Elemental Impurities

Image result for elemental impurities

Elemental Impurities

On January 1, 2018, new guidelines regarding elemental impurities in brand and generic drug products went into effect. Elemental impurities, such as arsenic and lead, pose toxicological risks to patients without providing any therapeutic benefit. These impurities may be present in drug products from a variety of sources, such as interactions with equipment during the drug manufacturing process.

FDA, together with other organizations, such as the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) and the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USPC), have engaged in long-standing efforts to best protect patients from the risks posed by elemental impurities by developing limits for their amounts in drug products, and standardized approaches to use in determining the amount of elemental impurities in these products.

As of January 1, 2018:

  • All new and existing NDAs and ANDAs for drug products with an official USP monograph are required to meet the requirements in USP General Chapters <232> and <233> for the control of elemental impurities.
  • Applicants submitting NDAs and ANDAs for drug products without a USP monograph are expected to follow the recommendations in the ICH Q3D Elemental Impuritiesdisclaimer icon guideline.


Questions and Answers on Elemental Impurities
:

Why were these guidelines developed, and why are they important?

Heavy metal elemental impurities pose serious risks to patients without providing a benefit. Modern methods provide better analytical tests to detect elemental impurities, which in turn, will help protect patients by ensuring approved products have safe levels of these impurities. The ICH guidelines and USP General Chapters <232>Elemental Impurities—Limits are focused on establishing Permitted Daily Exposures (PDEs) for elemental impurities in drug products. USP General Chapter <233>Elemental Impurities—Procedures describes analytical approaches for the detection of elemental impurities. The analytical approaches described in <233> are based on modern analytical capabilities, replace the outdated tests in the deleted USP General Chapter <231> Heavy Metals, and allow us to more precisely measure impurities to ensure safe levels. FDA, ICH, USP, and industry experts worked together to develop the new standards that are in alignment and help ensure high quality medicines.

How has FDA been supporting industry to implement the requirements?

FDA, ICH, and USP have all engaged with brand and generic drug manufacturers to support implementation of these requirements. These requirements are the result of long-standing efforts, and both ICH and USP included industry participants on their expert panels that developed these standards. With that input, an implementation date was identified that provided firms with substantial time to verify their operations met the requirements.

In June 2016, FDA published a draft guidance, Elemental Impurities in Drug Products, to provide recommendations regarding the control of elemental impurities of human drug products. The draft guidance encouraged the early adoption of ICH Q3D guidelines and USP General Chapters <232> and <233> before the January 1, 2018 implementation date. FDA has also presented on this topic at conferences, including at a two-day ICH Q3D regional workshop it hosted in August 2016 1. These outreach efforts have supported efforts by industry to perform the risk assessments needed to implement the new guidelines in order to have complete, approvable applications. On an application-specific level, FDA began noting this requirement in complete response letters to applicants that contained quality deficiencies in Spring of 2017.

What should companies do if they have questions about elemental impurity standards?

Companies that have quality questions regarding elemental impurities and their applications should contact the Regulatory Business Process Manager (RBPM) in the Office of Program and Regulatory Operations, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality for their application. Applications that do not meet the elemental impurity guidelines are unable to be approved and applicants may receive a request for the information from the FDA in the form of an Information Request or a Complete Response letter. Firms should submit information on their elemental impurity risk assessments to FDA as soon as they are able, rather than waiting for a request from FDA, in order to minimize the impact on review and approval timeframes. The following resource may help applicants understand the process moving forward depending on where they are in the review process.

What is the International Council for Harmonisation?

ICH, first created in 1990 by regulatory agencies and both brand and generic drug manufacturing associations from the United States, Europe, and Japan, was established to facilitate international collaboration, and has been successful in standardizing and elevating drug development practices throughout the world. ICH’s mission helps to increase patient access to safe, effective, and high quality pharmaceuticals, and to ensure that pharmaceuticals are developed and registered efficiently. International harmonization of regulatory standards means that pharmaceutical manufacturers and developers will be held to the same standards in different markets (countries), which will make the development and delivery of quality pharmaceuticals to the public more timely and efficient. The ICH Website includes training modules on implementation of the Q3D elemental impurity guidelines.

What is the U.S. Pharmacopeia Convention?

The United States Pharmacopeia Convention (USPC) is a private non-profit organization that develops public standards related to pharmaceutical quality. USP General Chapters <232>Elemental Impurities—Limits, and, <233>Elemental Impurities—Procedures are applicable to compendial drug products as per Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Sec. 201(j), and Sec. 501(b). USP’s website offers information regarding the history of actions they have taken on elemental impuritiesdisclaimer icon, as well as other FAQdisclaimer icon.


1 Other presentations include the Drug Information Association’s CMC Workshop 2015disclaimer icon, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association’s 2015 Regulatory, Scientific & Quality Conferencedisclaimer icon, the Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) / USP Workshop on ICH Q3D Elemental Impurities Requirementsdisclaimer icon, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (now Association of Affordable Medicines) CMC Workshopdisclaimer icon, the USP Excipients Stakeholder Forum, the PQRI/USP Workshop on Implementation Status of ICH Q3Ddisclaimer icon, and the PQRI/USP Workshop on ICH Q3D Elemental Impurities Requirements – Recent Experience and Plans for Full Implementation in 2018disclaimer icon

Elemental Impurities


Efforts in this area are currently focused on three fronts:

  • Finalization of risk assessments to ensure compliance with the ICH Q3D guideline for all products supplied to those markets having implemented ICH Q3D and to the date for implementation

  • Continued development of ICH Q3D dermal limits

  • Removal of the heavy metals limit test USP <231>

  • Image result for elemental impurities
  • Image result for elemental impurities

Marketed Product Compliance

When it was published at the end of 2014, ICH Q3D(1) provided a 3 year moratorium in relation to established products, meaning that all such products would have to demonstrate compliance with the guideline at the end of 2017. Many involved will testify to the Herculean effort required to complete this within large organizations where hundreds if not thousands of products were within scope. What has been the outcome? Informal feedback within the industry is that aside from a small number of products, organizations have found that the vast majority of products assessed require no additional control measures because they already have appropriate quality control measures.

Elemental Impurities within Excipients

The ICH Q3D guideline describes how a risk-based approach to the control of elemental impurities in drug products can be taken, highlighting within this that assessments should be data-driven. Options in terms of data include both data generated specific to a drug product and published data. In 2015 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European International Pharmaceutical Excipient Council (IPEC) jointly published the outcome of a focused study on some 200 excipient samples covering a range of excipients. This concluded that the overall risk associated with excipients, including those that are mined, was relatively low, especially when typical proportions in formulated drug products were considered. With the express aim of building upon this initial study, a consortium of pharmaceutical companies has established a database to collate the results of analytical studies of the levels of elemental impurities within pharmaceutical excipients. This database currently includes the results of over 25 000 elemental determinations for over 200 different excipients and represents the largest known, and still rapidly expanding, collection of data of this type.
Image result for elemental impurities
A recently published analysis of the database(2) examined a series of aspects, including data coverage as well as impurity levels and variability (across supplier/grade, etc.). The database includes results from multiple analytical studies for many of the excipients and thus can give a clear indication of both excipient supplier and batch-to-batch variability as well as any variability associated with the different testing organizations and methods employed. The results are telling. Critically, the data confirm the findings of earlier, smaller FDA–IPEC studies showing that elemental impurity concentrations in excipients, including mined excipients, are generally low and when used in typical proportions in formulated drug products are unlikely to pose a significant patient safety risk.
The database is now in active use within member organizations, providing real evidence in support of holistic ICH Q3D risk assessments and in the future potentially significantly reducing the need for testing. However, it is necessary to recognize that there was a sense that mined excipients could still present a risk over the long term. That variability in elemental impurity levels within mined excipients will vary over time, and further data will be required. There is therefore a need for continued collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and excipient manufacturers.
It is interesting to reflect that had such studies been conducted ahead of finalization of ICH Q3D, it is possible that it would have allowed us to eliminate concerns about elemental impurities, at least for some low-risk excipients Another study could have achieved the same outcome for manufacturing equipment.
Image result for elemental impurities

Removal of Heavy Metals Testing

Perhaps our biggest challenge as an industry in this area relates to the potential to remove existing empirical testing for elemental impurities using the wet-chemistry heavy metals limit test because of differences in the global regulatory landscape. In the case of the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), this takes the form of the now-deleted USP Chapter <231>.
On the basis of the time scale for implementation of ICH Q3D, most organizations are well-advanced in terms of the risk assessment of current products, as described above. In the clear majority of cases, this successfully demonstrates that the heavy metals test does not provide any additional control for elemental impurities. On this basis, it should therefore be possible to remove the heavy metals limit test, of which USP <231> is the most prevalent example.
Image result for elemental impurities
The situation in the U.S. is that removal is relatively straightforward, as the test has already been removed from the USP. A statement to confirm completion of an elemental impurity risk assessment is then provided in the product annual update. Elsewhere, the situation is more challenging. In Europe there is no definitive position, but filing a simple show-and-tell type 1A variation seems to provide a pathway. Thereafter, the situation is considerably more complex.
In Japan, the equivalent of the USP <231> test has been retained in the Japanese Pharmacopeia (JP). Consequently, removing the test from an existing product (one where a monograph is published and it includes such a test) may require submitting a product-specific request to revise the individual monograph. It is also anticipated that removal of the test from approved but not monographed products will also require a post-approval change submission.
In China, the Chinese Pharmacopeia (CP) will retain the test until at least 2020, and the indication is that the test should still be performed where registered.
Image result for elemental impurities
Outside of ICH regions, the situation is still more complicated. Given the prevalent position of the USP in many countries, API and product specifications often include USP <231>. However, this test no longer exists! The challenge then concerns whether the test can be removed and the specification revised, and if so, how this should be done. The scale of this is significant, especially if a formal variations procedure is needed. One apparent option is to continue testing, but even this is complicated, as it is not clear how one could continue to use a test that no longer exists in the USP. Some organizations have even considered developing a “USP <231>-like” test.
Clearly, organizations do not want to continue to use an empirical test when a risk assessment has shown that it adds no value, but at present there is no obvious way to resolve this conundrum for globally marketed products until significant harmonization in compendial test requirements is achieved.
Image result for elemental impuritiesImage result for elemental impuritiesImage result for elemental impurities
REFERENCES
1 Guideline for Elemental Impurities Q3D, Current Step 4 version, dated Dec 16, 2014.
Boetzel, R.Ceszlak, A.Day, C.An Elemental Impurities Excipient Database: A Viable Tool for ICH Q3D Drug Product Risk AssessmentJ. Pharm. Sci. 2018DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2018.04.009
//////////Elemental Impurities, ICH Q3D, USP
Advertisements

ICH Q12: Guideline on Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management

Image result for ICH Q12

ICH Q12: Guideline on Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management, 1-2

Image result for ICH Q12

Recent ICH quality guidelines (Q8–Q11)(3−6) have focused on providing guidance on the development and manufacture of drug substances (Q11)(6) and drug products (Q8),(3) showing “baseline” and “enhanced” scientific approaches, and utilizing quality risk management tools (Q9) within the pharmaceutical quality management system (Q10). To further support the implementation of these development and manufacturing approaches, ICH recognized the value in providing tools and approaches for the management of post-approval chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) changes based on product and process understanding that could be employed by all ICH participants. Several useful tools had been established in different regions, and it was recognized that pharmaceutical innovation and continuous improvement would be optimally supported if best practices could be employed in similar ways across the regions. Achieving this harmonization would result in more efficient manufacture and change and would also increase the value of the pharmaceutical quality system and support continued optimization of the utilization of valuable resources within regulatory agencies and inspectorates (e.g., toward oversight of critical rather than noncritical changes, incentivizing industry’s understanding and management of manufacturing). The ICH Concept Paper for the development of this guidance was endorsed in 2014.(7)
The drafted consensus document is now available for public comment (step 2 of the ICH process),(8) with comments being collected by the regions during 2018 (with various comment deadlines).
The draft guidance includes some potentially very important approaches for future CMC change management, and importantly, the tools and approaches being developed are seen as usable across the range of pharmaceutical product types (including drug–device combinations) and applicable to existing products as well as newly approved products.
An approach of particular importance that is included in the guideline is the “post-approval change management protocol” (PACMP), which allows for specific changes to be predescribed to regulators and agreement to be reached on the scientific approach and data expectations that will support the change. This ability to predefine how to successfully make a change will bring great clarity and predictability to the planning and prosecution of, particularly, complex change types (often viewed as major changes needing “prior approval” in current regulatory change systems). Furthermore, the predetermination of data necessary to support the change allows for the final communication of the change to be a simple matter of confirming the suitability of the change with the expected data and for the regulatory change class to be reduced on the basis of the prior agreement of the change management approach. Importantly, a PACMP can be either agreed for a single change for a single product or constructed and agreed in a more wide-ranging manner to support multiple similar changes to be conducted on more than one product. This is of immense potential value to industry and regulators alike. Annex II of the draft guideline provides illustrative examples of different types of PACMPs, giving an example of a PACMP for a single change (to a manufacturing site for a drug substance) and an example of the more general management of such a site change.
In a section of the guideline on supporting post-approval changes for marketed products, where considerable manufacturing experience has been accrued, important approaches are given for the management of changes in analytical procedures and discussing how data requirements for changes (for stability data) can be impacted by product and process understanding.
In addition, the guidance seeks to provide an approach to differentiate the levels of regulatory oversight of particular changes on the basis of known impact and criticality of the potential change to product quality. The ability to differentiate change expectations on the basis of actual product understanding is a natural extension of the approaches taken in ICH Q8 and Q11, where for example product and process understanding can establish a “Design Space” for manufacturing and control within which changes are not seen as requiring regulatory oversight. In the draft of Q12, this concept is further developed by the concept of “Established Conditions” (ECs), with discussion of how investment in understanding can impact submission expectations (with Appendix I of the draft guideline providing an illustration of CTD sections that contain ECs and Annex I suggesting illustrative examples of ECs for both chemical products and biological products) and post-approval change management expectations. Importantly, the guidance discusses how this approach could be used for existing products, where the manufacturing process may have been described without any differentiation of change management expectations, leading to inefficient use of both industry and regulatory resources.
The draft guideline also includes a suggested system for the collation of such “agreed” regulatory change mechanisms for a product via use of a product lifecycle management (PLCM) approach, wherein the agreed changes can be clearly collated alongside the manufacturing commitments and the agreed (lesser) change reporting category for the changes. Annex III of the draft documentation provides an example of a PLCM document.
The guideline also contains content describing the pharmaceutical quality system (PQS) change management expectations (with Appendix II of the guideline providing further illustration of principles of change management) and the relationship between industry and regulators and importantly between regulatory assessment and inspection needed to support strong implementation of the approaches within Q12.
The draft guideline clearly already provides tools and approaches for change management of immense potential value. Nevertheless, the opportunity to comment on the draft is always an important step in the development of an ICH guideline, and it is important to ensure that comments assist in providing the clearest possible final guidance that will be readily and consistently implemented to mutual industry and regulator benefit. It is noteworthy that the current draft of the guideline includes wording suggesting that some concepts may not be implementable at the current time across every region. It will be of greatest benefit if the tools and approaches as described and agreed in the finalized guidance will be available for use on as wide a global basis as possible, in line with the ongoing vision of ICH for science-based, harmonized, and efficient regulation of pharmaceuticals.
Image result for ICH Q12
3  Pharmaceutical Development Q8(R2), Current Step 4 version, dated August 2009.
4 Quality Risk Management Q9, Current Step 4 version, dated Nov 9, 2005.
5 Pharmaceutical Quality System Q10, Current Step 4 version, dated June 4, 2008.
6 Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances (Chemical Entities and Biotechnological/Biological Entities) Q11, Current Step 4 version, dated May 1 2012.
7 Final Concept Paper Q12: Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management, dated July 28 2014, endorsed by the ICH Steering Committee on Sept 9, 2014.
8 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management Q12, draft version endorsed on Nov 16, 2017.

////////////////ICH Q12, Guideline, Technical and Regulatory Considerations, Pharmaceutical Product, Lifecycle Management

New ICH Guidelines: ICH Q13 on Conti Manufacturing and ICH Q14 on AQbD

ICH

New ICH Guidelines:

*ICH Q13* on Continuous Manufacturing &
🎛🎚

*ICH Q14* on ATP – QbD (Analytical target profile and quality by design)

New ICH Guidelines: ICH Q13 on Conti Manufacturing and ICH Q14 on AQbD

In a press release from 22 June the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) has announced that they will prepare new topics for the future. The Assembly agreed to begin working on two new topics for ICH harmonisation:

Analytical Procedure Development and Revision of Q2(R1) Analytical Validation (Q2(R2)/Q14)
and
Continuous Manufacturing (Q13)

The long anticipated revision of ICH Q2(R1) “Guideline on Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology” has been approved and the work plan is scheduled to commence in Q3 2018. It is intended that the new guidelines will be consistent with ICH Q8(R2), Q9, Q10, Q11 and Q12 .

The AQbD approach is very important to collect information in order to get an understanding and control of sources of variability of the analytical procedure by defining the control strategy.

Based on the Analytical Target Profile (ATP) the objective of the test and the quality parameters can be defined. By performing the validation (qualification) in the QbD concept, sufficient confidence can be achieved in order to consistently generate the analytical results that meet the ATP requirements.

So far there has been a lack of an Analytical Development Guideline, which the new ICH Development Guideline is supposed to compensate. Currently analytical procedures are mainly validated according to the classical validation parameters and these procedures mainly focus on HPLC Methods. Therefore this ICH topic has a top priority for the pharmaceutical industry. It is expected that the Revision of the Q2 (R1) Guideline will help to implement new and innovative analytical methods.

For more details please read the complete ICH Press Release (Kobe, Japan, June 2018).

http://www.ich.org/ichnews/press-releases/view/article/ich-assembly-kobe-japan-june-2018.html

FDA approves first drug Epidiolex (cannabidiol) comprised of an active ingredient derived from marijuana to treat rare, severe forms of epilepsy

New Drug Approvals

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Epidiolex (cannabidiol) [CBD] oral solution for the treatment of seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, in patients two years of age and older. This is the first FDA-approved drug that contains a purified drug substance derived from marijuana. It is also the first FDA approval of a drug for the treatment of patients with Dravet syndrome.

June 25, 2018

Release

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Epidiolex (cannabidiol) [CBD] oral solution for the treatment of seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, in patients two years of age and older. This is the first FDA-approved drug that contains a purified drug substance derived from marijuana…

View original post 804 more words

FDA takes steps to foster greater efficiency in biosimilar development by reconsidering draft guidance on evaluating analytical studies

Image result for draft guidance

 

FDA takes steps to foster greater efficiency in biosimilar development by reconsidering draft guidance on evaluating analytical studies

Today, the agency withdrew the draft guidance, “Statistical Approaches to Evaluate Analytical Similarity,” issued in September 2017. The draft guidance, if finalized as written, was intended to provide advice for sponsors developing biosimilar products regarding the evaluation of analytical similarity between a proposed biosimilar product and a reference product. After considering public comments that the agency received about the draft guidance, the FDA determined it would withdraw the draft guidance as it gives further consideration to the scientific and regulatory issues involved.

June 21, 2018

Media Inquiries

  Angela Stark
  301-796-0397

“Biosimilars foster competition and can lower the cost of biologic treatments for patients, yet the market for these products is not advancing as quickly as I hoped. I believe that the FDA can do more to support the development of biosimilars, as well as promote the market acceptance of these products. As the cost to develop a single biosimilar product can reach hundreds of millions of dollars, it’s important that we advance policies that help make the development of biosimilar products more efficient, and patient and provider acceptance more certain,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. “One of the central aspects of biosimilar development and approval is the analytical studies performed to demonstrate that a biosimilar is highly similar to the reference product. We’re taking a fresh look at our draft recommendations for evaluating analytical studies in order to ensure our guidance takes into consideration the most current and relevant science. We’ll continue to work directly with biosimilar developers on their programs as we develop new draft guidance in this area. By supporting the more efficient development of biosimilars over the long term and helping reduce barriers to bringing these products to market, we can help ensure patients get access to affordable, safe and effective treatment options.”

Today, the agency withdrew the draft guidance, “Statistical Approaches to Evaluate Analytical Similarity,” issued in September 2017. The draft guidance, if finalized as written, was intended to provide advice for sponsors developing biosimilar products regarding the evaluation of analytical similarity between a proposed biosimilar product and a reference product. After considering public comments that the agency received about the draft guidance, the FDA determined it would withdraw the draft guidance as it gives further consideration to the scientific and regulatory issues involved.

Comments submitted to the docket addressed a range of issues that could impact the cost and efficiency of biosimilar development, including the number of reference product lots the draft guidance would recommend biosimilar developers sample in their evaluation of high similarity and the statistical methods for this evaluation. The FDA believes that in better addressing these issues in the future, the agency can advance principles that can promote a more efficient pathway for the development of biosimilar products.

The agency intends to issue future draft guidance that will reflect state-of-the-art techniques in the evaluation of analytical data to support a demonstration that a proposed biosimilar product is highly similar to a reference product. The goal is for future draft guidance to address potential challenges faced by biosimilar sponsors in designing studies that are intended to demonstrate that a proposed biosimilar product is highly similar to a reference product, including consideration of appropriate methods to analyze analytical data to account for potential lot-to-lot variability of the reference product. Future draft guidance also will focus on providing appropriate flexibility for sponsors in order to help spur the efficient development of biosimilars without compromising the agency’s rigorous scientific standards for evaluating marketing applications for biosimilars.

The FDA continues to encourage sponsors of proposed biosimilar products to discuss product development plans with the agency, including the evaluation of analytical data intended to support a demonstration that the proposed biosimilar product is highly similar to a reference product. The FDA will continue to provide development-stage advice to sponsors of proposed biosimilar products or proposed interchangeable products through formal meetings and other interactions with sponsors.

The FDA will communicate publicly when new draft guidance is issued in relation to the evaluation of analytical data between a proposed biosimilar product and a reference product.

/////////////////biosimilar development, draft guidance, analytical studies

FDA and USDA announce key step to advance collaborative efforts to streamline produce safety requirements for farmers

Image result for FDA and USDA announce key step to advance collaborative efforts to streamline produce safety requirements for farmers
As part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s ongoing effort to make the oversight of food safety stronger and more efficient, the FDA and the USDA today announced the alignment of the USDA Harmonized Good Agricultural Practices Audit Program (USDA H-GAP) with the requirements of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act’s (FSMA’s) Produce Safety Rule.
The new step is part of an ongoing effort to streamline produce safety requirements for farmers. The joint announcement was made by Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., during a visit by the Secretary to the FDA’s White Oak campus in Silver Spring, Md.

june 5, 2018

Image result for FDA and USDA announce key step to advance collaborative efforts to streamline produce safety requirements for farmers

 

Release

As part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s ongoing effort to make the oversight of food safety stronger and more efficient, the FDA and the USDA today announced the alignment of the USDA Harmonized Good Agricultural Practices Audit Program (USDA H-GAP) with the requirements of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act’s (FSMA’s) Produce Safety Rule.

The new step is part of an ongoing effort to streamline produce safety requirements for farmers. The joint announcement was made by Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., during a visit by the Secretary to the FDA’s White Oak campus in Silver Spring, Md.

“Government should make things easier for our customers whenever possible and these important improvements help accomplish that goal,” said Secretary Perdue. “Specialty crop farmers who take advantage of a USDA Harmonized GAP audit now will have a much greater likelihood of passing a FSMA inspection as well. This means one stop at USDA helps producers meet federal regulatory requirements, deliver the safest food in the world and grow the market for American-grown food. This is an important first step. We look forward to continuing to work with FDA, other government agencies and especially our state partners to ensure proper training of auditors and inspectors, and to help producers understand changes in the audit.”

While the requirements of both programs are not identical, the relevant technical components in the FDA Produce Safety Rule are covered in the USDA H-GAP Audit Program. The aligned components include areas such as biological soil amendments; sprouts; domesticated and wild animals; worker training; health and hygiene; and equipment, tools and buildings. The alignment will help farmers by enabling them to assess their food safety practices as they prepare to comply with the Produce Safety Rule. However, the USDA audits are not a substitute for FDA or state regulatory inspections.

“We’re committed to working with USDA to pursue our shared goal of advancing food safety in a way that is efficient and helps farmers meet our regulatory standards. By working together, our two programs can advance these efforts more effectively,” said Commissioner Gottlieb. “Today’s announcement will help FDA and states better prioritize our inspectional activities by using USDA H-GAP audit information to prioritize inspectional resources and ultimately enhance our overall ability to protect public health. Inspections are key to helping to ensure that produce safety standards are being met, but they only provide a snapshot in time. Leveraging the data and work being done by USDA will provide us with more information so that we can develop a clearer understanding of the safety and vulnerabilities on produce farms as well as concentrate our oversight and resources where they are most needed.”

The Produce Safety Rule, which went into effect on Jan. 26, 2016, establishes science-based minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing and holding of fruits and vegetables grown for human consumption. The rule is part of the FDA’s ongoing efforts to implement FSMA. Large farming operations were required to comply with the rule in January 2018. However, the FDA had previously announced that inspections to assess compliance with the Produce Safety Rule for produce other than sprouts would not begin until Spring 2019. Small and very small farms have additional time to comply.

The USDA Harmonized GAP Audit Program is an audit developed as part of the Produce GAP Harmonization Initiative, an industry-driven effort to develop food safety GAP standards and audit checklists for pre-harvest and post-harvest operations. The Initiative is a collaborative effort on the part of growers, shippers, produce buyers, audit organizations and government agencies, including USDA. The USDA Harmonized GAP audit, in keeping with the Initiative’s goals, is applicable to all fresh produce commodities, all sizes of on-farm operations and all regions in the United States. For more information visit: https://www.ams.usda.gov.

Today’s announcement builds on a formal agreement signed earlier this year outlining plans to increase interagency coordination regarding produce safety, inspections of dual-jurisdiction facilities and biotechnology activities. The FDA and USDA are committed to continuing to work collaboratively to ensure that the requirements and expectations of the USDA H-GAP Audit Program remain aligned with the FDA’s Produce Safety Rule.

Farmers who are interested in learning more about this alignment and what they can do to prepare for compliance with the Produce Safety Rule can contact their regional representative of the Produce Safety Network or find more information at FDA.gov.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is made up of 29 agencies and offices with nearly 100,000 employees who serve the American people at more than 4,500 locations across the country and abroad. We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on public policy, the best available science, and effective management. We have a vision to provide economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve our nation’s natural resources through conservation, restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands.

Cafestol

New Drug Approvals

Cafestol, a Bioactive Substance in Coffee, Has Antidiabetic Properties in KKAy Mice https://lnkd.in/e7BxMkg

Image result for CafesterolChemSpider 2D Image | Cafesterol | C20H28O3Image result for Cafesterol

Cafesterol

  • Molecular FormulaC20H28O3
  • Average mass316.435 Da
  • (1S,4S,12S,13R,16S,17R)-17-(Hydroxymethyl)-12-methyl-8-oxapentacyclo[14.2.1.01,13.04,12.05,9]nonadeca-5(9),6-dien-17-ol
    (1S,4S,12S,13R,16S,17R)-17-(Hydroxymethyl)-12-methyl-8-oxapentacyclo[14.2.1.01,13.04,12.05,9]nonadeca-5(9),6-dien-17-ol
    (1S,4S,12S,13R,16S,17R)-17-(Hydroxyméthyl)-12-méthyl-8-oxapentacyclo[14.2.1.01,13.04,12.05,9]nonadéca-5(9),6-dién-17-ol
    (3bS,5aS,7R,10aR,10bS)-7-(hydroxymethyl)-10b-methyl-3b,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,10a,10b,11,12-dodecahydro-5a,8-methanocyclohepta[5,6]naphtho[2,1-b]furan-7-ol
    [3bS-(3ba,5ab,7b,8b-10aa,10bb)]-3b,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,10a,10b,11,12-Dodecahydro-7-hydroxy-10b-methyl-5a,8-methano-5aH-cyclohepta[5,6]-naphtho[2,1-b]furan-7-methanol
    Cafesterol
    469-83-0 [RN]

Scientists identify health benefits of cafestol in coffee

Scientists have identified two compounds in coffee – cafestol and caffeic acid – that could someday lead to the development of new medications to better prevent and treat type 2 diabetes…

Drinking three to four cups of coffee per day has been shown to decrease the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Now, scientists report they have identified two compounds that contribute to this health benefit. Researchers say that this knowledge could someday help them develop new medications to better prevent and treat the disease.

Patients with type 2…

View original post 574 more words