| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|||
| |||||
     |
 |
|
 June 3, 2003
(202) 434-4120 The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Packaging Materials Committee Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: In this letter, we discuss two more proposed regulations issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of the implementation of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002; one provision will require the establishment and maintenance of records by persons who handle food products, and the other will allow the Agency to detain any component of an article of food if an FDA officer or qualified employee has credible evidence or information indicating that the article of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. As with the previous two proposals on facilities registration and import notification, FDA has drafted these proposals using the broad definition of "food" provided in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This means that the regulations would apply, at a minimum, to all food packaging materials and other food-contact materials that meet the statutory definition of "food additive," and probably even to articles and materials that are exempt from the definition of "food additive." Also, as in the case of the previous two proposed regulations, FDA has indicated in meetings its intent to cover only finished packaging for direct contact with food, not food-contact substances or "outer packaging." At a minimum, the regulations will need to be revised to implement FDA's stated intent properly. With respect to recordkeeping, we believe that the Congressional intent behind the Bioterrorism Act would be fulfilled by a regulation that simply requires food processors to maintain records identifying the sources of their packaging. We also discuss FDA's plans to withdraw 84 proposed actions and rules that were never made final, and the Agency's revision of its draft analytical method for determination of acrylamide in food. We further report on the formation of a new Congressional caucus on food safety, California's notice of intention to list di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) on Proposition 65, and pending California legislation that would impose a two cent fee on most disposable plastic bags or cups distributed in the state. There have been several developments on food irradiation. In this regard, we discuss the Codex Committee's removal of the irradiation dose cap and the European Union's Scientific Committee on Food's (SCF) opinion on the high dose irradiation of foods. We also discuss attacks by consumer interest groups on the brochures to be used by the Minnesota school system to inform parents on the use of irradiation of food distributed through the school lunch program. Finally, with respect to the European Union (EU), we discuss SPI's comments on the new draft of the so-called "Superdirective," the selection of scientists for panels under the new European Food Safety Authority, the issuance by the SCF of its opinions on the 22nd and 23rd additional lists of substances used in food packaging, and a new law in Belgium that seeks to encourage the use of recycled materials in packaging. Table of Contents
1. Food Packaging Materials Subject to FDA Proposed Bioterrorism Regulations Governing Recordkeeping and Administrative Detention A proposed regulation published by FDA in the May 9, 2003 Federal Register will require the establishment and maintenance of records by persons who handle food products. A second regulation published on the same date will allow the Agency to detain any component of an article of food if FDA has credible evidence or information indicating that the article of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. As is explained further below, the regulations as drafted could be interpreted as applying to all food-contact materials, although the Agency has sent conflicting signals on the applicability of the proposals to packaging. Copies of the draft regulations can be found on the Agency's website at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-11460.pdf (recordkeeping) and http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-11459.pdf (administrative detention). These proposals are the final two of four proposed rules the Agency was required to promulgate pursuant to the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act). The recordkeeping provisions are designed to assist FDA in determining the cause and location of a threatened or actual terrorist attack on the U.S. food supply, and the administrative detention provisions are intended to provide the Agency with the authority to respond to an actual or threatened attack. Comments on the paperwork burden imposed by the proposed recordkeeping regulation are due to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by June 9, 2003. FDA considers the proposed administrative detention regulation to be exempt from review by OMB for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (and we do not recommend opposition to this position). Comments on other aspects of both proposals are due to FDA by July 8, 2003. Please let us know about any issues that you would like to see covered in the comments. Records Establishment and Maintenance The recordkeeping proposal requires the establishment and maintenance of records, for not longer than two years, by persons who manufacture, process, pack, transport, distribute, receive, hold, or import food (one year for perishable food and animal food). The proposal would apply to both domestic and foreign firms that perform any of the above activities with respect to food for human or animal consumption in the United States. Suppliers of food packaging and other food-contact materials are brought within the reach of the proposed regulation by virtue of the proposal's definition of "food," which, as in the previous proposed bioterrorism regulations, is coextensive with the definition of "food" in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). As we have discussed many times over the years, the definition of "food" under Section 201(f) of the FFDCA includes both articles used for food by man or animals and components of such articles. A "food additive" is defined in Section 201(s) of the FFDCA as any substance "that is reasonably expected to become a component of food" (emphasis added). Therefore, any food-contact substance that meets the definition of a "food additive" also comes within the definition of "food," which FDA has incorporated by reference in the proposed regulation on recordkeeping and the other proposed bioterrorism regulations. In fact, court decisions indicate that a food-contact article or material comes within FDA's authority over "food" even if it is exempt from the need for premarket clearance as a "food additive" (by being a "houseware," for example). In the language of the proposed regulation itself, FDA indicates that the Agency intends "food" to be interpreted as extending to the full breadth of the term's definition under the FFDCA by offering as an example of "food" "substances that migrate into food from food packaging and other articles that contact food." 68 Fed. Reg. 25238. The way the proposed recordkeeping regulation is drafted, then, it would apply, at a minimum, to all food-contact substances that meet the definition of "food additive," and, possibly, to literally all food-contact articles and materials. The preamble to the proposed regulation and FDA's public statements, however, suggest that such broad coverage is not really the Agency's intent. Specifically, the preamble states as follows with respect to food packaging (quoted here in its entirety to demonstrate the confusion in FDA's own statements). FDA interprets packaging in section 306 of the Bioterrorism Act [the recordkeeping provision] to mean the outer packaging of food that bears the label. FDA is not interpreting packaging to include food contact substances, which are included in the definition of "food." Outer packaging would include, for example, the outer cardboard cereal box that bears the label of the cereal, but would not include the inner lining that holds the cereal. Outer packaging would also not include the outer shipping box in which the cereal boxes are shipped. 68 Federal Register 25190. As if the preamble were not confusing enough, FDA also was heard to say at a May 7 "satellite downlink" conference that packaging would be exempt from the recordkeeping regulation. This position has been reported by some of the trade press. Subsequently, at a May 14 meeting at the National Food Processors Association (NFPA), FDA stated its intent to exempt only "outer" packaging. Putting this all together as best we can, we believe that the status of the proposed recordkeeping regulation as it relates to food packaging can be summarized in the following bullet points.
If we have identified FDA's intent correctly, the proposed regulation must be revised to implement that intent. Congressional intent, however, as indicated in the language of the statute, would be fulfilled by a simpler regulation requiring food processors to maintain records identifying the immediate suppliers of their finished packaging or packaging materials. FDA apparently believes that the Bioterrorism Act mandates recordkeeping by packaging suppliers. The Agency states in the preamble that "Section 306 of the Bioterrorism Act expressly states that FDA has authority to require recordkeeping as to 'food, including its packaging.'" 68 Fed. Reg. 25190. Well, not exactly. Actually, as indicated at the beginning of the preamble to the proposed regulation, the Bioterrorism Act provides that FDA may by regulation establish requirements regarding the establishment and maintenance, for not longer than 2 years, of records by persons (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufacture, process, pack, transport, distribute, receive, hold or import food. 68 Fed. Reg. 25188. Based on the language of the statute and our knowledge of the underlying Congressional intent, we are confident that Congress used "food" according to the ordinary understanding of the word, meaning edible food, not packaging. The statute then goes on to describe the types of records to be kept, as follows. The records that must be kept by these regulations are those that are needed by [FDA] for inspection to allow [FDA] to identify the immediate previous sources and immediate subsequent recipients of food, including its packaging, in order to address credible threats of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. 68 Fed. Reg. 25188. This language does not mandate recordkeeping by packaging suppliers. Indeed, the statute recognizes a distinction between "food" and its packaging. The law and Congressional intent would be satisfied by records identifying the source of the finished packaging used by a food processor. Notwithstanding our interpretation of the statute, the proposed regulation on its face currently extends to all suppliers (and transporters) of food-contact materials. Therefore, you need to be aware of the types of records that would be required. Some of the information undoubtedly is maintained by most companies in the ordinary course of business. We would very much appreciate your input on the additional burden that would be imposed by the proposed regulation. For a "nontransporter," a company which "holds, processes, packs, imports, receives, or distributes food for purposes other than transportation," the following records would be required:
68 Fed. Reg. 25238-25239. Transporters (domestic companies that have possession, custody or control of an article of food for the sole purpose of transporting the food) would be required to keep the following records:
68 Fed. Reg. 25239. The record retention periods have been identified previously (2 years for nonperishable human "food," 1 year for perishable "food" and for animal "food"). The records must be kept "at the establishment where the covered activities described in the records occurred (onsite) or at a reasonably accessible location." Access to the records will be important because they must be made available to FDA within four hours if requested between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, or within eight hours if requested at any other time. No extension of time would be allowed for records stored offsite. 68 Fed. Reg. 25239. Finally, records are not required of "recipes for food, financial data, pricing data, research data, or sales data (other than shipment data regarding sales)." The term "recipe," however, applies only to a quantitative formula, not to the identity of ingredients. 68 Fed. Reg. 25239. We definitely recommend that the Committee submit comments to both OMB and FDA opposing the way this regulation is currently drafted with respect to food-contact materials. As with the previous proposed bioterrorism regulations, we take this position in large part because we do not believe that packaging presents much, if any, risk of being the focus of terrorism against the food supply. Therefore, the additional burden on packaging suppliers is not warranted. On the other hand, as we discuss in the next portion of this letter, we do not recommend that the Committee oppose administrative detention of food-contact materials based on "credible evidence or information indicating that such article presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals." Even the proposed regulation on administrative detention, however, needs to be clarified by FDA with respect to the food-contact materials that are intended to be covered. Administrative Detention This proposal would allow FDA to order the detention of any article of food if the Agency has credible evidence or information indicating that the article of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. The period of detention would be 20 days, with a possible extension to 30 days if required for FDA's investigation. Detention orders would be appealable. The proposal also makes it a prohibited act to transfer a detained article or remove or alter any mark or label required to identify the food as detained. As is the case with the recordkeeping and other bioterrorism proposals, suppliers of food-contact materials are brought within the reach of the regulation by virtue of the proposal's definition of "food," which, again, is coextensive with the definition in Section 201(f) of the FFDCA. 68 Fed. Reg. 25268. FDA also includes in the proposed regulation as an example of "food" "substances that migrate into food from food packaging and other articles that contact food." The preamble to the regulation, however, contains the statement that "substances that migrate into food from food packaging" include "immediate food packaging or components of immediate food packaging that are intended for food use. Outer food packaging is not considered a substance that migrates into food." FDA stated during the May 7 satellite downlink meeting that it does intend for the administrative detention provision to apply to packaging materials; however, it is unclear whether the Agency intends to include just finished food packaging or all food-contact materials. With the current definition of "food" in the rule, the proposal could be interpreted as applying to any food-contact material, and the rule will need to be clarified on this point. We would be very interested in hearing your reactions to both of the proposed regulations. You also may submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and/or FDA. OMB is recommending that comments on the paperwork burden of the recordkeeping proposal be electronically mailed to sshapiro@omb.eop.gov or faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Stuart Shapiro, Desk Officer for FDA, 202-395-6974. Comments on the substantive portions of the proposals can be submitted via mail to FDA at the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville MD 20852, or electronically at http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. 2. FDA Indicates Intent to Withdraw 84 Outdated Proposed Actions FDA plans to withdraw 84 proposed actions and rules that were never made final, and which are no longer priorities. According to the Agency, the sweep of the non-final proposals represents an effort to clarify the status of old projects, simplify and streamline the rulemaking process, and focus efforts on relevant pending projects. Some of the projects marked for withdrawal - including advance notice of proposed rulemakings, proposed rules, and other proposed actions - date back at least five years and, in some cases, a quarter century; in many cases, the Agency has carried out alternative measures. Other proposals simply are no longer priorities, given the Agency's need to focus its resources on more critical responsibilities. Finally, some proposals rely on methods and approaches that, given the amount of time that has elapsed, are no longer appropriate. Similar reviews of the agency's backlog of pending proposals were conducted in 1986, 1991, and 1993. Withdrawing outdated projects "has helped ensure that FDA's docket contains only those proposals that are priorities for protecting the public health," the Agency said. FDA advised that, in some cases, the preambles of the targeted proposals "may still reflect the current position of FDA on the matter addressed." Further, "withdrawal of a proposal is not intended to affect whatever utility the preamble statements may currently have as indications of FDA's position on a matter at the time the proposal was published." Of particular interest to members of the packaging industry is the Agency's intent to withdraw its proposals on uses of vinyl chloride polymers (published in the Federal Register Feb. 3, 1986) and acrylonitrile copolymers intended for use in contact with food (published in the Federal Register March 11, 1977). The withdrawal of these proposals, however, will not affect the continued regulatory compliance of these types of polymers. Comments from the public on the initiative in general, and on the withdrawal of specific proposals in particular, will be accepted by the Agency until July 21, 2003. The details about each of the proposed withdrawals were published in the April 22 Federal Register. 3. FDA Revises Draft Analytical Method for Determination of Acrylamide in Food FDA has revised its draft analytical method for the quantitative determination of acrylamide in foods. Changes include an updated cleanup process, a refined liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) determination process, and a revised cautionary statement. The cautionary statement notes that the method described is in the development process. The draft method can be found on the Agency's website at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/acrylami.html. 4. Congress Forms New Caucus on Food Safety A new Congressional caucus formed by Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Tom Latham (R-IA) will address the incidence of foodborne illness and the emerging challenges in food safety, such as bioterrorism. The Caucus will hold regular educational briefings on topics such as the contamination of foods, protecting our food supply from bioterrorism, bio-engineered foods, and risk-based management of food safety. The goals of the Caucus are to: (1) Educate the public and Congress on current and emerging food safety issues; (2) Begin a productive dialogue about the ability of the current system to secure our food supply; (3) Coordinate and facilitate communication between members of Congress, consumers, food safety agencies and the private sector; and (4) Enhance the various legislative efforts toward improving the safety of the food supply. 5. California Announces Notice of Intent to List DEHP under Proposition 65 California has announced its intent to list di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) under Proposition 65 as a chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity. "Proposition 65" (The California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986), requires the listing of chemicals by the state government of California which are "known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.@ The Proposition 65 lists are derived from lists maintained by a variety of Aauthoritative@ bodies, such as the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). For products containing listed chemicals, warnings must be provided if consumer or workplace exposures exceed a Ano significant risk level@ (NSRL) established in accordance with California regulations. In our experience, plastic packaging materials containing substances listed under Proposition 65 have not required warnings, since exposures have been below the applicable NSRL. 6. California Considers Fee on Disposable Bags and Cups Pending California legislation (Assembly Bill No. 586, the "Litter and Marine Debris Reduction and Recycling Act") would impose a two cent fee on most disposable plastic bags or cups distributed in the state. The fee would apply to most bags at grocers, retailers, dry cleaners and carry-out restaurants and a variety of disposable plastic, paper or plastic-coated paper cups. Exempt would be bags containing at least 40 percent post-consumer content, bags made of durable materials specifically designed and commonly used for at least 1,000 reuses, or bags holding food products with no other packaging. 7. Codex Committee Removes Irradiation Dose Cap; EU's SCF Issues Opinion on High-Dose Irradiation of Foods The Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants has removed the 10 kiloGray (kGy) dose cap for irradiation of certain food products. The panel also decided to allow food to be irradiated with Cesium 137. Final approval of the measure took several years due to the controversial nature of irradiation. The U.S. had long supported removal of the dose cap, but other entities, the EU in particular, had opposed the measure. In a recently released opinion, EU's SCF stated that it could not recommend a general removal of the upper limit, stating that there is a limited toxicological database relating to foods irradiated at doses above 10 kGy. This opinion represents a change in position for the SCF, which previously had indicated that there were no safety concerns related to the irradiation of food. The Committee further stated in this recent opinion that available human studies do not even support extending the doses up to 10 kGy. The one exception would be the irradiation of dried herbs and spices, which may need to be irradiated at doses up to 30 kGy due to technological reasons. Herbs, spices and dry seasonings are the only foods approved for use with irradiation in the EU. The European Parliament last December rejected a proposal to expand the list of foods that can be irradiated. As expected, Public Citizen immediately denounced the Codex decision to remove the dose cap as reckless and reiterated their views that irradiation of food at any level is unsafe. 8. Consumer Groups Attack Brochures on Irradiation in School Lunch Program You may recall that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is sponsoring a pilot program in Minnesota that will allow public school students to be served irradiated food products. Brochures have been developed to educate parents on food irradiation. Consumer groups have opposed the program since inception, and their latest attack focuses on the brochures, alleging that the brochures do not provide accurate or "balanced" information. In a letter to USDA's Undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, a consortium of consumer interest groups stated that most of the information in the brochures is "factually inaccurate" and that USDA should demand the return of $151,000 it provided to Minnesota. The consumer groups stated their opposition to irradiation and cited eleven "fallacies" in the fact sheets that will be provided to parents. A spokesman for Minnesota's food and nutrition service was quoted as saying that program officials continue to stand by the program and the educational materials. 9. SPI Submits Comments on New Draft of EU Superdirective on Plastics On May 8, we submitted, on behalf of the Committee, comments to the European Commission (EC) on the so-called "Superdirective." This directive is intended to revise and replace the current Plastics Directive (2002/72/EC) and its forthcoming first amendment, as well as two directives on migration testing (82/711/EEC and 85/572/EEC) and three directives on vinyl chloride monomer (78/142/EEC, 80/766/EEC and 81/432/EEC). This draft includes several important regulatory developments. These include (1) changing the scope of the Plastics Directive to apply to multilayer materials not made entirely of plastics, where the plastic layer contacts food; (2) introducing into the Plastics Directive the concept of functional barrier; and (3) clarifying provisions related to the content of the declaration of compliance and creating a new recordkeeping obligation. A provision calling for a separate positive list of polymerization production aids by 2007 was present in the previous draft, but since has been deleted. These substances will be subject to the same list and deadlines as classic additives, and, therefore, need to be petitioned by the end of 2005. In SPI's comments to the EC, we stated that the proposed Directive continues a regulatory scheme that is unduly complicated and burdensome. Indeed, the Superdirective would treat ordinary packaging materials, even those with remote and very incidental contact with food, as if they are intentional food additives that must be subject to the legislation. A more reasonable approach, we argued, would be to regulate only those substances that may be reasonably expected to become a component of food at a level of concern. We further recommended that, based on experience, a reasonable cut-off point for determining whether a substance with no toxicity concerns would be a food additive requiring regulation is 50 parts per billion (ppb). Regarding the functional barrier provision, the Commission proposes that a material be considered a functional barrier if the migration of a substance, not otherwise listed in the Directive, would be non-detectable at a sensitivity of 0.0015 mg/kg, a level that we feel is too low to be of practical significance. Substances which are deemed to be carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxins, or are listed in the "Exclusion List" are not permitted for use even behind a functional barrier. With regard to the level of detection established for concluding that a substance would be separated from food by a functional barrier, it should be noted that the Plastics Directive permits the use of many substances that are known to be or are considered to be carcinogens, provided that a Specific Migration Limit (SML) of "not detectable" is met; in this case, a detection limit of either 0.01 mg/kg or 0.02 mg/kg is imposed. Thus, in such instances, reliance on a detection limit as low as 0.01 mg/kg has been deemed appropriate to ensure safety. Considering that none of the substances separated by a functional barrier may be carcinogens and that carcinogenicity is generally considered to be the most sensitive toxic end-point, it is clear that it is not necessary for the detection limit to be lower than 0.01 mg/kg for substances separated by a functional barrier when such a standard is not imposed for known or suspected carcinogens. As indicated above, the Superdirective expands the scope of the Plastics Directive (which currently applies only to materials made exclusively of plastic) to include multilayer articles comprised of materials other than plastic, provided that the food-contact layer consists of plastic. We suggested that the Commission provide for a transition period for those manufacturers that would not be subject to the current Plastics Directive, but will be subject to the Superdirective. Another key suggestion in the comments pertained to the confidentiality of business information and trade secrets from disclosure to third parties outside the Commission or the competent authorities in the Member States. We asked that the Commission clearly state that any information provided to the Commission or Member State authorities in relation to the supporting justification documents described in the draft Superdirective shall be treated as confidential business information. 10. EU's EFSA Assumes Responsibility for Scientific Assessments of Food Safety Issues Experts for the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) Scientific Committee and panels have been appointed, and the EFSA has officially taken over the responsibility for the scientific assessment of food safety issues from the European Commission. The first meeting of the Scientific Committee and panels took place between May 21 - 27, 2003. The Scientific Committee and panels will have the responsibility of issuing the EFSA's scientific opinions within their specific fields of expertise. There is a separate panel responsible for food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food. For further information on the EFSA, including a full list of the newly appointed scientific experts, visit the EFSA's website at http://www.efsa.eu.int/. 11. SCF Releases 22nd, 23rd Additional Lists of Substances in Plastic Food Packaging The European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food has released its opinions on the 22nd and 23rd lists of monomers and additives for food-contact materials. As we have explained in previous letters, in May 1997, the SCF's evaluations of monomers and additives used in the manufacture of food-contact plastics were compiled into the 42nd Series of Reports of the SCF. Since that date, the committee has evaluated or reevaluated a number of substances, and has published its results in a series of 21 opinions. Those opinions are available on the committee's website at europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/outcome_en.html. SCF's opinions classify the listed monomers and additives into safety categories, identified as "SCF Lists," ranging from 0 through 9, and "W" ("waiting list"). Lists 0 through 4 generally include substances that have been reviewed by the SCF and determined to be safe for use in food-contact applications. List 5 denotes substances that the SCF has indicated "should not be used" in contact with food, and list 6 applies to substances for which some toxicological concerns have been raised. List 7 applies to substances for which some toxicological data exist, but for which an acceptable daily intake (ADI) or tolerable daily intake (TDI) could not be established. For substances classified in list 8, inadequate data are available for the SCF to complete an evaluation. Substances in list 9 also could not be evaluated due to lack of specifications or lack of an adequate description. Substances that are the subject of an SCF opinion eventually are added to the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) Synoptic Document "Draft of Provisional List of Monomers and Additives Used in the Manufacture of Plastics and Coatings Intended to Come into Contact with Foodstuffs" (commonly known as the "Synoptic Document") for possible inclusion in a subsequent amendment to Commission Directive 2002/72/EC, known as the "Plastics Directive." In the Opinion of the SCF on the 22nd additional list of monomers and additives, the SCF provided its evaluation of the following substances (followed here by their reference number, chemical abstract number, and SCF List designation):
In the Opinion of the SCF on the 23rd additional list of monomers and additives, the SCF explained that the current classification for some substances was not in line with new SCF guidelines. Accordingly, it brought up to date its evaluation of p-amino benzoic acid and a derivative, as well as for castor oil and some of its derivatives. The committee also re-evaluated the use of azodicarbonamide after having been made aware of a correlation between the use of that substance as a blowing agent in caps for beer bottles and the formation of ethyl carbamate. The substances (again, followed here by their reference number, chemical abstract number, and SCF List designation) are:
To download a copy of the SCF's opinion on the 22nd additional list, visit: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out180_en.pdf. To download a copy of the SCF's opinion on the 23rd additional list, visit: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out181_en.pdf 12. New Belgium Law Seeks to Encourage Use of Recycled Materials in Packaging Starting July 1, 2003, Beligum will impose ecotaxes on drink containers unless the products are manufactured by companies that prove that they have enough technical capacity (i.e., machines) to produce bottles with 50 percent recycled content. "Ecotaxes" are taxes imposed on certain products at the time they are put on the market for consumption due to their perceived negative effect on the environment. Consumers would be encouraged to purchase the products exempt from ecotax because they would cost less. A previous version of the legislation would not have allowed an exemption from the ecotax law unless companies showed in advance of marketing that their bottles contained more than 50 percent recycled content. The companies would have been required to get a certificate from an independent body and show it to the authorities. Belgium changed the exemption requirement due to pressure from the European Commission. * * * As always, if you have any questions on the above, please do not hesitate to contact Jerry Heckman, Deborah Ziffer, or me. Cordially yours, Ralph A. Simmons Back to TopMore About SPI: Vision and Mission . Membership . Business Units . Regional Offices . News and Publications . Calendar of Events . Terms and Conditions of Use |
|
|
|
 © Copyright 2005 The Society of the Plastics Industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
      |