US frozen sector gives new rules the cold shoulder
American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI) describes specific scenarios
under a country of origin labelling regulation that would dissuade
frozen food makers from using domestic produce and seafood, and
from housing product blending facilities within the United States.
Warning of American job losses, a white paper issued today by the American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI) describes specific scenarios under a country of origin labelling regulation that would dissuade frozen food makers from using domestic produce and seafood, and from housing product blending facilities within the United States.
"The new marking scheme is seriously broken. Taking the time and making the effort to fix what is broken must be recognised as good public policy," said Leslie Sarasin, AFFI's president and chief executive officer.
At issue is a new country of origin marking scheme for some food products that departs dramatically from long-standing provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued new voluntary marking guidelines in October 2002, as required in the 2002 Farm Bill. The Farm Bill directs USDA to issue a final new mandatory marking regulation in 2004.
The white paper is a compilation of case studies, consumer research and insights that support the AFFI's case that the new marking scheme could create unintended consequences. Feared effects include disincentives to maintaining frozen produce and frozen seafood facilities in the United States, as well as disincentives to source domestic produce and seafood for further processing.
The AFFI cites examples showing that the presence of certain processing operations within the United States and the use of domestic ingredients can subject food products to marking requirements that are significantly more complex and costly than those that would apply if the products were processed in other countries, or did not contain domestic ingredients.
In a statement this week, the AFFI said :"It is AFFI's view that the severity and validity of the feared consequences necessitate remedial actions, potentially including repeal of the new country of origin marking scheme, promotion of an enhanced voluntary marking programme rather than issuance of a new regulation in 2004, with the understanding that the voluntary programme that resulted from the Farm Bill is not suitable, or, at the very least, elimination of the duplicative marking requirements on food products."
