|
Post by martha on May 28, 2015 16:59:12 GMT -5
I threw this out to IFSQN also. I'm going to talk to an attorney friend as well.
This question is for those employers who are in the United States.
7.3.3 of the BRC standard talks about "procedures for employees, contractors and visitors relating to action to be taken where they may be suffering from or have been in contact with an infectious disease. Expert medical advice shall be sought when required" (italics mine for emphasis).
This is such a touchy subject. In my state, you cannot ask anyone about their HIV status, no matter what, even though it is an infectious disease. For employees, you cannot ask about anything that could identify a disability unless it involves their fitness to perform a job. There are a limited number of diseases that the CDC has listed that would allow an employer to assign a worker to another task not handling food, and most of them are not what make people sick at work. And they only talk about a worker who has the disease, not exposure to the disease. There doesn't seem to be a mechanism for getting the information that someone has a particular disease.
And dealing with contractors and visitors is another whole ball of 4th amendment issues.
So, for my fellow Americans who are certified BRC, how do you handle this?
|
|
|
Post by cazyncymru on May 29, 2015 2:27:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rick Ramsay on Jun 12, 2015 9:13:55 GMT -5
Martha, I'm not sure what state laws you are talking about but are you certain it does not make an exemption for industries governed by the FDA? Even HIPPA has that exemption. Also you don't need to ask their status of each disease but you can have a form they check no to and sign that says they are aware and have been trained of the FDA regulations on food product manufacturing and affirm they do not have, nor have recently been in contact, any condition listed above. If they walk out then you have your answer. www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/publichealth/index.htmlwww.cdc.gov/foodsafety/pdfs/pathogens-by-food-handlers-508c.pdf - this doesn't even list HIV... 21 CFR 110 states: Sec. 110.10 Personnel. The plant management shall take all reasonable measures and precautions to ensure the following: (a) Disease control. Any person who, by medical examination or supervisory observation, is shown to have, or appears to have, an illness, open lesion, including boils, sores, or infected wounds, or any other abnormal source of microbial contamination by which there is a reasonable possibility of food, food-contact surfaces, or food-packaging materials becoming contaminated, shall be excluded from any operations which may be expected to result in such contamination until the condition is corrected. Personnel shall be instructed to report such health conditions to their supervisors. www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=110&showFR=1&subpartNode=21:2.0.1.1.10.1People just need to understand that they are legally (and morally) required to NOT WORK WITH FOOD! The law says they have to report it. This is our responsibility, no matter how much we don't like dealing with it, to protect the population.
|
|
|
Post by martha on Jun 12, 2015 14:18:34 GMT -5
Rick:
In MD, the law is that you cannot require anyone to be tested for HIV without their consent. You cannot use the results of HIV testing to discriminate against an employee. It's actually that way in a lot of states, but you can't require that they take an HIV test here.
The BRC code has a statement that you need to have a policy where, if allowed by law, you shall require employees/visitors/contractors to fill out a health questionnaire or otherwise confirm they are not suffering from amy symptoms which may put product safety at risk. That's probably not going to be legal anywhere in the US, due to privacy and ADA rules.
What people talk about in the US is based on the FDA Food Code, which only applies to food service and food retail employees. So food manufacturing employees are then covered by the ADA, where a disease is considered to be a disability. It gets into interpretation of what it means for an employee to not be able to safely perform their job functions. The imterpretations I see use examples where someone gets dizzy and is operating a crane, things like that. It's a really gray area.
I got some good information from one person, who basically made a policy that you have to tell employees what the communicable diseases are that the CDC lists as problematic for food service/retail employees, and require that workers self-report. He said that it has worked for him.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Ramsay on Jun 15, 2015 6:22:28 GMT -5
I get that but HIV isn't even on the list of food-borne pathogens.
|
|
|
Post by evilredhead on Jun 15, 2015 8:39:39 GMT -5
People are still not knowledgeable about HIV and AIDS
|
|
|
Post by martha on Jun 15, 2015 15:36:28 GMT -5
Correct, it's not on the CDC/FDA list, and correct, people are not knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS. The problem is the wording of "communicable diseases" which technically HIV is. So, by using the FDA verbage, I think I'm safe.
Other countries may have different thoughts about HIV as the US.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Ramsay on Jun 16, 2015 9:30:27 GMT -5
That is a possibility. And if you are exporting to another country you may have to take that into account. However if you are only shipping into the united states you should only have to follow the list of food-borne pathogenic diseases.
We use government directives to create the boundaries of our programs. We can always go above and beyond, should we chose to and are legally allowed, but in the instance I would tend to stay within the confines of what they require and stay there.
|
|