Viewing cable 03HALIFAX110, FDA BIOTERRORISM MEASURES: NEWFOUNDLAND SEEKS

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HALIFAX 0110 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
 
DEPT FOR WHA/CAN 
DEPT PLEASE PASS TO FDA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PBTS ETRD EFIS EAGR CA US FDA
SUBJECT: FDA BIOTERRORISM MEASURES: NEWFOUNDLAND SEEKS 
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR FISH EXPORTS 
 
REF: Halifax 0027 and previous 
 
¶1. SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED - ENTIRE TEXT. 
 
¶2. (SBU) SUMMARY: The province of Newfoundland-Labrador 
believes its exporters of fish and other perishable products 
should get special consideration when the USG implements new FDA 
border measures to combat bioterrorism. Newfoundland, which 
depends heavily on its export of freshly caught and live seafood 
to U.S. markets, believes that some of the proposed new 
regulations would severely hamper this trade. Echoing the 
concerns of the other Atlantic provinces (REFTEL), Newfoundland 
is pressing for the USG to adopt a shorter time requirement for 
notification of perishable shipments crossing the border. 
Newfoundland is also seeking a rule change that would exempt its 
large fish-processing companies from the "one physical location" 
definition, as well as a reconsideration of the definition of 
"originating country". (END SUMMARY) 
 
¶3. (SBU) Newfoundland-Labrador's Minister of Fisheries made an 
impromptu call on the CG on April 4 to personally relay her 
province's apprehensions over future USG regulations emanating 
from the Bioterrorism Act, which will have a significant impact 
on the provinceQs lucrative export of freshly caught and live 
seafood to the United States. Minister Yvonne Jones, who just 
joined the cabinet of Premier Roger Grimes in February, 
explained that Newfoundland has strong reasons for being 
concerned about the new regulations because it is in a more 
difficult position than any other Canadian province. Unlike its 
three regional counterparts, Newfoundland's fishing industry is 
the mainstay of the province, with a landed value of over C$1 
billion annually. Of those products, approximately 70 to 80 
percent are exported to the United States, making Newfoundland 
extremely vulnerable to constraints in cross-border shipments. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Unlike other Atlantic provinces, NewfoundlandQs 
exporters must get their U.S.-bound perishable products first to 
Nova Scotia by ocean ferry before sending them by truck overland 
to the Maine-New Brunswick border. Severe weather conditions 
often disrupt the ferry schedule, consequently increasing the 
total transit time to the U.S. border. Minister Jones argued 
that these conditions often make it impossible to estimate 
arrival times of perishable fish products, and that exporters 
would be unable to adhere to new regulations requiring a strict 
24-hour advance notification for shipments arriving at the U.S. 
border. 
 
¶5. (SBU) The Newfoundland government, more so than its regional 
counterparts, is therefore making a strong case that the FDA 
allow for two categories of products---perishable and non- 
perishable---in determining pre-notification time of imports, 
allowing shorter advance notification for perishable ones. 
Minister Jones also pointed out that the requirement that a U.S. 
agent submit the advance prior notice was additionally 
cumbersome, but she acknowledged that most Newfoundland shippers 
could comply. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Another major problem, the Minister explained, is that 
the fish-processing industry in Newfoundland is in the hands of 
a few very large companies which operate facilities in several 
different locations in the province. Often these facilities 
operate under different company names, reflecting the product 
they produce. As such, each would require separate registration 
as proposed by the draft FDA regulations. The Minister is 
proposing an amendment to those regulations that would modify 
the "one physical location" definition to allow for multi-plant 
operators. This would enable the large parent companies to 
continue to co-mingle their products regardless of where in the 
province they were produced. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Finally, Newfoundland would have unique difficulties 
with the draft requirement concerning identification of 
originating country. Due to ongoing declines in Newfoundland's 
groundfishery, companies have to rely on purchases of raw fish 
product "on the water" from vessels flagged in a variety of 
countries, predominately Russia and Norway. All the raw fish, 
however, is handled and processed the same way as domestic 
supplies, subject to the same quality control and safety 
measures. Consequently, the Minister made a strong case that 
exports be permitted to identify Canada as the originating 
country, instead of listing the country under which the 
harvesting vessel is flagged. 
 
¶8. (SBU) COMMENT: NewfoundlandQs predicament, although perhaps 
a bit more dire than that of the other three Atlantic provinces, 
reflects similar concerns about the potentially devastating 
impact of new bioterrorism regulations on Canadian perishable 
exports to U.S. markets. All four Atlantic premiers have signed 
a joint letter to Deputy PM Manley urging Ottawa to lobby for 
the necessary rule changes with his U.S. interlocutors. The 
Newfoundland provincial government has also delivered its 
concerns directly to FDA in the form of a letter signed by the 
Minister on March 31. Newfoundland now joins Nova Scotia in 
having lobbied the CG directly in the hope of getting the 
Ambassador to weight in with senior FDA officials on these 
proposed modifications. CG responded that the Ambassador and 
the U.S. Mission in Canada are aware of these Canadian concerns, 
which the Fisheries Council of Canada and the Nova Scotia Fish 
PackersQ Association have also raised in the form of feedback to 
the FDA, and that we are confident that FDA will take into 
consideration the modifications proposed by these Canadian 
organizations and by the affected provinces. 
KASHKETT