<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>> In retrospect, it is clear that the name of the 'organization' shopping changes to the labeling bill should have been identified. The organization is the National Food Processors Association (NFPA). In the interest of space, it was not feasible to list the name of every member of the group. Large associations establish policy position, which are endorsed by their membership. We are not aware, nor has any Congressional staff working on the bill indicated, that specific food manufacturers have openly supported HR 3684. According to the NFPA website, they are "the voice of the $500 billion food processing industry on scientific and public policy issues involving food safety, nutrition, technical and regulatory matters and consumer affairs. NFPA's members process and package fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, and specialty food and beverage products using a variety of technologies including canning, freezing, refrigeration, dehydration, and aseptic manufacturing." For those who may be interested, the link below provides a list of NFPA members with websites -- clearly, not all members are reflected in this list. www.nfpa-food.org/memberlinks.htm As for NFPA's specific objections, there were several, primarly related to specific allergens -- soy lecithin, fish gelatin, and the effective date. The sooner changes can go into effect the better. This is what we have heard repeatedly, and the position which the ACTF has supported. With regard to section 6 of HR 3684 -- voluntary labeling for GF foods, this language was included in the labeling bill in 2002. This language precedes the creation of the American Celiac Task Force. Clearly, if there were objections, those celiac organizations working on the bill at that time would have expressed them to the Committee staff. To our knowledge, no celiac organization has expressed concerns, or asked that it be removed. There are positives related to this section. The FDA will be required to develop, for the first time, a definition for the term 'gluten-free.' A 'proposed regulation' with a defintion of 'gluten-free' will be developed, and the public will have the opportunity to provide comments, views, and concerns about that 'proposed' regulation (sometimes called rules). The FDA will review the public comments, before finalizing the regulation. Very often, the comments provide information which leads the FDA to modify what was originally proposed. Becauses this provision has the greatest impact on the celiac community, THIS IS the best opportunity to express our views on something that is critically important to all celiacs. Through this process the FDA will clearly be looking at ALL the offending grains, not just wheat. They will also be forced to arrive at a definition after reviewing 'other' standards such as the Codex, or the UK standard. Something that has never been done before. Once a definition is reached, the celiac community is in a far better position, to request further improvements to the food labeling laws. When the ACTF began working with Congress in March 2003, key decisions regarding what allergens would be included had already been made. Rather than starting at ground zero, Congressional staff started where they had left off in 2002. In doing so, the Senate was able to pass the bill unanimously. Because of the Senate action, it has helped pave the way for quicker action in the House. We have stated all along, and everyone agrees, the bill is not perfect. It will, however, give celiacs information they desperately need and deserve. With rare exception, the celiac community is in agreement on this point. It is evidenced in the thousands of letters sent to Congress in support of both S. 741 and HR 3684, and in the information presented on dozens of support group websites, and in their newsletters. Andrea Levario and Allison Herwitt Co-Chairs, American Celiac Task Force [log in to unmask] * Visit the Celiac Web Page at www.enabling.org/ia/celiac/index.html *