« ForrigeFortsett »
use; and when the evidence warrants it, certain spray materials may lose their registration. This Sunday's New York Times-May 25, 1986-carried an article that listed 15 commonly used materials that are subject to review for possible elimination or restriction in
All the programs are carried out to effect the best possible balance between public safety and quality products for our tables. I personally applaud the efforts—and I think most farmers agree with me-to provide safe goods. We are consumers. But we must all recognize that safety costs-as we lose materials to protect our crops, the prices of the remaining pesticides go up.
Manufacturers spend tremendous sums to prove the safety and efficacy of their product to the EPA. As farmers, we pay for those costs in purchasing the spray materials recommended for our crops. The costs of producing safe, clean foods on domestic farms rises, as does the price of foods on American tables.
As a farmer, complying with the regulations existent in the United States, I am concerned about two aspects of imported wines and food products. In 1985, the United States imported over 7 million gallons of grape concentrate, the bulk of it from South American countries; and we also imported over 45 million 9-liter cases of wine. That amounts to over 700,000 tons of grapes—which were not subjected to the same regulations as our products. In fact, they use chemicals we haven't seen yet and/or chemicals that were explicitly banned years ago, such as DDT. This allows them an economic edge because chemicals they use can return larger crops with cheaper input costs. As a result, imported fruits, vegetables, and juice concentrates flood our domestic market-putting American farmers out of business.
The key issue comes down to this: If the American consumer is to be protected from unwanted residues from spray materials on domestic products, why is he or she not likewise protected from unwanted spray residues on imported foodstuffs? We appreciate the protection and safety that is encouraged by the EPA and State agencies—for it protects not only the consumer, but us as users of pesticides. Their programs have increased the awareness and concern on the part of growers for the benefits and dangers associated with the use of chemical crop protectants. But, as I have said, there are costs that must be borne by domestic growers that are not necessarily borne by foreign producers which puts them at an economic advantage. If the consumer is to be protected from spray residues and questionable chemicals, they should be protected across the board and have some assurance that imported products do not use chemicals that we cannot use. We lose farms and farmers to cheap imports while we apparently abrogate our responsibility to the consumer to provide the same level of safety for both domestic and imported foods.
Thank you for your time and concern.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD H. NAYLOR, PRESIDENT, NAYLOR
WINE CELLARS, ON BEHALF OF THE WINE GRAPE GROWERS
I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Wine Grape Growers of America. My name is Richard H. Naylor, president of Naylor Wine Cellars, a grower and wine producer in York County, PA, president of Pennsylvania Wine Association, active member in Southeast Pennsylvania Grape Growers Association and Pennsylvania Grape Industry Association. My discussion today will deal more with wine involvement. I am also a grape grower, like John here; but, since he covered that so well, I will direct my thoughts to the winemaking aspect.
My involvement with regulations and standards began when we applied for our license to operate a limited winery in Pennsylvania. The ATF requires a winery to obtain and use various lab equip ment to monitor alcohol, additives, and other factors which help ensure the quality standards. We are required to maintain up-todate records for about 20 items that are pertinent to quality and control.
Some of these are: Tank and barrel logs which follow each wine as it passes from tank to tank and barrel to barrel. A chemical log which shows all chemicals purchased and inventoried and a detailed record when these chemicals are used in wine production. Each wine is logged from the time the grapes enter the winery until the wine is bottled and sold. This log shows each step in the winemaking process, including sugar additions, chemical additions, et cetera. Logs are also required for juice purchases and use, sugar purchases and use, and others. All this data must be available to be reviewed at any time an ATF representative wishes to visit our premises.
The Pennsylvania LCB also inspects at the time of licensing for many of the same things and requires, as does ATF, to monthly submit a total of six reports, showing inventory of bulk and bottled goods, sugar, juice, grapes, shipments, and other items of control. During the periodic visits of the ATF and Pennsylvania LCB, random samples of wine are collected and sent to their laboratories for analysis.
We also have regular visits by the FDA who monitor the cleanliness of our establishment, as well as compliance with water sanitation, and working conditions.
A fourth inspection is made by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry which monitors safety of the equipment being used, working conditions of the employees, and other aspects of the industrial environment.
I hope that my testimony has given you an insight into the regulations and careful monitoring that each Pennsylvania winery, and I am sure each American winery, is required to comply.
Thank you for the privilege to speak to you today.
Mr. NAYLOR. No, sir.
Mr. BARNARD. Mr. Martini, what about in your case in New York? Does New York permit any methanol?
Mr. MARTINI. No, sir. Methanol is not permitted. I believe, as was mentioned earlier, it is a background product in natural fermentation. No addition is permitted.
Mr. BARNARD. Of course, I didn't ask about DEG. I know that is not permitted at all.
Mr. Naylor, do you do any exporting of your wine products? Mr. NAYLOR. No, sir. At the present time, I only sell my wine within the regional area of my winery, although I have shipped wine into Washington, DC, on occasion.
Mr. BARNARD. That could be an export.
Mr. NAYLOR. I anticipate making arrangements with a broker in New Jersey in the near future.
Mr. BARNARD. What about you, Mr. Martini? Do you have any experience in exporting wine?
Mr. MARTINI. Not me personally.
Mr. BARNARD. I am trying to arrive at what type of inspections any other countries make as far as American wines. I doubt if we ship much wine.
Mr. MARTINI. We don't, sir.
Mr. MARTINI. We have it left over, but we have a hard time going in the other direction. It is a coals to Newcastle situation. Although I am not familiar with it, I believe there are stiffer regulations in the other direction.
Mr. BARNARD. Have your associations ever made any studies of the growing of grapes in foreign countries?
Mr. MARTINI. No, sir. Mr. BARNARD. So you are not acquainted with any practices abroad that would not be in keeping with American standards?
Mr. MARTINI. Not directly familiar; no, sir.
Mr. NAYLOR. I visited Germany and France several times. I know the Germans have standards for quality levels on their wines, but it is basically the amount of sugar and acid in the wine-not chemical additives. They grade the wines like Kabinett, Auslese, Spatlese, and so forth, based on the quality of wines at harvest. They do have a monitoring system in Germany. I am not familiar with other countries.
Mr. BARNARD. Mr. Martini, do you know what we are doing in this country as far as the grape product itself? Not the wine necessarily, but just the actual grapes and the raw product that would go into a wine or other uses of the fruits in this country?
Mr. MARTINI. We have to, as I said, follow fairly strict requirements as to what chemicals we use and when we use them and how-spray materials. There are days-to-harvest regulations on various chemicals. The grapes themselves are inspected.
I believe the FDA does a random sampling. USDA does insect and grading-type activities. There are my spray records as a grape grower, my spray records are sent to the winery. They have to have a record of them legally to know what I sprayed. I could lie, but I don't. I don't think anybody else does, either. They are sent in. I know the wineries themselves have checked vineyards' spray records; and if they see something unusual in the vineyard that might indicate the use of a nonregistered chemical, they have rejected those grapes. They will not use them because of fear of contamination that would cause a problem.
Mr. BARNARD. Mr. Erdreich.
Mr. ERDREICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I have any direct questions.
I just want to recall, though, that, I think it was one of the GAO witnesses-I asked the question about regulation abroad versus here. You, Mr. Martini, mentioned some sort of regulations, but otherwise you go through your activities without regulations.
I think it was the GÃO witness that said to my question that his understanding from his knowledge of regulations was some foreign countries had even more stringent regulations than America. I think it is probably a mix of a level of regulatory requirements as far as the safety and health that we are all concerned about.
If need be, Mr. Chairman, from hearing the testimony here, it might be a value either from GAO, FDA, BATF, that we get some sort of understanding of what are indeed regulations abroad as well as here and compare them-beyond what we are doing here today,
of course. Just look at them with what BATF has done, and what FDA is doing in this instance.
I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank both Mr. Naylor and Mr. Martini for taking the time to come and testify on this very important matter. I know it is of deep concern to you folks. I think it is important for us to understand the regulation that we have with regard to American wines and grapes; and, as was suggested, I think it would be helpful if we had some comparison toward what we require and what other nations require with regard to wines that come into this country.
I thank you both for being here.
Mr. BARNARD. Mr. Naylor, do you feel that the wine producers in this country are being treated unfairly with all of the inspections and procedures that you undergo while the imported wines seemingly are tested, it is so haphazard that it is not adequate-do you think the American wine producers are being treated unfairly?
Mr. NAYLOR. No. I don't think we are being treated unfairly. I was pondering on that while Mr. Horton was talking.
The problem is on the other side of the ocean. I think the ability to have these contaminants in American wine is very difficult due to the monitoring and testing done by ATF and FDA. The opportunity to do it over there is a lot easier. I think there ought to be some controls on the European and other wines from South America, et cetera, to prevent contaminated wines from entering our country.
Mr. BARNARD. So, in other words, you operate under one set of regulations; they operate under another set, or none at all?
Mr. NAYLOR. Right.
Mr. BARNARD. It is unhealthy then? It is not in keeping with the public health?
Mr. NAYLOR. That is correct. But the BATF has always been very tolerant of us at times when we slipped up. They have reminded us and sent us lists of our failures that don't meet their requirements. They follow up to see we correct our situation. As long as we know what we have to do, we work within those parameters.
Mr. BARNARD. Are you confused at all that ATF has one responsibility and FDA another?
Mr. NAYLOR. We take precedent with the BATF. The FDA, as far as we are concerned, only concerns themselves with water sanitation and cleanliness in the plant. The BATF is more involved with monitoring wines than the FDA.
Mr. BARNARD. Mr. Mrazek.
I would just like to add my thanks to you for holding the hearings on this important subject, and to also indicate that I fully share the view of my good friend, Congressman Frank Horton, and Ben Erdreich, in suggesting that although many questions have been raised about the regulations in other countries, we really weren't provided with any specific answers by any of the panelists. And I think it would be very constructive to build a record of what the comparative regulations are in some of those countries, because some of them certainly may not have adequate controls over their industry, and yet others we were informed today may have as strict or stricter standards in certain respects than the standards that apply to wine growers and manufacturers in this country.
I think it would be very helpful in terms of trying to determine whether this administration has to seek stronger cooperation from our allies on this question from those countries where they do not have adequate regulations, and perhaps establish stronger standards with those countries that are not willing to provide the structure and mechanism to protect the safety of their own people, and obviously not the United States, either.
Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BARNARD. Well, I thank all of you for being here today. I know you made an extra effort to be here. Some traveled from foreign lands to be here. Mr. Mrazek, you may have, too, coming from Long Island. Mr. MRAZEK. New York.
Mr. BARNARD. It has been a very interesting hearing, and we will certainly look forward to further information responding to questions to the panelists that appeared before us.
I think we have come through a very interesting experience, and I am delighted as of now we know of no catastrophes that have taken place, allegedly, no deaths, no confirmed illnesses. But, at the same time, I think we have got some real gaps and we have some real problems in some areas in testing the quantity and quality of our products, especially as it has to do with the DEG. I am a little concerned about that. I think we have some tuning up to do with our bureaus, both the ATF and the FDA, in that regard. I don't mean to the degree we are going to be extremists; that is not the point at all. But we do have our obligation to maintain in our products the safety of human health. So, I think we will certainly look forward to some reevaluation.