GHY Tradelines

(EU News)

The EU must make the use of “made in” origin labels on goods imported from third countries mandatory, MEPs reiterated in a plenary debate and vote on Thursday. They objected to the Commission’s plans simply to withdraw the proposed “made in” regulation, which was strongly backed by Parliament in 2010, and asked it either to change its mind or to table an alternative.

Since member states have failed, to agree on mandatory origin labels for goods such as clothing, shoes, jewellery and glassware imported from third countries, the Commission must find other ways to level the playing field for EU manufacturers and their third country competitors, say MEPs. Only mandatory “made in” labelling enables buyers to make informed choices. Read more here.
 

(Philip Janquart – Courthouse News Service)

Western ranchers sued the World Trade Organization in Federal Court, challenging its power to rule, as it did, that the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling Act discriminates against foreign meat.

Made in the USA Foundation, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers Association, and Melonhead (a meat and vegetable distributor), sued the WTO, the United States and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The U.S. Country of Origin Labeling Act, aka COOL, requires all fresh produce, meat, chicken and fish to be labeled to reveal its country of origin.

The COOL Act, signed in 2002, led Canada and Mexico to file complaints with the WTO. Three WTO representatives, from Portugal, Pakistan and Switzerland, found that COOL violated the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and “imposes discriminatory burdens on meat imported from Canada and Mexico,” according to the complaint. Read more here.
 

(STR Trade Report)

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment no later than May 16 on proposed changes to the Appliance Labeling Rule. This rule provides for the EnergyGuide labels that tell consumers the product’s estimated annual operating cost and energy consumption rating as well as a range for comparing the highest and lowest energy consumption for all similar models. Appliances that have EnergyGuide labels include televisions, clothes washers, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, room air conditioners, central air conditioners, furnaces, boilers, heat pumps and pool heaters.

The FTC is requesting input on the benefits and costs of the rule as well as several proposed changes, including whether the Commission should (a) eliminate duplicative reporting requirements for manufacturers, (b) require a uniform method for attaching labels to appliances, (c) place EnergyGuide labels on room air conditioner packages instead of the products, (d) improve Web site disclosures and (e) revise ceiling fan labels.

Click here for FTC press release.
 

(Chemical Watch)

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has concluded its review of the hazard communication standard submitted by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) last October.  The standard will see the start of implementation of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals in the U.S.

OSHA now has to incorporate comments made by OMB into a final document which will be published in the Federal Register in the coming weeks.

The OMB conclusion can be accessed here and the Rule is available here.
 

(World Trade Interactive)

As expected, the European Commission (EC) has published in the Official Journal of the European Union a regulation that amends the EU textile labeling regulations to require labels to include certain additional information of special interest to European consumers. While the European Parliament favored a more ambitious proposal that would have required textile labels to include the country of origin of the merchandise, it eventually reached a compromise with the EC on more modest regulation that will require labels to disclose, among other things, any animal-derived materials including fur and leather. Specifically, the presence of non-textile parts of animal origin in textile products will have to be indicated by using the phrase “Contains non-textile parts of animal origin” on the labeling or marking of the product. Such labeling or marking must not be misleading and must be carried out in such a way that the consumer can easily understand.

The new regulations also provide for an exemption from the mandatory labeling requirements for customized textile products made up by self-employed tailors and make a number of technical changes and clarifications to the current labeling requirements. Read more here.
 

(Elaine Watson — DairyReporter.com)

Legislation designed to help U.S. dairy farmers could have the unintended consequence of encouraging firms to replace dairy ingredients from U.S. suppliers with non-dairy ingredients just to avoid labeling headaches, trade associations have warned.

The Dairy COOL Act of 2011 (S.831 ), introduced to Congress by Senator Al Franken (D-MN) last week, calls for country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on liquid milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, butter and ‘any other dairy product’.

However, the bill could just end up encouraging manufacturers of processed dairy products to “substitute vegetable-based or other protein ingredients instead of dairy ingredients” just to avoid the hassle of having to explain where their dairy ingredients come from, warned the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA). Read more here.

(World Trade Interactive)

The European Parliament announced last week that it has reached a compromise deal with the European Council on a new textile labeling regulations. This agreement will be put to a plenary vote in May.

The agreement will require that any use of animal-derived materials be stated on garment labels. The Commission will also be asked to complete a study by Sept. 30, 2013, on whether there is a causal link between allergic reactions and chemical substances (e.g., colorings, biocides or nanoparticles) used in textile products. A press release states that the European Parliament has ensured that textiles containing such products must be labeled “non-textile parts of animal origin” to enable consumers to identify such products.

The Council has also agreed to ask the Commission to complete by Sept. 30, 2013, an assessment report on a possible origin labeling scheme for textile products manufactured outside the European Union. This report may be accompanied by a legislative proposal to require “made in” labels for such goods. The report will also assess the feasibility of harmonizing care labeling requirements (currently voluntary), an EU-wide uniform size labeling system for clothes, social and ecological labeling, the indication of allergenic substances, and flammable clothing.

Finally, the Parliament stressed the need to assess how new technologies, such as microchips or radio frequency identification, could be used in the future instead of traditional labels to convey information to consumers.

(World Trade Interactive)

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to revise its regulations on the labeling of pesticides and devices intended for export in order to increase their understandability and ease of use. Comments on this proposed rule are due no later than June 6.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act requires that unregistered pesticides and devices intended for export be subject to several provisions that include labeling, production reports, inspection of establishments, and reporting and recordkeeping. FIFRA further requires that exporters obtain a purchaser acknowledgement statement before exporting an unregistered pesticide (but not a device).

Regulations interpreting these requirements were published in 1993 and have not been amended since. EPA states that a recent internal review determined that these regulations are not as clear as intended and that the resulting ambiguity might have led to uncertainty in compliance. EPA is therefore proposing to add a more specific labeling requirement to clarify that these requirements pertain to unregistered export pesticide products and devices not only once they are exported from the U.S. but also as they move between registered establishments operated by the same producer in the U.S. EPA anticipates that this requirement would take effect one year after a final rule is published in the Federal Register.

(World Trade Interactive)

The Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service has adopted as final, effective Feb. 3, a July 2009 interim rule concerning labeling requirements for packed honey. This rule (a) establishes new regulations requiring country of origin labeling for packed honey bearing any official USDA mark or statement and (b) adds a new cause for debarment from inspection and certification service for honey if country of origin labeling requirements are not met for packages of honey containing official USDA grade marks or statements.

pspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; FONT-SIZE: 8pt”(American Shipper)br /br //spanspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; FONT-SIZE: 10pt”The United States on Friday asked the North American Free Trade Agreement Free Trade Commission to set up a dispute settlement panel regarding Mexico’s decision not to move its “dolphin safe” labeling dispute from the World Trade Organization to NAFTA, as requested by the United States and as required by NAFTA’s Article 2005. Read more a href=”http://www.americanshipper.com/NewWeb/news_page_SNW2.asp?news=170093″span style=”color:#0000ff;”here/span/a.?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /o:p/o:p/span/p

pspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”(Bridges Weekly)?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /o:p/o:p/span/ppspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”Canada is challenging the U.S.’s country-of-origin labelling (COOL) requirements for beef and pork at a meeting of the WTO’s Dispute Settlements Body (DSB). The Canadian government, backed by several business groups – including some from the U.S., claims that the implementation of COOL requirements is immensely costly forcing Canadian businesses to seek less money for their beef so as to absorb the cost of implementing the requirement. They maintain that COOL is a technical barrier to trade (TBT) and as such illegal under WTO law.br /br /“The COOL measure is not intended to address health or safety concerns,” Canada said in its opening statement. “The objective of the COOL measure was to distort the conditions of competition in the U.S. market to favour U.S. cattle and hogs compared to imported livestock.”br /br /The COOL act requires that consumers be informed of the country of origin of meat by a label on the sales package. To receive an “A” label, cattle must be born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States. Meat from cattle with a mixed life – for example, born and raised in Canada but slaughtered in the U.S. – must have a label indicating the mix. Read more a href=”http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/84784/”span style=”color:#0000ff;”here/span/a.o:p/o:p/span/p

pspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”(Global Times)/spanspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /o:p/o:p/span/ppspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”The National Development and Reform Committee (NDRC), and the Certification and Accreditation Administration of China (CNCA) on Thursday stated to make out a framework on labeling products as low carbon, according to reports.br /br /Future products marked with the low-carbon symbol will bring positive effect on environmental protection and carbon emission reduction. They can guide consumers to consciously purchase eco-friendly stuff.br /br /Low carbon product authentications have been used in many countries like Japan, Germany, and the UK, but different countries adopt various evaluation methods, so China needs to find one that suits its own needs, said Chen Wei, a senior official from the China Quality Certification Center (CQC).br /br /The Ministry of Information and Industry (MIIT), CQC and the Ministry of Environment (MOE) also joined in the project. /spanspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”o:p/o:p/span/pp /p

span style=”font-size:10;color:black;” pspan style=”color:black;”span style=”font-family:verdana;”span style=”font-size:85%;”(CFIA)?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /o:p/o:p/span/span/span/ppspan style=”font-size:10;color:black;”span style=”font-family:verdana;”On Monday August 16, 2010 CFIA posted a consultation survey on the CFIA website signalling their intent to move forward with licensing of food importers. Importers of food and food ingredients that are regulated under the Food and Drugs Act will require a license and to be able to demonstrate that they have in place a food safety system that minimizes the risk of a food-borne incident being associated with the products that they import, and processes that ensure that the their products comply with the requirements of the Consumer Product Packaging and Labelling Act and Regulations.o:p/o:p/span/span/ppspan style=”font-family:verdana;”span style=”LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-: EN-US; mso-bidi-: EN-CAfont-family:Arial;font-size:10;color:black;” The regulation will be established under the authority of the Agricultural Products Act and will apply to importers of products such as:br /br /• alcoholic and non-alcoholic beveragesbr /• confectionerybr /• fats and oilsbr /• infant formulabr /• coffee and teabr /• cerealsbr /• spices and seasoningsbr /• juicesbr /• bakery products/spanbr /br /The regulation will unot/u apply to importers of:br /br /• processed fruits and vegetablesbr /• meat and poultrybr /• dairy productsbr /• egg productsbr /• honey and maple productsbr /• seafoodbr /• fresh fruits and vegetablesbr /• synthetic coloursbr /• bottled waterbr /br /CFIA intends to hold public consultations in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver during September. Dates and details will be an announced when finalized.o:p/o:p/span/span/ppspan style=”font-size:10;color:black;”span style=”font-family:verdana;”The CFIA on line consultation survey, background material and question and answers can be found on the /spana href=”http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/imp/lic/lice.shtml” target=”_blank”span style=”font-family:verdana;color:#0000ff;”CFIA website/span/aspan style=”font-family:verdana;”. The consultation closes strongOctober 4, 2010/strong. o:p/o:p/span/span/ppspan style=”font-size:10;color:black;”span style=”font-family:verdana;”CFIA intends to publish the draft regulation in emCanada Gazette Part 1/em before the end of December 2010.o:p/o:p/span/span/p

pspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”(Ian K. Bies and Emily Rix, McCarthy Tétrault LLP)?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /o:p/o:p/span/ppspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”Manufacturers and processors making “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada” claims on non-food products will now have to comply with new guidelines from the Competition Bureau – or risk enforcement action. The enforcement guidelines, which recently came into effect, describe the Bureau’s approach to assessing these claims under the false or misleading representations provisions of the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, and the Textile Labelling Act.br /br /The guidelines set out the approach the Bureau will take in determining when it will investigate claims for non-compliance, or undertake enforcement action under the false or misleading representations provisions in these acts. The guidelines were released following public consultations last summer on a draft version of the guidelines, and replace the Bureau’s 2002 Guide to “Made in Canada Claims” Enforcement Guidelines.br /br /The guidelines create a distinction between “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada” claims for non-food products. “Product of Canada” claims are subject to a higher, “all or virtually all” 98% threshold of Canadian content (i.e., at least 98% of the total direct costs of producing or manufacturing the product must have been incurred in Canada). “Made in Canada” claims remain subject to a 51% content threshold, but should be accompanied by a statement declaring that the product contains imported content. In both instances, the last substantial transformation of the product must have occurred in Canada. Read more a href=”http://www.mccarthy.ca/article_detail.aspx?id=5090″span style=”color:#0000ff;”here/span/a.o:p/o:p/span/p

pspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”(CFIA)?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /o:p/o:p/span/ppspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”Based on recommendations received from stakeholders, the Consumer Protection Division (CPD) has updated the food labelling and advertising web pages to better meet the needs of its users. The pilot website can be found a href=”http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/labetie.shtml” target=”_blank”span style=”color:#0000ff;”here/span/a. o:p/o:p/span/ppspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”After viewing the pilot website, individuals are encouraged to complete the online questionnaire to evaluate its organization and design. The a href=”http://inspection.sondages-surveys.ca/s/lab-eti/?amp;l=en” target=”_blank”span style=”color:#0000ff;”survey/span/a will be available until September 3, 2010. o:p/o:p/span/p

span style=”font-size:85%;”(Lexology – Penny Bonner et al., Ogilvy Renault LLP)/spanbr /br /Canada has amended its a href=”http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2010/2010-05-26/html/sor-dors105-eng.html” target=”_blank”Food and Drug Regulations/a to require non-medicinal ingredients (“NMIs”) to be included on the outer label of non-prescription drug products marketed in Canada.br /br /The costs and administrative burden will be significant to both the pharmaceutical industry as well as the personal care product industry.br /br /The NMI labelling requirement will be in force as of May 12, 2012.

span style=”font-size:85%;”(Lexology – Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP)/spanbr /br /Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are considering four potential policy options to update their position on precautionary labelling of priority allergens. Precautionary labelling allows manufactures to alert consumers that priority allergens may be in a food product, even where these allergens have not been intentionally added as an ingredient.br /br /Currently, precautionary labelling is done on a voluntary basis. The four potential policy options are: an “enhanced voluntary” approach; an “enhanced voluntary approach with consumer notification;” a “mixed voluntary and regulatory approach; and a “regulatory” approach. Read more a href=”http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1693717c-1551-4eb0-892c-3200c953c9fe”here/a.

span style=”font-size:85%;”(Toronto Sun – Christina Spencer)/spanbr /br /New federal standards for when a product may be marketed as “Made in Canada” have stirred confusion among some businesses and complaints from a national consumer group.br /br /The standards, which take effect July 1, state that a consumer good can only be labelled or advertised as a “Product of Canada” if virtually all of its content originates in this country. It can be marketed as “Made in Canada” if 51% of its content is Canadian – provided the advertisement or label also carries a qualifying phrase such as “from imported products” if any components come from elsewhere.br /br /The new standards replace a previous rule, which stated simply that any product – whether a toy, a car, a computer or any other non-food good – could be advertised as Canadian if 51% of its content and manufacturing took place here. No qualifier was needed. Read more a href=”http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/06/07/14297501.html”here/a.

span style=”font-size:85%;”(SecuringPharma.com)/spanbr /br /Health Canada has finalised a guidance document on counterfeiting of health products, laying out the principles of how the agency intends to identify, assess and manage health risks associated with fakes.br /br /The primary objective of the response strategy is “to manage the risk to Canadians and to have the counterfeit product removed from market using the most appropriate level of intervention and notifying parties at risk,” according to Diana Dowthwaite, Health Canada’s Director General.br /br /The document indicates that the presence of counterfeit health products in the regulated supply chain in Canada is “infrequent.” Nevertheless the purpose of the new guideline is to help Health Canada’s inspectorate and enforcement officials focus on potential vulnerabilities in health product “manufacturing, packaging/labelling, wholesaling, importation, distribution, sale and use.” Read more a href=”http://www.securingpharma.com/40/articles/493.php”here/a.

span style=”font-size:85%;”(Lexology – Jennifer Wilkie, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP)/spanbr /br /By a document posted May 14, 2010, the Health Products amp; Food Branch Inspectorate have set out guiding principles of Health Canada’s decision making framework for identifying, assessing and managing health risks to identify the issues of counterfeit health products. In the background of this document it is set out that, while these issues of counterfeit health products is infrequent, the document is intended to focus on potential vulnerabilities into the regulated supply chain which includes manufacturing, packaging, labelling, wholesaling, importation, distribution and sale of health products.br /br /Counterfeit health products are described as follows:br /br /“A counterfeit health product is one that is represented as, and likely to be mistaken for, an authentic product. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products, and could relate to a product’s identity or source, could include products with the corrected ingredients/components, with the wrong ingredient/components, without active ingredients, with insufficient active ingredients or with misleading packaging or labelling.”br /br /Read more a href=”http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=64027184-1c6e-488b-a0af-e3dab5fa0b15″here/a. Additional information is available from Health Canada a href=”http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/compli-conform/activit/pol_0048_counterfeit-contrefacon-eng.php” target=”_blank”here/a.