Hi Rachel
Please clarify, is the "irreparably defective"173 task group going to continue to meet? And is the 455 JC going to implement anything before the 173 TG finishes hashing out the various issues this topic raises?
Because it sounded to me like it may have been decided to discontinue the 173 TG and only have the issue continue under the 455 JC, and/or to have the 455 JC implement provisions related to "irreparably defective" without waiting for the 173 TG to complete its work....?
If so then I want to object to that course of action. There are several people on the 173 JC who have relevant knowledge & experience to contribute and we shouldn't have to join a whole different JC (455) to ensure our concerns are heard.
To my knowledge the 173 "irreparably defective" TG met once and identified various things to be done, but I'm not aware of those items being completed. (I may have missed a subsequent TG meeting? but I haven't seen anything coming out of the TG that seemed like it completed the identified work) The TG should not be discontinued until the TG has finished its work or until the members of the TG are satisfied with the course of action that will be implemented.
And of course it would be ill-advised (IMO) for the 455 JC to implement anything without the input of the experts on the 173 JC.
Besides getting very clear about the scope of "irreparably defective," which from what I've seen is currently being *badly misinterpreted* by members of industry, I think there are various other provisions that should be considered.
- Rather than mandating that all "irreparably defective" materials must be destroyed, there should be an explicit option for the vendor to arrange delivery of the material within X time period to an appropriate alternate user of the material.
- For example, if rose petals are somehow contaminated then they may not be suitable for the food supply but they could well be suitable for use by a company that makes potpourri or perfume. They could also be usable by a different food company with a different manufacturing process that addresses the contamination.
- It may also be a good idea to identify and define a category of "reparably defective" materials for which the vendor is explicitly provided the opportunity to take the material back or arrange remediation of the problem on behalf of the buyer (e.g., sending material out to be steam sterilized or whatever).
contamination bad enough to constitute an actual public health risk, the steps proposed above would presumably be subject to approval by FDA under the RFR provisions; I don't know the details of how FDA handles those cases.)
I continue to think that NSF can play a constructive role in helping to *appropriately focus* the efforts of the "irreparably defective" proponents in the industry, so that the outcome serves to actually protect public health while also not causing pointless economic costs to industry and consumers. However, from my point of view the project is not at all close to reaching that goal so far.
Please confirm the status of the 173 TG and please confirm whether the 455 JC plans to implement any provisions related to "irreparably defective" prior to completion of work by the 173 TG?
Thanks
Staci
------------------------------
Staci Eisner
Cortex Scientific Botanicals
541-973-2252 x225
staci@cortexscientific.com------------------------------