Consumers See Government Inspection as Most Credible Signal of Food Safety: Study

(Food In Canada)

Study also finds that food recalls affect how consumers shop and what attributes they look for

Consumers value several attributes when it comes to their food, but the most important – a study has found – is safer and healthier food, inspected by a government body. The new study, called Food Safety Certification: A Study of Food Safety in the U.S. Supply Chain, was conducted by Michigan State University (MSU).

The research found that consumers are quite aware of food safety issues and change their shopping habits because of them. In fact, nearly half of the consumers surveyed had done so, says Chris Peterson, director of MSU’s Product Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources.

But what’s also interesting, the study reports, is that consumers don’t see higher prices and brand names as indicators of safer food. Read more here.

“Consumer Safety” Bill Could Boomerang against U.S. Manufacturers

(National Center for Policy Analysis – Daniel Griswold and Sallie James, Cato Institute)

Barriers to trade can be straightforward and transparent, or can take the form of rules and regulations proposed in the name of protecting public health and safety but have a secondary effect of restricting trade. An example of such a nontariff barrier is legislation now before Congress called the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act (FMLAA), say Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Sallie James, a trade policy analyst with the center.

The sponsors of the legislation claim that their principal goal is to protect American consumers from unsafe foreign products, but there are warning signs that the bill may be more about restricting trade than protecting the public.

• The FMLAA would require foreign producers selling goods in the U.S. market to designate a legal agent located in the United States who could be served papers in a product liability suit.

• By registering an agent, the foreign producer would agree to accept the jurisdiction of the state and federal courts of the state where the agent is located.

The concern raised by advocates of the legislation is that American consumers harmed by foreign products will not be able to collect damages if the foreign-based producer has no legal presence in the United States.

Americans damaged by faulty products, whether made abroad or domestically, should be able to seek compensation through the courts. But the approach advocated by supporters of the FMLAA would not solve the problem, say Griswold and James.

Read the original article here.

Canadian Food Producers ‘Burdened’ by Regulations: Survey

(Montreal Gazette – Sara Schmidt, Postmedia News)

Canadian producers think governments overreact to food safety incidences and overburden them with rules to prevent the spread of diseases on their farms, a newly released government survey has found.

Producers from British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia – representing a broad range of agricultural products – also delivered a blunt message to consumers about imports during 10 focus groups commissioned by Agriculture Canada. The sessions were held earlier this year to get their views on agricultural issues, including competitiveness, sustainability and food safety.

“Generally speaking, producers felt that bio-security regulations and protocols were putting an unnecessary burden on producers, particularly smaller ones,” according to a summary of the focus groups led by Ekos Research Associates Inc. “Those who were being most affected by these measures felt that governments and retail industry giants had overreacted in the face of Mad Cow and other food safety incidences, as well as bowing to pressure from the United States and other countries.” Read more here.

Licensing of Food Importers

(CFIA)

On Monday August 16, 2010 CFIA posted a consultation survey on the CFIA website signalling their intent to move forward with licensing of food importers. Importers of food and food ingredients that are regulated under the Food and Drugs Act will require a license and to be able to demonstrate that they have in place a food safety system that minimizes the risk of a food-borne incident being associated with the products that they import, and processes that ensure that the their products comply with the requirements of the Consumer Product Packaging and Labelling Act and Regulations.

The regulation will be established under the authority of the Agricultural Products Act and will apply to importers of products such as:

• alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages
• confectionery
• fats and oils
• infant formula
• coffee and tea
• cereals
• spices and seasonings
• juices
• bakery products

The regulation will not apply to importers of:

• processed fruits and vegetables
• meat and poultry
• dairy products
• egg products
• honey and maple products
• seafood
• fresh fruits and vegetables
• synthetic colours
• bottled water

CFIA intends to hold public consultations in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver during September. Dates and details will be an announced when finalized.

The CFIA on line consultation survey, background material and question and answers can be found on the CFIA website. The consultation closes October 4, 2010.

CFIA intends to publish the draft regulation in Canada Gazette Part 1 before the end of December 2010.

Cadmium Products Now in Crosshairs of Federal and State Legislators

(Lexology – Robert B. Hopkins et al., Duane Morris LLP)

With lead banned in children’s products by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), many American politicians, regulators and consumer groups are now calling for a ban on cadmium, another toxic metal that has been used in consumer products. Cadmium is a soft, bluish-white, natural metal with a very-low melting point. It has been used in batteries and jewelry, as well as in coatings on consumer products. Various studies have concluded that it is toxic and that certain exposure levels can lead to significant health problems. As a result, the use of cadmium has been on the decline in recent years. However, with the recent lead ban, it has been reported that some non-U.S. manufacturers in the last two years have turned to cadmium as a replacement for lead.

Cadmium is strictly regulated in the European Union. In the United States, the laws addressing cadmium are not as comprehensive. Only one federal statute deals with its use in consumer products, and this law – in place since 2008 as part of the CPSIA – only bans its use in coatings for children’s toys. This toy-coatings ban is enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). No particular CPSC federal statute bans the use of cadmium in other consumer products, including children’s products such as jewelry. The CPSC has a general enforcement statute in place, known as the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), which theoretically permits it to ban products containing "hazardous substances." Read more here.

Factors to be Considered in Determining Civil Penalties for Consumer Product Safety Violations

(Levine & Slavit)

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a final rule providing its interpretation of the factors it must consider in determining the amount of civil penalties for knowing violations of the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and the Flammable Fabrics Act.

These penalties increased substantially as of Aug. 14, 2009, to a maximum of $100,000 per violation (from $8,000) and $15 million (from $1.825 million) for a related series of violations. This final rule clarifies certain information and terms based on comments received concerning and further CPSC review of, the Commission’s Sept. 1, 2009, interim final rule. Read more here.

Canada Gets Serious About Consumer-Product Safety

(Law.com – Peter Pliszka and Richard Butler, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin)

Manufacturers, importers, retailers and advertisers that sell products in Canada can expect to see a flurry of regulatory change relating to consumer products later this year. The activity – culminating in House of Commons Bill C-6, "An Act respecting the safety of consumer products" – stems from an increased focus by the Canadian government on the regulatory controls for consumer products.

Bill C-6, known colloquially as the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA), was introduced in Canada's House of Commons on January 29. If enacted into law as drafted, the CCPSA will reconstitute the federal organization Health Canada as a powerful regulator of consumer products, providing it with unprecedented authority to inspect and influence the supply chain for consumer goods.

The legislation currently governing consumer product safety in Canada is the federal Hazardous Products Act (HPA). Health Canada, the country's public health agency, is responsible for administration and enforcement of the HPA and its regulations, through its Product Safety Program. […]

The regulatory tools conferred upon Health Canada by the HPA are limited because they apply only to the list of products that fall within the scope of the HPA, and the powers are reactive in nature. At present, the HPA does not confer upon Health Canada any legislated authority to compel parties in the supply chain to initiate product recalls. Therefore, Health Canada must rely on the cooperation of private parties with respect to consumer product recalls.

As the Canadian government's vehicle for delivering an overhaul of consumer product regulation in Canada, the new CCPSA will repeal and replace Part I of the HPA. The CCPSA will apply to all "consumer products," other than exceptional products prescribed by regulation.

Read the complete article here.

Enhanced Recall Regulations Proposed Under The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act Of 2008

(Mondaq – Robert L. Falk et al, Morrison & Foerster LLP)

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (the “Act”), which became law on August 14, 2008, imposes a number of new requirements on product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. The focus of this client alert is the draft regulations proposed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) on March 20, 2009 that include guidelines and requirements for product recall notices.

The proposed regulations would apply to manufacturers (including importers), retailers, and distributors of all consumer products and not just “children’s products” otherwise regulated under the Act. They represent a substantial enhancement of past recall-related procedures and likely will impose significantly greater burdens on those who are required to carry out mandatory consumer product recalls in the future. The new requirements will also serve as guidelines the CPSC will use for negotiating the terms of future voluntary product recalls.

The CPSC will be accepting public comments on these regulations until April 20, 2009, after which they are likely to be quickly finalized, published in the Federal Register, and put into effect. Read more here.

CPSC Wants More Flexibility to Exempt Products, Extend Compliance Under Product Safety Law

(World Trade Interactive)

The head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission told Congress last week that the CPSC needs more flexibility in its ability to implement the numerous requirements under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

In a letter to Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Acting CPSC Chair Nancy Nord said the agency has been confronted with three major issues in implementing the CPSIA:

(1) the retroactive application of requirements to inventory;

(2) the broad coverage of the law, which applies to all products for children 12 years or age or younger; and

(3) the impact of new testing and certification requirements for all consumer products and the third-party testing requirements for children’s products.

Nord said that while more funding and staffing would help, granting the CPSC more autonomy to implement the CPSIA would be the best way to ease the burdens on both government and industry while ensuring compliance with the law. Read more here.

CPSC Issues Guidance Document on CPSIA Requirements

(World Trade Interactive)

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a guidance document that is specifically designed to educate small businesses, resellers, crafters and charities about some of the more relevant provisions included in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. The guide includes a useful review in a question-and-answer format of a broad range of CPSIA-related issues, including, for example, product coverage, testing requirements, compliance with the new lead and phthalate bans, exemptions and exclusions from the lead content limits, donations and requirements for resellers. Click here for the complete article.

New Children’s Product Safety Requirements to Take Effect in February

(World Trade Interactive)

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has recently issued the following guidance on new requirements under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act that will take effect February 10. Manufacturers, importers and retailers are expected to comply with these requirements.

Lead Ban
Beginning February 10 children’s products cannot be sold in the U.S. if they contain more than 600 parts per million total lead, even if they were manufactured before that date. The total lead limit will drop to 300 ppm on August 14, 2009.

Phthalates
Certain children’s products manufactured on or after February 10 cannot be sold in the U.S. if they contain more than 0.1% of certain phthalates or if they fail to meet new mandatory standards for toys.

Certification
Importers and domestic manufacturers must certify that children’s products made after February 10 comply with all new safety standards and the lead ban. Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards.

More information from the CPSC here.

EU to Ban 22 Dangerous Substances from Pesticides

(Industry Week – Agence France-Presse)

The EU states and parliament agreed a compromise deal on December 18 under which 22 toxic substances will be banned from use in pesticides, negotiators announced. The deal must be formally endorsed by the parliament in Strasbourg and the 27 member states.

“We have made a great step forward for the protection of consumers’ health and of the environment,” said German Green MEP Hiltrud Breyer.

The chemcial blacklist includes eight substances used in the manufacture of herbicides, 11 used in fungicides and three in insecticides, many of them produced by Bayer and BASF – including Ioxynil, Amitrol and Iprodion.

The substances will be banned due to their toxic or carcinogenic effects.The compromise deal, under which a longer list of substances to be banned was dropped, came after the phytosanitary industry complained that 40% of its ingredients would be struck off.