COOL Law for imported meat products in the US negated-A logical move

"Bullying can be met only with counter bullying" is a hard learned experience which people and nations are well to remember. The regressive measure on the part of the US government to compel meat industry in that country to declare country of origin  (COOL Law) for meat products imported and marketed in that country generated lot of heat earlier. Strong reaction from countries like Canada and Mexico which are natural and neighborly trade partners of the US, threatening to impose retaliatory taxing on US products imported by them seems to have had its salutary effect on the law makers in that country, leading to the cancellation of this law. WTO also had taken this issue seriously promising punitive action against the US, if COOL law is not scrapped. Here is a commentary on this issue which would have snowballed into major global flash point adversely affecting food business world wide.     

"The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to repeal the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Amendments Act of 2015 for meat--specifically beef, chicken and pork. The bill, spearheaded by Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), passed with a vote of 300-131 late Wednesday evening.

The COOL Act requires that meat packaging sold in the U.S. must display a few pieces of crucial information:  * where the animals are born, raised and ultimately slaughtered.  * whether or not any of those steps occurred in different countries The bill was originally introduced in May on the same day the World Trade Organization (WTO) shot down a U.S. appeal of their stance that COOL favors domestically sourced meat while unreasonably singling out meat imported from countries like Canada and Mexico. Conaway believes that the COOL program doesn't work, saying that "it is time to put this failed experiment behind us once and for all." He and other representatives stand firm that meat labeling has zero impact on food safety. The repeal is a win for the U.S. meat industry having already experienced some strain in relation to the COOL Act. Supporters of the repeal are also pleased to not have to endure retaliatory taxing by Canada and Mexico in the tune of $3.6 billion which the WTO authorized to go into effect within 60 days of the final ruling. The repeal of the act is a loss for consumers though, one of the main groups that supports country-of-origin labeling simply for informational purposes. House Democrats are ready to move on, saying that while the COOL Act had good intentions, the WTO has rejected it four times. Therefore, repealing it and moving on is in everyone's best interest. The WTO will convene yet again next week to consider Canada and Mexico's plans for retaliatory taxes imposed on the U.S."

A pertinent question that arises from this sorry episode is the inability of the food safety authorities in the US to apply its mind before promulgating such an "apartheid" resembling Act. After all consumer is least interested to know from where his food comes as long as they are safe and conforms to quality specifications laid down in the statute books. Meat industry in the US is right in claiming that such a discriminatory law would affect its fortunes severely, adding further to the labeling cost significantly while it does not serve any purpose. One can understand if country of origin information enables the consumer to determine the carbon foot print of the product which increases with the distance traveled by the product before it reaches the US shores. But that is not the reality and consumers can only think in terms of buying locally produced products putting even better products from other countries in great disadvantage upsetting the very basis of WTO foundation! Protectionists policies can be pursued only if wealthy countries like the US start "cocking a snook" at economically weaker nations who have no strength to defend themselves from such patently unjust and unilateral actions. Present set of US law makers are to be congratulated for correcting an historical mistake with far reaching consequences, restoring the credibility of America as an honest and humanitarian country.   

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

PROTECTIONISM-DOES IT HERALD A NEW ERA?

It was a recent news which appeared in India that Rs 25000 crore worth of imported foods were lying in various ports in the country for want of clearance by the food safety authorities on technical grounds. Unfortunately in the name of food safety these food products with definitive expiry dates are being allowed to be lost with benefit neither to the importers nor to the consumers. There is a feeling that such large scale detention of imported foods may be a sort of protectionism rearing its ugly head all over the world either due to local food lobbies seeking protection from low cost products into the country and can be theoretically considered as TBT-technical barrier to trade which WTO does not allow. But it could also be a genuine problem of transient nature which government of India must address immediately. This reminds one of the happenings in the Italy-Austria borders in December last when farmer interests from Italy blocked flow of food products into their country alleging that the reputation of Italian brand was being destroyed by cheap imitations and raw ingredients which are processed in their country before labeling as Italian made! Look at the incongruity of the situation by reading the excerpts of report referred below:   

Thousands of Italian farmers blocked the Brenner Pass at the border with Austria on Wednesday, protesting against food piracy and import of raw food ingredients of low quality. Agricultural association Coldiretti claimed the so-called"false Italian food" (i.e. food made with foreign ingredients, but branded as Italian) is badly damaging the traditional agricultural and food production in Italy."Many products are partially or totally made with ingredients coming from abroad, but since they are assembled or processed in our country they can be sold as 'Italian foods', and this ruins our original production," Rolando Manfredini, quality manager with Coldiretti explained to Xinhua. This allegedly unfair competition has resulted in the closing of around 140 thousand agricultural businesses between 2007 and 2013, according to figures released by Coldiretti and Unioncamere, the Association of the Italian Chambers of Commerce. Around 32.500 cattle sheds and farming businesses have disappeared just in 2013, with a loss of 36 thousand jobs in the farmlands, they said.

WTO is supposed to ensure free flow of trade across borders with least barriers and there are adequate provisions for preventing cheap products being dumped in any country which can have adverse impact on the domestic industry. Europeans should not forget that they belong to a unified country group with practically no borders and if this is so the stand taken by Italian traders cannot be justified. While Italy has every right to oversee the quality of products entering its territory, the excuse that raw ingredients coming into Italy for conversion into value added products harms its interests will not stand critical scrutiny. There is another tendency which is emerging in some wealthy countries trying to declare on the label the country of origin boldly so that consumers can shun products from some countries and in the name of patriotism citizens are forced to buy locally made products. When responsibility for the safety of any food product imported rests with the importing company with valid license, where is this need for declaration separately the country of origin? More over products imported into any country must conform to that country's standards and safety bar. WTO must truly work to ensure that the world really works as a global village with no barriers to honest trade.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com 

"PREDICT" SYSTEM FOR PREDICTING SUSPECTED FOODS-THE US SYSTEM

In to day's world no country is 100% self reliant as far as food is concerned which necessitates imports from where ever available. These imported foods are supposed to conform to the standards of quality and safety imposed by the importing countries and when rejected the consignments are either destroyed or sent back. If a country is large like the US the logistics of import inspection and assessment can be quite daunting. While random sampling or picking samples based on statistical analysis is common, the US has adopted a model for picking up samples for detailed assessment called PREDICT. Here are some of the features of the system

Which shipments get inspected is increasingly determined by a new computer system called PREDICT, or Predictive Risk-based Evaluation for Dynamic Import Compliance Targeting, that is now used at 70 percent of U.S. import operations at land, sea and air ports. It analyzes information such as a manufacturer's history with the agency, lab test results and even current weather patterns, assigning a risk-based score to each shipment to direct investigators toward the riskiest ones. After a shipment is flagged, it's up to a person to investigate further. Investigators give top priority to the items with the highest scores and work their way down — at least, to the point they can with limited staff. This summer, the FDA gave News21 unusual behind-the-scenes access at its largest operating district to show the ways in which front-line operations attempt to keep unsafe food from reaching American supermarket shelves and dinner tables. Sensory tests- "The Nose" prepares to sniff his way down a mahi-mahi fillet. Steve Angold works out of a narrow lab at the FDA's new $40 million testing facility in Irvine, Calif. He is one of about 25 FDA specialists across the country who rely on their senses of sight, touch, taste and smell to detect decomposition or filth in food products.

What is surprising is that human intervention is still necessary in spotting "bad" shipments and confirmation arrives after laboratory analyses. Imagine the logistical nightmare involved in clearing 24 million shipments annually and though actual testing takes place with less than 2% of the consignments arriving at various ports, the system seems to be working satisfactorily. Critics point out that this proportion is too small and there is potential danger in future if the testing regime is not expanded. Fact still remains that almost all food related poisoning episodes occurring in that country originated from within its own boundaries, not from foreign shipments. One has to appreciate that besides the facilities abroad, from where foods are imported, are inspected frequently by the US officials and those not coming up to the standard are blacklisted on a regular basis. Added to this, all food exporting countries have their own food safety monitoring system ensuring that there is double safety as far as imported foods are concerned.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE "BUY DESI" BUG HITTING BRITAIN-IS IT FAIR?

Nationalism is inculcated in young minds in the schools and it is true that every denizen on this planet is proud of his or her country, whatever be the fault lines. But time has changed and there is a yearning desire that the world should have borderless countries, enabling people to make seamless interaction and camaraderie. The very idea of WTO is that there should be free trade among the nations and barriers are slowly being brought down to attain such a dream. If this is true how can one explain the phenomenon of "protectionism" that is rearing its ugly head now and then? Any one single country cannot be blamed for this as more and more nations, rich or poor, are indulging in this practice. European Union (EU) was conceived based on such ideal and it is good to see the members of EU working together as a single identity, submerging each one's individual identity in many areas. Probably it is time that a "World Union" is conceived that may remove most of the irritation and reservation among countries due to many reasons. Here is a case of an orchestrated British campaign that has been unleashed to condemn imported foods, mainly from developing countries, as low quality and pressurizing the local buyers to patronize only British-made products. How can one justify such blatantly irrational policies in a world considered as a global village?

"MORe British food is set to be served up to troops, civil servants and prisoners under a new Government drive to stop departments splashing out on low-quality foreign produce at the expense of domestic farmers But farmers fear they will still be squeezed out by the new rules which will require food bought by Government departments, the military and prisons to meet high British welfare standards – as long as it is not more expensive. The new rules come after years in which Whitehall departments have shunned home-grown produce in favour of imports which are much cheaper because animal welfare standards are often much lower. Earlier this year the Yorkshire Post revealed that as little as half of the food served to the nation's servicemen and women is produced on British farms. But farmers have accused Ministers of a "missed opportunity" after swathes of the public sector – including hospitals, councils and schools – were omitted from the new rules and a loophole was left that means British-standard food only has to be purchased if it is cheaper. There are also questions over transparency after it emerged that departments will not be forced to publish the proportion of food they source from UK producers – although they have been "strongly advised" to do so by Environment Ministers. Instead, each department will be required to report annually on what proportion of food has been produced to UK standards. Despite repeated pledges from different political parties for Government to set a better example of buying domestic produce, Ministers have been hamstrung by the fact that it would be illegal to introduce a simple "buy British" rule. Instead, Ministers hope to give British farmers an advantage by insisting that produce must meet "UK or equivalent standards of production". Imports of meat are often cheaper because many foreign countries have lower animal welfare standards to meet - a significant factor in the increased cost of British produce. However, with public spending under strain, the Government has decided the new rules should only apply if there is no increase in cost – raising fears that British farmers will continue to be under-cut by lower quality foreign produce".

The UK is not the only country practicing such double standards as they have good company in Australia, USA, Japan and others who want to be choosy in accepting or rejecting foreign made food products at their whims and fancies! If 80% of the meat, fish and poultry products eaten in Western countries come from Asia, it is not because of the noble nature of these nations but because of compulsion in the form of feeding their population with cheap foods! No doubt that there should not be any compromise on safety issues but if safety standards are set and exporters from Asia are able to meet them, why this wailing against such imports?. If domestic industry cannot compete with imported foods, these countries must get to the root of the problem and find answers as to how processing efficiency can be improved to make them competitive. It is a strange logic on the part of countries like the US when they put pressure on countries like India to increase imports from them, knowing well that their products cost at least 100% more when imported into that in India. Advocates of free market must leave the market to dictate about the products consumer wants to buy rather than indulging in political chicanery!

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE STEROID "SCARE"-INDIAN AUTHORITIES BEING ALERTED

It is not clear as to why Indian government needs to be informed by the US about the presence of steroid containing food products in the Indian market because the Food Standards and Safety Authority in the country is supposed to be monitoring the marker to prevent fraudulent products with doubtful safety credentials being promoted. If such cooperation is based on institutional arrangement, it bodes well for the country. There are hundreds of companies promoting their products through the Internet with doubtful health claims and since any Indian buyer can order these products using their credit cards, there is very little GOI can do to prevent such transactions. But entry of these products into the country can be regulated by more stringent monitoring of courier agencies, postal department and imports at regulated ports.

" The US food and drug regulatory organisation has warned India about the possibility of some products containing steroids entering the Indian markets as dietary supplements, a health official said on Monday. In a communique to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the Food and Drug Administration said these products were recalled in the US as some of these were marketed without an approval from the department and most were marketed as "dietary supplement". "The products were found to contain steroid or steroid-like substances making them unapproved new drug. Most of these products were distributed through Internet rather than through a distributor network," said a statement from the health ministry. According to the health ministry, steroid containing products present a risk of acute liver injury to product users. In addition, steroids may cause other serious long-term adverse health consequences, including male infertility, masculinisation of women, breast enlargement in males, short stature in children, adverse effects on blood lipid profile and increased risk of heart attack and death".

Possibility of setting up a portal by the FSSAI for receiving enquiries from consumers who wish to buy such products with exalted health claims can be explored. But for such a thing to happen, the safety agency needs a pro-active consumer protection policy which exists to day only on paper. What is confusing bout the above report is that FSSAI is talking about drugs for which it has no jurisdictional authority and no food products have been identified that contain steroids so far. Nonetheless the information passed on by the FDA of USA must be disseminated as widely as possible for preventing people patronizing such products of doubtful credentials.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

FARM SUBSIDIES-MAKING FOOD COSTLIER TO THE CONSUMER?

The subsidy dilemma is not confined to India alone where the national budget is full of provisions for "give away" to deserving as well as undeserving recipients of all colors and hues. But it can be an equally trouble some area of concern in other more developed countries including the US. What bothers the policy makers is whether such subsidies to farmers really influence the market dynamics as far as food is concerned. While a strong section of experts in the US believe that low cost of foods in the country is due to billions of dollars of agricultural subsidies doled out year after year, an equally assertive lobby feels the other way. It is another matter that agricultural subsidies in some developed countries sharply reduces the competitive edge for many agricultural products imported into these countries from out side, a clear violation of WTO mandate.

"What got the committee's attention, however, was my warning that drafting another business-as-usual farm bill in 2012 was going to be more difficult, because of a strengthening belief that the farm subsidies are contributing to our nation's obesity crisis by making unhealthy foods too cheap. The committee knew, and I confirmed in my testimony, that this is in fact an unfounded charge. When the farm bill places restrictions on sugar imports to protect the income of American sugar growers it actually make all sweetened products – from candy to ice cream – artificially expensive rather than cheap. And when Congress enacts subsidies and mandates to divert 30 percent of our corn crop to the making of ethanol for auto fuel, it is making both corn and other animal feeds – and hence all meat products – artificially expensive as well. Nor is it true that corn-based sweeteners are more obesity-inducing than natural sugar. Nor is it true that the price of junk food has fallen in America while the price of healthy foods (fruits and vegetables) has remained high. All of these misconceptions about farm programs are explained in Chapter Eight of my Oxford book, my chapter on "The Politics of Obesity."

Prima facie, it appears that any subsidy to agricultural commodity growing will invariably reflect their market price and processors and consumers can be expected to get these food materials at relatively low cost. But for these subsidies American farmers can never expect to export their wheat, peas, lentils and other food grains at prices much less than that prevalent in many developing countries. Already American farmers have the advantage of the economy of scales in their operations having large farms and mechanized farming tools and subsidy further helps them to dump their products in world market at significantly lower price. It is convoluted logic to claim that imported foods with lower price tag would have reduced the prices further as a response y the domestic industry. If subsidies are removed the food inflation in the US is bound to go up making every thing more expensive and the government there knows this truth.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

CARBON "LOAD"-NEW "MANTRA" IN UK

Whether it is a useful practice with any impact on the environment or a ploy to buy out time, the current thinking in the UK, Australia, Japan and other countries to introduce a provision under the labeling regulations to declare the "carbon load" of each processed food product, remains to be seen. The new policy is supposed to guide the consumer in the isles of supermarkets to products causing lowest pollution during its production and processing. If the consumer has very limited choice vis-à-vis "green" products, it is unlikely that the expected result is achieved.

"Supermarket food in the UK will be labeled to show its carbon footprint, country of origin and animal welfare standards as part of the government's new food strategy for the next 20 years, reports the Telegraph. The voluntary "green" food labels will show how much carbon was produced in the manufacture and transportation of food, according to the article. Companies such as Tesco, PepsiCo and other leading brands already display a "carbon reduction label" on certain products showing the amount of carbon dioxide produced in grams in growing the food, packaging and transportation, reports the Telegraph".

In the absence of reliable and independent verification system to ascertain the claims of carbon reduction by different manufacturers, it may degenerate into a "free for all" situation allowing all and sundry to declare that their products are "green", similar to the health claims made by some of the manufacturers without any scientific data. WTO should frown upon such practices to prevent undue discrimination against imported products which invariably will have more carbon load. Such a system may be difficult to be implemented because of deemed discrimination against small processors who have no means to comply with such compulsory regulation due to cost and logistical constraints and the big players with unlimited resources and muscle will elbow out smaller ones from the market on this score. Instead of resorting to such gimmicks, national governments must sensitize the growers, distributors and retailers regarding the urgency to reduce CO2 emission at their operational levels.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

CHINESE CONSUMERS-FALLING CONFIDENCE

When consumers lose confidence on the ability of the domestic industry to deliver products with assured quality and unquestionable safety, they look to imported goods from countries with high reputation and reliability. This is what is happening in China which went through a harrowing time when there were avoidable mortality of children due to kidney ailments after consuming adulterated baby foods. It is sad that domestic industry does not exercise its responsibility for the safety of its patrons when such sub-standard products are put in the market for short term gains.

If reports emanating from China are true, domestic industry there is bound to suffer by the skepticism of the consumers regarding their reliability. "It seems Chinese nationals don't trust domestically produced food products as much as they once did. After last years melamine-contaminated milk powder incidents more and more Chinese people are buying milk from overseas".

It is another matter that two of the functionaries of the industry found responsible for the above crime had to pay with their lives for the negligence that caused misery to many families. Food industry in other countries must learn a lesson from the Chinese episode and resist the temptation to short circuit the quality and safety process for short term gains.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com