Jun 2016 Financial News

Andrew Sabga: Local companies face unfair treatment

Jun 09, 2016

There are more than 22 brewed imported beverages (mostly beers) currently violating local labeling standards and being distributed illegally in T&T. In a market filled with hundreds of bottled beverages, what’s printed on the bottle, according to the law, should accurately reflect what’s in the bottle.

When the issue of what could legitimately be called “coconut water” became a topic of national interest, it was clear that across the beverage industry, labeling standards had to be revisited.

In the case of brewed, alcoholic beverages, some imported brands currently violate the labeling requirements as set out in law by the T&T Food and Drugs Act.

Section 16C(2) of the act states: “The label on the package of a brewery product for retail sale shall state, on any panel except the panel at the bottom of the package:

• the name and address of the manufacturer;

• the name and address of the person preparing the brewery product, where different from the name and address of the manufacturer;

• the country of origin;

• the name and address of the importer or the distributor, if any;

• its alcoholic strength in terms of alcoholic content by volume; and

• a declaration of the net contents.”

This is where Andrew Sabga, deputy chairman of the ANSA McAL Group and former sector head of its brewing division, comes in. Having served as head of Carib Brewery for over 10 years, Sabga knows all too well the dual challenge faced by local manufacturers with respect to both meeting international labeling standards and competing with imported alcoholic beverage brands in the local market.

According to Sabga, at least 22 imported, brewed alcoholic beverages are allowed to enter the country that are in clear violation of the prescribed labeling requirements with little being done by the authorities to address the matter. Of the brands identified, all violate clause (d) “the name and address of the importer or the distributor” and one violates clause (e) which is “its alcoholic strength in terms of alcoholic content by volume” of Section 16c (2) of the Food and Drugs Act.

“Many of the imported brands run afoul of the act with respect to firstly, the name and address of the importer or distributor appearing on the labeling and secondly, the alcoholic content by volume.”

Going further, Sabga stated: “From where we sit, it appears that the law is not being equally enforced between local manufacturers and importers of foreign brands. How is it that a local manufacturer can have his product summarily recalled from shelves for improper labeling and yet these imported brands are able to continue without any consequences?”

Sabga pointed out that in order for local manufacturers to access foreign markets, compliance with the required labeling standards is mandatory, often at great cost to the manufacturer.

“When we export into the United States, for example, we are required to submit labels for approval to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) to meet their labeling requirements. This can take anywhere from six to nine months before we get approval just for the labels and that’s before we can even enter the market.”

Sabga added that once approval for export was granted, should any contravention of the labeling laws be found, the company would have to take the necessary steps to address the issue or face heavy penalties from the TTB.

“Once you start exporting, if for whatever reason, you do not uphold the labeling requirements, you are required to personally remove the product for sale from the shelves within a certain timeframe or face significant fines.”

The ANSA executive also highlighted the fact that even at the regional level, labeling laws are strictly enforced.

“Barbados and Jamaica follow the letter of the law with respect to (labeling) approvals. You have to obtain the necessary approvals before you are allowed access to those markets.”

Pointing out that Carib Brewery exports to more than 30 international territories, Sabga said the brands were fully compliant in each jurisdiction.

“In every market that we sell into, we follow the labeling standards. Some territories necessitate very specific labeling requirements that are unique to their country, and we fully adhere to the rules as set out for labeling in those territories,” Sabga said.

For many years in his capacity as brewing division sector head, Sabga wrote to the Chemistry Food and Drug Division (CFDD) of the Ministry of Health to have the issue of improper labeling on imported products addressed but to no avail.

“We have written to the CFDD on numerous occasions over the past 12 years to treat with this matter and their response has been that they do not have the necessary resources or ability to police these imported brands.”

Commenting on the recent situation in which a local manufacturer was forced by the CFDD to adjust his label, Sabga said: “It therefore strikes me as odd, and certainly unfair, that this manufacturer was forced by the same CFDD to adjust his labeling and, yet still, many imported brands are not forced to make any adjustments. This begs the question: is there one law for local manufacturers and another law for importers?”

Sabga said though his experience in dealing with the labeling issue comes through his time spent in the brewed beverage industry, the labeling issue in this country goes far beyond this sector.

“While we have had to face this issue in the beverage industry, other industries are confronted by this challenge as well. There are many imported food items— such as biscuits, cereals and even cigarettes—that violate labeling standards.

“In many cases, some of the labels are not even in English and, therefore, one cannot even determine the ingredients in the items.”

Off the imported brewed brands, two had no English printing on the label for the ingredients.

Sabga argued that allowing this situation to fester could pose a serious health risk to citizens of this country, adding: “If an individual were to purchase any foreign brand that does not meet the labeling requirement as far as name of importer on the packaging, and were to find some foreign matter in the item or get sick from consuming it and needed to make a complaint, to whom would they make the complaint?

“Clearly we are playing a game of Russian roulette with our citizens’ health and wellbeing by not addressing this issue.”

In order to fully treat with the labeling issue, Sabga believes the collaborative efforts of many government agencies must take place with a greater emphasis on enforcement.

“Though the responsibility to enforce labeling standards may fall squarely on the CFDD, the Customs and Excise Division has a critical role to play in this matter. Legally, Customs has the power to police and regulate imported items at the point of entry. They can make seizures and block imported items from getting into the market. The Ministry of Trade and industry has a role to play in this as well. So, if these players work together to uphold labeling standards this issue could be dealt with to the ultimate benefit of ensuring food safety for local consumers and a fair and equitable playing field for local manufacturers.”

Imported Beer Brands
1) Corona Extra
2) Stella Artois
3) Miller Genuine Draft
4) Blue Moon
5) Hoegaarden
6) Old Speckled Hen
7) Peroni
8) Budweiser
9) Sapporo
10) Kingfisher
11) Samuel Adams Boston Lager
12) Becks Blue
13) Duvel
14) Coors Light
15) Fuller’s Honey Dew
16) Fuller’s London Pride
17) Foster’s
18) Strong Suffolk
19) Bass
20) Bombardier
21) Michelob
22) Banks Shandy Sorrel

 

Source:
Andre Worrell
andre.worrell@guardian.co.tt
Business Guardian, BG4 and BG5
Thursday June 9, 2016