Comment from Calvin R Hamilton, Darling International Inc

Darling International Inc. (?Darling?) references The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Docket No. APHIS-2006-0026, the agency?s proposed rule on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions, Identification of Ruminants and Processing and Importation of Commodities and the invitation to comment on the proposed changes to 9 CFR Parts 93, 94, and 95. Darling is one of America?s leading providers of rendering, recycling and recovery solutions to the nation?s food industry. With processing facilities located in 14 states, Darling is one of the largest independent rendering companies and the only publicly traded independent rendering company in the United States (US). Darling is a member of the National Renderers Association (NRA). We are aware of comments submitted to the Docket by the NRA and generally support their comments. Darling supports science based regulations and agrees with the changes proposed by APHIS which will allow nonruminant material (such as animal protein, offal, fat, bone, fats and oils) that is processed in BSE minimal-risk regions to be processed in facilities that also process material derived from ruminants from the minimal-risk region. 9 C.F.R. ? 95.4 was initially drafted in order to prevent the importation of meat and meat products into the United States from countries that were known to have had cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). ? 95.4(c) provides that meat and meat products from a nonruminant animal ( i.e. pork and poultry), may be imported into the United States from Canada so long as the material was processed and stored in a facility that has not been used for the processing and storage of materials derived from ruminant animals (e.g.: cattle). Under these regulations, a company could import pork or poultry material from Canada so long as the material came from a facility that did not handle or process any beef products. In an effort to ease restrictions on meat trade with Canada, the USDA issued the Minimal Risk Rule in 2005. Canada is listed in 9 C.F.R. ? 94.18(a) as a BSE- positive country, but as codified under the new Minimal Risk Rule (9 C.F.R. ? 94.19), beef products (including beef offal and other inedible parts from beef processing) from Canadian cows can be imported into the United States, so long as the material came from animals that were under 30 months in age at the time of slaughter and other regulatory requirements were followed. However, when the Minimal Risk Rule was published, the USDA neglected to amend the language contained in ? 95.4(c) (2) (?[a]ll steps of processing and storing the material are carried out in a foreign facility that has not been used for the processing and storage of materials derived from ruminants that have been in any region listed in Sec. 94.18(a) of this chapter,?) to exclude from this prohibition the processing and storage of materials that are otherwise eligible for importation under amended ? 94.19 - specifically, pork and poultry products from facilities that also handle and process ruminant animal meat and meat products, even if the ruminant animal products are from animals that are under 30 months of age. The conflict between the USDA?s Minimal Risk Rule, issued in January 2005, and 9 C.F.R. ? 95.4 has negatively impacted international trade between the US and Canada involving the importation of meat and meat products. This regulatory quandary has not only frustrated the ability of U.S. rendering companies to import meat and meat products into the United States from Canada (including inedible animal byproducts for processing into animal feed ingredients) but has also had the unexpected consequence of hampering the importation of meat and meat products between the US and Canada conducted by US meat purveyors Without the changes proposed by APHIS, companies permitted to import Canadian-derived beef bones and pork and poultry bones for inedible rendering, under separate permits, are prohibited from importing pork and poultry bones if the material is processed in the same facility as the importable beef bones. This remains true even if there is a way to segregate the various operations within Canadian processing facilities from each other, so that each operation is separate and distinct, with no opportunity for commingling of material. This notion stems from the USDA?s National Center for Imports and Exports (NCIE) contention that the word ?facility,? as used in 9 C.F.R. ? 95.4(c)(2), means all parts of a building under a single roof. Darling applauds the agency?s efforts to resolve the inconsistencies in import regulations which resulted from promulgation of the Minimal Risk Rule and inadvertently restricted trade with Canadian meat processors of animal byproducts derived from nonruminant animals, which pose little to no threat from BSE. We are available to answer questions or to clarify our position on this important issue. Sincerely, C. Ross Hamilton, Ph.D. Director Government Affairs and Technology