid than ever.

Class II devices are designed to perform as indicated without harming patients or users, but they require a greater level of safety and effectiveness assurance than do Class I devices. Examples include powered wheelchairs, infusion pumps, surgical drapes, surgical needles, suture material, and acupuncture needles.

Class III medical devices do not have enough information to ensure safety and effectiveness through the general or special controls used for Class I or Class II devices. These higher-risk devices need premarket approval (PMA), which includes a scientific review, to ensure their safety and effectiveness. Examples include replacement heart valves, silicone gel-filled breast implants, and implanted cerebral stimulators.

Here are some practical tips for a 510(k) filing:

  • Establish a “Regulatory plan” as early in the process as possible. The regulatory plan should include a list of all the deliverables required. The plan needs to be owned by all the applicable team members not just the person issuing the plan.
  • Don’t be surprised or disheartened that questions will arise despite your best efforts. The FDA is swamped with 510(k) reviews and any deficiency that they can find in your submission allows them to go to the next submission to keep the commitment that the FDA will review all submissions in a timely manner. “Put yourself in the FDA examiner’s shoes”.
  • Don’t try to blind the FDA examiner with excessive or extraneous information in the hope that they will bypass the information for the sake of time. In my experience, the FDA examiners read every document and every page!

The FDA sends back most 510(k)’s during the first review cycle to request more information – in recent years this has applied to more than 70% of 510(k) submissions!

Also, many medical device companies are compiling and submitting 510(k)’s to the FDA for review without establishing a Quality Management System and without documenting Design Controls and without documenting Risk Management which can bode trouble for the submission as well as FDA inspection time.

You might want to consider using a competent consultant or at least asking an objective party to review the submission for completeness before sending it to the FDA. This will minimize the risk of delay and rejections.