` House Rejects Olive Oil Import Restrictions, Then Farm Bill Altogether


House Rejects Olive Oil Import Restrictions, Then Farm Bill Altogether

Jun. 20, 2013
By Olive Oil Times Staff

Recent News

Con­gress­man Chris Gib­son

The Unites States House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives failed to pass the 5- year Farm Bill today by a 195 – 234 vote, accord­ing to C‑SPAN. Only 24 Democ­rats voted in favor of the bill.

Ear­lier today, the House over­whelm­ingly (343 – 81) voted in favor of an amend­ment pro­posed by U.S. Con­gress­man Chris Gib­son of the 19th Dis­trict of New York to remove an olive oil pro­vi­sion from the bill.

The Gib­son amend­ment struck the olive oil import restric­tion con­tained in sec­tion 10010 of the bill. Under 10010, if a mar­ket­ing order for olive oil is estab­lished, olive oil imports would be sub­ject to restric­tions such as taste test­ing.

Eryn Balch, exec­u­tive vice pres­i­dent of the North Amer­i­can Olive Oil Asso­ci­a­tion (NAOOA), which rep­re­sents olive oil importers and sup­ported the amend­ment to remove the olive oil pro­vi­sion, said she hoped the pro­vi­sion’s defeat might open a door now to other ways, other than a mar­ket­ing order, to improve stan­dards enforce­ment in the U.S.”


When you look at the facts, it was very clear that this was some­thing that was overly bur­den­some, expen­sive and offered no over­sight of the prod­uct after inspec­tion, so it wasn’t going to stop fraud,” Balch said.

The Cal­i­for­nia Olive Oil Coun­cil, which was push­ing for sec­tion 10010, called the olive oil pro­vi­sion part of a com­mon sense pro­gram requir­ing imports to be held to the same stan­dards as Amer­i­can olive oil.”

Obvi­ously the COOC works very hard to develop a com­pet­i­tive domes­tic indus­try based on qual­ity, and we’re very dis­ap­pointed,” said COOC Direc­tor Patty Dar­ragh. We just felt that importers should meet the same stan­dards as domes­tic pro­duc­ers. This was a min­i­mum request, and it is not good news for con­sumer and retail­ers alike.

Related News