Food Processing - June 2008 - (Page 13)

in this section ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ FDA wants inspectors around the globe introducing Dr Pepper snapple Group coke, cargill proceed with new sweetener news bites R E G U L AT O R Y what the farm bill holds for food processors there’s a little commodity relief, continued support for sugar, cooL enactment. w ith provisions to promote energy independence, tighten country-of-origin labeling and establish a department of homeland security within the USDA, the new farm bill has far-reaching consequences for the nation’s food processors. The bill was passed by both houses of Congress in early May then vetoed by President Bush. That veto was quickly overridden by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. To varying degrees, rising energy and commodity prices are addressed in the new legislation. “Food processing companies might applaud the bio-energy crop assistance provision because it will provide funding for farmers to start growing alternative crops, other than corn, to produce cellulosic ethanol,” says Dennis Olson, senior policy analyst in the trade and global governance program at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Indianapolis. “This is the next generation of ethanol, and it could take some pressure off the demand for corn.” While the rise in energy prices is indirectly addressed in the bill, the recent surge in commodity prices is addressed directly by key pieces of the legislation that will likely have a significant impact on food processors. “There are proposed changes in food and nutrition programs and fruit and vegetable programs that could increase spending on commodity purchasing and distribution programs, marketing programs and other related areas,” says Bradley Lubben, assistant professor and extension public policy specialist, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, at the University of Nebraska (Lincoln). “In particular, an added focus on fruit and vegetable purchases for a school snack program will affect those specific markets, as well as processors who handle the commodities or use them as inputs in other products.” Some commodities are addressed by the bill. For instance, it renews the sugar program, which means continued support of sugar prices, according to Olson. “However,” Olson warns, “there is a new provision of the sugar program that would allocate money to use imported sugar to supplement bio-fuel production. That’s not good news for food processing companies because they would like to see sugar prices come down.” Another major component of the bill that demands the attention of food processors, according to both Olson and Lub- ben, is the full implementation of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for various commodities, which goes into effect Sept. 30. COOL applies to covered commodities sold by a retailer. Regulations have been in the wings since the 2002 farm bill, but they have been twice delayed until now. “The new farm bill does not delay the rules any further,” says Lubben, “but it does make some compromise changes in terms of labeling rules and record-keeping requirements.” According to Lubben, the labeling rules simplify the requirements for labeling meat. They also simplify the requirements for labeling products that are already being marketed with a geographical label. If the current geographical label clearly indicates the product was produced within the U.S., then the current label will be sufficient to meet the COOL rules. While some record-keeping requirements have been simplified, questions remain about the application of the policy. “One of the definitional questions will be what is and what is not still the original covered commodity,” says Lubben. “For those processors that are covered by the rules, the regulatory and management question will be what records they will need to keep and what documentation they will demand of their suppliers up the farm-to-retail chain.” All suppliers of a covered commodity that moves to the retail counter are subject to an audit by the USDA to verify their records of origin, so the retailer, the wholesaler and the food processor are subject to an audit. As is often the case in new legislation, there are unintended consequences. For instance, according to Olson, under the Miscellaneous section of the bill, there is a little-known provision that establishes a department of homeland security within the USDA. Its job is to integrate interstate emergency response plans and work with the Dept. of Homeland Security and other agencies to coordinate planning and response efforts to emergencies. It creates a bio-security center to prepare for animal disease emergencies, agro-terrorism attacks and similar threats. It also builds bio-security communications and planning preparedness. The possible consequence of this provision, according to Olson, is that food processors may be required to increase security at their plants, and it could force manufacturers to open their plants to security inspections. June 2008 food processing • 13 foodprocessing.com http://foodprocessing.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Food Processing - June 2008

Food Processing - June 2008 Editor's Plate NewsBites Show Report The Trends Rollout Food Biz Kids Consumer Taste Test A Bevy of New CEOs Ingredients Packaging Plant Operations MRO Q&A New Supplier Products Toops Scoops Contents

Food Processing - June 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.