Confusion on petfood coverage in proposal to label genetically modified foods

Advertisements for a proposal to label genetically modified foods in Washington, USA, are causing confusion over whether or not the initiative would cover petfood and meats for human consumption. The fight over the wording of the proposal comes after a measure known as Proposition 37 was defeated in California, USA, in 2012, which had similar wording and major companies funding both sides of the proposal. 
"Petfood would be covered but meat for human consumption would be exempt," said Dan Newhouse, a former state agriculture secretary, in recent commercials against I-522.
However, the I-522 measure reportedly does not mention petfood in the 2,448-word text. Though it exempts meat that has been fed or injected with genetically modified products from the labeling requirements, I-522 would require meat from a genetically modified animal to be labeled if sold in a supermarket.
The key point is that the initiative fails to define "food," said Rob Maguire, an attorney for the "No" campaign. According to Maguire, courts would look at the definition in Article 69 of state statutes, which deals with food labeling, along with the federal law and the common dictionary definition, all of which include petfood. 
"That's just false," said Knoll Lowney, attorney for the "Yes" campaign, which argues petfood is not covered. The initiative would fall under Article 70, not Article 69, so the definition would not apply, according to Lowney. Courts would look first at the initiative, which says in the introductory section that its purpose is "to ensure people are fully informed about whether the food they purchase and eat was produced through genetic engineering," Lowney said.
Lowney and Maguire agree that petfood would only be required to be labeled if the state Health Department includes it in rules the agency must write if the initiative passes.
According to Lowney, a key difference is that California supporters of Proposition 37 wanted the law to cover petfood, whereas supporters of I-522 in Washington are only concerned with human food. I-522 supporters could not add specific language to exempt petfood because it cannot be changed once an initiative begins gathering signatures.

US government shutdown delays release of FSMA Preventative Controls for Animal Food proposed rule

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) furloughed 68 percent of its staff as a result of the US government shutdown, which impacts the monitoring of foodborne illnesses and contaminants and delays indefinitely the release of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Preventive Controls for Animal Food proposed rule.
CDC had to furlough 8,754 workers, according to a tweet from agency director, Tom Frieden. Although more than 4,000 people remain at the agency during the shutdown to protect stocks of deadly viruses, like smallpox and Ebola, and run CDC's emergency operations, the agency will not be able to conduct routine inspections of high-security labs that work with "select agent" pathogens that pose severe threats to human and animal health. Most of CDC's own lab work has also been stopped.
Just one CDC staffer is tracking reports of only the most dangerous foodborne pathogens, such as Salmonella, E. coli and listeria, compared to the six staffers who usually do the work.
"We're not looking at campylobacter or shigella unless we get word from the states saying to look at this," said Christopher Braden, director of the CDC's division of foodborne, waterborne and environmental diseases.
Additionally, only seven epidemiologists are monitoring and responding to outbreaks or clusters of foodborne disease, rather than the 18 who usually handle this work, Dr. Braden said. "What we're able to do at this point is monitor and continue the investigations where we know that people are at risk. What we don't have the staff to do is address those things we normally would where there's some potential risk out there."
The US government shutdown also delays indefinitely the anticipated release of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s FSMA Preventative Controls for Animal Food proposed rule. According to an update from FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM):
"In the absence of either an FY 2014 appropriation or a Continuing Resolution for FDA, agency operations will be limited to the following:
• Emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property;
• Criminal law enforcement work; and
• Activities funded by carryover user fee balances, including user fee balances under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA), Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA), Animal Drug User Fee Act (ADUFA), Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act (AGDUFA), and Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Carryover user fee balances will only be spent on activities for which the fees are authorized under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
"With respect to medical product user fees, during the lapse period, FDA will not have legal authority to accept user fees assessed for FY 2014 until an FY 2014 appropriation for FDA is enacted. This will mean that FDA will not be able to accept any regulatory submissions for FY 2014 that require a fee payment and that are submitted during the lapse period."

California voters reject Prop. 37 food labeling initiative

On election day, voters in California, USA, rejected Proposition 37, an initiative aimed at providing consumers with information about genetically engineered food. If passed, the initiative would have mandated that processed foods no longer be labeled as "natural," and retailers would be responsible for ensuring all processed foods containing any covered any covered material are identified as “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.”
However, the No on 37 campaign successfully helped to urge voters to vote "no" to the measure. The No on 37 campaign included a coalition of family farmers, doctors, scientists, researchers, retailers, food companies, business groups and more.The campaign argued that the proposition was misleading, costly and unnecessary based on the science of genetically engineered foods.
“California voters clearly saw through Prop. 37 and rejected higher food costs, more lawsuits and more bureaucracy,” said Henry I. Miller, M.D., the founding director of the US Food and Drug Administration's Office of Biotechnology (1989-93). “Food labeling policy should be based on logic and science, not fear. Leading scientific organizations have all agreed that foods containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe and are not materially different from their traditional counterparts. We’re glad the voters rejected this misleading, costly and unnecessary measure.”

US food safety legislation passes -- finally

It's been quite a roller coaster ride for S. 510, the new Food Safety Modernization Act, but it finally passed the US Congress on December 21, 2010, and is headed for President Obama's desk to be signed into law before the end of the year.
Among other provisions, the new law expands the authority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over about 80% of the US food supply -- not including meat and poultry products regulated by the US Department of Agriculture but including most petfood products -- with mandatory recall powers and expanded access to producers' records. (Currently FDA can only recommend recalls, not mandate them.)
 S. 510 also requires foreign manufacturers importing food into the US to meet the same standards as US growers and facilities, which includes implementing food safety plans and being able to prove they're being followed.
 This provision regarding food safety programs has perhaps the most implications for petfood. I've talked recently with people in the industry, including an executive with a major supplier, who are concerned some smaller petfood manufacturers have no clue how to go about setting up a safety or sanitation program (or how to prove if they already have and follow one).
 This person also relayed anecdotally that inspectors don't necessarily understand petfood processing and how it relates to ensuring and proving safety. For example, he cited a story about an inspector telling a petfood processor that its extruder was a source of contamination -- when in fact, the high heat of extrusion usually kills pathogens and toxins.
 So, a good deal of education and information is needed, and Petfood Industry will try to supply as much as we can. Meanwhile, don't hesitate to start reaching out to people you know in the industry -- suppliers, consultants, peers at other manufacturers, university experts -- to ask for advice or helpful sources of information.
 It will take a while for FDA and other agencies involved to write and implement the regulations coming out of S. 510, but rest assured, those are coming.

AFIA commends Congress on enacting landmark food safety legislation

The American Feed Industry Association is commending Congress for its diligence in enacting the sweeping changes in FDA oversight of American food safety in more than 70 years. The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010 carries several firewalls to ensure human food regulations are not inappropriately applied to animal feed and petfoods and gives FDA first-time mandatory recall authority, but with administrative protections for regulated industry.
“We congratulate and thank Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) for not letting up in their effort to get the Senate food safety bill (S. 510) passed – and passed again," said Joel Newman, AFIA president and CEO.
“The end result of the Senate’s hard work is an even-handed set of new authorities, supported by agriculture, the food industry and consumer groups, allowing FDA to increase food safety protection without unduly burdening the industry."
Newman said the new law carries several additional requirements for FDA to recognize sourcing and production practices unique to the feed industry, including the need to buy ingredients from elevators and others who commingle grains and oilseeds from several farms, and to ensure FDA can exempt the feed and petfood industries from certain regulations when appropriate. Also in the law is new FDA authority to recognize and officially approve the use of third-party compliance, inspection and testing organizations as part of compliance regimens.
The new law does not impose registration fees on companies as the House-passed bill authorized, and does authorize user fees to pay the government’s cost of a mandatory recall, facility re-inspections, export certification and the voluntary importer inspection program.
The bill saw bipartisan support and support from a variety of consumer groups and associations. Critics said the law will stretch the federal government's reach without improving food safety.

Lobbyists influence FDA's food safety overhaul

More than 221 organizations hired 77 lobbying firms to fight over details in the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Food Safety Modernization Act recently passed by the US Senate, according to The Washington Post.
Nearly all of Washington, DC,USA's largest lobbying firms registered to lobby on the overhaul, but it was smaller firms that represented clients' interests most often, The Post reported. The Bockorny Group registered to work on the bill for 11 clients, more than any other lobbying group. Another frequently employed firm, Policy Directions Inc., was hired by nine clients. Other lobbying firms involved, each representing eight clients, were the Alpine Group, Meyers & Associates, and Tarplin, Downs & Young. The exact price paid for this lobbying work is difficult to measure as disclosure forms filed with the Senate do not break down payments by issue.

Filipino lawmaker files petfood ingredient bill

Rep. Narciso Santiago III has filed the Pet Food Additive Information Bill, or House Bill 7059, which would require petfood producers to list the ingredients and additives in their product on the packaging, according to the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
HB 7059 would also require producers to place warnings if an additive is a known carcinogen or causes harmful side effects.

PFI reviews petfood legislature

At its meeting in March, the Pet Food Institute board of directors reiterated its legislative priorities: petfood specific proposals, including taxes on petfood; food safety legislation; and expansion of the legal standing of pets.
Below are updates on legislation the PFI has fought against.
Active
S.B. 250, which reiterates existing California requirements that all dogs be licensed and that the licensing fee for intact dogs be double the fee for spayed/neutered dogs, is currently under consideration in the California Assembly. PFI is arguing for the commercial exemption that would free petfood companies operating kennels in California from the licensing requirement.
Pending/defeated
A proposed 1% sales tax increase in Maine was defeated. However, the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry is setting up a working group that will meet outside the legislative session later this year to explore funding options for the state’s Animal Welfare Program, possibly bringing the petfood tax back for consideration.
Defeated
A proposal to require petfood companies to register and provide their product recipes to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture was defeated.
A proposal to tax $57.50 per ton of petfood to fund a spay/neuter program was defeated in Washington.

Free seminar on FDA regulations

East-West Logistics Inc. is hosting a free seminar on June 29 from 2-5 pm PST during which FDA officials will explain and address questions about agency regulations.
“Avoiding FDA Issues and Improving Your Bottom Line Seminar” will take place at the Holiday Inn, 14299 Firestone Boulevard, La Mirada, Calif., 90638.
For more information, e-mail Deatra Wheeler at deatraw@2eastwest.com or call +1.714.690.3700, ext. 146.

New Canadian petfood import regulations

Canada's new import requirements for petfoods, treats and compound chews become effective July 1, 2009. These commodities will only be allowed entry into Canada with a valid import permit held by the Canadian importer.
US facilities that wish to continue exporting petfoods, treats or compound chews with bovinae ingredients (except ingredients identified by the OIE as essentially BSE risk free) must be inspected and approved by APHIS’ Veterinary Services (VS), and each shipment of petfood with bovinae ingredients must be certified by VS.
The CFIA Questionnaire for US Bovinae Pet Food Facilities must be endorsed by VS and the originals given to the facility for submission by the Canadian importer to CFIA as part of the import permit application process. See the Guidelines for Bovinae Pet Food Facilities for more information.
US facilities that only desire to continue exporting pet foods, treats or compound chews with no bovinae ingredients must complete the CFIA Questionnaire for US Non-Bovinae Pet Food Facilities. See the Guidelines for Non-Bovinae Pet Food Facilities for more information.
US facilities that export pet chews to Canada present special challenges if the companies are importing finished pet chews from third countries for re-export to Canada or are importing ingredients from third countries that are not substantially changed in the manufacture of pet chews for export. See the Guidelines for Pet Chews Facilities for more information.

Maine committee rejects 1% petfood tax proposal

The Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry stripped L.D. 964 of the language that would have established an additional 1% retail sales tax on petfood in Maine and then voted the bill out of committee, reported the Pet Food Institute.
When the Committee favorably voted for the tax on May 19, it did so without providing advance notice to the public that a higher sales tax on petfood was up for consideration.
Lobbying efforts brought the bill back to the Committee for reconsideration, where it was decided to cut out the tax increase proposal.

Maine votes on tax increase for petfood

Maine's Senate Agriculture Committee has passed a preliminary proposal to increase the petfood tax by 1%. If signed into law, petfood in Maine would be taxed 6% as opposed to 5% for most other products.
The Washington D.C.-based Pet Food Institute issued a statement saying, “PFI will mount a major effort to mobilize consumers, retailers, pet groups, business groups and others to fight this.”
The bill is scheduled for a vote in the state Senate followed by a House vote. An outcome on the proposal is expected by the end of June.

BSE implementation delayed until October

The BSE Rule addressing the removal of brain and spinal cord of cattle over 30 months of age from all animal feed will be in place on April 27, with a compliance date of October 26, 2009, according to a Center for Veterinary Medicine update.

Minn. petfood recipe bill dies in committee

The Minnesota bill that would have required petfood companies to register their product recipes with the Department of Agriculture has died in committee, according to a press release from the Pet Food Institute.
Under Minnesota legislative rules, bills not voted out of policy committee by March 27 are dead for the 2009 session. PFI was opposed to the bill.
In other legislative news for the industry, a West Virginia bill that would impose at minimum a $5 surcharge on the Commercial Feed Distributor Permit application fee to fund a spay/neuter program is not expected to pass. According to the institute, the bill will not receive support from the West Virginia Department of Agriculture.

Durbin: Humane Senator of the Year

Illinois Democrat Sen. Richard J. Durbin's efforts to crack down on puppy mills and improve petfood safety earned him the title of 2008 Humane Senator of the Year, according to an article by The Washington Times.
The Humane Society of the United States announced March 25 the recognition of Durbin as part of its annual Humane Legislator Awards.

Proposed bills impose fee on petfood

Two bills (SB 5329 and HB 1406) were introduced Wednesday in Washington state that would impose a fee on petfood of $57.50 per ton to fund spay/neuter programs.
This fee would be unprecedented in both its size (the highest tonnage fee is $1 in Louisiana right now) and intended use (to fund spay/neuter programs rather than inspections).The bills would establish a companion animal spay/neuter assistance program within the Department of Agriculture.
The program would provide assistance to low-income residents as well as “caretakers of feral and free-roaming cats.” (Sec. 3(2)(b))
The bill requires that “each initial distributor or responsible buyer of petfood must pay to the department a companion animal spay/neuter fee on all petfood distributed by such person during the reporting period.” (Sec. 7 (2)(b))The digest on both bills asserts that “the program should be funded through a fee that is practical, administratively feasible, and targeted at the class of Washington residents that is most responsible for companion animals and their impact on our communities: Owners of cats and dogs.”
The Pet Food Institute is currently attempting to stop the bills' progress

Chinese government urged to formulate petfood regulations

In the wake of the recent deaths of more than 300 dogs due to aflatoxin-contaminated food, the Animal Protection Association of the Republic of China called for the government to formulate regulations to ensure the safety of petfood.
Huang Ching-jung, secretary-general of the association, says that tests on aflatoxin, melamine and pesticide should be part of the regulation. In response, Hsu Tien-lai, chief of the Council of Agriculture (COA) Animal Husbandry Department, replied that the council will draft a bill to be submitted to the Legislative Yuan to consider adopting.

WHO sets tolerable melamine levels

The tolerable daily intake for melamine is 0.2 mg per kg of body weight, a level set by international experts at a meeting organized by the World Health Organization.
The level is lower than previously suggested and is meant to help national authorities set safe limits in food for withdraw purposes if melamine is detected as the result of intentional contamination. This level represents the tolerable amount of unavoidable contaminant in food that may be ingested on a daily basis without appreciable health risk.
Melamine, a chemical compound, was the contaminant implicated in the 2007 petfood recalls.