1. Office of Partnerships Food and Drug Administration
Cornerstones of Integration: Food Protection Task Forces and Rapid Response Teams
Brett Weed
Project Officer
Office of Partnerships
Food and Drug Administration

2. Highlights
Understanding the Vision of an Integrated Food Safety System
Programs Supporting the IFSS
Food Protection Task Forces
Rapid Response Teams

3. Integrated Food Safety System
Big Idea: Leverage the participation, coordination, resources, and authorities of all regulatory partners to protect the food supply
Plan and prioritize work to coordinate resources
Use data to inform the development of evidence-based food safety policies and programs, and criteria to evaluate their effectiveness
Implement efficient, prevention-focused, risk-based inspections and sample collections
Share data among strategic partners
Promote use of compliance and enforcement tools for achieving compliance with food safety laws and regulations

4. IFSS Support Programs Food Protection Task Forces
Laboratory Capacity Building
Partnership for Food Protection
Rapid Response Teams
State Cooperative Programs Activities
Regulatory Program Standards
Manufactured Food (MFRPS)
Animal Feed (AFRPS)

5. IFSS Support Programs Food Protection Task Forces
Laboratory Capacity Building
Partnership for Food Protection
Rapid Response Teams
State Cooperative Programs Activities
Regulatory Program Standards
Manufactured Food (MFRPS)
Animal Feed (AFRPS)

6. Food Protection Task Forces

7. Task Force Mission
Create greater awareness of potential vulnerabilities in our food supply
Create of foodborne illness prevention programs
Foster opportunities for new surveillance systems for detecting foodborne illness
Enhance ability to respond more quickly to outbreaks

8. Task Force Goals
Provide a forum for all the stakeholders of the food protection
Communicate and disseminate key objectives and mandates (e.g. Food Safety Modernization Act [FSMA], etc.) to relevant stakeholders
Collect, compile, and communicate stakeholder interests and concerns
Assist in adopting or implementing the Food Code and other food protection regulations (e.g. FSMA, etc.)
Promote the concept of an Integrated Food Safety System (IFSS)
Conduct and present findings to stakeholders regarding research and investigations relating to the causes or prevention of food related illnesses and injuries in the context of food safety and defense.

9. Task Force Public Presence

10. Visibility of Task Forces
Press Releases by or about a Task Force (ex: Vermont, Minnesota, Guam)
Media coverage (ex: Virginia)
Codified in Statute (ex: Minnesota, Florida)
Created by Executive Order (ex: North Carolina)
Spin-off Commodity-specific Task Forces (ex: New Jersey, North Carolina)

11. Task Force Grant Support
Funding Opportunity Announcement #FD
Due Date: July 1, 2016
More information available at grants.gov

12. States with Supported Task Force

13. Rapid Response Teams

14. Why RRTs?
Multiple high-profile outbreaks and food safety scares in the late 1990s and early 2000s

15. Congressional mandate for an Integrated Food Safety System
Why Continue RRTs?
Congressional mandate for an Integrated Food Safety System
Multiple high-profile outbreaks and food safety scares from 2008 to present
Opportunity for collaboration and integration with other Federal food safety and health initiatives

16. Current RRTs
Joined:
2008/2009
2012
2014/2015
2016 –TBD!

17. Building a RRT
State-District collaboration to minimize barriers to effective field response
Improve the effectiveness of multi-jurisdictional food/feed emergency responses
Reduce the time from agency notification  implementation of effective control measures
Multi-agency (District/State) & multi-disciplinary (epi/lab/regulatory)
RRT Structures
Each is different, engage in a common core set of partners
Management structures vary (e.g. Steering Committee)
Common core capabilities (RRT Best Practices)
Focus on collaborative/coordinated response
Joint meetings, training, investigations
Joint or coordinated plans and procedures

18. Phase 1: The first 6-12 months
Vision (Introduction) meeting
Outline RRT structure & membership
Conduct a baseline assessment
Kick Off Meeting

19. Phase 2: Years 1-2 Exercise prior to developing written SOPs
Prioritize SOP development:
Communications
Traceback
Joint investigations
Sampling
Recalls
AARs

20. Phase 3: Year 3 and Beyond!
Long term activities focusing on continuous process improvement
Maintain trained staff & develop SMEs
Maintain written RRT framework
RRT Manual, SOPs, SOGs

21. What we’ve learned from 8 years of RRT development
The relationships and communications processes are the foundation
Buy-in and commitment start from the top down
District Director/State Food Program Manager
RRT Coordinator/DERC
State investigators/CSOs
Encourage a unique team identity that all agencies/ disciplines identify with; Celebrate success as a team
Communication and information sharing are continuous activities
Strong relationship at the RRT Coordinator/DERC level: Mutual respect and understanding. Be willing to listen and to help.
Weekly check in calls for ongoing & emerging activities
Notify/give heads up before it becomes an ‘official’ issue
Two way street (info needs to go both ways)

22. What we’ve learned from 8 years of RRT development
Mentorship makes a big difference!
Joint capabilities are crucial
Traceback, Sampling, Investigations, AARs, recalls
Joint training helps build strong teams!!
Four factors of mentorship pairings:
Relationships
Agency size
Jurisdiction
Geographic proximity

23. RRT Outcomes

24. RRT Manual Chapters Working With Other Agencies
Federal – State Cooperative Programs
Industry Relations
Tools for Program Analysis & Improvement: CIFOR
Food Emergency Response Plan
Communication SOPs*
ICS Concepts in RRTs*
RRT Training
Tracebacks*
Joint Inspections & Investigations
Environmental Sampling & Records Collection*
Food Recalls
After Action Reviews
Metrics
New - Exercises
*Chapters are undergoing intensive revisions for 2016 Edition

25. RRT Investigations– By the Numbers
340 incidents investigated
Human illness or outbreak linked (53%)
Positive product investigation (20%)
Recall investigation (20%) \
Positive product investigation,
18 RRTs reporting data

26. Tracebacks 180 tracebacks Informational Regulatory
56% resulted in successful identification of the source
Informational
41% source identified
Regulatory
65% source identified
45 were both Informational & Regulatory

27. On-Site Investigations
65% were joint investigations
67% involved an environmental assessment
106 (75%): contributing factors were identified
Ill employee with food contact
Improper cleaning/sanitizing of hands/or surfaces
Contaminated raw product during pre-harvest or processing
Cooling and hot-holding issues during preparation
26% involved environmental sampling

28. Questions? RRT Program Contacts
Travis Goodman – RRT Program Coordinator
Ext. 108
Lauren Yeung – RRT Program Coordinator
Brett Weed – RRT Project Officer