Irradiation in the Production, Processing and Handling of Food, 16291-16306 [07-1636]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
airplanes, certificated in any category; serial
numbers 4001 and 4003 and subsequent.
potential loss of several functions essential
for safe flight and landing of the airplane.
Unsafe Condition
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
(d) This AD results from reports of fluid
loss in the No. 2 hydraulic system, causing
the power transfer unit to overspeed,
increasing the fluid flow within the No. 1
hydraulic system. We are issuing this AD to
prevent possible loss of both the No. 1 and
No. 2 hydraulic systems, resulting in the
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision
(f) Within 14 days after the effective date
of this AD, revise the Limitations section of
16291
the applicable AFM to include the
information in the applicable Bombardier
temporary amendment specified in Table 1 of
this AD, as specified in the temporary
amendment. These temporary amendments
introduce procedures for pulling the ‘‘HYD
PWR XFER’’ circuit breaker in the event of
the loss of all hydraulic fluid in the No. 1 or
No. 2 hydraulic system. Operate the airplane
according to the limitations and procedures
in the applicable temporary amendment.
TABLE 1.—AFM TEMPORARY AMENDMENTS
Use Bombardier Temporary Amendment—
For Model—
–400 airplanes .............................................
–401 airplanes .............................................
–402 airplanes .............................................
Dated—
Issue—
13
13
13
1
1
1
To Bombardier
Dash 8 Q400 Airplane Flight Manual—
July 14, 2005 ..............................................
July 14, 2005 ..............................................
July 14, 2005 ..............................................
PSM 1–84–1A.
PSM 1–84–1A.
PSM 1–84–1A.
Note 1: This may be done by inserting a
copy of the applicable temporary amendment
into the applicable AFM. When the
applicable temporary amendment has been
included in general revisions of the AFM, the
general revisions may be inserted into the
AFM, provided the relevant information in
the general revisions is identical to that in
the temporary amendment.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
Irradiation in the Production,
Processing and Handling of Food
(g)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
AGENCY:
Related Information
(h) Canadian airworthiness directive CF–
2006–08, dated April 26, 2006, also addresses
the subject of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March
26, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7–6267 Filed 4–3–07; 8:45 am]
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 179
[Docket No. 2005N–0272]
RIN 0910–ZA29
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is proposing to
revise its labeling regulations applicable
to foods (including dietary
supplements) for which irradiation has
been approved by FDA. FDA is
proposing that only those irradiated
foods in which the irradiation causes a
material change in the food, or a
material change in the consequences
that may result from the use of the food,
bear the radura logo and the term
‘‘irradiated,’’ or a derivative thereof, in
conjunction with explicit language
describing the change in the food or its
conditions of use. For purposes of this
rulemaking, we are using the term
‘‘material change’’ to refer to a change
in the organoleptic, nutritional, or
functional properties of a food, caused
by irradiation, that the consumer could
not identify at the point of purchase in
the absence of appropriate labeling.
FDA is also proposing to allow a firm to
petition FDA for use of an alternate term
to ‘‘irradiation’’ (other than
‘‘pasteurized’’). In addition, FDA is
proposing to permit a firm to use the
term ‘‘pasteurized’’ in lieu of
‘‘irradiated,’’ provided it notifies the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
agency that the irradiation process being
used meets the criteria specified for use
of the term ‘‘pasteurized’’ in the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act)
and the agency does not object to the
notification. This proposed action is in
response to the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA) and, if
finalized, will provide consumers with
more useful information than the
current regulation.
DATES: Submit written or electronic
comments on the proposed rule by July
3, 2007. Submit comments regarding
information collection by May 4, 2007
to OMB (see ADDRESSES).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. 2005N–0272 by
any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following ways:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the agency Web site.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the
following ways:
• FAX: 301–827–6870.
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For
paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions]:
Division of Dockets Management (HFA–
305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.
To ensure more timely processing of
comments, FDA is no longer accepting
comments submitted to the agency by email. FDA encourages you to continue
to submit electronic comments by using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the
agency Web site, as described in the
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
16292
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Electronic Submissions portion of this
paragraph.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
Docket No. 2005N–0272 or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/
default.htm, including any personal
information provided. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments
and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Comments’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/
default.htm and insert the docket
number, found in brackets in the
heading of this document, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Division of Dockets
Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Information Collection Provisions:
Submit written comments on the
information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).To ensure that comments
on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written
comments be faxed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX:
202–395–6974.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Loretta A. Carey, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS–820), Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,
301–436–2371.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
I. Background
A. Current Labeling Requirements for
Irradiated Foods
In the Federal Register of February
14, 1984 (49 FR 5714), FDA published
a proposed rule (the 1984 proposal) to
approve the use of ionizing radiation on
several foods. The 1984 proposal did
not include a requirement for labeling
disclosing the use of ionizing radiation.
FDA received over 5,000 comments on
this proposal, including numerous
comments on the issue of labeling
irradiated foods. Based on the
comments and information received in
response to the 1984 proposal and on
further analysis, FDA published a final
rule in the Federal Register on April 18,
1986 (51 FR 13376) (the 1986 final rule).
The 1986 final rule required that the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
label and labeling of retail packages and
displays of irradiated food bear both the
radura logo and a radiation disclosure
statement (‘‘Treated with radiation’’ or
‘‘Treated by irradiation’’). FDA
concluded that labeling indicating
treatment of food with radiation was
necessary to prevent misbranding of
irradiated foods because irradiation may
not visually change the food and in the
absence of a label statement, the implied
representation to consumers is that the
food has not been processed. We stated
in the preamble to the 1986 final rule
that, in addition to the mandatory
language, the manufacturer may also
state on the wholesale or retail label the
purpose of the treatment process or
further describe the kind of treatment
used (51 FR 13376 at 13387). That is,
the manufacturer may include in the
labeling any phrase such as ‘‘treated
with radiation to control spoilage,’’
‘‘treated with radiation to extend shelf
life,’’ or ‘‘treated with radiation to
inhibit maturation,’’ as long as the
phrase truthfully describes the primary
purpose of the treatment. Similarly, the
manufacturer may choose to state more
specifically the type of radiation used in
the treatment, i.e., ‘‘treated with xradiation,’’ ‘‘treated with ionizing
radiation,’’ or ‘‘treated with gamma
radiation,’’ if more specific description
is applicable.
B. The 1999 Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the
Labeling of Irradiated Foods
On November 21, 1997, the Food and
Drug Administration Modernization Act
(FDAMA) (Public Law 105–115) was
enacted. Section 306 of FDAMA
amended the act by adding section 403C
(21 U.S.C. 343–3). Section 403C of the
act addressed the disclosure of
irradiation on the labeling of foods as
follows:
‘‘(a) No provision of section 201(n),
403(a), or 409 shall be construed to
require on the label or labeling of a food
a separate radiation disclosure
statement that is more prominent than
the declaration of ingredients required
by section 403(i)(2).
(b) In this section, the term ‘‘radiation
disclosure statement’’ means a written
statement that discloses that a food has
been intentionally subject to radiation.’’
Although section 403C of the act
addressed only the prominence of the
radiation disclosure statements, the
language in the FDAMA Joint Statement
(H. Rep. 105–399, 105th Cong., 1st sess.,
at 98–99) stated that FDA should seek
public comment on whether additional
changes should be made to current
regulations relating to the labeling of
foods treated with ionizing radiation.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Specifically, the Joint Statement stated
that ‘‘the public comment process
should be utilized by the Secretary to
provide an opportunity to comment on
whether the regulations should be
amended to revise the prescribed
nomenclature for the labeling of
irradiated foods and on whether such
labeling requirements should expire at a
specified date in the future.’’ The
FDAMA Joint Statement also indicated
that ‘‘The conferees intend for any
required irradiation disclosure to be of
a type and character such that it would
not be perceived to be a warning or give
rise to inappropriate anxiety’’ (Ref. 1).
In response to the conferees’ report,
FDA published an ANPRM in the
Federal Register of February 17, 1999
(64 FR 7834) seeking public comment
on the meaning of the current
irradiation labeling statement and
soliciting suggestions for possible
revisions. The 1999 ANPRM described
the intent of the conference report, cited
several documents related to irradiation
labeling, and asked for comment on how
the current label is perceived by
consumers. The 1999 ANPRM also
described whether other labeling would
more accurately convey that the food
was irradiated without implying a
warning or causing inappropriate
consumer anxiety.
FDA received over 5,550 comments in
response to the 1999 ANPRM on the
meaning of the current irradiation
labeling statement and suggestions for
possible revisions. The majority of
comments urged FDA to retain the
current labeling for irradiated foods.
Some comments suggested alternate
wording, such as ‘‘cold pasteurization,’’
or ‘‘electronic pasteurization,’’ while
other comments contended that these
terms serve only to obscure information
and confuse consumers. A few
comments stated that additional
labeling, such as ‘‘irradiated to kill
harmful bacteria,’’ was helpful.
C. Consumer Research
To better assist FDA in formulating
specific revisions that would
accomplish the objectives outlined in
the FDAMA Joint Statement and also
satisfy the requirements of the act, the
agency, in addition to publishing the
ANPRM, conducted focus group
research in Maryland, Minnesota, and
California, during June and July 2001.
The primary focus of the research was
to ascertain from focus group
participants how they viewed the
current irradiation disclosure statement.
We were particularly interested in
whether the focus group participants
perceived the current irradiation
disclosure statement as a warning. The
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
focus group data indicated that the
majority of participants were uncertain
about the safety, effectiveness, and
appropriateness of irradiated food
products and greatly desired more
information. Most of the participants
viewed alternate terms, such as ‘‘cold
pasteurization’’ and ‘‘electronic
pasteurization,’’ as misleading, because
such terms appeared to conceal rather
than to disclose information.
Participants did not see the current
disclosure labeling as a warning, per se,
because knowledgeable participants
considered irradiation to be a positive
safety attribute. Less knowledgeable
participants, such as those who
associated irradiation with things such
as x-ray or radiation, wanted more
information about the appropriateness
of food irradiation. All participants
agreed that irradiated foods should be
labeled ‘‘honestly.’’
D. Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (FSRIA) (Public Law 107–
171)
On May 13, 2002, the President
signed into law the FSRIA. The law
included two provisions that relate to
irradiation labeling. One of these
provisions, section 10808, as discussed
in the following paragraph, includes
new criteria for use of the term
‘‘pasteurization’’ in labeling. The other
provision, section 10809, directed FDA
to publish for public comment proposed
changes to the current regulations
relating to the labeling of foods that
have been treated by irradiation using
radioactive isotope, electronic beam, or
x-ray to reduce pest infestation or
pathogens. The provision further stated
that ‘‘[p]ending promulgation of the
final rule * * * any person may
petition the Secretary [FDA] for
approval of labeling, which is not false
or misleading in any material respect, of
a food which has been treated by
irradiation using radioactive isotope,
electronic beam, or x-ray.’’ Section
10809 also requires that, pending
issuance of the final rule, ‘‘* * * [t]he
Secretary [FDA] shall approve or deny
such a petition within 180 days of
receipt of the petition, or the petition
shall be deemed denied, except to the
extent additional agency review is
mutually agreed upon by the Secretary
[FDA] and the petitioner.’’
Section 10808 of the FSRIA, which
includes new criteria for use of the term
‘‘pasteurized’’ in labeling, revised
section 403(h) of the act to provide that
a food may purport to be or be
represented as pasteurized if the food
has been subjected to a safe process or
treatment that is prescribed as
pasteurization for such food in a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
regulation issued under the act or the
food has been subjected to a safe process
or treatment that meet certain criteria.
The criteria prescribed in section 10808
of the FSRIA are that the food has been
subjected to a safe process that: (1) Is
reasonably certain to achieve
destruction or elimination in the food of
the most resistant micro-organisms of
public health significance that are likely
to occur in the food, (2) is at least as
protective of the public health as a
process or treatment prescribed by
regulation as pasteurization, (3) is
effective for a period that is at least as
long as the shelf life of the food when
stored under normal and moderate
abuse conditions, and (4) is the subject
of a notification to the Secretary (FDA)
that includes effectiveness data
regarding the process or treatment and
at least 120 days have passed after
receipt of such notification without the
Secretary making a determination that
the process or treatment involved has
not been shown to meet the
requirements.
As part of FDA’s implementation of
section 10809 of the FSRIA, FDA issued
a guidance document entitled
‘‘Guidance; Implementation of Section
10809 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002, Public Law No.
107–171, section 10809 (2002)
Regarding the Petition Process to
Request Approval of Labeling for Foods
That Have Been Treated by Irradiation’’
(the 2002 Guidance). The 2002
Guidance was issued in accordance
with FDA’s Good Guidance Practices
regulation in 21 CFR 10.115. The 2002
Guidance also advised how interested
parties may petition the agency for the
approval of labeling that may be used on
irradiated food as an alternative to the
currently required irradiation disclosure
statement. FDA noted that this was an
interim process and that it could be
used until FDA published any final
regulation on this issue. FDA published
a notice in the Federal Register
announcing the availability of the 2002
Guidance document on October 7, 2002
(67 FR 62487). To date, FDA has not
received any petitions requesting the
use of alternative labeling for irradiated
foods.
II. The Proposal
A. Legal Authority/Statutory Directive
FDA’s authority to require labeling of
all foods1, including irradiated foods,
derives from sections 201(n) and
403(a)(1) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321(n) and
343(a)(1)). In addition, section 701(a) of
1 Food refers to conventional foods as well as
dietary supplements.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16293
the act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) authorizes
FDA to issue regulations for the efficient
enforcement of the act. Under section
403(a)(1) of the act, a food is
misbranded if ‘‘its labeling is false or
misleading in any particular.’’ Section
201(n) of the act mandates that, in
determining whether labeling is
misleading, FDA take into account,
among other things, whether the
labeling fails to reveal facts that are
material in the light of representations
made or suggested or with respect to
consequences that may result from the
use of the product to which the labeling
relates under the conditions of use
prescribed in the labeling or under such
conditions of use as are customary or
usual.
Historically, the agency has generally
interpreted the scope of the materiality
concept to mean information about the
characteristics of the food. FDA has
required special labeling on the basis of
it being ‘‘material’’ information in cases
where the absence of such information
leads the consumer to assume that a
food, because of its similarity to another
food, has nutritional2, organoleptic (e.g.,
taste, smell, or texture), or functional
(e.g., storage)3 properties of the food it
resembles when in fact it does not. For
example, the labeling of margarine that
has been processed in a way that results
in it no longer being suitable for frying
must disclose this difference from
regular margarine.
Irradiation has various effects on
foods that may cause changes in the
characteristics of the food. Such changes
may occur in the food’s organoleptic,
nutritional, or functional properties that
would not be noticeable at the point of
purchase but could be apparent when
consumed or cooked. If these changes
are not within the range of
characteristics ordinarily found in such
foods, they would be considered
‘‘material’’ under this proposal. In the
absence of appropriate labeling
disclosing these changes in the
characteristics of the food, consumers
would not have all of the necessary
information needed to make a purchase
decision or properly use the food. Thus,
in the absence of information about
these changes in the characteristics of
the food, the labeling would be
misleading under 201(n) of the act and
the food would be misbranded. These
2 Currently, we are not aware of any changes to
the nutritional properties of any food FDA has
approved for irradiation.
3 The statutory phrase ‘‘the consequences that
may result from the use of the food’’ (section 201(n)
of the act) generally can also be described as
changes in a food’s functional properties. For
brevity and clarity, we use the latter terminology in
this document.
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
16294
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
changes are typically process specific
and will vary with the food and the
irradiation conditions. In addition, these
changes and the degree of the changes
may be measurable and of consequence
to consumers. Thus, a blanket statement
on when labeling would be required due
to irradiation causing material changes
cannot be made in advance for all
products. Rather, the need for labeling
must be determined on a case-by-case
basis by appropriate testing of the food
irradiated under specific conditions,
e.g., time and dosage, because the effect
of irradiation on the properties of
concern depends on the particular food.
Under the proposal, the fact that a
food has been irradiated would not by
itself require disclosure on the label.
FDA is proposing to require that only
those irradiated foods in which
irradiation causes a material change in
a food’s characteristics (e.g.,
organoleptic, nutritional, or functional
properties) under the conditions of use
prescribed in the label and labeling or
under customary or usual conditions of
use bear the radura logo. Those
irradiated foods must also bear the term
‘‘irradiated’’ or any derivative thereof
(e.g., ‘‘irradiate,’’ ‘‘irradiation,’’
‘‘radiation,’’ etc.) in conjunction with
language describing the material change.
Additionally, FDA will not object to the
use of additional terms to indicate that
a food has been subjected to the process
of irradiation, e.g., ‘‘treated with
radiation,’’ ‘‘treated by irradiation,’’ or
‘‘processed with radiation.’’ However, in
the absence of a material change, under
the proposal, the fact that the food has
been irradiated is not considered a
material fact and, therefore, no logo or
label statement would be needed. For
such foods, FDA would not object to
manufacturers voluntarily labeling their
products to indicate that the food is
irradiated. FDA is also proposing to
allow the use of alternate terms to
‘‘irradiated’’ or any of its derivatives if
use of the term has been approved by
FDA in response to a citizen petition
submitted in accordance with § 10.30
(21 CFR 10.30).
As discussed in more detail in section
I of this document, the FSRIA amended
section 403(h) of the act to include new
criteria for the use of the term
‘‘pasteurized’’ in labeling. This section
gives FDA authority to determine for
labeling purposes whether alternate
processes, e.g., irradiation, are
equivalent to pasteurization in
destroying pathogens. Therefore, FDA is
also proposing to require that anyone
seeking to label a food as ‘‘pasteurized’’
under this provision in lieu of referring
to irradiation must notify FDA and
provide supportive data. Provided the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
agency has not objected to the
notification within 120 days after
receipt of the notification, the notifier
would be able to label a food as
‘‘pasteurized’’ in lieu of ‘‘irradiated.’’
Under section 409 of the act, no food
may be irradiated without approval by
FDA. Currently, FDA has approved
irradiation for a number of foods,
including spices, shell eggs and fruits
and vegetables, although only a small
fraction of these foods are actually
irradiated. According to a report by the
U.S. General Accounting Office4 (2000),
only 0.005 percent of fruits and
vegetables consumed in the United
States (about 1.5 million pounds), and
9.5 percent of all spices consumed in
the United States (about 95 million
pounds of spices and dry or dehydrated
aromatic vegetable substances) are
irradiated annually. See the following
Web site for a listing of all foods that
have been approved for irradiation:
https://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/
2422/10apr20061500/
edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/aprqtr/
21cfr179.26.htm.
B. Proposed Amendment
As previously discussed in section
II.A of this document, irradiation has
various effects on foods that may change
a food’s characteristics. For example, as
with other forms of processing, the
effects of irradiation that kill or weaken
insects and microorganisms may also
cause some changes in the food itself.
Many of these changes are of little
significance, as the composition of the
food will remain within normal
variations of unirradiated foods.
However, other changes to organoleptic,
nutritional, and functional properties
may occur. Changes to shelf life are
likely to be among the most common of
these changes. Bananas and spices are
illustrative of irradiated foods that may
have an extended shelf life and are
discussed in the following paragraph.
Bananas may be irradiated to delay
ripening and extend shelf life. This is an
example of a material change.
Consumers have a general idea of the
shelf life and ripening time of
unirradiated bananas based upon their
appearance and make purchase
decisions based at least in part on the
bananas’ appearance (i.e., ripeness) and
intended use. If irradiated bananas were
not labeled to indicate the material
change, e.g., delayed ripening,
consumers would purchase the bananas
expecting the faster ripening schedule of
unirradiated bananas. A consumer who
wanted to make a food that required
very ripe bananas (e.g., banana bread)
4 Now
PO 00000
the Government Accountability Office.
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would not know, without labeling, that
the irradiated bananas would not be ripe
enough to make the banana bread when
he wanted to do so. Thus, if the
irradiated bananas are not labeled, the
consumer might purchase the bananas
and then discover later that they are
unsuitable for the consumer’s planned
use.
In contrast, there are instances where
treatment with irradiation may extend a
food’s shelf life without changing any of
its functional characteristics in a way
that may require using the food
differently than its unirradiated
counterpart. For example, while spices
that are irradiated to control microbial
growth will likely have their shelf life
extended, FDA tentatively believes that
the extension in shelf life in this case
does not have the potential to be
detrimental to the consumer (e.g., to
prevent the consumer’s planned use of
the food) because the irradiated spice
can be used identically to an
unirradiated spice. That is, in addition
to possibly benefiting from the extended
shelf life, a consumer buying the
irradiated spice can use the irradiated
spice the same as he would the
unirradiated spice. Unlike the consumer
of irradiated bananas described above,
the spice consumer does not need
additional information to prevent the
potential for a detrimental consequence
from using the irradiated food the same
as its unirradiated counterpart. Thus,
FDA tentatively believes that the
extension of a spice’s shelf life due to
irradiation would not be material
information that consumers need to
know; therefore the producer would not
be required to declare this information
on the spice label. We request comment
on the utility, for purposes of labeling,
of distinguishing between those changes
to a food’s functional properties from
irradiation that may make a food
unsuitable for a particular use (e.g.,
delayed ripening) and those changes
that still allow for the food to be used
identically to one that is not irradiated
(e.g., extension of shelf life alone).
One of the goals of food science
research on irradiation is to determine
irradiation conditions that would
minimize those unexpected effects that
would be material to consumers. In a
review article on the effects of
irradiation on fresh-cut fruits and
vegetables, Prakash and Foley (Ref. 1a)
cite research illustrating how effects can
vary depending on the food, irradiation
conditions, and mitigating steps that can
be taken. They report that in some cases
low doses can cause significant loss in
firmness; however, in other fruits and
vegetables no such loss is observed,
even at a higher dose. For example,
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
firmness of diced Roma tomatoes
irradiated at 0.5 kilogray (kGy)
decreased by 30 percent and firmness of
cut romaine lettuce irradiated at 0.35
kGy decreased by 10 percent. However,
no change in firmness was observed in
shredded carrots or fresh-cut iceberg
lettuce following irradiation at 1 and 2
kGy, or in celery irradiated at 1 kGy. In
diced bell peppers, irradiation at 3.7
kGy reduced bell peppers’ flavor and
produced some off-flavors, while no
effect on flavor or aroma was perceived
in a control group of bell peppers that
were not irradiated and in peppers
irradiated at 1.32 kGy. Additionally,
after storage for 9 days, off aroma was
significantly higher in the control
sample of bell peppers than in the two
groups of irradiated peppers, coinciding
with a slimy appearance attributed to
microbial spoilage. Prakash and Foley
also report that combining irradiation
with other technologies, such as
calcium treatment, warm water dips,
and modified atmosphere packaging
further mitigated measurable adverse
effects on quality. Similarly, Kader (Ref.
1b) reported that fruits and vegetables
such as papaya, strawberry, tomatoes,
and dates have a high tolerance to
irradiation at doses (below 1 kGy) used
for insect control, while cucumber,
green bean, grape, and lemon have a low
tolerance at this same kilogray. Thus,
whether effects occur that would change
the food in a significant way will
depend on the particular food that is
irradiated and the dosage of irradiation
used. In its decision approving the use
of radiation on shell eggs, FDA cited to
data in the petition showing an
increased color loss in the irradiated egg
yolk and a change in the egg’s viscosity
as the radiation dose was increased (65
FR 45280 at 45281; July 21, 2000). Such
a change in the viscosity or other
characteristics of the egg would affect its
functionality, e.g., its cooking or binding
properties. This change could be
significant enough that consumers
should be informed of the irradiation
and its effect on the food.
In sum, irradiation of food can cause
effects in food that are material in light
of representations made or on
consequences of use. However, whether
such effects are sufficient to meet the
standard of section 201(n) of the act will
vary based on several factors and cannot
be determined without considering the
particular food and irradiation
processing applied. If the change in the
irradiated food is within the range of
characteristics ordinarily found in such
foods, then the fact that the food is
irradiated and the resulting change
would not be material information and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
would not be required to be declared on
the label.
The use of irradiation is strictly
voluntary and generally approved up to
a maximum dose. We believe that
manufacturers may adjust the dosage to
get the most effective dose, while
minimizing unexpected effects in the
irradiated food. These food
manufacturers or producers may choose
to irradiate their food only if the
irradiation does not alter in a significant
way characteristics of the food that are
material to the consumer. Thus, it is
possible that many uses of irradiation
will not result in a material change
within the framework set out in this
rule. FDA is interested in receiving
information about the types of premarket investigations, e.g., taste test
panels or functional studies, done by
food manufacturers to evaluate whether
to irradiate and at what dose to irradiate
in such a way that a material change
does not result.
Food is most commonly irradiated to
control food-borne pathogens. FDA is
not aware of data indicating that control
of food-borne pathogens as a result of
food irradiation would, by itself, result
in a change in the food’s characteristics
that would not be apparent at the point
of purchase of the food and, thus, would
have to be disclosed in the labeling of
the food to prevent the labeling from
being misleading. Consumers expect
food to be safe and of a certain quality,
and therefore, FDA tentatively
concludes that control of food-borne
pathogens alone is not an unexpected
change in the food. Thus, in instances
where a food has been irradiated to
enhance or maintain the safety of a food
by controlling food-borne pathogens
that may be present, and no other
changes to the food have resulted, FDA
tentatively concludes that information
that the food has been irradiated is not
necessary to prevent the labeling from
being misleading. FDA is interested in
receiving any information on whether
the control of food-borne pathogens
changes the characteristics of the food
in an unexpected way, i.e., outside of
the normal variation of the food, and
would therefore require additional
labeling to inform the consumer of such
change. FDA also solicits comments on
any specific changes that might be
caused by irradiation that might
constitute non-material changes.
On the other hand, there may be
situations in which irradiation to
control food-borne pathogens has had
other effects on foods, such as changes
to organoleptic, nutritional, or
functional properties which would not
be readily apparent to the consumer. In
such situations, information that there
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16295
are changes in the characteristics of the
food as a consequence of irradiation is
the material information that is required
in labeling in keeping with the act, to
prevent the labeling from being
misleading. Further, with regard
specifically to shelf life, FDA recognizes
that irradiation to control the growth of
food-borne pathogens may have the
unintended effect of extending shelf life.
We specifically request comment on the
effect of irradiation on shelf life and the
extent of any relationship between
control of food-borne pathogens and
extension of shelf life.
In the past, FDA policies on
irradiation labeling have focused on the
fact that the food has been processed. In
the preamble to the 1986 final rule, we
stated that ‘‘* * * irradiation may not
change the food visually so that in the
absence of a statement that a food has
been irradiated, the implied
representation to consumers is that the
food has not been processed’’ (51 FR
13376 at 13388). FDA concluded that, to
prevent deception, the fact that the
irradiated food is processed is material
information that is required to be
disclosed on the label. Thus, FDA
required in § 179.26(c) (21 CFR
179.26(c)) that, in addition to the radura
logo, the label and labeling of irradiated
foods bear the statement ‘‘Treated with
radiation’’ or ‘‘Treated by irradiation.’’
In recent years, FDA policies on the
labeling of foods have focused on the
results of the processing of the food
rather than the processing itself. As
discussed earlier, although foods that
have been irradiated have been
processed, the irradiation does not
always result in a material change in the
food or in the consequences of use.
Further, FDA consumer research
indicates that information provided to
consumers on the labels of foods is more
meaningful if it describes the purpose of
the irradiation (Ref. 2). FDA recognizes
that labeling to inform the consumer
that the product has been irradiated
does not, in itself, inform the consumer
if or how the product is materially
changed. Thus, FDA tentatively believes
that when the irradiation causes a
material change in the characteristics of
the food, the consumer needs to know
about this change, and not just the fact
that the food has been irradiated. FDA
believes that this information should be
provided in a disclosure statement on
the label of the irradiated food. The
disclosure statement would describe the
material change in the properties of the
food and give consumers additional
information that would enable them to
make better informed decisions about
whether to purchase an irradiated food.
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
16296
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Therefore, FDA is proposing to amend
§ 179.26(c)(1) and (c)(2) to require that
only those foods that have been treated
with radiation, and in which the
irradiation caused a material change in
the characteristics of the food must bear
the radura logo and the term
‘‘irradiated,’’ or other derivatives as
discussed previously in section II.A in
conjunction with explicit language
describing the change in the food or its
conditions of use (e.g., ‘‘irradiated to
inhibit sprouting’’). In addition, as
noted in the 1986 final rule (51 FR
13376 at 13391), FDA believes that the
logo is still a necessary part of the label
statement because it derives from the
symbol that has been used
internationally to convey the fact that
the food has been irradiated. FDA
tentatively concludes that this approach
is appropriate because it would require
that consumers be provided with more
precise information about the material
change in the characteristics of the food
than what is currently required. As
noted previously, such material changes
may affect how products are stored and
subsequently used by consumers, as
well as whether or not the products are
purchased in the first place. However,
FDA requests comments on whether the
term that describes the process, e.g.,
‘‘irradiated’’ or an alternate term such as
‘‘pasteurized,’’ is a necessary part of the
label statement to ensure that
consumers completely understand the
statement.
As previously discussed in section I.D
of this document, section 10809 of the
FSRIA provides that anyone requesting
approval of alternative labeling for a
food that has been treated by irradiation,
may petition FDA. As discussed in the
2002 Guidance, FDA believes that it is
appropriate to use the citizen petition
process provided in § 10.30. This
regulation requires the petitioner to
submit to the agency all relevant
information regarding the petition. This
relevant information includes both the
information and views upon which the
petitioner relies and the information
known to the petitioner that is
unfavorable to the petitioner’s position.
Thus for these purposes, relevant
information would include any data
known or relied upon by the petitioner
(e.g., qualitative or quantitative
consumer research), that show
consumer understanding of the purpose
and intent of the proposed alternative
labeling. FDA believes that such
information might include, but is not
limited to, the following information: (1)
Data on consumers’ prior assumptions
about, and perceptions of, the product
characteristics in light of the proposed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
labeling statements and (2) data on
consumer acceptance and
comprehension of the proposed labeling
statements in comparison to consumer
acceptance and comprehension of the
irradiation statement required by the
current regulation (§ 179.26(c)(1)). Also,
as noted in section I.D of this document,
section 10808 of the FSRIA revised
section 403(h) of the act to permit the
use of the term ‘‘pasteurized’’ on labels
of foods that have been subjected to a
safe process as long as the process meets
certain criteria.
Therefore, we are proposing in
§ 179.26(c)(1) to permit the use of
alternate terms to ‘‘irradiated’’ or any of
its derivatives, on the labels and
labeling of irradiated foods. We are
proposing in § 179.26(c)(2) that the
alternate term may be used on the labels
and labeling of foods that have been
treated by irradiation, that is, if use of
the term has been approved by FDA in
response to a citizen petition submitted
in accordance with § 10.30. In the case
that the alternative term is
‘‘pasteurized,’’ the irradiation process
must meet the criteria of section
403(h)(3) of the act. Anyone seeking to
label a food as ‘‘pasteurized’’ under this
provision must notify FDA and provide
effectiveness data regarding the process
or treatment used. The agency intends
to issue guidance to interested parties
who wish to notify the agency to use the
term ‘‘pasteurized’’ in accordance with
section 403(h)(3) of the act.
FDA and the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS), U.S.
Department of Agriculture, entered into
a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) establishing procedures to
jointly respond to petitions to use food
ingredients and sources of irradiation in
the production of meat and poultry
products (see 64 FR 72168, December
23, 1999, at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/
OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/88-026F.pdf; for
the MOU, see https://www.fsis.usda.gov/
Regulations_&_Policies/
Labeling_FDA_MOU/index.asp). FSIS
has separately issued regulations at 9
CFR 424.22(c) regarding the irradiation
of meat and poultry products (see 64 FR
72150, December 23, 1999, at https://
www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/
FRPubs/97-076F.pdf).
III. Analysis of Economic Impacts
A. Introduction
FDA has examined the economic
implications of this proposed rule as
required by Executive Order 12866, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601–612), and the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to assess all costs and benefits 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, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 12866 classifies a rule
as significant if it meets any one of a
number of specified conditions,
including: having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affecting in a material way a
sector of the economy, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health, or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities. A
regulation also is considered a
significant regulatory action if it raises
novel legal or policy issues. We have
determined that this rule is a significant
regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866 because it raises
novel policy issues.
B. Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis
1. The Need for the Proposed Irradiation
Labeling Rule
Executive Order 12866 states,
‘‘Federal agencies should promulgate
only such regulations as are required by
law, are necessary to interpret the law,
or are made necessary by compelling
need, such as failures of private markets
to protect or improve the health and
safety of the public, the environment, or
the well being of the American people.’’
As previously discussed in section I.D
of this document, on May 13, 2002, the
President signed into law the FSRIA,
which contains a provision relating to
irradiation labeling. Section 10809
directs FDA to publish a proposed rule
and, with due consideration to public
comment, a final rule to revise the
current regulation governing the
labeling of foods that have been treated
by irradiation. This rule is proposed not
to address any market failure, but to
respond to section 10809 of FSRIA and
because we tentatively believe that it
may no longer be necessary to require
that all irradiated food be labeled as
such.
2. Regulatory Options
We analyzed five options for the
proposed irradiation regulation:
• No new regulatory action (current
state of the world, baseline).
• Remove labeling requirements for
irradiated foods.
• Maintain the current labeling
requirement (that is, all food that is
irradiated must be labeled), but also
require statements of purpose (e.g.,
‘‘Irradiated to extend shelf life’’).
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
• Maintain the current labeling
requirement, but also allow alternate
terms to irradiation (e.g., ‘‘pasteurized’’).
• The proposed regulation—Only
those foods treated with irradiation and
for which the irradiation caused a
material change in the food must bear
the radura logo and the term
‘‘irradiated’’ or an alternate term such as
‘‘pasteurized’’ in conjunction with
explicit language describing the change
in the food or its conditions of use (e.g.,
‘‘irradiated to inhibit sprouting’’). A
food undergoes a material change if
irradiation changes the properties of the
food in a way that is not readily
apparent to the consumer at the point of
purchase. Therefore, in the absence of a
material change, the fact that the food
was irradiated is not considered a
material fact and, therefore, no radura
logo or label statement would be
needed.
Option 1: No New Regulatory Action
(baseline).
Taking no new regulatory action on
irradiation labeling is option 1 in our
analysis. The FSRIA requires FDA to
publish a proposed rule and, with due
consideration to public comment, a final
rule to revise the current irradiation
labeling regulation. So this is not a
viable option. We include it here
because the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) cost-benefit analysis
guidelines recommend discussing
statutory requirements that affect the
selection of regulatory approaches.
These guidelines also recommend
analyzing the opportunity cost of legal
constraints that prevent the selection of
the regulatory action that best satisfies
the philosophy and principles of
Executive Order 12866. This option will
serve as the baseline against which
other options will be measured for
assessing costs and benefits, and we
assume the baseline has zero costs and
benefits.
The current regulation (§ 179.26)
states that irradiated food must bear the
radura logo and the phrase ‘‘Treated
with radiation’’ or ‘‘Treated by
irradiation’’ and does not explicitly
address the inclusion of additional
information that directs attention to
shelf life or food safety. Currently, FDA
has approved iradiation for a number of
foods including spices, shell eggs, and
fruits and vegetables; however, only
limited amounts of irradiated foods are
sold in the United States. According to
a report by the General Accounting
Office5 (2000), it is estimated that 97
million pounds of food products are
irradiated annually (including ‘‘meat
food products’’ under the Federal Meat
5 Now
the Government Accountability Office.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Inspection Act and ‘‘poultry’’ under the
Poultry Products Inspection Act6, which
are regulated by the United States
Department of Agriculture), which is
only a small fraction of the total amount
of food consumed. For example, about
1.5 million pounds of fruits and
vegetables are irradiated annually. This
represents only 0.005 percent of the
total amount of fruits and vegetables
consumed. About 95 million pounds of
spices and dry or dehydrated aromatic
vegetable substances are irradiated
annually, which represents 9.5 percent
of all spices consumed. Because spices,
shell eggs, fruits and vegetables account
for virtually all the food irradiation
done in the United States, we use only
data about those foods in our economic
analysis.
Option 2: Propose to remove labeling
requirements for irradiated foods
This option also may not be viable
because it could violate section 403(a) of
the act, which provides that the labeling
of all foods, including irradiated foods,
must be truthful and not misleading. In
addition, section 201(n) of the act
mandates that, in determining whether
particular labeling is misleading, FDA
consider whether the labeling fails to
reveal material facts in light of
representations made, or with respect
to, the consequences that may result
from the use of the product. Having no
labeling requirements might violate
these provisions. If this option were
chosen, costs and benefits would be
generated if many firms ceased labeling
their irradiated products.
Costs: Since this option would not
require labeling, search costs would
increase for purchasers who do not want
irradiated food. There will be an
increase in search costs because these
consumers would need to increase
efforts to find information about
irradiated foods other than on the labels
or in the labeling, or obtain knowledge
of producers who irradiate their food
products. If firms decide to drop
labeling, they would incur relabeling
and label inventory costs but they
would choose the least costly labeling
option.
Benefits: This option could be
beneficial to those firms currently
labeling irradiated food by allowing
them to reclaim label space on the label
for private purposes, such as marketing
messages or label art. Without a labeling
requirement, it is possible that
irradiation would become more
attractive to firms because of this
6 It is our understanding that as of 2000 only a
very small proportion of poultry (0.002 percent of
annual consumption) and no meats were irradiated
and available commercially (Ref. 10).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16297
benefit. Any increases in the numbers of
irradiated foods could, in turn, result in
increased food safety or shelf life.
Option 3: Maintain the current
labeling requirement (i.e., require that
all irradiated food be labeled ‘‘Treated
with radiation’’ or ‘‘Treated by
irradiation,’’ along with the radura
logo), but propose to also require
statements of purpose (e.g., ‘‘Treated
with irradiation to inhibit sprouting,’’
etc.).
The current regulation (§ 179.26(c))
states that irradiated food must bear the
radura logo and the phrase ‘‘Treated
with radiation’’ or ‘‘Treated by
irradiation.’’ The current regulation
does not explicitly address the inclusion
of additional information that directs
attention to, for example, shelf life or
food safety. This option would amend
the current regulation to include
explicit requirements on inclusion of
additional information on irradiation
benefits. While it is possible that some
firms that irradiate food currently
include statements of purpose, this
option would formally require this
inclusion.
Costs: This option would generate
costs because firms would be required
to relabel their products in order to
include statements of purpose. Tables 1
and 2 of this document outline
estimated labeling costs for sectors of
the food industry that may require
relabeling. The food categories included
in the table are currently approved for
irradiation by FDA.
Table 1 outlines low, medium, and
high cost estimates based on a change in
the principal display panel. Table 2
outlines low, medium, and high cost
estimates based on a change in the
information panel or assuming that the
irradiation statement is similar in cost to
a nutrient content claim or health claim.
It is not certain which table most likely
represents costs to firms because it is
not certain what conditions would make
the costs in table 1 more likely or what
conditions would make table 2 more
likely. Both tables show estimated costs
under compliance periods of 12, 24, and
36 months. In both tables 1 and 2,
compliance costs decrease as the length
of compliance period increases for all
product categories because firms can
coordinate new changes in labels with
already-scheduled changes in labels. In
addition, the compliance period affects
whether or not firms would incur
additional labor costs, such as overtime,
and the volume of labeling inventory
that would have to be discarded as a
result of a new rule.
Cost estimates are shown in two
proportions for each compliance period:
If 1 percent of the industry irradiates
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
16298
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
and if 5 percent of the industry
irradiates. As can be seen in the tables,
industry costs decrease as the number of
firms irradiating food decreases. Data on
the actual number of firms that irradiate
food or will want to irradiate food in the
future are not currently available. The
agency requests comments on the
number of firms or products that would
be affected by a new irradiation labeling
rule.
The cost model used in this analysis
does not include costs for labeling fresh
produce without packaging because
fresh fruits and vegetables do not have
Universal Product Codes that can be
scanned. Nonetheless, it is still
necessary to estimate costs associated
with labeling fresh fruits and vegetables
that have been irradiated.
One way of labeling fresh fruits and
vegetables is by placing stickers on the
produce. While it is not known how
many fruit and vegetable manufacturers
irradiate or will want to irradiate as a
result of this rule, according to the 2002
Census of Manufacturers (Ref. 8), there
are 5,836 firms that process fresh fruits
and vegetables. As with costs estimates
for the other food categories, it is
assumed that 1 percent of these firms,
or 58, may want to irradiate, or 5
percent of these firms, or 292, may want
to irradiate. Our 1 percent and 5 percent
assumptions are based on the generally
observed very low rate of adoption of
irradiation technology in food
processing to date. We do not have
specific data to estimate the number of
firms that will irradiate if this rule is
finalized, and we request comment on
this assumption.
For firms, there are administrative
costs involving the establishment of
what the sticker will look like, as well
as the costs of finding the printer to
produce these stickers. Based on
previous estimates of similar costs in
the final rule on the Labeling of Juice
Products (63 FR 24254; May 1, 1998),
the agency estimates these
administrative costs to be $100 per firm.
In addition, printers levy one time
charges for set-up in addition to the
basic per unit cost of labels. The agency
estimates these costs to be $250 per
firm. Table 3A summarizes
administrative costs associated with
using stickers if 1 percent of the
industry irradiates and if 5 percent of
the industry irradiates.
In addition to administrative costs,
there are labor costs associated with
affixing stickers to the fruits and
vegetables. The agency estimates the
labor cost of applying the labels by
multiplying the average agricultural
hourly wage ($10.75) (Ref. 8a) by the
approximate number of hours needed to
label the irradiated fruits and
vegetables. Assuming it takes one
worker 1 hour to label 240 pounds of
fruits or vegetables (4 pounds per
minute multiplied by 60 minutes) it
would take approximately 6,250 hours
to label 1.5 million pounds of fruits and
vegetables, the approximate amount of
fruits and vegetables irradiated annually
in this country. The total labor costs
associated with labels would then be
$67,188. Table 3B summarizes total
labor costs if one worker can label 240
pounds per hour, 360 pounds per hour
or 480 pounds per hour. The agency
requests comments on costs associated
with labeling fresh fruits and vegetables
that have been irradiated.
Benefits: A statement regarding the
purpose of irradiation would serve to
provide more information to consumers
than what is currently on the label. To
the extent that the addition of the
statement of purpose causes people to
purchase irradiated products they may
have previously avoided, and to the
extent that these products have longer
shelf life or lower risk of illness, then
consumers will benefit. Consumers may
look more favorably on irradiated food
once they understand the purpose,
which in turn, could result in more
irradiated food in the market due to the
increase in demand. Information may
also be a benefit in itself even if
purchases do not increase. Research
indicates that providing a statement of
purpose results in a more positive
attitude by consumers toward the
purchase of irradiated food (Ref. 3).
Furthermore, research indicates that
providing information about the benefits
of irradiation may increase willingness
of consumers to pay for irradiated food
(Ref. 4).
TABLE 1.—COST ESTIMATES: IRRADIATION RELABELING, PRINCIPAL DISPLAY PANEL
Food Category
Compliance
Period
Spices/Seasonings
Percentage of
Firms Affected by
Rule
12 months
36 months
12 months
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
24 months
36 months
12 months
24 months
36 months
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
$406,553
$2,032,033
$195,967
$981,269
$27,799
$138,995
$581,000
$2,905,689
$279,944
$1,400,095
$39,650
$198,248
$966,000
$4,831,841
$468,000
$2,335,798
$66,269
$331,343
$236,341
$1,181,032
$144,063
$718,210
$61,852
$309,262
$314,692
$1,570,997
$191,041
$955,915
$82,324
$411,618
$568,084
$2,844,160
$345,471
$1,728,457
$149,000
$744,275
$164,604
$822,781
$92,292
$461,461
$32,092
$160,459
$218,663
$1,094,153
$122,838
$614,191
$42,713
$213,566
$394,000
$1,969,567
$222,307
$1,110,562
$77,233
$386,163
1%
5%
1%
5%
1%
24 months
VerDate Aug<31>2005
High
1%
5%
1%
5%
1%
5%
12 months
Totals
Medium
1%
5%
1%
5%
1%
5%
36 months
Dried Vegetables
Low
1%
5%
1%
5%
1%
5%
24 months
Shell Eggs
Cost Estimates
$807,498
$4,035,846
$432,322
$2,160,940
$121,743
$1,114,355
$5,570,839
$593,823
$2,970,201
$164,687
$1,928,084
$9,645,568
$1,035,778
$5,174,817
$292,502
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
16299
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—COST ESTIMATES: IRRADIATION RELABELING, PRINCIPAL DISPLAY PANEL—Continued
Food Category
Percentage of
Firms Affected by
Rule
Compliance
Period
Cost Estimates
Low
5%
Medium
$608,716
$823,432
High
$1,461,781
Note: Cost estimates include administrative, graphic design, prepress, engraving, analytical testing, market testing, and discarded inventory.
Source: RTI International, ‘‘FDA Labeling Cost Model’’ RTI Project 06673.010, March 2003.
TABLE 2.—COST ESTIMATES: IRRADIATION RELABELING, INFORMATION PANEL
Food Category
Percentage of
Firms Affected by
Rule
Compliance
Period
Spices/Seasonings
12 months
High
36 months
12 months
24 months
36 months
12 months
24 months
36 months
$285,335
$1,426,545
$134,964
$674,821
$19,042
$95,208
$447,000
$2,233,436
$213,209
$1,065,921
$30,121
$150,605
$107,773
$538,863
$65,539
$327,694
$28,221
$141,105
$151,940
$759,434
$92,365
$461,827
$39,773
$198,863
$254,488
$1,273,169
$154,472
$774,240
$66,678
$333,388
$76,347
$381,735
$42,110
$210,549
$14,642
$73,212
$107,227
$536,134
$59,346
$296,732
$20,636
$103,179
$178,332
$891,881
$99,492
$497,462
$34,595
$172,977
1%
5%
1%
5%
1%
5%
24 months
$192,245
$959,479
$91,101
$455,504
$12,860
$64,298
1%
5%
1%
5%
1%
5%
12 months
Totals
Medium
1%
5%
1%
5%
1%
5%
36 months
Dried Vegetables
Low
1%
5%
1%
5%
1%
5%
24 months
Shell Eggs
Cost Estimates
$376,365
$1,880,077
$198,750
$993,747
$55,723
$278,615
$544,502
$2,722,113
$286,675
$1,433,380
$79,451
$397,250
$879,820
$4,398,486
$467,173
$2,337,623
$131,394
$656,970
Note: Cost estimates include administrative, graphic design, prepress, engraving, analytical testing, market testing, and discarded inventory.
Source: RTI International, ‘‘FDA Labeling Cost Model’’ RTI Project 06673.010, March 2003.
TABLE 3A.—COST ESTIMATES:
STICKER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Administrative
Costs
Printing
Costs
Total
Administrative
Costs
1%, or 57
$100
$250
$19,950
5%, or
283
$100
$250
$99,050
Number
of Firms
TABLE 3B.—COST ESTIMATES:
STICKER LABOR COSTS
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Pounds
Per Hour
Hourly
Wage
Hours
Needed
Total
Labor
Cost
240
$10.75
6,250
$67,188
360
$10.75
4,167
$44,792
480
$10.75
3,125
$33,594
Option 4: Maintain the current
labeling requirement, but propose to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
also allow alternate terms to
‘‘Irradiation’’ (e.g., ‘‘Pasteurized’’)
The current regulation (§ 179.26(c))
states that irradiated food must bear the
radura logo and the phrase ‘‘Treated
with radiation’’ or ‘‘Treated by
irradiation.’’ Currently, no alternate
terms to irradiation are allowed. This
option would maintain the requirement
that irradiated food must be labeled but
allow the label to contain terms other
than ‘‘irradiated,’’ such as
‘‘pasteurized.’’ But the term
‘‘pasteurized’’ may be used only if the
process meets the definition as provided
in section 403(h)(3) of the act.
Costs: This option generates costs
because some firms would opt to relabel
their products, but it is uncertain how
many firms would do this because this
option would be voluntary. However,
firms would only relabel if they thought
doing so would increase profits. Tables
1 and 2 contain cost estimates for the
main food categories that may be
affected by this option. It is probable
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that firms would select a 24 to 36 month
compliance period to keep costs down
by coordinating the relabeling with
regular labeling changes.
In the short run, there may be
increased consumption of irradiated
food if those consumers who do not
want irradiated food do not equate the
alternative term with irradiation. Also,
confusion could result from the use of
alternative terms with uncertain
meanings, causing some consumers to
increase search costs. Research indicates
that many consumers regard substitute
terms for irradiation to be misleading
(Refs. 2 and 5). In the long run (defined
here as a time period long enough for
consumers to adjust to and understand
the meaning of the alternate terms),
consumers’ distaste for the term
‘‘irradiation’’ would extend to alternate
terms used in labeling, especially if
there is no additional statement of
purpose. Once consumers understand
that the alternate terms all mean
‘‘irradiation,’’ the result would likely be
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
16300
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
a return to the baseline number of
irradiated products and labels.
Benefits: It is possible that, in the
short run, consumers will not
understand that the alternate terms
mean the same as ‘‘irradiation.’’
However, to the extent that the
substitution of terms induces consumers
to buy relabeled food that they may
have previously avoided and to the
extent that these products benefit them
in terms of safety or longer shelf life,
then consumers will benefit from the
substitution of terms. In the short run,
the quantity of irradiated food supplied
may increase in response to increased
demand. As previously mentioned, the
long run outcome may be the same as
the baseline because, over time,
consumers will come to understand that
any alternate terms have the same
meaning as ‘‘irradiation.’’ Once
consumers understand that the alternate
terms have the same meaning as
‘‘irradiation’’ they may want to
discontinue consumption of the food,
resulting in the number of irradiated
foods returning to the same number as
before the change in terms. This is a
result of producers responding to the
change in demand by reducing the
quantity of irradiated food supplied.
Option 5: The Proposed Regulation
Only those foods treated with
irradiation, and in which the irradiation
caused a material change in the food
such that it would change the
characteristics of the food in a way that
is not readily apparent to the consumer
at the point of purchase must bear: (1)
The radura logo and (2) the term
‘‘irradiated’’ or a derivative thereof, or
an alternate term such as ‘‘pasteurized,’’
in conjunction with explicit language
describing the change in the food or its
conditions of use (e.g., ‘‘irradiated to
inhibit sprouting’’). If a firm chooses to
use an alternate term to ‘‘irradiation’’
other than ‘‘pasteurized,’’ it must submit
a petition to the Secretary (FDA). If a
firm wishes to use the term
‘‘pasteurized,’’ it must submit a
notification including effectiveness data
regarding the process or treatment to the
Secretary (FDA).
This option deviates from the current
regulation (§ 179.26(c)) in two major
ways. First, this option would require
irradiation labeling only for food items
treated with irradiation if irradiation
causes a material change in the food or
consequences that may result from use
of the food. Secondly, this option
requires explicit language describing the
material change and allows use of
alternate terms for irradiation, as long as
a petition is approved by the agency or,
in the case where ‘‘pasteurized’’ is used,
a notification is sent to FDA to which
the agency does not object. This option
allows for more labeling flexibility and
it is possible that the radura logo and
label statements on some irradiated
food, as long as the irradiation caused
no material change, could be removed.
The number of products that could be
marketed without irradiation labeling is
uncertain because labeling requirements
cannot be made in advance for all
products. Rather, the need for labeling
must be determined on a case-by-case
basis by appropriate testing of the food
irradiated under specific conditions,
i.e., time and dosage, because the effect
of irradiation on the properties of
concern depends on the particular food.
It is more likely that this option would
simply allow firms more flexibility in
how they label irradiated food.
Costs: This proposed rule generates
costs because it requires firms to relabel
some irradiated products. As with other
options, Tables 1 and 2 contain cost
estimates for relabeling in selected food
categories. Note that cost estimates take
into account all relabeling costs,
including the costs of removing
irradiation label statements. The
requirement of a material change could
reduce the number of products that
would need to be labeled, so some firms
would be able to remove current
irradiation labeling. This rule would
generate additional costs because, in
order for a firm to be able to use an
alternative to the term ‘‘irradiation,’’ a
firm would have to submit a petition to
the agency (as addressed in proposed
§ 179.26(c)(2)(i)). If it is the case that the
desired alternate term is ‘‘pasteurized,’’
then, instead of submitting a petition, a
firm must notify the agency and also
submit effectiveness data on the method
used in its process (as addressed in
proposed § 179.26(c)(2)(ii)). Firms are
not required to use an alternate term. It
is assumed that a firm would choose to
use an alternate term only if doing so
would increase profits.
Based on previous estimates of the
cost to prepare a petition or notification,
FDA is assuming the average cost to
prepare a petition or notification is $84
per hour (Ref. 13). The agency estimates
the total cost of a petition or notification
as the time needed to prepare the
notification or petition multiplied by
$84, the approximate cost associated
with the person for preparing the
notification or petition. In the case
where a firm wants to use the term
‘‘pasteurized,’’ the agency does not
assume this rule generates any
additional cost of gathering
effectiveness data; that is, presumably
the firm will already have data on the
effectiveness of its method, or it would
not undertake the cost of irradiation. As
mentioned earlier, it is not known how
many firms that currently irradiate or
will irradiate in the future will be
required to label a product as irradiated,
and will desire to use an alternative to
the term ‘‘irradiation.’’ Therefore, the
cost estimates are based on an estimate
of the number of firms manufacturing
foods that are currently approved for
irradiation choosing to submit a
notification or petition.
Table 4 of this document contains the
initial cost estimates of preparing a
notification or petition. The number of
firms is based on the 2002 Census of
Manufacturers (Refs. 6, 7, and 8).
According to the Census of
Manufacturers, there are 275 companies
that manufacture spices and extracts,
311 companies that process poultry and
shell eggs (the Census of Manufacturers
groups poultry and shell egg processing
together), and 5,836 firms that process
fresh fruits and vegetables, for a total of
6,422 firms. It is possible that 1 percent
of, or 64 firms in the industry will want
to use an alternate term and it is
possible that 5 percent of, or 321 firms
in the industry will want to use an
alternate term. The average of this range
is 193 firms.
Table 5 of this document presents cost
estimates of the annual reporting burden
for additional product notifications or
petitions after the initial compliance
period due to, for example, new firms
entering into the industry. It is assumed
that one petition to use an alternate term
other than ‘‘pasteurized’’ will be
submitted per year. The time estimates
for both tables 4 and 5 are taken from
section IV of this document. We
estimate that the annual notifications
would be about 10 percent of the initial
number, that is, 10 percent of 193 (the
estimate in table 4), or 19 firms.
TABLE 4.—ESTIMATE OF TOTAL COST OF SUBMITTING NOTIFICATION OR PETITION
21 CFR Section
No. of Respondents
179.26(c)(2)(i)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Total Hours
1
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Cost Per Hour
150
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Total Cost
$84
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
$12,600
16301
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4.—ESTIMATE OF TOTAL COST OF SUBMITTING NOTIFICATION OR PETITION—Continued
21 CFR Section
No. of Respondents
179.26(c)(2)(ii)
Total Hours
193
Cost Per Hour
28,950
Total Cost
$84
$2,431,800
Total
$2,444,400
TABLE 5.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF SUBMITTING NOTIFICATION OR PETITION
21 CFR Section
No. of Respondents
Total Hours
Cost Per Hour
Total Cost
179.26(c)(2)(i)
1
150
$84
$12,600
179.26(c)(2)(ii)
19
2,850
$84
$239,400
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Total
$252,000
If irradiation causes no material
change in the food, irradiation labeling
would be removed under this option.
Removing irradiation labeling could
cause increases in search costs for
consumers who desire to avoid
purchasing irradiated goods and must
find alternative sources to maintain
knowledge of producers that irradiate
their products.
Some producers may alter their
products’ labels to use a term other than
irradiated (e.g. ‘‘pasteurized’’). However,
it is uncertain how many producers
would use alternate terms. Again, the
use of alternative labels would generate
potential costs because some consumers
may wish to avoid irradiated products.
As mentioned before, research indicates
many consumers regard substitute terms
for irradiation to be misleading (Refs. 2
and 5). These individuals would have to
increase their search efforts in order to
continue to be informed about approved
alternate terms to irradiation. We
request comment on the potential for
this proposed rule if finalized to
increase search costs, particularly for
consumers and retailers who desire nonirradiated foods.
Benefits: This proposed rule generates
benefits because it could allow
consumers to make more informed
decisions about the food they purchase.
If the addition of a statement of purpose
causes people to buy relabeled
irradiated products that they may have
previously avoided and if these
products have, for example, longer shelf
life or lower risk of illness, then
consumers will benefit. If, as a result of
this proposed rule, consumers look
more favorably on irradiated foods, the
supply of such foods may increase. If
retailers are more willing to carry
relabeled irradiated products, then
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
consumers benefit from the added
opportunity to buy these products.
As mentioned in the costs section of
this option, if irradiation causes no
material change, it is possible that some
products would no longer have to bear
the irradiation label statement or the
radura logo, but it is uncertain how
many products would fall into this
category. For producers who voluntarily
choose the no-label option, private
benefits exceed private costs, since they
no longer are required to continue with
the existing labeling. That is, a firm
would choose the no-label option if it
believes doing so will increase profits.
Reiterating the idea that the supply of
irradiated food may increase as a result
of this rule, it is possible that some
manufacturers not currently using
irradiation as a safety tool (because of
the current labeling requirement) may
opt to start using irradiation in order to
enhance the safety of their products, if
there is no material change in the
product. Again, firms will only start
using irradiation if they believe doing so
will increase profits. As already pointed
out, however, there are potential search
costs for some customers.
This analysis also applies to those
firms who choose alternate terms for
irradiation. Private benefits will exceed
private costs for firms that voluntarily
choose alternate terms for irradiation,
because they will no longer be required
to continue using existing labeling.
These firms will only choose alternate
terms to irradiation if they believe doing
so will increase profits. Again, this use
of alternate terms can result in the
previously mentioned increase in search
costs for consumers who desire to avoid
irradiated goods.
If the removal of explicit language
indicating that a food has been
irradiated causes people to buy
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
irradiated products that they previously
avoided, and if these products have
lower prices or higher quality, then
some consumers will benefit from the
removal of information. Also, if retailers
are more willing to carry unlabeled
irradiated products at lower prices, then
all consumers benefit from the lower
prices. But it is uncertain that unlabeled
irradiated products will be offered for
lower prices than products that are not
irradiated, because the irradiation
process itself is not costless. If
irradiation increases product quality but
also increases the cost of production,
then prices of irradiated products could
be higher than the same non-irradiated
products, with or without labels.
C. Summary of Options
Table 5A of this document
summarizes the costs and benefits of
each option analyzed. Costs are given
based on the assumption that 1 percent
of firms irradiate and relabel (at the
medium cost level) using a 2-year
compliance period if the option requires
relabeling and a 3-year compliance
period if relabeling is permitted
voluntarily. For Option 5, it also
assumes that 1 percent of firms prepare
a notification to use the term
‘‘pasteurized’’ in the first year and 1
firm petitions to use another alternative
term in the first year. The range of costs
represents our uncertainty about the
need for changes to the principal
display panel or the information panel
and the number of pounds of fresh fruits
and vegetables that can be stickered per
hour. For Option 5, the quantified costs
are likely to be less than listed because
some firms would be able to remove the
irradiation labeling when it results in no
material change when it is least costly
for them to do so and will not need to
submit notifications or petitions.
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
16302
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5A.—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF OPTIONS
Quantified Costs
Unquantified Costs
Unquantified Benefits
Option 1 (baseline)
0
0
0
Option 2
0
Greatest increase in search costs
Most additional labeling flexibility, potentially
longer shelf-life
Option 3
$341,000 - $681,000
0
Most additional information for consumers
Option 4
$133,000 - $252,000
Increased search costs
Additional labeling flexibility
Option 5 (the proposed
rule)
Less than $2,785,400 $3,125,400
Lowest non-zero increase in
search costs
Additional information for consumers, Least nonzero additional labeling flexibility
We request comments on the
estimates for these options and
specifically on the following three
issues:
1. The number of firms or products
that would be affected by a new
irradiation rule.
2. The number of firms that would
begin irradiating products as a result of
the various options described here.
3. Whether some industry sectors
should be given more time to comply
than others to reduce the economic
impact on them.
D. Small Entity Analysis
FDA has examined the economic
implications of this proposed rule as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612). If a rule has a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act requires
agencies to analyze regulatory options
that would lessen the economic effect of
the rule on small entities. It is not
known how many small firms currently
irradiate food or will want to irradiate
food. If small firms are using this
technology, this proposed rule may have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The agency requests comments on how
this proposed rule will impact small
firms.
Under contract, Eastern Research
Group developed a model framework for
estimating regulatory impacts on small
businesses. The model is designed to
accommodate a variety of potential
regulatory activities, ranging from
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
(HACCP) to product labeling.
Using the 2002 Economic Census and
other data, the model estimates the cash
flows of representative establishments
of varying class sizes of food
manufacturers. Based on post-regulation
cash flow and distribution of income for
each model facility, the model generates
the percentage of facilities in each
model class that are vulnerable to
closure. The model allows the agency to
(1) Predict the probability and frequency
of small business failure as a result of
FDA regulations and (2) estimate the
effects of various forms of regulatory
relief on the survival of small businesses
on a per-establishment basis.
Cost estimates produced by the FDA
Labeling Cost Model were used to help
generate estimates of the average
relabeling cost for firms in two of the
four food categories examined here:
spices/seasonings and dried vegetables.
The middle estimated costs in each food
category were divided by the estimated
affected stockkeeping units (SKUs) in
each food category to arrive at average
cost per SKU. Affected SKUs per
category are then divided by total
number of firms in each category to
arrive at average number of affected
SKUs per firm. The number of firms in
each food category comes from the
Ready-to-Eat Food Manufacturing
Industry category in FDA’s Small
Business Impact Model (Ref. 9). We use
these estimates to calculate cost per firm
using the following formula:
Cost/Firm = (Average SKUs per firm)
x (Average Middle Relabeling Cost/
SKU)
This formula allows us to estimate the
approximate average relabeling costs for
firms in each food category. Keep in
mind these are merely estimates and
cost structures are treated identically
across firms. That is, we assume that
costs for small firms are similar to costs
for large firms. The average relabeling
costs for compliance periods of 12, 24,
and 36 months were then entered into
the Small Business Impact Model to
estimate the number of firms at risk for
negative cash flow, assuming all firms
in each category must relabel. The
results of these estimates are presented
in tables 6 and 6A of this document.
The table is divided into two sections,
one for estimates if the information
panel is affected and another for the
principal display panel.
TABLE 6.—ESTIMATES OF FIRMS AFFECTED BY THE IRRADIATION RULE—CHANGES IN INFORMATION PANEL
Food
Category
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Spices/
Seasonings
Dried Vegetables
1 Note:
Compliance
Period
Firms with less than 20 Employees
Affected Firms
At-Risk Firms1
Firms With 20 to 499 Employees
Affected Firms
At-Risk Firms1
Firms With 500+ Employees
Affected Firms
12 months
24 months
36 months
139
139
139
18
7
1
133
133
133
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
12 months
24 months
36 months
23
23
23
8
3
2
25
25
25
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
An ‘‘at-risk’’ firm is one that could potentially suffer from negative cash flow as a result of this proposed rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
At-Risk Firms1
17:30 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
16303
TABLE 6A.—ESTIMATES OF FIRMS AFFECTED BY THE IRRADIATION RULE—CHANGES IN PRINCIPAL DISPLAY PANEL
Food
Category
Spices/
Seasonings
Dried Vegetables
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
1 Note:
Compliance
Period
Firms with less than 20 Employees
Affected Firms
At-Risk Firms1
Firms With 20 to 499 Employees
Affected Firms
At-Risk Firms1
Firms With 500+ Employees
Affected Firms
At-Risk Firms1
12 months
24 months
36 months
139
139
139
39
11
2
133
133
133
1
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
12 months
24 months
36 months
23
23
23
8
8
3
25
25
25
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
An ‘‘at-risk’’ firm is one that could potentially suffer from negative cash flow as a result of this proposed rule.
The numbers of at-risk firms in the
table are estimates generated by the
model. These estimates are not based on
specific data about the number of small
firms affected, because there are no data
available; however, they illustrate the
idea that small firms, especially firms
with fewer than 20 employees, could
potentially be adversely affected by this
proposed rule. For example, in the dried
vegetable category, for a compliance
period of 12 months, if as the model
estimates, 23 firms would be affected,
approximately 8 of these firms (or
around 35 percent) would be at risk for
negative cash flow as a result of this
rule. However, for firms with less than
20 employees, the number of at risk
firms decreases as the length of the
compliance period increases. As
illustrated in tables 1 and 2, when
compliance periods increase, costs
decrease because firms can coordinate
new changes in food labels with
already-scheduled changes in labels. By
contrast, the model generates no at-risk
firms among firms with 500+
employees, regardless of the compliance
period. This result is important because
the industry is characterized by a large
number of small entities. The most
effective regulatory relief for small firms
would be extended compliance periods.
As shown in tables 6 and 6A, as the
compliance period increases from 12 to
36 months, the number of small firms
at-risk virtually disappears.
Firms producing shell eggs are not
included in the Ready-to-Eat
Application of the Small Business
Impact Model because eggs are not
considered ready to eat. Therefore, it is
not possible to estimate the number of
at-risk firms. Nonetheless, small firms
producing shell eggs must still be
addressed in this analysis. According to
the 2002 Census of Manufacturers (Ref.
6), there are 311 companies that process
poultry and shell eggs. Of this number,
about 25 percent, or 79 firms have 20
employees or less. Again, it is not
known how many processors irradiate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
or will want to irradiate as a result of
this rule. Therefore, we will assume this
rule could affect 1 percent, or
approximately 1 firm.
Firms processing fresh fruits and
vegetables are also not included in the
Small Business Impact Model. Again, it
is not possible to estimate the number
of at-risk firms. According to the 2002
Census of Manufacturers, there are
5,836 firms that process fresh fruit and
vegetables. Because firm size for firms
that process fresh fruits and vegetables
is not yet available for the 2002 Census
of Manufacturers, we use data from the
1997 Census of Manufacturers that 93
percent of these firms are single unit
firms. Therefore, we estimate that there
are 5,427 single unit firms that process
fresh fruit and vegetables. As with the
other food categories, it is not known
how many of these firms irradiate or
will want to irradiate as a result of this
rule. Therefore, we will assume this rule
could affect 1 percent, or approximately
54 firms. The agency requests comments
on the number of small shell egg
producers and fresh fruit and vegetable
producers that could be affected by this
rule.
The effects on small businesses
depend also on whether the labeling
change is required or voluntary. If, for
example, the labeling change is to allow
an alternate term, or to remove the
current label, the small business would
do so only if it did not impose a burden.
For required labeling changes, however,
the labeling costs could indeed put
additional firms at risk of going out of
business. The length of the compliance
period for labeling requirements is the
most important variable affecting the
burden. The other important factor is
how much of the label needs
redesigning. If the labeling change is
similar to a change in the information
panel, and if small businesses are given
at least 36 months to comply, few will
be at risk.
The agency requests comments on the
likely effect on small firms as a result of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
this proposed rule, and on the effects of
longer compliance periods for these
firms.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public
Law 104–4) requires that agencies
prepare a written statement, which
includes an assessment of anticipated
costs and benefits, before proposing
‘‘any rule that includes any 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 or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year.’’ The current threshold after
adjustment for inflation is $122 million,
using the most current (2005) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic
Product. FDA does not expect this
proposed rule to result in any 1-year
expenditure that would meet or exceed
this amount.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule contains
information collection provisions that
are subject to review by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the
PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). A
description of these provisions is given
below with an estimate of the reporting
burden. Included in the estimate is the
time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the
information and data needed and
completing and reviewing each
collection of information.
Title: Notice Concerning the
Submission of Information to Use an
Alternative to ‘‘Irradiation’’
Description: In this proposed rule,
FDA is proposing to require the
submission to the agency of data and
information regarding the use of
alternate terms to the word ‘‘irradiated’’
in foods that have been treated by
irradiation using radioactive isotope,
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
16304
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
electronic beam, or x-ray. FDA is
proposing that an alternate term may be
used in lieu of ‘‘irradiated’’ if its use is
approved in response to a petition that
has been submitted to FDA. If the
desired alternate term is ‘‘pasteurized,’’
a notification must be sent to the
Secretary (FDA) that includes
effectiveness data to show that the
process or treatment meets the
requirements of section 403(h)(3) of the
act.
Description of Respondents:
Manufacturers that irradiate food and
desire to use an alternate term to
‘‘irradiation.’’
FDA estimates the burden of this
collection of information as follows:
TABLE 7.—ESTIMATED ONE-TIME REPORTING BURDEN1
21 CFR Section
No. of
Respondents
Frequency
of Response
Total Responses
Hours Per
Response
Total Hours
179.26(c)(2)(i)
1
1
1
150
150
179.26(c)(2)(ii)
193
1
193
150
28,950
Total
1There
29,100
are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
TABLE 8.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN1
21 CFR Section
No. of
Respondents
Frequency
of Response
Total Responses
Hours Per
Response
Total Hours
179.26(c)(2)(i)
1
1
1
150
150
179.26(c)(2)(ii)
19
1
19
150
2,850
Total
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
1There
3,000
are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
Tables 7 and 8 of this document
describe the reporting burden as a result
of the provisions set forth in this
proposed rule. Table 7 shows the
estimated one time reporting burden
after the regulation initially goes into
effect. Table 8 shows the estimated
annual reporting burden, perhaps due to
firms entering into the industry and/or
currently existing firms deciding to
irradiate at a later date. The agency does
not know how many firms will submit
a notification or a petition to the agency
to use an alternate to the term
‘‘irradiation.’’ It is also not known how
many firms currently irradiate food they
manufacture, although it is known that
the amount of food irradiated each year
is very small and there is only one
facility that can irradiate food. However,
it is assumed that most firms wishing to
use an alternate term will choose to use
‘‘pasteurized’’ and submit a notification
to FDA along with effectiveness data. It
is also assumed that one firm per year
will submit a petition to use an alternate
term other than ‘‘pasteurized’’ as shown
in the row corresponding to proposed
§ 179.26(c)(2)(i) in table 7. Proposed
§ 179.26(c)(2)(ii) addresses notifications.
The number of firms is based on the
2002 Census of Manufacturers (Refs. 6,
7, and 8). According to the Census of
Manufacturers, there are 275 companies
that manufacture spices and extracts,
311 companies that process poultry and
shell eggs (the Census of Manufacturers
groups poultry and shell egg processing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
together), and 5,836 firms that process
fresh fruits and vegetables, for a total of
6,422 firms. Table 7 shows the number
of respondents presented as an average,
based on percentages of total firms that
process shell eggs, spices, and fruits and
vegetables, the three categories of FDAregulated foods that are currently
approved for irradiation. It is possible
that 1 percent of, or 64 firms in the
industry will want to use an alternate
term and it is possible that 5 percent of,
or 321 firms in the industry will want
to use an alternate term. The average of
this range is 193 firms. Submission of
the notification is voluntary because the
proposed rule does not require all firms
to submit notifications, only those firms
that will be required to label a product
as ‘‘irradiated’’ and desire use of an
alternative to the term ‘‘irradiation’’.
Therefore, it is assumed that there will
be no annual reporting burden for this
rule for products that have already
submitted notifications.
Based on previous estimations of
preparing notifications and preparing
petitions, FDA is estimating that the
time needed to prepare a notification is
150 hours. The agency already has a
process for submitting citizen petitions,
the burden of which is reported and
approved under § 10.30. However, given
some of the controversy surrounding
irradiation and the use of alternative
terms to irradiation, we expect more
documentation and more hours spent on
these petitions associated with
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
irradiation labeling. Therefore, the
agency is assuming submitting a
petition will take a total of 190 hours.
It is estimated that 40 of these hours are
specific to the citizen petition process
reported under § 10.30, with an
additional 150 hours specific to the
issues associated with irradiation
labeling. It is this additional burden that
is reported in table 7.
The annual burden following the
initial round of submissions would
consist of submissions for additional
products, perhaps as a result of market
entry. This burden is shown in table 8.
Again, we also assume that, each year,
one firm will petition the agency to use
an alternate term other than
‘‘pasteurized,’’ in response to proposed
§ 179.26(c)(2)(i). We do not know how
many additional firms will submit
notifications in response to proposed
§ 179.26(c)(2)(ii) each year, so table 8
assumes the number of additional firms
will be 10 percent of the firms reported
in table 7. We also assume that there
will not be an additional recordkeeping
burden associated with this rule, as it is
assumed that firms already have the
effectiveness data required by the
agency for inclusion in the notification.
In compliance with the PRA (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the agency has
submitted the information collection
provisions of this proposed rule to OMB
for review. Interested persons are
requested to submit comments regarding
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
V. Analysis of Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.30(k) that this action is of a type
that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Therefore,
neither an environment assessment nor
an environmental impact statement is
required.
VI. Federalism
FDA has analyzed this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles set
forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA
has determined that the proposed rule
does not contain policies that have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Accordingly, the
agency tentatively concludes that the
proposed rule does not contain policies
that have federalism implications as
defined in the order and, consequently,
a federalism summary impact statement
is not required.
VII. References
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
The following references have been
placed on display in the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES)
and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday. (FDA has verified the
Web site address, but we are not
responsible for subsequent changes to
the Web site after this document is
published in the Federal Register.)
1. Conference Report on S. 830, Food and
Drug Administration Modernization Act of
1997, 143 Cong. Rec. H10452, 10477,
(November 9, 1997).
1a. Prakash, Anuradha and Denise Foley,
‘‘Improving Safety and Extending Shelf Life
of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables Using
Irradiation in Irradiation of Food and
Packaging; Recent Developments,’’ ACS
Symposium Series 875, V. Komolprasert and
K. Morehouse editors, American Chemical
Society, Washington, DC 2004.
1b. Kader, Adel A., ‘‘Potential Applications
of Ionizing Radiation in Postharvest Handling
of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables,’’ Food
Technology, 117–121, June 1986.
2. ORC Macro, ‘‘Consumers’ Understanding
of Food Irradiation Labeling,’’ Focus Group
Report, December 2001.
3. Schutz, Howard G., Christine M. Bruhn
and Katherine V. Diaz-Knauf, ‘‘Consumer
Attitude Toward Irradiated Foods: Effects of
Labeling and Benefits Information,’’ Food
Technology 43, (October 1989): 80–86.
4. Fox, John A., Dermot J. Hayes, Jason F.
Shogren, ‘‘Consumer Preferences for Food
Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable
Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Pork in Experimental Auctions,’’ The Journal
of Risk and Uncertainty, 24:1 (2002): 75–95.
5. Cates, Sheryl C., et al., ‘‘Consumer
Research on Food Safety Labeling Features
for the Development of Responsive Labeling
Policy,’’ RTI, March 22, 2002.
6. ‘‘United States Census Bureau, Poultry
Processing: 2002 Economic Census
Manufacturing Industry Series,’’ available
from https://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/
ec0231i311615.pdf (accessed October 20,
2006).
7. ‘‘United States Census Bureau, Spice
and Extract Manufacturing: 2002 Economic
Census Manufacturing Industry Series,’’
available from https://www.census.gov/prod/
ec02/ec0231i311942t.pdf (accessed October
20, 2006).
8. ‘‘United States Census Bureau,
Comparative Statistics: 2002 Economic
Census Manufacturing Industry Series,’’ p. 9,
available from https://0www.census.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/prod/
ec02/ec0200ccomp.pdf (accessed October 20,
2006).
8a. Private Industry by State and 6-Digit
NAICS Industry: Establishments,
Employment, and Wages, 2004 Annual
Averages, https://www.bls.gov/cew/
ew04sector11.pdf, December 30, 2005.
9. Eastern Research Group, Inc., ‘‘Model for
Estimating the Impacts of Regulatory Costs
on The Survival of Small Businesses and its
Application to Four FDA-Regulated
Industries,’’ Contract No. 223–01–2461, June
7, 2002.
10. General Accounting Office, ‘‘Food
Irradiation: Available Research Indicates
That Benefits Outweigh Risks,’’ GAO/RCED–
00–217, August, 2000.
11. RTI International, ‘‘FDA Labeling Cost
Model,’’ RTI Project Number 06673.010,
January 2003.
12. Office of Management and Budget,
‘‘GDP and Deflators Used in the U.S.,’’
Budget of the United States Government
Fiscal Year 2004, Historical Table 10.1, 2003.
13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Substances Generally Recognized as Safe:
Notification Procedure, OMB No. 0910–0342,
Supporting Statement available from https://
www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/05n0457-ss00001.pdf.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 179
Food additives, Food labeling, Food
packaging, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Signs and symbols.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that
21 CFR part 179 be amended as follows:
PART 179—IRRADIATION IN THE
PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND
HANDLING OF FOOD
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 179 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 343, 348,
373, 374.
2. Section 179.26 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(1); by
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
redesignating paragraphs (c)(2) and
(c)(3) as paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4),
respectively; by revising newly
redesignated paragraph (c)(3); and by
adding new paragraph (c)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 179.26 Ionizing radiation for the
treatment of food.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Labeling. (1) The label and labeling
of a retail package of a food irradiated
in conformance with paragraph (b) of
this section that has, as a result of the
irradiation, undergone a material change
in the characteristics of the food or in
its consequences of use shall bear the
following logo along with
the statement ‘‘irradiated,’’ or any
derivatives of the term ‘‘irradiated’’ (e.g.,
‘‘irradiation,’’ ‘‘irradiate,’’ ‘‘radiation,’’
etc.) or an alternate term as provided in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, in
conjunction with language describing
the material change in the
characteristics of the food or its use. The
logo shall be placed prominently and
conspicuously in conjunction with the
required statement. The radiation
disclosure statement is not required to
be more prominent than the declaration
of ingredients required under § 101.4 of
this chapter. As used in this provision,
the term ‘‘radiation disclosure
statement’’ means a written statement
that discloses that a food has been
intentionally subjected to irradiation
and identifies the material change in the
characteristics of the food or the
consequences that may result from its
use as a result of the irradiation.
(2) An alternate term may be used in
lieu of ‘‘irradiated,’’ or any of its
derivatives, if it meets the following
provisions.
(i) A term that is not false or
misleading in any material respect may
be used in lieu of ‘‘irradiated,’’ or any
of its derivatives, if its use is approved
in response to a petition that has been
submitted to FDA using the procedures
under § 10.30 of this chapter for
approval of the alternate term, or, if use
of the term ‘‘pasteurized’’ is permissible
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
EP04AP07.000
information collection to OMB (see
ADDRESSES).
16305
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
16306
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
under the requirements in paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of this section. The petition
should include all relevant information
and views on which the petitioner
relies, including any data, e.g.,
qualitative or quantitative consumer
research, that show consumer
understanding of the purpose and intent
of the alternative labeling.
(ii) The term ‘‘pasteurized’’ may be
used in lieu of ‘‘irradiated’’ or any of its
derivatives if the irradiation process is:
(A) Reasonably certain to achieve
destruction or elimination in the food of
the most resistant microorganism of
public health significance that is likely
to occur in the food;
(B) At least as protective of the public
health as a process or treatment that is
defined as pasteurization in this
chapter;
(C) Effective for a period that is least
as long as the shelf life of the food when
stored under normal and moderate
abuse conditions; and
(D) The subject of a notification to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services
(the Secretary) that includes
effectiveness data regarding the process
or treatment and the Secretary has not
made a determination in 120 days after
the receipt of the notification that the
process or treatment involved has not
been shown to meet the requirements
provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A), (B),
and (C) of this section.
(3) For an irradiated food not in
packaged form that has, as a result of the
irradiation, undergone a material change
in its characteristics or conditions of
use, the required logo and the following
disclosure statements, ‘‘irradiated,’’ or
any of its derivatives, or an alternate
term as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section in conjunction with
language describing the material change
in the characteristics of the food or
conditions of use as a result of the
irradiation, shall be displayed to the
purchaser with either of the following:
(i) The labeling of the bulk container
plainly in view or
(ii) A counter sign, card, or other
appropriate device bearing the
information that the product has been
treated with radiation. As an alternative,
each item of food may be individually
labeled. In either case, the information
must be prominently and conspicuously
displayed to purchasers. The labeling
requirement applies only to a food that
has been irradiated, not to a food that
merely contains an irradiated ingredient
but that has not itself been irradiated.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Dated: March 27, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 07–1636 Filed 4–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
I. Background
37 CFR Part 202
[Docket No. RM 2007–3]
Registration of Claims to Copyright—
Renewals
Copyright Office, Library of
Congress.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is
proposing to amend its regulations
governing applications for registration
of claims to the renewal term of
copyright. This notice seeks public
comment on the proposed amended
regulations, which will take into
account the fact that, since January 1,
2006, all applications for renewal have
necessarily related to works which are
subject to automatic renewal and, thus,
are already in their renewal terms,
making impossible any 28th– year
registration of claims to the renewal
term.
DATES: Comments are due May 4, 2007.
ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a
private party, an original and five copies
of a comment or reply comment should
be brought to Library of Congress, U.S.
Copyright Office, 2221 S. Clark Street,
11th Floor, Arlington, VA. 22202,
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. The
envelope should be addressed as
follows: Office of the General Counsel,
U.S. Copyright Office. If delivered by a
commercial courier, an original and five
copies of a comment or reply comment
must be delivered to the Congressional
Courier Acceptance Site (‘‘CCAS’’)
located at 2nd and D Streets, NE,
Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and
4 p.m. The envelope should be
addressed as follows: Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office,
LM–401, James Madison Building, 101
Independence Avenue, SE, Washington,
DC. Please note that CCAS will not
accept delivery by means of overnight
delivery services such as Federal
Express, United Parcel Service or DHL.
If sent by mail (including overnight
delivery using U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail), an original and five
copies of a comment or reply comment
should be addressed to U.S. Copyright
Office, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
70400, Southwest Station, Washington,
DC 20024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nanette Petruzzelli, Special Legal
Advisor for Reengineering, P.O. Box
70400, Washington, DC 20024–0400.
Telephone: 202–707–8350. Telefax:
202–707–8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Sfmt 4702
The 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.
101, et. seq., carried over provisions for
the continued protection of certain
works first published or registered for
copyright under the 1909 Copyright Act.
Reenacting and preserving the
provisions of section 24 of the 1909 law
for all works which were then in their
first term of copyright protection,
Section 304(a) of Title 17 as originally
enacted in 1976 provided that renewal
registration had to be made during the
28th year of the original term of
copyright in order to secure the
additional (then 47) years of renewal–
term protection. 17 U.S.C. 304(a) (1976).
In 1992, Congress enacted a revision
of section 304(a) of Title 17 which made
renewal copyright automatic for works
first published or registered from
January 1, 1964, through December 31,
1977. This amendment allowed the
renewal right to vest without
registration of: [a] the claim to copyright
during the original, 28–year term; or, [b]
the claim to renewal copyright during
the year immediately prior to the
beginning of the renewal term (i.e.,
during the 28th year); or, [c] the claim
to renewal copyright during the renewal
term. Pub. L. No. 102–307, 106 Stat.
264, enacted June 26, 1992. In order to
encourage renewal registration and
provide a public record of renewal
rights, however, Congress also amended
section 304(a) to provide certain
benefits to a party who undertook the
renewal registration within the 28th
year of the original term of copyright.
These benefits for works with timely
renewal registrations include:
1. A certificate of registration
constitutes prima facie evidence as to
the validity of the copyright during its
renewal term and of the facts stated in
the certificate. 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(4)(B).
2. A derivative work prepared under
the authority of a grant of a transfer or
license of copyright in a work made
before the expiration of the original term
of copyright may not continue to be
used under the terms of the grant during
the renewal term without the authority
of the owner of the renewal copyright.
17 U.S.C. 304(a)(4)(A).
3. A renewal copyright vests upon the
beginning of the renewal term in the
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 4, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16291-16306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1636]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 179
[Docket No. 2005N-0272]
RIN 0910-ZA29
Irradiation in the Production, Processing and Handling of Food
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to revise
its labeling regulations applicable to foods (including dietary
supplements) for which irradiation has been approved by FDA. FDA is
proposing that only those irradiated foods in which the irradiation
causes a material change in the food, or a material change in the
consequences that may result from the use of the food, bear the radura
logo and the term ``irradiated,'' or a derivative thereof, in
conjunction with explicit language describing the change in the food or
its conditions of use. For purposes of this rulemaking, we are using
the term ``material change'' to refer to a change in the organoleptic,
nutritional, or functional properties of a food, caused by irradiation,
that the consumer could not identify at the point of purchase in the
absence of appropriate labeling. FDA is also proposing to allow a firm
to petition FDA for use of an alternate term to ``irradiation'' (other
than ``pasteurized''). In addition, FDA is proposing to permit a firm
to use the term ``pasteurized'' in lieu of ``irradiated,'' provided it
notifies the agency that the irradiation process being used meets the
criteria specified for use of the term ``pasteurized'' in the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and the agency does not object
to the notification. This proposed action is in response to the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA) and, if finalized,
will provide consumers with more useful information than the current
regulation.
DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule by
July 3, 2007. Submit comments regarding information collection by May
4, 2007 to OMB (see ADDRESSES).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 2005N-0272
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the following ways:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: https://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
FAX: 301-827-6870.
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer
accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages
you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described in the
[[Page 16292]]
Electronic Submissions portion of this paragraph.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and Docket No. 2005N-0272 or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for
this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to
https://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments
and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
``Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm
and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this
document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to
the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.
Information Collection Provisions: Submit written comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).To ensure
that comments on the information collection are received, OMB
recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loretta A. Carey, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-2371.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Current Labeling Requirements for Irradiated Foods
In the Federal Register of February 14, 1984 (49 FR 5714), FDA
published a proposed rule (the 1984 proposal) to approve the use of
ionizing radiation on several foods. The 1984 proposal did not include
a requirement for labeling disclosing the use of ionizing radiation.
FDA received over 5,000 comments on this proposal, including numerous
comments on the issue of labeling irradiated foods. Based on the
comments and information received in response to the 1984 proposal and
on further analysis, FDA published a final rule in the Federal Register
on April 18, 1986 (51 FR 13376) (the 1986 final rule). The 1986 final
rule required that the label and labeling of retail packages and
displays of irradiated food bear both the radura logo and a radiation
disclosure statement (``Treated with radiation'' or ``Treated by
irradiation''). FDA concluded that labeling indicating treatment of
food with radiation was necessary to prevent misbranding of irradiated
foods because irradiation may not visually change the food and in the
absence of a label statement, the implied representation to consumers
is that the food has not been processed. We stated in the preamble to
the 1986 final rule that, in addition to the mandatory language, the
manufacturer may also state on the wholesale or retail label the
purpose of the treatment process or further describe the kind of
treatment used (51 FR 13376 at 13387). That is, the manufacturer may
include in the labeling any phrase such as ``treated with radiation to
control spoilage,'' ``treated with radiation to extend shelf life,'' or
``treated with radiation to inhibit maturation,'' as long as the phrase
truthfully describes the primary purpose of the treatment. Similarly,
the manufacturer may choose to state more specifically the type of
radiation used in the treatment, i.e., ``treated with x-radiation,''
``treated with ionizing radiation,'' or ``treated with gamma
radiation,'' if more specific description is applicable.
B. The 1999 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the
Labeling of Irradiated Foods
On November 21, 1997, the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act (FDAMA) (Public Law 105-115) was enacted. Section 306
of FDAMA amended the act by adding section 403C (21 U.S.C. 343-3).
Section 403C of the act addressed the disclosure of irradiation on the
labeling of foods as follows:
``(a) No provision of section 201(n), 403(a), or 409 shall be
construed to require on the label or labeling of a food a separate
radiation disclosure statement that is more prominent than the
declaration of ingredients required by section 403(i)(2).
(b) In this section, the term ``radiation disclosure statement''
means a written statement that discloses that a food has been
intentionally subject to radiation.''
Although section 403C of the act addressed only the prominence of
the radiation disclosure statements, the language in the FDAMA Joint
Statement (H. Rep. 105-399, 105th Cong., 1st sess., at 98-99) stated
that FDA should seek public comment on whether additional changes
should be made to current regulations relating to the labeling of foods
treated with ionizing radiation. Specifically, the Joint Statement
stated that ``the public comment process should be utilized by the
Secretary to provide an opportunity to comment on whether the
regulations should be amended to revise the prescribed nomenclature for
the labeling of irradiated foods and on whether such labeling
requirements should expire at a specified date in the future.'' The
FDAMA Joint Statement also indicated that ``The conferees intend for
any required irradiation disclosure to be of a type and character such
that it would not be perceived to be a warning or give rise to
inappropriate anxiety'' (Ref. 1).
In response to the conferees' report, FDA published an ANPRM in the
Federal Register of February 17, 1999 (64 FR 7834) seeking public
comment on the meaning of the current irradiation labeling statement
and soliciting suggestions for possible revisions. The 1999 ANPRM
described the intent of the conference report, cited several documents
related to irradiation labeling, and asked for comment on how the
current label is perceived by consumers. The 1999 ANPRM also described
whether other labeling would more accurately convey that the food was
irradiated without implying a warning or causing inappropriate consumer
anxiety.
FDA received over 5,550 comments in response to the 1999 ANPRM on
the meaning of the current irradiation labeling statement and
suggestions for possible revisions. The majority of comments urged FDA
to retain the current labeling for irradiated foods. Some comments
suggested alternate wording, such as ``cold pasteurization,'' or
``electronic pasteurization,'' while other comments contended that
these terms serve only to obscure information and confuse consumers. A
few comments stated that additional labeling, such as ``irradiated to
kill harmful bacteria,'' was helpful.
C. Consumer Research
To better assist FDA in formulating specific revisions that would
accomplish the objectives outlined in the FDAMA Joint Statement and
also satisfy the requirements of the act, the agency, in addition to
publishing the ANPRM, conducted focus group research in Maryland,
Minnesota, and California, during June and July 2001. The primary focus
of the research was to ascertain from focus group participants how they
viewed the current irradiation disclosure statement. We were
particularly interested in whether the focus group participants
perceived the current irradiation disclosure statement as a warning.
The
[[Page 16293]]
focus group data indicated that the majority of participants were
uncertain about the safety, effectiveness, and appropriateness of
irradiated food products and greatly desired more information. Most of
the participants viewed alternate terms, such as ``cold
pasteurization'' and ``electronic pasteurization,'' as misleading,
because such terms appeared to conceal rather than to disclose
information. Participants did not see the current disclosure labeling
as a warning, per se, because knowledgeable participants considered
irradiation to be a positive safety attribute. Less knowledgeable
participants, such as those who associated irradiation with things such
as x-ray or radiation, wanted more information about the
appropriateness of food irradiation. All participants agreed that
irradiated foods should be labeled ``honestly.''
D. Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA) (Public Law
107-171)
On May 13, 2002, the President signed into law the FSRIA. The law
included two provisions that relate to irradiation labeling. One of
these provisions, section 10808, as discussed in the following
paragraph, includes new criteria for use of the term ``pasteurization''
in labeling. The other provision, section 10809, directed FDA to
publish for public comment proposed changes to the current regulations
relating to the labeling of foods that have been treated by irradiation
using radioactive isotope, electronic beam, or x-ray to reduce pest
infestation or pathogens. The provision further stated that ``[p]ending
promulgation of the final rule * * * any person may petition the
Secretary [FDA] for approval of labeling, which is not false or
misleading in any material respect, of a food which has been treated by
irradiation using radioactive isotope, electronic beam, or x-ray.''
Section 10809 also requires that, pending issuance of the final rule,
``* * * [t]he Secretary [FDA] shall approve or deny such a petition
within 180 days of receipt of the petition, or the petition shall be
deemed denied, except to the extent additional agency review is
mutually agreed upon by the Secretary [FDA] and the petitioner.''
Section 10808 of the FSRIA, which includes new criteria for use of
the term ``pasteurized'' in labeling, revised section 403(h) of the act
to provide that a food may purport to be or be represented as
pasteurized if the food has been subjected to a safe process or
treatment that is prescribed as pasteurization for such food in a
regulation issued under the act or the food has been subjected to a
safe process or treatment that meet certain criteria. The criteria
prescribed in section 10808 of the FSRIA are that the food has been
subjected to a safe process that: (1) Is reasonably certain to achieve
destruction or elimination in the food of the most resistant micro-
organisms of public health significance that are likely to occur in the
food, (2) is at least as protective of the public health as a process
or treatment prescribed by regulation as pasteurization, (3) is
effective for a period that is at least as long as the shelf life of
the food when stored under normal and moderate abuse conditions, and
(4) is the subject of a notification to the Secretary (FDA) that
includes effectiveness data regarding the process or treatment and at
least 120 days have passed after receipt of such notification without
the Secretary making a determination that the process or treatment
involved has not been shown to meet the requirements.
As part of FDA's implementation of section 10809 of the FSRIA, FDA
issued a guidance document entitled ``Guidance; Implementation of
Section 10809 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
Public Law No. 107-171, section 10809 (2002) Regarding the Petition
Process to Request Approval of Labeling for Foods That Have Been
Treated by Irradiation'' (the 2002 Guidance). The 2002 Guidance was
issued in accordance with FDA's Good Guidance Practices regulation in
21 CFR 10.115. The 2002 Guidance also advised how interested parties
may petition the agency for the approval of labeling that may be used
on irradiated food as an alternative to the currently required
irradiation disclosure statement. FDA noted that this was an interim
process and that it could be used until FDA published any final
regulation on this issue. FDA published a notice in the Federal
Register announcing the availability of the 2002 Guidance document on
October 7, 2002 (67 FR 62487). To date, FDA has not received any
petitions requesting the use of alternative labeling for irradiated
foods.
II. The Proposal
A. Legal Authority/Statutory Directive
FDA's authority to require labeling of all foods\1\, including
irradiated foods, derives from sections 201(n) and 403(a)(1) of the act
(21 U.S.C. 321(n) and 343(a)(1)). In addition, section 701(a) of the
act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) authorizes FDA to issue regulations for the
efficient enforcement of the act. Under section 403(a)(1) of the act, a
food is misbranded if ``its labeling is false or misleading in any
particular.'' Section 201(n) of the act mandates that, in determining
whether labeling is misleading, FDA take into account, among other
things, whether the labeling fails to reveal facts that are material in
the light of representations made or suggested or with respect to
consequences that may result from the use of the product to which the
labeling relates under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling
or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Food refers to conventional foods as well as dietary
supplements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, the agency has generally interpreted the scope of the
materiality concept to mean information about the characteristics of
the food. FDA has required special labeling on the basis of it being
``material'' information in cases where the absence of such information
leads the consumer to assume that a food, because of its similarity to
another food, has nutritional\2\, organoleptic (e.g., taste, smell, or
texture), or functional (e.g., storage)\3\ properties of the food it
resembles when in fact it does not. For example, the labeling of
margarine that has been processed in a way that results in it no longer
being suitable for frying must disclose this difference from regular
margarine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Currently, we are not aware of any changes to the
nutritional properties of any food FDA has approved for irradiation.
\3\ The statutory phrase ``the consequences that may result from
the use of the food'' (section 201(n) of the act) generally can also
be described as changes in a food's functional properties. For
brevity and clarity, we use the latter terminology in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irradiation has various effects on foods that may cause changes in
the characteristics of the food. Such changes may occur in the food's
organoleptic, nutritional, or functional properties that would not be
noticeable at the point of purchase but could be apparent when consumed
or cooked. If these changes are not within the range of characteristics
ordinarily found in such foods, they would be considered ``material''
under this proposal. In the absence of appropriate labeling disclosing
these changes in the characteristics of the food, consumers would not
have all of the necessary information needed to make a purchase
decision or properly use the food. Thus, in the absence of information
about these changes in the characteristics of the food, the labeling
would be misleading under 201(n) of the act and the food would be
misbranded. These
[[Page 16294]]
changes are typically process specific and will vary with the food and
the irradiation conditions. In addition, these changes and the degree
of the changes may be measurable and of consequence to consumers. Thus,
a blanket statement on when labeling would be required due to
irradiation causing material changes cannot be made in advance for all
products. Rather, the need for labeling must be determined on a case-
by-case basis by appropriate testing of the food irradiated under
specific conditions, e.g., time and dosage, because the effect of
irradiation on the properties of concern depends on the particular
food.
Under the proposal, the fact that a food has been irradiated would
not by itself require disclosure on the label. FDA is proposing to
require that only those irradiated foods in which irradiation causes a
material change in a food's characteristics (e.g., organoleptic,
nutritional, or functional properties) under the conditions of use
prescribed in the label and labeling or under customary or usual
conditions of use bear the radura logo. Those irradiated foods must
also bear the term ``irradiated'' or any derivative thereof (e.g.,
``irradiate,'' ``irradiation,'' ``radiation,'' etc.) in conjunction
with language describing the material change. Additionally, FDA will
not object to the use of additional terms to indicate that a food has
been subjected to the process of irradiation, e.g., ``treated with
radiation,'' ``treated by irradiation,'' or ``processed with
radiation.'' However, in the absence of a material change, under the
proposal, the fact that the food has been irradiated is not considered
a material fact and, therefore, no logo or label statement would be
needed. For such foods, FDA would not object to manufacturers
voluntarily labeling their products to indicate that the food is
irradiated. FDA is also proposing to allow the use of alternate terms
to ``irradiated'' or any of its derivatives if use of the term has been
approved by FDA in response to a citizen petition submitted in
accordance with Sec. 10.30 (21 CFR 10.30).
As discussed in more detail in section I of this document, the
FSRIA amended section 403(h) of the act to include new criteria for the
use of the term ``pasteurized'' in labeling. This section gives FDA
authority to determine for labeling purposes whether alternate
processes, e.g., irradiation, are equivalent to pasteurization in
destroying pathogens. Therefore, FDA is also proposing to require that
anyone seeking to label a food as ``pasteurized'' under this provision
in lieu of referring to irradiation must notify FDA and provide
supportive data. Provided the agency has not objected to the
notification within 120 days after receipt of the notification, the
notifier would be able to label a food as ``pasteurized'' in lieu of
``irradiated.''
Under section 409 of the act, no food may be irradiated without
approval by FDA. Currently, FDA has approved irradiation for a number
of foods, including spices, shell eggs and fruits and vegetables,
although only a small fraction of these foods are actually irradiated.
According to a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office\4\ (2000),
only 0.005 percent of fruits and vegetables consumed in the United
States (about 1.5 million pounds), and 9.5 percent of all spices
consumed in the United States (about 95 million pounds of spices and
dry or dehydrated aromatic vegetable substances) are irradiated
annually. See the following Web site for a listing of all foods that
have been approved for irradiation: https://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/
2422/10apr20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/aprqtr/
21cfr179.26.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Now the Government Accountability Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proposed Amendment
As previously discussed in section II.A of this document,
irradiation has various effects on foods that may change a food's
characteristics. For example, as with other forms of processing, the
effects of irradiation that kill or weaken insects and microorganisms
may also cause some changes in the food itself. Many of these changes
are of little significance, as the composition of the food will remain
within normal variations of unirradiated foods. However, other changes
to organoleptic, nutritional, and functional properties may occur.
Changes to shelf life are likely to be among the most common of these
changes. Bananas and spices are illustrative of irradiated foods that
may have an extended shelf life and are discussed in the following
paragraph.
Bananas may be irradiated to delay ripening and extend shelf life.
This is an example of a material change. Consumers have a general idea
of the shelf life and ripening time of unirradiated bananas based upon
their appearance and make purchase decisions based at least in part on
the bananas' appearance (i.e., ripeness) and intended use. If
irradiated bananas were not labeled to indicate the material change,
e.g., delayed ripening, consumers would purchase the bananas expecting
the faster ripening schedule of unirradiated bananas. A consumer who
wanted to make a food that required very ripe bananas (e.g., banana
bread) would not know, without labeling, that the irradiated bananas
would not be ripe enough to make the banana bread when he wanted to do
so. Thus, if the irradiated bananas are not labeled, the consumer might
purchase the bananas and then discover later that they are unsuitable
for the consumer's planned use.
In contrast, there are instances where treatment with irradiation
may extend a food's shelf life without changing any of its functional
characteristics in a way that may require using the food differently
than its unirradiated counterpart. For example, while spices that are
irradiated to control microbial growth will likely have their shelf
life extended, FDA tentatively believes that the extension in shelf
life in this case does not have the potential to be detrimental to the
consumer (e.g., to prevent the consumer's planned use of the food)
because the irradiated spice can be used identically to an unirradiated
spice. That is, in addition to possibly benefiting from the extended
shelf life, a consumer buying the irradiated spice can use the
irradiated spice the same as he would the unirradiated spice. Unlike
the consumer of irradiated bananas described above, the spice consumer
does not need additional information to prevent the potential for a
detrimental consequence from using the irradiated food the same as its
unirradiated counterpart. Thus, FDA tentatively believes that the
extension of a spice's shelf life due to irradiation would not be
material information that consumers need to know; therefore the
producer would not be required to declare this information on the spice
label. We request comment on the utility, for purposes of labeling, of
distinguishing between those changes to a food's functional properties
from irradiation that may make a food unsuitable for a particular use
(e.g., delayed ripening) and those changes that still allow for the
food to be used identically to one that is not irradiated (e.g.,
extension of shelf life alone).
One of the goals of food science research on irradiation is to
determine irradiation conditions that would minimize those unexpected
effects that would be material to consumers. In a review article on the
effects of irradiation on fresh-cut fruits and vegetables, Prakash and
Foley (Ref. 1a) cite research illustrating how effects can vary
depending on the food, irradiation conditions, and mitigating steps
that can be taken. They report that in some cases low doses can cause
significant loss in firmness; however, in other fruits and vegetables
no such loss is observed, even at a higher dose. For example,
[[Page 16295]]
firmness of diced Roma tomatoes irradiated at 0.5 kilogray (kGy)
decreased by 30 percent and firmness of cut romaine lettuce irradiated
at 0.35 kGy decreased by 10 percent. However, no change in firmness was
observed in shredded carrots or fresh-cut iceberg lettuce following
irradiation at 1 and 2 kGy, or in celery irradiated at 1 kGy. In diced
bell peppers, irradiation at 3.7 kGy reduced bell peppers' flavor and
produced some off-flavors, while no effect on flavor or aroma was
perceived in a control group of bell peppers that were not irradiated
and in peppers irradiated at 1.32 kGy. Additionally, after storage for
9 days, off aroma was significantly higher in the control sample of
bell peppers than in the two groups of irradiated peppers, coinciding
with a slimy appearance attributed to microbial spoilage. Prakash and
Foley also report that combining irradiation with other technologies,
such as calcium treatment, warm water dips, and modified atmosphere
packaging further mitigated measurable adverse effects on quality.
Similarly, Kader (Ref. 1b) reported that fruits and vegetables such as
papaya, strawberry, tomatoes, and dates have a high tolerance to
irradiation at doses (below 1 kGy) used for insect control, while
cucumber, green bean, grape, and lemon have a low tolerance at this
same kilogray. Thus, whether effects occur that would change the food
in a significant way will depend on the particular food that is
irradiated and the dosage of irradiation used. In its decision
approving the use of radiation on shell eggs, FDA cited to data in the
petition showing an increased color loss in the irradiated egg yolk and
a change in the egg's viscosity as the radiation dose was increased (65
FR 45280 at 45281; July 21, 2000). Such a change in the viscosity or
other characteristics of the egg would affect its functionality, e.g.,
its cooking or binding properties. This change could be significant
enough that consumers should be informed of the irradiation and its
effect on the food.
In sum, irradiation of food can cause effects in food that are
material in light of representations made or on consequences of use.
However, whether such effects are sufficient to meet the standard of
section 201(n) of the act will vary based on several factors and cannot
be determined without considering the particular food and irradiation
processing applied. If the change in the irradiated food is within the
range of characteristics ordinarily found in such foods, then the fact
that the food is irradiated and the resulting change would not be
material information and would not be required to be declared on the
label.
The use of irradiation is strictly voluntary and generally approved
up to a maximum dose. We believe that manufacturers may adjust the
dosage to get the most effective dose, while minimizing unexpected
effects in the irradiated food. These food manufacturers or producers
may choose to irradiate their food only if the irradiation does not
alter in a significant way characteristics of the food that are
material to the consumer. Thus, it is possible that many uses of
irradiation will not result in a material change within the framework
set out in this rule. FDA is interested in receiving information about
the types of pre-market investigations, e.g., taste test panels or
functional studies, done by food manufacturers to evaluate whether to
irradiate and at what dose to irradiate in such a way that a material
change does not result.
Food is most commonly irradiated to control food-borne pathogens.
FDA is not aware of data indicating that control of food-borne
pathogens as a result of food irradiation would, by itself, result in a
change in the food's characteristics that would not be apparent at the
point of purchase of the food and, thus, would have to be disclosed in
the labeling of the food to prevent the labeling from being misleading.
Consumers expect food to be safe and of a certain quality, and
therefore, FDA tentatively concludes that control of food-borne
pathogens alone is not an unexpected change in the food. Thus, in
instances where a food has been irradiated to enhance or maintain the
safety of a food by controlling food-borne pathogens that may be
present, and no other changes to the food have resulted, FDA
tentatively concludes that information that the food has been
irradiated is not necessary to prevent the labeling from being
misleading. FDA is interested in receiving any information on whether
the control of food-borne pathogens changes the characteristics of the
food in an unexpected way, i.e., outside of the normal variation of the
food, and would therefore require additional labeling to inform the
consumer of such change. FDA also solicits comments on any specific
changes that might be caused by irradiation that might constitute non-
material changes.
On the other hand, there may be situations in which irradiation to
control food-borne pathogens has had other effects on foods, such as
changes to organoleptic, nutritional, or functional properties which
would not be readily apparent to the consumer. In such situations,
information that there are changes in the characteristics of the food
as a consequence of irradiation is the material information that is
required in labeling in keeping with the act, to prevent the labeling
from being misleading. Further, with regard specifically to shelf life,
FDA recognizes that irradiation to control the growth of food-borne
pathogens may have the unintended effect of extending shelf life. We
specifically request comment on the effect of irradiation on shelf life
and the extent of any relationship between control of food-borne
pathogens and extension of shelf life.
In the past, FDA policies on irradiation labeling have focused on
the fact that the food has been processed. In the preamble to the 1986
final rule, we stated that ``* * * irradiation may not change the food
visually so that in the absence of a statement that a food has been
irradiated, the implied representation to consumers is that the food
has not been processed'' (51 FR 13376 at 13388). FDA concluded that, to
prevent deception, the fact that the irradiated food is processed is
material information that is required to be disclosed on the label.
Thus, FDA required in Sec. 179.26(c) (21 CFR 179.26(c)) that, in
addition to the radura logo, the label and labeling of irradiated foods
bear the statement ``Treated with radiation'' or ``Treated by
irradiation.''
In recent years, FDA policies on the labeling of foods have focused
on the results of the processing of the food rather than the processing
itself. As discussed earlier, although foods that have been irradiated
have been processed, the irradiation does not always result in a
material change in the food or in the consequences of use. Further, FDA
consumer research indicates that information provided to consumers on
the labels of foods is more meaningful if it describes the purpose of
the irradiation (Ref. 2). FDA recognizes that labeling to inform the
consumer that the product has been irradiated does not, in itself,
inform the consumer if or how the product is materially changed. Thus,
FDA tentatively believes that when the irradiation causes a material
change in the characteristics of the food, the consumer needs to know
about this change, and not just the fact that the food has been
irradiated. FDA believes that this information should be provided in a
disclosure statement on the label of the irradiated food. The
disclosure statement would describe the material change in the
properties of the food and give consumers additional information that
would enable them to make better informed decisions about whether to
purchase an irradiated food.
[[Page 16296]]
Therefore, FDA is proposing to amend Sec. 179.26(c)(1) and (c)(2)
to require that only those foods that have been treated with radiation,
and in which the irradiation caused a material change in the
characteristics of the food must bear the radura logo and the term
``irradiated,'' or other derivatives as discussed previously in section
II.A in conjunction with explicit language describing the change in the
food or its conditions of use (e.g., ``irradiated to inhibit
sprouting''). In addition, as noted in the 1986 final rule (51 FR 13376
at 13391), FDA believes that the logo is still a necessary part of the
label statement because it derives from the symbol that has been used
internationally to convey the fact that the food has been irradiated.
FDA tentatively concludes that this approach is appropriate because it
would require that consumers be provided with more precise information
about the material change in the characteristics of the food than what
is currently required. As noted previously, such material changes may
affect how products are stored and subsequently used by consumers, as
well as whether or not the products are purchased in the first place.
However, FDA requests comments on whether the term that describes the
process, e.g., ``irradiated'' or an alternate term such as
``pasteurized,'' is a necessary part of the label statement to ensure
that consumers completely understand the statement.
As previously discussed in section I.D of this document, section
10809 of the FSRIA provides that anyone requesting approval of
alternative labeling for a food that has been treated by irradiation,
may petition FDA. As discussed in the 2002 Guidance, FDA believes that
it is appropriate to use the citizen petition process provided in Sec.
10.30. This regulation requires the petitioner to submit to the agency
all relevant information regarding the petition. This relevant
information includes both the information and views upon which the
petitioner relies and the information known to the petitioner that is
unfavorable to the petitioner's position. Thus for these purposes,
relevant information would include any data known or relied upon by the
petitioner (e.g., qualitative or quantitative consumer research), that
show consumer understanding of the purpose and intent of the proposed
alternative labeling. FDA believes that such information might include,
but is not limited to, the following information: (1) Data on
consumers' prior assumptions about, and perceptions of, the product
characteristics in light of the proposed labeling statements and (2)
data on consumer acceptance and comprehension of the proposed labeling
statements in comparison to consumer acceptance and comprehension of
the irradiation statement required by the current regulation (Sec.
179.26(c)(1)). Also, as noted in section I.D of this document, section
10808 of the FSRIA revised section 403(h) of the act to permit the use
of the term ``pasteurized'' on labels of foods that have been subjected
to a safe process as long as the process meets certain criteria.
Therefore, we are proposing in Sec. 179.26(c)(1) to permit the use
of alternate terms to ``irradiated'' or any of its derivatives, on the
labels and labeling of irradiated foods. We are proposing in Sec.
179.26(c)(2) that the alternate term may be used on the labels and
labeling of foods that have been treated by irradiation, that is, if
use of the term has been approved by FDA in response to a citizen
petition submitted in accordance with Sec. 10.30. In the case that the
alternative term is ``pasteurized,'' the irradiation process must meet
the criteria of section 403(h)(3) of the act. Anyone seeking to label a
food as ``pasteurized'' under this provision must notify FDA and
provide effectiveness data regarding the process or treatment used. The
agency intends to issue guidance to interested parties who wish to
notify the agency to use the term ``pasteurized'' in accordance with
section 403(h)(3) of the act.
FDA and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), U.S.
Department of Agriculture, entered into a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) establishing procedures to jointly respond to petitions to use
food ingredients and sources of irradiation in the production of meat
and poultry products (see 64 FR 72168, December 23, 1999, at https://
www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/88-026F.pdf; for the MOU, see
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/Labeling_FDA_MOU/
index.asp). FSIS has separately issued regulations at 9 CFR 424.22(c)
regarding the irradiation of meat and poultry products (see 64 FR
72150, December 23, 1999, at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/
FRPubs/97-076F.pdf).
III. Analysis of Economic Impacts
A. Introduction
FDA has examined the economic implications of this proposed rule as
required by Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public
Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs
and benefits 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, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 12866 classifies a rule as significant if it meets any
one of a number of specified conditions, including: having an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affecting in
a material way a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health, or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities. A regulation also is considered a
significant regulatory action if it raises novel legal or policy
issues. We have determined that this rule is a significant regulatory
action as defined by Executive Order 12866 because it raises novel
policy issues.
B. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. The Need for the Proposed Irradiation Labeling Rule
Executive Order 12866 states, ``Federal agencies should promulgate
only such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to
interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling need, such as
failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety
of the public, the environment, or the well being of the American
people.''
As previously discussed in section I.D of this document, on May 13,
2002, the President signed into law the FSRIA, which contains a
provision relating to irradiation labeling. Section 10809 directs FDA
to publish a proposed rule and, with due consideration to public
comment, a final rule to revise the current regulation governing the
labeling of foods that have been treated by irradiation. This rule is
proposed not to address any market failure, but to respond to section
10809 of FSRIA and because we tentatively believe that it may no longer
be necessary to require that all irradiated food be labeled as such.
2. Regulatory Options
We analyzed five options for the proposed irradiation regulation:
No new regulatory action (current state of the world,
baseline).
Remove labeling requirements for irradiated foods.
Maintain the current labeling requirement (that is, all
food that is irradiated must be labeled), but also require statements
of purpose (e.g., ``Irradiated to extend shelf life'').
[[Page 16297]]
Maintain the current labeling requirement, but also allow
alternate terms to irradiation (e.g., ``pasteurized'').
The proposed regulation--Only those foods treated with
irradiation and for which the irradiation caused a material change in
the food must bear the radura logo and the term ``irradiated'' or an
alternate term such as ``pasteurized'' in conjunction with explicit
language describing the change in the food or its conditions of use
(e.g., ``irradiated to inhibit sprouting''). A food undergoes a
material change if irradiation changes the properties of the food in a
way that is not readily apparent to the consumer at the point of
purchase. Therefore, in the absence of a material change, the fact that
the food was irradiated is not considered a material fact and,
therefore, no radura logo or label statement would be needed.
Option 1: No New Regulatory Action (baseline).
Taking no new regulatory action on irradiation labeling is option 1
in our analysis. The FSRIA requires FDA to publish a proposed rule and,
with due consideration to public comment, a final rule to revise the
current irradiation labeling regulation. So this is not a viable
option. We include it here because the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) cost-benefit analysis guidelines recommend discussing statutory
requirements that affect the selection of regulatory approaches. These
guidelines also recommend analyzing the opportunity cost of legal
constraints that prevent the selection of the regulatory action that
best satisfies the philosophy and principles of Executive Order 12866.
This option will serve as the baseline against which other options will
be measured for assessing costs and benefits, and we assume the
baseline has zero costs and benefits.
The current regulation (Sec. 179.26) states that irradiated food
must bear the radura logo and the phrase ``Treated with radiation'' or
``Treated by irradiation'' and does not explicitly address the
inclusion of additional information that directs attention to shelf
life or food safety. Currently, FDA has approved iradiation for a
number of foods including spices, shell eggs, and fruits and
vegetables; however, only limited amounts of irradiated foods are sold
in the United States. According to a report by the General Accounting
Office\5\ (2000), it is estimated that 97 million pounds of food
products are irradiated annually (including ``meat food products''
under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and ``poultry'' under the Poultry
Products Inspection Act\6\, which are regulated by the United States
Department of Agriculture), which is only a small fraction of the total
amount of food consumed. For example, about 1.5 million pounds of
fruits and vegetables are irradiated annually. This represents only
0.005 percent of the total amount of fruits and vegetables consumed.
About 95 million pounds of spices and dry or dehydrated aromatic
vegetable substances are irradiated annually, which represents 9.5
percent of all spices consumed. Because spices, shell eggs, fruits and
vegetables account for virtually all the food irradiation done in the
United States, we use only data about those foods in our economic
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Now the Government Accountability Office.
\6\ It is our understanding that as of 2000 only a very small
proportion of poultry (0.002 percent of annual consumption) and no
meats were irradiated and available commercially (Ref. 10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2: Propose to remove labeling requirements for irradiated
foods
This option also may not be viable because it could violate section
403(a) of the act, which provides that the labeling of all foods,
including irradiated foods, must be truthful and not misleading. In
addition, section 201(n) of the act mandates that, in determining
whether particular labeling is misleading, FDA consider whether the
labeling fails to reveal material facts in light of representations
made, or with respect to, the consequences that may result from the use
of the product. Having no labeling requirements might violate these
provisions. If this option were chosen, costs and benefits would be
generated if many firms ceased labeling their irradiated products.
Costs: Since this option would not require labeling, search costs
would increase for purchasers who do not want irradiated food. There
will be an increase in search costs because these consumers would need
to increase efforts to find information about irradiated foods other
than on the labels or in the labeling, or obtain knowledge of producers
who irradiate their food products. If firms decide to drop labeling,
they would incur relabeling and label inventory costs but they would
choose the least costly labeling option.
Benefits: This option could be beneficial to those firms currently
labeling irradiated food by allowing them to reclaim label space on the
label for private purposes, such as marketing messages or label art.
Without a labeling requirement, it is possible that irradiation would
become more attractive to firms because of this benefit. Any increases
in the numbers of irradiated foods could, in turn, result in increased
food safety or shelf life.
Option 3: Maintain the current labeling requirement (i.e., require
that all irradiated food be labeled ``Treated with radiation'' or
``Treated by irradiation,'' along with the radura logo), but propose to
also require statements of purpose (e.g., ``Treated with irradiation to
inhibit sprouting,'' etc.).
The current regulation (Sec. 179.26(c)) states that irradiated
food must bear the radura logo and the phrase ``Treated with
radiation'' or ``Treated by irradiation.'' The current regulation does
not explicitly address the inclusion of additional information that
directs attention to, for example, shelf life or food safety. This
option would amend the current regulation to include explicit
requirements on inclusion of additional information on irradiation
benefits. While it is possible that some firms that irradiate food
currently include statements of purpose, this option would formally
require this inclusion.
Costs: This option would generate costs because firms would be
required to relabel their products in order to include statements of
purpose. Tables 1 and 2 of this document outline estimated labeling
costs for sectors of the food industry that may require relabeling. The
food categories included in the table are currently approved for
irradiation by FDA.
Table 1 outlines low, medium, and high cost estimates based on a
change in the principal display panel. Table 2 outlines low, medium,
and high cost estimates based on a change in the information panel or
assuming that the irradiation statement is similar in cost to a
nutrient content claim or health claim. It is not certain which table
most likely represents costs to firms because it is not certain what
conditions would make the costs in table 1 more likely or what
conditions would make table 2 more likely. Both tables show estimated
costs under compliance periods of 12, 24, and 36 months. In both tables
1 and 2, compliance costs decrease as the length of compliance period
increases for all product categories because firms can coordinate new
changes in labels with already-scheduled changes in labels. In
addition, the compliance period affects whether or not firms would
incur additional labor costs, such as overtime, and the volume of
labeling inventory that would have to be discarded as a result of a new
rule.
Cost estimates are shown in two proportions for each compliance
period: If 1 percent of the industry irradiates
[[Page 16298]]
and if 5 percent of the industry irradiates. As can be seen in the
tables, industry costs decrease as the number of firms irradiating food
decreases. Data on the actual number of firms that irradiate food or
will want to irradiate food in the future are not currently available.
The agency requests comments on the number of firms or products that
would be affected by a new irradiation labeling rule.
The cost model used in this analysis does not include costs for
labeling fresh produce without packaging because fresh fruits and
vegetables do not have Universal Product Codes that can be scanned.
Nonetheless, it is still necessary to estimate costs associated with
labeling fresh fruits and vegetables that have been irradiated.
One way of labeling fresh fruits and vegetables is by placing
stickers on the produce. While it is not known how many fruit and
vegetable manufacturers irradiate or will want to irradiate as a result
of this rule, according to the 2002 Census of Manufacturers (Ref. 8),
there are 5,836 firms that process fresh fruits and vegetables. As with
costs estimates for the other food categories, it is assumed that 1
percent of these firms, or 58, may want to irradiate, or 5 percent of
these firms, or 292, may want to irradiate. Our 1 percent and 5 percent
assumptions are based on the generally observed very low rate of
adoption of irradiation technology in food processing to date. We do
not have specific data to estimate the number of firms that will
irradiate if this rule is finalized, and we request comment on this
assumption.
For firms, there are administrative costs involving the
establishment of what the sticker will look like, as well as the costs
of finding the printer to produce these stickers. Based on previous
estimates of similar costs in the final rule on the Labeling of Juice
Products (63 FR 24254; May 1, 1998), the agency estimates these
administrative costs to be $100 per firm. In addition, printers levy
one time charges for set-up in addition to the basic per unit cost of
labels. The agency estimates these costs to be $250 per firm. Table 3A
summarizes administrative costs associated with using stickers if 1
percent of the industry irradiates and if 5 percent of the industry
irradiates.
In addition to administrative costs, there are labor costs
associated with affixing stickers to the fruits and vegetables. The
agency estimates the labor cost of applying the labels by multiplying
the average agricultural hourly wage ($10.75) (Ref. 8a) by the
approximate number of hours needed to label the irradiated fruits and
vegetables. Assuming it takes one worker 1 hour to label 240 pounds of
fruits or vegetables (4 pounds per minute multiplied by 60 minutes) it
would take approximately 6,250 hours to label 1.5 million pounds of
fruits and vegetables, the approximate amount of fruits and vegetables
irradiated annually in this country. The total labor costs associated
with labels would then be $67,188. Table 3B summarizes total labor
costs if one worker can label 240 pounds per hour, 360 pounds per hour
or 480 pounds per hour. The agency requests comments on costs
associated with labeling fresh fruits and vegetables that have been
irradiated.
Benefits: A statement regarding the purpose of irradiation would
serve to provide more information to consumers than what is currently
on the label. To the extent that the addition of the statement of
purpose causes people to purchase irradiated products they may have
previously avoided, and to the extent that these products have longer
shelf life or lower risk of illness, then consumers will benefit.
Consumers may look more favorably on irradiated food once they
understand the purpose, which in turn, could result in more irradiated
food in the market due to the increase in demand. Information may also
be a benefit in itself even if purchases do not increase. Research
indicates that providing a statement of purpose results in a more
positive attitude by consumers toward the purchase of irradiated food
(Ref. 3). Furthermore, research indicates that providing information
about the benefits of irradiation may increase willingness of consumers
to pay for irradiated food (Ref. 4).
Table 1.--Cost Estimates: Irradiation Relabeling, Principal Display Panel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of Cost Estimates
Food Category Compliance Firms Affected by --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period Rule Low Medium High
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spices/Seasonings 12 months 1% $406,553 $581,000 $966,000
................. 5% $2,032,033 $2,905,689 $4,831,841
24 months 1% $195,967 $279,944 $468,000
................. 5% $981,269 $1,400,095 $2,335,798
36 months 1% $27,799 $39,650 $66,269
................. 5% $138,995 $198,248 $331,343
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Eggs 12 months 1% $236,341 $314,692 $568,084
................. 5% $1,181,032 $1,570,997 $2,844,160
24 months 1% $144,063 $191,041 $345,471
................. 5% $718,210 $955,915 $1,728,457
36 months 1% $61,852 $82,324 $149,000
................. 5% $309,262 $411,618 $744,275
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dried Vegetables 12 months 1% $164,604 $218,663 $394,000
................. 5% $822,781 $1,094,153 $1,969,567
24 months 1% $92,292 $122,838 $222,307
................. 5% $461,461 $614,191 $1,110,562
36 months 1% $32,092 $42,713 $77,233
................. 5% $160,459 $213,566 $386,163
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals 12 months 1% $807,498 $1,114,355 $1,928,084
................. 5% $4,035,846 $5,570,839 $9,645,568
24 months 1% $432,322 $593,823 $1,035,778
................. 5% $2,160,940 $2,970,201 $5,174,817
36 months 1% $121,743 $164,687 $292,502
[[Page 16299]]
................. 5% $608,716 $823,432 $1,461,781
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost estimates include administrative, graphic design, prepress, engraving, analytical testing, market testing, and discarded inventory.
Source: RTI International, ``FDA Labeling Cost Model'' RTI Project 06673.010, March 2003.
Table 2.--Cost Estimates: Irradiation Relabeling, Information Panel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of Cost Estimates
Food Category Compliance Firms Affected by --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period Rule Low Medium High
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spices/Seasonings 12 months 1% $192,245 $285,335 $447,000
................. 5% $959,479 $1,426,545 $2,233,436
24 months 1% $91,101 $134,964 $213,209
................. 5% $455,504 $674,821 $1,065,921
36 months 1% $12,860 $19,042 $30,121
................. 5% $64,298 $95,208 $150,605
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Eggs 12 months 1% $107,773 $151,940 $254,488
................. 5% $538,863 $759,434 $1,273,169
24 months 1% $65,539 $92,365 $154,472
................. 5% $327,694 $461,827 $774,240
36 months 1% $28,221 $39,773 $66,678
................. 5% $141,105 $198,863 $333,388
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dried Vegetables 12 months 1% $76,347 $107,227 $178,332
................. 5% $381,735 $536,134 $891,881
24 months 1% $42,110 $59,346 $99,492
................. 5% $210,549 $296,732 $497,462
36 months 1% $14,642 $20,636 $34,595
................. 5% $73,212 $103,179 $172,977
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals 12 months 1% $376,365 $544,502 $879,820
................. 5% $1,880,077 $2,722,113 $4,398,486
24 months 1% $198,750 $286,675 $467,173
................. 5% $993,747 $1,433,380 $2,337,623
36 months 1% $55,723 $79,451 $131,394
................. 5% $278,615 $397,250