I'm not in the US and we don't have as much civil litigation risk in the UK, however, I think from an outside point of view it's about good risk management (which goes beyond QFS so this should be led by a senior Director even if they're not a legal counsel.)
Not sure if you have this in the US too but the team normally compile (with the assistance of site if a large company) a risk register. This will often include:
- Health and safety risks
- Environmental risks
- Risks to the consumer
- Emerging risks in the marketplace
- External risks and threats locally
- Legislative risks
You then risk assess where you are now against each and form a plan to improve. By documenting it in this way you are proving that you're considering and mitigating (which normally helps insurance premiums, which you should also have.)
This isn't repeating HACCP but, you may decide to record a generic one around consumer risk but also some specific ones if you don't feel that you've mitigated them fully, for example around plasticisers or claims.
On the examples you give though, I would look to industry organisations in the US (sorry I don't know what they are) but build that into your horizon scanning for emerging threats. After all, that's what it's there for. Then if you can correct or mitigate immediately once one comes along, do it or record it in your risk register as something you're working on. You might already want to include in your risk register something along the lines of:
- Risk of emerging threats on plasticiser and maximum residue limits with changing legislation and consumer awareness.
Your mitigation should then be around looking ahead to any changes in guidance, law and consumer perception. Might be worth looking around the world as well. The EU are often early adopters of tightening MRLs sometimes beyond where required in my view but they take a very precautionary approach. Not saying the US will follow but it's something which could become a consumer pressure issue later. I'd also use your suppliers for info and involve them in that step, they can often tell you what discussions are taking place long before they're made public. It can then help you see which are likely to become pressure issues in the future. For example BPA was rumbling around for years in consumer circles before legislation finally changed.
On claims, I would think you should have this down already. If not, then I'd get it down! This should be part of your VACCP or authenticity plan. You should be listing what product claims you make and how they were originally validated, how they're controlled and monitored on your lines (e.g. weight checking into pack for protein) and then some kind of verification checks (e.g. you might send off a sample of products for verification of protein content or full nutritional on a periodic basis which you've documented.)
"Natural" is thornier in the UK and EU anyway. The FSA put out guidance on the use of it in 2002 but a cereal bar company, believing themselves to be following that guidance were ruled against by the ASA (UK advertising standards authority) as it was containing cocoa powder and sunflower oil as "natural". That's where you probably do need a bit of advice from an industry body or may need to pay for one off legal advice if you're putting that claim on a pack if US laws are as strict. You rarely see it in the UK anymore as it used to be widely abused. It looks as though guidelines on this will be (finally) updated soon:
Industry consulted on labels claiming 'natural' and 'pure'
