[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24254-24378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11530]
[[Page 24253]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Health and Human Services
_______________________________________________________________________
Food and Drug Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
21 CFR Parts 101 and 120
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis of the Proposed Rules to Ensure the Safety of
Juice and Juice Products; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 1998 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 24254]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 101 and 120
[Docket Nos. 93N-0325 and 97N-0296]
RIN 0910-AA43
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis of the Proposed Rules to Ensure the Safety of
Juice and Juice Products
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Preliminary regulatory impact analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing the
preliminary regulatory impact analysis (PRIA) that it has prepared
under Executive Order 12866 and initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) that it has prepared under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness
Act (SBREFA), on the costs and benefits of FDA's proposed regulations
regarding the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) and
labeling for juice and juice products. FDA is issuing those proposals
because of recent outbreaks of foodborne illness and deaths caused by
consumption of juice products that were not pasteurized or otherwise
processed to control pathogenic microorganisms. Those proposals are
intended to ensure that juice and juice products are safe.
DATES: Submit written comments by May 26, 1998 on aspects of this
analysis related to labeling for juice and juice products and by July
8, 1998 on aspects of this analysis related to HACCP for juice and
juice products.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857. Comments should be identified with the docket
numbers found in brackets in the heading of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Zorn, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-726), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C
St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-4729.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Introduction
III. Factors Considered in Developing This Analysis
IV. Regulatory Options
V. Benefits
VI. Costs
VII. Summary of Benefits and Costs
VIII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IX. References
X. Request for Comments
I. Background
This document constitutes FDA's PRIA and IRFA of the proposed rules
to amend the food labeling regulations and to require HACCP for juice
and juice products. Because the industries affected by both proposed
rules substantially overlap and because both proposals address the same
public health problem, the safety of juice and products containing
juice, the agency has chosen to analyze the economic impact of both
proposed rules in a single PRIA and IRFA. These documents analyze both
the costs and benefits of the proposed rules as well as the expected
impacts on the affected small entities. FDA has found that these rules
may constitute significant rules under Executive Order 12866 because
they could have a significant impact on one sector of the economy
(producers of minimally processed juice). In addition, FDA has
determined under the RFA that each proposal would present a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
II. Introduction
FDA has examined the impacts of these proposed rules under
Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12866 directs Federal agencies
to assess the benefits and costs of available regulatory alternatives
and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity).
Under the Executive Order, a regulatory action is ``significant'' if it
meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including having an
annual effect on the economy, competition, or jobs, or if it raises
novel legal or policy issues. FDA finds that each of these proposed
rules may constitute a significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866, as discussed as follows.
In addition, FDA has determined that these rules are not
significant rules under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requiring benefit-cost and other analyses. Under UMRA significant rule
is defined as ``a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100,000,000 (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1
year''.
Finally, in accordance with the SBREFA, the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget (the Administrator) has determined that these
proposed rules are major rules for the purpose of congressional review.
A major rule for this purpose is defined as one that the Administrator
has determined has resulted or is likely to result in an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local
government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets.
III. Factors Considered in Developing This Analysis
This analysis estimates costs and benefits for two proposed
regulations, published in the Federal Register of April 24, 1998 (63 FR
20450 and 20486), that would affect the safety of juice products. The
first rule requires warning statements on minimally processed packaged
juice. That is, juice that has not been processed in a manner that will
produce, at a minimum, a 5-log reduction, for a period at least as long
as the shelf life of the product when stored under normal and moderate
abuse conditions, in the pertinent microorganism. The ``pertinent
microorganism'' is the most resistant microorganism of public health
significance that is likely to occur in the juice. In the remainder of
this analysis, this will be referred to as the ``5-log reduction.''\1\
The second rule requires manufacturers of most juice to implement a
HACCP program with the same 5-log reduction performance criteria.
However, FDA is proposing to exempt retailers who, for the purposes of
this rule, the agency has tentatively decided will include very small
businesses that make juice on their premises and whose total sales of
juice and juice products do not exceed 40,000 gallons per year and who
sell directly to consumers or directly to consumers and other
retailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ That is, the total combined effect of all controls have the
effect of reducing the number of colony forming units (cfu's) by a
factor of 100,000. This implies that even if the product should
contain 1,000 cfu's per gallon (gal.) prior to processing, the final
product after processing would contain only .01 cfu's per gal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effective date for the labeling rule is proposed to be 60 days
following publication of the final rule with
[[Page 24255]]
warning statements required either on the labels or, in the case of
products which do not bear the warning statement on the label, on
labeling (e.g., on signs or placards at the point of sale) on juices
that have not been processed in a manner that will produce, at a
minimum, a 5-log reduction. Packaged juices produced by large firms are
required to bear warning labels beginning on January 1, 2000, and
packaged juices produced by small and very small firms\2\ are required
to bear warning labels beginning on January 1, 2001. The agency expects
that the HACCP rule, because of its complexity, will not be finalized
for at least 1 year following finalization of the juice labeling rule.
The HACCP rule is proposed to be effective for large firms, 12 months
following publication of the final HACCP rule; for small firms, 24
months following publication of the final HACCP rule; and for very
small firms, 36 months following publication of the final HACCP rule.
For purposes of this rule, the agency is proposing to define large
processors as those who have more than 500 employees, small processors
as those who have less than 500 employees and very small processors as
those who have either: (1) Total annual sales of less than $500,000, or
(2) that have total annual sales of greater than $500,000 but total
annual food sales of less than $50,000, or (3) that employ fewer than
100 full-time equivalent employees and annually sell less than 100,000
units of the juice in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The labeling rule does not define ``very small firms'' but
the HACCP rule does give a separate definition of ``very small
firms'' as a subset of ``small firms'' as defined in the labeling
and HACCP rules. Therefore, the term ``very small firms'' has been
used here in relationship to the labeling rule to make clear where
this subset fits in the context of both of these rules. The HACCP
rule defines small businesses as those with fewer than 500
employees. It defines very small businesses as those with total
annual sales of less than $500,000 or those with total annual food
sales of less than $50,000 or those with fewer than 100 employees
and less than 100,000 units of juice sold annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To a large extent, benefits and costs will depend on how processors
of juice who do not currently implement controls sufficient to achieve
a 5-log reduction respond to the warning label regulation. That is,
firms will choose whether to display the warning statement or to comply
early with the 5-log reduction. The agency has no information to
indicate the choices that specific processors will make.
The actual choice that each processor will make depends on several
factors: (1) The revenue that processors expect to lose because of
consumers' responses to the Government's announcement of the rules and
the warning label, (2) the costs of and length of time allowed to make
label changes, (3) the costs of achieving a 5-log reduction in
pathogens, and (4) the revenue that processors expect to lose if
consumers respond negatively to the changes in product characteristics
caused by processing the juice.
Processors will choose to discontinue juice production if they
perceive that either labeling or a change in processing practices will
lower profits below a ``normal'' return.\3\ In other words, processors
will go out of the juice business rather than comply with these
regulations only if one of the two following conditions is satisfied:
(1) The combination of the cost of displaying the warning labeling and
the reduction in revenue caused by the negative response of consumers
to the warning results in below normal profits; or (2) a combination of
increased costs from processing and a reduction in revenue caused by
the negative response of consumers to the changes in product quality
results in below normal profits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A normal return on profits is the average market return on
capital that a processor could receive, for example, by investing in
the stock market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of this analysis, the agency has assumed that, in
order to avoid having their products associated with the warning to
consumers, all establishments that will eventually be covered by the
HACCP rule will implement controls sufficient to achieve a 5-log
reduction when the labeling rule takes effect. The agency has also
assumed for the purposes of this analysis that those establishments not
covered by the HACCP rule will display the warning statement for
packaged juice products. However, in order to avoid displaying the
warning statement, these establishments may choose to process their
juice in a manner sufficient to achieve a 5-log reduction in pathogens
or under an adequate voluntary HACCP plan.
IV. Regulatory Options
The preambles in the accompanying proposed regulations describe the
compelling public need for these regulations. For example, in recent
years, pathogens have been discovered in fresh juices after having
caused severe illness in humans. These products were previously not
known to be vehicles for such hazards, given their low pH. Because
these events have occurred, the agency tentatively finds that it is
prudent to require the adoption of preventative controls for hazards
now associated with juice where controls may not have been previously
thought to be necessary.
There are a number of regulatory options that FDA has preliminarily
considered to reduce the risks associated with consuming juice
products. FDA requests comments on benefits, costs, and any other
aspect of these options.
A. Take No New Regulatory Action
Choosing this option would imply either reliance on: (1) Existing
Federal regulation, (2) State and local regulatory activity, (3)
business interests, (4) consumer demands, and (5) product liability
pressures to reduce risks incurred by consumers of juice products or
acceptance that the risks that juice currently presents are risks that
consumers are unwilling to pay to reduce. In the first case, it is
unlikely that the market will adjust to eliminate the risks present in
juice because of the difficulty of establishing the link between the
various kinds of illnesses, whether acute or chronic, to consumption of
juice. Generally, this link may only be established when there are
large, geographically focused outbreaks of acute illness. However,
research indicates that most cases of foodborne illness are sporadic
and geographically dispersed and not associated with any identifiable
and focused outbreaks (Ref. 1). In the second case, it is presumed that
consumers are willing to pay to reduce these risks given the sizeable
estimated benefits of the proposed rules. Finally, while industry and
State governments have undertaken steps in many areas to reduce risks
associated with juice, FDA believes that the changes have been made
with the expectations of Federal regulation. It is unlikely that the
market would fully adjust to reduce the risk without additional Federal
action.
B. Regulate Only High-Risk Juice Products or High-Risk Hazards
FDA could choose to make these rules applicable only to juice
products that have been associated by epidemiology or by inspection
history with health hazards. This option is discussed in the appendix
supporting this analysis (Ref. 9). In the appendix, the agency
concluded that unpasteurized or otherwise nonheat treated juices
present the largest risk to consumers because pathogens pose the
highest risk of the several categories of hazards. FDA is proposing
that all chemical, physical, and biological hazards be included under
HACCP, despite the differences in relative risk posed by different
types of hazards. It is important to note that processors may, under
the umbrella of
[[Page 24256]]
HACCP, adjust for the probability and severity of hazards by adjusting
critical limits, the frequency of monitoring, intensity of corrective
action, or any number of other margins. FDA has not evaluated the
benefits and costs of structuring HACCP based on this option, and seeks
comments on it, especially on the option of covering only some types of
juice.
C. Do Either One of the Proposed Rules but Not Both
One option would be to eliminate the HACCP requirement for juices,
one of the two proposed actions, and only require that juices that are
not processed to achieve a 5-log reduction be labeled with a warning to
consumers. The purpose of this labeling is to alert consumers who are
at increased risk to avoid these products and to inform all consumers
of the risk of these products relative to other juices. However, it is
difficult to predict what products consumers would switch to once they
encounter the warnings. It is possible that some consumers may reduce
their health status by choosing less nutritious substitutes in order to
avoid the products with the warning labels. Although labeling may be
effective for changing both producer behavior (particularly to avoid
displaying the warning) and consumer behavior, the agency believes that
labeling alone is unlikely to be sufficient to address all health
hazards associated with consumption of juice products.
Another option would be to eliminate the labeling rule and only
require that juice processors implement HACCP. This option would reduce
the possibility that some consumers might overreact and avoid all
juice. This option would also allow fresh juice to be marketed without
warnings and would result in some cost savings for products that will
not need to pay for labeling costs. However, it would also result in
some reduction in benefits because the HACCP rule will take longer to
implement than the labeling rule and because the proposed labeling rule
covers juice made at the point of sale and the proposed HACCP rule does
not cover retailers.
D. Require New Current Good Manufacturing Practices
FDA could develop and require current good manufacturing practices
(CGMP's) or sanitation standards specific to juice products to improve
the safety of juices. The use of CGMP's would assist processors in
ensuring the safety of their juices by providing guidance on how to
reduce insanitary manufacturing practices and on how to protect against
food becoming contaminated. While FDA currently has general CGMP's that
provide guidance to all food processing industries, it does not have
specific CGMP's for the juice industry.
There are three reasons that this alternative alone may be
undesirable. First, CGMP's by themselves are unlikely to have a
sufficient impact on the safety of juice, particularly relative to
HACCP. That is, CGMP's do not provide: (1) A structure for each
processor to align specific hazards unique to the processor's
operations with specific control measures; (2) assurance that the
processor will establish specific performance standards appropriate to
the processor's unique operation; (3) records that document that the
performance standards are met; and (4) records of frequent audits to
verify that controls are being applied, all of which are associated
with HACCP. Identifying specific hazards, designing controls that are
specific and unique to each operation, and verifying that these
controls are being applied as specified are essential elements of a
control program that will provide an improved level of food safety.
Secondly, under the HACCP approach being proposed, the industry is
required to use FDA's general CGMP's in part 110 (21 CFR part 110) and
to develop and adopt sanitation standard operating procedures (SOP's)
as part of their prerequisite programs for their HACCP plan. Therefore,
the HACCP approach builds on the foundation of CGMP's at the same time
it avoids the limitations of this alternative.
HACCP is designed for use in all segments of the food industry from
growing, harvesting, processing, manufacturing, distributing, and
merchandising to preparing food for consumption. Prerequisite programs
such as current good manufacturing practices (CGMP's) are an essential
foundation for the development and implementation of successful HACCP
plans.
The production of safe food products requires that the HACCP system
be built upon a solid foundation of prerequisite programs. Each segment
of the food industry must provide the conditions necessary to protect
food while it is under their control. This has traditionally been
accomplished through the application of CGMP's. These conditions and
practices are now considered to be prerequisite to the development and
implementation of effective HACCP plans. Prerequisite programs provide
the basic environmental and operating conditions that are necessary for
the production of safe, wholesome food.
E. Require Pasteurization
FDA could require that all juice be pasteurized rather than
requiring HACCP with a specified 5-log reduction. Although FDA is not
currently aware of other practical methods to achieve this level of
control, solely requiring pasteurization would inhibit new
technological innovation and it would only address one type of hazard
(pathogens that are not heat resistant). In this analysis, the agency
has, in fact, evaluated the costs of pasteurization for those juices
not now pasteurized. It should be pointed out that, by volume, the vast
majority of juices are now pasteurized or otherwise equivalently
treated. Thus, the marginal costs and benefits of requiring
pasteurization only apply to the small fraction of juice that is not
heat treated.
The agency requests comment on the appropriateness of the 5-log
reduction performance standard and if other approaches, such as
establishing a minimal acceptable risk standard for juices, could be
used that would ensure the safety of the juice. The agency requests
comments on what such a minimal acceptable risk standard should be and
how it would be implemented. The agency also invites interested persons
to submit scientific data concerning the acceptability of a 5-log
reduction requirement or whether a more or less stringent performance
standard (e.g., 3- or 7-log reduction) for specific juices would be
more appropriate or whether different approaches consistent with a
minimal acceptable risk standard for juices might be appropriate for
specific juices based on their unique characteristics.
F. Set Different Performance Standards for Processing of Different
Products
One regulatory option would be to establish different performance
standards for processing different types of juice products to decrease
the number of pathogens. In the proposal, the agency has tentatively
proposed that any combination of processing steps which cumulatively
result in a 5-log (a 100,000-fold) reduction in pathogens should be
applied to the production of all types of juice. However, different
products may warrant different processing stringencies because of a
number of factors, including: (1) The initial microbial counts on raw
produce are likely to vary, (2) different types of produce are likely
to harbor different kinds of pathogens, and (3) different products
provide different environments for microbial growth. This
[[Page 24257]]
option could either be exercised as part of the final rule in response
to comments or the proposed standards could remain with the option to
further petition the agency for a different standard. The benefits and
costs of the standard will vary directly with the stringency of
different performance standards. However, FDA does not have data to
estimate preliminarily the costs and benefits of this option.
G. Expand HACCP Rule Coverage
FDA has tentatively concluded that the retail sector should not be
included in the HACCP rule and has asked for comments on the
appropriateness of this conclusion. The expansion of coverage of the
HACCP rule to include retailers that process juice at the point of sale
would add an estimated additional 14,300 restaurants and 1,300 grocery
stores and supermarkets for a total of approximately 16,000
establishments. If the cost for these establishments to implement HACCP
was equivalent to that of very small processors who would be required
to initiate pasteurization ($26,000 in the first year and $11,900 in
subsequent years), then the total additional cost of this option would
be approximately $416 million in the first year and approximately $190
million in subsequent years. However, the agency does not have direct
information about the cost of implementing HACCP in a retail setting
for juice and the actual costs may vary significantly from these
estimates.
H. Use of One of Various Alternatives
An alternative approach to mandating HACCP would be to provide a
more flexible array of options tailored to the microbial risk present
in the particular juice. Manufacturers of apple cider would be provided
a permanent option choosing between labeling or implementing a HACCP
program with a 5-log pathogen reduction. All juices other than
untreated apple cider would be provided a permanent option of choosing
between labeling, implementing a HACCP system, or achieving a 5-log
pathogen reduction. However, FDA believes that this option provides
only weak incentives for processors to implement a HACCP system.
Processors could label hazardous products without taking steps to
improve the safety of juice or choose to achieve a 5-log reduction for
microbial pathogens without addressing other hazards. The agency
believes that labeling would not achieve the same level of product
safety. Additionally, there would be less incentive for processors to
implement a HACCP system, which includes, among other things,
developing and implementing sanitation SOP's and recordkeeping at
critical control points in addition to achieving a 5-log reduction.
Other hazards that would not be addressed include chemical
contaminants, hazardous metals, including lead and tin, mycotoxins,
pesticides, and physical hazards, such as glass.
Another regulatory option would be to include labeling for
unpackaged juice products for all retail outlets, such as restaurants.
This option would also require any very small retailer (as defined for
the purposes of this rulemaking) who is manufacturing less than 40,000
gallons of juice per year and selling it directly to consumers and
other retailers to either label or achieve a 5-log kill until a
requirement for HACCP would become effective 36 months from the date of
publication of the final rule.
If this option is combined with both proposed rules, FDA has
estimated the benefits to be $383 to $478 million annually and
estimated the costs in the first year to be $54 million and the costs
in subsequent years to be $28 million.
V. Benefits
This analysis provides estimates of three additive, independent
benefits of these two proposed rules: (1) Reduced expenditures related
to regulatory enforcement, (2) reduced adverse health effects, and (3)
other benefits. To some extent, the benefits of the two rules are
intertwined. Because of the earlier compliance dates, the impact of the
labeling rule will be to achieve some of the benefits faster. That is,
if firms choose to achieve a 5-log reduction through their processing
practices to avoid labeling, then some of the future benefits that
would be otherwise achieved under HACCP will be achieved sooner because
of the incentive provided by the labeling rule. Also, if at-risk
consumers avoid unpasteurized juices as a result of the labeling, there
will be reduced adverse-health effects prior to the introduction of
HACCP. On average, the labeling rule will achieve some of the benefits
2 years faster than the HACCP rule.
A. Enforcement Benefits
To the extent that these proposed rules are effective at reducing
contaminated juice, they should reduce the number of safety-related
enforcement actions (for both domestic and imported products) taken by
the agency for juice products. The enforcement activities chosen as a
baseline for juice products fall between the period 1992 and 1996
(inclusive) and involve import detentions and domestic recalls.
In the final regulatory impact analysis for FDA's seafood HACCP
rule, FDA used an assumption that the rule would prevent 50 percent of
the current number of annual enforcement actions. The agency did not
receive comments on this assumption in that rule and does not yet have
data from implementation of the rule to validate it. However, this may
be a conservative assumption. If HACCP plans are properly conceived,
implemented and validated, it is likely that the vast majority of
problems will be caught and corrected in the plant, rather than result
in foodborne disease outbreaks or be caught through Federal sampling of
the final product. Thus, the agency will continue to make this
assumption but requests comment on it.
1. Import Enforcement
Over the period 1992 through 1996, there were a number of imported
juice products detained for various violations of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). A detention is a procedure for
preventing violative products from entering the United States.
Following a determination that a sample of a product is violative,
three steps occur: (1) FDA sends a detention notice to the importer
providing an opportunity to introduce testimony as to the condition of
the product; (2) the importer may contact an attorney, submits a
response application, and introduces evidence regarding the product;
and (3) FDA makes a determination about what should be done with the
shipment. There are three actions that FDA can specify for a detained
shipment: (1) The product is allowed to be ``reshipped'' out of the
country, (2) the product is reconditioned so as to bring it into
compliance with U.S. law, or (3) the product is destroyed under Federal
supervision. Assume that the cost per shipment of the three steps to
all parties involved is $5,000. Then the remaining cost of detention is
the cost per shipment of the three actions which is related to the
value of the shipment.
Table 1 gives the number of shipments detained and the total dollar
value of juice products detained for violations of the act for the
entire period 1992 through 1996.
The average value per shipment of imported juice products refused
entry is approximately $10,000. The average number of imported juice
product shipments detained annually is 23.
[[Page 24258]]
Table 1.--Totals of Juice Import Detentions for 1992 through 1996 by Reason for Detention
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poisonous or Violative
Reason for Detention Food Additive Deleterious Pesticide Chemical New Drug Microbial Total
Issues Substances Residues Contamination Residues Hazards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Shipments 44 17 53 1 1 1 117
Value of Shipments $122,000 $112,000 $802,000 $79,000 $20,000 $2,000 $1,137,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, on an annual basis, 23 imported juice product shipments are
detained at an average Federal enforcement and industry negotiation
cost of $5,000 per shipment (60 FR 65189), and if all 23 shipments
(with an average value of $10,000 per shipment) are destroyed so that
the entire $10,000 value of the shipment is lost, then the total annual
cost of all juice detentions is approximately $345,000 (23 shipments x
($10,000 value of shipment + $5,000 enforcement and negotiation cost)).
If 50 percent of these enforcement costs are prevented, then the
benefits related to import enforcement are approximately $175,000.
2. Recalls
Recalls tracked by FDA for pathogens or pesticides in juice
products are infrequent. For the period 1992 through 1996 there was one
class 1 recall and there were seven class 2 recalls\4\ for such
hazards, or about two recalls per year. A class 1 recall may cost as
much as $3 to $5 million between expenditures by the manufacturer,
retailers and State, local, and Federal authorities. However, the
typical juice recall is smaller and less costly than this. If the
combination of industry and government costs per recall on average is
$1 million, then the total annual cost of juice recalls is
approximately $2 million (2 recalls per year at $1 million each). This
assumption is based on FDA conversations with industry for both large
and small recalls. FDA acknowledges that this may not be the true
average cost of a recall and requests comment on this assumption. If 50
percent of these enforcement costs are prevented, then the benefits
related to recalls tracked by FDA are $1 million. However, FDA may not
be aware of all recalls that take place, particularly for less
hazardous reasons. Assuming that the recalls that FDA is not aware of
are considerably smaller, perhaps costing $100,000, and that FDA may
only hear about 10 percent of such recalls, then the total annual cost
of such recalls could be $1 million. If 50 percent of these enforcement
costs are prevented, then the benefits related to recalls not tracked
by FDA would be $500,000. Thus, the total annual benefits of the HACCP
rule related to recalls is estimated to be $1.5 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Class 1 recalls are for dangerous or defective products that
predictably could cause serious health problems or death. Class 2
recalls are for products that might cause a temporary health
problem, or pose only a slight threat of a serious nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to those benefits, when firms have recalls that are
made public they will generally suffer a loss of sales, at least
temporarily, from lost ``goodwill.'' This alone does not result in a
social cost but rather a social transfer as other firms will step
forward to capture sales lost from the recalling firm. However, in
addition to the resources invested in recalling the product, the
recalling firm may invest real resources in advertising to recapture
lost goodwill, a social cost. FDA cannot quantify this cost.
B. Health Benefits
This section presents quantitative estimates of health benefits
from this rule. This is accomplished by the following steps:
1. The most significant hazards in juice are described in terms of
severity and duration;
2. The hazards are described in terms of resulting health effects
and symptoms when they cause illness;
3. The health effects and symptoms are translated into consumer
utility losses;
4. The utility losses are translated into values in terms of lost
dollars (this gives the cost per case for every combination of level of
severity and for the specified duration for each hazard);
5. The average annual number of reported cases associated with
juice are distributed according to the percentages associated with each
level of severity;
6. The factors used to account for under reporting of foodborne
illness are estimated;
7. The reported cases are multiplied by the under reporting factors
to get the estimated average annual number of cases;
8. The percentages of each type of hazard expected to be prevented
by the proposal are listed; and
9. The total health benefits of the proposal are derived by
multiplying numbers 4, 7, and 8.
That is, TB = RC x CF x CR x V, where
TB = total health benefits in dollars,
RC = number of reported cases,
CF = under reporting correction factor,
CR = percent of cases reduced,
V = dollar value per case averted (medical costs + value of pain and
lost function).
1. Description of Microbial Hazards in Juice
Most of the significant health risks associated with juice products
are microbial. In the last 5 years the hazards associated with
commercially processed, packaged juice produced by nonretail
establishments include Bacillus cereus, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and
Salmonella non typhi.\5\ Table 2 lists these hazards with associated
severities and duration of severities. These hazards have been directly
linked to orange and apple juice products. However, all juices take
farm produce as an input; all use similar types of processing steps;
and all are distributed in similar ways. Therefore, although other
types of juices are less likely to be associated with foodborne disease
outbreaks primarily because consumption of orange and apple juice
greatly exceeds consumption of all other types of juice combined, all
juices are similarly vulnerable to microbial contamination. All juices
are sensitive to potential contamination by pathogenic microorganisms
due to the way fruits and vegetables are grown and harvested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Most of the information in section V of this document
(Benefits) is taken from Ref. 9. It includes hazards other than
those for which benefits have been estimated in this analysis. The
hazards considered in section V of this document are those for which
the risk is highest. That is to say they are the most significant in
terms of probability of occurrence and severity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on current scientific understanding, potential vehicles or
mechanisms for pathogenic cross contamination common to most fruit and
vegetable harvesting and juicing operations include water; manure
fertilizer; worker, field, and facility sanitation and transportation,
handling and processing. While most of the potential for contamination
would appear on the surface of the fruit or vegetable, the process of
juicing this
[[Page 24259]]
fruit or vegetable would potentially incorporate the pathogenic
microorganisms into the final juice product. Ref. 10, page 31, lists
the pH of some fruit and vegetable juices.
Table 2.--Description of Microbial Hazards in Juice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration of
Hazard Severity Percent3 Illness (days)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. coli O157:H7
Mild 50 5
Moderate 32 9
Severe-acute 18 32
Severe- 2 26,645\1\
chronic
Death 1
Salmonella (non
typhi)
Mild 65 2
Moderate 30 5
Severe 5 17
Reactive 2 25
arthritis-
short term
Reactive 5 18,2502
arthritis-
long term
Death .1
B. cereus
Mild 99 .75
Moderate 1 1
Severe 0 NA
Death 0 NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Symptoms lasting 26,645 days, or 73 years, implies that it is
generally very young children who experience these severe chronic
effects (Ref. 2-3).
\2\Symptoms lasting 18,250 days, or 50 years. This estimate and other
information in section V of this document (Benefits) relating to
reactive arthritis are taken from Ref. 10.
\3\Percentages are taken from Ref. 10.
Symptoms of illness that results from exposure to each hazard may
be classified as mild, moderate, or severe. In general, mild cases are
not brought to the attention of a medical professional. Moderate cases
receive medical attention but do not require hospitalization. Severe
cases involve hospitalization and some of these result in death. The
``Percent'' column in Table 2 gives an estimate of the percentage of
the total number of cases that are classified in these four categories
of severity for each hazard. Note that the categories are not
necessarily mutually exclusive, for example, severe-chronic cases of E.
coli O157:H7 follow only after severe-acute cases of E. coli O157:H7,
and deaths follow only after severe cases. However, the ``Percent''
column reports each category of severity as a percentage of total cases
so that there is no double counting. Another factor that tends to
distinguish the categories of severity is the duration of time that
symptoms are experienced. The ``Duration'' column gives the general
duration of symptoms (in days) that are associated with the categories
of severity for each hazard.
2. Description of Health Effects and Symptoms of Microbial Hazards in
Juice
In order to quantify the loss (disutility) that individuals
experience from becoming ill, the pain, suffering, and mobility loss
must be scaled. Tables 3, 4, and 5 represent the outcome of one type of
scaling of these effects. Individuals who become ill experience
different levels of functional status in terms of mobility, ability to
do other physical activity, and ability to engage in social activities.
The ``Functional Status Code'' column in Table 3 represents the status
code which correlates with the categories of severity for each hazard.
Individuals who become ill also experience additional disutility due to
the symptoms of the illness. The ``Symptom/Problem Complex Code''
column represents the symptom/problem complex codes which correlate
with the categories of severity for each hazard. Descriptions of the
functional status and symptom/problem complex codes are given in Tables
4 and 5. FDA requests comment on this scaling model.
Table 3.--Description of Health Effects and Symptoms of Microbially Related Illnesses in Juice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom/Problem Complex
Hazard Severity Functional Status Code1 Code2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. coli O157:H7
Mild L20 8, 12, 13, 29
Moderate L19 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 29,
32
Severe-acute (L1 x .2) + (L6 x 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 29,
.8)\3\ 32
Severe-chronic L31 9
Salmonella (non typhi)
Mild L20 12, 13, 29
Moderate L20 12, 13, 29
Severe L6 12, 13, 16, 29
Reactive arthritis L35, L41, L42, L434 19
B. cereus
Mild L19 12, 13, 29
Moderate L19 12, 13, 29
[[Page 24260]]
Severe NA NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Functional Status Codes are described in Table 4.
\2\ Symptom/Problem Complex Codes are described in Table 5.
\3\ The disutilities for two functional status codes were taken for severe cases of E. coli O157:H7 because
functional status varies among severe cases of this hazard.
\4\ Functional Status Code varies, Ref. 10.
In Table 4, the last column, ``Level of Disutility,'' represents
the degree of departure from perfect functionality. Thus, a person
would be functioning at about half capacity if the level was .5 and
would be even more diminished at .75. Code L42 is used whenever the
mobility, physical activity, and social activity conditions apply and a
person is experiencing a symptom described in Table 5. Code L43 is used
whenever the mobility, physical activity, and social activity
conditions apply and a person is experiencing no symptoms. In Table 5,
``Level of Disutility'' refers to the amount of pain and suffering such
that .03 would be minor pain and suffering relative to .3.
Table 4.--Description of Functional Status Codes1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Function Status Physical Social Level of
Levels Mobility Activity Activity Disutility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
L1................ In special In bed or Had help .5626
care unit chair with
self-
care
L6................ In In bed or Had help .5301
hospital chair with
self-
care
L19............... In house Walked Performed .4176
with self-
physical care but
limitati not
ons work,
school,
or
housewor
k
L20............... In house Walked Limited .4448
with in work,
physical school,
limitati or
ons housewor
k
L23............... In house Walked Performed .3512
without self-
physical care,
limitati but not
ons work,
school,
or
housewor
k
L31............... Did not Walked Limited .4087
drive, without in work,
needed physical school,
help with limitati or
transport ons housewor
ation k
L35............... Drove car Walked Limited .3980
and used with in work,
transport physical school,
ation limitati or
without ons housewor
help k
L41............... Drove car Walked Did work, .3145
and used without school,
transport physical or
ation limitati housewor
without ons k, but
help other
activiti
es
limited
L42............... Drove car Walked Did work, .2567
and used without school,
transport physical or
ation limitati househol
without ons d, and
help other
activiti
es
L43............... Drove car Walked Did work, .0000
and used without school,
transport physical or
ation limitati househol
without ons d, and
help other
activiti
es
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ref. 4.
Table 5.--Description of Symptom/Problem Complex Codes1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom/Problem Level of
Complex Description Disutility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8................. Itching, bleeding or pain in
rectum .0379
9................. Pain in chest, stomach, side,
back, or hips .0382
12................ Sick or upset stomach, vomiting,
or diarrhea (watery bowel
movements) .0065
13................ Fever chills with aching all
over and vomiting or diarrhea .0722
16................ Headache, dizziness, or ringing
in ears .0131
19................ Pain, stiffness, numbness, or
discomfort of neck, hands,
feet, arms, legs ankles, or
several joints together .0344
29................ General tiredness, weakness, or
weight loss .0027
32................ Loss of consciousness such as
seizures (fits), fainting, or
coma (out cold or knocked out) .1507
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ref. 4, p. D-14.
3. Utility Losses From Microbial Hazards in Juice
The ``Functional Status Code'' translates into values of disutility
given in the ``Functional Disutility'' column in Table 6. The symptom/
problem complex code translates into values of
disutility given in the ``Symptom/Problem Disutility'' column in Table
6. The ``Total Disutility'' column is the sum of the ``Functional
Disutility'' and the ``Symptom/Problem Disutility'' columns. The
``Utility Losses for Survivors'' column is derived by multiplying the
total disutility per day by the number of days that symptoms of the
illness persists. This gives the utility loss for survivors in terms of
the number of quality adjusted life days (QALD's) for each case of the
categories of severity for each hazard.\6\ FDA requests comment on this
estimation of utility loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A QALD is a day of perfect health.
[[Page 24261]]
Table 6.--Utility Losses From Microbial Hazards in Juice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom/
Functional Problem Total Utility Losses
Hazard Severity Disutility Disutility Disutility for Survivors
(per day) (per day) (per day) (QALD's)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. coli O157:H7
Mild .4448 .1193 .5641 2.8
Moderate .4176 .1668 .5844 5.3
Severe-acute .5464 .3175 .8639 27.8
Severe-chronic .4087 .0382 .4469 11,907.7
Salmonella (non typhi)
Mild .4448 .0814 .5262 1.1
Moderate .4448 .0814 .5262 2.6
Severe .5301 .0945 .6246 10.6
Reactive arthritis- .3980 .0344 .4324 10.8
short term
Reactive arthritis- .2582 .0280 .2862 5,223.2
long term
B. cereus
Mild .4176 .0814 .4990 .4
Moderate .4176 .0814 .4990 .5
Severe 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Value of Losses From Microbial Hazards in Juice
FDA values a QALD at $630. This value derives from the statistical
estimate of a unit-risk reduction (commonly referred to as the value of
a statistical life (VSL)) which the Department of Health and Human
Services assigns the value of $5 million. Using $5 million for a full
lifetime yields a value for a quality adjusted life year (QALY) of
approximately $230,000, when discounted at 7 percent. (A QALY is the
estimated value of a year spent in perfect health. These values are
discounted to reflect time preferences for investments in health. That
is, as with any other commodity, people have a stronger preference for
good health now than they have for good health in the future. Costs or
benefits realized in the future are ``discounted'' to make them
comparable to today. Essentially, discounting is the inverse of the
interest rate. Thus, if a benefit of $1.10 were to be realized 1 year
in the future, this would be equivalent, at approximately a 10 percent
discount rate, to a benefit of $1 realized today. This is the reverse
of saying that $1 invested today at a 10 percent annual interest rate
is worth $1.10 1 year from now.) Dividing this value by 365 days per
year yields a value for a QALD of approximately $630. The ``Value of
Utility Losses for Survivors'' column in Table 7 comes from multiplying
the number of QALD's lost due to the illness (see ``Utility Losses for
Survivors'' in Table 6) by the value of a QALD, $630. This represents
the value of pain and mobility losses that individuals experience.
Additionally, there are the societal costs of medical treatment. These
costs are shared generally between insurance companies and individuals.
They include all aspects of medical expenses (e.g., physician visits,
laboratory tests, prescriptions and therapies, hospital stays). These
are estimated in the ``Medical Costs'' column in Table 7 (Ref. 2-3, pp.
19 and 40 and Ref. 10). The ``Value of Losses per Case'' column in
Table 7 is the sum of the ``Value of Utility Losses for Survivors''
column and the ``Medical Costs'' column for the categories of severity
for each hazard. FDA requests comment on these valuations.
Table 7.--Value of Losses From Microbial Hazards in Juice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of Utility
Losses for Value of Losses per
Hazard Severity Survivors Medical Costs Case (VSL=$5,000,000)
(QALD=$630) (QALD=$630)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. coli O157:H7
Mild $1,800 $0\1\ $2,000
Moderate $3,300 $200\1\ $4,000
Severe-acute $17,200 $16,000\2\ $33,000
Severe-chronic $995,700 $225,000\3\ $1,221,000
Death NA NA $5,000,000
Salmonella (non typhi)
Mild $700 $200\4\ $1,000
Moderate $1,600 $800\4\ $2,000
Severe $6,700 $9,100\4\ $16,000
Reactive arthritis- $6,800 $1005 $7,000
short term
Reactive arthritis- $970,0005 $5,8605 $976,000
long term
Death NA NA $5,000,000
B. cereus
Mild $300 $0\6\ $300
Moderate $300 $100\6\ $400
Severe $0 $0 $0
[[Page 24262]]
Death NA NA $5,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ref. 2-3, p. 40.
\2\ Explained in Table 8.
\3\ Recalculated from data in Buzby et al., pp. 41-45 in order to arrive at the present value of the cost per
case using a 7 percent discount rate.
\4\ Buzby et al., pp. 18-19. Mild Salmonella medical costs are recalculated from data in Cohen, M. L. et al. so
as not to include productivity in medical costs.
\5\ Ref. 10.
\6\ The medical cost estimates for B. cereus were made by FDA for this analysis. The extremely brief duration of
mild cases suggests that there would be no medical costs for this level of severity. For moderate cases one
visit to a doctor with medical tests are estimated to cost approximately $100.
Table 8.--Medical Costs for Severe-Acute Cases Associated With E. coli O157:H71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Hemorrhagic Average Severe-
Factors Colitis Acute HUS Acute Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Severe Cases 80% 20%
Present Value per Case $11,000 $36,000
Weighted Present Value per Case $8,800 $7,200 $16,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ref. 2-3, p. 40.
5. Distribution of the Reported Cases per Year for Microbial Hazards in
Juice
Table 9 estimates the number of cases associated with each hazard
by severity. The ``Average Total No. of Cases Reported per Year''
column represents the average number of reported cases for each hazard
from 1992 through 1996. Cases for each hazard are divided among the
four categories of severity according to the percentages described in
Table 8. Only those reported cases associated with commercially-
produced juices sold in interstate commerce as beverages or used as
ingredients in beverages are included in the averages presented.
Table 9.--Distribution of the Reported Cases per Year for Microbial
Hazards in Juice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average No. of
Hazard Severity Percent Cases Reported per
Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mild 50 8
Moderate 32 5
Severe-acute 18 3
Severe- 2 .3
chronic
Death 1 .2
E. coli O157:H7 Total cases 16\1\
Mild 65 8
Moderate 30 4
Severe 5 1
Reactive 2 .2
arthritis-
short term
Reactive 5 1
arthritis-
long term
Death .1 .01
Salmonella (non Total cases 12
typhi)
Mild 99 17
Moderate 1 .2
Severe 0 0
Death 0 0
B. cereus Total cases 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total cases per pathogen are accurate. The sum of the number of
cases for all levels of severity per pathogen may not equal the total
number of cases per pathogen due to rounding.
6. Estimates of Factors Needed to Offset Underreporting of Foodborne
Illness
The cases reported in column 4 in Table 10 are the lower bound of
the likely total number of these cases. The total number of foodborne
illness is much greater than those numbers reported to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for several reasons. First,
individuals who become ill do not always go to doctors. This is
particularly true for milder cases of foodborne disease. Obviously, if
people do not go to health care professionals, the illnesses will not
be captured in any data base and will not be picked up by CDC. Second,
even when people go to health care professionals, they are not
necessarily diagnosed as having foodborne disease as the symptoms for
many types of
[[Page 24263]]
foodborne disease are common to influenza and other diseases. There is
often little incentive to culture stools to definitively identify a
pathogen if the disease is thought to be of short duration and not
requiring treatment. Even where a pathogen is identified, there is even
less incentive to identify the food or other vehicle which carried it.
Third, even when a correct diagnosis is made, State and local health
professionals do not always report these cases upwards, particularly
going as far as CDC. Again, milder cases are less likely to be reported
than more severe cases.\7\ To complicate matters, the rate of under
reporting is not observable, and, even if it were known in any 1 year,
it may fluctuate dramatically from year to year. Nevertheless, in order
to compensate for the rate of under reporting, the number of known
cases associated with a hazard (i.e., reported to CDC) is multiplied by
factors which are estimated to account for underreporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The CAST Report expands these three categories of reasons
that a case of illness may not be recognized as foodborne into six
reasons (Ref. 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Foodborne Pathogens: Risks and Consequences (the CAST Report)
there are two estimates given of the actual number of foodborne
illnesses: One estimate made by Bennett et al., and one made by Todd
(Ref. 6, p. 46). Both Bennett et al. and Todd estimate the total number
of cases and the total number of deaths for each hazard. By dividing
Bennett's et al. and Todd's estimates of the actual number of cases and
deaths by the number of reported cases and deaths (Ref. 6, p. 42), the
respective implicit factors needed to correct for underreporting of
these categories for each hazard are derived. Based on these correction
factors, FDA has estimated correction factors for each category of
severity. The agency has taken the correction factor for the number of
cases as the correction factor for mild cases and the correction factor
for the number of deaths as the correction factor for severe cases. For
moderate cases, the agency has interpolated between the factors for
mild and severe cases. E. coli O157:H7 was not a recognized food-safety
hazard at the time that Bennett's et al. work was done. For a more
complete description of how these estimates were derived see the
Appendix attached to this document (Ref. 9).
In Table 10, the third column, ``Estimate of Underreporting
Correction Factor (Bennett),'' and the fifth column, ``Estimate of
Underreporting Correction Factor (FDA based on Todd),'' give the exact
implicit correction factors that can be derived from the work of
Bennett and Todd et al. The fourth column, ``Estimate of Underreporting
Correction Factor (FDA based on Bennett),'' and the sixth column,
``Estimate of Underreporting Correction Factor (FDA based on Todd),''
give FDA's interpolations of the work of Bennett and Todd et al. for
each of the identified categories of severity. In general, each
researcher's estimate of the underreporting correction factor for total
cases was used as the estimate for mild cases, and each researcher's
estimate of the underreporting correction factor for deaths was used as
the estimate for deaths and severe cases. FDA interpolated between each
researcher's estimates of underreporting for total cases and deaths to
derive under reporting rates for moderate cases. FDA requests comment
on these estimates of underreporting.
Table 10.--Estimates of Factors Needed to Offset Underreporting of Foodborne Illness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of
Estimate of Underreporting Estimate of Estimate of
Underreporting Correction Underreporting Underreporting
Hazard Severity Correction Factor (FDA Correction Correction
Factor based on Factor (Todd) Factor (FDA
(Bennett) Bennett) based on Todd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mild 195
Moderate 20
Severe 7
Death 7 7
E. coli O157:H7 Total cases ND\1\ 195
Mild 307 474
Moderate 307 45
Severe 246 4
Reactive arthritis- 307 474
short term
Reactive arthritis-long 307 474
term
Death 246 246 4 4
Salmonella (non typhi) Total cases 307 474
Mild 96 1,615
Moderate 96 1,615
Severe NA NA NA NA
Death NA NA NA NA
B. cereus Total cases 96 1,615
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Estimates of Juice-Associated Cases per Year
In Table 11, FDA has estimated ranges of the likely annual number
of cases that occur for each of the four pathogens studied. The column
``Estimate of Actual No. of Juice Associated Cases per Year (FDA based
on Bennett)'' in Table 11 is derived by multiplying the ``Average Total
No. of Reported Cases per Year'' column in Table 9 by the ``Estimate of
Underreporting Correction Factor (FDA based on Bennett)'' column in
Table 11. The column ``Estimate of Actual No. of Juice Associated Cases
per Year (FDA based on Todd)'' in Table 11 is calculated in a similar
manner.
[[Page 24264]]
Table 11.--Estimates of Juice-Associated Cases per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of Estimate of Estimate of Actual Estimate of Actual
Underreporting Underreporting No. of Juice- No. of Juice-
Hazard Severity Correction Factor Correction Factor Associated Cases Associated Cases
(FDA based on (FDA based on per Year (FDA per Year (FDA
Bennett) Todd) based on Bennett) based on Todd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mild ND 195 ND 1,560
Moderate ND 20 ND 100
Severe-acute ND 7 ND 20
Severe-chronic ND 7 ND 2
Death ND 7 ND 1
E. coli O157:H7 Total cases ND 1,700
Mild 307 474 2,460 3,790
Moderate 307 45 1,230 180
Severe 246 4 150 2
Reactive 307 474 60 100
arthritis-
short term
Reactive 307 474 180 280
arthritis-long
term
Death 246 4 2 .04
Salmonella Total cases 3,800 4,000
(non typhi)
Mild 96 1,615 160 2,750
Moderate 96 1,615 2 30
Severe 0 0 0 0
Death 0 0 0 0
B. cereus Total cases 200 2,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Percent of Cases Preventable by HACCP Proposal
In general, most pathogens will be eliminated when juice is heat-
treated. For example, E. coli O157:H7, and Salmonella should all be
completely eliminated from juice by standard methods of flash
pasteurization (absent extraordinarily high counts, detrimental human
intervention, or equipment failure). However, hazards associated with
B. cereus will not necessarily be eliminated by heat treatment. This
bacterium forms spores which are more difficult to kill by heat. After
heat treatment, if the spores survive, they may grow out and produce a
toxin which causes illness. Ideally, the best way to reduce illness
associated with B. cereus is by killing the bacterium in its nonspore
state before any toxin has been produced. For most types of heat-
treated juice, there is a small probability that the heat treatment
will take place when B. cereus is in its nonspore state. To the extent
that processors adopt controls for these hazards other than flash
pasteurization which are less effective, the percentage of cases
prevented may be smaller than those estimated here. FDA requests
comment on these estimates. Based on information from USAA, FDA
estimates that the exemption from the HACCP rule for retailers and
small retail processors will affect 14 percent of the volume of
unpasteurized juice. Therefore, the agency estimates that though
pathogen controls may be 100 percent effective in controlling some
hazards, such controls will only prevent 86 percent of the cases of
illness from these hazards.
Table 12.--Percent of Cases Preventable by HACCP Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Cases
Hazard Preventable by
HACCP Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. coli O157:H7 86
Salmonella (non typhi) 86
B. cereus 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Estimates of Annual Benefits for HACCP Proposal
The total benefits for the categories of severity for each hazard
are derived by multiplying the percentage of cases preventable by the
HACCP proposal by the estimates of the number of actual cases. The sum
of those benefits for each hazard is the total benefits of the HACCP
proposal for pathogen control. Table 13 gives the estimate of benefits
for each hazard using each source of information on the appropriate
correction factor for underreporting.
Table 13.--Estimates of Annual Benefits for HACCP Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA Estimate of FDA Estimate of
Hazard Severity Annual Benefits Based Annual Benefits Based
on Bennett on Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mild $2,680,000
Moderate $360,000
Severe- $660,000
acute
Severe- $2,442,000
chronic
Death $5,000,000
E. coli O157:H7 Total $11,142,000
Mild $2,120,000 $3,260,000
[[Page 24265]]
Moderate $2,120,000 $300,000
Severe $2,080,000 $32,000
Reactive $350,000 $630,000
arthriti
s-short
term
Reactive $146,400,000 $234,240,000
arthriti
s-long
term
Death $10,000,000 $200,000
Salmonella (non Total $163,070,000 $238,662,000
typhi)
Mild $42,000 $711,000
Moderate $1,000 $12,000
Severe 0 0
Death 0 0
B. cereus Total $43,000 $725,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 14 presents a range of estimates of annual benefits based on
the estimates in Table 13. The low and high estimates do not represent
lower and upper bounds of benefits, but only a range of potentially
likely estimates.
Table 14.--Range Estimates of Annual Microbially Related Benefits for
HACCP Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Estimate of Annual High Estimate of Annual
Hazard Benefits Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. coli O157:H7 $11,142,000 $11,142,000
Salmonella (non
typhi)\1\ $163,070,000 $238,662,000
B. cereus\1\ $43,000 $725,000
Totals $174,000,000 $251,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ranges for these two pathogens are taken from two different
estimates that exist in the public health literature. The estimates
for the other pathogen was made by FDA, alone.
10. Percent of Cases Preventable by Labeling Proposal
FDA does not have direct estimates of the effects of a warning
label on the incidence of illness from juice consumption. FDA
indirectly estimates the effects by estimating how warning labels will
change consumption, assuming that changes in the number of illnesses
are proportional to changes in consumption. FDA believes that the
labeling rule will cause a reduction in the consumption of
unpasteurized juice, but the size of the reduction is uncertain. As a
likely value, FDA estimates that consumption and illnesses will decline
by 5 percent in response to the warning label. The 5 percent reduction
is the estimated effect on cooking practices of the USDA meat safe
handling label, as found in a recent survey (Ref. 11). However, there
are some dissimilarities between the meat and juice labels, most
particularly that the juice label is targeted at sensitive consumers.
If, for example, parents redirect children away from nonheat-treated
juice, then consumption and illness will decline by 16 percent, which
is the proportion of apple cider consumed by children under the age of
6 (Ref. 12). This estimate embodies the assumptions that cider
consumption is a good proxy for unpasteurized juice consumption, and
that parents will not let their children consume unpasteurized juices.
11. Estimates of Annual Benefits for Labeling Proposal
Table 11 shows FDA's estimate that there are approximately 5,600
cases of foodborne illness associated with commercially processed,
package juice produced by nonretail establishments. In addition to
these cases, an average of 6 cases annually of Cryptosporidium parvum
have been associated with commercially processed, packaged juice
produced by retail establishments exempted from the HACCP rule. Table
15 shows the agency's estimate of the actual number of cases per year
by severity.
[[Page 24266]]
Table 15.--Estimates of Juice-Associated C. parvum Cases per Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average No.
of Cases FDA Estimate of FDA Estimate of
Severity Reported Underreporting Actual No. of Juice-
per Year Correction Factor\1\ Associated Cases per
(1992-1996) Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mild 5 100 500
Moderate 1 10 10
Severe .06 5 .3
Death .001 5 .005
Total 6 500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Because C. parvum was not a recognized food safety hazard at the time
that Bennett et al. and Todd's work was done, FDA has made its own
estimates of the factors needed to correct for underreporting of this
hazard.
Table 16 gives the agency's estimate of the value of the loss per
case of C. parvum.
[[Page 24267]]
Table 16.--Estimate of Value of Losses Associated with Case of C. parvum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom/ Value of
Duration of Function Problem Total Utility Losses Utility Losses Value of Losses per
Severity Percent Illness (in Status Code\1\ Complex Disutility for Survivors for Survivors Medical Costs Case (VSL=$5,000,000)
days) Code\2\ (per day) (QALD's) (QALD=$630) (QALD=$630)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mild 90 9 L41 12, 13, 29 .3959 3.6 2,300 $0\3\ $2,000
Moderate 9 17 L41 12, 13, 29 .3959 6.7 $4,200 $400\3\ $5,000
Severe 1 24 L6 12, 13, 29 .6115 14.7 $9,300 $8,300\4\ $18,000
Death .02 NA NA $5,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Functional Status Codes are described in Table 4.
\2\Symptom/Problem Complex Codes are described in Table 5.
\3\Medical Costs for mild and moderate cases of C. parvum were calculated by multiplying the per day medical costs for E. coli 0157:H7 for these levels
of severity by the duration of illness of C. parvum. The symptoms of C. parvum for these levels of severity are similar to those of E. coli 0157:H7.
\4\Medical Costs for severe cases of C. parvum were calculated by multiplying the per day medical costs for severe cases of acute hemorrhagic colitis by
the duration of illness of C. parvum. The implicit assumption is that the medical costs for acute hemorrhagic colitis (bloody diarrhea) are equivalent
to the medical costs for watery diarrhea associated with C. parvum.
[[Page 24268]]
The labeling rule is expected to prevent some cases of foodborne
illness as people avoid juice that is labeled. Because B. cereus is, in
general, not disproportionately associated with minimally processed
juice, cases of B. cereus are not expected to be prevented by the
labeling. However, to the extent that the label is effective and to the
extent of the volume of juice that is labeled, the labeling rule will
reduce the number of cases associated with E. coli 0157:H7, Salmonella
and C. parvum.
Combining the estimates of the number of illnesses in Tables 11
and 15, the total number of estimated cases associated with minimally
processed juice for these 3 hazards is 6,100 per year associated with
consumption of the 70 million gallons of minimally processed juice
produced annually. FDA has estimated that 14 percent of minimally
processed juice (10 million gallons) will be exempt from the HACCP rule
but will be covered by the labeling rule. Therefore, the number of
illnesses that may be associated with this volume of juice (10 million
gallons) will be exempt from the HACCP rule but will be covered by the
labeling rule. Therefore, the number of illnesses which may be
associated with this volume of juice (10 million gallons) is
approximately 900 and 5,200 illnesses are associated with minimally
processed juice covered by the HACCP rule.
As stated earlier, FDA estimates that consumption of labeled,
minimally processed juice will decline by 5 percent in response to the
warning label. This leads to the conclusion that the labeling rule is
expected to prevent approximately 50 illnesses annually (900 x .05). If
juice consumption decreases by as much as 16 percent in response to the
warning label, then the labeling rule may prevent as many as 140
illnesses per year.
The value of this reduction in illness depends on the type of cases
prevented. FDA assumes that these cases will be distributed according
to the share of illnesses associated with each of these hazards. Table
17 shows the expected distribution of cases prevented by labeling
across the hazards and severities.
[[Page 24269]]
Table 17.--Distribution of Cases Prevented by Labeling Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Estimate of High Estimate of Low Estimate of No. High Estimate of No. Low Estimate of No. High Estimate of No.
Actual No. of Juice- Actual No. of Juice- of Cases Prevented by of Cases Prevented by of Cases Prevented by of Cases Prevented by
Hazard Severity Associated Cases per Associated Cases per a 5% Consumer a 5% Consumer a 16% Consumer a 16% Consumer
Year Year Response to Labeling Response to Labeling Response to Labeling Response to Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mild 1,560 1,560 13 13 36 35
Moderate 100 100 1 1 2 2
Severe-acute 20 20 .2 .2 .5 .5
Severe-chronic 2 2 .02 .02 .05 .05
Death 1 1 .008 .008 .02 .02
E. coli 0157:H7 Total 1,700 1,700 14 14 39 38
Mild 2,460 3,790 20 31 58 87
Moderate 1,230 180 10 1 29 4
Severe 150 2 1 .02 4 .05
Reactive arthritis-short term 60 100 .5 .8 1 2
Reactive arthritis-long term 180 280 1 2 4 6
Death 2 .04 .02 .0003 .05 .0009
Salmonella (non typhi) Total 3,800 4,000 32 32 90 91
Mild 500 500 4 4 11 11
Moderate 10 10 .08 .08 .2 .2
Severe .3 .3 .002 .002 .006 .006
Death .005 .005 .00004 .00004 .0001 .0001
C. parvum Total 500 500 4 4 11 11
Total 6,000 6,200 50 50 140 140
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24270]]
Table 18.--Value of Losses Prevented by the Labeling Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Estimate of High Estimate of
Low Estimate of Value Value of Losses Low Estimate of Value Value of Losses
Hazard Severity of Losses Prevented Prevented by a 5% of Losses Prevented Prevented by a 16%
by a 5% Consumer Consumer Response to by a 16% Consumer Consumer Response to
Response to Labeling Labeling Response to Labeling Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mild 26,000 26,000 72,000 70,000
Moderate 4,000 4,000 8,000 8,000
Severe-acute 7,000 7,000 17,000 17,000
Severe-chronic 24,000 24,000 61,000 61,000
Death 40,000 40,000 100,000 100,000
E. coli 0157:H7 Total 101,000 101,000 258,000 258,000
Mild 20,000 31,000 58,000 87,000
Moderate 20,000 2,000 58,000 8,000
Severe 16,000 300 64,000 1,000
Reactive arthritis-short term 4,000 6,000 7,000 14,000
Reactive arthritis-long term 976,000 1,952,000 3,904,000 5,856,000
Death 100,000 2,000 250,000 5,000
Salmonella (non typhi) Total 1,136,000 1,993,000 4,341,000 5,971,000
Mild 8,000 8,000 22,000 22,000
Moderate 400 400 1,000 1,000
Severe 0 0 100 100
Death 200 200 500 500
C. parvum Total 9,000 9,000 24,000 24,000
Total 1,000,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Pesticide Residues
Tolerances for pesticides in foods are established by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and enforced by FDA. FDA collects
samples for both surveillance and compliance purposes. Since the
incidence of violative pesticide residues in fruit and vegetable juices
is relatively low, few compliance samples are taken.
This discussion pertains to surveillance samples of fruit and
vegetable juices from 1991 through 1997 (see Table 15). The lab
classification scheme used for pesticide residues is:
1 = in compliance;
2 = not in compliance, but not of regulatory concern; and
3 = not in compliance, and of regulatory concern.
The class 2 and 3 violative sample data are summarized in Table 15.
Of the 1,196 surveillance samples of juice taken and analyzed during
this period, only three (approximately one quarter of one percent) were
class 3 violative. One was apple cider and the other two were apple
juice, and the violative pesticide residue was acephate in each case.
There were also five class 2 violations, in which trace quantities of a
pesticide with no tolerance (i.e., the pesticide was not approved for
use in the commodity) were found. The products with class 2 violations
were grape juice, watermelon juice concentrate, strawberry/nectarine
juice (2 samples), and apple juice concentrate; the pesticides were
chlorpyrifos, acephate, and methamidophos.
Pesticides present some potential chronic risks to humans at very
low levels of exposure. There is a small background risk associated
even with nonviolative pesticide residues and, in the case of products
with violative levels, an added risk from the violative residues.
(Violative residues are residues above tolerance or residues of
pesticides with no tolerance.)
Table 19.--Violative Pesticide Residues in Fruit and Vegetable Juices, 1991 through 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Fiscal Year Pesticide Amount Found, ppm Tolerance, ppm Class Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grape juice 1993 Chlorpyrifos Trace None 2
Apple cider 1995 Acephate 0.075 None 3
Apple juice 1995 Acephate 0.052 None 3
Apple juice 1995 Acephate 0.040 None 3
Watermelon juice, 1995 Acephate Trace None 2
concentrate
Strawberry/ 1996 Methamidophos Trace None 2
nectarine juice
Strawberry/ 1996 Methamidophos Trace None 2
nectarine juice
Apple juice, 1997 Methamidophos Trace None 2
concentrate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two potential benefits associated with the regulation of
pesticides: (1) Decreases in cancer and other illness caused by chronic
consumption of pesticide residues and, (2) social benefits associated
with reductions in the costs of recapturing firm goodwill. The U.S. EPA
is responsible for determining the benefits of reducing exposure to
pesticide residues and, it is assumed, that the health benefits of the
enforcement actions proposed here are already accounted for when
regulatory tolerances are established. As to the
[[Page 24271]]
latter benefit, when firms have products with violative residues either
over tolerance for legal pesticides or any residue of an illegal
pesticide and a recall of the violative product becomes publicly known,
the sales of those firms are reduced, at least temporarily. Because
other firms will step in to supply the product, that loss of sales
alone does not constitute a social cost. However, it is likely that
real resources will be expended to recapture the lost ``goodwill'' that
would be in addition to the real expenditures made to actually recall
the product. FDA cannot quantify the cost savings that will occur
because of more vigilant monitoring of pesticide residues by firms
under a HACCP rule.
C. Other, Nonquantified Benefits
1. Firm Efficiency
The principle benefits from HACCP reported by the pilot firms are
more effective and efficient operations, a higher level of confidence
in the safety of the product, and greater customer satisfaction. The
pilot firms attributed these benefits to HACCP because of the following
results.
(1) Training makes the employees more aware of safety and needed
control measures, and empowers employees to prevent problems and
respond properly when deviations occur. Improvement in employee
performance was perhaps the most significant benefit from HACCP
expressed to FDA by the pilot firms. One firm reported that ``due to
increased HACCP awareness, employees have been instrumental in
designing new processes/procedures for monitoring and control.'' The
firm gave an example of a processing step that was changed to reduce
the likelihood of occurrence of a physical hazard. FDA is unable to
estimate the societal cost savings in terms of reduced product costs
which will, ultimately, affect the cost of implementing HACCP.
(2) SOP's and other documented procedures enable employees to
implement their tasks more consistently and effectively, and result in
smoother operations.
(3) Prerequisite programs and incoming ingredient controls prevent
hazards from being introduced into the process; continuous monitoring
reveals problems quickly and enables prompt correction and continuation
of production with less waste.
(4) Recordkeeping and review makes employees more accountable and
conscientious about safety.
(5) Validation and verification activities provide management with
greater control over their operations and documentation of the safety
of their product.
Perhaps the most significant benefit in terms of firm efficiency
will be cost savings from greater awareness by firms of violative
product runs, and the resulting increase in response to such violative
runs. Although the benefits of formal recalls have already been
accounted for, many pilot plant managers suggested that the continuous
monitoring required by HACCP enabled them to decrease the amount of
waste associated with production-line problems. For example, one
manufacturer noted that glass breakage was a constant problem on the
line and that, prior to HACCP, almost an entire lot would have to be
discarded because the manager could not be sure exactly when a problem
had started. With continuous HACCP monitoring, problems were caught
more quickly and the problem corrected more promptly, thereby
minimizing the amount of lost product.
The cost savings may be substantial from this source of benefits
but FDA is unable to quantify them. FDA requests comments on these and
other potential benefits.
2. Increased Shelf Life
Nonheat-treated juices have a limited shelf life. Heat-treated
juices have longer shelf lives. Depending upon temperature used,
increases of 7 days or more have been reported. Longer shelf life
allows more flexibility in the conditions of distribution and sale of
products. The agency requests comments on how this potential benefit
may be quantified.
D. Summary of Benefits
Table 20 summarizes the benefits of these two rules.
Table 20.--Benefits of Juice Proposals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Benefit Description Annual Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement: Reduced waste and Federal activity $175,000
Import from detaining violative juice
Detentions imports
Enforcement:Prod Reduced numbers of domestic recalls $1,500,000
uct Recalls of violative juice products
Health Benefits: Reduced illness and death from $174 to 251
HACCP controlling pathogens in juice million
Health Benefits: Reduced illness and death from $1 to $6 million
Labeling avoidance of minimally processed
juice
Health Benefits: Reduction of consumption of Not quantified
Pesticides violative pesticide residues in but small
juice and social losses from lost
goodwill
Other Benefits: Some offsetting reductions in Not quantified
Firm Efficiency manufacturing costs due to but potentially
increased worker productivity and large
less product waste
Other Benefits: Product Shelf life may be increased Not quantified
Increased Shelf for products achieving a 5-log but potentially
Life reduction of pathogens large
Total Quantified .................................... $180 to 260
Benefits million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Costs
A. General Industry Information Used Throughout This Analysis
The costs of these rules have been estimated by analyzing the costs
for each proposed requirement on a per-plant basis and multiplying
these costs by the number of plants affected by each requirement. Cost
per plant will vary by current practice, product, and size. In order to
determine the number of plants covered, the analysis will first analyze
coverage qualitatively.
1. Types of Plants Covered
The labeling rule and the HACCP rule do not equally affect an
identical subset of the food industry.
2. HACCP Rule Coverage
For the purpose of this rule, FDA has tentatively decided that
retailers will include processors who are very small businesses and who
make juice on their premises and directly sell juice or juice products
to consumers and other retailers provided that retail sales of juice
and juice products do not exceed 40,000 gallons per year. The HACCP
rule covers all processors of juice except those who are retailers.
Retailers may include grocery stores, supermarkets, farms, roadside
stands, restaurants and eating places.
[[Page 24272]]
3. Labeling Rule Coverage
The labeling rule covers processors and retailers of packaged
minimally processed juice. The labeling rule is also applicable to
packaged beverages that have not received further processing to control
microbial hazards and that contain minimally processed juice. Such
beverages include diluted juice beverages, ``smoothies,'' sports
drinks, flavored bottled waters, and carbonated beverages that contain
juice that was not processed to control pathogens.
Table 21 provides examples of the types of products and processors
covered and not covered by the two rules.
Table 21.--Coverage of Juice Proposals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Covered by Covered by
Processor Type Labeling Rule HACCP Rule\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processors of packaged beverages sold as Yes Yes
juice\1\
Processors of packaged purees sold as Yes Yes
juice
Processors of juice used as an Yes Yes
ingredient in a beverage (e.g., the
cranberry juice in cranberry juice
cocktail)
Processors of juice which retail the Yes Yes
juice at a different location from
which it is produced
Processors of beverage concentrates sold Yes Yes
as juice
Processors of beverage bases of a fruit Yes Yes
origin or other beverage bases
including dried or powdered juice
mixes\2\
Processors of packaged baby (infant and Yes Yes
junior) fruit juices and drinks
Processors of juice that ship to a Yes Yes
different location (e.g., the juice
processing plant owned by a supermarket
chain that then ships the juice to the
chain's stores or very small processors
that sell juice from their own roadside
stand and to other retailers)
Retailers of packaged juice processed by Yes No
other establishments (e.g.,
supermarkets, restaurants and roadside
stands that sell juice produced by
another processor) Note: the juice sold
by these retailers is covered by the
HACCP rule but the retailer is not
covered by the HACCP rule.
Processors of packaged juice that do not Yes No
ship juice to different locations but
retail the entire production on the
premises (e.g., supermarkets, and
roadside stands that produce juice at
the point of sale)
Processors of beverages that include Yes No
juice as an ingredient but which do not
produce the juice itself
Retailers of juice processed for No No
immediate consumption
Processors of non-beverage products that No No
include juice as an ingredient
Processors of hard cider or other No No
alcoholic beverages
Processors of oils No No
Processors of purees not sold as No No
beverages (e.g., tomato puree)
Processors of juices not sold as No No
beverages (e.g., vinegar or borscht)
Processors of imitation juice flavorings No No
Processors of coffees, teas, or cocoa No No
products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Juice types are berry; citrus; core fruit; mixed fruit; pit fruit;
subtropical and tropical fruit; vine fruit; other fruit; beans, peas
and corn; fruits used as vegetables; leaf and stem vegetables; mixed
vegetables; root and tuber vegetables; and other vegetables.
\2\ Beverage bases of fruit origin are berry, citrus, core fruit, mixed
fruit, pit fruit, subtropical and tropical fruit, vine fruit, and
other fruit.
\3\ A ``yes'' in this column applies only to processors producing in
excess of 40,000 gallons of packaged juice per year. Very small
businesses processing packaged juice, producing 40,000 gallons of
juice or less annually are classified as retailers for the purpose of
the HACCP rule and are therefore exempt from it.
4. Number of Establishments Covered
FDA's own Official Establishment Inventory (OEI, FDA's list of food
establishments under its jurisdication) lists approximately 900 juice
manufacturers. However, recent information from the U.S. Apple
Association (USAA) indicates that there are about 1,800 apple juice
plants, most of which are very small processors. A typical description
of these very small processors is an apple grower who operates a small
apple press and bottling operation on the same property. In general
these processors market their products in more than one way. The
channels of distribution include: Roadside stands owned by the
processors and stands owned by others, farmers' markets, grocery
stores, and restaurants. FDA has proposed to exempt retail
establishments from the HACCP rule. For the purposes of this rule, the
agency has tentatively decided that retailers will include very small
businesses that make juice on their premises and whose total sales of
juice and juice products do not exceed 40,000 gallons per year and who
sell directly to consumers or directly to consumers and other
retailers. Based on data supplied by the USAA, this exemption would
exempt from the HACCP rule 80 percent of apple juice processors. (Ref.
13). Such an exemption would leave approximately 360 apple juice
processors covered by both of these regulations, and all 1,800 would be
covered by the labeling rule.
The OEI lists about 200 plants in the United States that produce
core fruit (apple, crab apple, pear, quince, etc.) juice. If all of the
200 core fruit plants in the OEI are included in the USAA list and are
not exempt, then there would still be an excess of 160 apple juice
processing plants in the USAA list not exempt from the HACCP rule and
an excess of 1,600 (1,800-2000) plants in the USAA list not exempt from
the labeling rule. (Information from FDA's field inspections indicates
that very few of these 160 plants will be exempted from the HACCP rule
under the exemption for retailers of juice for immediate consumption.
Almost none of the very small apple juice processing plants recently
inspected by FDA retailed all of the juice that they produced at the
same location that it was processed. See Table 21 for a description of
the types of products and processors not covered.)
The agency is aware that there are also many very small orange
juice processors who grow oranges and who also operate a juicing and
bottling operation on the same property. However, the agency has no
direct information on the number of such orange juice processors. The
OEI lists about 300 plants in the United States that produce citrus
fruit juice. In this analysis, the agency has assumed that there is an
equivalent number (300) of very small processors who are not listed in
the OEI. It is likely that the proportion of very small orange juice
[[Page 24273]]
processors to OEI citrus juice makers is lower than the proportion of
very small apple juice processors to OEI apple juice makers because the
growing region for oranges in the United States is far smaller than the
region for growing apples.
FDA assumes for the purpose of this analysis, that 80 percent of
these very small orange juice processors will be exempt from the HACCP
rule based on their classification as retail establishments. This would
leave 60 very small orange juice processors covered by both of these
regulations, and all 300 covered by the labeling rule. FDA has assumed
that there are no vegetable juice processors which are not in the OEI
or which are not also very small processors of apple or orange juice as
estimated above. FDA requests comments on these assumptions.
FDA has assumed that 5 percent (about 50 plants (900 x .05)) of all
juice plants in the OEI would have implemented HACCP substantially in
the form required by this regulation by the time that this proposed
HACCP rule is finalized regardless of this regulatory action.
Therefore, approximately a total of 1,070 plants (850 plants in the OEI
plus 60 very small orange and 160 apple juice retailers) will be
affected by the HACCP rule.
The labeling rule will cover retailers (roadside stands and grocery
stores) of packaged minimally processed juice.
The agency does not have direct information on the number of
supermarkets and grocery stores that produce and package at the point
of sale and sell minimally processed juice. The agency believes that
only a portion of chain supermarkets and grocery stores do so. Duns
Market Identifier (DMI) lists approximately 9,400 chain supermarkets
(SIC 54110101) and approximately 3,800 chain grocery stores (SIC
54119904) making a total of approximately 13,000 chain supermarkets and
grocery stores. If 10 percent of these stores produce at the point of
sale and sell packaged minimally processed juice, then approximately
1,300 chain grocery stores and supermarkets will be affected by the
labeling rule. (In addition to these processors, there are other
retailers that do not process juice but which offer for sale the juice
produced by other processors, which should be labeled by the
manufacturer.)
Due to publicity about the hazards associated with minimally
processed juice, the agency believes that relatively few retailers are
offering such products for sale. DMI lists approximately 3,100
independent supermarkets (SIC 54110103) and approximately 31,000
independent grocery stores (SIC 54119905) making a total of
approximately 34,100 chain supermarkets and grocery stores. If 5
percent of these stores sell minimally processed packaged juice, then
approximately 1,700 independent grocery stores and supermarkets will be
affected by the labeling rule. The labeling rule will also affect
roadside markets and stands that retail packaged minimally processed
juice. For the purpose of this analysis, the agency assumes that there
are 1,000 such roadside markets and stands. However, the assumptions
that go into these calculations may be incorrect, and the agency
specifically requests comments on them.
Table 22 shows the estimated number of establishments affected by
each rule.
Table 22.--Number of Plants Affected by the HACCP and Labeling Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of No. of
Establishments Establishments
Plant Type Affected by HACCP Affected by
Rule Labeling Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juice manufacturers in the OEI 850 201
Very small apple juice makers 160 1,600
Very small orange juice makers 60 300
Roadside retailers 1,000
Grocery stores and supermarkets
processing and packaging at the
point of sale 1,300
Total 1,070 4,220
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of juice manufacturers listed in the OEI affected by the
labeling rule is small (20) because most of these manufacturers are
already achieving a 5-log reduction. See Table 24.
5. Hourly Price of Labor
Throughout this analysis the hourly price of labor is taken to be
approximately $13. This is estimated by taking the 1996 average hourly
rural wage of $9.20 (Ref. 7) and increasing it by 40 percent (the
average amount for benefit costs paid by employers) (Ref. 8), or $3.70
to account for such costs in addition to wages, such as Social
Security, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, paid leave,
retirement and savings, health insurance, and supplemental pay.
6. Length of Production Period
The agency is aware that many juice processors operate on a
seasonal basis. Information supplied by USAA indicates that 94 percent
of the apple cider producers process only seasonally. The season for
apple cider production runs primarily from September through December.
The other 6 percent operate year round. Many other processors covered
by the proposed HACCP rule (e.g., makers of beverage bases) may process
year round. The agency has assumed that 50 percent of the 850 plants in
the OEI plus all of the 220 very small juice makers affected by the
HACCP rule produce seasonally. Table 23 shows the length of the
production period for plants producing seasonally and year round.
Table 23.--Plants' Production Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weeks of Operation Hours of Operation
Production per Year per Day No. of Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal 16 12 645
Year Round 52 24 425
Total 1,070
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24274]]
B. Cost Estimates by Requirement
1. Costs have been estimated for the following sections of the
labeling regulation:
(1) Signs or Placards (Sec. 101.17(f)(3)(i) (part 101 (21 CFR part
101))
(2) Container Labels (Sec. 101.17(f)(3)(ii))
2. Costs have been estimated for the following sections of the
HACCP regulation:
(1) CGMP's (Sec. 120.5 (part 120 (21 CFR part 120))
(2) Prerequisite Program SOP's (Sec. 120.6)
(3) Hazard Analysis and HACCP Plan (Secs. 120.7 and 120.8)
(4) Corrective Actions (Sec. 120.10)
(5) Validation and Verification (Sec. 120.11)
(6) Records (Sec. 120.12)
(7) Training (Sec. 120.13)
(8) Imports and Foreign Processors (Sec. 120.14)
1. Labeling Costs
This cost depends strongly upon producers' responses to the
labeling requirements. Some producers may elect to comply early with
the HACCP rule and avoid the warning labels or labeling. Others may
choose to label until they are required to implement HACCP. Finally,
some firms may choose not to produce juice products because they
believe that either the cost of HACCP implementation or the negative
effect on revenue generated by consumer response to labels may depress
profits below a normal return for a substantial time period. Such
producers will be better served by reinvesting their capital into more
profitable ventures.
a. Signs or placards (Sec. 101.17(f)(3)(i)). The costs of signs and
placards may be estimated by multiplying the number of establishments
that must post placards by the cost per placard. As shown in Table 22
the agency estimates that the labeling rule covers approximately 4,220
plants. However, for the purpose of this analysis, the agency has
assumed that all those processors that will at some point be required
to implement HACCP will do so at the earliest possible date to avoid
the warning labeling, or delay operation until they implement a 5-log
pathogen reduction process.
The following analysis underlies this assumption. If displaying the
warning can be avoided by beginning pasteurization (or an equivalent 5-
log pathogen reduction process) sooner, some firms may marshal the
resources to do so. FDA does not have data, however, that will allow it
to predict how many firms will respond to this labeling regulation in
this fashion. However, one way to examine this choice is examine the
additional discounted costs of pasteurizing sooner. For example, if a
small firm's cost of initiating pasteurization is about $18,000, with
recurring costs of about $8,000, and the firm has an annual juice
revenue of $200,000, then a total sales decline caused by the warning
of 8 percent (a loss of approximately $16,000 discounted at a rate of 7
percent) or more spread over the course of 2 years (or approximately 4
percent for 2 years) would cause the firm to attempt to borrow the
funds needed to initiate pasteurization 2 years early or to delay
operation until it implements a 5-log pathogen reduction process. FDA's
predictions of consumer reactions to the labeling (for the purposes of
benefit estimations) are an expected loss of revenue of about 5
percent. Thus, there is a tentative conclusion that most firms that are
not exempt from the HACCP rule will choose to implement a 5 log
reduction in pathogens immediately rather than label and to delay
operation until such processes have been implemented.
However, there are many uncertainties contained in this simple
example. Because of the short time frame for labeling to begin, 60 days
from publication of the final rule, many firms may not be able to
purchase and install pasteurization equipment or find other means of
validating a 5 log reduction in the target organism. It is unclear how
manufacturers think that consumers will react to the warning signs,
they may believe that their customers will not reduce their purchases
of juice. Also, firms with larger sales or smaller pathogen reduction
costs will need a smaller percentage sales decline from labeling in
order to be induced to initiate 5 log pathogen controls early. Finally,
it is unclear how many firms will have immediate access to the capital
requirements imposed by this rule.
If, therefore, all processors which will eventually be covered by
the HACCP rule do not label, then they have no direct labeling cost.
The cost of the labeling rule to these processors is the extra expense
that results from implementing HACCP 2 years earlier than would be
required by the HACCP rule alone. This cost, as stated above, is
$16,000 (discounted for 2 years at 7 percent). Of the 1,070
establishments covered by the HACCP rule, all of the 20 firms in the
OEI which are also affected by the labeling rule (those estimated to be
producing minimally processed juice) plus all of the 220 very small
orange and apple juice processors covered by the HACCP rule are
affected in this way (240 plants in all). The agency assumes, based on
information from industry sources, that 30 percent of this set of
processors (72 plants) have already initiated or are in the process of
initiating pasteurization. Therefore, the total cost of the labeling
rule for this set of processors is $2,688,000 ($16,000 x 168 plants).
The establishments that will need to display warning labeling are
those 3,980 establishments covered by the labeling rule but not by the
HACCP rule. Based on information learned from FDA's nutrition labeling
rules, the average cost per placard (and periodic replacement) is
estimated to be $100. This estimate will encompass the possibility that
some firms may have to supply multiple signs to meet the requirement
that it will be available at the point of purchase. Therefore, the
total one-time cost for this set of processors is $398,000.
b. Container labels (Sec. 101.17(f)(3)(ii)). The cost of labeling
is estimated by multiplying the number of affected separable labels on
packaged products, normally referred to as stock keeping units (SKU's),
by the cost of changing the label to add the warning. Table 24 shows
FDA's estimate of the cost per SKU of placing a warning label on the
information panel for different lengths of the compliance period. These
costs decrease over time for several reasons. The primary reason is
that manufacturers change labels or, at least, reorder them at regular
intervals and a larger length of compliance period allows manufacturers
to incorporate regulatory changes into planned changes.
Table 24.--Label Change Costs per SKU for Different Lengths of the Compliance Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 months 6 Months 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative costs $6,000 $1,800 $900 $450 $350
Redesign costs $1,500 $450 $450 $50 $50
Inventory loss $800 $250 $0 $0 $0
[[Page 24275]]
Totals $8,300 $2,500 $1,350 $500 $400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processors of minimally processed packaged juice which are not
covered by HACCP will need to add the warning to their package labels
at the end of the 2-year compliance period. FDA estimates that 2,980
processors will be subject to this provision (1,440 very small apple
juice retailers and 240 very small orange juice retailers exempted from
the HACCP rule plus 1,300 grocery stores producing packaged juice). The
total cost for this provision is $1,490,000 (2,980 x $500) at the end
of the 2-year compliance period. For simplicity of reporting and
calculation with the other labeling costs, this cost will be added as
$1,301,000 (the present value of $1,490,000 discounted 2 years at 7
percent).
c. Summary of likely labeling costs. The agency estimates that the
likely total cost of the labeling rule is a one-time cost of $4,387,000
($2,688,000 + $398,000 + $1,301,000).
2. HACCP Costs
a. CGMP's (Sec. 120.5). This section of the proposal reaffirms the
applicability of the CGMP's in part 110 in determining whether facility
design, materials, personnel practices, and cleaning and sanitation
procedures are safe.
No costs are attributed to this section for this rulemaking. The
overwhelming majority of juice plants are in compliance with the
CGMP's. In 1996 only 6 percent of the plants inspected were cited for
official action. Therefore it is assumed that these rules will not have
any effect on the enforcement of the CGMP's for juice products.
b. Prerequisite program SOP's (Sec. 120.6). FDA is proposing to
require that processors control and document specific SOP's that
provide a foundation for the HACCP system and to have and implement
SOP's for prerequisite programs. In general, there are three activities
that are part of prerequisite program SOP's: (1) Developing SOP's, (2)
implementing sanitation controls with corrections of deviations from
SOP's, and (3) monitoring and documenting for SOP's.
i. Developing SOP's. Each processor must have a sanitation SOP. FDA
estimates that SOP's for juice plants could be developed with 20 hours
of labor. At the rural hourly cost of labor ($13), the cost per plant
of developing SOP's is approximately $260. If one half of the 900
domestic plants in the OEI and all of the 220 very small juice
processors do not currently have SOP's, then they will have to develop
them to comply with this regulation, if it is adopted. Under those
assumptions, the total cost for the industry to develop SOP's would be
approximately $174,200 ($260 x 670 plants).
ii. Implementing sanitation controls with corrections of deviations
from SOP's. Each processor must implement a sanitation SOP and correct
deviations from the prerequisite program SOP's in a timely fashion.
In 1996, 39 percent of the juice plants inspected were cited as VAI
(voluntary action indicated). This citation usually indicates that an
investigator noted deficiencies that were not significant enough to
warrant an administrative or regulatory action but which should be
corrected on a voluntary basis. Information from the inspection reports
indicates that approximately 30 percent of the juice plants inspected
had sanitation and food safety related deficiencies, 4 percent had
deficiencies which were related to low-acid canned food regulations,
and 4 percent had deficiencies for misbranding or mislabeling. Also in
1996, 6 percent of the juice plants inspected were cited as OAI
(official action indicated). This citation indicates that an
investigator noted deficiencies significant enough to recommend
regulatory or administrative sanctions. Information from the inspection
reports indicates that 3 percent of the juice plants had significant
deficiencies that could be related to food safety or low-acid canned
food regulations, 2 percent had significant deficiencies for
misbranding or mislabeling.
On a few of the VAI inspection reports, FDA investigators indicated
an estimate of the cost of correcting sanitation and food safety
related deficiencies indicated. Two-thirds of the reports estimated
costs of corrections at $0 to $99, and one-third of the reports
estimated costs of corrections at $1,000 to $4,999.\8\ Taking the
middle of these ranges gives an average estimated cost of corrections
of approximately $1,000 (($50 x 67 percent) + ($3,000 x 33 percent))
per plant for correcting sanitation and food safety related
deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ No reports estimated costs of $100 to $999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HACCP rule will mandate the implementation of daily monitoring
of sanitation controls. This should make the correction of sanitation
and food safety related deficiencies happen on the day that they occur
rather than months later. Regulatory inspections of juice plants are
made approximately once every 5 years. If food safety and sanitation
related deficiencies occur on average approximately once every 5 years
midway between inspections (to facilitate calculation), then the HACCP
rule should cause corrections to be taken an average of 2.5 years
earlier than would be the case without the rule. The cost of the rule,
then, is not the full cost of taking the corrections. Those corrections
would be taken even without the HACCP rule after the plant was
inspected and the deficiencies noted. The cost of the HACCP rule is the
present value of making the expenditures to correct the deficiencies at
an earlier date than would take place otherwise. The present value of
making an infinite series of $1,000 expenditures once every 5 years and
2.5 years earlier than they would otherwise occur is $500 when
discounted at 7 percent.
Based on information from inspection reports, FDA assumes that
about 30 percent of all 1,070 covered juice plants (about 320 plants)
are not likely to have sanitation controls that are sufficiently
implemented, but which do not warrant administrative or regulatory
action. If it costs each of these 320 plants $500 to implement
sanitation controls and to correct deviations from SOP's, then the
total cost borne by the industry for this requirement is $160,000,
which, because it is discounted, will be added as a one-time
expenditure in the total costs.
iii. Monitoring and documenting of SOP's. All procedures in the
prerequisite program SOP's are required to be conducted at the
frequencies specified and implementation of these procedures will have
to be monitored and documented.
FDA estimates that monitoring and documenting of SOP's will require
one-half hour of labor per operating week. The cost per plant of SOP
monitoring and documenting is given in Table 25.
[[Page 24276]]
Table 25.--Annual Per Plant Cost of SOP Monitoring and Documenting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate Hrs. per Estimate Annual
Weeks of Operation Week for SOP SOP Monitoring and
Production per Year Monitoring and Wage ($/hour) Documenting Cost
Documenting per Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal 16 .5 $13 $100
Year round 52 .5 $13 $340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 26 shows the distribution of per plant and total industry
costs based on the estimate in Table 25 for SOP monitoring and
documenting needed to comply with this rule, if it is adopted. These
estimates assume that no plants are currently in compliance with these
particular requirements.
Table 26.--Total Annual Cost of SOP Monitoring and Documenting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate Annual
SOP Monitoring and Estimate Annual
Production Documenting Cost No. of Plants SOP Monitoring and
per Plant Documenting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal $100 645 $64,500
Year round $340 450 $153,000
Totals 1,095 $218,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Hazard Analysis and HACCP Plan (Secs. 120.7 and 120.8). Under
the proposal, processors are required to have a written hazard analysis
and to have and implement a written HACCP plan whenever a hazard
analysis reveals a food hazard that is reasonably likely to occur.
Requirements are set forth for the minimum contents of the plan and for
the signing and dating of the HACCP plan by specified personnel.
Failure of a processor to have and implement a HACCP system in
compliance with this rule, if adopted, will render the food products of
that processor adulterated.
i. Hazard analysis and HACCP plan development. Under the proposal,
each plant is responsible for developing a written hazard analysis of
hazards that are reasonably likely to occur in the product that a
processor can control. The hazards to be considered are any chemical,
physical, and biological hazards that may cause illness, injury, or
death in humans. Plant management must determine the likelihood of
occurrence of these hazards, either due to their introduction through
material inputs or processing or a possible failure to eliminate them
or to reduce them to acceptable levels in processing. Some Federal
Government sampling and illness outbreak data are available to provide
firms with a set of possible hazards that may affect a particular
product and process. In addition, section V of this document, the
accompanying appendix, and the preambles to these proposed rules
contain information on most of the hazards that have caused problems in
juice products in the past. Additional information may be forthcoming
in the HACCP final rule (after FDA evaluates the comments). Experience
from the HACCP pilot suggests that the hazard analysis for products
similar to juice took 16 to 24 hours. FDA's preliminary estimate is
that it will take approximately four individuals, including a plant
manager; 5 hours each to complete the hazard analysis; and another 15
hours each to formulate the HACCP plan. The HACCP plan requires that
the plant manager, quality control official and others establish
critical control points (CCP's) for every hazard identified in the
hazard analysis and critical limits at each CCP; establish a plan to
monitor those CCP's; determine how deviations from critical limits will
be handled; and establish procedures for verification and validation
that the plan is being followed and that it is properly controlling the
identified hazards. FDA assumes that part of this process will be to
determine the most cost-effective means to comply with this regulation
when developing the plan. Thus, the total number of person hours per
plant to develop both documents is 80 hours. At $13 per hour the total
cost per plant is about $1,000 per plant.
FDA has assumed that about 5 percent (50 plants) of all juice
plants in the OEI will have implemented HACCP substantially in the form
required by this regulation by the time that this regulation is
finalized regardless of this regulatory action. This assumption is
based on conversations with pilot plant firms who have indicated to FDA
that many large firms have begun both to do HACCP and require HACCP of
their suppliers. It is estimated that approximately 1,070 plants will
need to do hazard analyses and develop HACCP plans to comply with this
rule, if it is adopted. Therefore, the total cost of 1,070 plants at
$1,000 each to develop a hazard analysis and a HACCP plan is
approximately $1,070,000 million.
ii. Pesticide HACCP controls. Pesticides may be a component of
material inputs that must be controlled. If a processor has direct
knowledge of the amount of pesticide applied, either because the
produce is from the processor's own farm or because records showing the
application of pesticides accompanies the incoming produce, then the
processor may control pesticide hazards by means of a supplier
certificate. Under such an arrangement a supplier would only need to
provide the processor with a certification that any pesticides had been
properly applied to the produce so as not to exceed applicable
tolerances. As each arrives at the processing plant, a worker will need
to verify that the supplier for that shipment has supplied the
processor with a proper and up-to-date certification. FDA assumes that
verification of supplier certification requires 1 minute per shipment
which, at $13 per hour, represents a cost per shipment of approximately
$0.25.
FDA has estimated the number of shipments that will be verified in
this manner by working backward from the amount of juice consumed.
Annual juice consumption in the United States is 2.3 billion gallons
(gal). The agency assumes that 80 percent of this total (1.84 billion
gal) is produced by approximately 75 large firms (operating 225
plants). FDA believes that all large firms are currently doing a
sufficient
[[Page 24277]]
amount of sampling and monitoring (or receiving supplier certificates)
for pesticides. Therefore it is assumed that there are no costs for
large firms to comply with this requirement. That leaves 20 percent of
the total (460 million gal) produced by approximately 2,575 small and
very small firms. FDA assumes that all small and very small firms use
domestic produce only. If 15 pounds (lb) of produce are required to
make 1 gal of juice, then small firms use 6.9 billion lb of domestic
produce (460 million gal x 15 lb/gal). If 45,000 lb of produce (the
amount carried by a typical tractor trailer) constitutes 1 shipment of
produce, then small and very small firms use 153,000 shipments of
produce (6.9 billion lb 45,000 lb/shipment).
However, for the purposes of this proposed regulation FDA is
including as retailers very small businesses that make juice on their
premises, whose total sales of juice and juice products do not exceed
40,000 gallons per year and who sell directly to consumers or directly
to consumers and other retailers. This exemption decreases the
percentage of juice processed under pesticide controls by approximately
14 percent thereby reducing the number of shipments of produce to
132,000 (153,000 x 86 percent).
FDA assumes that 80 percent of small and very small firms covered
by the rule (676) will process shipments of produce that will be
accompanied by supplier certifications of pesticide application after
the HACCP rule is in place. Therefore, the number of shipments to be
handled under prerequisite program controls is 106,000 (132,000
shipments x 80 percent) per year. Thus, this analysis assumes that the
average small and very small plant receives approximately 160 (106,000
shipments 676 small plants) shipments per year. The total per
plant cost is about $40 (60 shipments x $0.25/shipment) for the 676
small and very small plants that can control this issue in this way.
Based on these calculations, the total marginal cost of this type of
control for pesticides is approximately $27,000 ($40 x 676 plants).
If such records cannot be obtained, different types of controls
need to be implemented. In this case, the processor must run pesticide
residue tests to ensure that there are no pesticides either over
tolerance or used on products for which there is no tolerance. To
determine the frequency of such testing, processors may avail
themselves of Government test results which indicate the likely
variance of illegal residues over a particular crop or region.
Current records indicate that, for domestic crops, only about .25
percent (one-quarter of 1 percent) are out of compliance. Furthermore,
as HACCP is adopted by more of the food industry, it is expected that
records, for some types of produce, will routinely accompany produce
intended for interstate commerce. However, many types of produce are
currently commingled at different stages in the distribution network.
This creates a problem for backtracking when there are either pesticide
or pathogen problems.
There are two potential costs associated with ensuring that
pesticide residues are legal: (1) Matching and shipping pesticide spray
records with crops and (2) costs of multiresidue testing. If records
are to accompany produce, fruits and vegetables may only be commingled
if all of the commingled produce has records showing it is under
tolerance. Otherwise, produce with paperwork must be kept separate from
produce without such paperwork. In the latter case, if it is to be used
to produce juice, multiresidue tests must be performed costing about
$150 per test. Just as was calculated for supplier certificates, FDA
calculates that there are 132,000 shipments which use 5,865 million
pounds of produce that must be covered by pesticide controls. As 80
percent has been considered to be handled by supplier certificates, 20
percent of the remaining shipments must be covered by a sampling plan.
Thus, of the 845 small plants total, 169 will cover an average of 160
shipments with a pesticide sampling plan. The number of shipments that
must be tested is about 26,000 (132,000 x 20 percent) per year.
Because of the likelihood of a very low violation rate,
approximately one-quarter of 1 percent, which is coupled with a maximum
upper bound added risk of about 1 in a million lifetime cancer cases
(see section V of this document), those processors who are unable to
obtain supplier certificates should need to only sample lots
periodically to ensure that such lots are in compliance. If the average
number of shipments per plant per year is 160, processors could
randomly sample 10 shipments per year and, assuming all were negative,
could be assured with 80 percent confidence that there are no more than
14 percent violative lots in the entire season's produce input.
Furthermore, if processors are turning up violative shipments, they are
expected to take corrective action to prevent future shipments from
being violative so that the rate of violative juice that reaches
consumers is expected to stay extremely low. Thus, costs will be
estimated for these processors based on 10 random samples per year at a
cost of $150 per sample. Based on these calculations, the total
marginal cost of pesticide testing is approximately $254,000 (10 tests
x $150/test x 169 firms). Costs per plant are estimated to be an
average of $1,500. Therefore, the total annual cost of pesticide
control for the HACCP rule is $281,000 ($254,000 for pesticide testing
+ $27,000 for supplier certificate verification).
iii. Pathogen HACCP controls. Processors will need to include
controls for microbial hazards in their HACCP plans and to implement
these controls in their operations. Potential microbial hazards include
both heat sensitive and heat resistant pathogens (and heat resistant
toxins produced by pathogens), including viruses. However, FDA is
interested in the safety of products as they are consumed, and any
combination of controls that successfully controls pathogens will
satisfy the requirements of this regulation. This regulation will allow
each processor to choose the combination of control measures that cost-
effectively controls microbial hazards. In addition, because of this
``performance'' nature of HACCP, manufacturers will be encouraged to
continue to seek out and implement less costly and more effective
methods.
Processors may attempt to control pathogens through other means,
using a combination of several steps that are less effective
separately, but which when used together will achieve adequate log
reductions of pathogens. These methods may include control of
contamination at the growing level, including use of potable water for
irrigation, use of safe fertilizers, rejection of fruits dropped from
trees onto the ground, and application of good sanitation practices
during harvesting. Other controls that can be applied at the receiving,
sorting, and processing levels include washing, brushing and sanitizing
the product before extraction, acidifying the product, and using
preservatives. FDA requests comments on potential costs and use of
these or any other methods.
At present, pasteurization is the primary effective, commercially
implemented method for controlling pathogens in juice. However, the
agency is not proposing to require pasteurization in the proposed HACCP
rule since other methods, either singularly or combined, may be as
effective in achieving the 5-log reduction. However, the effectiveness
and commercial feasibility of these other methods have not been
established over a significant period of
[[Page 24278]]
time. It is possible that the effectiveness and feasibility of other
methods will be established prior to the finalization of the HACCP
rule, thus affording processors a less expensive means of pathogen
control. To the extent that processors adopt other, less expensive
pathogen controls, the costs for pasteurization estimated in this
analysis will be an overestimate of the actual cost of the rule. The
agency has estimated an option for carrying out pasteurization that it
believes minimizes the cost of pasteurization. That is, the agency has
estimated the costs of purchasing special, low cost pasteurizers
designed for low-volume applications that are suited to small
businesses. It is also worth mentioning that pasteurized juice products
can be made using drops and culled produce, which significantly lowers
the cost of the material inputs. Processes other than pasteurization
may not be able to reduce pathogens sufficiently to accept this type of
produce.
Another possibility, for which FDA has not estimated costs, is that
processors that do not have pasteurizing equipment on site will ship
their juice to a facility that can provide them with pasteurization and
bottling service and then ship the bottled juice back for distribution.
Juice and dairy plants are the facilities most likely to be able to
provide this service. Purchasing the service of pasteurization may be a
more cost-effective option for some juice processors.
In fact, some juice companies do contract out their juice making
process. They blend the different varieties of raw produce for their
product and then ship it to a processor. There the produce is washed
and culled, pressed, pasteurized, bottled, and labeled. The juice is
then picked up by the owner and distributed. Other juice companies have
contracted out the pasteurization-bottling processes. They press the
produce themselves, then ship the juice to a pasteurization-bottling
facility to be pasteurized and bottled. Still other companies have
contracted out the pasteurization process only. They press the produce
themselves, then ship the juice to a pasteurization facility to be
pasteurized, and then ship the pasteurized juice back in bulk for
bottling and distribution. If some juice companies decide to take
approaches similar to these in response to this rule, their operations
will change fundamentally. Juice processors will choose the option
which will result in the lowest marginal cost to produce juice. The
agency has not included the estimate of the cost of contracting out
pasteurizing because of: (1) The increased complexity of the HACCP plan
to control for recontamination, (2) the problem of estimating
processors' access to pasteurization equipment owned by other
processors, and (3) the extra expense involved in transporting the
products. All these cast serious doubt on the feasibility of this
option for many very small processors. However, this analysis is
uncertain and FDA would expect each manufacturer to examine the option
of contracting their product to be pasteurized and taking advantage of
this where it is less costly than purchasing their own equipment.
Another aspect of pathogen control which some processors may adopt,
and for which FDA has not estimated costs, is juice refrigeration.
Pasteurized juice which has not been heated to the degree so as to make
it shelf stable must be refrigerated. This cost has not been
investigated because the agency has assumed that producers of nonshelf
stable juice are already refrigerating their products. The agency
requests comment on this assumption and on the cost of refrigeration,
if any, over and above that which is already being done.
The costs of pasteurization vary depending on numerous factors,
such as the capacity of the facility, and the amount of labor. In
addition, there is uncertainty in the estimates of the number and size
of the processors who will need to install pasteurization equipment,
among other factors. Some makers of cider processing equipment are
marketing pasteurization units for small processors. Medium sized
pasteurization/heater/chiller units are reported to cost about $17,000
plus about $1,500 for installation. These units have the capacity
necessary to meet the needs of a small processor producing about
400,000 gal of juice in a 4-month season.
Additionally, initial startup of pasteurization would require
alterations in plant construction, design or layout to accommodate the
additional processing step and equipment operator training. Also, there
are operating expenses related to pasteurization including utilities,
cleaning, maintenance and repair, and depreciation. Table 27 lists the
parameter values that have been used in a Monte Carlo analysis to model
the potential costs of installing and using pasteurization equipment by
juice processors.
Table 27.--Inputs and Results of Monte Carlo Analysis of Initiating Pasteurization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter 10th Percentile Mean 90th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage rates $11.30 $13 $14.70
No. of operating months 2 6 9
Plant capacity (in gal) 34,000 74,000 124,000
Installation costs $1,300 $1,500 $1,700
Cleaning hours (monthly) 52 60 68
Costs of the pasteurizer $10,000 $17,000 25,000
Hours to operate (monthly) 26 30 34
Total Pasteurization Cost (per plant) $18,200 $26,200 $34,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key variables that affect this analysis are shown in the
``tornado'' diagram, Figure 1.
[[Page 24279]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.000
For the purpose of this benefit-cost analysis, FDA has
preliminarily concluded that it is unlikely that fresh orange (and
possibly other citrus) juice processors will have to pasteurize their
products to achieve a 5-log reduction when a HACCP program is adopted
because of the nature of the fruits and the methods of juice extraction
commonly used by industry. Therefore, costs for these processors are
limited to the costs of creating and operating a HACCP system, not to
purchasing pasteurizing equipment.
Of the 1,070 processors covered by the HACCP rule only a portion of
these will need to initiate pasteurization. Table 28 shows FDA's
assumption about the number of processors in the OEI of various types
of juice that are not pasteurizing.
Table 28.--Types of Plants Currently Without Pasteurization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Plants with Best Estimate of
Type Type as Primary Plants Minimally
Product Processing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berry 77 1
Citrus 211 10
Core 133 3
Mixed Fruit 36 1
Pit 31 1
Sub-tropical/tropical 29 1
Vine 2 0
Other 8 0
Beans/peas/corn 5 0
Fruits used as vegetables 41 1
Leaf/stem 8 0
Mixed vegetable 10 1
Root/tuber 8 1
Fruit beverage bases 37 0
Liquid fruit beverage bases 124 0
Combination true flavored and
imitation flavored beverages 19 0
Liquid combination true flavored
and imitation flavored
beverages 55 0
Other beverage bases 28 0
Baby (infant and junior) fruits,
juices and drinks 6 0
Totals 868 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 20 processors in the OEI assumed not to be pasteurizing, 10
of these are citrus juice processors and may not need to initiate
additional controls beyond those already in place for controlling
pathogens. That leaves 10 processors in the OEI assumed to need to
initiate pasteurization. FDA's preliminary determination is that the 60
very small orange juice processors will not need to implement
additional controls for pathogens than those already in place. Of the
160 very small apple juice processors the agency assumes, based on
industry sources, that 30 percent (50) have already initiated or are in
the process of initiating pasteurization because of both demand and
supply effects.
The assumption that 30 percent of apple juice processors have
already initiated pasteurization follows from the adverse publicity
concerning unpasteurized juice. On the demand side, both consumers and
retailers have become more aware of the hazards associated with
unpasteurized juice over the last 5 years. From 1992 to 1997, in two
national newspapers, the number of articles concerning the safety of
apple juice doubled. On the supply side, producers have certainly
become aware of the problems associated with their
[[Page 24280]]
unpasteurized juice both due to the efforts of FDA and from the news
media. For example, in the five states with the largest number of apple
juice processors (New York, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and
Pennsylvania), articles in major newspapers about the safety of juice
increased 13 percent between 1992 and 1997. This awareness constitutes
action on the supply side as producers contemplate the potential
liability and loss in sales (from a loss of goodwill) associated with
producing a potentially unsafe product. That leaves 110 very small
apple juice processors to implement pasteurization in order to control
pathogens as required in the HACCP rule. Table 29 shows the first year
total cost of pathogen control attributable to the HACCP rule.
Table 29.--First Year Cost of Pathogen Control Attributable to HACCP Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processor Type Cost per Plant No. of Plants Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very small apple juice processors $18,200 110 $2,002,000
Juice processors in the OEI $34,800 10 $348,000
Total $2,350,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasteurization will require ongoing costs for operation and
maintenance. FDA estimates these annual costs for labor, utilities, and
materials subsequent to the first year to be $7,000 per year for very
small processors and $8,000 per year for processors in the OEI. These
estimates can be derived from Table 27 by subtracting the cost of the
pasteurizer and installation from the total pasteurization cost for the
10th and 90th percentile estimates. The total cost of pathogen control
in subsequent years is given in Table 30.
Table 30.--Subsequent Year Cost of Pathogen Control Attributable to HACCP Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processor Type Cost per Plant No. of Plants Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very small apple juice processors $7,000 110 $770,000
Juice processors in the OEI $8,000 10 $80,000
Total $850,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are other costs that are related to processing for pathogen
control. The pasteurization of juice causes changes in the
characteristics of the products, primarily in terms of texture and
taste. Some current consumers of nonheat-treated juice will bear the
costs of losing a particular product as well as costs of searching for
products with the characteristics that they prefer the most. Thus, one
cost of these regulations is the loss of ``fresh'' juice, that is,
juice that is not heat (or otherwise) processed. The appropriate
measure of the loss of a product is the sum of producer and consumer
surplus. Consumer surplus is a measure of the value that consumers
obtain from a product. It is measured by what consumers would be
willing to pay for a product over and above what they actually must
pay. Producer surplus is a measure of the amount of rent producers
receive, the price minus the cost of production. Measurement of
consumer surplus depends on several factors that influence the shape of
the demand curve; the most important one in this case being the
substitutability of other juice products. If a product has close
substitutes in the minds of consumers, the amount of both producer and
consumers surplus is smaller. In addition, if there are attributes that
consumers do not perceive or are not informed about, such as additional
nutritional benefits associated with the lost product, there may be
additional costs of losing that product. FDA has no information on how
readily consumers will accept pasteurized juice in the place of fresh
juice nor any other information that could be used to estimate that
cost.
iv. Glass and direct food additive HACCP controls. FDA has not
attributed any costs for control of glass or direct food additives even
though these potential hazards are among those that are likely to be
relevant for juice. There have been some recalls in recent years for
each of these two hazards. However, glass is a food safety hazard that
is readily recognized by consumers who can hold producers accountable
for its presence in food. Thus, the agency believes that processors
packing juice in glass are already currently implementing every
feasible control for this potential hazard in order to limit their
liability and to provide consumer protection. Additionally, although
approximately 25 percent of the processing plants pack juice in glass
containers, this number is diminishing rapidly for economic and safety
reasons.
Regarding food additives, many juice products contain food or color
additives for the purpose of coloring or extending product shelf life.
However, the agency believes that processors using direct food
additives in juice are already currently implementing sufficient
controls for these potential hazards as they are strictly regulated by
FDA.
Even though processors may need to institute some additional
monitoring and recordkeeping for these hazards after implementing
HACCP, the agency believes that the additional cost will be negligible.
Therefore, there is zero marginal cost associated with control for
direct food additives, and there is zero marginal cost (and zero
marginal benefits) associated with HACCP controls for glass.
v. Natural toxin controls. Processors of juice using imported apple
juice will need to implement controls for the natural toxin, patulin.
Patulin is a natural toxin that is found in apple juice made from moldy
apples and is a hazard that is more likely to occur in imported apple
juice products. Processors of juice using imported apple juice will
need to implement controls by testing for this toxin.
FDA has estimated the number of shipments that will be tested for
patulin by working backward from the amount of apple juice imported.
About 200 million gallons of apple juice are imported into the United
States by 7 large firms (operating 23 plants) annually. FDA assumes
that all small firms use domestic produce only. Therefore, there are no
costs accruing to small firms from this requirement.
If 15 lb of produce are required to make 1 gallon of juice, then
large firms use 3 billion lb of foreign apples imported in the form of
apple juice (200
[[Page 24281]]
million gal x 15 lb/gal). If 45,000 lb of apples (the amount carried by
a typical tractor trailer) constitute 1 shipment of apples, then large
firms use 66,667 shipments of imported apples (3 billion lb
45,000 lb/shipment). Thus, this analysis assumes that the average
number of imported apple shipments per year to each large plant (which
are the likely importers) is approximately 2,900 (66,667 shipments
23 plants).
The agency does not know the current frequency of shipments of
apples containing patulin at violative levels. However, the agency
assumes that the 23 large plants will randomly sample 30 shipments per
year at a cost of $150 per sample. The total marginal cost of patulin
testing is approximately $104,000 (30 tests x $150/test x 23 firms).
Costs per plant are $4,500. If any lots are found positive, costs will
be incurred that are estimated in section VI.B.1.d.i of this document.
d. Corrective actions (Sec. 120.10).--i. Corrective action plan.
Most processors will have a corrective action plan that specifies the
appropriate action to be taken for the violation of each critical
limit. If a processor does not have a corrective action plan then the
processor must revalidate the HACCP plan whenever a deviation occurs.
The development of a corrective action plan for juice products is
less expensive than revalidation after each deviation from a critical
limit. FDA estimates that a corrective action plan for juice products
can be developed in 4 hours with a cost per plant of approximately $50
(about 4 hours of management time).
Approximately 1,070 plants will develop corrective action plans to
comply with this rule, if adopted. Therefore, the total cost of 1,070
plants at $50 each to develop corrective action plans is approximately
$54,000.
ii. Corrective actions. The implementation of HACCP requires that
corrective actions be taken when critical limits are violated although
deviations should be infrequent. The agency is expecting that those
juice plants that pasteurize will establish a minimum of two CCP's: One
for pathogens and one for pesticides. Firms may already have
established CCP's for metal or glass for which no marginal costs or
benefits are counted in this analysis. In addition, processors using
imported apple juice may need to establish a CCP for patulin. Citrus
juice producers may establish three CCP's, culling, washing and
brushing, and pesticides. This analysis has assumed that pathogens will
be controlled by pasteurization for noncitrus juices. Pasteurizers are
designed to sense the temperature at which the product comes out of the
pasteurizer and automatically recirculate the product if it has not
been heated sufficiently. Therefore, corrective actions for
pasteurization should be so rare as to be negligible for this analysis.
FDA believe that virtually all citrus processors are currently
monitoring the culling, and washing and brushing steps. Based on data
from FDA pesticide sampling, violations of critical limits for
pesticide should also be rare.
Some plants may choose to have multiple critical limits for
pesticides because of the nature of the hazard they present (i.e.,
chronic). The stringency of the corrective action could vary directly
with the critical limits. For example, if the first (lowest) critical
limit were exceeded, the corrective action could be to investigate the
problem. A violation of a higher limit, possibly one that could present
an acute problem, would cause the product to be destroyed. As an upper-
bound estimate, this analysis will assume that: (1) Deviations of
pesticide and natural toxin critical limits occur once per month in
each plant in the first year and once per quarter in subsequent years,
(2) each corrective action requires 1 hour of labor to resolve, and (3)
the cost of reconditioning is $100 per corrective action. The cost per
plant is highly dependent upon the number of months that the plant is
in operation.
Assuming that seasonal plants operate 4 months per year and all
other plants operate 12 months per year, Tables 31 and 32 show the
estimated first year and subsequent year costs of corrective actions
per plant as well as the distribution of costs and total industry cost
for the corrective actions needed to comply with this rule, if adopted.
Table 31.--Cost of First Year Corrective Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Months of No. of No. of Labor Cost of Cost per
Production Operation Deviations Hours per Wage ($/h) Reconditioning Plant First No. of Totals
per Year per Month Deviation per Deviation Year Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal 4 1 1 $13 $100 $150 645 $97,000
Year Round 12 1 1 $13 $100 $260 425 $111,000
Totals 1,070 $208,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 32.--Cost of Subsequent Year Corrective Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per
Months of No. of No. of Labor Cost of Plant No. of
Production Operation Deviations Hours per Wage ($/h) Reconditioning Subsequent Plants Totals
per Year per Year Deviation per Deviation Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal 4 .25 1 $13 $100 $40 645 $26,000
Year Round 12 .25 1 $13 $100 $70 425 $30,000
Totals 1,070 $56,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Validation and verification (Sec. 120.11).--i. Verification.
HACCP coordinators need to verify at least weekly by record review that
the HACCP plan is being followed, and calibrate process-monitoring
instruments weekly.
If record review for verification requires 1 hour per operating
week and the calibration of instruments used for monitoring critical
limits requires 1 hour per week, then the verification cost per plant
per production cycle is given in Table 33.
[[Page 24282]]
Table 33.--Cost of Verification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weeks of
Production Operation per H per Week for Wage ($/h) Verification No. of Plants Totals
Year Verification Cost per Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal 16 2 $13 $420 645 $271,000
Year round 52 2 $13 $1,350 425 $574,000
Totals 1,070 $845,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Validation. Processors will need to validate their HACCP plans
during the first year after implementation and at least annually, or
whenever any changes occur that could affect or alter the hazard
analysis, or HACCP plan. Further, if the processor does not have a
HACCP plan because there are no hazards that are reasonably likely to
occur, the processor must reassess their hazard analysis when any
significant changes occur. Examples of things that may change include:
(1) Raw material specifications or sources of raw materials, (2)
product formulation, (3) processing methods or systems, (4) packaging,
(5) finished product distribution systems, or (6) intended consumers or
use by consumers. The purpose of validation is to determine that the
HACCP plan is adequate to control food-safety hazards.
Validation is intended to answer several specific questions. These
include: (1) Have all hazards been identified, (2) have the most
appropriate control measures been identified, (3) are the critical
limits appropriate, (4) does the monitoring measure what is needed to
determine that the critical limits are being met, (5) are the right
records being collected to tell whether the system is working properly,
(6) are the right corrective measures being taken to ensure that any
defective product is controlled properly, and (7) are the verification
procedures adequate to provide assurance that the plan is being
followed? If the processor addresses each of these several questions
and the response to each is positive, then the processor can say that
his plan has been validated and is working.
Each processor's operation will be unique and will require a
validation approach adapted to the specific operation. Each approach
may need to involve multiple activities since there is no one
measurement or indicator to use to validate the hazard analysis and the
HACCP plan. There are several factors that have been considered to
determine the potential costs associated with these activities.
Validation may only be performed by an individual who has received
training in an FDA-approved course. However, no additional costs are
assigned to this requirement because the same training that is needed
to perform the hazard analysis and prepare the HACCP plan will meet
this need and is estimated in section VI.B.2.f.g.i of this document.
No one type of validation will work for all processors of fruit and
vegetable juices for all types of hazards. For example, validation that
a pasteurizer is attaining the desired ``kill'' level for a particular
type of product and volume will be considerably different from
validating that illegal pesticide residues are not present in the
product. Three potential types of validation activities are: (1)
Reviewing HACCP documents and scientific literature, (2) challenge
studies, and (3) product testing.
The trained individual may periodically review all plant HACCP
documents, including the HACCP plan and the hazard analysis, to
determine if they are consistent with scientific literature. It is
expected that industry trade publications will serve as a ready source
of this information. Challenge studies, such as for pasteurizing units,
determine the limits of the processing equipment and the unique
parameters that need to be set to achieve the desired results. However,
in some cases, simply relying on manufacturers specifications will be
sufficient. Finally, it is expected that at least some end-product
testing will take place. If, for example, processors are unsure of
residue levels because of pooled raw inputs, they will need to test
some finished product. In addition, some processors may find it useful
to perform periodic microbial testing of wash water or incoming raw
product. However, because of the sporadic nature of many of the hazards
that must be considered in these products, testing alone may not be
sufficient validation.
FDA estimates that validation is likely to take place twice per
year for the 425 plants that operate year round and once per year for
the 645 plants that operate seasonally. Validation of the SOP's and
HACCP plan is likely to require hiring a food science and technology
consultant (presumably, the same person hired to perform other HACCP-
related services) for the approximately 845 plants that are small
businesses. The costs estimated are assumed to cover both human and
capital costs to accomplish the mix of likely validation activities
(literature review, challenge testing, and product or water testing).
FDA estimates that such consultant services cost approximately $1,000
per validation in the first year (assuming that consultant's services
cost $1,000 per day and that the validation process takes a single day
of the consultant's time). The agency estimates that in subsequent
years a consultant will be able to validate the system in one-half of a
day. There are approximately 75 large firms operating 225 plants who
are likely to have the resources available to perform the validation
functions inhouse. For large firms, FDA estimates that validating SOP's
and HACCP plans will require 25 percent of the level of effort taken
for the original SOP and HACCP plan development ($600). Because FDA has
assumed that about 5 percent (50 plants) of all juice plants in the OEI
would have voluntarily implemented HACCP substantially in the form
required by this regulation by the time this regulation is finalized,
only 175 large plants are affected. Tables 35 and 36 give the estimated
cost for validation in the first and subsequent years.
[[Page 24283]]
Table 34.--Cost of First Year Validation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of
Validation
Cost of SOP Cost of to Validation No. of No. of
Plant Type Development HACCP Plan Development Cost per Validations Plants Total
Development Level of Plant per Year Affected
Effort
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal small businesses $1,000 1 645 $645,000
Year round small businesses $1,000 2 250 $500,000
Year round large businesses $260 $2,100 .25 $600 2 175 $210,000
Total $1,355,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 35.--Cost of Subsequent Year Validation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of
Validation
Cost of SOP Cost of to Validation No. of No. of
Plant Type Development HACCP Plan Development Cost per Validations Plants Total
Development Level of Plant per Year Affected
Effort
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal small businesses $500 1 645 $323,000
Year round small businesses $500 2 250 $250,000
Year round large businesses $260 $2,100 .13 $300 2 175 $105,000
Total $678,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. HACCP records (Sec. 120.12).--i. Monitoring and recordkeeping.
Processors will need to monitor CCP's and keep HACCP system records of
observations at the CCP's. Even for those plants that have necessary
controls in place, plants without HACCP are not likely to be doing the
amount of monitoring and recordkeeping that HACCP requires. Therefore,
all processors that have not already implemented HACCP will need to
increase monitoring and recordkeeping activities.
If the additional monitoring and recordkeeping that needs to be
done throughout the entire plant is equivalent to 5 percent of one
worker's time (3 minutes per hour of operation per plant), then the
cost is dependent on the number of days that the plant is in operation
and the number of hours that it operates per day.
Assuming seasonal plants operate 12 hours per day for 120 days per
year and year round plants operate 24 hours per day for 360 days per
year, then Table 36 shows the annual cost of additional monitoring and
recordkeeping per plant. It also shows the distribution of per plant
costs and total industry costs for the additional monitoring and
recordkeeping needed to comply with this proposed rule.
Table 36.--Cost of Monitoring and Record keeping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours of Days of Percent Cost per
Production Operation Operation Wage ($/h) Additional Plant per No. of Totals
per Day per Year Time Year Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal 12 120 $13 5% $900 645 $581,000
Year round 24 360 $13 5% $5,600 425 $2,380,000
Totals 1,070 $2,961,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Record maintenance. The records produced for this regulation
will need to be maintained for use by both the processor and
regulators.
Assuming record maintenance requires 1 h per week while the plant
is being operated then the annual cost of record maintenance per plant
is described in Table 37.
Table 37.--Cost of Record Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weeks of Hours per Week
Production Operation per Maintaining Wage ($/h) Cost per Plant No. of Plants Totals
Year Records
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal 16 1 $13 $210 645 $135,000
Year round 52 1 $13 $680 425 $289,000
Totals 1,070 $424,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24284]]
iii. Record storage. Records produced for this regulation will need
to be stored for use by both the processor and regulators. A single
standard office file drawer should be sufficient to store the proposed
records for the proposed duration. If for storage of the additional
records each plant needs to purchase one standard office file cabinet
at approximately $150 each, then the total cost of record storage for
the 1,070 plants is approximately $161,000.
g. Training (Sec. 120.13).--i. HACCP coordinator training.
Processors may need to employ a HACCP coordinator to carry out the
duties specified for such a person. In order to train one employee at a
3-day course that has a curriculum consistent with FDA's standards, a
processor will need to pay course tuition, travel and lodging (assuming
that there is not a course in the immediate area), and replacement of
the labor that the employee would have provided at the processing plant
if the employee had not attended the course. Table 38 shows the
estimated costs for each of these items and the estimated total cost
per plant for training a HACCP coordinator.
Table 38.-Cost of HACCP Coordinator Training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuition Travel and Lodging Foregone Labor Hours Wage ($/h) Total Cost per Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$500................. $500 24 $13 $1,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA estimates that if each of the 1,070 processing plants that are
not currently estimated to have HACCP have a single employee trained by
a course that is acceptable to the agency, then the total industry cost
is $1,391,000 million.
ii. Employee training in HACCP. Each processor will need to train
employees in their HACCP-related activities and may need to provide
training for some employees to enable them to read and write English.
Each processor will need to train some of their employees as to how
to perform their HACCP-related activities. From the OEI and the
American Business Listing data, FDA has information on the distribution
of employment for juice plants in the OEI. FDA has assumed that all of
the 220 very small orange and apple juice processors employ three
people on average. FDA has also assumed that the 50 plants that have
implemented HACCP are the 50 plants with the largest number of
employees. This analysis assumes that each plant must train 5 employees
or 10 percent of their employees in HACCP-related responsibilities,
whichever is greater. Table 39 describes the cost of training each
employee for 8 hours annually, total employment in the affected plants
and the total cost of this level of training.
[[Page 24285]]
Table 39.--Cost of Employee Training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Annual No. of
Hours of Annual Cost per Average Plant Employees No. Plants With Total No. of
Training per Wage ($/h) Employee Employment Trained per No. of Plants HACCP Employees Total
Employee Plant Implemented Trained
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.............. $13 $100 3 3 252 0 756 75,600
8.............. $13 $100 7 5 35 0 175 17,500
8.............. $13 $100 15 5 68 0 340 34,000
8.............. $13 $100 35 5 100 0 500 50,000
8.............. $13 $100 75 8 103 0 824 82,400
8.............. $13 $100 175 18 161 0 2,898 289,800
8.............. $13 $100 375 38 59 0 2,242 224,200
8.............. $13 $100 750 75 25 16 675 67,500
8.............. $13 $100 3,000 300 14 14 0 $0
8.............. $13 $100 8,910 $841,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24286]]
h. Imports and foreign processors (Sec. 120.14).--i. Importers.
Information from the U.S. Customs Service indicates that approximately
120 importers import juice into the United States. The import
provisions of the HACCP proposal will, in practice, cause importers to
implement written procedures to ensure that the juice is produced under
HACCP or equivalent safeguards. The importer may keep file copies of
the foreign processor's HACCP plan, written guarantees that the product
was produced in accordance with the HACCP plan, or certificates of
inspection from foreign Governments. The importer may also have to
inspect the foreign plant or test the imported product. Written records
of all HACCP actions must be maintained by the importer. Some
combination of records from the foreign processor and safeguards
provided by the importer will become necessary to meet the requirements
of this proposed rule. The agency estimates that the cost of these
activities will be $10,000 per importer in early years, decreasing as
memorandum of understandings with exporting countries are established.
ii. Foreign juice processors. The agency does not have any direct
information on the number of foreign juice plants that export to the
United States. However, approximately 75 percent of U.S. juice
consumption is supplied by 900 plants in the OEI. Approximately 25
percent of U.S. juice consumption is supplied by foreign firms. This
analysis assumes that the ratio of the number of domestic plants in the
OEI to domestic production is equivalent to the ratio of the number of
foreign exporters to foreign juice imports. The result of this
assumption is an estimate of 300 foreign plants exporting to the United
States that will need HACCP. FDA requests information from foreign
governments and importers on the number of exporting juice plants in
their respective countries.
Using this estimate for the number of juice exporting plants, if
the cost per plant for initiating HACCP is same as for a large U.S.
plant which is already pasteurizing juice (since all juice exported to
the United States is pasteurized), then the first year cost per foreign
juice exporter is approximately $26,000, and the cost in subsequent
years is $22,000. Therefore the total cost in the first year for 300
foreign processors is approximately $8 million and approximately $7
million in subsequent years.
Table 45 in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which
follows, shows typical costs for a large plant which has not already
implemented HACCP. The agency assumes that these costs are
representative of foreign plants exporting to the United States. The
largest point of uncertainty in this estimation relates to the cost of
employee training. The average domestic juice plant which employs 500
or more people has approximately 830 employees. This analysis assumes
that 10 percent of these employees will need to be trained in HACCP-
related duties. If training costs $100 per employee then the cost of
employee training alone in a large plant is $8,300. Some plants employ
more than 3,000 employees. For such a plant the cost of employee
training would be $30,000. The agency request comment on the cost to
foreign processors.
Table 40 lists types of juice exported to the United States and the
various countries producing the juice. This is not a complete list of
countries exporting juice to the United States, nor is it a
comprehensive list of juice products.
Table 40.--Sources of Imported Juice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Grape Citrus Prune Pineapple Vegetable
Juice Juice Juice Juice Juice Juice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina Argentina Argentina
Australia Australia
Austria Austria Austria
Belgium- Belgium- Belgium- Belgium-
Luxembou Luxembou Luxembour Luxembou
rg rg g rg
Belize
Brazil Brazil Brazil
Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada
Chile Chile
Denmark
Dominican
Republic
France France France France
Honduras Honduras
Hungary
Israel Israel Israel Israel
Italy Italy Italy
Jamaica
Japan Japan
Leeward/
Windward
Islands
Mexico Mexico Mexico
Netherlan
ds
New
Zealand
Philippines
Germany Germany Germany Germany
South
Korea
Singapore
Spain
Switzerla Switzerland
nd
Taiwan Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Yugoslavi
a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24287]]
Table 40 is provided to give information about the scope of
countries and products covered by these rules. The agency believes that
a high estimate of the number of firms exporting juice to the United
States is 300. Because the quality of the juice must be maintained
during transport, all juice exported to the United States is currently
processed in such a way so as to appropriately address potential
pathogens. However, the agency has no information to suggest that any
foreign juice processors have implemented HACCP in their operations.
C. Summary of Costs for Labeling and HACCP Rules
The total quantified costs are approximately $26 million in the
first year and $15 million in all subsequent years. There will be a
substantial impact on those processors who are producing minimally
processed juice in that some will stop making the product, some will
implement HACCP, and some will label. Table 41 summarizes costs of the
rules by provision.
Table 41.--Total First Year and Recurring Cost Per Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity First Year Costs Recurring Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling Costs $4,387,000
Develop SOP's $174,000
Sanitation SOP's $160,000
Monitoring and documenting
for SOP's $218,000 $218,000
Hazard analysis and HACCP
plan $1,070,000
Pesticide controls $281,000 $281,000
Pathogen controls $2,350,000 $850,000
Natural toxin controls $104,000 104,000
Corrective action plan $54,000
Corrective actions $208,000 $56,000
Verification $845,000 $845,000
Validation $1,355,000 $678,000
HACCP monitoring and
recordkeeping $2,961,000 $2,961,000
Record maintenance $424,000 $424,000
Record storage $161,000
HACCP coordinator training $1,391,000
Employee training $841,000 $841,000
Importers 1,200,000 600,000
Foreign processors 8,000,000 7,000,000
Totals $26,184,000 $14,858,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Summary of Benefits and Costs
FDA has examined the costs and benefits of the proposed rules as
required under Executive Order 12866. FDA finds that the costs and
benefits of these rules have different values in subsequent years such
that, to compare them properly, they must be discounted to the present
year (the point at which a decision must be made). The quantified
benefits (discounted annually at 7 percent) are expected to range from
$3 billion to $ 4 billion and the quantified costs (discounted annually
at 7 percent) are expected to be $240 million.
VIII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
FDA has examined the impact of the two proposed rules as required
by the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601-612). If a rule has a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the RFA requires agencies to
analyze options that would minimize the economic impact of that rule on
small entities. The agency acknowledges that these proposed rules are
likely to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
A. Objectives
The RFA requires a succinct statement of the purpose and objectives
of any rule that will have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities.
The warning label proposal responds to the need to alert consumers
to the potential risk of foodborne illness from consumption of juice
products not pasteurized or otherwise processed to destroy pathogens
that may be present. FDA is proposing to require warning labels on such
juice products to inform consumers of the potential hazard of pathogens
in such products; such labeling will not be required for juice that is
processed to achieve a 5-log reduction. Once HACCP is implemented, the
warning labeling will no longer be required for those products covered
by the HACCP rule. The HACCP rule is being proposed to ensure that
juice manufacturers control all physical, chemical, and microbial
hazards in their products.
B. Definition of Small Business and Number of Small Businesses Affected
The RFA requires a statement of the definition of small business
used in the analysis and a description of the number of small entities
affected.
Table 42 shows the definition of small business for each type of
establishment affected and a description of the number of small
entities affected by each of the rules. The agency has accepted the
Small Business Administration (SBA) definitions of small business for
this analysis.
Table 42.--Approximate Number of Small Plants Covered by These Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of No. of Small No. of Small
Standard Industry SBA Definition of Category Establishments Establishments
Type of Establishment Classification Codes Small by Category Defined as Covered by Covered by
Small by SBA HACCP Rule Labeling Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juice manufacturers 2033, 2037 Less than 500 75% 675 20
in the OEI employees
[[Page 24288]]
Roadside-type apple 2033, 2037 Less than 500 100% 160 1,600
juice makers employees
Roadside-type orange 2033, 2037 Less than 500 100% 60 300
juice makers employees
Grocery stores and 5411 Less than 85% 1,100
supermarkets $20,000,000 per
processing at the yr.
point of sale
Grocery stores and 5411 Less than 85% 1,450
supermarkets $20,000,000 per
yr.
Totals 895 4,470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Description of the Impact on Small Entities
1. Costs to Small Entities
Because there is a broad distribution of products covered, firm
types, current processing practices and sizes, it would be misleading
to report average per firm costs. However, some idea of the costs can
be gained from the following examples. The impacts that the costs will
have on a firm will vary depending on the total revenue derived from
juice by a firm and the profit (return on sales) associated with juice
production. Data on food manufacturing firms indicates that 75 percent
of firms have return on sales of less than 5 percent.
The first example (Table 43) is of a small apple cider plant that
is now producing nonheat-treated juice, buying commingled fruit, and
has not developed or implemented sanitation SOP's. This plant will need
to buy a pasteurizer (or find and validate a different process that
achieves a 5-log reduction) and do some pesticide testing. The next
example (Table 44) is a small plant that is producing pasteurized
orange juice year round with fruit from a known source, and that has
already developed and implemented sanitation SOP's (except that records
have not been kept on SOP's). These two plants can be compared to a
very large apple juice plant (Table 45) that imports some apples and
therefore must test for patulin, and has not developed or implemented
sanitation SOP's.
Table 43.--Costs for Illustrative Small Apple Cider Processor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost in Subsequent
Type of Cost Cost in First Year Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop SOP's $260
Sanitation SOP's $500
Monitoring and documenting of
SOP's $100 $100
Hazard analysis and HACCP plan $1,000
Pesticide testing controls $1,500 $1,500
Pathogen controls $18,200 $7,900
Corrective action plan $50
Corrective actions $150 $40
Verification $420 $420
Validation $1,000 $500
HACCP monitoring and
recordkeeping $900 $900
Record maintenance $210 $210
Record storage $150
Training of coordinator $1,300
Employee training $300 $300
Totals $26,000 $11,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 44.--Cost for Illustrative Small Orange Juice Processor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost in Subsequent
Type of Cost Cost in First Year Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring and documenting of
SOP's year round $340 $340
Hazard analysis and HACCP plan $1,000
Pesticide controls $60 $60
Corrective action plan $50
Corrective actions $260 $70
Verification $1,350 $1,350
Validation $2,000 $1,000
HACCP monitoring and
recordkeeping $5,600 $5,600
Record maintenance $680 $680
Record storage $150
Training of coordinator $1,300
Employee training $300 $300
[[Page 24289]]
Totals $13,100 $9,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 45.--Costs for Illustrative Very Large Apple Juice Processor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost in Subsequent
Type of Cost Cost in First Year Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop SOP's $260
Sanitation SOP's $500
Monitoring and documenting of
SOP's $340 $340
Hazard analysis and HACCP plan $1,000
Natural toxin control $4,500 $4,500
Corrective action plan $50
Corrective actions $260 $70
Verification $1,350 $1,350
Validation $1,200 $1,200
HACCP monitoring and
recordkeeping $5,600 $5,600
Record maintenance $680 $680
Record storage $150
Training of coordinator $1,300
Employee training $8,300 $8,300
Totals $26,000 $22,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Professional Skills Required for Compliance
The RFA requires a description of the professional skills required
for compliance with this rule. Table 46 describes the professional
skills required for compliance with the various activities required by
this rule.
Table 46.--Professional Skills Required for Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Skills
Required Activity Section of Proposal Required for Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developing Sec. 120.6 Managers familiar with
prerequisite program incoming materials and
SOP's plant sanitation
Implementing Sec. 120.6 Production workers who
sanitation controls are able to maintain
with corrections of the sanitation
deviations from controls as described
prerequisite program in the sanitation
SOP's SOP's and supervisors
or managers who can
determine what
corrective actions are
necessary for
deviations from SOP's
Monitoring and Sec. 120.6 Production workers who
documenting of are appropriately
prerequisite program trained to monitor and
SOP's keep records on
observations and
measurements for
prerequisite program
SOP's
Developing hazard Secs. 120.7 and 120.8 Supervisors or managers
analysis and HACCP who fulfill the role
plan of HACCP coordinator
as well as
microbiologists,
chemists, and
attorneys
Implementing pesticide Secs. 120.7 and 120.8 Production workers who
controls are appropriately
trained to carry out
tests, to monitor, and
to keep records on
observations and
measurements at
critical control
points
Implementing pathogen Secs. 120.7 and 120.8 Production workers who
controls are appropriately
trained to monitor and
keep records on
observations and
measurements at
critical control
points
Taking corrective Sec. 120.10 Production workers who
actions are trained to take
corrective actions
described in
corrective action
plans and supervisors
or managers who can
determine what
corrective actions are
necessary for
deviations from
critical limits
Verification Sec. 120.11 Supervisors or managers
who fulfill the role
of HACCP coordinator
Validation Sec. 120.11 Food scientists or food
technologists who can
perform a scientific
review of the process
Monitoring and Sec. 120.12 Production workers who
recordkeeping are appropriately
trained to monitor and
keep records on
observations and
measurements at
critical control
points
Record maintenance Sec. 120.12 Clerical or production
workers
HACCP coordinator Sec. 120.13 Supervisors or managers
training who fulfill the role
of HACCP coordinator
HACCP employee Sec. 120.13 Clerical and production
training workers
[[Page 24290]]
Imports Sec. 120.14 Clerical workers as
well as supervisors or
managers who fulfill
the role of HACCP
coordinator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Recordkeeping requirements
The RFA requires a description of the recordkeeping requirements of
the proposed rule. Table 47 shows the provisions for which records need
to be made and kept by small businesses, the number of small businesses
affected, the annual frequency that the records need to be made, the
amount of time needed for making each record, and the total number of
hours for each provision in the first year and then in subsequent
years.
Table 47.--Small Business Recordkeeping Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Small
Entities Annual Hours per Record Total Hours, Total Hours,
Provision Keeping Frequency Small Entity First Year Subsequent
Records Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120.6 Monitoring and 670 16 .5 5,400 5,400
recordkeeping of SOP's 225 52 5,900 5,900
120.7 and 8 Hazard 895 1 80 71,600 0
analysis and HACCP plan
120.8 Pesticide controls 676 227 .02 3,100 3,100
by supplier certificate
120.11 Verification 670 16 2 21,400 21,400
250 52 26,000 26,000
120.11 Validation 670 1 8 (first yr) 5,400 2,700
250 2 4 (subsequent yr) 4,000 2,000
120.12 HACCP records 670 1,440 .05 48,200 48,200
250 8,640 108,000 108,000
120.12 Record maintenance 670 16 1 10,700 10,700
250 52 13,000 13,000
Totals 323,000 246,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Minimizing the Burden on Small Entities
The RFA requires an evaluation of any regulatory overlaps and
regulatory alternatives that would minimize the costs to small
entities.
There are two alternatives that the agency has considered to
provide regulatory relief for small entities. First, FDA considered and
is proposing the option of exempting some small entities from the
requirements of these rules. Second, FDA considered and is proposing
the option of lengthening the compliance period for small entities.
1. Exempt Small Entities
One alternative for alleviating the burden for small entities would
be to exempt them from the provisions of these rules. FDA is proposing
to exempt retailers who, for the purposes of this rule, the agency has
tentatively decided will include very small businesses that make juice
on their premises and whose total sales of juice and juice products do
not exceed 40,000 gallons per year and who sell directly to consumers
or directly to consumers and other retailers.
Revenue from sales of 40,000 gallons of nonheat treated juice may
be approximately $160,000 with annual profits ranging from $1,600 to
$16,000 per year (1 percent to 10 percent). This exemption covers most
of the very small businesses, although less than 15 percent of the
volume of unpasteurized juice. However, packaged products sold by these
types of retailers are covered under the labeling rule. FDA requests
comments on this exemption.
2. Extend Compliance Period
FDA has also proposed a tiered, extended compliance period giving
the smallest firms the most time to comply with the HACCP rule, if such
rule is adopted. The proposed labeling rule, however, requires either
label changes on the product or labeling 60 days after publication of
the final rule. It is proposed that small businesses be allowed to use
signs and placards for an extended period before changing the labels on
their products. Small and very small firms that produce packaged juices
may continue to use signs and placards to display the warning instead
of placing the warning on the label of the product until January 1,
2001. On that date all firms producing packaged juice that is not
processed with a 5-log reduction must display the warning on the
product label. A longer compliance period allows firms to finance large
fixed costs out of retained earnings. For a regulation of general
applicability across a sector of the economy, it is difficult for firms
obtain loans to finance regulatory costs, partially because no
increases in profits are expected that could be used to repay the loan.
This may be particularly troublesome for small firms that must finance
the costs of HACCP controls. FDA is unable to quantify the cost savings
of the extended compliance period although one effect of the cost
savings will be to reduce small firm failure.
E. Summary
FDA has examined the impact of these proposed rules on small
businesses in accordance with the RFA. This analysis, together with the
rest of the preamble and the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis,
constitutes the preliminary RFA. FDA has determined that these rules
are likely to have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
IX. References
The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. Bean, Nancy H., and Patricia M. Griffin, ``Foodborne Disease
Outbreaks in the United States, 1973-1987: Pathogens, Vehicles, and
Trends,'' Journal of Food Protection, vol. 53 (September), p. 805.
[[Page 24291]]
2-3. Buzby, J., et al., Bacterial Foodborne Disease: Medical
Costs and Productivity Losses (AER-741), U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1996, p. 42.
4. Estimating the Value of Consumers' Loss from Foods Violating
the FD&C Act, vol. II, Final Report, September 1988, FDA Contract
No. 233-86-2097, p. D-12-13.
5. Cohen, M. L., R. E. Fountaine, R. A. Pollard, S. D. Von
Allmen, T. M. Vernon, and E. J. Gangarosa, ``An Assessment of
Patient-Related Economic Costs in an Outbreak of Salmonellosis,''
New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 299, no. 9, 1978, pp. 459-460.
6. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Foodborne
Pathogens: Risks and Consequences, Task Force Report No. 122,
September 1994, p. 51.
7. Personal communication of Gibbs, R., ERS/USDA to David Zorn,
Rural Wage for '96, April 22, 1997.
8. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--March 1996,'' U.S.
Department of Labor: 96-424, p. 1.
9. Food and Drug Administration, Williams, R., et al.,
``Appendix: Preliminary Investigation into the Morbidity and
Mortality Associated with the Consumption of Fruit and Vegetable
Juices,'' October, 31, 1997.
10. Food and Drug Administration, Zorn, D., and K. Klontz,
``Appendix: The Value of Consumer Loss Relating to Foodborne
Reactive Arthritis,'' February 2, 1998.
11. Food Marketing Institute, Trends in the United States:
Consumer Attitudes & the Supermarket, 1996. Washington, DC: Food
Marketing Institute.
12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Intakes
by Individuals in the United States, 3 Days, Continuing Survey of
Food Intakes by Individuals, 1989-1991).
13. Letter from Julia Stewart Daly, U.S. Apple Association to
Dr. John E. Kvenberg, FDA, August 14, 1997.
X. Requests for Comments
Interested persons may, on or before May 26, 1998, submit to the
Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding
this preliminary regulatory impact analysis on aspects related to
labeling for juice and juice products and by July 8, 1998, on aspects
of this analysis related to HACCP for juice and juice products. Two
copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may
submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket numbers
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
Dated: April 24, 1998.
Michael A. Friedman,
Lead Deputy Commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The following are the appendices to the Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Proposed
Rules to Ensure the Safety of Juice and Juice Products.
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
[[Page 24292]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.001
[[Page 24293]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.002
[[Page 24294]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.003
[[Page 24295]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.004
[[Page 24296]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.005
[[Page 24297]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.006
[[Page 24298]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.007
[[Page 24299]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.008
[[Page 24300]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.009
[[Page 24301]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.010
[[Page 24302]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.011
[[Page 24303]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.012
[[Page 24304]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.013
[[Page 24305]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.014
[[Page 24306]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.015
[[Page 24307]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.016
[[Page 24308]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.017
[[Page 24309]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.018
[[Page 24310]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.019
[[Page 24311]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.020
[[Page 24312]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.021
[[Page 24313]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.022
[[Page 24314]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.023
[[Page 24315]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.024
[[Page 24316]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.025
[[Page 24317]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.026
[[Page 24318]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.027
[[Page 24319]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.028
[[Page 24320]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.029
[[Page 24321]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.030
[[Page 24322]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.031
[[Page 24323]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.032
[[Page 24324]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.033
[[Page 24325]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.034
[[Page 24326]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.035
[[Page 24327]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.036
[[Page 24328]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.037
[[Page 24329]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.038
[[Page 24330]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.039
[[Page 24331]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.040
[[Page 24332]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.041
[[Page 24333]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.042
[[Page 24334]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.043
[[Page 24335]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.044
[[Page 24336]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.045
[[Page 24337]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.046
[[Page 24338]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.047
[[Page 24339]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.048
[[Page 24340]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.049
[[Page 24341]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.050
[[Page 24342]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.051
[[Page 24343]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.052
[[Page 24344]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.053
[[Page 24345]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.054
[[Page 24346]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.055
[[Page 24347]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.056
[[Page 24348]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.057
[[Page 24349]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.058
[[Page 24350]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.059
[[Page 24351]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.060
[[Page 24352]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.061
[[Page 24353]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.062
[[Page 24354]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.063
[[Page 24355]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.064
[[Page 24356]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.065
[[Page 24357]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.066
[[Page 24358]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.067
[[Page 24359]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.068
[[Page 24360]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.069
[[Page 24361]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.070
[[Page 24362]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.071
[[Page 24363]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.072
[[Page 24364]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.073
[[Page 24365]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.074
[[Page 24366]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.075
[[Page 24367]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.076
[[Page 24368]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.077
[[Page 24369]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.078
[[Page 24370]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.079
[[Page 24371]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.080
[[Page 24372]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.081
[[Page 24373]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.082
[[Page 24374]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.083
[[Page 24375]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.084
[[Page 24376]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.085
[[Page 24377]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.086
[[Page 24378]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY98.087
[FR Doc. 98-11530 Filed 4-27-98; 4:19 pm]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
