Chat - Kathy Means

Kathy Means began her produce career at The Packer, spending about nine years at the paper before moving to the Produce Marketing Association. Means, vice president of government relations and public affairs for the Newark, Del.-based PMA, on Jan. 30 took time for a chat with Tom Karst and the Fresh Talk blog.

1:31 PM Tom: Thanks for making time for another Fresh Talk Chat. First of all, I know your roots are from the Midwest/KC area. I like to start off with a question about roots. What do you like about life in the Eastern U.S. compared with your days growing up near KC?
1:35 PM kathy.means.pma: I wouldn't change growing up in St. Joseph for anything, and I love Kansas City. Love getting back there to visit my family and see my favorite haunts (including KU!). And I also love living in Delaware. We do have a few things that are impossible to get in the Midwest — an ocean, for one. We also have the advantage of being within a couple of hours of New York City, Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Baltimore and more. But ultimately what's most important about where you live is having strong relationships with family and friends. That transcends any geography.
1:36 PM Tom: You bring up Delaware. One question about Newark...what's the favorite lunch spot for PMA staff? What kind of town is Newark, anyway?
1:38 PM kathy.means.pma: Newark is a college town. Great Main Street, wonderful restaurants, college activities -- sports, arts. Probably no single favorite restaurant — we have a lot of employees, so a lot of different tastes. But some of the favorites are Iron Hill Brewery, Daddy O’s, Applebee’s, and the Blue Crab.
1:40 PM Tom: I need to get back there — hopefully in good weather. Something about you that most but not all people know is you spent about 9 years with The Packer. Do you consider that experience helpful to what you do now? If so, how?
1:45 PM kathy.means.pma: Yes, I spent nine great years at The Packer — four in the KC office and five as eastern editor, based outside Philadelphia. My schooling is in journalism — University of Kansas, the best! When I first came to PMA it was to create the association’s communications department. That department expanded to include issues management, and from that we built the government relations and public affairs team. For me, journalism and association work are founded in one of my favorite things — the first amendment: the right to free speech and press, the right to assemble (at the heart of associations — that's what we are, an assembly of like-minded people) and to petition the government. (Freedom of religion is in that amendment as well — but less relevant to this conversation.) Not only is there that constitutional connection, but my work at The Packer built my connection to the produce industry — learning from many of the greats — often in associations (Danny Dempster, Bryan Silbermann, Bob Carey), but also in industry companies and the government.
1:47 PM Tom: It's hard to believe how PMA has expanded its service to the industry over the years. If I'm right, you supervise about 20 in the marketing/communications/customer service arena. In your years at PMA, how do you think the industry has changed in terms of how it engages with the association?
1:54 PM kathy.means.pma: I used to supervise the marketing, communications, and customer service area, and you're right, that's a big group. Now, however, I’m over a smaller group of three — the Government Relations and Public Affairs team — Lee Mannering and Cynthia Clifton. And we work with Tom O'Brien as our Washington DC representative. I’ve been with PMA 19 years (hmmmm, how old does that make me?). And, yes, things have changed a great deal in the past 19 years. PMA has always had a strong supply-chain-wide approach to everything. And that's been a great approach because it builds solutions for the whole industry (think PLUs as just one example). In the past, though, we've been known as a convention and exposition. In fact, for the longest time (and even to some extent today), our name was used in two ways. There was PMA, the association, and there was The PMA, the convention and expo. Certainly Fresh Summit (the convention's real name) is a critically important event for the entire industry. But more and more members are finding year-round value in the services the association provides — training, information, issues management, government affairs, research, other events (foodservice conference, Fresh Connection events). We’re more than five days in October and that value has increased significantly over the past 20 years.
1:56 PM Tom: You have been right in the heart of food safety/regulatory affairs for some time now. As you look ahead to that appears to be a revival of regulation with the Obama Administration, how do you see upside and downside realities for the industry?
2:01 PM kathy.means.pma: It's unusual for an association to call for regulation, but after the past three or four years we find ourselves in a position where we must do that. Though the economy has rightly pushed all other priorities aside, I think we can still expect to see food safety legislation and regulation moving forward. We're already seeing that — the Dingell bill has reappeared and FDA is very active in GAPs and third party certification efforts. Our job is to work with those who are crafting this laws and regulations to be sure they recognize the realities of the marketplace as they improve food safety. And we have definite ideas about how this should be accomplished.
2:02 PM Tom: Kathy, great insights. I appreciate your time and don't like to keep people longer than 30 minutes. One more question. I know you have a Blackberry, er crackberry as it is affectionately called. Do you ever leave it behind?
2:05 PM kathy.means.pma: I do. It’s an invaluable tool, and sometimes I refer to it as a tether. But it actually frees me up. I can be working anywhere — so important when we’re having a crisis or regulators need to find me or we're watching legislation. But it’s just as important to set it aside and remember real life — those relationships I was talking about earlier.
2:06 PM Tom: I don’t have one, but it is hard enough to get away from this laptop. Again, thanks Kathy and hopefully we can chat again soon...

Hump day

Wednesday, affectionately called "hump day" by radio personalities. By the way, who invented the term "hump day" from Wikipedia...

An American English idiom for Wednesday is "hump day" a reference to making it through to the middle of the work week as getting "over the hump."

Gee that was enlightening- sorry I asked. Oh well. My "hump day" includes getting through some coverage from my trip to Costa Rica, including a couple of stories, a column and - always my least favorite task - photo cut lines. Meanwhile, I wanted to echo David Mitchell's thoughts in his column in the Nov. 17 issue of The Packer on the helpfulness of industry sources to our weekly news efforts. Between last night and this morning, I received helpful calls/emails from Kathy Means, Nancy Foster, Craig Regelbrugge, Robert Guenther and Lorelei DiSogra.

This morning, Lorelei DiSogra sent an email about pending approval in Europe of the snack program there and a link to a recent USDA offer sheet for fresh cut apple purchases.

Nancy Foster sent a link to a FAQ page on the E-Verify rule for federal contractors and specifically how the exemption for agriculture is worded.

Other headlines grabbed from the Web:

Fresh & Easy: 100 stores and counting

Aldi's philosophy
Toronto campaign to raise local food for food banks

Specter of stag-deflation looming larger

Asian markets mixed as Japan falls into recession

Food banks feeling the crunch

China's pain hurts us too

Eurozone falls into recession

Irresponsible reporting making the problem worse

Branded credit cards see rising delinquencies

Anti-foreclosure plan essential

Liquidity and leverage will be focus for food and beverage industry in 2009

Product Tracing Systems for Fresh Produce - Public Meeting Agenda from Oct. 16

8:30 – 9:00	Registration
9:00 – 9:10	Welcome/Opening Remarks/Overview Stephen Sundlof, D.V.M., PhD., Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), FDA
9:10 – 9:20	FDA Product Tracing David Acheson, M.D., F.R.C.P., Associate Commissioner for Foods, FDA
9:20 – 9:55	FDA Product Tracing Challenges and Successes Ellen Morrison, Director, Office of Crisis Management, FDA Sherri McGarry, Center Emergency Coordinator, OFDCER, CFSAN, FDA
9:55 - 10:10	State Perspective Joanne M. Brown, DVM, MS, DACVPM, Deputy Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
10:10 – 10:25	Questions from FDA Panel and the Public
10:25 – 10:40	Break
10:40 - 11:00	Specific Industry Initiatives Kathy Means, Produce Marketing Association
11:00 – 11:15	Industry Perspective from Farm to Fork; Grower/Packers and Processor/Shipper/Repacker Robert Guenther, Senior Vice President for Public Policy, United Fresh Produce Association
11:15 – 11:30	Industry Perspective from Farm to Fork; Retail/Foodservice Jeffrey Barach, PhD, Vice President Science Policy, Grocery Manufacturers Association
11:30 – 11:45	Questions from FDA Panel and the Public
11:45 – Noon	Public Comment Stacey Satterlee, Western Growers, Washington, DC Charlotte Walker, Infratab, Inc., Oxnard, CA
Noon – 1:15	Lunch
1:15 – 1:35	International Standards Dr. Wolf Maier, Counselor- Food Safety, Health and Consumer Affairs, Delegation of the European Commission
1:35 – 1:50	Challenges to Tracing Commingled Fresh Produce Reginald Brown, Florida Tomato Exchange
1:50 – 2:05	Consumer Perspective David Plunkett J.D., J.M. Senior Staff Attorney, Food Safety Program, Center for Science in the Public Interest
2:05 – 2:20	Small Business perspective John McClung, President, Texas Produce Association
2:20 - 2:34	Questions from FDA Panel and the Public
2:35 – 2:50	Break
2:50	Public Comment
4:30	Wrap-up/Adjourn Stephen Sundlof, D.V.M., PhD., Director, CFSAN, FDA

---

Moderator:

Stephen Sundlof, D.V.M., PhD., Director, CFSAN, FDA

FDA Panel:

David Acheson, M.D., F.R.C.P., Associate Commissioner for Foods, FDA
Samir Assar, Ph.D., Science Policy Analyst, Office of Food Safety, CFSAN, FDA
Sherri, McGarry, Center Emergency Coordinator, OFDCER, CFSAN, FDA
Ellen Morrison, Director, Office of Crisis Management, FDA
Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning, FDA
Steven Solomon, D.V.M., M.P.H., Deputy Associate Commissioner for Compliance Policy, FDA

List of Persons Providing Public Comment:

Stacey Satterlee, Western Growers, Washington, DC
Charlotte Walker, Infratab, Inc., Oxnard, CA
William Pape, TraceGaines, Inc., Longmont, CO
Greg Drouillard and Henry Affeldt, Sunkist Growers, Inc., Peachtree City, GA
Russell Laird, Agricultural and Food Transporters Conference, American Trucking Association, Arlington, VA
John Granich, Del Rey Systems and Technology, Inc., San Diego, CA
Patty Lovera, Food and Water Watch, Washington, DC
Bryant Ambelang, Desert Glory, San Antonio, TX
Joseph Farmer, TraceProduce.com, Nyssa, OR

FDA seeks advice on fresh produce

We already posted the comments or Robert Guenther yesterday from the FDA hearing on produce traceability. No surprise; consumer groups want more - item level markings for traceability. Here is the link to the AP story on the session. From the story:

At the first public hearing on the issue Thursday, representatives from the produce industry cited progress toward labeling on every case of fruit and vegetables that would make it easier to trace tainted food from the dinner table back to the farm.

Consumer advocates want more: marking individual tomatoes, heads of lettuce and other produce from an industry subject to 900 safety recalls over the past two years.

"We need better information going to the consumer so he can identify fruits and vegetables when it's in his refrigerator and in his cabinet shelves," said David Plunkett, senior staff attorney at the Center for Science in the Public Interest


Later.....

One of the questions the FDA is asking is whether an identifier should be assigned to fresh produce, and if so, at what stage in the supply chain. The industry agrees with that concept, said Kathy Means of the Produce Marketing Association. She said it is in the industry's best interest to quickly track problems.

"They have every incentive to want to do this," Means said.

Means said each container of produce should contain a label with a bar code that would allow businesses and the FDA to immediately identify the owner of that product — from manufacturers to packers to retailers. She said individual companies have their own system for tracking products, but the system is not uniform. She also urged the agency to let the industry enact its plan rather than seek new federal rules. Some companies are ready to put in place the barcode system immediately while others have a long way to go.

"This is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars over a few years," she said.

Some legal underpinnings for a national tracing system are in place.

A federal bioterrorism law requires food to be traced one step forward and one step back — who supplied it, and where it went — so that, in theory, regulators can follow the trail. Industry officials said they believed that law was sufficient to get companies to enact the kind of record keeping that would keep them in compliance with the law, but so far, they have heard of little enforcement by the government to ensure that companies were complying.

Sundlof said the law authorized the FDA to check whether businesses were complying only when health dangers had surfaced. He said on a few occasions this year when potential health problems were identified, the agency exercised its authority

PMA comment - reauthorization of child nutrition programs

From Kathy Means of PMA, the association's comment on child nutrition reauthorization:

October 15, 2008

To: Robert M. Eadie, Chief, Policy and Program Development Branch, Child Nutrition Service, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture

From: Kathy Means, Vice President, Government Relations and Public Affairs, Produce Marketing Association

Re: Comments on Request for Public Comments for Use in Preparing for 2009 Reauthorization of Child Nutrition Programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Programs for Women, Infants and Children; FNS-2008-0011-0001

The Produce Marketing Association (PMA) is pleased to submit these comments to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in response to the May 20, 2008 Federal Register request for comments on the 2009 reauthorization of child nutrition programs.

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 welcomes the opportunity to submit comments on the upcoming reauthorization of federal nutrition programs, including the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program. We encourage USDA and will similarly encourage Congress to take an expansive and innovative approach in this reauthorization. The issue of nutrition and the access and quality of the federal programs stand as critical issues to our nation. In the reauthorization, policymakers must address both hunger and obesity and examine the delivery of services through the federal programs.

Congressional reauthorization of child nutrition follows on the heels of 2008 farm bill. PMA joined with a coalition of specialty crop groups to advocate for advances in nutrition and other programs important to our members. In the farm bill, Congress demonstrated its support for increasing consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables in the school lunch and other federal feeding programs by providing for dramatic increases in the Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program and in fruits and vegetables commodity purchases (including via “DoD Fresh”). Congress recognizes that increasing consumption of fresh produce is an important public goal and that focusing nutrition programs on nutritious foods fosters lifetime habits of healthy eating.

The fact that Congress has already endorsed these principles should embolden USDA to develop recommendations that focus on the critical role of fresh fruits and vegetables in a healthful diet. All federal feeding programs must meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the programs should maximize nutrition. There should be additional opportunities to make fruits and vegetables available both inside and outside of the schools. Though challenges exist to make perishable commodities available in schools, the reauthorization process provides the opportunity to address those challenges and increase access. The success of the snack program demonstrates the popularity of fresh fruits and vegetables when they are made available to students and other feeding program recipients.

In addition to improving access to healthy foods, the programs should expand efforts to teach children and feeding program recipients the importance of nutrition. Nutrition education programs can address long-term health issues and work in concert with the feeding programs. WIC is one such program that offers an immediate introduction to fresh and wholesome fruits and vegetables. WIC coupons should encourage the consumption of produce, including white potatoes, while reflecting the cost of today’s food, such as the Institute of Medicine has recommended (which would mean an increase allowances in the fruit and vegetable vouchers). The program, and other feeding programs, meet immediate nutritional needs while also building healthy eating habits.

PMA applauds your efforts to gather public comment in advance of the congressional reauthorization and we look forward to working with you throughout this process.

PMA comment - product tracing systems for fresh produce

Related to recent news about the Produce Traceability Initiative, this comment from PMA was added yesterday to the federal docket on product tracing systems for fresh produce.

October 8, 2008

To: U.S. Food and Drug Administration/Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition http://www.regulations.gov

From: Produce Marketing Association

Kathy Means, Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs

Subject: Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0513, Product Tracing Systems for Fresh Produce

The Produce Marketing Association (PMA) is pleased to submit these comments to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the agency’s request for comments on product tracing systems for fresh produce.

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, both domestic and imported, to further enhance the safety of our food supply.

We have been actively engaged in developing and implementing produce industry standardization practices – including produce traceability since 2002. We have worked closely with FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other state and local agencies as a source of industry information and technical inputs, and as a supporter of the agencies’ roles in assuring public health. In addition to our comments here, we call FDA’s attention to the Produce Traceability Initiative (PTI) referenced in the request for comments. The PTI has just announced its plan for achieving chain-wide, electronic traceability for produce, to enhance the industry’s current traceability capability. That plan was developed over a lengthy, thoughtful, and intensive process by the PTI’s multidisciplinary steering committee to ensure that plan is achievable across the produce supply chain, from field to store to foodservice.

We strongly urge the agency to consider the PTI’s work and plan before taking any further steps on this topic, as these produce industry experts are in the best position to make recommendations that are realistic and achievable in the marketplace – and a significant number of produce industry members have already agreed to implement the PTI plan. We have relied heavily on the PTI’s plan in our comments below.

The PTI recommends that all companies involved in marketing produce within the U.S. market adopt a common standardized approach to identify produce cases, allowing for streamlined marking and consistent identification for each case of produce, scanning and collection of case data by all buyers, receivers and handlers, and electronic storage of such information to allow for timely and efficient recovery in the event of tracebacks or recalls.

This includes all companies operating within the U.S. market and those exporting to the United States. Implementing this standardized systems approach across the entire industry will require a multi-year transition effort, at an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. This PTI is led by the industry’s major trade associations to standardize the broad adoption of state-of-the-art processes across the industry. This work will maximize the effectiveness of industry’s current traceability procedures, improve our internal efficiencies, and assist the agency greatly in its work.

The PTI endorses an industrywide commitment to case identification based on GS1 standards for the effective management and control of supply chains. GS1 is a global standards organization with affiliates representing 145 countries worldwide in more than 25 industries with a membership in excess of 2 million.

The GS1 System provides standard protocols that help uniquely identify trade items (products and services), logistic units, locations, assets, and service relations worldwide. The Steering Committee recommends that the produce industry universally adopt the use of the GS1 Global Trade Item Number (GTIN) and the incorporation of its associated lot or batch number into the bar code on the case. This GTIN is analogous to the UPC used at the item level. What the UPC does for item level identification, the GTIN does for case level identification. Both numbering protocols are managed by GS1. The systematic use of GTIN identification numbers at the case level will enhance total produce supply chain traceability by allowing direct standardized interaction between differing internal coding systems that are unique to each company.

FDA posed several questions, addressed below:

1. Should a "fresh produce identifier" be assigned to fresh produce? If so, at what stage or stages in the supply chain should such an identifier be assigned or modified? What data or information would be useful to include in such an identifier? Should the identifier be placed on the fresh produce, the package, the shipping container, and/or the invoice or bill of lading? Should the location of the identifier depend on the type of produce or on other factors?

Yes. At the heart of the GS1 numbering system recommended by the PTI is the requirement that each “brand owner” obtain a unique GS1-issued company prefix, which allows for unique identification of products from that company. This company prefix will then become part of all GTINs assigned to cases of produce from that company, and immediately serve to identify the “brand owner” of that product throughout the supply chain. Companies that repack produce into a new container or alter the case configuration or makeup of the product inside in any way, will become the new “brand owner” and thus will also need to obtain their own unique company prefix.

Each company moving product into commerce should have a unique company prefix as part of the Global Trade Item Number (GTIN).

Brand owners must then assign specific 14-digit GTIN numbers to all of their various case configurations based on the combination of their company prefix and a reference number. This reference number is used to identify various attributes of the case and of the produce inside the case. It is highly recommended that companies use the GTIN Assignment Strategy provided by industry associations as a guide to allow for consistency across the industry. In addition to the GTIN, the lot or batch code is also incorporated into the bar code on the case.

2. What other data or information would be useful on the invoice or bill of lading, fresh produce, package, or shipping case? At what stage or stages in the supply chain should such data or information be included?

The GTIN is a 14-digit code used to identify shipping containers. The data contained in the GTIN along with its associated lot or batch number in the bar code is sufficient to provide the one-up, one-back information that FDA desires and that is required by the Bioterrorism Act. Each link in the distribution chain must record and store the information. By following those links, the logistical history of the products can be traced effectively and quickly. This information should be provided on the case in both a bar code and a human readable format.

3. Should an enhanced product tracing system extend to all fresh produce? If not, what criteria should be used to determine coverage?

We recommend that all fresh produce marketers throughout the supply chain implement the recommendations in the Produce Traceability Initiative.

4. Should fresh produce be commingled? If commingling is unavoidable, what practices should an enhanced product tracing system include to ensure that fresh produce can be traced effectively and efficiently?

The PTI provides for linkage between product that comes into a facility and is repacked into a different configuration, possibly commingled. Companies that repack produce into a new container or alter the case configuration or makeup of the product inside in any way, will become the new “brand owner” and thus will also need to obtain their own unique company prefix. They would assign a new GTIN to the new, repacked case, showing themselves as the “brand owner” and assign a new lot or batch number – giving the case a new bar code. And they would have information systems/programs that can link the repacked product to the product that came into the facility originally. This ensures the one-up, one-back link is not broken.

5. What should be the scope of an enhanced product tracing system for fresh produce?

The PTI calls for all links in the supply chain to be engaged – whether coding cases or recording and storing the information from the code. This is what ensures the one-up, one-back information chain. At this point, the PTI seeks to enable greater labeling efficiencies at the case level, which would not be seen or recorded by consumers. Some produce items are identified at the item level (e.g. bags of salad). Eventually, identification at the item level – that which the consumer would see and take home – may be more pervasive. At this point, we recommend implementation of case-level identification.

6. Should the data or information in an enhanced product tracing system be human-readable, technology-based, or both? If technology-based, what technology should be used?

We recommend both a bar code and a human-readable format for these case codes.

7. What (if any) data or information in an enhanced product tracing system should be standardized?

We refer the agency to the PMA-CPMA Fresh Produce Traceability: A Guide to Implementation (provided previously in hard copy or found at http://www.pma.com/cig/tech/traceability.cfm) for recommendations on standardized coding.

8. What are the costs, benefits, and feasibility of implementing an enhanced product tracing system?

The costs will vary depending on each company’s existing readiness, but it will require significant investment on the part of industry – a multi-year process costing hundreds of millions of dollars. The benefits are increased efficiency for the one-up, one-back traceability process. Some companies with sophisticated systems and resources may move more quickly. Others may be starting from scratch or may need to make significant changes in their business processes.

9. Would enhancing FDA's role in developing and implementing effective product tracing systems for fresh produce, through increased regulation, guidance, or additional legal authorities, improve the effectiveness of traceback investigations and traceforward operations? What mandatory and voluntary measures would be most effective in achieving the goal of enhancing product tracing systems for fresh produce and improving FDA's ability to use the information in such systems to identify the source of contamination associated with fresh produce-related outbreaks of foodbome illness? How would these measures help FDA work better with industry and other stakeholders during traceback investigations and traceforward operations?

The industry has taken significant steps to move forward with the PTI. The produce industry is committed to effective and timely capability to track the source of our products from retail stores and restaurants back to their original farm source.

The Bioterrorism Act requires mandatory one-up, one-back record-keeping of all foods, with the ability to provide such records within 24 hours. The industry is committed to full compliance with these requirements, and urges FDA to rigorously enforce the requirements of this law. The produce industry stands ready to work with the agency to ensure full and total compliance with these requirements.

Without widespread and effective enforcement of the current law, we oppose any additional mandatory legislative or regulatory requirements for traceability as premature and unwarranted.

We thank the agency for this opportunity to provide comments on this critically important matter. We look forward to working with the agency in any way that is helpful. Please call on us at any time.

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