Courtney Rheinhart, Food Safety Regional Manager

An Analysis of Regulatory Schemes Used
Throughout the U.S. for Home-Based Food
Businesses: Options Available to
Enhance Food Safety
Courtney Rheinhart
IFPTI 2011 Fellow
Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
Slide 1
Background
• Requests to manufacture food products in private
homes are on the rise
• When food is produced in the private home, often the
same standards of safety cannot be met as those in
the mainstream food processing facilities
• Due to overwhelming support for the cottage food
industry, Virginia has little to no restrictions in regards
to home-based food businesses
Slide 2
Problem Statement
• Home-based food businesses present unique food
safety and defense challenges to regulatory agencies
throughout the U.S.
• State food regulatory agencies may not be aware of
all regulatory options available or the positive impacts
these options may provide
Slide 3
Research Questions
1. What are the commonalities and differences between
state regulatory requirements for home-based food
businesses in the U.S.?
2. How do Virginia’s regulatory requirements compare
to national estimates of state regulatory requirements
for home-based food businesses in the U.S.?
Slide 4
Methodology
• An analysis of existing state regulatory policies and
procedures for home-based food processors was
conducted
• Key personnel from the other 49 state agencies who
are responsible for food-related regulatory programs
were contacted via email and asked to participate in
an online survey
Slide 5
Methodology
• Survey contained 24 questions that were developed
to address regulatory schemes currently used by
other state agencies
• These policies and procedures were then compared
to the approach currently being used by the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(VDACS)
Slide 6
Study Population
Of the 49 state agencies polled throughout the country,
40 responded to the survey.
Slide 7
Results
Of the states that responded:
• 77.5% (31) do permit the sale of home-based food
products
• 22.5% (9) do not permit the sale of home-based food
products
Slide 8
Results (continued)
Of the states that allow the sale of food products
manufactured in the home kitchen:
• 96.8% (30) place restrictions on the types of food
products that can be sold
Slide 9
Results (continued)
• Types of Food Products:
– 57.1% (12) only allow non-PHF
• Of those, three place further restrictions on
specific types of Non PHFs that can be sold
– Only 12.9% (4) allow the sale of PHF
– One state agency answered that they allow the
sale of all types of food products
Slide 10
Results (continued)
Food Products Manufactured in the Home Kitchen
That Can Be Sold
Types of Food Products
Slide 11
Results (continued)
73.3% (22) answered that they place restrictions on where
these products can be sold
Where Food Products Manufactured
in the Home Can Be Sold
Where
Slide 12
Results (continued)
• 45.2% (14) license home-based businesses, while
54.8% (17) do not
• Of the states that responded to the question on
whether they had the authority to inspect home-based
food businesses, 60% (18) stated they did while
33.3% (10) responded they did not, and one (1)
respondent was unsure whether their agency had the
authority to inspect home-based food businesses
• All but two state agencies responded they had some
type of regulatory authority over home-based food
establishments
Slide 13
Results (continued)
• 71.4% (15) responded that they do have inspection
exemptions, while 28.6% (6) responded that they do
not
• 22.2% (6) states responded that they require
operators of home-based businesses to attend some
type of training
Slide 14
Results (continued)
• 93.1% (27 out of 29 states) responded that they
require these type of foods to be labeled
– 51.9% (14) stated the label must include a caveat
that the food was manufactured without inspection
by the state regulatory authority
Slide 15
Results (continued)
• Although 56.7% of state agencies responded that that
they only allow non potentially hazardous food,
VDACS allows both potentially hazardous and non
potentially hazardous food items
• While 73.3% of state agencies place restrictions on
where these types of products can be sold, VDACS
allows these products to be sold anywhere
Slide 16
Conclusions
• Regulatory authority varied greatly among state
agencies
• There is a lack of uniformity in regards to the
regulations used to oversee home-based food
manufacturers
• VDACS does not place as many restrictions on homebased food businesses as other states
Slide 17
Recommendations
• Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO)
should submit their Cottage Foods Regulatory
Guidance document to the Conference of State
Legislatures for potential adoption at the state level
• States should readdress their cottage food guidelines
so that they match up more closely to the guideline
document
• In order to address any lack of regulatory oversight,
state agencies should invest resources in providing
training to operators
Slide 18
References
Article 3.2-5130. Miscellaneous Subjects. (2011). Code of Virginia. Retrieved from http://leg1.state.va.us/cgibin/legp504.exe?000+cod+3.2-5130
Hall, P. A. (2009, March 26). The value of third party independent audits in assuring food
safety:
truly independent? A Presentation at IAFP’s Symposium on Salmonella
in
Peanut
Understanding the Risk and Controlling the Process. Retrieved from
http://www.foodprotection.org/files/rr_presentations/RR_09.pdf
Are they
Products—
Koch, B. (2011). Packaging equipment design and food safety. Food Manufacturing. Retrieved from
http://www.foodmanufacturing.com/scripts/ShowPR~PUBCODE~033~ACCT~0002488~ISSUE~0401~RE
LTYPE~PR~PRODCODE~009955~PRODLETT~A.asp
Scott, E. (2003). Food safety and foodborne disease in 21st century homes. Canadian Journal of Infectious
Diseases, 14(5), 277-280. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2094945/
Sutton, Jim. (2009). Cottage industry may save modern America. Home Run Business. Retrieved from
http://www.homerun-business.com/cottage_industry.htm
Wolfson, Joshua. (2009, December 21). New rules prompt debate over food licensing. Trib.com. Retrieved from
http://trib.com/news/local/article_e7c3b293-7693-5e77-9bff-192066686e99.html
Slide 19
Acknowledgements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
International Food Protection Training Institute (IFPTI)
– Dr. Craig Kaml, Vice President, Curriculum, IFPTI
– Dr. Kieran Fogarty, Acting Director of Evaluation and Assessment,
IFPTI and Associate Professor, Western Michigan University
– IFPTI Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and staff
Dan Sowards, IFPTI Mentor
Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO)
Joseph Corby, IFPTI SME and Executive Director, AFDO
IFPTI 2011 Fellows
Shana Davis and Shane Thompson, IFPTI Cohort 2 Fellows
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS)
– Pamela Miles, Program Supervisor
– Doug Saunders, Deputy Director
– Rick Barham, Regional Manager
Slide 20
Questions?
Slide 21