1 / 14

Comparative Assessment of Regulatory Programs in ASFFPCO Member States: An Overview

This assessment provides a comprehensive overview of regulatory programs across ASFFPCO member states, focusing on key areas such as labeling, registration, and the nuances of state laws in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and others. It highlights the consensus on certain standards while also addressing irreconcilable differences among states regarding organic definitions and other regulatory aspects. Key findings include insights into registration periods, tonnage fees, and organic nutrient guarantees, offering stakeholders vital information for navigating the complex regulatory landscape.

oneida
Download Presentation

Comparative Assessment of Regulatory Programs in ASFFPCO Member States: An Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AN ASSESSMENT OFREGULATORY PROGRAMSINASFFPCO MEMBER STATESSanford R. SimonUnited Industries Corporation

  2. ALABAMA ARKANSAS FLORIDA GEORGIA KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MISSISSIPPI NORTH CAROLINA OKLAHOMA SOUTH CAROLINA TENNESSEE TEXAS VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA INDI-UKY (KEN-DIANA OR INDIANA) ASFFPCO States

  3. State Laws COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW CONSENSUS NUANCES COMPROMISE IRRECONSIABLE DIFFERENCES

  4. Comparative Overview

  5. Consensus15 States

  6. Labeling Brand & Grade Guaranteed Analysis Derivation Statement Net Weight Manufacturer Name and Address Consensus

  7. January 1 – December 30 AL, KY July 1 – June 30 AR, FL, GA, IN, MS, NC, OR, SC, TN, WV Permanent LA, TX Registration Period

  8. MONTHLY – 6 QUARTERLY – 7 SEMI-ANNUAL – 2 ANNUAL – 1 Tonnage

  9. Non-nutritive metals statement Investigational allowances Restricted use fertilizer permits Fertilizer registration fees Fertilizer tonnage fees Fertilizer tonnage / inspection fees Nuances

  10. Fertilizer manufacturer license number Micronutrient guarantees Manure nutrient guarantee Non-nutritive metals statement ORGANIC Declaration of organic nutrient(s) Percent Organic and Synthetic Compromise

  11. Organic - Defined AAPFCO NOP OMRI

  12. Organic - Interpretation Kentucky Texas Florida

  13. Kentucky – AAPFCO – A material containing carbon and one or more elements other than hydrogen and oxygen essential for plant growth. Florida – AAPFCO – with caveat that the specific organic nutrient is identified and percent natural and synthetic is represented on the label. Texas – NOP / AAPFCO – follows AAPFCO in as much as 60% of organic N claimed must be slow release. MU is not approved under NOP standard. Irreconcilable Differences

  14. Control officials limited by statutes Uniformity is a goal, but not always the objective. Except for organic, equitable resolution among states has been achieved. Conclusion

More Related