Food Safety Legislation

The financial crisis has helped move food safety legislation from the Congressional spotlight. It’s now looking even more unlikely any legislation will pass this year. However, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2008, bi-partisan legislation co-sponsored by several senators, is guaranteed to receive a lot of consideration early next year and is still said to have an excellent chance to pass.

The key points are a change from a one-time registration with FDA to renewals every two years, the requirement for foreign supplier verification programs and the creation of a voluntary qualified importer program, something similar to Customs’ C-TPAT program. The most important part of all of this is HACCP. That’s what members of Congress and food industry members have in mind when they refer to supplier verification programs. It’s not requiring HACCP but that’s the concept or yardstick people have in mind. If another verification program is equal to or better than HACCP, that’s okay. If there’s no program or a program that doesn’t address food safety issues as well as HACCP, it won’t do.

Markings Requirement

Thank you to the members who provided input on the proposed requirement to mark products refused entry to the U.S. The Bioterrorism Act contained a provision requiring product refused entry by the U.S. to be marked as such. As part of the National Coalition of Food Importing Associations, AFI was able to help delay the implementation of this provision.

Our argument was that there are times when product that doesn’t meet U.S. standards meets the standards of another country and that marking the product as refused would greatly reduce the value of the product. We said any marking should be done in a way not to reduce the value of the product.

Byrd Amendment Rumors

Rumors of the creation of another version of the Byrd Amendment continue to swirl, in large part to letters by several industry groups to members of Congress in which the groups ask the legislators not to consider such a policy. AFI will continue to monitor this situation.

AFI Rewards

Refer a member, win a prize. Remember to encourage your suppliers, service providers, etc. to join AFI. You’re guaranteed to win a prize every time you refer a new member.

If you didn’t receive the contest information or have questions, please contact the AFI office.

Country of Origin Labeling Rule Enforcement Not to Begin Until April

Although country of origin labeling requirements were expanded as of Sept. 30, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service issued a notice on that day telling inspection program personnel not to do any verification activities to assess whether the label statements made under the COOL rules are truthful and/or not misleading. Instead, FSIS will defer to USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service’s outreach and education program to ensure there is compliance with the new rules.

As of Sept. 30, the following products must be labeled with their country of origin: muscle cuts of beef (including veal), lamb, chicken, goat and pork; ground beef, lamb, chicken, goat and pork; perishable agricultural commodities; macadamia nuts; pecans; ginseng; and peanuts. This mandatory COOL requirement applies to product produced or packaged on or after Sept. 30.

USDA Report Lists Recurring Imported Food Safety Problems

A USDA report says some types of imported food and food safety violations have been consistent sources of problems. USDA’s Economic Research Service examined FDA data on import refusals from 1998 to 2004 and found these refusals highlight specific problems where FDA has focused its import alerts, examinations and other monitoring efforts.

The primary goals of the report are to identify what the FDA import refusal data represent, which sanitary issues and other violations were most common, how such violations were distributed among different industry groups and which violations were most persistent over time. The report’s findings include the following.

• Food imports made up 16 percent of all foods consumed in 2004. Imports’ share of U.S. consumption ranged from 80 percent for fish and shellfish and 33.9 percent for fruits and nuts to 10.4 percent for red meat and 5.6 percent for animal products.

• From 1998 to 2004 there were 49,448 shipments refused entry. In 2002, 2003 and 2004 there were roughly twice as many refused shipments as in each of the previous four years. This growth reflects greater use of the FDA’s OASIS electronic entry submission system as well as the increased volume of food entries, which jumped from around 3 million in fiscal year 1997 to 9.5 million a decade later.

• The top imported food categories refused due to food safety and other violations were vegetables and vegetable products (20.6 percent of total violations), fishery and seafood products (20.1 percent) and fruits and fruit products (11.7 percent).

• Of the 70,369 violations reported from 1998 to 2004, 33 percent were for misbranding or the lack of appropriate labeling and 65 percent were for adulteration or safety and packaging integrity problems. The most common adulteration violations were for the appearance of filth in a food product or for failures to file information or register a specified process.

• Refusals for sanitary violations in seafood and fruit products, pesticide violations in vegetables and unregistered processes for canned food products in all three categories were persistent over time. This, the report says, suggests there may be unresolved food safety management issues surrounding the wholesomeness of fishery and seafood products and fruit products as well as unsafe pesticide residues and processing violations in horticultural products (both vegetables and fruits).

• Unsafe coloring was the most common violation for candy (excluding chocolate and gum), bakery products and soft drinks. Salmonella contamination was the most common violation for the meat group and the spices, flavors and salts group. Listeria contamination was the most common violation for cheese and cheese products.

The report says the ERS plans a future report in which it will examine the relationship between FDA import refusals and the volume of trade and type of exporter as well as the relationship between types of violations, country of origin and product characteristics.

AFI Calendar

October 20, 2008 – AFI Reception at SIAL in Paris.

November 14, 2008 – AFI Town Meeting (Tentative - site in northern New Jersey to be named.)

January 8, 2009 – National Honey Packers and Dealers Association Meeting in Fresno, Calif. (Tentative)

January 16, 2009 – North American Olive Oil Association Meeting in San Francisco

April 30-May 2, 2009 – AFI Convention, Naples Beach Hotel & Golf Club, Naples, Fla.