The European Union has reportedly blocked a U.S. request that the World Trade Organization (WTO) settle a dispute over a ban on American poultry imports. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative apparently asked for the ruling after industry groups criticized the scientific evidence behind an EU regulation prohibiting the pathogen-reduction treatments used in U.S. poultry processing. According to the National Chicken Council, U.S. poultry exports could exceed $300 million if EU regulators permitted the in-plant use of chlorine dioxide, trisodium phosphate, acidified sodium chlorite and peracetic acid in products destined for the European market. The European Union cannot block a second request, which is apparently expected in November. See Bloomberg.com, October 23, 2009; Meatingplace.com, October 26, 2009.
Category Archives Legislation, Regulations and Standards
The United States has reportedly blocked Canadian and Mexican efforts to convene a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel that would determine whether the new U.S. country-of-origin (COOL) labeling requirements for meat products are fair. Under WTO procedures, a country can block the creation of a dispute settlement panel once. If, as expected, Canada and Mexico renew their calls for a panel at the WTO dispute settlement body’s November 19, 2009, meeting, the United States will be unable to block it again unless the body consents. U.S. officials reportedly told the WTO, “The U.S. urges Canada and Mexico to reconsider their decisions to request a panel in these disputes, and we are not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel at this time.” See Meatingplace.com and Law 360, October 26, 2009.
The Department of Health and Human Service’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has posted on its website a draft toxicological profile for acrylamide, a chemical by-product of some high-temperature cooking processes that has been linked to cancer in laboratory rats. The agency is accepting public comments on the profile until February 26, 2010.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has announced that it will spend $30 million on two-year research grants targeting the potential health risks of bisphenol A (BPA) exposure. The ubiquitous chemical is used to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins that may leach into foods and beverages from product packaging. “We know that many people are concerned about bisphenol A, and we want to support the best science we can to provide the answers,” NIEHS Director Linda Birnbaum was quoted as saying. NIEHS and the National Toxicology Program identified BPA as a priority after concluding in 2008 that evidence from animal studies showed that BPA “may be causing adverse effects.” Researchers will reportedly focus on low-dose BPA exposure and compile data on “a number of health effects including behavior, obesity, diabetes, reproductive disorders, development of prostate, breast and uterine cancer, asthma, cardiovascular diseases and transgenerational or epigenetic effects.”…
The food industry has reportedly halted a new front-of-packaging (FOP) labeling campaign pending Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance. According to an October 23, 2009, press release, the Smart Choices Program™ voluntarily postponed active operations after FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg indicated “that the agency intends to develop standardized criteria on which future front-of-package nutrition or shelf labeling will be based.” While awaiting FDA guidance, the program will no longer enroll new companies or encourage use of the logo. “We welcome the FDA’s interest in developing uniform front-of-package and shelf-labeling criteria,” said program chair Mike Hughes. “The Smart Choices Program shares that exact goal, and was designed to provide a voluntary front-of-package labeling program that could promote informed food choices and help consumers construct healthier diets. We continue to believe the Smart Choices Program is an important step in the right direction.” See Reuters, October 23, 2009; FoodNavigator-USA.com and UPI.com, October…
EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has reportedly announced €280 million ($417 million) in additional subsidies to dairy farmers affected by plummeting agricultural prices. Intended to appease vocal protesters and agricultural lobbies, the aid responded to requests from 21 member states, including France and Germany, despite objections from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. In addition, the European Union has agreed to cap milk production, although it stopped short of creating a pan-European institution to regulate the market. “We hope that we can stabilize the market with the proposals that we have today,” Swedish Farm Minister Eskil Erlandsson was quoted as saying. Meanwhile, the European Milk Board has welcomed the subsidies and production limits but noted that farmers have already lost €15 billion ($22 billion) in the current economic crisis. “That shows that 280 million euros won’t get us far,” the board president told reporters. See The Canadian Press, Daily…
The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit public feedback on issues related to the hazards of “combustible dust” in workplaces, including agricultural and grain handling industries, and factories that manufacture food, animal food, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals. OSHA defines combustible dust as “all combustible particulate solids of any size, shape, or chemical composition that could present a fire or deflagration hazard when suspended in air or other oxidizing medium.” Materials that can form combustible dust include wood, coal, plastics, biosolids, candy, sugar, spice, starch, flour, feed, grain, fertilizer, tobacco, paper, soap, rubber, drugs, dried blood, dyes, and certain textiles and metals. OSHA will accept comments on the proposed rule until January 19, 2010. See Federal Register, October, 21, 2009.
Three U.S. Senators have introduced a bill (S. 1783) that would extend mandatory country-of-origin (COOL) labeling to dairy products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s current COOL law took effect in 2008 and requires origin labeling on meats, nuts and raw produce, but not dairy products or processed foods. The Dairy COOL Act of 2009 extends the current law to include milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, and butter, but retains the exemption for processed foods. “With the discovery last year of widespread use of melamine in Chinese dairy products, consumers deserve to know whether the milk used to produce the dairy products they buy meets the high safety standards used in the U.S.,” said Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), who co-sponsored the legislation with colleagues Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Al Franken (D-Minn.). Franken said the bill helps address the issue of low milk prices by helping “American dairy farmers stand out in…
An organization that seeks to advance the interests of organic and family farmers has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program (NOP) and state officials in Wisconsin and Minnesota, asking for an investigation of Target Corp. for alleged violations of federal organic regulations. The Cornucopia Institute contends that Target advertised Silk® soymilk “with the term ‘organic’ pictured on the carton’s label, when in fact the product’s manufacturer, Dean Foods’ WhiteWave division, has been sourcing this product line with conventional soybeans.” According to an institute press release, “Dean Foods, had quietly shifted their products away from organics,” before the Target ads appeared in newspapers throughout the Midwest. Cornucopia’s senior farm policy analyst was quoted as saying, “Major food processors have recognized the meteoric rise of the organic industry, and profit potential, and want to create what is in essence ‘organic light,’ taking advantage of the market…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a letter to the food industry to provide guidance on front-of-package (FOP) labeling and warn that the agency “will consider using our regulatory tools” if the industry fails to provide “a common, credible approach to FOP and shelf labeling.” According to FDA, consumers are less likely to read the nutrition facts label on the back or side of a food package and thus rely on information appearing on the front of the package. Acknowledging that food companies have begun relying on “symbol programs” to convey nutritional information, FDA states that it is assessing the criteria established by food manufacturers and comparing them with its regulatory criteria. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg stated during a conference call with journalists that the agency plans to “take enforcement for egregious examples,” observing that “[s]ome nutritionists have questioned whether this information is more marketing oriented than nutrition…
