US government slammed on wood packaging plans

The leading trade body for the meat industry questioned proposals by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to introduce changes to combat the spread of plant pests in wood packing without knowing enough about the issue. The AMI said it was vital for APHIS to understand the extent of any problem before it could table useful solutions.

The industry association was commenting on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) called 'Wood Packaging Material Used in Domestic Commerce'. The measure classifies wood packing materials (WPM) as pallets, crates, boxes and pieces of wood used to support brace cargo. It estimates that some 1.2bn pallets were in circulation in the US, with the AMI saying “a significant number” ​of these were being used in the meat industry.

Understanding problem​

The proposal asks for information on the general problem of plant pests in WPM that are transported between states and invites suggestions on the best way to tackle these.

But in a polite but pointed letter, Lynn Morrissette, AMI senior director of regulatory affairs said: “Although we appreciate the efforts of APHIS to protect ​US​ agricultural through proactive measures to control environmentally damaging pests, we believe that the agency needs to collect basic information on the transfer of domestic pests through ​WPM, prior to developing mitigation strategies.”​

​

She added: “It is difficult, if not impossible, to choose an effective strategy without having a thorough understanding of the problem.”​

Economic impact​

The AMI said that once it has done this, APHIS should consider the economic impact of measures such as pooling or treating WPM with heat or methyl bromide as these would result in a “significant increase”​ in costs for the meat and poultry sectors.

Some smaller WPM could also be driven out of business by the need to invest in new machinery to meet the regulation, it said. Meat industry players may also consider changing from wood to plastic because of the increased burden of cost and recordkeeping under the solutions proposed in the ANPR. This “may have even more substantial consequences for the environment”,​ cautioned the AMI.

The consumer would “pay for the price”​ for this increased overheads, concluded Morrissette, as she asked for APHIS to be diligent and thorough over the measure.