Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Summary
Food and medical product safety is crucial for public health. The food
and medical products regulatory system (hereafter, the regulatory system) is
a key piece of the public health system. In the United States, the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) protects consumers from unsafe food and drugs,
an ever more complicated task as increasingly food and medical products
travel through complex international supply chains. The past 10 years
have seen contaminated heparin and pet food reach the American market
from foreign factories. Thousands of Americans die every year from food
poisoning and, although much of it is home-grown, foodborne epidemics
are increasingly international. This is small compared to the product safety
calamities in developing countries, where fake drugs and poisoned excipients
kill tens of thousands against a constant background of aflatoxin poisoning
and foodborne disease.
Product safety in the United States depends on systems in faraway
places. The FDA estimates that more than 80 percent of active pharmaceuti-
cal ingredients and 40 percent of finished drugs come from abroad, as does
85 percent of seafood. Congress has reacted to these trends by requiring
that the FDA inspect more producers. Meeting Congress’s new inspection
targets will be a great effort for the FDA. More importantly, Congress’s
most ambitious inspection plan still monitors only a small fraction of for-
eign manufacturers.
The FDA cannot do its job well without substantive improvements in
the capacity of its counterpart agencies in emerging economies. With this
in mind, the FDA commissioned this study to identify the core elements of
food, drug, medical product, and biologics regulatory systems in develop-
1
OCR for page 2
2 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
ing countries; to identify the main gaps in these systems; and to design a
strategy the FDA and other stakeholders can use to strengthen food and
medical products regulatory systems abroad.
In preparing this report, the committee heard from stakeholders from
many low- and middle-income countries at conferences in Washington, DC,
Beijing, São Paulo, Pretoria, and New Delhi. A brief summary of its findings
and recommendations follows.
CORE ELEMENTS OF REGULATORY SYSTEMS
The committee identified the main characteristics of successful regula-
tory systems. First, a robust system is responsive; it can respond quickly
in a crisis, and it can respond appropriately to new science and new ideas.
Such a system also focuses on the outcomes and does not become overly
concerned with prescribing methods that might get in the way of innova-
tion. A robust regulatory system is a predictable system; rules are applied
consistently and fairly and are designed to favor neither small nor large
companies, neither imports nor domestic products. The system allocates
controls proportionate to risk and regulates products with similar risks in
similar ways. Finally, a robust regulatory system is independent; it is not
unduly influenced by politics or money.
The main duties of a medical products regulatory authority are: product
registration; the publication of clear licensure requirements; the provision
of unbiased information; market entry notification; safety and effectiveness
surveillance; quality control testing; inspection of manufacturers against
good manufacturing practices; inspection of distributers against good dis-
tribution practices; and the evaluation of medical product performance
through trials. In countries that produce vaccines, the regulatory authority
is also responsible for the systematic lot release of the vaccine. The main
duties of a food regulatory system are providing unbiased education and
advice to all stakeholders; inspecting food production sites and processing
plants against good agricultural practices and good manufacturing prac-
tices; evaluating hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) plans;
conducting physical, chemical, and microbiological analysis of food; and
doing epidemiological surveillance. These responsibilities make the regula-
tory system a main piece of the public health system.
Low- and middle-income country regulatory authorities are not able to
execute all of these responsibilities. With this in mind, the committee identi-
fied minimal elements for a regulatory system. At a minimum, the country
must have a rule-making process. This rule-making system should be open
enough to allow all stakeholders to comment on new regulations. A mini-
mally functional system also has a protocol for different agencies involved
in product regulation to work together. It also has a way to identify when
OCR for page 3
3
SUMMARY
regulatory action is necessary. The minimal elements of a regulatory system
emphasize the processes that let the system run well. Product safety is, of
course, the goal of any food and medical products regulatory system. How-
ever, at a minimum there must be a process in place that allows the system
to run. When this administrative framework is in place regulators have a
way to execute their product safety responsibilities.
Cooperation with counterpart regulatory agencies is a core element of
a modern regulatory system. Coordination among the different regulatory
agencies within a country is also necessary for product safety, including co-
ordination at different levels of government. The use of HACCP principles
to control the food system and the regulation of active pharmaceutical
ingredients are examples of areas where different regulators work together
to their mutual benefit.
CRITICAL ISSUES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRY FOOD
AND MEDICAL PRODUCT SAFETY SYSTEMS
The committee identified nine common problems that cut across devel-
oping country product safety systems. A brief summary of these nine critical
issues follows.
1. Adherence to international standards is a clear problem; it requires
good infrastructure and expensive equipment. The least developed
countries often lack the scientific expertise to send active advocates
to international standard setting meetings. Because their represen-
tatives do not participate in any meaningful way, the countries
become standard-takers, not participants in standard setting.
2. There are many related problems in controlling supply chains.
Food spoils quickly without refrigeration or proper storage, and
it takes too long to get to market over poor roads. The vaccine
supply chain and, to a lesser extent, the medicine supply chain are
prey to breaks in the cold chain and to wastage. Inventory plan-
ning and demand management are difficult in places that have
neither reliable transportation infrastructure nor sufficient manage-
rial expertise in the health workforce.
3. Problems controlling supply chains are difficult to separate from
infrastructure deficits. There are serious shortcomings in the mar-
ket infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries, such as
lack of pest control and refrigeration. Quality-control laboratories
are woefully few, and the ones that do exist have outdated equip-
ment and often have to depend on an unreliable power supply.
Local manufacturing is complicated by more basic sanitation prob-
lems. Information technology could improve the jobs of regulators
OCR for page 4
4 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
and industry in developing countries, but bandwidth is far too
expensive and unreliable. All elements of the system require trained
personnel, which is often scarce in developing countries.
4. A strong legal foundation is a prerequisite for food and medical
product regulation. Some of the poorest countries have no laws
governing product safety; others have a surfeit of confusing and
contradictory ones. Enforcing product safety laws is a monumental
task, one that is often neglected or executed unevenly. Product
liability laws are often essentially non-existent.
5. Government regulators have too few staff, problems retaining their
staff, and problems with morale. Corruption is both a cause and
an effect of many of the workforce problems. Some staff are fired
for political reasons; others grow frustrated and quit.
6. Regulatory responsibilities in low- and middle-income countries are
often scattered among many different agencies. This is true in the
United States and in many other developed countries as well, but
it becomes a problem in places where the same responsibilities are
assigned to different agencies or when there is no way for differ-
ent agencies to communicate. Sometimes the agencies have limited
authority to enforce laws; others have authority, but problems
coordinating with other agencies.
7. Poor surveillance systems prevent regulators from evaluating emerg-
ing safety signals. They cannot monitor medical product safety,
track epidemics, or do risk analysis without reliable surveillance
data. Weaknesses in the vaccine safety surveillance system can
aggravate vaccine scares. Pharmacovigilance systems are also weak;
often doctors and pharmacists are not aware of their responsibilities
to report adverse drug events.
8. Strong communication can do much to assuage the problems of
fragmentation in a regulatory authority, but there are problems
with communication among the different agencies responsible for
regulation in developing countries. There are also problems com-
municating within agencies, especially from subordinate to senior
staff. Often there is no appropriate forum for regulators to com-
municate with industry. Consumer groups, which communicate the
public’s needs to both government and industry, are often missing.
9. A push for product safety can come from the public, especially in
large markets with good communications systems. When govern-
ments are accountable to their citizens, public opinion can drive
political will. Politicians in emerging economies are often more
concerned with economic growth. Some regulators are assigned a
job that has both product promotion and regulatory responsibili-
ties; they can do neither fully or well. Product safety is not a high
OCR for page 5
5
SUMMARY
priority in countries with skeletal health systems, poor sanitation,
and high mortality. Ironically, the vast increase in foreign aid for
health over the past 10 years has had an unintended consequence
of decreasing national governments’ allocations to health, to the
detriment of food and medical product safety.
STRATEGY FOR BRIDGING THESE GAPS
After analyzing the nine main gaps in food and medical product regula-
tory systems in developing countries, the committee developed a strategy
to bridge these gaps. This strategy emphasizes public health, market incen-
tives, risk-based investments, and international coordination.
Unsafe food and medical products are at the root of many public health
problems in poor countries. Foodborne disease often causes diarrhea, which
in turn aggravates malnutrition. Malnutrition compounds the many infec-
tious diseases common in developing countries, diseases that go untreated
because of an unsafe or unreliable drug supply. No one would argue that
improving public health is less than essential for international development,
and the regulatory system is a key piece of the public health system. Yet,
donors are disinclined to invest in regulatory systems, preferring to fund
disease-specific programs or improve the primary health system.
There is much room for improvement in the way donor agencies, foun-
dations, non-governmental organizations, and multilateral organizations
invest in regulatory systems, not the least of which is an emphasis on risk.
It is neither good management nor good sense to divide resources equally
among all regulated products. Risk assessment is the foundation of modern
regulatory science. An understanding of the same should guide investments
in product safety.
The market can also drive improvements to regulatory systems, but not
without deliberate incentives. The American food and medical products
market is strictly controlled, as are all of the most lucrative markets. In
emerging economies, small- and medium-sized businesses dominate much
of the pharmaceutical supply chain and vastly more of the food supply
chain. Economies of scale make it difficult for these industries to adhere to
the standards that would allow them to export to hard currency markets.
Proper monetary incentives can help developing country producers stay
competitive in the global marketplace. Similarly, stricter product liability
laws can work to the advantage of producers who make safety a priority.
Product safety cannot improve without international cooperation. Uni-
versities and multilateral organizations are often adept at collaborating across
borders. Regional collaboration is an efficient form of collaboration that
allows less technologically advanced countries to benefit from the systems in
place in neighboring countries.
OCR for page 6
6 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
INTERNATIONAL ACTION
Because of international trade, product safety failures in any one coun-
try can have ramifications around the world. The global foodborne disease
outbreaks and contaminated drug scares have driven this point home over
recent years. International trade is also a vehicle for economic development;
jobs in high-value agriculture and manufacturing are ways out of poverty
for many. Because everyone has a stake in product safety, everyone needs
to take action to build regulatory systems. The committee’s proposed inter-
national action will: increase investments in regulatory systems; encourage
open dialogue among government, industry, and academia in emerging
economies; work toward voluntary sharing of inspection results; and sup-
port surveillance.
Recommendation 5-1: In the next 3 to 5 years, international and
intergovernmental organizations should invest more in strengthening
the capacity of regulatory systems in developing countries. The United
States should work with interested countries to add it to the G20
agenda. Investments in international food and medical product safety
should be a significant and explicitly tracked priority at development
banks, regional economic communities, and public health institutions.
International organizations should provide assistance to achieve mean-
ingful participation of developing country representatives at interna-
tional harmonization and standardization meetings.
There is common ground where food and medical product safety,
public health, trade, and economic development are mutually reinforcing.
The development banks and regional economic communities work in this
common ground; they should invest more in building regulatory systems in
low- and middle-income countries. In particular, their investments should
aim to improve the participation of scientists from these countries in in-
ternational standard setting. The G20 is an excellent forum for industrial-
ized and emerging economies to work together on development. In 2012,
Mexico will host the G20 meeting. An emerging manufacturing nation with
a vigorous export economy, Mexico would be an ideal leader for a global
initiative on food and medical product safety. The United States and other
G20 nations should support Mexico in this effort.
Recommendation 5-2: In emerging economies, national regulatory
authorities, regulated industry, and industry associations should engage
in open and regular dialogue to exchange expert scientific and technical
information before policies are written and after they are implemented.
Starting in the next 3 to 5 years, these regulatory authorities should
OCR for page 7
7
SUMMARY
identify third parties, such as science academies, to convene the three
pillars of a regulatory system—government, industry, and academia—in
ongoing discussion to advance regulatory science, policy, and training.
A robust regulatory system depends on input from industry and aca-
demia; government simply cannot shoulder the burden alone. In some
counties this will require a cultural shift. Science academies are one neutral
venue that can bring stakeholders together for open dialogue; public health
institutes, although usually governmental, are another. Regardless of the
venue that regulatory authorities use, they need to collaborate with indus-
try and academia when designing their policies and when reviewing them.
Recommendation 5-3: Countries with stringent regulatory agencies1
should, within the next 18 months, convene a technical working group
on sharing inspection reports with the longer-term goal of establishing
a system for mutual recognition of inspection reports.
Sharing inspection reports is an important first step in mutual recognition
and international regulatory harmonization. In the next 18 months countries
with stringent regulatory agencies should share their inspection reports of
facilities in developing countries. This is a simple step that could reduce a
great deal of waste. There is no need for American and European inspectors
to duplicate each other’s work, especially when a vast number of facilities
go uninspected. Over the next decade, these agencies should participate in a
working group on mutual recognition of inspection reports. In time, regula-
tory authorities in emerging economies would also be able to contribute.
Recommendation 5-4: Industry associations should, over the next
3 years, define an acceptable protocol for sharing of internal inspec-
tion results among their members. After agreeing on the methods,
they should regularly share their results among their members.
Sharing inspection results is sensitive but crucial to an efficient product
safety system. In the next 3 to 5 years, food and medical product industry
associations can work with their members to decide what information to
share and how to share it. They could also encourage members to make
use of modern data management and to rely less on handwritten inspection
reports.
1 Countries with stringent regulatory agencies include the United States, European Union
member states, and Japan. For the purposes of this report the committee includes ICH
Observers and Associates, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Canada
in the category.
OCR for page 8
8 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
Recommendation 5-5: Starting in the next 5 years, USAID, FDA, CDC,
and USDA should provide (both directly and through WHO and FAO)
technical support for strengthening surveillance systems in develop-
ing countries. This technical support could include development of
surveillance tools, protocols for foodborne disease surveillance and
post market surveillance of medical products, and training of national
regulatory authority staff and national experts.
There is a wealth of surveillance expertise in the United Nations (UN)
system; the U.S. government and universities have substantial technical
depth in the same. These organizations need to strengthen surveillance
systems in low- and middle-income countries. The CDC’s PulseNet pro-
gram, for example, is a surveillance program that has expanded to Latin
America, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. In the next 3 years, USAID,
FDA, CDC, and USDA can work with their host country counterparts
to develop manageable systems for pharmacovigilance. Within 5 years,
an expansion of the CDC PulseNet program could elicit meaningful
improvements in the foodborne disease surveillance systems in the poor-
est countries. Building a cadre of trained epidemiologists will take time,
probably 10 years or longer, but is an important step of strengthening
surveillance systems.
DOMESTIC ACTION
The Food Safety Modernization Act and the FDA’s new Pathway to
Global Product Safety and Quality make it clear that the agency is prepared
to change its operations to keep pace with globalization. The committee
recommended specific actions that the FDA and other government agencies
should take to improve the capacity of regulatory authorities in low- and
middle-income countries. The committee’s proposed domestic action will:
use risk as a guiding principle; use information technology; bridge training
gaps; lead in adaptation of international standards; expand the one-up, one-
back track and trace requirements; research inexpensive technology; give
market incentives for supply chain management; and increase civil liability.
Recommendation 6-1: The FDA should use enterprise risk manage-
ment to inform its inspection, training, regulatory cooperation, and
surveillance efforts. Enterprise risk management should apply to the
Agency’s entire operation, and it should incorporate a number of set
criteria such as country of manufacture or production, volume and type
of product, facility inspection history, and trends or data shared from
other regulatory authorities.
OCR for page 9
9
SUMMARY
A comprehensive use of risk management should guide the FDA, and
it should employ risk management for its entire operation, not merely for
inspections as is often advised. In the next 3 to 5 years, the FDA should
use risk to run its international programs—to choose which offices to scale
up, what trainings to run, and where to run them. In the next 10 years,
the agency should use risk to determine how it allocates its resources to
both domestic and international programs. To this end, it may need to ask
Congress to revise the law governing it.
Recommendation 6-2: The FDA should develop an information and
informatics strategy that will allow it to do risk-based analysis, monitor
performance metrics, and move toward paperless systems. In the next
3 to 5 years, the FDA should propose, in all its international harmoni-
zation activities, a standardized vocabulary, a minimum data set to be
collected, and the frequency of data collection.
The use of an enterprise-wide risk management system depends on
efficient and reliable data management and on using a data format that
lends itself to appropriate international sharing. In the next 3 to 5 years,
the FDA can articulate a standard data collection format and vocabulary.
The FDA should work with international forums such as the World Wide
Web Consortium and the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers
to work out a minimum key data set that it and its counterparts can col-
lect and share. These are steps to the goal of having a paperless system in
the next decade.
Recommendation 6-3: The FDA should facilitate training for regula-
tors in developing countries. The purpose is workforce training and
professional development through an ongoing, standing regulatory sci-
ence and policy curriculum. In the next 3 to 5 years, the FDA should
broaden the scope of FDA University to educate FDA staffers on in-
ternational compliance with its regulations. In the long term, the FDA
should consider the options the committee puts forth in Chapter 6.
The FDA should use its diplomatic staff abroad and its gravity at inter-
national forums to facilitate the training of foreign regulators, though not
necessarily to host it. There should be a predictable, standing regulatory
science and policy curriculum that regulators from abroad could work
through. Training-of-trainers will also be an invaluable way to educate
in all languages and reach students in remote places. Over the next 3 to
5 years, the FDA can work through existing networks, such as the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation’s Partnership Training Institute Network,
to train trainers. There is also value in an apprenticeship program akin to
OCR for page 10
10 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
the CDC’s Field Epidemiology Training Program. The committee under-
stands that training regulators at an international regulatory college and
developing an apprenticeship program will take about a decade. In the next
3 to 5 years, the FDA can broaden the scope of classes at its staff college
to better educate American regulators on the international effects of and
international compliance with U.S. regulations.
Recommendation 6-4: U.S. policy makers should integrate food and
medical product safety objectives into their international economic
development, trade, harmonization, and public health work. To this
end, the FDA should lead in the development and adoption of interna-
tional and harmonized standards for food and medical products.
The FDA is an accepted gold-standard regulatory agency; it should lead
by example in the use of international standards. Harmonized standards
facilitate trade and simplify compliance with product safety rules. The
FDA should also work with other industrialized countries to streamline
the criteria they use to evaluate conformance with standards. The FDA can
also work with the U.S. Trade Representative to use international forums
to promote harmonized standards for foods and medical products. In the
next 3 to 5 years, the FDA can begin adopting harmonized international
standards, but the full realization of integrating product safety into the
larger U.S. international policy agenda will take a decade.
Recommendation 6-5: The FDA, which currently requires one-up, one-
back track and trace requirements for food, should, in the next year,
hold a multi-sector, international, public workshop on applying them
to medicines, biologics, and (when appropriate) to devices.
Laws require food producers to identify the immediate prior and imme-
diate subsequent recipient of all products in their supply chains. This is
called one-up, one-back traceability. Expanding one-up, one-back require-
ments to drugs will be complicated, but all stakeholders need to think seri-
ously about the costs and benefits of doing this. The FDA can demonstrate
its commitment to strengthening global supply chains by hosting a public
hearing on this topic in the next year.
Recommendation 6-6: Starting in the next 2 years, the FDA and the
USDA should implement Cooperative Research and Development
Agreements and other programs to encourage businesses and academia
to research and develop innovations for low-cost, appropriate fraud
prevention, intervention, tracking, and verification technologies along
the supply chain.
OCR for page 11
11
SUMMARY
The U.S. government needs to encourage research into frugal technolo-
gies that would be useful in poor countries. The USDA and FDA should
pursue Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with private
companies to work together in research and development; the first of these
could be issued in the next 2 years. They can also collaborate directly with
researchers in developing countries. The technologies developed in these
collaborations would also benefit small- and medium-sized producers in
the United States into the future.
Recommendation 6-7: The FDA should ensure an adequate mix of
incentives to importers of food and medical products that are confirmed
to meet U.S. regulatory standards. One such promising initiative is the
2-year FDA Secure Supply Chain pilot program. The FDA should eval-
uate this program immediately after its pilot phase (scheduled to end
in 2014). The program should be expanded, if successful, to include a
greater number of importers and food.
The FDA does not have the authority to regulate all the upstream
activities in complex international supply chains of food and medical prod-
ucts. The Secure Supply Chain pilot program rewards firms that trace their
products thoroughly from manufacture to entry into the United States. The
results from this pilot program should be evaluated when the pilot phase
is over in 2014 with the goal of expanding the project to include more
importers and more products in the next 3 to 5 years.
Recommendation 6-8: Over the next 10 years, U.S. government agencies
should work to strengthen the ability of those harmed by unsafe food
and medical products to hold foreign producers and importers liable in
civil lawsuits.
Importers carry a great deal of product liability risk when they bring
products into the American market. The U.S. government should give clear
guidance to producers in low- and middle-income countries on the rights
of consumers and the importance of product liability laws to trade and to
health. In the next decade, U.S. government agencies including, but not
limited to, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Treasury, and
the Department of Justice should work to increase liability for unsafe food
and medical products.
CONCLUSION
Over the past 30 years, international trade, outsourcing, and improve-
ments in telecommunication have created a more unified world economic
OCR for page 12
12 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
system. This system benefits many, but it also presents new challenges.
Individual countries can no longer depend on their national regulatory
authorities to guarantee product safety in the domestic market. This report
identifies the most pressing problems facing food and medical product
regulators in developing countries. It outlines a strategy that can guide
investments in regulatory capacity. It also recommends 13 specific actions
the U.S. government and others could take to improve product safety and
public health around the world.
The strategy for building regulatory systems and the 13 specific recom-
mendations put forth in this report could do much to improve food and
medical product safety in the United States and abroad. It was clear to the
committee that product safety is a dynamic problem; it requires agile sys-
tems to respond to changing needs. The system should use enterprise risk
management to inform its decisions. It is also clear that the FDA cannot act
alone; it must develop ways to make the most of its extensive expertise and
limited resources. Pooling data and planning inspections with other strin-
gent regulatory agencies is an important first step. Other international orga-
nizations and regional communities are well-positioned to lead in training
and education—key pieces of the solution. Finally, it has become clear that
the FDA needs to refocus resources and attention on modern threats to the
food and medical product supply. This will probably require rebalancing
programs to give more attention to foreign producers and suppliers.
