| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 34
Review of the Methodology Proposed by the Food Safety and Inspection Service for Followup Surveillance of In-Commerce Businesses: A Letter Report
APPENDIX G
(From FSIS Directive 8010.1, Revision 2)
In determining whether to identify a person or firm for a followup surveillance review and the period within which to conduct the followup review, Investigators are to consider:
The firm type (i.e., business type) and ICS tier;
Whether the person or firm is operating under, and in compliance with, an administrative order, court order, or other binding case disposition terms;
Surveillance review findings, including, but not limited to, the following:
whether products are found to be wholesome and not adulterated;
whether sanitary conditions are such that products would not become contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health;
whether hazard controls are adequate to prevent products from becoming adulterated;
whether products not intended for use as human food are being properly denatured or otherwise made inedible; and
whether records are being maintained in compliance with agency requirements.
Whether the Investigator documented an apparent violation(s) of the FMIA, PPIA, EPIA;
Whether the Investigator initiated a product control action(s); and
The person or firm’s compliance history.
