Comment from Lloyd Hontz, Food Products Association

December 27, 2005 Docket No. 02-083-1 Regulatory Analysis and Development PPD, APHIS Station 3C71 4700 River Road, Unit 118 Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 [Docket No. 02-083-1] Importation of Meat That Originates in an FMD Region and is Cured or Cooked in Another Region; 70 FR 61578; October 25, 2005 Dear Sir or Madam: The Food Products Association (FPA) submits the following comments on the docket referenced above. The Food Products Association is the largest trade association serving the food and beverage industry in the United States and worldwide. FPA?s laboratory centers, scientists and professional staff provide technical and regulatory assistance to member companies and represent the food industry on scientific and public policy issues involving food safety, food security, nutrition, consumer affairs and international trade. FPA supports the basic intent of the APHIS proposal to allow the importation into the US of cured or cooked meat derived from ruminants or swine that originate in a region where rinderpest or foot-and-mouth disease exists, even if the meat is cured or cooked in another region. Current regulations address only the importation of meat that is cooked or cured within the FMD region of origin of the animals. However, as noted below, we believe the proposed provisions are significantly more restrictive in a number of aspects than is necessary to assure the safe importation of these products. We believe that more expansive provisions for cooked products will allow additional safe alternatives for importation while continuing to protect the US ruminant and swine populations against incursions of rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease. We also offer several technical amendments for Agency consideration. Food Products Association Docket No. 02-083-1 December 27, 2005 Page 2 We object to the proposed new definition of shelf stable canned product as unnecessary and potentially confusing. We object to the language suggested in 94.4 (b)(3), which is apparently intended to add new specificity to the cooking and sealing requirements for canned meats. Rather, we believe that continued referral to FSIS canning regulations is adequate and appropriate. We believe the use of new terminology such as ?cooked by a commercial method in a container hermetically sealed promptly after filling but before such cooking? is unnecessary and potentially confusing. Furthermore, there is no discussion of the problem or concern that this new language is intended to address. Also, the preamble statement that the proposal would offer greater protection to the US ruminant and swine populations against the introduction of rinderpest or FMD than the current regulations is curious. Shelf stable canned foods can be safely produced by a number of processes, including aseptic processing, which involves sealing the container after the product has been sterilized. We urge APHIS not to erect barriers to technology in these regulations. The regulatory requirements should be based on the end result ? shelf-stable canned product ? not the means by which that state is attained. FSIS regulations at 9 CFR 318.300 define canned product and shelf stability clearly and unequivocally. Foreign establishments that export to the US must comply with these FSIS canning regulations or their equivalent. Any procedure that meets the requirements for a shelf stable canned food should be deemed both safe for human consumption and adequate to prevent the possible spread of rinderpest or FMD to the US. FPA believes that APHIS should consult with appropriate personnel at FSIS to minimize the possibility of conflicting requirements and confusion for all parties that will have to comply with or enforce these regulatory provisions in the future. Other cooking methods should be allowed. We concur with the preamble statement that ?It is our view that cured or cooked shelf-stable meat originating in a region with FMD or rinderpest may be safely imported into the United States, regardless of where it is cured or cooked, if the curing or cooking is done in accordance with the regulations in Sec. 94.4.? However, it is not obvious to us why meat cooked by a variety of methods other than canning in a region where FMD exists is deemed safe for importation into the US, but the meat from animals originating in the same FMD region cannot be imported if it was cooked in accord with the same regulatory requirements in another region that does not have FMD. The only apparent discussion of this is found in footnote 1 on page 61579 of the Food Products Association Docket No. 02-083-1 December 27, 2005 Page 3 Federal Register notice, which states that the cooking processes described in 9 CFR 94.4(b), other than canning, are ??very specific and complicated,?.? and require ??USDA inspection and verification in the region in which the meats are cooked.? This does not seem to be a rational basis for limiting the use of these cooking options in other regions. We believe that if these methods are suitable for use in regions where FMD exists, then it seems logical to assume that they would be equally satisfactory for use in other regions where FMD does not exist. If the final rule includes provisions for cooking via these prescribed methods in other regions, then proposed section 94.4(b)(8)(i) should be adjusted to eliminate the specific reference to shelf-stable canned meat to make the certification provision more broadly applicable. Technical correction recommendations Arcane reference to Meat Inspection Division could be revised. We note that 9 CFR 94.4 (a)(3)(ii) refers to the Meat Inspection Division. While APHIS has proposed no change to this specific section of the regulation, this proposed rulemaking might provide a good opportunity to update this long- obsolete organizational entity. Why is there no provision like 94.4(b)(2) for cured meat under 94.4 (a)? We note that not only cooked products, but also cured products, are required to have been prepared in an establishment that is eligible to have its products imported into the United States under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the FSIS regulations found in 9 CFR 327.2. Thus we question why there in not a provision in 94.4(a) that is equivalent to the existing provision for cooked products found at 94.4(b)(2). We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue and we would be happy to further discuss our observations and recommendations. Sincerely, Lloyd Hontz Senior Director, Food Inspection Issues Food Safety Programs