FSMA, Nutrition Panel Changes among Burdensome Federal Regulations, Industry Tells DOC

Members of the food and dietary supplement industries were among those who responded to a March 9, 2017 request from the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) for input on the impact of “Burdensome Federal Regulations and Construction Permitting Process on Domestic Manufacturing.” Comments were due by March 31, 2017. Some of the suggestions from the food and dietary supplement companies and associations are provided below.

• The American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) said that the definition for “produce” in FSMA’s Produce Safety Rule was too broad by including parts of plants not usually considered produce. Another concern with FSMA, suggested the association, was that FDA significantly expanded the scope of “processed food” to include thousands of items that previously were considered “raw agricultural commodities.” As a result, AHPA claimed that many farm operations will be transformed into “food manufacturers” that are subject to facility registration and good manufacturing practices for food. Finally, AHPA called for the revised New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) draft guidance published in 2016 to be significantly revised or immediately withdraw.

• Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc. suggested that FDA and USDA should work together to merge the compliance dates for the Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP) changes and the mandatory GMO disclosure so that manufacturers will only need to make one label change. The company also requested that the FSMA “Food Defense Rule” and “Produce Safety Rule” (especially the agricultural water standards requirement) be repealed. (As noted in our March 21, 2017 blog, FDA has announced that it may simplify the Produce Safety Rule’s agricultural water standards.)

• The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) also commented on the compliance date for the Nutrition Facts Panel, suggesting that it should be extended from July 29, 2018 to May 2021. With respect to FSMA, IDFA suggested that FDA delay the compliance dates for the “Food Defense Rule” until the agency can revise the regulation “to provide for more flexibility and greater focus on risk-based methods of preventing intentional adulteration of the food system.” Other recommendation from IDFA dealt with sodium reduction targets and some of the dairy standards of identity.

As we reported on this blog last week, the dairy industry also requested a delay in implementation of the Nutrition Facts Rule at a House Agriculture Committing hearing on March 22. We will continue to follow any possible reduction in regulatory burdens and report on them here.