 In The Press |
|
|
|
|
|
| Panama Canal ties record for big-ship transits |
|
Updated August 15, 2007 12:54:24 PM For the third time in the last 14 months, the Panama Canal tied its record for the total number of daily transits by ships that have an overall length greater than 900 feet. Nine vessels with an overall length greater than 900 feet transited the canal on Aug. 7, tying the record achieved in May 2006 and matched in April 2007, the Panama Canal Authority said on Wednesday. Advertisement On average, 39 vessels transit the waterway each day and, of those, usually five vessels are greater than 900 feet. All of the record-tying vessels were container vessels and, due to the size of the vessel (greater than 900 feet), require more time and resources to transit the waterway. Of the nine, two belonged to Maersk Line, two to Evergreen Line, and one ship to each of Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Cosco and Zim Integrated Shipping Services. http://www.joc.com/articles/news.asp?section=ocean&sid=42853 |
|
|
|
| FDA and Food Imports |
|
| Customs Update: FDA and food imports Updated August 1, 2007 12:23:21 PM Susan Kohn Ross / The JOURNAL of COMMERCE ONLINE It is impossible to read a newspaper, view a news Web site or listen to a TV news report without hearing something negative about trade between the United States and China. In light of the sudden interest in everything Chinese, The Journal of Commerce held a webinar on July 24, “FDA's New Approach to Risk Management -- How It Will Effect Traders' Operations and Bottom Line." While by no means limited to a discussion about China-related FDA issues, China is certainly the impetus for much of the recent Congressional activity surrounding the Food and Drug Administration and how the agency oversees food imports. The FDA developed an Import Strategic Plan in the 1990s, but like those of other federal agencies, it is understaffed and underfunded, leaving the agency mired in its traditional approach of interdicting shipments at the border upon their arrival. We are now hearing Congress agree with FDA’s own upper management that the current regime is not working. The question is what will replace it? FDA is talking about centralizing management, but no performance goals have been articulated. FDA is expected to advocate centralizing entry processing at a regional level, but will its information technology system, internally or externally, be able to keep up? Right now, FDA is sampling less than 1 percent of all food imports. Is that enough? Can FDA really sample more? If so, does that make the food supply chain any safer? As part of implementing its Import Strategic Plan, FDA is urging the closure of seven of its 13 labs. Following the Customs model, FDA is attempting to push technology out to the field to allow preliminary results almost instantaneously with a variety of handheld and similar devices. At the same time, the labs which FDA proposes to keep open will be its most modern and, therefore, arguably the most efficient and productive. While centralizing lab functions has some logical appeal, the attempt by FDA to consolidate entry review to selected regional locations has raised eyebrows among many traders who recall Customs' advocacy of a similar approach regarding Commodity Teams staffing. It seems clear that FDA’s management sees centralization as a way to insure more uniform decisions, and it may be right, but what happens to the importing community, especially the smaller importers? The single biggest complaint about dealing with FDA is you can’t get anyone on the telephone. You can’t find out the status of your shipment. It takes FDA forever to do anything! How will that change if entry review is centralized? Will there be more and heartier telephone lines? Will more FDA staff be available to the trade on a timely basis to answer questions? Will FDA be better able to communicate its intentions and also in a more timely fashion? Will FDA beef up its ability to communicate with the trade electronically and by fax? On the positive side, FDA has begun to talk about risk in the context of the life cycle of the imported product -- from farm to fork, from manufacturer to consumer. By looking at the bigger picture, it may yet be possible for FDA to catch up with Customs in terms of figuring out how to separate the bad guys from the good guys. The FDA is testing a program called PREDICT (Predictive Risk-Based Evaluation and Demonstrative Import Tracking) in Los Angeles. It is FDA’s attempt to measure risk based on information from a wide variety of sources, including FDA’s own historical data, but such additional sources as other government agencies, open source intelligence, supply chain data, and evolutionary algorithms to identify shipments which present the greatest risk. For those who deal with the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), does this sound familiar? In order for PREDICT or an ISP to really work, the first question is whether FDA’s IT system can handle it? At the same time, what about FDA relying on third-party inspections and labs to reduce its workload? Like every other government agency, FDA has been unwilling to blindly accept data from third parties. However, like Customs in the context of C-TPAT, it is inevitable that third-party data is useful. While you would never want the government to rely on third-party data without some means to periodically validate it, at the same time, there are reliable third parties who are able to conduct proper testing, for example, to recognized scientific standards. Inspections can similarly be conducted by third parties and be reported based on specific, objective criteria. As the funds available to government agencies continue to shrink, other means of securing the supply chain should be considered and approved. Why not also include membership in C-TPAT has an indicator of lesser risk? When traders look at risk management, the first question is, what does that mean? Each agency defines it differently, which is not surprising given that each agency has its own area of jurisdiction. Customs has the most robust approach to risk management, which includes C-TPAT, the Container Security Initiative, advance manifest data and the soon to be announced "10+2" program for advance collection of import data. If we look at the State department, there is little risk management being employed. Each transaction is considered on its own merits. The Commerce department's Bureau of Industry and Security works more or less the same way, although we are now hearing about interest in a "trusted trader" program. The Department of Agriculture has just announced a new program for the importation of selected fruits and vegetables which is clearly grounded in a limited form of risk management. Perhaps the second-most active risk management program after Customs' is administered by the Transportation Security Administration. It is working on a "trusted traveler" program, recently announced new packaging requirements, and is working to reconcile its known shipper rule with C-TPAT. So, while FDA has a long way to go in developing its risk management approach, at least it is now finally considering its options. For those of us who qualify as “grey hairs” when it comes to experience with international trade, the current position of the FDA harks back to the Eighties, when Customs' standing with members of Congress (and, frankly, the trade community) was really low. The agency was able to reinvigorate itself by working closely with the trade and Congress. FDA could learn from that experience, but since its focus has traditionally been inwardly directed, and because members of Congress often act without fully understanding either the best options or the impact of the options selected, now is the time for all of us to work through our respective trade associations and companies to not only comment on what FDA proposes, but to go one step further. We should be considering what would help FDA do its job better. For example, should there be a ruling program for product coding? Are there other decisions FDA issues which are so routine that a ruling program makes sense? How would independent laboratories be able to test product which would satisfy the FDA? How would validation of that testing take place? What form of third-party inspection of domestic and foreign facilities might work? How would that data be validated? There are a few of the current topics of conversation about making positive changes at the FDA. What do you think would help? Susan Kohn Ross is a partner in Rodriguez O'Donnell Ross and since 1978 has specialized in Customs, international trade and transportation law. Ross was a member of the COAC Subcommittee on Border Security, the NAFTA Advisory Committee on Private Commercial Disputes, and served as a member of the U.S. Customs NAFT |
|
<<Previous
Page
7 of 7
|
|
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
||
|