A list of the attendees is included as Attachment 1 and can be downloaded from the NAOOA web site at the following address:

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/midyr08_registrants.pdf

Before beginning business, Mr. Patton read a statement of the antitrust policy of the association.

Adoption of the Agenda

Mr. Bauer noted two changes to the agenda. Nancy Gray was called into court, so he was going to read a report she sent. Also, Alan Greene of the California Olive Oil Council was invited to give a report on projects the COOC is working on, some with the NAOOA. A motion was made, seconded, and on vote carried to adopt the Agenda. It is included, without the changes noted above, as Attachment 2 and can be downloaded from the NAOOA web site at the following address:

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/midyr08_agenda.pdf

Approval of Minutes of Annual Meeting

A motion was made, seconded, and on vote carried to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2007 Annual Meeting.

Chairman’s Report on the Retail Olive Oil Market

Mr. Patton thanked Dave Scheiber of Filippo Berio for his assistance in preparing the data for the report.

A copy of the presentation is included as Attachment 3 and can be downloaded from the NAOOA web site at the following address:

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/midyr08_chairmansrep.pdf

It was noted there was an error on the last slide. The version referred to above has the corrected information.

There was some discussion about per-capita consumption of olive oil in Canada. The consensus was that it’s probably highest in the eastern and western areas of the country.

Report on Status of Various Proposals for Olive Oil Standards

Mr. Bauer said both he and representatives from the California Olive Oil Council have been told the petition for the USDA standard is still being held up by USDA’s office of general counsel. He said the staffer who both he and the COOC communicate with appears to be very frustrated by the lack of movement. She’s told both groups she doesn’t know what issues, if any, are causing the delay at this point. It was suggested some attempts be made to communicate with USDA’s office of general counsel and people in the USDA administrative office.

Mr. Bauer then moved on to the NAOOA’s petition for an FDA standard of identity. He said a draft of the standard was prepared last year. The COOC said it would support the standard, with minor changes to match its petition to USDA, but asked the NAOOA to wait until USDA acted on its petition. At the July 2007 meeting, the NAOOA agreed to wait until this meeting to decide when to file the petition.

Mr. Bauer cautioned that it’s likely FDA will not move very quickly on a petition, noting it never acted on a petition filed in the early 1990s by the NAOOA. He said he was at a meeting of AFI’s honey section earlier in the week where that industry’s petition to FDA was discussed. The honey industry is frustrated because that petition, filed in late 2006, has not been acted upon. The attorney working on that petition is the same one that did the NAOOA draft. She thinks having two petitions at the same time will help both be acted upon.

Mr. Bauer said the FDA standard is more desirable because the USDA standard is a voluntary standard. In response to a question, Mr. Bauer said he would ask USDA what would happen if a company submitted a sample to it and the sample was found to be adulterated oil.

It was decided to wait until hearing from Mr. Greene of the COOC before making a decision on when to file the FDA petition.

Mr. Bauer said things appeared to be going well in Connecticut. The consumer affairs department strongly endorsed the NAOOA’s petition and there were no negative comments submitted within the comment period. However, a very powerful lobbying firm was hired by someone in the industry and that firm, Robinson & Cole, has been able to slow things down. Mr. Bauer said the lobbyists initially opposed the petition for a number of reasons but the NAOOA, Gus Sclafani Corp. and Oesse Foods have been able to point out the errors made in those arguments. He said those in favor of the petition have been told the opposition has agreed to the proposal but wants a 24-month phase-in period in which violators would be notified of any problems that are found but would not be subject to penalties.

Mr. Bauer said he and the others have strongly objected to the phase-in period but have been told it’s something that’s going to have to be negotiated. After a discussion, the consensus was to come back with a proposal of 90 days, though to expect something somewhat longer.

Mr. Bauer said that in his ongoing discussions with the COOC he told them of the NAOOA’s plans to file a petition for a state standard of identity for olive oil in California. He asked the COOC if they would be willing to work together on this and when told they would, asked if they had any contacts within the state legislature that could be of assistance. It was agreed any proposed standard would closely match the petition filed with USDA.

It took some time for them to do something on the issue but when they did they came back with proposed wording that would amend an existing California law. The wording is included as Attachment 4 and can downloaded from the following address:

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/midyr08_cooclegislation.pdf

Mr. Bauer said he told them the NAOOA strongly objected to the language referring to imports and that the NAOOA could not support the proposal because it dealt only with extra virgin olive oil. He also told them he would have to discuss the issue of flavored oils with NAOOA members.

He said he was told the objectionable language could be removed and the inclusion of other grades of olive oil could be inserted, pending expected approval by COOC members.

NAOOA members agreed those items would have to be corrected before the NAOOA could support the proposal.

A lengthy discussion ensued regarding flavored oils. Points/questions raised included:

• The IOC does not allow product containing any additives to be called olive oil.
• There seems to be conflicting language in how flavored oils and blends are defined.
• What is the normal percentage of flavorings compared to olive oil? Some thought 10 percent seemed high.
• How much flavored oil is sold?

Public Relations Committee Report

Mr. Schreiber commended Exponent for its work.

Bernice Neumann of Exponent presented information on the 2007 promotion program and presented a proposal for a program for 2008.

The information on the 2007 work and the 2008 plan is included as Attachment 5 and can be downloaded from the NAOOA website at the following address:

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/midyr08_prplan.pdf

Ms. Neumann said the Mr. Food segments have been effective and well received. She said he’s more popular in the markets he’s in than Martha Stewart.

She said supplying information to Curves for its members to use has been effective.

She said the editors at the foodservice event included in the 2007 program were not familiar with the NAOOA. She added that she talked to other commodity groups about possible partnerships.

A suggestion was made that Exponent make the materials it produces available to members. Mr. Bauer was asked to check into the NAOOA’s capabilities to add this information to the members’ only portion of the NAOOA site.

It was suggested that an educational piece be put together for the foodservice segment. Mr. Bauer said Mr. Sessler provided him with copies of an old piece the NAOOA put together and that he’s looking to update that as soon as possible.

Questions about the funding level were deferred until the financial discussion to take place later in the meeting.

Report on Possible Class Action Suit

Mr. Bauer noted again that Nancy Gray, the attorney who approached him about this, was unable to attend the meeting because of a conflicting court action. He read the following text prepared by Ms. Gray:

My colleagues at a prominent class action firm and I are looking into the possibility of filing a lawsuit against entities that have been selling adulterated olive oil in California, or California entities that have been selling adulterated olive oil elsewhere. Towards that end, we are investigating sales by Coachella Valley Edibles and Gemsa/ItalCal, and sales of Genco and Gia brand olive oils, among others. Test results obtained by some of our clients demonstrate that both Gence and Gia are adulterated with seed oil. We have been tracking imports of oils by Coachella Valley and Gemsa, and note they have been receiving oil from many of the same foreign suppliers and shipping through Canada.

We would be grateful if the NAOOA would share any information it has available concerning any of the above-referenced entities or brands. We already have a copy of your letter dated 4/25/07 to the CA Dept. of Food and Agriculture concerning Coachella Valley. In particular, we are interested in lab analyses performed by or on behalf of the NAOOA and any of its members, as well as any information that tends to show the source of the adulterated oil.

As you know, I prosecuted an olive oil adulteration case in federal district court in Los Angeles over 10 years ago. Since then, the problem has continued unabated, causing substantial damage to legitimate purveyors, and also deceives and hurts the public. Unfortunately, neither the state nor federal authorities has devoted the time or resources to end the proliferation of adulterated olive oil.

We are much obliged for any assistance your organization or members is able to provide.

The consensus was to lend support to this effort, though Mr. Bauer was asked to review the NAOOA’s regulations to ensure any action would not go against any regulations.

Report by Alan Greene of the California Olive Oil Council

Mr. Greene said he and some other COOC officers had several conference calls with Mr. Bauer over the past year to discuss several issues. Among the points he raised were:

California Olive Oil Standard

• Mr. Bauer told them about the NAOOA’s desire to get a standard of identity for olive oil in California.
• They looked around for someone with a connection with the state government and found out that Dan Flynn of the University of California at Davis (a COOC member because the school has the Mondavi Olive Center) was a former legislative staffer.
• He said they decided to address only extra virgin and flavored oils by updating an existing law.
• Sen. Patricia Wiggins in District 1 was sympathetic. She put up Senate bill 634 as a placeholder.
• He said when the proposed language was shared with Mr. Bauer he expressed concern with some of the wording and with the fact it only addressed extra virgin olive oil.
• He said the COOC has taken out the wording in question and has inserted the information on the other grades.
• The COOC has met with California grocers, restaurant groups and the table olive group, all who have taken a neutral position.
• The legislation would allow private action against firms marketing product that does not meet the standard.
• The latest draft will be circulated to COOC members and then to the NAOOA. He hopes to have the first reading by the Ag Committee in April. Assuming it goes through, it would be voted on in August or September, taking effect in January 2009 and usable in 2010.

• He met with Chere Shorter of USDA in September. She thought the standard would be published in October or November. She told him since then that it’s being held up again in the Office of General Counsel. She’s not sure what the problem is and she’s frustrated. He said he’s still hoping to push it forward. He thinks the taste panel might be an issue and the USDA might ask the COOC for assistance.
• He thanked the NAOOA for delaying the filing of its petition to FDA. He said the COOC is concerned that USDA and FDA will talk to one another about the standard and the USDA will not act until FDA does.
• He asked Chere Shorter if she thought the COOC asking Rep. Nancy Pelosi to put pressure on USDA would be helpful. She told him she thought that might muddy the waters somewhat. He plans to get back to her next month.
• He asked for another 60 days to see what happens with USDA before the NAOOA files its petition. Dan Nowicki said he’ll ask Robert Reeves of the edible oils association for some guidance.
• Later in the dialogue, Mr. Greene said it’s unlikely FDA and USDA will talk among themselves and that it’s probably not necessary for the NAOOA to wait any longer to file its petition with FDA.

• The current California law has some wording on flavored oils.
• About 25 percent of COOC members produce flavored oils. Another 50 percent don’t want them marketed.
• The 90 percent figure (flavorings could account for no more than 10 percent of the product) came from input from members. He said some are using fruit, some are using natural flavors. He said the best way is to use the fruit. He said natural flavors seem to work okay but artificial flavors seem to break apart.
• He said they decided to address only extra virgin and flavored oils by updating an existing law.
• The COOC doesn’t want labeling of flavored oils to include the words “extra virgin.”

• Mr. Greene said an order would provide a long-term approach for funding.
• He said the COOC receives funds from USDA but it is not enough to support the domestic producing industry’s growth.
• He said he’s been surprised some of the people in the COOC who he thought would support the order have not yet supported it, though he thinks that with a little more time, the support for the order will be strong enough to move forward. He said the COOC will speak about the idea at its annual meeting in February.
• He said one problem he’s facing is the perception of how the funding mechanism would create a chance for favoritism.
• He said he’s going to feel out his board members about having Mr. Bauer speak at the February meeting.

Mr. Gato raised the idea of a joint meeting/dinner between the NAOOA and the COOC at next year’s Fancy Food Show in California.

When asked about his company, Mr. Greene said he’s the vice president of California Olive Ranch. He expects his company will produce 1.2 million gallons of olive oil in five years. He added that in 15 years, California will be close to being on par with Spain in terms of production. He said high-density planting allows for six times the production of traditional planting.

Mr. Patton thanked Mr. Greene for sharing his time and his thoughts and said he looks forward to continued cooperation between the NAOOA and the COOC.

Quality Control Committee Report

The lists of brands collected for testing are included as Attachments 6a, 6b and Attachments 7a and 7b and can be downloaded from the NAOOA website at the following address:

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/midyr08_ioocfoodservice.pdf

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/midyr08_naooafoodservice.pdf

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/midyr08_ioocretail.pdf

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/midyr08_naooaretail.pdf

Mr. Bauer said members are welcome to suggest oils to be collected. He added that the NAOOA cannot be used as a company’s quality control department. He said he was asked by a member who lost a piece of business to test an oil sold to the former customer because a test the member conducted came back negative. Mr. Bauer said he had to let the member know there are strict parameters on how samples are collected and that in the IOOC program, the results can’t be shared with anyone but the marketer or packer. He said in instances such as that one, members can request a sample be collected but must realize they will not be notified of the results.

Report on the Work of the International Olive Oil Council

Mr. Bauer said he attended a meeting of the signatory associations to the IOOC Quality Control Agreement in early December.

He said he’s encouraged by improvements to the IOOC’s quality control monitoring practices but spoke out several times at the meeting about the disappointment of the NAOOA with the lack of a public relations campaign in the North American market.

Mr. Bauer said the collection of 200-300 samples was approved for the quality control program.

Discussion of Status of NAOOA Seal Program

Mr. Bauer said the licensing agreement and the Seal Style Guide were included in the meeting packet. They’re also included as Attachment 8 and Attachment 9, respectively and can be downloaded at the following addresses:

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/naooa_licensing_agreement.pdf

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/naooa_seal_style_guide.pdf

He said the program was delayed somewhat because the attorney working on the trademark was concerned because the trademark office has been rejecting trademark requests for products that contain wording that may make an imported item appear to be a domestic product. He was concerned the words “North American Olive Oil Association” would create problems.

The trademark process takes some time, so members will be able to use the logo while the NAOOA’s petition is being reviewed. If the petition is denied, the seal could still be used but would not be as protected against unwanted use as if the trademark was approved.

Mr. Bauer said he’d like feedback as soon as possible on the Style Guide. He said a color version will be on the Website and will be sent out with the licensing agreement.

It was agreed the licensing agreement should be sent to members as soon as Mr. Bauer returned to the office.

Producing Country Reports

Copies of the producing country reports can be downloaded from the NAOOA web site at the following addresses:

► Portugal: http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/midyr08_pcrportugal.pdf

These reports were prepared by representatives of the associations in the producing countries. They include estimates which are subject to change. Members will be notified as more reports become available.

Financial Reports

Mr. Bauer presented the financial report for the year ending December 31, 2007. A copy is included with these minutes as Attachment 10 and can be downloaded from the NAOOA website at the following address:

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/midyr08_financials.pdf

Mr. Patton said based on the feedback provided to the NAOOA office, $150,000 in assessments would allow for $125,000 in promotion in 2007. He said he’d prefer to have a larger program and said Pompeain would donate an additional $10,000 to help.

A long discussion followed on a long-term financial approach. The following points raised/suggestions were made and agreed upon:

• Because of changes in the industry the NAOOA is not representing the industry volume/percentage it used to.
• Associations and governments in producing countries have funds available and should be asked to donate funds.
• The NAOOA should write a letter to the producing countries saying that the NAOOA has a dilemma in that it can no longer self-promote, there has been no IOOC funding for several years and the association may have to stop its promotion program unless it receives contributions.
• Mr. Shaw suggested contacting Juan Gomez Moya of ASOLIVA because of his many contacts throughout the European Union.
• The NAOOA should work to develop relationships with governments in foreign countries; meet with them and talk about the growing production in the U.S. It was suggested the NAOOA have an “ambassador” in each country.
• The NAOOA should seek three-year or four-year commitments on any funds raised so it can continue any program that’s started.
• An additional $100,000 in assessments should be collected from existing members this year (a total of $250,000), with about $50,000 going toward promotion and the other $50,000 going toward raising funds.
• Exponent should put together a program of between $500,000 and $1 million so efforts to raise funds can include a description of a proposed plan.
• Mr. Makhloufi and Mr. Rekik said they would help ensure any expenses related to traveling to Tunisia would be covered.
• Communications have to stress that the NAOOA is the only group that can put this sort of program together and the only one that can address legislative issues, so contributions to help the NAOOA achieve its mission are especially important.
• It’s important to find out who in each country can spend any money.
• The additional funds mentioned earlier should be raised this year so those being asked for funds will see that a good program is already in existence.
• Mr. Patton suggested looking into opportunities in Mexico.
• Mr. Bauer was asked to look into the possibility of getting booth at the Fancy Food Show in New York.
• A reception or some other event during the Fancy Food Show should also be considered.

Membership

Mr. Bauer said the following company applied for membership:

Mani Imports, West Sacramento, Calif.

Site and Date of Annual Meeting

Mr. Bauer said the Fancy Food Show begins June 29 in New York. Under the typical schedule, the next meeting would be held Friday, June 27, with the dinner held June 26.

Mr. Vorpahl noted any event planned to expose non-members to the NAOOA would likely have to be held at a different time because many won’t be in New York by that time.

Open Forum

Mr. Bauer said AFI would be hosting a reception at SIAL Montreal in April and will host another one at SIAL in Paris in October. He said the costs related to those events would come out of AFI’s budget but the NAOOA should look to get as much out of those events as possible. He added that AFI will have a booth at SIAL Montreal.

Mr. Bauer gave a quick rundown of the efforts in Congress to pass food safety legislation, much of it directed at food imports. He said AFI has taken a lead role in efforts to make sure anything passed is viable and worthwhile. There’s been some success in slowing the process down somewhat, so he said he thinks it’s unlikely anything substantial will get passed in 2008.

He said the major issues at the moment are proposals for line-item charges or user fees on imported products and the possible requirement for mandatory quality control such as HACCP for all imported product. He asked members to provide input when asked or at any other point.

Mr. Bauer said he just received an invitation for members to participate in an event in Turkey. The text of the e-mail invitation is included as Attachment 11 and can be downloaded from the following address:

► http://www.mytradeassociation.org/naooa/midyr08eurasiashow.pdf

Adjournment

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned.