Change It or Rescind It, Say Food Groups

10/2/2003 Change It or Rescind It, Say Food Groups - 10/2 Agriculture Law

"The approach that USDA has taken to country of origin labeling would be unnecessarily burdensome and operationally impractical for both food processors and retailers," said Kurt Buckman, director of quality systems management for Birds Eye Foods, who testified on behalf of NFPA. "USDA's guidelines would 'over regulate' by prescribing country of origin labeling for products already required to display such labeling, creating the prospect of duplicative, confusing and even conflicting requirements."

Buckman noted that "The food industry is currently faced with complying with the farm law country of origin labeling requirements on Sept. 30, 2004. As of today, we have neither final guidance nor regulations. Covered foods offered for retail sale come September 30, 2004 will not all have been packaged under industry programs to satisfy the USDA country of origin labeling requirements." He added, "The current requirements established by the farm law and USDA's guidance are seriously flawed. Another look at these requirements is needed to exempt all processed foods, which already are covered by Customs Bureau regulations. USDA's voluntary country of origin program should not become mandatory without significant and substantial change."

"GMA has consistently opposed additional mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements," said Counsel to GMA Gary Jay Kushner. "Particularly as administered by USDA, the farm law's requirements will result in a duplicative, confusing and costly scheme that will actually harm the very people Congress sought to help - U.S. producers."

Kushner also explained that, under U.S. Customs law, frozen produce and frozen seafood imported to the United States already must bear a clear, indelible mark indicating that they are produced outside the United States. Congress also expressly exempted "processed foods" from COOL including frozen produce and shelled, roasted, packaged peanuts. However, USDA has interpreted this Congressional mandate so narrowly as to render it meaningless.

"USDA's unreasonably narrow definition of 'processed foods' could encourage processors either to produce their products abroad, or to use only imported ingredients," Kushner continued. "By restricting ingredient sources, a company can avoid frequent labeling changes, simplify record keeping and ensure that they are in compliance with the regulations. The result of which will be domestic agriculture producers losing customers." "The only way to avoid these results is for Congress to amend the law to rescind these onerous COOL requirements," concluded Kushner. "Alternatively, GMA believes congressional oversight over USDA's implementation of its new authority is necessary."

Related Link: http://www.agriculturelaw.com

Go back to main page

This website is best viewed in or versions 4.0 and
above. All content contained herein is subject to copyright law.

Click here to unsubscribe