PMA Comment on COOL - Sept. 17

From www.regulations.gov, the comment on COOL by the Produce Marketing Association:

September 17, 2008

To: U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.regulations.gov

Subject: Docket No. AMS–LS–07–0081

Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts

The Produce Marketing Association (PMA) is pleased to submit these comments to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding its request for comments on mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL).

PMA is the largest global not-for-profit trade association representing companies that market fresh fruits and vegetables. We represent 3,000 companies from grower-shippers and supermarket retailers, to hotel and restaurant chains and overseas importers. Within the United States, PMA members handle more than 90 percent of fresh produce sold to consumers. PMA and our members are committed to improving food safety practices for produce, domestic and imported, to further enhance the safety of our food supply.

We have been actively engaged in COOL for many years, and we appreciate the efforts of the Agricultural Marketing Service on this important program designed to convey information to consumers about the origin of fresh produce and other items. In most cases, the agency has aligned the consumer’s need for information with the practical realities of industry operations. An example of this is the agency allowing the name of the country/state/region with or without the phrase “product of” (§65.400). Another example is the agency’s ruling in §65.300 and §65.400 that a single commodity from multiple countries of origin that is commingled can be labeled by listing each of the countries involved. We particularly applaud the agency’s decision to allow state and regional designations for perishable agricultural commodities as compliance with the Interim Final Rule (§64.400).

We offer the following suggestions as ways to enhance and clarify the specifics in the Interim Final Rule. In one case, we suggest a change to language in the Interim Final Rule.

Definition of processed product: We recommend that any fresh-cut produce item, even those not combined with another substantive food item or other covered commodity be included in the definition of “processed product” (§65.220). By taking a raw agricultural commodity, washing it, then cutting it, a company does change the product from a raw agricultural commodity to a ready-to-eat food item – similar to cooking changing a raw meat product to a ready-to-eat food.

We applaud the agency’s decision to exclude items in which two or more covered commodities are combined. We ask the agency to offer more clarity about combinations of covered commodities in the definition of processed product. When speaking about generic categories of products (lettuce, melons, etc.), different varieties within those generic categories are distinctly different. We appreciate the dilemma in determining differences. This is a rule designed to convey information to consumers, and consumers clearly perceive these differences. Because consumers go to the store to buy specific varieties within generic categories (they seek a honeydew melon or romaine lettuce or a Gala apple), we know that the consumer appreciates and values these differences. A consumer is clearly aware that frisee is not the same as Iceberg lettuce, that butter lettuce is different from red leaf lettuce, that a honeydew melon is not the same as a cantaloupe, even that a Granny Smith apple is different from a Red Delicious apple. We recommend that the agency designate that items with distinct varietal names within a generic category of products be deemed different products and excluded when two or more are combined.

Abbreviations: We appreciate the agency’s recognition of the need to abbreviate the names of some countries (§65.400) using abbreviations from U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. We would ask that the language in section (e) be reworded to remove the first sentence (“In general, abbreviations are not

acceptable.”). The available space on a product labels (e.g. price look-up [PLU] sticker) or a bill of lading is scarce. It is important for industry to be able to convey origin information on both of those vehicles for several reasons. Information on the product itself (through a PLU sticker, rubber band, twist tie, tag, etc.) is particularly important because it informs the consumer at point of purchase and moves with the product to the home. When industry can include the information on a bill of lading, it allows companies to use existing records as the statute requires. However, the agency should remove the requirement that a key to abbreviations be included with documents (each time or even once) as the industry is well aware of the abbreviations used and their meanings.

Industry needs more guidance on what abbreviations will be acceptable. We recommend that the agency specify approved abbreviations. A standard ISO list exists and would be consistent with other uses from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as the agency mentioned in its Interim Final Rule. (To find them from the CBP site, type in country abbreviations in the Search box, then select Export Reference Tables from the results list. On the next page, select “Schedule C: Country and Territory Designations by Code (Census Bureau).” This link will take you to an exit page that refers you to http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/schedules/c/country.txt. The country abbreviations listed here are the two-character ISO codes.) Having standard abbreviations for use in commerce will make labeling more efficient and cost-effective.

Define “majority”: The agency understands that when fresh produce is stickered with origin information, every product may not bear a sticker for a variety of reasons (e.g. stickering efficacy is not 100%). The agency has said that a majority of the product should have stickers. We ask that the agency define “majority” as it applies to bulk display stickering for perishable agricultural commodities as 50% plus one so that the industry has a specific understanding for compliance.

Retailer recordkeeping: The agency has offered simple, effective rules for recordkeeping by retailers. We seek greater clarity on this issue. In §65.500(c)(1), we suggest that the agency put the last sentence of the paragraph first (“For pre-labeled products, the label itself is sufficient evidence on which the retailer may rely to establish the product’s origin.”). We also ask the agency to state specifically that retailers need not maintain any new or additional records documenting origin for those products that are pre-labeled on the product itself or on the box/container (when the box/container is visible to consumers, such as when it is used as part of a retail display). Then follow with the first sentence in that section amended to read:

Records and other documentary evidence relied upon at the point of sale to establish a covered commodity’s country(ies) of origin must be provided to any duly authorized representative of USDA in accordance with § 65.500(a)(2), and records for product that is not pre-labeled be maintained for a period of 1 year from the date the origin declaration is made at retail.

Effective dates: USDA states that the requirements of this rule do not apply to covered commodities produced or packaged before September 30, 2008. Many in the industry procure packaging materials for a year’s worth (or more) of production. Given the short amount of time between the release of the Interim Final Rule and the effective date, we ask that companies subject to the rule be given a year from the effective date to use up existing packaging inventories, provided those packaging inventories were acquired prior to the effective date of the rule.

Kathy Means

Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs

Produce Marketing Association