The food packaging industry doesn`t have the capacity to modify 300,000 labels by a May 1993 deadline for meeting the most comprehensive labeling regulations in U.S. history, food company representatives said Monday.
The Grocery Manufacturers of America Inc. asked the Food and Drug Administration to extend the deadline for another year, arguing that printers and package designers simply don`t have enough time to comply with the deadline.
While agreeing with the agency that standards need to be established for nutritional claims, the trade group also repeated complaints about several of the FDA`s major proposals.
The group said proposals for the front label of products with ”low-fat,” ”low-sodium” or other nutritional claims are so restrictive and require so much information that eye-catching designs for such products would be virtually impossible.
Furthermore, the proposed limit on fat content for goods called ”low-fat” are so low that many products would be barely palatable if they met the requirements, the food industry officials said.
But backers of the labeling requirements said they will help extend lives, lower health costs and increase productivity, perhaps saving the country more than $100 billion over the next two decades.
The rules would require nutrition labels on most processed foods and meat products and set stringent standards for a number of terms, including
”lite,” ”low-fat” or ”cholesterol-free.” The FDA has estimated the changes will cost the food industry $1.6 billion, while food processors claim the tab could run as much as $3.4 billion.
Since November, when the FDA unveiled its proposals, representatives from hundreds of food companies have submitted recommended changes during the agency`s ”public comment” period, which ends Tuesday.
The FDA will review the requests for changes and unveil a final set of recommendations Nov. 8. Food manufacturers will have six months to comply with the May 8, 1993, deadline.
”After consulting with the label printing industry, it is clear to us there are not enough large commercial printing presses in the country to relabel all the products within the six-month time limit detailed by Congress,” C. Manly Molpus, president of the group, said at a Washington news conference.
”In order to avoid a stampede of uncertainty and a fight over the presses, FDA should exercise its discretion and grant a one-year delay,” he said.
Under the Nutritional Labeling and Educational Act passed by Congress in 1990, the FDA can extend the deadline for a year. FDA spokesman Chris Lecos would not comment on the trade group`s request other than to say that the FDA will review it and come up with a decision on the extension sometime this summer.
If the agency agrees to extend the deadline, it probably will be granted to the entire food industry or to broad industry categories, because reviewing each company`s request would overwhelm the FDA, Lecos said.
Some supporters of stricter nutritional guidelines greeted the industry group`s request with skepticism.
”It would just extend the bottleneck for another year during which consumers will be deprived of new labeling information,” said Bruce Silverglade, director of legal affairs for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer rights group. ”The GMA represents the lowest common denominator in the industry. Many companies want to be first to come out with new labels.”
For example, Nestle S.A. already has changed the labeling on Stouffer`s Lean Cuisine line as has Pet Inc. on its Van de Kamp`s frozen fish products, he said.
More Top Picks Trash Can
But Kraft General Foods Inc., which would have to change 15,000 labels, and Quaker Oats Co. agreed that it would be difficult for printers, engravers and other packaging experts to keep up with the demand.
”It`s going to pose a real problem in terms of our internal resources to make the changes in time,” said Quaker spokesman Ron Bottrell. ”But assuming we can do that, there`s a limited number of suppliers of cartons for packaging, printers and engravers to do all that work. It`s bound to create a real bottleneck.”
Dan Canzoniero, of the Labeling Printing Industries of America, said at the news conference that the industry would be unable to meet the demand without an extension. The biggest concern does not involve press capacity but design, where the majority of work to change labels occurs, he said.
Also at the conference, Sherwin Gardner, senior science and technology vice president for the association, said that because typesetting for nutritional information on products with health claims must be half the size of the brand name, there will be no room for marketing designs.
Silverglade, however, said the industry group appears mainly concerned because ”it clearly leaves less room to slap misleading messages on the front label.”
Among the proposals involving fat content, the FDA is proposing that any product touted as ”low-fat” must not contain more than 3 grams of fat per serving, with the agency determining standard sizes. The grocery
manufacturers` group has recommended that the level be raised to 4 grams.