“It’s been an extremely busy year for regulatory updates in the specialty food world,” observed Ron Tanner, vice president of education, government, and industry relations, during yesterday's session, Policy Spotlight: Key Issues for Your Specialty Food Business. The panel session, moderated by Tanner, included Tom Gellert, president of Atalanta Corporation; Bob Bauer, president of the Association of Food Industries; Jeni Lamb Rogers, JD, MS, partner at PSL Law Group LLC, and Sophia Castillo, JD, partner at Downey Brand LLP. Members of the panel addressed the following:
Retaliatory Tariffs
Last year, France passed a measure to tax companies like Amazon and Google that aren’t headquartered in the country but make money on its citizens. Viewing this as an attack on U.S. companies, the U.S. threatened to retaliate with 100 percent tariffs on French cheese, wine, cookware, handbags, and other consumer goods. “This would be devastating to French suppliers,” said Gellert. The U.S. is also keeping close watch on Turkey and Italy, which have passed similar laws.
In addition, the tariffs that were announced in October as a result of the WTO ruling that permitted the U.S. to impose tax on goods from the E.U., are being felt by importers, retailers, and consumers. Items like green olives, cheeses, and olive oil from certain EU countries, specifically ones that Airbus operates in, are subject to 25 percent tariffs. In February, the United States Trade Representative will review the list of items and decide to add and/or remove items or adjust tariffs.
FSVP Enforcement
In 2020, the FDA will begin to more heavily regulate importers and send warning letters to those who don’t have a Foreign Supplier Verification Program in place. “Importers need to take the time to learn about FSVP because status quo is not going to be enough," Bauer warned. The FSVP requires importers to have procedures to approve the food safety systems of foreign suppliers, and documents to prove that.
The Grey Area of CBD in Food and Beverage
The FDA is also coming down on companies putting CBD into food and beverage products, as it is still federally illegal to do so. “CBD is experiencing an incredible national moment,” noted Rogers. “It’s the fastest changing area of the food industry.”
Back in 2018, the U.S. Congress passed the Farm Bill, which allows for the lawful marketing of hemp that contains less than 0.3 percent THC. However, the bill didn’t change the framework for the FDA in terms of regulating food, drugs, and supplements, which means that, since CBD is considered an investigational drug by the FDA, it cannot be added into food or beverage.
Some states have tried to circumnavigate the federal issue by passing state laws allowing for CBD in food and beverage products; however, they do not overrule the federal law, and can often conflict with each other.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson has introduced a bill, that, if passed, would allow the FDA to regulate CBD as a food and supplement under its normal regulatory framework. “This would be a victory,” said Rogers, as it would help the FDA gather the data it so desperately needs about CBD.
Prop 65 Pushback
For companies doing business in California, Prop 65 continues to present challenges. To identify what levels of chemical exist within a product, it requires heavy research and, often, a professional toxicologist, which is costly and time-consuming. This can be especially burdensome for smaller companies; some have even decided to stop selling their product in the state.
The coffee industry, in particular, has banded together to push back on Prop 65, which alleges that the roasting process creates a chemical in coffee called acrylamide. Coffee producers in California were able to get support from science and the FDA and lobby for an exception that doesn’t require the warning label to be put on coffee beans or grounds.
Other companies may think about pushing back, too. “Don’t think about Prop 65 in a binary fashion,” said Castillo. “Talk to your friends in the industry, talk to your trade groups. You may have a good reason to push back.”
From: Michael Costa <mcosta@specialtyfood.com>
Date: Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 5:54 PM
To: Arielle Feger <afeger@specialtyfood.com>
Subject: Re: Experts Provide Updates on Regulatory Challenges
Experts Provide Updates on Regulatory Challenges
By Arielle Feger
“It’s been an extremely busy year for regulatory updates in the specialty food world,” observed Ron Tanner, vice president of education, government, and industry relations during Policy Spotlight: Key Issues for Your Specialty Food Business session, yesterday. The panel session, moderated by Tanner, included Tom Gellert, president of Atalanta Corporation; Bob Bauer, president of the Association of Food Industries; Jeni Lamb Rogers, JD, MS, partner at PSL Law Group LLC, and Sophia Castillo, JD, partner at Downey Brand LLP. Members of the panel addressed the following:
Retaliatory Tariffs
Last year, France passed a measure to tax companies like Amazon and Google that aren’t headquartered in the country but make money on its citizens. Viewing this as an attack on U.S. companies, the U.S. threatened to retaliate with 100 percent tariffs on French cheese, wine, cookware, handbags and other consumer good. “This would be devastating to French suppliers,” says Gellert. The U.S. is also keeping close watch on Turkey and Italy, which have passed similar laws.
In addition, the tariffs that were announced in October as a result of the WTO ruling that permitted the U.S. to impose tax on goods from the E.U., are being felt by importers, retailers, and consumers. Items like green olives, cheeses, and olive oil from certain EU countries, specifically ones that Airbus operates in, are subject to 25 percent tariffs. In February, the United States Trade Representative will review the list of items and decide to add and/or remove items or adjust tariffs.
FSVP Enforcement
In 2020, the FDA will begin to more heavily regulate importers and send warning letters to those who don’t have a Foreign Supplier Verification Program in place. “Importers need to take the time to learn about FSVP because status quo is not going to be enough," Bauer warned. The FSVP requires importers to have procedures to approve the food safety systems of foreign suppliers, and documents to prove that.
The Grey Area of CBD in Food and Beverage
The FDA is also coming down on companies putting CBD into food and beverage products, as it is still federally illegal to do so. “CBD is experiencing an incredible national moment,” noted Rogers. “It’s the fastest changing area of the food industry.”
Back in 2018, the U.S. Congress passed the Farm Bill, which allows for the lawful marketing of hemp that contains less than 0.3 percent THC. However, the bill didn’t change the framework for the FDA in terms of regulating food, drugs, and supplements, which means that, since CBD is considered an investigational drug by the FDA, it cannot be added into food or beverage.
Some states have tried to circumnavigate the federal issue by passing state laws allowing for CBD in food and beverage products; however, they do not overrule the federal law, and can often conflict with each other.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson has introduced a bill, that, if passed, would allow the FDA to regulate CBD as a food and supplement under its normal regulatory framework. “This would be a victory,” said Rogers, as it would help the FDA gather the data it so desperately needs about CBD.
Prop 65 Pushback
For companies doing business in California, Prop 65 continues to present challenges. To identify what levels of chemical exist within a product, it requires heavy research and, often, a professional toxicologist, which is costly and time-consuming. This can be especially burdensome for smaller companies; some have even decided to stop selling their product in the state.
The coffee industry, in particular, has banded together to push back on Prop 65, which alleges that the roasting process creates a chemical in coffee called acrylamide. Coffee producers in California were able to get support from science and the FDA and lobby for an exception that doesn’t require the warning label to be put on coffee beans or grounds.
Other companies may think about pushing back, too. “Don’t think about Prop 65 in a binary fashion,” said Castillo. “Talk to your friends in the industry, talk to your trade groups. You may have a good reason to push back.”
from Industry Operations https://ift.tt/3at9oWc
No comments: