Pending before the The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is a proposed rule designed to reduce a practice known as "port shopping" which affects the safety of imported food.
When the FDA refuses entry of a food into the United States, the food is generally exported or destroyed. Some owners or shippers may attempt to bring the refused food back into the United States by shipping it through another US port in the hopes that it will not be inspected there and then admitted.
The proposed regulation would require shipping containers of food barred from entry, and any accompanying documents, be permanently labeled as refused. The label would alert inspectors at other ports that the food has already been inspected and refused.
"This system will make it more difficult for food importers to evade import controls after being denied admission into the United States," said Randall Lutter, Ph.D., deputy commissioner for policy. "It will complement our ongoing efforts to monitor food imports."
The proposed rule implements a provision of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, which provided the FDA with new authority to protect the nation’s food supply.
Under the proposed rule, all owners or consignees of refused food would be required to affix a label to the shipping container that reads: "UNITED STATES: REFUSED ENTRY" in clear, conspicuous, print. A label would also have to be affixed to all documents accompanying the imported food such as invoices, bills of lading, and electronic documents.
International shippers have asked that the actual shipping containers be marked, but that the larger maritime container (containing the shipping containers) be unmarked. This is problematic as not every maritime container is opened. At a minimum, the FDA should compromise and mark the maritime container as "containing a refused food shipment." That way, owners and consignees would not be able to sit quietly knowing that part of their load containing a rejected food may pass a loose inspection.
Comments are invited up to December 2nd.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(81)
-
▼
November
(27)
- A Melamine Problem That Won't Go Away - Melamine i...
- E. Coli Tainted Meat Recalled From New Jersey Rest...
- New USDA Directive Details Retail Reporting of Rec...
- Rapid Growth in Adoption of Genetically Engineered...
- Wegmans Recalls Tomato Sauce, Panos Recalls Vegan ...
- Some Perspective on Burger King's Announcement to ...
- Proposed FDA Rule to Reduce "Port Shopping" For Re...
- USDA/FSIS Tests Again Reveal Impermissible Levels ...
- Lean Cuisine Chicken Dinners Recalled
- EPA Disappoints Again With New CAFO Rule
- Tom Vilsack May Not Be The Right Person to Lead th...
- Seattle's Favorite Muffin Tops Recalled; Recalled ...
- Rockland County, NY Tables Its Calorie Disclosure Law
- Philadelphia Passes Tough New Labeling Requirement...
- Using Zoning to Combat Fast Food Restaurant Expans...
- American Medical Association Changes Its Policy, a...
- Westchester County Passes Menu Board Calorie Discl...
- Rosa DeLauro (or Howard Dean) for FDA Commissioner
- Nestle Nesquick Strawberry Powder, Schwan's Chicke...
- Country of Origin Labeling For Dairy Products Need...
- Restaurants Oppose What Will Likely Be The Nation'...
- Deflating the Power of Genetically Engineered Seed...
- USDA/FSIS Tests Reveal Impermissible Levels of Dru...
- Smart Choices Front-of-Package Food Label Program ...
- Progresso Soup Recall For Product Label Error
- Nashville Revises its Proposed Menu Board Law, Roc...
- FDA Discovers Melamine in Fresh & Crispy Jacobina ...
-
▼
November
(27)