This is basically what the Pet Food Institute, the lobby organization representing Big Pet Food, told the FDA in a recent letter.
The Pet Food Institute along with numerous other lobby organizations represent food industries, have started working on the FDA; again. Here’s what they sent to the FDA…
March 10, 2011
The Honorable Jack Kington
Chairman, Agriculture, Rural Development
FDA and Related Agencies Subcommittee
Committee on Appropriation
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Sam Farr
Ranking Member, Agriculture, Rural
Development, FDA and Related Agencies
Subcommittee, Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Kingston and Ranking Member Farr:
The White House’s recently released fiscal year 2012 budget for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) includes a pledge to work with Congress to impose new “food safety fees” to fund enactment of a recently passed food safety law. While ensuring the safety of the U.S. food supply is the number one priority of our organizations and the food producers we represent, we urge you to reject any efforts to create a new food tax on consumers and food companies.
As you know, FDA’s 2012 budget proposal released on February 14 targets raising revenue from new fees starting in 2013 to assist FDA implement the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). While the administration has yet to detail the exact nature of the fees it seeks, Congress already rejected such fees during congressional consideration of the FSMA.
Implementation of the FSMA is a top priority for the food industry and FDA, according to the budget proposal. The White House has requested targeted funds for its implementation of $100 million for 2012. However, congressional budget experts predict it will take at least $300 million a year to implement. Given that discrepancy, the administration should have requested more funds for FDA in their budget submission rather than relying on congressionally rejected user fees to make up the difference.
Imposing new fees on food facilities would represent a food safety tax on consumers. As food companies and consumers continue to cope with a period of pro-longed economic turbulence, the creation of a new food tax would mean higher costs for businesses and higher food prices for consumers.
We urge Congress to reaffirm its stated opposition to imposing new user fees on food producers and stand ready to work with Congress and the administration to find a better and less burdensome solution.
If you have questions about our concerns, please contact any of the signatory organizations.
Sincerely,
American Bakers Association
American Frozen Food Institute
American Meat Institute
Frozen Potato Products Institute
Independent Bakers Association
International Bottled Water Association
National Chicken Council
National Confectioners Association
National Fisheries Institute
National Frozen Pizza Institute
National Grain and Feed Association
National Meat Association
Pet Food Institute
Produce Marketers Association
Snack Food Association
United Egg Producers
United Fresh Produce Association
http://www.affi.org/assets/resources/public/fda-user-fee-letter-house-ag-approps.pdf
So let’s see…lobby groups such as the Pet Food Institute want safer food, but they don’t want to pay for it, they want to tell the FDA what’s safe (GRAS – Generally Recognized as Safe) in food but not prove it by independent testing, and the Pet Food Institute wants to continue to be able to make “unqualified claims” on pet food labels plus include ingredients that violate federal food safety law. Nice deal for industry, but not so nice for consumers/petsumers.
I’ve got a suggestion for a “a better and less burdensome solution” with regards to pet food. How about pet food industry that adheres to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. No FDA Compliance policies allowing diseased animals or euthanized animals in pet food. How about pet food with honest labels. Just the truth; no hidden waste behind less offensive sounding ingredient names such as by-product meal, animal fat, and animal digest. Seriously, if you really want ‘a better and less burdensome solution’ to safer pet food, why not just abide by federal law and be honest? It’s really quite simple.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author, Buyer Beware
Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
PetsumerReport.com
What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the ‘rest of the story’ on over 2500 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com
Are you subscribed to Truth About Pet Food Newsletter? Click Here to subscribe
Follow Truth about Pet Food on Twitter
Become a Fan of Truth about Pet Food, Dinner PAWsible, Buyer Beware on Facebook
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
