foodconsumer.org: CU concerned about USDA's meat labeling efforts

CU concerned about USDA's meat labeling efforts
================================================================================
admin on 02/12/2009 00:22:00
 
February 11, 2009
The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Secretary of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 202050
Submitted via: facsimile and email
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
We are writing to you to express our deep concern about a variety of meat
marketing labeling efforts being undertaken at USDA. Consumers Union, the
non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports, has been rating, reporting and
informing consumers about product claims for years. In the last seven years, we
have met several times with the Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) to help lend
our expertise, including consumer survey data, to help USDA in providing the
most meaningful label standards that meet consumer expectations. However, we
have immediate and long term concerns about the standards behind many of the
labels overseen by USDA and the lack of harmonization across Agencies within the
Department in the oversight of current labeling terms.
1. "Naturally raised" label should be withdrawn
Our most immediate labeling concern pertains to January 16, 2009 publication of
a Federal Register notice regarding the "naturally raised" standard [Doc. No.
AMS-LS-07-0131; LS-07-16]. While this was issued as a final notice, it has not
been approved by Office of Management and Budget to meet the Paperwork Reduction
Act. In this notice, issued in the very final days of the previous
Administration, USDA finalized a very limited standard for “naturally
raised”: per the notice, the standard would mean only that the meat or poultry
in question was raised without certain antibiotics, animal byproducts and growth
promotants.
The standards behind this claim fall significantly short of consumer
expectations as revealed in a national telephone poll conducted by Consumer
Reports’ National Research Center. The poll, released in November 20081 showed
American consumers want the “naturally raised” meat claim to mean more than
USDA's proposed standard, including that it came from an animal that:
1 http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/foodpoll2008.pdf
* Had a diet free of chemicals, drugs and animal byproducts (86%)
* Was raised in a natural environment (85%)
* Ate a natural diet (85%)
* Was not cloned or genetically engineered (78%)
* Had access to the outdoors (77%)
* Was treated humanely (76%)
* Was not confined (68%)
Earlier in the rulemaking process, more than 36,000 comments received from USDA
on the proposed standards rejected this label outright. And the final standards
are even weaker than the proposed ones published November 2007, by allowing
ionophores, known antimicrobials, to be used as an exception to ban on
antibiotics used under this labeling term. In 2008, the USDA instructed Tyson to
halt the use of "raised without antibiotics" because ionophores were being
administered to animals. We urge USDA to develop specific standards for this
discreet practice (see #5 below).
We urge you to immediately withdraw the "naturally raised" label standard. This
midnight ruling was not complete and the standards were published last-minute,
even though the administrative part of meeting the Paperwork Reduction Act and
OMB approval, had not been done. Moreover, the standards fall significantly
short of consumer expectations and only add to marketplace confusion. Consumers
would much prefer to have discreet labeling terms that are meaningful, instead
of generalized and vague terms that encompass a few specific practices (and one
with a gross exemption).
2. Close loopholes in Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)
While you are evaluating the COOL rule, we urge you to address two key problems.
The first has to do with the definition of processed food. The Farm Bill
explicitly states that “processed foods” are exempt from the rules. However,
the USDA definition of "processing" is overly broad, resulting in the exclusion
of many foods from COOL labeling. USDA currently defines "smoked", "roasted" or
"cooked" food as "processed," which excludes many foods from Country of Origin
Labeling. For example, roasted peanuts are excluded from COOL, but 95 percent of
the peanuts sold in the US are roasted. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of
consumers (95 percent) agree that processed or packaged foods should be labeled
as to their country of origin, according to our 2008, food labeling poll. We
also urge that mixtures not be exempt from COOL labeling.
The second problem has to do with labeling of meat with multiple countries of
origin. In the proposed final rule, the multiple-country label could not include
meat that was from animals exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.
The final rule expanded the definition of the multiple-country label to include
muscle cuts from U.S animals that are that are processed at a facility on the
same day as foreign animals, as well as ground meat
if the facility had processed some meat from U.S animals within the past 60
days. We urge you to restrict the multiple-country label to meat from animals
not exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S. Meat that comes from
animals that are exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the United States
should always be labeled to indicate that the U.S. is the country of origin. We
encourage you to read our full recommendations for how USDA can address these
COOL issues which can be found at www.consumersunion.org/pdf/COOLFinal-0908.pdf.
3. Close loopholes in "grass fed" standard
Consumers Union applauded the AMS for issuing a credible standard for the "grass
fed" label that went into effect in November 2007. However, in November 2007, we
learned that companies who had already been using a "grass fed" claim, approved
through FSIS, were exempt from having to comply with the new AMS standard. We
believe this undermining of the new standard through exemptions is misleading to
consumers who cannot distinguish between two (or many) standards for the very
same claim in the marketplace.
In January 2008, Consumers Union filed a Freedom of Information Act request to
obtain the names of the companies currently using a "grass fed" claim that was
approved by FSIS. We still have not received an answer to our request. In a
recent phone communication with AMS, we learned that the Agency has in fact
decided to continue to allow FSIS to grant "grass fed" claims to companies
arbitrarily and without having to meet the AMS standard. This dichotomy in
labeling oversight and standards needs correction. We urge you to take action by
mandating the AMS standard for the companies wishing to make a "grass fed" claim
so that all companies wishing to use "grass fed" will have to comply with the
same standard.
4. Harmonize meat marketing claims across meat, poultry and dairy items
It is increasingly confusing to consumers and the marketplace to sort through
which USDA label standards apply to which products on the market. For example,
the "grass fed" standard only applies to meat from ruminant animals, and yet
consumers are presented with the very same claim on poultry products, milk and
eggs. The current standards for "naturally raised" would apply to meat products
from livestock but not from poultry. We strongly urge the USDA to develop
labeling standards that apply to all meat and poultry products that could,
would, or do use similar label claims, and to work with the FDA to harmonize the
meaning of those label terms on eggs and dairy products.
5. Define "raised without antibiotics" label claim
The “raised without antibiotics” label claim has been misused in the
marketplace and USDA made several contradictory statements about its
interpretation. The recent case of
Tyson using the "raised without antibiotics" claim on chicken for years while
using ionophores until the USDA reversed its approval of that practice
highlights the problem of lacking a defined, transparent standard. While most
consumers believe that this claim means no antibiotics or antimicrobial drugs
were administered, there is in fact no standard for the term.
Moreover, while the USDA had proposed, and then withdrawn, a poor standard for
this claim in 2002-3, the Agency never proposed a new standard. Instead, the
term has been rolled into the new "naturally raised" standard with an allowance
for ionophores. We strongly urge the USDA to create a transparent, consistent
and meaningful standard for this term that means no antibiotics, no
antimicrobial drugs, no ionophores, and no antibiotics injected into eggs
("raised" should include egg incubation).
6. Ensure consistency of "organic" label to scope of products covered
The Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) charges the USDA with
establishing uniform national standards for the production and handling of foods
labeled as “organic.” This includes enforcement against companies who market
their food as "organic" that are not produced and handled in accordance with
National Organic Program's regulations.2
However, while National Organic Program has been developing standards for
aquaculture for several years, it has continued to allow companies to market
their products as "organic." Consumers Union, along with many other groups, has
opposed this action. We believe that it is in violation of the OFPA and that it
undermines the integrity of the organic label. We urge the USDA to prohibit the
"organic" label on seafood and fish until standards are established.
We also are very concerned that the current recommendations from the National
Organic Standards Board for organic aquaculture are severely flawed. These
recommendations would undermine the 100% organic feed requirement already in
place for other organic animals and allow the use of open-net pens in the ocean
which can release and absorb waste freely and directly conflicts with having a
controlled production system.
Further, personal care products have been added to the scope of the National
Organic Program, but they do not meet the same uniform standards for food.
Specifically, the non-organic portion of personal care products does not have to
adhere to the materials review process or the National List. This inconsistent
application of the organic regulations violates the intent of the law to provide
uniform meaning to the term, "organic." Ultimately, it may cheapen the meaning
and integrity of the “organic” label. It is misleading make an organic claim
on a personal care product that does not have to be held to the same standard as
food. At the very least, consumers should be made fully aware of this difference
in labeling perhaps with a mandatory disclaimer about the non-
2
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo
organic portion of "organic" and "made with organic" personal care products.
Ideally, the standards for the non-organic portion of personal care products
should be the same as for food.
7. Maintain "treated with irradiation" labeling for meat from irradiated surface
cuts
FSIS is currently considering a petition from the American Meat Institute (AMI)
calling for the use of low-penetration and low-dose electron beam irradiation to
reduce levels of bacteria such as E. coli O157:h7 on of the surface of chilled
beef carcasses as a “processing aid” rather than its current defined use as
an "antimicrobial food additive." This shift in classification would permit this
kind of irradiation to be used without being labeled, and is based on a false
rationale that this application would not result in a technical or organoleptic
change to the food. Even by the limited data submitted by AMI, which did not
address the potential formation of 2-alkylcyclobutanones, there would in fact be
organoleptic changes to the meat. CU does not believe that this application of
irradiation should be defined as a "processing aid" and that specific labeling
should still be required.
We appreciate your time and consideration of these important labeling issues. We
look forward to speaking with and meeting you or your staff in the near future
to discuss these concerns. We also encourage you to read through the entirety of
our November 2008 food labeling poll which contains even more information about
consumers’ expectations around truthful and misleading labeling terms. For
your reference, we refer you to www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/foodpoll2008.pdf,
where the entire poll can be found.
Sincerely,
Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D Michael Hansen, Ph.D..
Senior Scientist and Policy Analyst Senior Scientist and Policy Analyst
914-378-2211
cc: Ron Hicks, Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Food Safety
Cindy Smith, Acting Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs
William Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed, AMS
Mark Bradley, Manager, National Organic Program, AMS