Milk and Cream Products and Yogurt Products; Proposal to Revoke the Standards for Lowfat Yogurt and Nonfat Yogurt and to Amend the Standard for Yogurt, 2443-2460 [E9-736]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
8332, Brian.White@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
products for accessibility of leadcontaining components.
Dated: January 9, 2009.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–717 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am]
Notice of Extension of Time
BILLING CODE 6335–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 284
[Docket No. RM09–2–000]
Contract Reporting Requirements of
Intrastate Natural Gas Companies
January 7, 2009.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of Inquiry: extension of
comment deadline.
SUMMARY: On November 20, 2008, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
issued a Notice of Inquiry to consider
whether to revise its contract reporting
requirements for those natural gas
pipelines that fall under the
Commission’s jurisdiction pursuant to
section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy
Act of 1978 or section 1(c) of the Natural
Gas Act (November 28, 2008, 73 FR
72395). The deadline for filing
comments is being extended at the
request of the Texas Pipeline
Association.
Comment Date: Comments are due on
or before February 13, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the Notice of Inquiry, identified by
Docket No. RM09–2–000, by one of the
following methods:
• Agency Web site: https://
www.ferc.gov. Follow instructions for
submitting comments via the eFiling
link found in the Comment Procedures
Section of the preamble.
• Mail: Commenters unable to file
comments electronically must mail or
hand deliver an original and 14 copies
of their comments to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vince Mareino (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502–6167,
Vince.Mareino@ferc.gov.
Brian White (Technical Information),
Office of Energy Markets Regulation,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
On December 19, 2008, the Texas
Pipeline Association (TPA) filed a
motion for an extension of time to file
comments in response to the
Commission’s Notice of Inquiry issued
November 20, 2008, in the abovereferenced proceeding. Contract
Reporting Requirements of Intrastate
Natural Gas Companies, 125 FERC
¶ 61,190 (2008) (NOI). The motion states
that because of the potential impact of
the NOI on TPA and its members and
because of the press of other business
and the intervening holidays, additional
time is needed to file responsive
comments.
Upon consideration, notice is hereby
given that an extension of time for filing
comments on the Commission’s NOI is
granted to and including February 13,
2009, as requested by TPA.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–394 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 131
[Docket No. FDA–2000–P–0126] (formerly
Docket No. 2000P–0685)
Milk and Cream Products and Yogurt
Products; Proposal to Revoke the
Standards for Lowfat Yogurt and
Nonfat Yogurt and to Amend the
Standard for Yogurt
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is proposing to
revoke its regulations on the standards
of identity for lowfat yogurt and nonfat
yogurt and amend the standard of
identity for yogurt in numerous
respects. This action is in response, in
part, to a citizen petition submitted by
the National Yogurt Association (the
NYA). FDA tentatively concludes that
this action will promote honesty and
fair dealing in the interest of consumers
and, to the extent practicable, will
achieve consistency with existing
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2443
international standards of identity for
yogurt.
DATES:
Submit comments by March 31,
2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. FDA–2000–P–
0126, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following ways:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the
following ways:
• FAX: 301–827–6870.
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for
paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions):
Division of Dockets Management (HFA–
305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.
To ensure more timely processing of
comments, FDA is no longer accepting
comments submitted to the agency by email. FDA encourages you to continue
to submit electronic comments by using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as
described previously, in the ADDRESSES
portion of this document under
Electronic Submissions.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking. All
comments received may be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
additional information on submitting
comments, see the ‘‘Comments’’ heading
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the
heading of this document, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Division of Dockets
Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ritu
Nalubola, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (HFS–820), Food and
Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301–
436–2371.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Current Standards of Identity for
Yogurt, Lowfat Yogurt, and Nonfat
Yogurt
B. The National Yogurt Association
Petition
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
2444
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
C. The Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
D. Comments on the ANPRM
II. The Proposal
A. Legal Authority/Statutory Directive
B. Proposed Amendments
1. Yogurt
2. Revocation of the Standards of
Identity for Lowfat and Nonfat
Yogurts
C. NYA’s Recommended
Amendments to the Standard of
Identity for Cultured Milk
III. Analysis of Economic Impacts
A. Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
IV. Federalism
V. Environmental Impact
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Comments
VIII. References
I. Background
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
A. Current Standards of Identity for
Yogurt, Lowfat Yogurt, and Nonfat
Yogurt
In the Federal Register of January 30,
1981 (46 FR 9924), FDA published a
final rule establishing standards of
identity for yogurt (§ 131.200 (21 CFR
131.200)), lowfat yogurt (§ 131.203 (21
CFR 131.203)), and nonfat yogurt
(§ 131.206 (21 CFR 131.206). Interested
persons were given until March 2, 1981,
to file objections and request a hearing
on the final rule. Twenty-one responses
were filed objecting to specific
provisions of the final rule and, in most
cases, requesting a hearing. In response
to those objections that raised genuine
and substantial issues of fact that must
be resolved through a public hearing,
FDA stayed the effective date for
provisions regarding certain milk
products and eggnog as well as the
following: (1) Those provisions of
§§ 131.200(c)(1), 131.203(c)(1), and
131.206(c)(1) (redesignated as
§§ 131.200(d)(1), 131.203(d)(1), and
131.206(d)(1), respectively) that
restricted the type of milk-derived
ingredients that may be used to increase
the nonfat solids content of cultured
milk and yogurts to those listed in these
sections; (2) those provisions of
§§ 131.200(a), 131.203(a), and
131.206(a) that excluded the use of
reconstituted dairy ingredients as basic
ingredients in the manufacture of
yogurts; (3) those provisions of
§§ 131.200(c), 131.203(c), and
131.206(c) (redesignated as
§§ 131.200(d), 131.203(d), and
131.206(d), respectively) insofar as they
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
excluded the addition of preservatives
to yogurts; (4) those provisions of
§§ 131.200(a), 131.203(a), and
131.206(a) that set a minimum titratable
acidity of 0.9 percent, expressed as
lactic acid; and (5) the provision in
§ 131.200(a) that the 3.25 percent
minimum milkfat level applies to yogurt
after the addition of one or more of the
optional sources of milk solids not fat
listed in § 131.200(c)(1) (redesignated as
§ 131.200(d)(1)) (47 FR 41519 at 41523,
September 21, 1982). To date, due to
competing priorities and limited
resources, FDA has not held a public
hearing to resolve these issues and the
effective date for these provisions
remains stayed. Therefore, these
provisions were never in effect.
Consequently, cultured milk and
yogurts may deviate from the relevant
standards in the previously mentioned
respects. For example, although the
current standards do not permit the use
of certain ingredients such as
preservatives or a reconstituted dairy
ingredient as a basic ingredient, because
of the stayed provisions, FDA has not
taken enforcement action against the use
of these ingredients in yogurt, lowfat
yogurt, or nonfat yogurt. Similarly,
yogurt is not required to meet the 0.9
percent minimum titratable acidity
requirement in stayed provisions
§§ 131.200(a), 131.203(a), and
131.206(a).
B. The National Yogurt Association
Petition
The NYA submitted a citizen petition
on February 18, 2000 (Docket No. FDA–
2000–P–0126 (formerly Docket No.
2000P–0685); hereafter referred to as the
petition) requesting that FDA revoke the
standards of identity in part 131 (21
CFR part 131) for lowfat yogurt
(§ 131.203) and nonfat yogurt
(§ 131.206) and amend the standards of
identity for yogurt (§ 131.200) and
cultured milk (§ 131.112).
In its petition, NYA stated that its
recommended standard establishes that
yogurt is a food product containing a
minimum level of certain live and active
cultures; takes into account current
industry practices; recognizes the need
to allow for use of future technologies;
and establishes a clear, consistent,
modernized, and flexible yogurt
standard that would benefit both
industry and consumers. Specifically,
NYA recommended a yogurt standard
that (1) requires a minimum level of
active cultures of 107 colony-forming
units (CFU) per gram (g); (2) requires an
acidity of pH 4.6 or lower; (3) requires
a minimum level of total dairy
ingredients of 51 percent; (4) provides
for pre-culture homogenization and
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pasteurization; (5) permits the use of
reconstituted milk and whey protein
concentrate as ‘‘standard dairy
ingredients;’’ (6) provides for the use of
any milk-derived ingredients as optional
dairy ingredients; (7) permits the use of
safe and suitable sweeteners,
emulsifiers, and preservatives; (8)
permits the optional use of any safe and
suitable ingredients added for
nutritional or functional purpose; and
(9) makes provisions for lowfat and
nonfat yogurts based on total fat content
of the food per reference amount
customarily consumed (RACC).
In addition, NYA requested that the
current standard of identity for cultured
milk be amended to ‘‘conform’’ to its
recommended standard for yogurt.
Specifically, NYA recommended that
FDA revise the cultured milk standard
to (1) provide for the alternate term
‘‘fermented milk;’’ (2) require a
minimum level of total dairy ingredients
of 51 percent; (3) permit the use of
reconstituted milk and whey protein
concentrate as ‘‘standard dairy
ingredients;’’ (4) provide for the use of
any milk-derived ingredients as
‘‘optional dairy ingredients;’’ (5) permit
the use of safe and suitable sweeteners,
emulsifiers, and preservatives; and (6)
permit the use of any safe and suitable
ingredients added for nutritional or
functional purposes.
NYA pointed out that several
provisions of the standards of identity
for cultured milk, yogurt, lowfat yogurt,
and nonfat yogurt are currently stayed
(47 FR 41519) (as discussed in section
I.A of this document). NYA contended
that these stayed provisions create
multiple gaps in the standards for which
no guidelines exist and, as a result, the
integrity of the food ‘‘yogurt’’ is not
maintained.
According to NYA, yogurt has been
characterized for centuries by its live
and active cultures and, thus, a
minimum content of live and active
cultures is crucial to the yogurt standard
of identity to promote honesty and fair
dealing in the interest of consumers.
NYA noted that consumers identify
yogurt with live and active cultures and
expect yogurt to contain a significant
amount of these cultures when they
purchase the product but have no
assurance under the current standard
that the yogurt will contain such
cultures. NYA maintained that its
recommended standard recognizes the
defining characteristics of yogurt and
establishes that yogurt is a product of
fermentation of certain characterizing
cultures and that the finished food
contains a significant quantity of these
live and active cultures, consistent with
consumer expectations.
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
NYA also stated that the
recommended amendments to the
standard for cultured milk would
further serve consumer interest. Under
its proposed actions, NYA maintained
that foods otherwise satisfying the
standard of identity for yogurt that do
not contain the required level of the
characterizing live and active cultures
would not be named ‘‘yogurt;’’ rather,
they would be named ‘‘cultured milk’’
or ‘‘fermented milk.’’ Consequently,
NYA stated, consumers would not be
misled into believing that these foods
contain a significant amount of live and
active cultures.
NYA also maintained that its
recommended amendments would
ensure that aspects of yogurt labeling,
such as the use of nutrient content
claims, are consistent with the
requirements of the Nutrition Labeling
and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA)
(Public Law 101–535). NYA stated that
its recommended standard maintains
the three yogurt types (full fat, lowfat,
and nonfat yogurts) so manufacturers
can continue to make lowfat and nonfat
yogurts without meeting the nutritional
equivalence requirement described in
§ 130.10(b) (21 CFR 130.10(b)). In
addition, NYA maintained that its
recommended standard would change
the milkfat content requirements of
lowfat and nonfat yogurts to be
consistent with the nutrient content
claim requirements for the terms ‘‘low
fat’’ and ‘‘nonfat’’ established under the
NLEA and codified in § 101.62(b) (21
CFR 101.62(b)).
Additionally, NYA noted that food
technology has advanced and industry
practices related to yogurt
manufacturing have changed since the
yogurt standards have been in place.
Consequently, NYA asserted that the
current yogurt standards impede the
yogurt industry and do not allow
manufacturers to implement advances
in food technology. NYA stated that its
recommended standard establishes a
modernized, flexible standard of
identity for yogurt that takes into
account current industry practices and
recognizes the need to allow for use of
future technologies.
C. The Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
In the Federal Register of July 3, 2003
(68 FR 39873), FDA published an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) consistent with section
701(e)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C.
371(e)(1)), which directs the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (the
Secretary) to publish proposals made by
petition to amend or repeal a dairy food
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
standard so long as the petition includes
reasonable grounds for the action
requested, and to provide interested
persons with an opportunity to present
their views. In the ANPRM, FDA
requested comment by October 1, 2003,
on whether the actions proposed in the
petition would promote honesty and fair
dealing in the interest of consumers. In
response to a request to allow additional
time to comment, FDA reopened the
comment period on October 29, 2003
(68 FR 61639). The reopened comment
period ended on January 27, 2004.
In the ANPRM, FDA requested data
and information concerning the need
for, and the appropriateness of, the
amendments requested by NYA,
including the revocation of the
standards for lowfat and nonfat yogurt
and the revision of the standards for
yogurt and cultured milk. FDA
specifically requested comment on
several provisions set forth in the
petition, including those related to the
use of any safe and suitable ingredient
added for nutritional or functional
purposes, the measurement of acidity of
yogurt, the presence of live and active
cultures in yogurt, and vitamin A
addition to yogurt, and the need to
amend the cultured milk standard of
identity to conform to NYA’s
recommended yogurt standard.
FDA pointed out in the ANPRM that
NYA recommended a number of
changes to the standards of identity for
yogurt and cultured milk. First, NYA
recommended that FDA permit the use
of any safe and suitable ingredient
added for nutritional or functional
purposes. NYA stated that this
provision is necessary to maintain
enough flexibility in the standards to
permit the use of novel ingredients as
they are developed. FDA acknowledged
the need for food standards to permit
flexibility in food technology so long as
that technology does not alter the basic
nature or essential characteristics of the
food. FDA stated that the existing
provisions in § 130.10 already provide
for the addition of substances for
nutritional purposes to standardized
foods. FDA also noted that flexibility in
the use of ingredients for functional
purposes may be achieved by specifying
the ingredients by functional use
category, e.g., ‘‘emulsifiers’’ or
‘‘preservatives,’’ rather than by listing
the specific ingredients. FDA asked for
comment on the need for any functional
ingredient categories, in addition to the
ones recommended in the petition, in
the manufacture of yogurt.
Second, NYA recommended a
maximum pH of 4.6 for yogurt, stating
that this level reflects the lower end of
titratable acidity levels found in
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2445
common industry practice and that
measuring pH, rather than titratable
acidity expressed as lactic acid, reflects
the current industry practice and is a
more accurate and convenient method
of measuring acidity. FDA asked for
comment both on the maximum pH
recommended by NYA and the use of
pH rather than titratable acidity to
measure the acidity of yogurt.
Third, NYA recommended that FDA
require a specific amount of live and
active cultures in yogurt based on an
assertion that consumers expect yogurt
to contain significant amounts of live
and active cultures. In its recommended
new yogurt standard, NYA required
yogurt to contain a minimum of 107
CFU/g of live and active cultures at the
time of manufacture. NYA also
suggested that manufacturers may test
their yogurt products to demonstrate
that the products, under proper
distribution and storage conditions,
would be expected to contain at least
106 CFU/g of live and active cultures
through the manufacturer’s designated
code life for the product and at the
anticipated time of consumption. FDA
asked for comment on the following
topics: (1) Whether the presence of live
and active cultures is an essential
characteristic of yogurt and, if so, in
what amounts; (2) the appropriateness
of NYA’s suggested provision that
manufacturers ‘‘may’’ conduct tests to
ensure the presence of live and active
cultures through the assigned code life
for the product; and (3) whether NYA’s
recommended standard of identity for
yogurt would adequately ensure the
presence of appropriate amounts of live
and active cultures in yogurt throughout
the shelf life of the product and at the
point of purchase or consumption. FDA
also asked whether any alternative
provisions may be needed to fulfill this
requirement.
In addition, FDA sought comment on
vitamin A addition to lowfat and nonfat
yogurt. FDA previously proposed to
revoke a number of lowfat and nonfat
standards, i.e., §§ 131.122 (sweetened
condensed skimmed milk), 131.123
(lowfat dry milk), 131.132 (evaporated
skimmed milk), 131.135 (lowfat milk),
131.136 (acidified lowfat milk), 131.138
(cultured lowfat milk), 131.143 (skim
milk), 131.144 (acidified skim milk),
131.146 (cultured skim milk), 131.185
(sour half-and-half), 131.187 (acidified
sour half-and-half), 131.203 (lowfat
yogurt), 131.206 (nonfat yogurt), and
133.131 (lowfat cottage cheese) to
ensure that the use of nutrient content
claims in the labeling of these products
would be consistent with the provisions
of the NLEA (60 FR 56541, November 9,
1995). FDA revoked all of the previously
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
2446
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
mentioned standards except for lowfat
yogurt and nonfat yogurt on November
20, 1996 (61 FR 58991). FDA delayed
final action on its proposal to revoke
these standards for 120 days because of
the technical difficulties and economic
considerations associated with their
revocation (61 FR 58991 at 58999). FDA
acknowledged that, if the standards for
lowfat and nonfat yogurts were revoked,
modifying the standardized food yogurt
to make the nutrient content claims
‘‘lowfat’’ or ‘‘nonfat’’ under the
provisions of § 130.10 would require
vitamin A addition to make the product
nutritionally equivalent to full fat
yogurt. FDA also acknowledged that
such a vitamin addition requirement
could potentially result in significant
relabeling, reformulation, and
equipment costs to manufacturers. The
agency believed that its decision to
defer, for a limited time, action on the
standards of identity for yogurt products
would provide an appropriate balance
between the problem the industry was
facing and consumers’ interest in
consistently and fairly labeled foods.
FDA also advised of its intention at the
end of the 120-day period to move to
resolve the inconsistencies between the
use of the terms ‘‘lowfat’’ and ‘‘nonfat’’
in the names of standardized yogurt and
the definitions for these terms
established under the nutrient content
claims regulations (61 FR 58991 at
58999). As FDA noted in the ANPRM,
this issue is yet to be resolved. In fact,
the 1995 proposed rule to revoke the
lowfat and nonfat yogurt products was
subsequently withdrawn (69 FR 68831,
November 26, 2004) as part of the
agency initiative to withdraw certain
proposed actions that were over 5 years
old and no longer considered viable
candidates for final action at that time.
This action was taken to reduce the
agency’s regulatory backlog and focus
its resources on public health issues
current at that time.
According to the yogurt standard
recommended by NYA, manufacturers
would continue to be able to make
lowfat and nonfat yogurts without
having to meet the nutritional
equivalence requirement. FDA asked
whether the yogurt industry is better
able and equipped to meet the
nutritional equivalence requirements of
§ 130.10 than it was in 1996, when FDA
deferred action on this issue. FDA also
asked for comment on the need and
appropriateness of continuing to exempt
yogurt, unlike other standardized foods
making low fat and nonfat nutrient
content claims, from the nutritional
equivalence requirement.
Finally, NYA recommended that FDA
revise the current standard of identity
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
for cultured milk (§ 131.112) so that if
the food otherwise meets the yogurt
standard but does not contain the
characterizing cultures at the required
levels, then the food would qualify as
cultured milk or could alternatively be
named ‘‘fermented milk.’’ FDA pointed
out in the ANPRM that the standard of
identity for cultured milk has been in
place for several decades and, in light of
consumer experience with cultured
milk, the agency asked for comment on
the need to amend the standard for
cultured milk and the appropriateness
of the amendments requested by NYA.
D. Comments on the ANPRM
In response to the ANPRM, FDA
received a total of 65 responses, each
containing one or more comments, from
industry, trade associations, consumers,
government, and academia. Overall,
comments from industry broadly
supported the need to modernize the
yogurt standards to allow recent
technological advances in food
processing and to incorporate flexibility
in yogurt manufacturing while
preserving the basic nature and essential
characteristics of yogurt. One milk
producers’ association opposed revising
the current yogurt or cultured milk
standards, while several consumers
expressed concerns on different
provisions recommended by NYA.
Comments from industry strongly
supported the establishment of a single
yogurt standard that provides for
varying levels of fat content and that
reflects today’s manufacturing practices
while taking into account the stayed
provisions of the current yogurt
standards. These comments also
expressed broad support of NYA’s
petition to the extent that the amended
standard would expressly permit those
industry practices that are not now
restricted under the stayed provisions of
the current standard. For example, some
comments stated that, since certain
provisions of the current yogurt
standards were stayed, virtually all
domestically-produced yogurt utilizes
reconstituted dairy ingredients as basic
ingredients and, therefore, these
comments recommended that the
modernized yogurt standard account for
this typical industry practice. Similarly,
the comments stated that, since certain
other provisions were stayed, a wide
range of milk-derived ingredients that
provide a technical or functional
purpose are used as optional ingredients
in the manufacture of yogurt, and
several comments from industry
supported NYA’s recommended
amendment that would permit this
practice. There was also broad support
to amend the standards to bring the fat
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
content of lowfat and nonfat yogurts in
line with the provisions of the NLEA.
While in agreement with NYA that
the yogurt standards need to be
modernized, some other comments
opposed some of the amendments
sought by NYA. For example, NYA
recommended that yogurt contain a
specific amount of live and active
cultures. Some comments from industry
and academia supported this
requirement and noted the health
benefits associated with live and active
cultures in yogurt. However, other
industry comments strongly opposed
requiring that yogurt contain live and
active cultures. These comments did not
agree with NYA that live and active
cultures are an essential characteristic of
‘‘yogurt’’ nor did they agree with NYA
that consumers expect a minimum live
and active culture content of 106 CFU/
g or any other specified amount. These
comments pointed out that NYA neither
presented any evidence to support its
contention that consumers expect a
certain specified amount of live and
active cultures in yogurt nor provided a
technical rationale or criteria to evaluate
whether the proposed 106 CFU/g is the
appropriate level. In addition, one major
trade association noted in its comments
that members of its organization were
unable to reach an agreement on
whether the presence of live and active
cultures is an essential characteristic of
yogurt and whether the amount of
cultures recommended by NYA is the
appropriate level.
Similarly, comments to other
provisions that NYA requested in its
petition also were mixed. NYA’s
recommended revisions to the standards
would not permit heat treatment of
yogurt after culturing and would require
yogurt that is heat-treated after culturing
to be named ‘‘cultured milk’’ or
‘‘fermented milk’’ rather than ‘‘yogurt,
heat-treated after culturing’’ as is
permitted by the current standards.
While some comments from the
domestic industry supported this
provision, others from industry, both
domestic and international, and one
comment from a foreign government
strongly opposed this provision. They
stated that processors should be
permitted to market heat-treated yogurt,
provided that the heat treatment is
appropriately declared on the label, as
is the current practice, and that
changing the name of this food now to
‘‘cultured milk’’ or ‘‘fermented milk’’
would be confusing to consumers.
With respect to NYA’s recommended
provision that would permit yogurt to
contain non-nutritive sweeteners and be
labeled simply ‘‘yogurt’’ without a
specific declaration of the non-nutritive
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
sweetener in the name of the food,
comments were varied. While
comments from industry supported this
provision, several consumers and at
least one State government agency
strongly opposed this provision, stating
that consumers have become
accustomed to identification of
aspartame in the name of the food 1 and
that removal of this identification would
be misleading to consumers and could
prove harmful to those individuals with
phenylketonuria.
Several consumers, dairy farmers, and
milk producers, and one State
government agency strongly opposed
NYA’s recommended provisions that
any milk-derived ingredient should be
permitted as an optional ingredient and
that any safe and suitable ingredient
should be permitted for a nutritional or
functional purpose. These comments
cited concerns including the use of
imported, cheaper, and inferior quality
substances, which would adversely
affect the quality of the yogurt; the
potential health risks associated with
unregulated, imported products; and the
unfair economic disadvantage to U.S.
dairy plants.
Comments were varied on the use of
whey protein concentrate as a basic
ingredient and the minimum amount of
dairy ingredients by weight of yogurt.
Most comments from industry
supported the use of whey protein
concentrate as a basic ingredient but
other comments, primarily from
consumers and dairy farmers, opposed
this provision, citing product quality
concerns. With respect to NYA’s
recommended provision that yogurt
contain a minimum of 51 percent dairy
ingredients by weight of yogurt,
comments from an industry group
supported the provision, but other
comments from consumers expressed
concern that this provision could allow
yogurt to contain up to 49 percent nondairy ingredients and still be
characterized as ‘‘yogurt.’’ The existing
standards for yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and
nonfat yogurt do not include
requirements with respect to the
proportion of dairy ingredients in the
finished food. Rather, the standards
restrict the use of non-dairy ingredients
to a limited and specific list of
substances that fulfill a technical or
functional purpose.
1 Specifically concerning the labeling of lowfat
and nonfat yogurts that are sweetened with
aspartame, the agency previously advised that
provided the lowfat and nonfat yogurt products
conform to the relevant standards of identity prior
to the addition of aspartame, the descriptors ‘‘lowfat
(or nonfat) yogurt with aspartame sweetener’’ and
‘‘lowfat (or nonfat) yogurt sweetened with
aspartame’’ are acceptable statements of identity for
these products (Ref. 1).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:55 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
With respect to NYA’s recommended
amendments to the cultured milk
standard, a few comments supported,
while several other comments from
industry (both domestic and
international) and milk producers
opposed NYA’s recommended
provisions. The comments that opposed
the amendments stated that it would not
be appropriate to amend the cultured
milk standard simply to include
products that do not fit into the NYA’s
recommended yogurt standard and that
have never been considered by the
industry or consumers to be cultured
milk. Some of these comments also
noted that NYA’s petition did not
address the consumer confusion that
might occur from including semisolid
yogurt-type products (that otherwise
meet NYA’s recommended yogurt
standard but do not contain the
characterizing cultures at the specified
levels) in the cultured milk standard,
which has long been associated with
fluid products. A major trade
association also noted that its members
could not reach agreement on this issue.
Specific comments will be discussed in
the proposed amendment section where
appropriate.
II. The Proposal
A. Legal Authority/Statutory Directive
Section 401 of the act (21 U.S.C. 341)
directs the Secretary to issue regulations
fixing and establishing for any food a
reasonable definition and standard of
identity, quality, or fill of container
whenever in the judgment of the
Secretary such action will promote
honesty and fair dealing in the interest
of consumers. Under section 701(e) of
the act, any action for the amendment
or repeal of any definition and standard
of identity under section 401 of the act
for any dairy product (e.g., yogurt) shall
be begun by a proposal made either by
the Secretary on his own initiative or by
petition of any interested persons,
showing reasonable grounds therefor,
filed with the Secretary.
B. Proposed Amendments
Based on all available information,
including the information presented in
the petition and the comments to the
ANPRM, FDA is proposing to amend the
yogurt standard and revoke the lowfat
and nonfat yogurt standards to promote
honesty and fair dealing in the interest
of consumers. This proposal is also
consistent with FDA’s proposed general
principles for modernizing food
standards (70 FR 29214, May 20, 2005).
In addition, consistent with 21 CFR
130.6, which states that food standards
adopted by the Codex Alimentarius
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2447
Commission will be reviewed by FDA
(and either will be accepted, with or
without change, or will not be
accepted), FDA reviewed the Codex
Standard for Fermented Milks (CODEX
STAN 243–2003) (herein after referred
to as the Codex Standard) (Ref. 2),
which encompasses the standard for
‘‘yoghurt’’ and provides that yoghurt
may be spelled as appropriate in the
country of retail sale. FDA reviewed the
Codex Standard to harmonize, to the
extent feasible, the proposed
amendments with Codex provisions for
‘‘yoghurt,’’ while preserving the
integrity, quality, and economic value
that U.S. consumers expect of yogurt.
FDA tentatively concludes that the
proposed amendments are necessary to
modernize the current yogurt standard
to permit flexibility and provide for
technological advances in yogurt
production, while preserving the basic
nature and essential characteristics of
yogurt consistent with consumer
expectations and thus protecting
consumer interest. FDA considered the
different amendments recommended by
NYA and tentatively concluded that
some of NYA’s recommended
amendments are not consistent with the
basic nature and essential
characteristics of yogurt or cultured
milk. Each of the amendments
recommended by NYA and FDA’s
tentative conclusions are discussed
here.
1. Yogurt
a. Milkfat and milk solids not fat
content of yogurt. The current standard
of identity for yogurt requires a
minimum milkfat content of 3.25
percent and a minimum milk solids not
fat content of 8.25 percent in yogurt
prior to the addition of bulky flavoring
ingredients (§ 131.200(a)). In response to
an objection to the January 30, 1981,
final rule that applying the milkfat
minimum to yogurt which has been
made to contain milk solids not fat at a
level higher than the minimum
requirement of the standard will
discourage manufacturers from using
higher levels of milk solids not fat in
yogurt because such addition would
then require the use of more milkfat,
FDA stayed the requirement that the
minimum milkfat level is applied after
the addition of optional dairy
ingredients. FDA pointed out that the
minimum 3.25 percent milkfat and the
8.25 percent milk solids not fat
requirements apply prior to the addition
of any bulky flavors and that while
other optional dairy ingredients may be
used to increase the milk solids not fat
content of yogurt to above 8.25 percent,
the standard does not provide for a
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
2448
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
proportionate decrease in the minimum
milkfat content. FDA determined that
whether the minimum milkfat
requirement of 3.25 percent should
apply to yogurt before or after the
addition of optional dairy ingredients
used to increase the milk solids not fat
content should be resolved through a
public hearing and stayed that
requirement pending a public hearing
(47 FR 41519 at 41521).
NYA did not recommend a specific
total fat content for yogurt. However,
NYA requested that any level of fat
above the level considered ‘‘low fat’’
(per § 101.62(b)(2)) should be permitted
in a product named ‘‘yogurt.’’
Accordingly, NYA recommended that
the total fat content of yogurt should be
any level higher than 3.0 g per 225 g.
NYA also noted that its recommended
provision would measure the fat content
on a finished food basis and, therefore,
would provide consumers with more
accurate information about the yogurt’s
actual fat content.
Some comments in response to the
ANPRM supported retaining the current
3.25 percent minimum milkfat content
of yogurt and noted that this level is
consistent with the fat content
requirement for milk. FDA notes that
NYA’s recommended minimum fat
content of 3.0 g per 225 g would equate
to lowering the current minimum
milkfat content of 3.25 percent to about
1.3 percent. NYA did not provide
adequate justification for this change to
the minimum fat content of yogurt. FDA
agrees with NYA that it is appropriate
to revise the existing lowfat and nonfat
yogurt standards of identity to conform
these foods with the nutrient content
claims requirements for ‘‘low fat’’ and
‘‘non fat,’’ respectively, as discussed
further in section II.B.2 of this
document. However, NYA did not
provide a justification for lowering the
minimum fat content of yogurt that is
named simply ‘‘yogurt’’ and whose
labeling does not bear a claim related to
its fat content. Furthermore, the yogurt
standard with the minimum 3.25
percent milkfat requirement has been in
place for over two decades (although the
application of this level after the
addition of optional dairy ingredients
was stayed) and appears to be used in
the manufacture of full-fat yogurts
available in the marketplace today.
According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) National Nutrient
Database for Standard Reference,
Release 19 (2006), the total fat content
of ‘‘yogurt, plain, whole milk’’ is 3.25
percent (Ref. 3), consistent with the
minimum milkfat requirement of the
current standard of identity for yogurt.
With respect to the minimum milk
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
solids not fat content of yogurt, neither
NYA nor comments in response to the
ANPRM requested a revision to the
current requirement of 8.25 percent. In
addition, FDA does not have any data or
information to suggest that there is a
need to reconsider the current
requirement of a minimum of 8.25
percent milk solids not fat in yogurt.
Therefore, FDA is maintaining the
current requirements of a minimum
amount of 3.25 percent milkfat and 8.25
percent milk solids not fat in yogurt.
With respect to the measurement of
these components in yogurt, NYA
requested that the minimum milk solids
not fat content of 8.25 percent be
derived from basic dairy ingredients
and, therefore, that this requirement be
applied prior to the addition of any
permitted optional ingredients. We
agree that the optional dairy ingredients
may be used to increase the milk solids
not fat levels above the minimum
required 8.25 percent, not to meet this
minimum level. FDA previously
clarified this purpose of the provision in
the final rule establishing the current
standard that permits optional milkderived ingredients to increase the
nonfat milk solids content (46 FR 9924
at 9927). In addition, as FDA noted in
1982, while § 131.200(a) of the current
yogurt standard provides for the use of
optional dairy ingredients to increase
the milk solids not fat levels above the
minimum required 8.25 percent, this
provision was not intended to provide
nor does it provide for a proportionate
decrease in the minimum milkfat
content of yogurt (47 FR 41519 at
41521).
FDA also believes that the addition of
bulky flavoring ingredients such as
fruits and fruit preparations lowers the
milkfat and milk solids not fat levels of
the resultant flavored yogurt. Therefore,
to ensure the quality and compositional
characteristics of the finished flavored
yogurt, the milkfat and milk solids not
fat requirements should apply to the
yogurt portion prior to the addition of
bulky flavoring ingredients. Comments
in response to the ANPRM did not
provide any specific comments on this
issue. Furthermore, applying the milkfat
and milk solids not fat requirements
prior to the addition of flavoring
ingredients only is consistent with the
Codex Standard, which applies milkfat,
milk protein, and other compositional
criteria to the fermented milk part only,
before flavoring ingredients are added.
For these reasons, FDA tentatively
concludes that requiring a minimum
milkfat content of 3.25 percent and a
milk solids not fat content of 8.25
percent in yogurt prior to the addition
of any bulky flavoring ingredients
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would promote honesty and fair dealing
in the interest of consumers by ensuring
the overall quality and composition of
yogurt that may or may not contain
added flavoring ingredients. Therefore,
FDA is proposing to require in
§ 131.200(a) that yogurt have a
minimum milkfat content of 3.25
percent and a minimum milk solids not
fat content of 8.25 percent before the
addition of bulky flavoring ingredients.
FDA seeks comment on the need for and
appropriateness of the following
provisions: (1) A minimum milkfat
content of 3.25 percent in yogurt, (2) a
minimum milk solids not fat content of
8.25 percent, and (3) the application of
these two compositional requirements
prior to the addition of bulky flavoring
ingredients.
b. Acidity of yogurt. FDA stayed those
portions of the standards of identity for
yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt
(§§ 131.200(a), 131.203(a), and
131.206(a), respectively) that required a
minimum titratable acidity of 0.9
percent. These standards also allow an
equivalent potentiometric method to be
used to determine acidity (i.e., a pH
value) in lieu of the Association of
Official Analytical Chemists
International (AOAC) titration method
that is specified in the standards. FDA
stayed these provisions in response to
an objection to the January 30, 1981,
final rule that the required acidity was
too high for some consumers’ taste and
that 0.75 percent is the common
industry practice. The agency stated that
until such time as this issue is resolved,
yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt
will not be required to meet the 0.9
percent minimum level of titratable
acidity (47 FR 41519 at 41522).
NYA requested that yogurt contain a
minimum titratable acidity of 0.7
percent prior to the addition of optional
ingredients and stated that this level
reflects the lower end of titratable
acidity commonly used by industry
today. This lower acidity level is also
supported by comments in response to
the ANPRM. NYA also requested that
the yogurt standard specify the acidity
requirement as a determination of pH
rather than titratable acidity because
measuring pH reflects current industry
practice and is a more accurate and
convenient method than measuring
titratable acidity. NYA recommended a
maximum pH of 4.6. FDA believes that
allowing a minimum titratable acidity of
0.7 percent or an equivalent maximum
pH of 4.6 is appropriate as it reflects
current industry practice and better
meets some consumers’ taste
preferences. FDA believes that
providing for the measurement of
acidity in yogurt as a determination of
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
its pH as well as its titratable acidity
will introduce flexibility in the yogurt
standard. FDA recognizes that each
method may pose certain challenges in
its application to yogurt. For example,
the addition of flavors and colors may
interfere with the precise determination
of the colorimetric endpoint of titration.
By providing for both pH and titratable
acidity measurements, the standard
gives manufacturers the flexibility to
choose a method that best suits their
product.
With respect to the application of this
acidity requirement, NYA requested that
the acidity requirement should apply
prior to the addition of any permitted
optional ingredients, including dairy
ingredients added for technical or
functional purposes, microbial cultures,
sweeteners, and flavoring ingredients.
The stayed provisions that required a
minimum titratable acidity would have
applied prior to the addition of bulky
flavors only. FDA believes that the
addition of bulky flavoring ingredients
such as fruits and fruit preparations may
significantly impact the acidity of the
resultant flavored yogurt. Therefore, to
ensure the overall quality and sensory
characteristics of the finished flavored
yogurt, the acidity requirement should
apply to the yogurt portion prior to the
addition of bulky flavoring ingredients.
FDA does not believe that it is
appropriate to exclude the other
permitted optional ingredients such as
safe and suitable cultures and optional
dairy ingredients from the point at
which acidity is measured, as these
ingredients can be important
contributors to the culturing process
and acidity development of yogurt. In
addition, applying the acidity
requirement prior to the addition of
bulky flavoring ingredients only is
consistent with the Codex Standard,
which applies the compositional criteria
in the case of flavored fermented milks
to the fermented milk part only.
For these reasons, FDA tentatively
concludes that a minimum titratable
acidity of yogurt of 0.7 percent or a
maximum pH of 4.6 is appropriate. FDA
also tentatively concludes that applying
the acidity requirement to yogurt prior
to the addition of bulky flavoring
ingredients promotes honesty and fair
dealing in the interest of consumers by
ensuring the overall quality and sensory
characteristics of yogurt. Therefore, FDA
is proposing to revise § 131.200(a) to
require that, before the addition of bulky
flavors, yogurts have either a minimum
titratable acidity of 0.7 percent or a
maximum pH of 4.6. FDA is interested
in comments on the appropriateness of
the proposed level and measurement of
acidity. In the proposed yogurt
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
standard, FDA has also reformatted this
paragraph to be clear, simple, and easy
to use by both manufacturers and FDA
officials that enforce compliance with
the standards.
c. Live and active cultures in yogurt.
The current standards of identity for
yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt
(§§ 131.200, 131.203, and 131.206,
respectively) do not require the
presence of a specific amount of live
and active cultures in yogurt, lowfat
yogurt, or nonfat yogurt. NYA
recommended that FDA revise the
yogurt standards to require a specified
amount of live and active cultures and
that heat treatment should not be
permitted after culturing because it
destroys the live and active cultures in
yogurt. NYA submitted data obtained
from consumer surveys to support its
argument that consumers expect
‘‘yogurt’’ to contain live and active
cultures. While the NYA consumer
surveys adequately show that
consumers believe that yogurt is a
healthful food, FDA does not agree that
the data submitted support its argument
that consumers are generally aware of
the presence of live cultures in yogurt
or that they expect yogurt to contain live
cultures (Ref. 4).
In the absence of convincing data
demonstrating that the presence of live
and active cultures is a characteristic
that consumers expect in yogurt, FDA
does not have a basis to require live and
active cultures in yogurt at the time of
manufacture or at the retail level.
Therefore, FDA is not proposing that
yogurt must contain a specified amount
of live and active cultures.
However, based on the petitioner’s
request as well as some comments in
response to the ANPRM, there appears
to be interest among manufacturers in
distinguishing their yogurt products
from other yogurt products on the basis
of the level of live and active cultures
in the food. In the interest of providing
a flexible standard that allows for
appropriate product diversity and
provides for truthful and nonmisleading
labeling of yogurt that contains a set
amount of live and active cultures, FDA
is proposing (1) in § 131.200(a) that
yogurt that is not heat-treated may
contain a minimum of 107 CFU/g of live
and active cultures at the time of
manufacture of the yogurt with a
reasonable expectation that yogurt
contains live and active cultures at a
level of 106 CFU/g at the retail level
through the manufacturer’s assigned
shelf life of the product and (2) in
§ 131.200(f)(3) to permit an optional
labeling statement such as ‘‘contains
live and active cultures’’ or another
appropriate descriptor on such yogurt
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2449
that is not heat-treated after culturing
and that contains the specified amount
of live and active cultures.
These levels of live and active
cultures are as proposed by the
petitioner. The Codex Standard, on the
other hand, establishes a minimum
amount of microorganisms constituting
the starter culture of 107 CFU/g of
yogurt. FDA seeks comment on the
appropriateness of providing for special
labeling statements on yogurt products
that contain a certain minimum level of
live and active cultures and the
appropriateness of a minimum level of
106 CFU/g throughout the shelf life of
the food as the basis for the special
labeling statements.
d. Heat treatment of yogurt after
culturing. The current yogurt standards
do permit heat treatment after culturing,
provided the phrase ‘‘heat-treated after
culturing’’ follows the name of the food
in the labeling of these products
(§§ 131.200(f)(1)(ii), 131.203(f)(1)(iii),
and 131.206(f)(1)(ii), respectively).
During the adoption of the yogurt
standards, FDA reviewed extensively
the question of whether the standards
should permit heat treatment of the
product after the culturing process. FDA
acknowledged in its June 10, 1977,
proposal that yogurt is a cultured
product containing microorganisms but
that in some cases, yogurt is heat-treated
after culturing to kill these
microorganisms and extend the shelf
life of the food (42 FR 29919 at 29920,
June 10, 1977). FDA also opined that
‘‘except for destroying the
microorganisms, these foods retain
essentially the same characteristic
attributes’’ of traditional yogurt and,
therefore, proposed to preserve the food
‘‘yogurt’’ unqualified in its traditional
form that is not heat-treated after
culturing and to provide for appropriate
labeling ‘‘to inform consumers when
yogurt has been heat-treated after
culturing’’ (42 FR 29919 at 29920). In
response to comments to that proposed
rule, FDA further advised in a final rule
that ‘‘it is in the best interest of both
consumers and international trade to
permit heat treatment of yogurts and to
require auxiliary labeling to inform
consumers that the product has been
heat-treated’’ (46 FR 9924 at 9931).
NYA’s consumer survey data do not
support the argument that heat
treatment following culturing is
inconsistent with consumer
expectations of a food named ‘‘yogurt.’’
FDA has no evidence nor is it aware of
any information that suggests that the
name ‘‘yogurt,’’ when appropriately
qualified by the phrase ‘‘heat-treated
after culturing,’’ is misleading to
consumers in that they believe this food
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
2450
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
to be ‘‘yogurt’’ that is not heat-treated
after culturing. Therefore, FDA is not
persuaded that heat treatment after
culturing should be prohibited by the
yogurt standard. Accordingly, FDA is
retaining in § 131.200(a) the provision
that permits heat treatment of yogurt
after culturing to extend the shelf life of
the food.
A review of the data that NYA
submitted to support its assertion of
consumer expectations of live and
active cultures as a characteristic of
yogurt also provides some information
about consumers’ understanding of the
term ‘‘heat-treated after culturing.’’
Although the surveys had several
methodological limitations, the data
suggest that consumers do not fully
understand the meaning of the term
‘‘heat-treated after culturing’’ on yogurt
products (Ref. 4). However, no further
information or reasons for this finding
can be ascertained; for example, it is
possible that consumers do not relate
the heat treatment statement to its
impact on specific attributes of the food.
If consumers generally do not expect
‘‘yogurt’’ to contain live and active
cultures, as suggested by NYA’s survey
data, it is likely that they do not
associate the descriptor ‘‘heat-treated
after culturing’’ with its effect on live
and active cultures in the food. With the
exception of these initial data, FDA does
not have factual information or data that
would lead us to conclude at this time
that ‘‘heat-treated after culturing’’ is not
an appropriate accompanying statement
for yogurt that is heat-treated after
culturing. ‘‘Heat-treated after culturing’’
is a truthful statement that accurately
and adequately describes the basic
identity of the food. Further, FDA
provided for the use of this phrase since
the time the yogurt standards were
adopted in 1981 and some
manufacturers appear to be using this
descriptor in the labeling of their
products. Most consumer comments
that FDA received at the time of
adoption of these standards expressed
approval of the labeling statement
‘‘heat-treated after culturing’’ to
differentiate between heat-treated and
non-heat-treated yogurts (46 FR 9924 at
9931). FDA did not receive any
consumer comments in response to the
ANPRM that expressed a lack of
understanding or other concerns with
this descriptor in the labeling of yogurts.
Therefore, FDA is maintaining the
current descriptor ‘‘heat-treated after
culturing’’ to accompany the name of
the food for yogurt that undergoes heat
treatment after the culturing process.
However, to enhance consumer
understanding of this phrase, provide
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
more meaningful information about the
impact of the heat treatment on specific
attributes of the food, and distinguish
these products from traditional yogurt,
FDA advises that manufacturers may
consider using additional truthful and
nonmisleading statements, such as
‘‘does not contain live and active
cultures,’’ in the labeling of their heattreated yogurt products.
e. Use of reconstituted milk forms as
basic dairy ingredients. The current
standards of identity for yogurt, lowfat
yogurt, and nonfat yogurt (§§ 131.200,
131.203, and 131.206, respectively) do
not provide for the use of reconstituted
dairy ingredients as basic dairy
ingredients in their manufacture. FDA
stayed those portions of §§ 131.200(a),
131.203(a), and 131.206(a)) insofar as
they exclude the use of reconstituted
dairy ingredients as basic ingredients in
the manufacture of yogurts in response
to an objection to the January 30, 1981,
final rule that yogurt manufacturers in
Florida and the Southeastern States will
be adversely affected because the fluid
milk supplies in these States are often
insufficient for use in yogurt
manufacture (47 FR 41519 at 41521).
FDA also stated that until such time as
this issue is resolved, the use of
reconstituted dairy ingredients as basic
ingredients in the manufacture of
yogurt, lowfat yogurt, or nonfat yogurt
will not be the basis for regulatory
action (47 FR 41519 at 41521).
According to NYA, manufacturers
have routinely used reconstituted dairy
ingredients in the manufacture of
yogurts. Comments in response to the
ANPRM also stated that reconstituted
dairy ingredients are currently used as
basic ingredients in the manufacture of
yogurts and recommended that FDA
adopt a modernized yogurt standard
that permits this typical industry
practice. FDA is not aware of any data
or other information that would suggest
that the use of reconstituted forms of
permitted dairy ingredients, i.e., cream,
milk, partially skimmed milk, and skim
milk, has an adverse effect on yogurt
quality or safety. Moreover, FDA’s
standards currently permit the use of
reconstituted forms of dairy ingredients
as basic ingredients in the manufacture
of other standardized dairy foods, such
as cheeses and related cheese products,
ice cream, and frozen custard. Seeing no
technical or safety concerns, FDA
tentatively concludes that it is
appropriate to permit reconstituted
forms of cream, milk, partially skimmed
milk, and skim milk as basic ingredients
in the manufacture of yogurt and its
lower fat versions. Therefore, FDA is
proposing to revise § 131.200 to permit
reconstituted forms of cream, milk,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
partially skimmed milk, and skim milk
as basic ingredients by (1) redesignating
current § 131.200(c) as proposed
§ 131.200(b), (2) renaming the heading
of newly proposed § 131.200(b) as
‘‘Basic dairy ingredients’’ instead of
‘‘Optional dairy ingredients’’ because
the proposed new nomenclature better
describes the proposed provision, and
(3) revising newly proposed § 131.200(b)
to include the reconstituted versions of
the dairy ingredients permitted in
current § 131.200(c). FDA seeks
comment on the need for and
appropriateness of this proposed
provision.
f. Use of safe and suitable milkderived ingredients as optional dairy
ingredients. Stayed portions of the
standards of identity for yogurt, lowfat
yogurt, and nonfat yogurt listed the
optional milk-derived ingredients (i.e.,
concentrated skim milk, nonfat dry
milk, buttermilk, whey, lactose,
lactalbumins, lactoglobulins, and whey
modified by partial or complete removal
of lactose and/or minerals) that can be
used for the purpose of increasing the
nonfat solids content of these foods
above the minimum required 8.25
percent, provided the ratio of protein to
total nonfat solids of the food and the
protein efficiency ratio of all protein
present is not decreased as a result of
adding these optional ingredients
(§§ 131.200(c)(1), 131.203(c)(1), and
131.206(c)(1); redesignated as
§§ 131.200(d)(1), 131.203(d)(1), and
131.206(d)(1)). FDA stayed these
provisions in response to objections to
the January 30, 1981, final rule that
these provisions preclude the use of
other safe, nutritional, and functional
milk-derived ingredients and that there
appears to be no rational factual basis
for the omission of traditional
ingredients such as partially delactosed
skim milk, partially hydrolyzed whey,
and other safe and suitable ingredients
(47 FR 41519).
NYA stated that manufacturers
currently use a variety of safe and
suitable milk-derived ingredients for the
purpose of increasing the nonfat solids
content of yogurts. FDA is not aware of
any data or other information that
would suggest that expanding the
current list of optional milk-derived
ingredients to permit the use of any safe
and suitable milk-derived ingredient,
under the conditions stated in the
current standard to maintain the
nutritional quality of yogurt, would
have an adverse effect on the overall
quality or safety of yogurt. FDA believes
that it is appropriate to incorporate
technological flexibility into standards
so long as the basic nature and essential
characteristics of the food are not
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
adversely affected. Therefore, FDA is
proposing to permit the optional use of
any safe and suitable milk-derived
ingredient as an optional dairy
ingredient in the manufacture of yogurt
to increase the nonfat solids content of
the food above the minimum required
8.25 percent, provided the ratio of
protein to total nonfat solids of the food
and the protein efficiency ratio of
protein present in the food are not
decreased as a result of the use of such
ingredients. Specifically, FDA is
proposing, in new § 131.200(c),
‘‘Optional dairy ingredients,’’ to permit
other safe and suitable milk-derived
ingredients to be used to increase the
nonfat solids content of the food,
provided the ratio of protein to total
nonfat solids of the food and the protein
efficiency ratio of protein present in the
food are not decreased as a result of the
use of such ingredients. FDA seeks
comment on the need for and
appropriateness of this proposed
provision.
g. Use of safe and suitable cultures in
addition to the characterizing bacterial
cultures. The current standards of
identity for yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and
nonfat yogurt (§§ 131.200, 131.203, and
131.206, respectively) do not prohibit
the use of bacterial cultures in addition
to the two characterizing lactic acidproducing bacteria, Lactobacillus
bulgaricus and Streptococcus
thermophilus. However, the standards
do not explicitly state that other
bacterial cultures are permitted. NYA
requested that FDA revise the yogurt
standard to clearly permit the use of
other safe and suitable bacterial cultures
in addition to the characterizing
bacterial cultures. FDA tentatively
concludes that explicitly providing for
the use of other optional bacterial
cultures will enhance the clarity of the
yogurt standard. Therefore, FDA is
proposing to clarify in new
§ 131.200(d)(1) that optional safe and
suitable cultures may be used only in
addition to the required characterizing
bacterial cultures specified in the
standard.
h. Use of sweeteners. The current
standards of identity for yogurt, lowfat
yogurt, and nonfat yogurt currently
provide for the optional use of certain
nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners,
specifically: Sugar (beet or cane), invert
sugar, brown sugar, refiner’s syrup,
molasses (other than blackstrap), high
fructose corn syrup, fructose, fructose
syrup, maltose, maltose syrup, dried
maltose syrup, malt extract, dried malt
extract, malt syrup, dried malt syrup,
honey, maple sugar, and any of the
sweeteners listed in 21 CFR part 168,
except table syrup (§§ 131.200(d)(2),
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
131.203(d)(2), and 131.206(d)(2),
respectively, as redesignated in the
September 21, 1982 final rule (47 FR
41519)). The term ‘‘sweetened’’ must
accompany the name of yogurt, lowfat
yogurt, and nonfat yogurt that is
sweetened without the addition of
characterizing flavor with any one or
more of these permitted sweeteners
(§§ 131.200(f)(1)(i), 131.203(f)(1)(ii), and
131.206(f)(1)(i), respectively, as
redesignated in the September 21, 1982,
final rule (47 FR 41519)).
NYA requested that FDA revise the
current yogurt standards to permit ‘‘safe
and suitable sweeteners’’ without
specifying a list, as is permitted for ice
cream (21 CFR 135.110(a)(1)), with the
sweetener being declared in the
ingredient statement of the food so that
non-nutritive sweeteners may be used in
yogurt without a specific declaration of
its presence in the name of the food.
NYA argued that under current
regulations, manufacturers are able to
use non-nutritive sweeteners in yogurt
that is modified to be eligible to bear a
nutrient content claim, for example,
‘‘reduced calorie yogurt,’’ without a
specific declaration of the presence of
the non-nutritive sweetener in the name
of the food. Consumer comments to the
ANPRM strongly opposed this NYA
recommendation and requested that the
presence of non-nutritive sweeteners be
declared in the name of the food.
The regulatory framework governing
the naming of standardized foods that
do not fully comply with the relevant
standards of identity changed with the
passage of the NLEA in 1990 and the
subsequent establishment of the
agency’s requirements for foods named
by use of a nutrient content claim and
a standardized term (§ 130.10).
Specifically, § 130.10(d) permits the
addition of safe and suitable ingredients
to a standardized food modified to be
eligible to bear defined nutrient content
claims when these ingredients are
needed to, among other things, add
sweetness to ensure that the modified
food is not inferior in performance
characteristic to the standardized food
even though these ingredients are not
specifically permitted by an individual
food standard.
In addition, these non-nutritive
sweeteners must only be declared by
their common or usual names in the
ingredient statement as required by
§ 101.4(a) (21 CFR 101.4(a)), as their
presence in the standardized food is not
required to be declared within the name
of the food. Therefore, for example, a
product named ‘‘light sweetened
yogurt’’ or ‘‘reduced calorie sweetened
yogurt’’ may contain non-nutritive
sweeteners to add sweetness to the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2451
product so that it is not inferior in its
sweetness property compared to its
standardized counterpart, sweetened
yogurt. The provisions of § 130.10 do
not require these yogurt products to
declare the presence of such nonnutritive sweeteners within the name of
these foods. The same is true for other
standardized foods modified under
§ 130.10; for example, ‘‘light ice cream’’
and ‘‘reduced calorie sweet chocolate.’’
There are, however, certain
exceptions where the regulatory
framework governing the naming of
standardized foods that do not fully
comply with the relevant standards of
identity was not changed by NLEA or
the establishment of § 130.10. For
example, a few artificially sweetened
foods are governed by standards of
identity that establish the phrase
‘‘artificially sweetened’’ as a part of the
statement of identity of these foods (for
example, ‘‘artificially sweetened canned
pears’’ (see 21 CFR 145.176)). FDA may
consider appropriate actions in the
future to bring these particular
standardized foods in conformity with
NLEA. With the exception of these
standardized artificially sweetened
foods, foods that are made using nonnutritive sweeteners are not required to
declare the presence of the non-nutritive
sweetener within the name of the food.
Per the ingredient labeling requirements
of § 101.4(a), the non-nutritive
sweetener is declared by its common or
usual name in the ingredient statement
of the food. Where special labeling
requirements are necessary for the safe
use of a non-nutritive sweetener, the
conditions for including this
information on the label and how and
where this information is to be
presented on the label are established in
the relevant food additive regulation(s).
For example, labels of foods that contain
aspartame are required to bear the
statement ‘‘PHENYLKETONURICS:
CONTAINS PHENYLALANINE’’ either
on the principal display panel or on the
information panel, in accordance with
21 CFR 172.804. This regulation also
requires that the statement shall appear
prominently and conspicuously in
contrast to other printed matter on the
label. Any new sweetening ingredients
developed and permitted for use in
foods in the future will be required to
be labeled in accordance with similar
new labeling or other requirements
necessary for the safe use of the
sweetener.
FDA recognizes that there is
considerable interest in the special
labeling requirements for artificial
sweeteners when used in foods in
general. Over the years, FDA has been
asked to require the disclosure of
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
2452
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
artificial sweeteners on the principal
display panel in addition to the
ingredient list. The agency considers the
safety of artificial sweeteners as part of
the food additive review process and
has and will continue to establish
special labeling or packaging
requirements where necessary for the
safe use of these ingredients. FDA does
not object to manufacturers voluntarily
declaring on the principal display panel
that the product is artificially sweetened
nor does the agency object to truthful
and nonmisleading statements to inform
consumers of yogurt that is made using
non-nutritive sweeteners.
For these reasons, FDA tentatively
concludes that providing for the use of
any safe and suitable sweetening
ingredients, in lieu of the current
allowance for certain nutritive
carbohydrate sweeteners, introduces
flexibility in the manufacture of yogurt
without adversely affecting the basic
nature and essential characteristics of
yogurt. Therefore, FDA is proposing (1)
in § 131.200(d)(2) to provide for the use
of any safe and suitable sweeteners in
yogurt and (2) to revise § 131.200(f)(1)(i)
accordingly to replace the term
‘‘nutritive carbohydrate sweetener’’ with
‘‘sweetener(s)’’. Consumers would be
informed of the presence of the
sweetening ingredient through its
declaration by its common or usual
name in the ingredient statement of the
yogurt. However, FDA tentatively
concludes that there is no basis to
require the declaration of a nonnutritive sweetener, when used, as part
of the name of yogurt. FDA specifically
seeks comment on the appropriateness
of this tentative decision. Comments
that address FDA’s tentative decision
should include sound scientific and
factual data or information that supports
the positions presented in the
comments.
i. Use of stabilizers and emulsifiers.
The current standards of identity for
yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt
provide for the use of stabilizers but do
not provide for the use of emulsifiers
(§§ 131.200(d)(5), 131.203(d)(5), and
131.206(d)(5), respectively). NYA stated
that permitting the use of emulsifiers in
addition to stabilizers would provide
more opportunities for product
development and innovation in the
yogurt industry. A few comments in
response to the ANPRM supported the
use of emulsifiers along with the use of
stabilizers, which are currently
permitted by the standards. FDA does
not have any safety or quality concerns
with the use of emulsifiers in yogurt,
provided that they are used within good
manufacturing practice, where there is a
need for the ingredient, and within any
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
limitations specified by relevant FDA
food additive or generally recognized as
safe substance regulations. For these
reasons, FDA has tentatively concluded
that providing for the use of emulsifiers
in addition to stabilizers permits
flexibility in the manufacture of yogurt
without adversely affecting the basic
nature or essential characteristics of
yogurt. Therefore, FDA is proposing to
revise § 131.200(d)(5) to permit the use
of safe and suitable emulsifiers in
addition to the current allowance for the
use of stabilizers as optional ingredients
in the manufacture of yogurt.
j. Use of preservatives. The current
standards of identity for yogurt, lowfat
yogurt, and nonfat yogurt (§§ 131.200,
131.203, and 131.206, respectively) do
not list preservatives as permitted
ingredients in the manufacture of
yogurt, lowfat yogurt, or nonfat yogurt.
FDA stayed those portions of
§§ 131.200(c), 131.203(c), and
131.206(c) (redesignated as
§§ 131.200(d), 131.203(d), and
131.206(d), respectively) insofar as they
exclude the addition of preservatives in
response to objections to the January 30,
1981, final rule that preservatives such
as potassium sorbate and sorbic acid
should be permitted to prohibit the
growth of yeasts and molds and to
extend the shelf life of the foods (47 FR
41519). FDA stated that until this issue
is resolved, the appropriate use of
preservatives in these foods would not
be the basis for regulatory action (47 FR
41519 at 41522). While NYA stated that
the use of preservatives will provide
flexibility in the manufacture of yogurt
and comments from industry supported
their use, stating that preservatives help
maintain the product’s integrity through
shipping and storage, at least one
consumer group and some consumers
opposed their use, citing product
quality concerns. However, these
comments did not provide any data to
support their position. Nor does FDA
have any data that indicate that
appropriate use of preservatives,
particularly in the case of yogurts that
are heat-treated after culturing to have
an extended shelf life, has an adverse
effect on the quality or characteristics of
yogurt. In addition, the Codex Standard
permits the use of preservatives in the
fermented milks that are heat-treated
after fermentation. For these reasons,
FDA has tentatively concluded that
providing for the optional and
appropriate use of preservatives permits
flexibility in the manufacture of yogurt
without adversely affecting the basic
nature or essential characteristics of
yogurt. Therefore, FDA is proposing in
§ 131.200(d)(6) to permit the use of safe
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and suitable preservatives as optional
ingredients in the manufacture of
yogurt. FDA seeks comment on the need
for and appropriateness of this proposed
provision. Specifically, FDA seeks
comment on (1) whether it is
appropriate to permit the use of safe and
suitable preservatives in the
manufacture of yogurt and (2) whether
such provision should limit the use of
preservatives in only those yogurts that
are heat-treated after culturing,
consistent with the Codex Standard.
k. Use of optional milk-derived
ingredients after pasteurization and
culturing. The current standards of
identity for yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and
nonfat yogurt require the other optional
dairy ingredients, when used, to be
included in the culturing process and
do not provide for the use of optional
milk-derived ingredients after
pasteurization (§§ 131.200(a),
131.203(a), and 131.206 (a),
respectively). NYA requested that FDA
revise the yogurt standards to allow the
use of optional milk-derived ingredients
after the pasteurization and culturing
steps in the manufacture of yogurt.
Comments to the ANPRM both
supported and opposed the NYA
recommendation. Some of the opposing
comments expressed safety concerns
with adding milk-derived ingredients
after pasteurization. The agency is not
persuaded by NYA’s argument, nor did
NYA submit any convincing evidence
that could overcome the agency’s and
some of the comments’ concern about
the safety issues that would arise with
the use of milk-derived ingredients after
pasteurization of the yogurt mix. FDA is
also not convinced of the need for, nor
is it aware of, the advantages provided
by the use of milk-derived ingredients
after the culturing process. Therefore,
FDA is not proposing to provide for the
use of optional milk-derived ingredients
following pasteurization and culturing
processes as requested by NYA.
l. Use of whey protein concentrate as
a basic ingredient. The current
standards of identity for yogurt, lowfat
yogurt, and nonfat yogurt do not allow
the use of whey protein concentrate as
a basic ingredient (§§ 131.200(c),
131.203(c), and 131.206(c),
respectively). NYA requested that FDA
revise the yogurt standards to allow the
use of whey protein concentrate as a
basic ingredient. NYA asserted that the
inclusion of whey protein concentrate
in yogurt products is standard industry
practice and should be included in the
yogurt standards. NYA also mistakenly
believes that the stayed provisions of
§§ 131.200(d), 131.203(d), and
131.206(d) would have permitted its
inclusion. Comments to the ANPRM
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
both favored and opposed permitting
the inclusion of whey protein
concentrate in yogurt products. The
comments that favored permitting its
use in yogurt products cited their
function as stabilizers while those
opposed questioned the need for its
inclusion.
FDA clarifies that the 1982 stayed
provisions include paragraph (d)(1) of
the current yogurt standard (§ 131.200),
which limits the use of optional milkderived ingredients to the ones
specifically listed under that paragraph.
The list of basic milk ingredients in
paragraph (c) of the current yogurt
standard was not among the provisions
that were stayed and, therefore, the
current standard makes no allowance
for the use of whey protein concentrate
as a basic ingredient in yogurt. FDA
agrees with the comments that question
the need for allowing the use of whey
protein concentrate as a basic ingredient
in yogurt. FDA believes that use of whey
protein concentrate as a basic ingredient
in yogurt is not consistent with the basic
nature of yogurt. This is consistent with
the agency’s recent tentative decision
not to permit milk protein concentrates
as a basic ingredient in standardized
cheese (which is noted in a recent
proposal to permit fluid ultrafiltered
milk in standardized cheeses and
related cheese products; 70 FR 60751,
October 19, 2005). Some comments that
supported this provision cited the
function of whey protein concentrates
as stabilizers. FDA notes that the agency
does not object to the use of safe and
suitable stabilizers in yogurt and the
current standard provides for the use of
stabilizers as an optional ingredient in
yogurt. FDA has no evidence at this
time to support the amendment of the
list of permitted basic ingredients in
yogurt to include whey protein
concentrate. Therefore, FDA is not
proposing to provide for the use of whey
protein concentrate as a basic ingredient
in yogurt as requested by NYA.
m. Percent dairy ingredients. The
current standards of identity for yogurt,
lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt
(§§ 131.200, 131.203, and 131.206,
respectively) do not require a minimum
of 51 percent of dairy ingredients in
these foods. NYA requested that FDA
revise the yogurt standards to include
this requirement to ensure that the
predominant ingredients in yogurt are
from dairy sources. One trade
association supported the inclusion of
this requirement while a few other
comments questioned the
appropriateness of the 51 percent
requirement. Comments that opposed
this requirement expressed concern that
under such a requirement, yogurts could
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
contain up to 49 percent non-dairy
ingredients. FDA is not convinced that
there is a need to require a minimum
amount of dairy ingredients to ensure
that dairy ingredients are the primary
ingredients of yogurt. The yogurt
standard currently requires that the
basic ingredients of yogurt be either
milk or certain milk-derived ingredients
and that yogurt must contain a specified
minimum amount of milk solids not fat.
FDA tentatively concludes that these
provisions adequately ensure that
appropriate amounts of dairy
ingredients are used in the manufacture
of yogurt. Therefore, FDA is not
proposing to require a minimum
amount of dairy ingredients in yogurt as
requested by NYA.
n. Use of any safe and suitable
ingredient that serves a nutritional or
functional purpose. The current
standards of identity for yogurt, lowfat
yogurt, and nonfat yogurt (§§ 131.200,
131.203, and 131.206, respectively) do
not permit the optional use of any safe
and suitable ingredient for a nutritional
or functional purpose. NYA requested
that FDA revise the yogurt standards to
allow for such safe and suitable
ingredients so that there would be
enough flexibility in the standards to
permit the use of novel ingredients as
they are developed in the future.
Comments to the ANPRM both favored
and opposed the NYA recommendation.
The comments that supported NYA’s
recommended provision stated that it
would allow for future advances in
ingredient technology while other
comments that opposed this provision
stated that it could lead to the use of
inferior quality ingredients.
FDA recognizes the need for food
standards to permit flexibility in food
technology, so long as that technology
does not alter the basic nature or
essential characteristics of the food (68
FR 39873 at 39875). However, FDA does
not believe that there is a need for a
broad provision to permit any safe and
suitable ingredient for a nutritional or
functional purpose as recommended by
NYA. The existing regulatory framework
governing standardized foods already
provides for the addition of substances
for a nutritional purpose. Under the
provisions of § 130.10, standardized
foods may be modified to contain
nutrients not specifically permitted by
the relevant standard of identity and to
make an expressed nutrient content
claim defined by FDA regulation.
As for the use of ingredients for a
functional purpose, the proposed yogurt
standard provides for the use of specific
functional categories of ingredients such
as emulsifiers and stabilizers. FDA
tentatively concludes that a provision
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2453
that broadly permits any safe and
suitable ingredient for functional
purposes is not necessary and the lack
of comments in response to its request
in the ANPRM on the need for any
functional categories of ingredients in
addition to the ones that NYA proposed
supports the agency’s tentative
conclusion. As explained earlier in this
section of the document, FDA is
proposing to provide for the use of
specific functional ingredient categories
such as emulsifiers and stabilizers and
will consider future requests made
under 21 CFR 10.30 for amendments for
ingredient categories that are not
included in the proposed yogurt
standard. However, FDA is not
persuaded at this time that a provision
that broadly permits any safe and
suitable ingredient for a technical
purpose is needed in addition to the
proposed specific functional ingredient
categories. Therefore, FDA is not
proposing to permit any safe and
suitable ingredient for a nutritional or
functional purpose in yogurt as
requested by NYA.
o. Methods of analysis. The current
standards of identity for yogurt, lowfat
yogurt, and nonfat yogurt list the
methods of analysis for milkfat content,
total solids content, and titratable
acidity that are from the ‘‘Official
Methods of Analysis of AOAC
International,’’ 13th Ed. (1980)
(§§ 131.200(e), 131.203(e), and
131.206(e), respectively). FDA is
proposing to revise § 131.200(e) to
update these methods to incorporate by
reference the ‘‘Official Methods of
Analysis of AOAC International,’’ 18th
Ed. (2005). In addition, FDA is
proposing that the pH of yogurt, when
used to determine the acidity of yogurt,
be determined using the method
described in § 114.90(a) (21 CFR
114.90(a)). Finally, FDA is proposing
that the live and active cultures content
of yogurt be determined using the
aerobic plate count methods described
in Chapter 3 of FDA’s Bacteriological
Analytical Manual, January 2001
Edition. FDA seeks comment on the
appropriateness of the proposed
methods and any alternate methods that
should be considered in lieu of or in
addition to the methods proposed in
§ 131.200(e).
p. Vitamins and minerals as optional
ingredients. The current standards of
identity for yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and
nonfat yogurt provide for optional
fortification of these foods with
vitamins A and D (§§ 131.200(b),
131.203(b), and 131.206(b),
respectively). If vitamins A and/or D are
added for this purpose, the standards
require these vitamins to be present in
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
2454
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
amounts of 2,000 International Units
(IU) of vitamin A and/or 400 IU of
vitamin D per quart (or 946 milliliters)
of the food. In addition, in
§§ 131.200(f)(1)(iii), 131.203(f)(1)(iv),
and 131.206(f)(1)(iii), the standards
require the phrase ‘‘vitamin A’’ or
‘‘vitamin A added,’’ or ‘‘vitamin D’’ or
‘‘vitamin D added,’’ or ‘‘vitamins A and
D added,’’ as appropriate, to accompany
the name of the food.
NYA requested that FDA retain this
provision for the optional fortification of
yogurt with vitamins A and/or D. NYA
also requested that the levels of
fortification also be retained. However,
NYA stated that yogurt is rarely
measured by quart and, therefore, listed
the minimum amounts of vitamins A
and D fortification in terms of yogurt’s
reference amount customarily
consumed (RACC), i.e., 225 g (21 CFR
101.12). Comments in response to the
ANPRM did not specifically address
this provision.
In § 101.54(e) (21 CFR 101.54(e)), FDA
has established requirements for claims
related to the fortification of foods with
certain nutrients, including vitamins
and minerals. These requirements apply
to any food (unless otherwise in conflict
with the requirements specified in a
standard of identity) that contains
added vitamins or minerals for the
purpose of making a relative labeling
claim such as ‘‘fortified’’ or ‘‘added.’’
According to the provisions of this
regulation, a relative claim such as
‘‘fortified’’ or ‘‘added’’ may be made in
the labeling of a food, provided that the
food contains at least 10 percent more
of the reference daily intake for vitamins
and minerals per RACC compared to an
appropriate reference food.
This requirement currently applies to
yogurts that bear a fortification claim
with respect to vitamins or minerals
other than vitamins A and D. When
yogurt is fortified with vitamins A and
D, the requirements for the optional use
of these two vitamins specified in the
yogurt standard apply. FDA points out
that the provision for the optional
fortification of yogurt with vitamins A
and D was established in 1981 prior to
the implementation of the NLEA and
the adoption of the certain nutrient
content and relative claims regulations,
including § 101.54. FDA believes that it
is appropriate to apply the provisions of
§ 101.54(e) to vitamins A and D
fortification of yogurt as they currently
apply to fortification of yogurt with
other vitamins and minerals and as they
currently also apply to vitamin and
mineral fortification of other foods. FDA
also believes that the modernization of
the yogurt standard should include
bringing the outdated vitamins A and D
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
fortification provisions in conformity
with the applicable relative claims
provisions and thus ensure consistency
in the use of these claims in the labeling
of foods. Therefore, FDA is proposing to
revoke § 131.200(b), which provides for
specific optional amounts of vitamins A
and/or D in yogurt, and
§ 131.200(f)(1)(iii), which provides for
special labeling of yogurt that contains
vitamins A and D in accordance with
§ 131.200(b). FDA seeks comment on the
need for and appropriateness of this
tentative decision. Specifically, FDA
seeks comment on (1) whether the
agency should retain current
§ 131.200(b) and, if so, what the legal or
scientific justification for retaining this
provision is, and (2) the appropriateness
of applying § 101.54(e) to yogurt
fortified with vitamins A and/or D.
2. Revocation of the Standards of
Identity for Lowfat and Nonfat Yogurts
NYA and most of the comments to the
ANPRM requested that FDA establish a
single, modernized standard of identity
for yogurt that would provide for lowerfat versions of the food rather than the
current fragmented standards for yogurt,
lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt. NYA
and some comments also expressed that
providing for lowfat and nonfat yogurts
within a single yogurt standard of
identity would preclude the need to
apply the ‘‘nutritional equivalence’’
requirements of § 130.10 to the lowfat
and nonfat yogurts. NYA stated that
imposing the nutritional equivalence
requirement on lowfat and nonfat yogurt
would pose an unnecessary and
substantial cost to the yogurt industry.
Establishing a single standard for
yogurt and providing for variations of
the food within the standard is
consistent with the general principles
that FDA proposed for modernizing
food standards. A single standard would
maintain a uniform set of requirements
for all yogurt products, whether they are
full-fat or lower-fat versions, while
providing flexibility and ease of
compliance to manufacturers. Therefore,
FDA is proposing to revoke the
standards of identity for lowfat yogurt
(§ 131.203) and nonfat yogurt
(§ 131.206). However, rather than
establishing separate requirements for
‘‘lowfat yogurt’’ and ‘‘nonfat yogurt’’
within the yogurt standard of identity,
FDA is proposing that lower-fat versions
of yogurt may be produced under the
current provisions of § 130.10.
Section 130.10 sets out requirements
for foods that are named by use of an
FDA-defined nutrient content claim and
a standardized term. In 1993, FDA
established § 130.10, among several
other regulations implementing the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
provisions of the NLEA, to assist
consumers in maintaining healthy
dietary practices by providing for
modified versions of standardized foods
that bear descriptive names that are
meaningful to consumers. Under the
provisions of § 130.10, manufacturers
may modify standardized foods to make
them eligible to bear a nutrient content
claim that is defined by FDA regulation,
for example: ‘‘reduced fat sour cream,’’
‘‘light margarine,’’ or ‘‘low fat cheddar
cheese.’’ One of the provisions of this
regulation requires that such modified
foods be restored in their nutrient
content such that the modified food is
not nutritionally inferior to the
standardized version (see § 130.10(b)).
Following the codification of § 130.10,
FDA revoked a number of lowfat and
nonfat dairy food standards, including
those for lowfat and nonfat milk
products and lowfat cheeses, to ensure
that the use of nutrient content claims
in the labeling of these products would
be consistent with the provisions of the
NLEA. FDA also proposed to revoke the
standards for lowfat and nonfat yogurts;
however, based on comments received
at that time, FDA delayed final action
on its proposal to revoke these
standards for 120 days because of the
technical difficulties and economic
considerations associated with their
revocation (61 FR 58991 at 58999). FDA
acknowledged that if the standards for
lowfat and nonfat yogurts were revoked,
modifying the standardized food yogurt
to make the nutrient content claims
‘‘lowfat’’ or ‘‘nonfat’’ under the
provisions of § 130.10 would require
addition of vitamin A to make the
product nutritionally equivalent to fullfat yogurt. FDA also acknowledged that
such a nutrient addition requirement
could potentially result in significant
relabeling, reformulation, and
equipment costs to manufacturers. FDA
advised of its intention to move to
resolve this matter at the end of the 120day period. However, as FDA noted in
the ANPRM, the agency has not
resolved this issue.
Many of the comments in response to
the ANPRM did not offer any specific
comments on this issue. A few,
however, recommended that FDA
should not apply the provisions of
§ 130.10 to yogurt. These comments
were concerned with over-fortification
should FDA require that lowfat and
nonfat yogurts be restored to the vitamin
A levels found in full-fat yogurt. These
comments did not provide any factual
information or data to support their
stated concern of vitamin A overfortification.
FDA believes that it is appropriate to
apply the provisions of § 130.10 to
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
yogurt as they currently apply to all
other standardized foods, including
standardized dairy foods. FDA points
out that it deferred action on this issue
in 1996 to enable the yogurt industry to
be better able and equipped to meet the
nutritional equivalence requirements of
§ 130.10. FDA sees no reason to
continue to exempt lowfat and nonfat
yogurts from the nutritional equivalence
requirements that apply to all other
standardized foods that make lowfat or
nonfat nutrient content claims. Further,
FDA received no data nor is it aware of
any information to support the concern
of over-fortification. Yogurt made with
whole milk contains 27 μg retinol
activity equivalents (RAE) (a unit
measurement of vitamin A) per 100 g
compared to 14 μg RAE/100 g in lowfat
yogurt and 2 μg RAE/100 g in nonfat
yogurt (USDA National Nutrient
Database for Standard Reference—
Release 19) (Ref. 3). Restoring the levels
of vitamin A in lowfat and nonfat
yogurts would require adding vitamin A
in amounts necessary to increase the
level of vitamin A in these foods to
about 27 μg RAE/100 g, with reasonable
deviations from this level permitted by
FDA labeling regulations. According to
the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the
median intake of vitamin A ranges from
744 to 811 μg RAE/day for men and 530
to 716 μg RAE/day for women, with
about 26 and 34 percent of this vitamin
A activity provided by provitamin A
carotenoids among men and women,
respectively. These median intake levels
are well below the IOM-established
tolerable upper intake level (UL) for
adults of 3,000 μg/day of preformed
vitamin A (Ref. 5). According to a USDA
report, the vitamin A content per capita
per day in the U.S. food supply
remained at a relatively constant level
over the past two decades, ranging from
1,220 μg RAE in 1980 to 1,260 μg RAE
in 2000 (Ref. 6). More specifically, the
vitamin A content of the food supply
did not change significantly since 1996
(1280 RAE), when FDA deferred action
on revoking the lowfat and nonfat
yogurt standards because of concerns
about industry capability to restore
vitamin A levels of yogurt. Moreover,
although per capita consumption of all
yogurt has steadily increased during this
time from 5.9 pounds in 1996 to 8.2
pounds in 2003 (Ref. 7) (these data were
not categorized based on fat content of
the yogurt), the contribution of yogurt to
daily vitamin A intake would not be
expected to be altered significantly if
the nutritional equivalency
requirements of § 130.10 were to apply
to lowfat and nonfat yogurts. For
example, if all of the 8.2 pounds of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
yogurt consumed per capita in 2003
were to contain vitamin A levels
equivalent to that found in full-fat
yogurt, the vitamin A contribution of
that amount of yogurt would be about
1,005 μg RAE vitamin A per capita per
year or 2.7 μg RAE/day. Considering
that the vitamin A content of the food
supply is about 1,260 μg RAE per capita
per day, the calculated contribution of
yogurt (assuming all yogurt has vitamin
A at levels found in full-fat yogurt) of
about 2.7 μg RAE per capita per day is
small. Therefore, subjecting yogurt to
the nutritional equivalency provisions
of § 130.10 is not expected to raise the
overall vitamin A content of the food
supply significantly.
After considering all relevant issues,
including the safety concerns related to
vitamin A addition, FDA tentatively
concludes that the best approach is to
revoke the existing lowfat and nonfat
yogurt standards and to permit the
modification of the standardized food
yogurt to bear nutrient content claims,
including ‘‘low fat’’ and ‘‘nonfat,’’ under
the existing provisions of § 130.10.
Further, under this proposal,
manufacturers would be able to
continue to make yogurt products
bearing other nutrient content claims,
such as ‘‘reduced fat yogurt’’ or ‘‘light
yogurt’’ under the provisions of
§ 130.10.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in
this section, FDA is proposing to do the
following:
(1) Amend the yogurt standard of
identity in 21 CFR 131.200 to:
(a) Provide for the use of reconstituted
forms of cream, milk, partially skimmed
milk, and skim milk as basic dairy
ingredients;
(b) Permit the use of any safe and
suitable milk-derived ingredients to
increase the nonfat solids content,
provided such addition does not
adversely affect the protein quality or
content of the food;
(c) Apply the minimum milkfat
content of 3.25 percent and minimum
milk solids not fat content of 8.25
percent prior to the addition of bulky
flavoring ingredients;
(d) Require an acidity of yogurt of
either a titratable acidity of not less than
0.7 percent expressed as lactic acid or
a pH of 4.6 or lower;
(e) Permit the use of any safe and
suitable cultures in addition to the
required characterizing bacterial
cultures specified in the standard;
(f) Permit the use of any safe and
suitable sweetening ingredients;
(g) Permit the use of any safe and
suitable emulsifiers in addition to
stabilizers;
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2455
(h) Permit the use of any safe and
suitable preservatives;
(i) Require yogurt that is not heattreated and is labeled with the phrase
‘‘contains live and active cultures’’ or
other appropriate descriptor to contain
live and active cultures of 107 CFU/g at
the time of manufacture with a
reasonable expectation of 106 CFU/g
throughout the manufacturer’s assigned
shelf life of the food;
(j) Revoke the provisions within the
standard that permit the addition of
vitamins A and D and state the labeling
requirements such that these vitamins
may be added to yogurt under
§ 101.54(e);
(k) Update the methods of analysis for
milkfat and total solids contents and
titratable acidity to incorporate by
reference the Official Methods of
Analysis of AOAC International 18th
Ed. (2005);
(l) Provide that the pH of yogurt,
when used to determine the acidity of
yogurt, be determined using the method
described in § 114.90(a); and
(m) Provide that the live and active
cultures content of yogurt be
determined using the aerobic plate
count methods described in Chapter 3 of
FDA’s Bacteriological Analytical
Manual, January 2001 Edition and
(2) Revoke the lowfat yogurt and
nonfat yogurt standards of identity in
§§ 131.203 and 131.206, respectively,
such that the standardized food yogurt
in proposed § 131.200 could be
modified to produce lower-fat versions
under the current provisions of § 130.10,
which describe the requirements for
foods named by use of a nutrient
content claim (including ‘‘low fat’’ and
‘‘fat free’’) and a standardized term
(such as ‘‘yogurt’’).
As explained previously, FDA
tentatively concludes that these
amendments are appropriate and will
promote honesty and fair dealing in the
interest of consumers.
Pending issuance of a final rule
amending the existing standard of
identity for yogurt and revoking the
existing lowfat and nonfat yogurt
standards of identity, FDA intends to
consider the exercise of its enforcement
discretion on a case-by-case basis when
yogurt products are in compliance with
the standard of identity proposed in this
proposed rule and when the labeling of
such products is not otherwise false or
misleading. The act’s enforcement
provisions commit complete discretion
to the Secretary (and by delegation to
FDA) to decide how and when they
should be exercised (Heckler v. Chaney,
470 U.S. 821 at 835 (1985); Schering
Corp. v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 683 at 685–
86 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (stating that the
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
2456
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
provisions of the act ‘‘authorize, but do
not compel the FDA to undertake
enforcement activity’’)). Until the
agency issues a final rule amending the
current yogurt standard and revoking
the current lowfat and nonfat yogurt
standards, the agency believes that its
exercise of enforcement discretion will
help alleviate the confusion that the
petitioner contends has resulted due to
the existence of the stayed provisions of
the current yogurt standards. In
addition, the agency believes that its
exercise of enforcement discretion will
also provide a clear and flexible
standard and encourage greater
consistency and uniformity in the
marketplace for yogurt products, and
thereby assist consumers in making
informed product choices.
C. NYA’s Recommended Amendments
to the Standard of Identity for Cultured
Milk
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
NYA requested that FDA revise the
current standard of identity for cultured
milk (§ 131.112) to (1) provide for the
alternate term ‘‘fermented milk;’’ (2)
require a minimum level of total dairy
ingredients of 51 percent; (3) permit the
use of reconstituted milk and whey
protein concentrate as ‘‘standard dairy
ingredients;’’ (4) provide for the use of
any milk-derived ingredients as
‘‘optional dairy ingredients;’’ (5) permit
the use of safe and suitable sweeteners,
emulsifiers, and preservatives; and (6)
permit the use of any safe and suitable
ingredients added for nutritional or
functional purpose.
FDA tentatively concludes that NYA
did not provide a sufficient basis to
amend the cultured milk standard. NYA
did not provide a rationale for its
proposed amendments to the cultured
milk standard other than to simply fit
into the standard for ‘‘cultured milk’’
those yogurt products that would not be
permitted to be named ‘‘yogurt’’ under
NYA’s recommended standard for
yogurt. Nor did NYA address, as a
number of comments to the ANPRM
pointed out, the consumer confusion
that might occur from including
semisolid yogurt-type products (that
would not qualify as ‘‘yogurt’’ under
NYA’s recommended yogurt standard)
in the cultured milk standard, which
has long been associated with fluid
cultured milk products.
III. Analysis of Economic Impacts
A. Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires agencies to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any
significant impact of a rule on small
entities. Because this proposed rule may
generate compliance costs for some
small firms, the agency believes that this
proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. FDA requests
comment on this issue. The following
analysis, in conjunction with the
preamble, constitutes the agency’s
initial regulatory flexibility analysis as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act.
One requirement of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act is a succinct statement of
any objectives of the rule. As stated
previously in this analysis, with this
rule the agency intends to amend the
yogurt standard and revoke the lowfat
and nonfat yogurt standards to promote
honesty and fair dealing in the interest
of consumers. The proposed
amendments are intended to modernize
the current yogurt standards to permit
flexibility and provide for technological
advances in yogurt production, while
preserving the basic nature and essential
characteristics of yogurt consistent with
consumer expectations and thus
protecting consumer interest.
Regulatory Options
We considered the following
regulatory options:
(1) Take no action,
(2) Take the proposed action,
(3) Take the proposed action except
for the acidity requirements,
(4) Take the proposed action except
for applying the nutritional equivalency
provisions to lowfat and nonfat yogurt,
and
(5) Take the proposed action except
for the minimum live and active
cultures requirements for yogurt bearing
labeling such as ‘‘Contains Live and
Active Cultures’’.
Option One: Take No Action
We can only define costs relative to a
baseline. We usually select the option of
taking no action as the baseline because
it helps readers identify the costs of
actions that change the status quo. By
definition, the baseline itself has no
costs.
Option Two: Take the Proposed Action
We are publishing this proposed rule
under the formal rulemaking process.
Executive Order 12866 does not require
us to analyze the costs and benefits of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
proposed rules that we publish under
this rulemaking process.
This proposed regulation would affect
yogurt manufacturing firms in North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code 311511, Fluid
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Milk Manufacturing. The Small
Business Administration defines a small
business in NAICS code 311511 as a
business with 500 or fewer employees.
This proposed regulation would not
affect firms that manufacture
nonstandardized products such as
frozen yogurt (NAICS code 311520: Ice
Cream and Frozen Dessert
Manufacturing) and dried yogurt-style
mixes (NAICS code 311514: Dry,
Condensed, and Evaporated Dairy
Product Manufacturing), or products
that contain yogurt as an ingredient
(miscellaneous NAICS codes). We
request comment on the types of firms
that would be affected by this proposed
rule.
We searched an online commercial
database, D&B Dun’s Market Identifiers,
for firms in NAICS code 311511 that
had the word ‘‘yogurt’’ in the
description of the firm’s activity and
500 or fewer employees and found 34
firms. We also searched for
manufacturing establishments using the
same procedure and found 33
manufacturing establishments. We are
only interested in firms that actually
operate manufacturing establishments,
so we estimate that 33 small firms
manufacture yogurt.
Our analysis of existing requirements
and the proposed requirements suggests
that only three provisions of this
proposed rule might require some small
firms to change their current activity.
The other provisions of this proposed
rule are either consistent with current
requirements or provide additional
flexibility to firms beyond that available
under current requirements. For
purposes of this analysis, we only
associate costs with those proposed
provisions that might require some
small firms to change their current
activity: We do not classify as costs of
this proposed rule any voluntary costs
that some small firms may undergo
because they choose to change their
manufacturing practices in ways that
would be newly permitted by the
proposed regulation. We request
comments on the provisions of this
proposed rule that might require small
firms to change their current activity.
The three provisions that we believe
might require some small firms to
change their current activity are as
follows:
• The proposed requirement that
yogurt have either a titratable acidity of
not less than 0.7 percent expressed as
lactic acid or a pH of 4.6 or lower. The
requirement that yogurt have a
minimum titratable acidity of 0.9
percent was stayed, and yogurts in the
current marketplace are not subject to
this acidity requirement.
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
• The proposed application of the
nutritional equivalency provisions of
§ 130.10 to lowfat and nonfat yogurt,
which would require firms to fortify
their lowfat and nonfat yogurt with
vitamin A. Currently, we do not require
lowfat and nonfat yogurt to be
nutritionally equivalent to regular
yogurt.
• The proposed requirement that
yogurt bearing optional labeling
statements such as ‘‘contains live and
active cultures’’ must contain a
minimum of 107 CFU/g of live and
active cultures at the time of
manufacture of the yogurt with a
reasonable expectation that the yogurt
will contains live and active cultures at
a level of 106 CFU/g through the
manufacturer’s assigned shelf life of the
product. Currently, we do not require
yogurt with labeling such as ‘‘contains
live and active cultures’’ to contain any
particular minimum level of live and
active cultures.
With respect to the requirements
relating to acidity, we believe that all or
nearly all yogurt currently on the market
has a titratable acidity well above the
proposed minimum cutoff of 0.7 percent
titratable acidity, usually in the range of
1.0 to 1.3, and a pH level well below the
proposed maximum level of 4.6, usually
in the range of 4.1 to 4.3. Some
comments in response to the ANPRM
said that the proposed minimum
titratable acidity percentage and
maximum pH level reflect current
industry practice. Nevertheless, some
yogurt produced by small manufacturers
might not meet one of these acidity
requirements. If a yogurt did not meet
one of these requirements, then the
manufacturer would need to change its
manufacturing process to produce
yogurt that complies with the acidity
requirement. Potential ways to increase
the acidity of the product include
increasing the amount of yogurt cultures
and/or increasing the time and/or
temperature of fermentation. We do not
have sufficient information to estimate
the costs of taking such steps. However,
the likelihood that any plants would
need to take these steps is very low.
Therefore, we estimate that the
proposed acidity requirements would
generate minimal or no compliance
costs.
We previously analyzed the costs
associated with applying the nutritional
equivalency provisions of § 130.10 to
lowfat and nonfat yogurt, which may
require some small yogurt
manufacturing firms to fortify their
lowfat and nonfat yogurt with vitamin
A, in a final rule that revoked standards
of identity for several low fat and nonfat
dairy products (61 FR 58991). In that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
analysis, we estimated this provision
would generate a one-time cost of up to
$52 million. We based that estimate on
comments that suggested that 69 percent
of yogurt manufacturers at that time
produced only standardized yogurt and
did not have the necessary vitamin
metering equipment to add vitamins to
their product and a comment that said
that the necessary equipment would
cost $250,000 per plant. We estimated
there were 300 yogurt-producing plants
of all sizes in 1996. We also estimated
a one-time present value of $240,000 for
the annual cost of adding vitamin A,
which is the only vitamin that we
assumed manufacturers would need to
add to yogurt. We arrived at the total
estimate of $52 million as follows: [(300
yogurt manufacturing plants x 69
percent of plants needing equipment =
207 plants needing equipment) x
$250,000 per plant for equipment] +
$240,000 total present value for
obtaining and adding vitamin A (61 FR
58991 at 59001).
FDA experts on the yogurt
manufacturing industry believe that the
cost for small firms to add vitamins to
yogurt would be significantly lower
now. Our current estimate is that the
total cost to set up the necessary
equipment would be no more than
$50,000 per plant. In addition, some
small plants may vat pasteurize and add
vitamins manually to the batch of yogurt
base before pasteurizing and fermenting.
These plants would not need to
purchase additional equipment.
Therefore, we now estimate that
equipment costs to add vitamins would
be between $0 and $50,000 per plant.
As previously stated, we estimated
that there are 33 small firms that
manufacture yogurt. We do not know
how many of these plants produce only
yogurt and, therefore, do not already
have the equipment necessary to add
vitamins. In the absence of other
information, we retain the information
that we received in 1996 that 69 percent
of yogurt-producing plants do not have
the necessary equipment. In that case,
approximately 23 small yogurt
producing plants might need to buy
equipment to add vitamins to yogurt.
We do not know how many of these
plants could add vitamins manually
without needing additional equipment.
Therefore, we estimate that the total
equipment cost for these 23 plants
would be between $0 and $1.15 million
(23 x $50,000). These 23 plants
represent 11 percent of the 207 yogurt
producing plants of all sizes that we
estimated in 1996 would need to buy
the necessary equipment. If we scale
down our previous estimate of the onetime present value of $240,000 for the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2457
annual cost of adding vitamin A by the
number of small plants that may need
to buy equipment to add vitamins to
lowfat or nonfat yogurt, then the onetime present value would be
approximately $27,000. Therefore, our
total estimate of the cost to add vitamin
A is between $0 and $1 million, i.e., [(33
small yogurt manufacturing plants x 69
percent of plants needing equipment =
23 plants needing equipment) x $50,000
per plant] + [($240,000 total present
value for obtaining and adding vitamin
A for 207 plants operated by firms of all
sizes) x (23 plants operated by small
firms / 207 plants operated by firms of
all sizes)]. We request comments on our
estimate of the number of small firms
that would need equipment to add
vitamins, the cost of this equipment,
and the cost of adding vitamin A. We
also request comments on whether the
proposed rule would require any small
firms to add any nutrients other than
vitamin A to yogurt.
We do not know how many yogurt
products currently have labeling such as
‘‘contains live and active cultures’’ but
do not meet the proposed requirements
relating to levels of live and active
cultures. We estimated the one-time cost
of changing all yogurt labels using a
computer model developed for that
purpose [FDA Labeling Cost Model.
Final Report. Revised January 2003.
Research Triangle Institute.] The
estimated cost was $9 million to $21
million. However, some yogurt is
produced by firms that are not small
businesses. We again searched D&B
Dun’s Market Identifiers, for all firms in
NAICS code 311511 that had the word
‘‘yogurt’’ in the description of the firm’s
activity and found a total of 46 firms.
We estimated earlier that 33 of these are
small manufacturing firms. Therefore,
approximately 72 percent of the firms
manufacturing yogurt are small. We
assume that all firms produce roughly
the same number of yogurt products so
that labeling costs are roughly similar
across firms. Under this assumption, the
potential labeling costs for small firms
are approximately 72 percent of the
potential labeling costs for all firms, or
$6 million to $15 million. We do not
know how many yogurt products
produced by small firms bear labeling
such as ‘‘contains live and active
cultures.’’ Therefore, we estimate onetime labeling costs for small firms to be
$0 to $15 million.
In summary, we estimate the
proposed rule would generate costs for
small firms of $0 to $1 million for
installing vitamin metering equipment
and adding vitamin A to some lowfat
and nonfat yogurt and $0 to $15 million
to change the labels on some yogurt
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
2458
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
products that bear labeling such as
‘‘contains live and active cultures.’’
Therefore, we estimate total costs of $0
million to $16 million. This amounts to
an average cost of approximately $0 to
$498,000 for each of the 23 small firms
that need vitamin metering equipment
and $0 to $450,000 for each of the 10
small firms that do not.
Option Three: Take the Proposed Action
Except For the Acidity Requirements
Eliminating the acidity requirements
would eliminate the costs associated
with meeting those proposed
requirements. In our discussion of
Option Two, we estimated those costs to
be minimal or zero. Therefore, we
estimate total costs under this option to
be $0 million to $16 million.
Option Four: Take the Proposed Action
Except For Applying the Nutritional
Equivalency Provisions to Lowfat and
Nonfat Yogurt
Eliminating the application of the
nutritional equivalency provisions to
lowfat and nonfat yogurt would
eliminate the costs associated with
meeting those proposed requirements.
In our discussion of Option Two, we
estimated those costs to be $0 to $1
million. Therefore, we estimate total
costs under this option to be $0 to $15
million.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Option Five: Take the Proposed Action
Except For the Minimum Live and
Active Cultures Requirements for
Yogurt Bearing Labeling Such As
‘‘Contains Live and Active Cultures’’
Eliminating the proposed minimum
live and active cultures requirement for
yogurt bearing labeling such as
‘‘contains live and active cultures’’
would eliminate the costs associated
with meeting that proposed
requirement. In our discussion of
Option Two, we estimated those costs to
be $0 to $15 million. Therefore, we
estimate total costs under this option to
be $0 to $1 million.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public
Law 104–4) requires that agencies
prepare a written statement, which
includes an assessment of anticipated
costs and benefits, before proposing
‘‘any rule that includes any Federal
mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year.’’ The current threshold after
adjustment for inflation is $130 million,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
using the most current (2007) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic
Product. FDA does not expect this
proposed rule to result in any 1-year
expenditure that would meet or exceed
this amount.
that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment; therefore,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
IV. Federalism
FDA has analyzed this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles set
forth in Executive Order 13132. Section
4(a) of the Executive Order requires
agencies to ‘‘construe * * * a Federal
statute to preempt State law only where
the statute contains an express
preemption provision or there is some
other clear evidence that the Congress
intended preemption of State law, or
where the exercise of State authority
conflicts with the exercise of Federal
authority under the Federal statute.’’
Section 403A of the act (21 U.S.C.
343–1) is an express preemption
provision. Section 403A(a) of the act (21
U.S.C. 343–1(a)) provides that: ‘‘* * *
no State or political subdivision of a
State may directly or indirectly establish
under any authority or continue in
effect as to any food in interstate
commerce—(1) any requirement for a
food which is the subject of a standard
of identity established under section
401 that is not identical to such
standard of identity or that is not
identical to the requirement of section
403(g). * * *’’
This proposed rule, if finalized as
proposed, would make changes to the
existing standards of identity for yogurt,
lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt.
Although any final rule would have a
preemptive effect in that it would
preclude States from issuing any
requirements for the standard of identity
of yogurt that are not identical to the
requirements of the final rule, this
preemptive effect is consistent with
what Congress set forth in section 403A
of the act. Section 403A(a)(1) of the act
displaces both State legislative
requirements and State common law
duties (Riegel v. Medtronic, 128 S. Ct.
999 (2008)). In addition, as with any
Federal requirement, if a State law
requirement makes compliance with
both Federal law and State law
impossible, or would frustrate Federal
objectives, the State requirement would
be preempted. See Geier v. American
Honda Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000); English
v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72, 79
(1990); Florida Lime & Avocado
Growers, Inc., 373 U.S. 132, 142–43
(1963); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S.
52, 67 (1941).
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
FDA concludes that the provisions of
this proposed rule are not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget because they do not constitute a
‘‘collection of information’’ under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3220).
V. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.32(a) that this action is of a type
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
VII. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) written or electronic
comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic
comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that
individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Please note that on January 15, 2008,
the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to
the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a
Government-wide, electronic docket
management system. Electronic
comments or submissions will be
accepted by FDA only through FDMS at
https://www.regulations.gov.
VIII. References
The following references have been
placed on display in the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES)
and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday. (FDA has verified the
Web site addresses, but FDA is not
responsible for any subsequent changes
to the Web sites after this document
publishes in the Federal Register.)
1. Letter to Mr. Stuart M. Pape, Patton,
Boggs, & Blow from FDA, November 23,
1988.
2. Codex Standard for Fermented Milks
(CODEX STAN 243–2003).
3. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service. 2006. USDA
National Nutrient Database for Standard
Reference, Release 19. Yogurt, plain, whole
milk; yogurt, plain, low fat; yogurt, plain,
skim milk.
4. Verrill L.A., Memo to file—Consumer
research on standards for yogurt submitted
by the National Yogurt Association, January
27, 2006.
5. Dietary reference intakes for vitamin A,
vitamin K, arsenic, boron, chromium, copper,
iodine, iron, manganese, molybdenum,
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
nickel, silicon, vanadium, and zinc. 2000.
Pages 82–161. Food and Nutrition Board,
Institute of Medicine, National Academy
Press, Washington, DC.
6. Gerrior S., Bente L., and Hiza H. 2004.
Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Supply,
1909–2000. Home Economics Research
Report No. 56. Table 2. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion.
7. USDA ERS. Food availability
spreadsheets. Fluid milk and cream—per
capita consumption, pounds. Updated
December 21, 2004. Accessed online at:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/
FoodConsumption/
FoodAvailSpreadsheets.htm December 28,
2005.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 131
Cream, Food grades and standards,
Milk, Yogurt, Incorporation by
reference.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs and redelegated to
the Director of the Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, it is
proposed that 21 CFR part 131 be
amended as follows:
PART 131—MILK AND CREAM
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 131 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 348,
371, 379e.
2. Revise § 131.200 to read as follows:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
§ 131.200
Yogurt.
(a) Description. Yogurt is the food
produced by culturing one or more of
the basic dairy ingredients specified in
paragraph (b) of this section and any of
the optional dairy ingredients specified
in paragraph (c) of this section with a
characterizing bacterial culture that
contains the lactic acid-producing
bacteria, Lactobacillus delbrueckii
subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus
thermophilus. The ingredients specified
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
shall be pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized
prior to the addition of the
characterizing bacterial culture. One or
more of the other optional ingredients
specified in paragraph (d) of this section
may also be added. The food may be
homogenized. Yogurt may be heattreated after culturing to extend the
shelf life of the food. Yogurt, before the
addition of bulky flavoring ingredients,
contains not less than 3.25 percent
milkfat and not less than 8.25 percent
milk solids not fat and has either a
titratable acidity of not less than 0.7
percent expressed as lactic acid or a pH
of 4.6 or lower. Yogurt that is not heattreated after culturing may contain a
minimum level of live and active
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
cultures of 107 colony-forming units per
gram (CFU/g) at the time of manufacture
with a reasonable expectation of 106
CFU/g through the manufacturer’s
assigned shelf life of the product.
(b) Basic dairy ingredients. Cream,
milk, partially skimmed milk, skim
milk, or the reconstituted versions of
these ingredients may be used alone or
in combination.
(c) Optional dairy ingredients. Other
safe and suitable milk-derived
ingredients may be used to increase the
nonfat solids content of the food,
provided that the ratio of protein to total
nonfat solids of the food, and the
protein efficiency ratio of all protein
present shall not be decreased as a
result of adding such ingredients.
(d) Other optional ingredients. The
following safe and suitable ingredients
may be used:
(1) Cultures, in addition to the
characterizing bacterial culture
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(2) Sweeteners.
(3) Flavoring ingredients.
(4) Color additives.
(5) Stabilizers and emulsifiers.
(6) Preservatives.
(e) Methods of analysis. (1) The
following referenced methods of
analysis are from the ‘‘Official Methods
of Analysis of AOAC International,’’
18th Ed. (2005). They are incorporated
by reference into this section with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
other than that specified in this section,
FDA must publish notice of change in
the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for
inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or
go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html. Also, it is available
for inspection at the Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Library,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park,
MD 20740, 301–436–2163, and is
available from the Association of
Official Analytical Chemists
International, 481 North Frederick Ave.,
suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877.
(i) Milk solids not fat—Calculated by
subtracting the milkfat content from the
total solids content using the methods
prescribed in section 33.2.45, ‘‘AOAC
Official Method 990.21 Solids-Not-Fat
in Milk by Difference between Total
Solids and Fat Contents.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2459
(ii) Titratable acidity—As determined
by the method prescribed in section
33.2.06, ‘‘AOAC Official Method 947.05
Acidity of Milk Titrimetric Method.’’
(2) pH—As determined by the
potentiometric method described in
§ 114.90(a) of this chapter.
(3) Live and active cultures—As
determined by the aerobic plate count
methods described in Chapter 3 of
FDA’s Bacteriological Analytical
Manual, January 2001 Edition. Chapter
3 of FDA’s Bacteriological Analytical
Manual, January 2001 Edition, is located
at https://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ebam/
bam-3.html. The method is incorporated
by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The FDA will
request approval to incorporate by
reference any updates to this Web site.
The FDA will change the date of the
Web site in this paragraph with each
update. You may obtain a copy from the
Division of Microbiology (HFS–710),
Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, or you
may examine a copy at the Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s
Library, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.,
College Park, MD 20740, 301–436–2163,
or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulation/
ibr_locations.html.
(f) Nomenclature. The name of the
food is ‘‘yogurt’’. The name of the food
shall be accompanied by a declaration
indicating the presence of any
characterizing flavoring as specified in
§ 101.22 of this chapter.
(1) The following terms shall
accompany the name of the food
wherever it appears on the principal
display panel or panels of the label in
letters not less than one-half of the
height of the letters used in such name:
(i) The word ‘‘sweetened’’ if a
sweetener is added without the addition
of characterizing flavor.
(ii) The parenthetical phrase ‘‘(heattreated after culturing)’’ shall follow the
name of the food if the dairy ingredients
have been heat-treated after culturing.
(2) The term ‘‘homogenized’’ may
appear on the label if the dairy
ingredients used are homogenized.
(3) The name of the food may be
accompanied by the phrase ‘‘contains
live and active cultures’’ or another
appropriate descriptor if the food
contains the amount of live and active
cultures specified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
2460
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(g) Label declaration. Each of the
ingredients used in the food shall be
declared on the label as required by the
applicable sections of parts 101 and 130
of this chapter.
§ 131.203
[Removed]
3. Remove § 131.203.
§ 131.206
[Removed]
4. Remove § 131.206.
Dated: January 9, 2009.
Leslye M. Fraser,
Director, Office of Regulations and Policy,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. E9–736 Filed 1–12–09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51 and 52
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0064, FRL–8763–1]
RIN 2060–AL75
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source
Review (NSR): Debottlenecking
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.
17:02 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
Dated: January 12, 2009.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–816 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
SUMMARY: The EPA is withdrawing the
proposed rule for ‘‘debottlenecking’’
published in the Federal Register on
September 14, 2006. Debottlenecking is
a concept used in the EPA’s New Source
Review (NSR) program and refers to
how emissions from units upstream and
downstream from the unit(s) undergoing
a physical or operational change are
included in the calculation of an
emissions increase for the project. The
intent of the September 14, 2006
proposal was to clarify how to consider
emissions increases and decreases when
determining major NSR applicability for
sources that undergo a modification(s).
Two other NSR elements included in
that proposal—aggregation and project
netting—are discussed in a separate
document published in the ‘‘Rules’’
section of this Federal Register.
The decision to withdraw the rule
proposal for debottlenecking is due to a
variety of concerns raised by
commenters on the viability of each of
the proposed options. Regarding our
preferred option, legal causation, we
proposed to apply a ‘‘but for’’ legal
cause test to account for debottlenecked
emissions. However, limiting its
application to only Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and NSR
permits, as several commenters
suggested, would have severely
VerDate Nov<24>2008
narrowed its utility and required
devising another regulatory strategy for
nonqualifying permits. With respect to
the other two proposed options, we had
difficulty in finding workable solutions
to some of the implementation issues
raised by commenters. In light of the
complexities we encountered with the
proposed options, we have decided to
withdraw the proposed rule for
debottlenecking.
DATES: On January 15, 2009, the EPA
hereby withdraws the proposed rule for
NSR Debottlenecking published at 71
FR 54235.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
David Svendsgaard, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (C504–03),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone number: (919) 541–2380; fax
number: (919) 541–5509, e-mail address:
svendsgaard.dave@epa.gov.
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2006–0357; FRL–8761–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Texas;
Approval of the Section 110(a)(1)
Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard for El Paso County
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a revision to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision
consists of a maintenance plan for El
Paso County developed to ensure
continued attainment of the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for 10 years after the
effective designation date of June 15,
2004. The Maintenance Plan meets the
requirements of Section 110(a)(1) of the
Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA’s
rules, and is consistent with EPA’s
guidance.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before February 17, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Please see the related direct
final rule, which is located in the ‘‘Rules
and Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register, for detailed instructions on
how to submit comments.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,
telephone 214–665–8542; fax number
214–665–7263; e-mail address
riley.jeffrey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed
Rule?
This document proposes to take
action on SIP revisions pertaining to the
El Paso area. We have published a direct
final rule approving the State’s SIP
revisions in the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register because we view this as a
noncontroversial action and anticipate
no adverse comment. We have
explained our reasons for this action in
the preamble to the direct final rule.
If we receive no adverse comment, we
will not take further action on this
proposed rule. If we receive adverse
comment, we will withdraw the direct
final rule and it will not take effect. We
would address all public comments in
any subsequent final rule based upon
this proposed rule.
We do not intend to institute a second
comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must
do so at this time. For further
information, please see the information
provided in the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
Dated: December 31, 2008.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. E9–707 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–1153; FRL–8762–3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Arkansas; Emissions Inventory for the
Crittenden County Ozone
Nonattainment Area; Emissions
Statements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Arkansas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the
Emissions Inventory and Emissions
Statements requirements of the Clean
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2443-2460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-736]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 131
[Docket No. FDA-2000-P-0126] (formerly Docket No. 2000P-0685)
Milk and Cream Products and Yogurt Products; Proposal to Revoke
the Standards for Lowfat Yogurt and Nonfat Yogurt and to Amend the
Standard for Yogurt
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to revoke
its regulations on the standards of identity for lowfat yogurt and
nonfat yogurt and amend the standard of identity for yogurt in numerous
respects. This action is in response, in part, to a citizen petition
submitted by the National Yogurt Association (the NYA). FDA tentatively
concludes that this action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the
interest of consumers and, to the extent practicable, will achieve
consistency with existing international standards of identity for
yogurt.
DATES: Submit comments by March 31, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2000-
P-0126, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the following ways:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
FAX: 301-827-6870.
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer
accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages
you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, as described previously, in the ADDRESSES portion
of this document under Electronic Submissions.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For additional information on submitting
comments, see the ``Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ritu Nalubola, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-2371.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Current Standards of Identity for Yogurt, Lowfat Yogurt, and
Nonfat Yogurt
B. The National Yogurt Association Petition
[[Page 2444]]
C. The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
D. Comments on the ANPRM
II. The Proposal
A. Legal Authority/Statutory Directive
B. Proposed Amendments
1. Yogurt
2. Revocation of the Standards of Identity for Lowfat and Nonfat
Yogurts
C. NYA's Recommended Amendments to the Standard of Identity for
Cultured Milk
III. Analysis of Economic Impacts
A. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
IV. Federalism
V. Environmental Impact
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Comments
VIII. References
I. Background
A. Current Standards of Identity for Yogurt, Lowfat Yogurt, and Nonfat
Yogurt
In the Federal Register of January 30, 1981 (46 FR 9924), FDA
published a final rule establishing standards of identity for yogurt
(Sec. 131.200 (21 CFR 131.200)), lowfat yogurt (Sec. 131.203 (21 CFR
131.203)), and nonfat yogurt (Sec. 131.206 (21 CFR 131.206).
Interested persons were given until March 2, 1981, to file objections
and request a hearing on the final rule. Twenty-one responses were
filed objecting to specific provisions of the final rule and, in most
cases, requesting a hearing. In response to those objections that
raised genuine and substantial issues of fact that must be resolved
through a public hearing, FDA stayed the effective date for provisions
regarding certain milk products and eggnog as well as the following:
(1) Those provisions of Sec. Sec. 131.200(c)(1), 131.203(c)(1), and
131.206(c)(1) (redesignated as Sec. Sec. 131.200(d)(1), 131.203(d)(1),
and 131.206(d)(1), respectively) that restricted the type of milk-
derived ingredients that may be used to increase the nonfat solids
content of cultured milk and yogurts to those listed in these sections;
(2) those provisions of Sec. Sec. 131.200(a), 131.203(a), and
131.206(a) that excluded the use of reconstituted dairy ingredients as
basic ingredients in the manufacture of yogurts; (3) those provisions
of Sec. Sec. 131.200(c), 131.203(c), and 131.206(c) (redesignated as
Sec. Sec. 131.200(d), 131.203(d), and 131.206(d), respectively)
insofar as they excluded the addition of preservatives to yogurts; (4)
those provisions of Sec. Sec. 131.200(a), 131.203(a), and 131.206(a)
that set a minimum titratable acidity of 0.9 percent, expressed as
lactic acid; and (5) the provision in Sec. 131.200(a) that the 3.25
percent minimum milkfat level applies to yogurt after the addition of
one or more of the optional sources of milk solids not fat listed in
Sec. 131.200(c)(1) (redesignated as Sec. 131.200(d)(1)) (47 FR 41519
at 41523, September 21, 1982). To date, due to competing priorities and
limited resources, FDA has not held a public hearing to resolve these
issues and the effective date for these provisions remains stayed.
Therefore, these provisions were never in effect. Consequently,
cultured milk and yogurts may deviate from the relevant standards in
the previously mentioned respects. For example, although the current
standards do not permit the use of certain ingredients such as
preservatives or a reconstituted dairy ingredient as a basic
ingredient, because of the stayed provisions, FDA has not taken
enforcement action against the use of these ingredients in yogurt,
lowfat yogurt, or nonfat yogurt. Similarly, yogurt is not required to
meet the 0.9 percent minimum titratable acidity requirement in stayed
provisions Sec. Sec. 131.200(a), 131.203(a), and 131.206(a).
B. The National Yogurt Association Petition
The NYA submitted a citizen petition on February 18, 2000 (Docket
No. FDA-2000-P-0126 (formerly Docket No. 2000P-0685); hereafter
referred to as the petition) requesting that FDA revoke the standards
of identity in part 131 (21 CFR part 131) for lowfat yogurt (Sec.
131.203) and nonfat yogurt (Sec. 131.206) and amend the standards of
identity for yogurt (Sec. 131.200) and cultured milk (Sec. 131.112).
In its petition, NYA stated that its recommended standard
establishes that yogurt is a food product containing a minimum level of
certain live and active cultures; takes into account current industry
practices; recognizes the need to allow for use of future technologies;
and establishes a clear, consistent, modernized, and flexible yogurt
standard that would benefit both industry and consumers. Specifically,
NYA recommended a yogurt standard that (1) requires a minimum level of
active cultures of 10\7\ colony-forming units (CFU) per gram (g); (2)
requires an acidity of pH 4.6 or lower; (3) requires a minimum level of
total dairy ingredients of 51 percent; (4) provides for pre-culture
homogenization and pasteurization; (5) permits the use of reconstituted
milk and whey protein concentrate as ``standard dairy ingredients;''
(6) provides for the use of any milk-derived ingredients as optional
dairy ingredients; (7) permits the use of safe and suitable sweeteners,
emulsifiers, and preservatives; (8) permits the optional use of any
safe and suitable ingredients added for nutritional or functional
purpose; and (9) makes provisions for lowfat and nonfat yogurts based
on total fat content of the food per reference amount customarily
consumed (RACC).
In addition, NYA requested that the current standard of identity
for cultured milk be amended to ``conform'' to its recommended standard
for yogurt. Specifically, NYA recommended that FDA revise the cultured
milk standard to (1) provide for the alternate term ``fermented milk;''
(2) require a minimum level of total dairy ingredients of 51 percent;
(3) permit the use of reconstituted milk and whey protein concentrate
as ``standard dairy ingredients;'' (4) provide for the use of any milk-
derived ingredients as ``optional dairy ingredients;'' (5) permit the
use of safe and suitable sweeteners, emulsifiers, and preservatives;
and (6) permit the use of any safe and suitable ingredients added for
nutritional or functional purposes.
NYA pointed out that several provisions of the standards of
identity for cultured milk, yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt
are currently stayed (47 FR 41519) (as discussed in section I.A of this
document). NYA contended that these stayed provisions create multiple
gaps in the standards for which no guidelines exist and, as a result,
the integrity of the food ``yogurt'' is not maintained.
According to NYA, yogurt has been characterized for centuries by
its live and active cultures and, thus, a minimum content of live and
active cultures is crucial to the yogurt standard of identity to
promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. NYA
noted that consumers identify yogurt with live and active cultures and
expect yogurt to contain a significant amount of these cultures when
they purchase the product but have no assurance under the current
standard that the yogurt will contain such cultures. NYA maintained
that its recommended standard recognizes the defining characteristics
of yogurt and establishes that yogurt is a product of fermentation of
certain characterizing cultures and that the finished food contains a
significant quantity of these live and active cultures, consistent with
consumer expectations.
[[Page 2445]]
NYA also stated that the recommended amendments to the standard for
cultured milk would further serve consumer interest. Under its proposed
actions, NYA maintained that foods otherwise satisfying the standard of
identity for yogurt that do not contain the required level of the
characterizing live and active cultures would not be named ``yogurt;''
rather, they would be named ``cultured milk'' or ``fermented milk.''
Consequently, NYA stated, consumers would not be misled into believing
that these foods contain a significant amount of live and active
cultures.
NYA also maintained that its recommended amendments would ensure
that aspects of yogurt labeling, such as the use of nutrient content
claims, are consistent with the requirements of the Nutrition Labeling
and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) (Public Law 101-535). NYA stated that
its recommended standard maintains the three yogurt types (full fat,
lowfat, and nonfat yogurts) so manufacturers can continue to make
lowfat and nonfat yogurts without meeting the nutritional equivalence
requirement described in Sec. 130.10(b) (21 CFR 130.10(b)). In
addition, NYA maintained that its recommended standard would change the
milkfat content requirements of lowfat and nonfat yogurts to be
consistent with the nutrient content claim requirements for the terms
``low fat'' and ``nonfat'' established under the NLEA and codified in
Sec. 101.62(b) (21 CFR 101.62(b)).
Additionally, NYA noted that food technology has advanced and
industry practices related to yogurt manufacturing have changed since
the yogurt standards have been in place. Consequently, NYA asserted
that the current yogurt standards impede the yogurt industry and do not
allow manufacturers to implement advances in food technology. NYA
stated that its recommended standard establishes a modernized, flexible
standard of identity for yogurt that takes into account current
industry practices and recognizes the need to allow for use of future
technologies.
C. The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the Federal Register of July 3, 2003 (68 FR 39873), FDA
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) consistent
with section 701(e)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
act) (21 U.S.C. 371(e)(1)), which directs the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (the Secretary) to publish proposals made by petition to
amend or repeal a dairy food standard so long as the petition includes
reasonable grounds for the action requested, and to provide interested
persons with an opportunity to present their views. In the ANPRM, FDA
requested comment by October 1, 2003, on whether the actions proposed
in the petition would promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest
of consumers. In response to a request to allow additional time to
comment, FDA reopened the comment period on October 29, 2003 (68 FR
61639). The reopened comment period ended on January 27, 2004.
In the ANPRM, FDA requested data and information concerning the
need for, and the appropriateness of, the amendments requested by NYA,
including the revocation of the standards for lowfat and nonfat yogurt
and the revision of the standards for yogurt and cultured milk. FDA
specifically requested comment on several provisions set forth in the
petition, including those related to the use of any safe and suitable
ingredient added for nutritional or functional purposes, the
measurement of acidity of yogurt, the presence of live and active
cultures in yogurt, and vitamin A addition to yogurt, and the need to
amend the cultured milk standard of identity to conform to NYA's
recommended yogurt standard.
FDA pointed out in the ANPRM that NYA recommended a number of
changes to the standards of identity for yogurt and cultured milk.
First, NYA recommended that FDA permit the use of any safe and suitable
ingredient added for nutritional or functional purposes. NYA stated
that this provision is necessary to maintain enough flexibility in the
standards to permit the use of novel ingredients as they are developed.
FDA acknowledged the need for food standards to permit flexibility in
food technology so long as that technology does not alter the basic
nature or essential characteristics of the food. FDA stated that the
existing provisions in Sec. 130.10 already provide for the addition of
substances for nutritional purposes to standardized foods. FDA also
noted that flexibility in the use of ingredients for functional
purposes may be achieved by specifying the ingredients by functional
use category, e.g., ``emulsifiers'' or ``preservatives,'' rather than
by listing the specific ingredients. FDA asked for comment on the need
for any functional ingredient categories, in addition to the ones
recommended in the petition, in the manufacture of yogurt.
Second, NYA recommended a maximum pH of 4.6 for yogurt, stating
that this level reflects the lower end of titratable acidity levels
found in common industry practice and that measuring pH, rather than
titratable acidity expressed as lactic acid, reflects the current
industry practice and is a more accurate and convenient method of
measuring acidity. FDA asked for comment both on the maximum pH
recommended by NYA and the use of pH rather than titratable acidity to
measure the acidity of yogurt.
Third, NYA recommended that FDA require a specific amount of live
and active cultures in yogurt based on an assertion that consumers
expect yogurt to contain significant amounts of live and active
cultures. In its recommended new yogurt standard, NYA required yogurt
to contain a minimum of 10\7\ CFU/g of live and active cultures at the
time of manufacture. NYA also suggested that manufacturers may test
their yogurt products to demonstrate that the products, under proper
distribution and storage conditions, would be expected to contain at
least 10\6\ CFU/g of live and active cultures through the
manufacturer's designated code life for the product and at the
anticipated time of consumption. FDA asked for comment on the following
topics: (1) Whether the presence of live and active cultures is an
essential characteristic of yogurt and, if so, in what amounts; (2) the
appropriateness of NYA's suggested provision that manufacturers ``may''
conduct tests to ensure the presence of live and active cultures
through the assigned code life for the product; and (3) whether NYA's
recommended standard of identity for yogurt would adequately ensure the
presence of appropriate amounts of live and active cultures in yogurt
throughout the shelf life of the product and at the point of purchase
or consumption. FDA also asked whether any alternative provisions may
be needed to fulfill this requirement.
In addition, FDA sought comment on vitamin A addition to lowfat and
nonfat yogurt. FDA previously proposed to revoke a number of lowfat and
nonfat standards, i.e., Sec. Sec. 131.122 (sweetened condensed skimmed
milk), 131.123 (lowfat dry milk), 131.132 (evaporated skimmed milk),
131.135 (lowfat milk), 131.136 (acidified lowfat milk), 131.138
(cultured lowfat milk), 131.143 (skim milk), 131.144 (acidified skim
milk), 131.146 (cultured skim milk), 131.185 (sour half-and-half),
131.187 (acidified sour half-and-half), 131.203 (lowfat yogurt),
131.206 (nonfat yogurt), and 133.131 (lowfat cottage cheese) to ensure
that the use of nutrient content claims in the labeling of these
products would be consistent with the provisions of the NLEA (60 FR
56541, November 9, 1995). FDA revoked all of the previously
[[Page 2446]]
mentioned standards except for lowfat yogurt and nonfat yogurt on
November 20, 1996 (61 FR 58991). FDA delayed final action on its
proposal to revoke these standards for 120 days because of the
technical difficulties and economic considerations associated with
their revocation (61 FR 58991 at 58999). FDA acknowledged that, if the
standards for lowfat and nonfat yogurts were revoked, modifying the
standardized food yogurt to make the nutrient content claims ``lowfat''
or ``nonfat'' under the provisions of Sec. 130.10 would require
vitamin A addition to make the product nutritionally equivalent to full
fat yogurt. FDA also acknowledged that such a vitamin addition
requirement could potentially result in significant relabeling,
reformulation, and equipment costs to manufacturers. The agency
believed that its decision to defer, for a limited time, action on the
standards of identity for yogurt products would provide an appropriate
balance between the problem the industry was facing and consumers'
interest in consistently and fairly labeled foods. FDA also advised of
its intention at the end of the 120-day period to move to resolve the
inconsistencies between the use of the terms ``lowfat'' and ``nonfat''
in the names of standardized yogurt and the definitions for these terms
established under the nutrient content claims regulations (61 FR 58991
at 58999). As FDA noted in the ANPRM, this issue is yet to be resolved.
In fact, the 1995 proposed rule to revoke the lowfat and nonfat yogurt
products was subsequently withdrawn (69 FR 68831, November 26, 2004) as
part of the agency initiative to withdraw certain proposed actions that
were over 5 years old and no longer considered viable candidates for
final action at that time. This action was taken to reduce the agency's
regulatory backlog and focus its resources on public health issues
current at that time.
According to the yogurt standard recommended by NYA, manufacturers
would continue to be able to make lowfat and nonfat yogurts without
having to meet the nutritional equivalence requirement. FDA asked
whether the yogurt industry is better able and equipped to meet the
nutritional equivalence requirements of Sec. 130.10 than it was in
1996, when FDA deferred action on this issue. FDA also asked for
comment on the need and appropriateness of continuing to exempt yogurt,
unlike other standardized foods making low fat and nonfat nutrient
content claims, from the nutritional equivalence requirement.
Finally, NYA recommended that FDA revise the current standard of
identity for cultured milk (Sec. 131.112) so that if the food
otherwise meets the yogurt standard but does not contain the
characterizing cultures at the required levels, then the food would
qualify as cultured milk or could alternatively be named ``fermented
milk.'' FDA pointed out in the ANPRM that the standard of identity for
cultured milk has been in place for several decades and, in light of
consumer experience with cultured milk, the agency asked for comment on
the need to amend the standard for cultured milk and the
appropriateness of the amendments requested by NYA.
D. Comments on the ANPRM
In response to the ANPRM, FDA received a total of 65 responses,
each containing one or more comments, from industry, trade
associations, consumers, government, and academia. Overall, comments
from industry broadly supported the need to modernize the yogurt
standards to allow recent technological advances in food processing and
to incorporate flexibility in yogurt manufacturing while preserving the
basic nature and essential characteristics of yogurt. One milk
producers' association opposed revising the current yogurt or cultured
milk standards, while several consumers expressed concerns on different
provisions recommended by NYA.
Comments from industry strongly supported the establishment of a
single yogurt standard that provides for varying levels of fat content
and that reflects today's manufacturing practices while taking into
account the stayed provisions of the current yogurt standards. These
comments also expressed broad support of NYA's petition to the extent
that the amended standard would expressly permit those industry
practices that are not now restricted under the stayed provisions of
the current standard. For example, some comments stated that, since
certain provisions of the current yogurt standards were stayed,
virtually all domestically-produced yogurt utilizes reconstituted dairy
ingredients as basic ingredients and, therefore, these comments
recommended that the modernized yogurt standard account for this
typical industry practice. Similarly, the comments stated that, since
certain other provisions were stayed, a wide range of milk-derived
ingredients that provide a technical or functional purpose are used as
optional ingredients in the manufacture of yogurt, and several comments
from industry supported NYA's recommended amendment that would permit
this practice. There was also broad support to amend the standards to
bring the fat content of lowfat and nonfat yogurts in line with the
provisions of the NLEA.
While in agreement with NYA that the yogurt standards need to be
modernized, some other comments opposed some of the amendments sought
by NYA. For example, NYA recommended that yogurt contain a specific
amount of live and active cultures. Some comments from industry and
academia supported this requirement and noted the health benefits
associated with live and active cultures in yogurt. However, other
industry comments strongly opposed requiring that yogurt contain live
and active cultures. These comments did not agree with NYA that live
and active cultures are an essential characteristic of ``yogurt'' nor
did they agree with NYA that consumers expect a minimum live and active
culture content of 10\6\ CFU/g or any other specified amount. These
comments pointed out that NYA neither presented any evidence to support
its contention that consumers expect a certain specified amount of live
and active cultures in yogurt nor provided a technical rationale or
criteria to evaluate whether the proposed 10\6\ CFU/g is the
appropriate level. In addition, one major trade association noted in
its comments that members of its organization were unable to reach an
agreement on whether the presence of live and active cultures is an
essential characteristic of yogurt and whether the amount of cultures
recommended by NYA is the appropriate level.
Similarly, comments to other provisions that NYA requested in its
petition also were mixed. NYA's recommended revisions to the standards
would not permit heat treatment of yogurt after culturing and would
require yogurt that is heat-treated after culturing to be named
``cultured milk'' or ``fermented milk'' rather than ``yogurt, heat-
treated after culturing'' as is permitted by the current standards.
While some comments from the domestic industry supported this
provision, others from industry, both domestic and international, and
one comment from a foreign government strongly opposed this provision.
They stated that processors should be permitted to market heat-treated
yogurt, provided that the heat treatment is appropriately declared on
the label, as is the current practice, and that changing the name of
this food now to ``cultured milk'' or ``fermented milk'' would be
confusing to consumers.
With respect to NYA's recommended provision that would permit
yogurt to contain non-nutritive sweeteners and be labeled simply
``yogurt'' without a specific declaration of the non-nutritive
[[Page 2447]]
sweetener in the name of the food, comments were varied. While comments
from industry supported this provision, several consumers and at least
one State government agency strongly opposed this provision, stating
that consumers have become accustomed to identification of aspartame in
the name of the food \1\ and that removal of this identification would
be misleading to consumers and could prove harmful to those individuals
with phenylketonuria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Specifically concerning the labeling of lowfat and nonfat
yogurts that are sweetened with aspartame, the agency previously
advised that provided the lowfat and nonfat yogurt products conform
to the relevant standards of identity prior to the addition of
aspartame, the descriptors ``lowfat (or nonfat) yogurt with
aspartame sweetener'' and ``lowfat (or nonfat) yogurt sweetened with
aspartame'' are acceptable statements of identity for these products
(Ref. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several consumers, dairy farmers, and milk producers, and one State
government agency strongly opposed NYA's recommended provisions that
any milk-derived ingredient should be permitted as an optional
ingredient and that any safe and suitable ingredient should be
permitted for a nutritional or functional purpose. These comments cited
concerns including the use of imported, cheaper, and inferior quality
substances, which would adversely affect the quality of the yogurt; the
potential health risks associated with unregulated, imported products;
and the unfair economic disadvantage to U.S. dairy plants.
Comments were varied on the use of whey protein concentrate as a
basic ingredient and the minimum amount of dairy ingredients by weight
of yogurt. Most comments from industry supported the use of whey
protein concentrate as a basic ingredient but other comments, primarily
from consumers and dairy farmers, opposed this provision, citing
product quality concerns. With respect to NYA's recommended provision
that yogurt contain a minimum of 51 percent dairy ingredients by weight
of yogurt, comments from an industry group supported the provision, but
other comments from consumers expressed concern that this provision
could allow yogurt to contain up to 49 percent non-dairy ingredients
and still be characterized as ``yogurt.'' The existing standards for
yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt do not include requirements
with respect to the proportion of dairy ingredients in the finished
food. Rather, the standards restrict the use of non-dairy ingredients
to a limited and specific list of substances that fulfill a technical
or functional purpose.
With respect to NYA's recommended amendments to the cultured milk
standard, a few comments supported, while several other comments from
industry (both domestic and international) and milk producers opposed
NYA's recommended provisions. The comments that opposed the amendments
stated that it would not be appropriate to amend the cultured milk
standard simply to include products that do not fit into the NYA's
recommended yogurt standard and that have never been considered by the
industry or consumers to be cultured milk. Some of these comments also
noted that NYA's petition did not address the consumer confusion that
might occur from including semisolid yogurt-type products (that
otherwise meet NYA's recommended yogurt standard but do not contain the
characterizing cultures at the specified levels) in the cultured milk
standard, which has long been associated with fluid products. A major
trade association also noted that its members could not reach agreement
on this issue. Specific comments will be discussed in the proposed
amendment section where appropriate.
II. The Proposal
A. Legal Authority/Statutory Directive
Section 401 of the act (21 U.S.C. 341) directs the Secretary to
issue regulations fixing and establishing for any food a reasonable
definition and standard of identity, quality, or fill of container
whenever in the judgment of the Secretary such action will promote
honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. Under section
701(e) of the act, any action for the amendment or repeal of any
definition and standard of identity under section 401 of the act for
any dairy product (e.g., yogurt) shall be begun by a proposal made
either by the Secretary on his own initiative or by petition of any
interested persons, showing reasonable grounds therefor, filed with the
Secretary.
B. Proposed Amendments
Based on all available information, including the information
presented in the petition and the comments to the ANPRM, FDA is
proposing to amend the yogurt standard and revoke the lowfat and nonfat
yogurt standards to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of
consumers. This proposal is also consistent with FDA's proposed general
principles for modernizing food standards (70 FR 29214, May 20, 2005).
In addition, consistent with 21 CFR 130.6, which states that food
standards adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission will be reviewed
by FDA (and either will be accepted, with or without change, or will
not be accepted), FDA reviewed the Codex Standard for Fermented Milks
(CODEX STAN 243-2003) (herein after referred to as the Codex Standard)
(Ref. 2), which encompasses the standard for ``yoghurt'' and provides
that yoghurt may be spelled as appropriate in the country of retail
sale. FDA reviewed the Codex Standard to harmonize, to the extent
feasible, the proposed amendments with Codex provisions for
``yoghurt,'' while preserving the integrity, quality, and economic
value that U.S. consumers expect of yogurt.
FDA tentatively concludes that the proposed amendments are
necessary to modernize the current yogurt standard to permit
flexibility and provide for technological advances in yogurt
production, while preserving the basic nature and essential
characteristics of yogurt consistent with consumer expectations and
thus protecting consumer interest. FDA considered the different
amendments recommended by NYA and tentatively concluded that some of
NYA's recommended amendments are not consistent with the basic nature
and essential characteristics of yogurt or cultured milk. Each of the
amendments recommended by NYA and FDA's tentative conclusions are
discussed here.
1. Yogurt
a. Milkfat and milk solids not fat content of yogurt. The current
standard of identity for yogurt requires a minimum milkfat content of
3.25 percent and a minimum milk solids not fat content of 8.25 percent
in yogurt prior to the addition of bulky flavoring ingredients (Sec.
131.200(a)). In response to an objection to the January 30, 1981, final
rule that applying the milkfat minimum to yogurt which has been made to
contain milk solids not fat at a level higher than the minimum
requirement of the standard will discourage manufacturers from using
higher levels of milk solids not fat in yogurt because such addition
would then require the use of more milkfat, FDA stayed the requirement
that the minimum milkfat level is applied after the addition of
optional dairy ingredients. FDA pointed out that the minimum 3.25
percent milkfat and the 8.25 percent milk solids not fat requirements
apply prior to the addition of any bulky flavors and that while other
optional dairy ingredients may be used to increase the milk solids not
fat content of yogurt to above 8.25 percent, the standard does not
provide for a
[[Page 2448]]
proportionate decrease in the minimum milkfat content. FDA determined
that whether the minimum milkfat requirement of 3.25 percent should
apply to yogurt before or after the addition of optional dairy
ingredients used to increase the milk solids not fat content should be
resolved through a public hearing and stayed that requirement pending a
public hearing (47 FR 41519 at 41521).
NYA did not recommend a specific total fat content for yogurt.
However, NYA requested that any level of fat above the level considered
``low fat'' (per Sec. 101.62(b)(2)) should be permitted in a product
named ``yogurt.'' Accordingly, NYA recommended that the total fat
content of yogurt should be any level higher than 3.0 g per 225 g. NYA
also noted that its recommended provision would measure the fat content
on a finished food basis and, therefore, would provide consumers with
more accurate information about the yogurt's actual fat content.
Some comments in response to the ANPRM supported retaining the
current 3.25 percent minimum milkfat content of yogurt and noted that
this level is consistent with the fat content requirement for milk. FDA
notes that NYA's recommended minimum fat content of 3.0 g per 225 g
would equate to lowering the current minimum milkfat content of 3.25
percent to about 1.3 percent. NYA did not provide adequate
justification for this change to the minimum fat content of yogurt. FDA
agrees with NYA that it is appropriate to revise the existing lowfat
and nonfat yogurt standards of identity to conform these foods with the
nutrient content claims requirements for ``low fat'' and ``non fat,''
respectively, as discussed further in section II.B.2 of this document.
However, NYA did not provide a justification for lowering the minimum
fat content of yogurt that is named simply ``yogurt'' and whose
labeling does not bear a claim related to its fat content. Furthermore,
the yogurt standard with the minimum 3.25 percent milkfat requirement
has been in place for over two decades (although the application of
this level after the addition of optional dairy ingredients was stayed)
and appears to be used in the manufacture of full-fat yogurts available
in the marketplace today. According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference,
Release 19 (2006), the total fat content of ``yogurt, plain, whole
milk'' is 3.25 percent (Ref. 3), consistent with the minimum milkfat
requirement of the current standard of identity for yogurt. With
respect to the minimum milk solids not fat content of yogurt, neither
NYA nor comments in response to the ANPRM requested a revision to the
current requirement of 8.25 percent. In addition, FDA does not have any
data or information to suggest that there is a need to reconsider the
current requirement of a minimum of 8.25 percent milk solids not fat in
yogurt. Therefore, FDA is maintaining the current requirements of a
minimum amount of 3.25 percent milkfat and 8.25 percent milk solids not
fat in yogurt.
With respect to the measurement of these components in yogurt, NYA
requested that the minimum milk solids not fat content of 8.25 percent
be derived from basic dairy ingredients and, therefore, that this
requirement be applied prior to the addition of any permitted optional
ingredients. We agree that the optional dairy ingredients may be used
to increase the milk solids not fat levels above the minimum required
8.25 percent, not to meet this minimum level. FDA previously clarified
this purpose of the provision in the final rule establishing the
current standard that permits optional milk-derived ingredients to
increase the nonfat milk solids content (46 FR 9924 at 9927). In
addition, as FDA noted in 1982, while Sec. 131.200(a) of the current
yogurt standard provides for the use of optional dairy ingredients to
increase the milk solids not fat levels above the minimum required 8.25
percent, this provision was not intended to provide nor does it provide
for a proportionate decrease in the minimum milkfat content of yogurt
(47 FR 41519 at 41521).
FDA also believes that the addition of bulky flavoring ingredients
such as fruits and fruit preparations lowers the milkfat and milk
solids not fat levels of the resultant flavored yogurt. Therefore, to
ensure the quality and compositional characteristics of the finished
flavored yogurt, the milkfat and milk solids not fat requirements
should apply to the yogurt portion prior to the addition of bulky
flavoring ingredients. Comments in response to the ANPRM did not
provide any specific comments on this issue. Furthermore, applying the
milkfat and milk solids not fat requirements prior to the addition of
flavoring ingredients only is consistent with the Codex Standard, which
applies milkfat, milk protein, and other compositional criteria to the
fermented milk part only, before flavoring ingredients are added.
For these reasons, FDA tentatively concludes that requiring a
minimum milkfat content of 3.25 percent and a milk solids not fat
content of 8.25 percent in yogurt prior to the addition of any bulky
flavoring ingredients would promote honesty and fair dealing in the
interest of consumers by ensuring the overall quality and composition
of yogurt that may or may not contain added flavoring ingredients.
Therefore, FDA is proposing to require in Sec. 131.200(a) that yogurt
have a minimum milkfat content of 3.25 percent and a minimum milk
solids not fat content of 8.25 percent before the addition of bulky
flavoring ingredients. FDA seeks comment on the need for and
appropriateness of the following provisions: (1) A minimum milkfat
content of 3.25 percent in yogurt, (2) a minimum milk solids not fat
content of 8.25 percent, and (3) the application of these two
compositional requirements prior to the addition of bulky flavoring
ingredients.
b. Acidity of yogurt. FDA stayed those portions of the standards of
identity for yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt (Sec. Sec.
131.200(a), 131.203(a), and 131.206(a), respectively) that required a
minimum titratable acidity of 0.9 percent. These standards also allow
an equivalent potentiometric method to be used to determine acidity
(i.e., a pH value) in lieu of the Association of Official Analytical
Chemists International (AOAC) titration method that is specified in the
standards. FDA stayed these provisions in response to an objection to
the January 30, 1981, final rule that the required acidity was too high
for some consumers' taste and that 0.75 percent is the common industry
practice. The agency stated that until such time as this issue is
resolved, yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt will not be required
to meet the 0.9 percent minimum level of titratable acidity (47 FR
41519 at 41522).
NYA requested that yogurt contain a minimum titratable acidity of
0.7 percent prior to the addition of optional ingredients and stated
that this level reflects the lower end of titratable acidity commonly
used by industry today. This lower acidity level is also supported by
comments in response to the ANPRM. NYA also requested that the yogurt
standard specify the acidity requirement as a determination of pH
rather than titratable acidity because measuring pH reflects current
industry practice and is a more accurate and convenient method than
measuring titratable acidity. NYA recommended a maximum pH of 4.6. FDA
believes that allowing a minimum titratable acidity of 0.7 percent or
an equivalent maximum pH of 4.6 is appropriate as it reflects current
industry practice and better meets some consumers' taste preferences.
FDA believes that providing for the measurement of acidity in yogurt as
a determination of
[[Page 2449]]
its pH as well as its titratable acidity will introduce flexibility in
the yogurt standard. FDA recognizes that each method may pose certain
challenges in its application to yogurt. For example, the addition of
flavors and colors may interfere with the precise determination of the
colorimetric endpoint of titration. By providing for both pH and
titratable acidity measurements, the standard gives manufacturers the
flexibility to choose a method that best suits their product.
With respect to the application of this acidity requirement, NYA
requested that the acidity requirement should apply prior to the
addition of any permitted optional ingredients, including dairy
ingredients added for technical or functional purposes, microbial
cultures, sweeteners, and flavoring ingredients. The stayed provisions
that required a minimum titratable acidity would have applied prior to
the addition of bulky flavors only. FDA believes that the addition of
bulky flavoring ingredients such as fruits and fruit preparations may
significantly impact the acidity of the resultant flavored yogurt.
Therefore, to ensure the overall quality and sensory characteristics of
the finished flavored yogurt, the acidity requirement should apply to
the yogurt portion prior to the addition of bulky flavoring
ingredients. FDA does not believe that it is appropriate to exclude the
other permitted optional ingredients such as safe and suitable cultures
and optional dairy ingredients from the point at which acidity is
measured, as these ingredients can be important contributors to the
culturing process and acidity development of yogurt. In addition,
applying the acidity requirement prior to the addition of bulky
flavoring ingredients only is consistent with the Codex Standard, which
applies the compositional criteria in the case of flavored fermented
milks to the fermented milk part only.
For these reasons, FDA tentatively concludes that a minimum
titratable acidity of yogurt of 0.7 percent or a maximum pH of 4.6 is
appropriate. FDA also tentatively concludes that applying the acidity
requirement to yogurt prior to the addition of bulky flavoring
ingredients promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of
consumers by ensuring the overall quality and sensory characteristics
of yogurt. Therefore, FDA is proposing to revise Sec. 131.200(a) to
require that, before the addition of bulky flavors, yogurts have either
a minimum titratable acidity of 0.7 percent or a maximum pH of 4.6. FDA
is interested in comments on the appropriateness of the proposed level
and measurement of acidity. In the proposed yogurt standard, FDA has
also reformatted this paragraph to be clear, simple, and easy to use by
both manufacturers and FDA officials that enforce compliance with the
standards.
c. Live and active cultures in yogurt. The current standards of
identity for yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt (Sec. Sec.
131.200, 131.203, and 131.206, respectively) do not require the
presence of a specific amount of live and active cultures in yogurt,
lowfat yogurt, or nonfat yogurt. NYA recommended that FDA revise the
yogurt standards to require a specified amount of live and active
cultures and that heat treatment should not be permitted after
culturing because it destroys the live and active cultures in yogurt.
NYA submitted data obtained from consumer surveys to support its
argument that consumers expect ``yogurt'' to contain live and active
cultures. While the NYA consumer surveys adequately show that consumers
believe that yogurt is a healthful food, FDA does not agree that the
data submitted support its argument that consumers are generally aware
of the presence of live cultures in yogurt or that they expect yogurt
to contain live cultures (Ref. 4).
In the absence of convincing data demonstrating that the presence
of live and active cultures is a characteristic that consumers expect
in yogurt, FDA does not have a basis to require live and active
cultures in yogurt at the time of manufacture or at the retail level.
Therefore, FDA is not proposing that yogurt must contain a specified
amount of live and active cultures.
However, based on the petitioner's request as well as some comments
in response to the ANPRM, there appears to be interest among
manufacturers in distinguishing their yogurt products from other yogurt
products on the basis of the level of live and active cultures in the
food. In the interest of providing a flexible standard that allows for
appropriate product diversity and provides for truthful and
nonmisleading labeling of yogurt that contains a set amount of live and
active cultures, FDA is proposing (1) in Sec. 131.200(a) that yogurt
that is not heat-treated may contain a minimum of 10\7\ CFU/g of live
and active cultures at the time of manufacture of the yogurt with a
reasonable expectation that yogurt contains live and active cultures at
a level of 10\6\ CFU/g at the retail level through the manufacturer's
assigned shelf life of the product and (2) in Sec. 131.200(f)(3) to
permit an optional labeling statement such as ``contains live and
active cultures'' or another appropriate descriptor on such yogurt that
is not heat-treated after culturing and that contains the specified
amount of live and active cultures.
These levels of live and active cultures are as proposed by the
petitioner. The Codex Standard, on the other hand, establishes a
minimum amount of microorganisms constituting the starter culture of
10\7\ CFU/g of yogurt. FDA seeks comment on the appropriateness of
providing for special labeling statements on yogurt products that
contain a certain minimum level of live and active cultures and the
appropriateness of a minimum level of 10\6\ CFU[sol]g throughout the
shelf life of the food as the basis for the special labeling
statements.
d. Heat treatment of yogurt after culturing. The current yogurt
standards do permit heat treatment after culturing, provided the phrase
``heat-treated after culturing'' follows the name of the food in the
labeling of these products (Sec. Sec. 131.200(f)(1)(ii),
131.203(f)(1)(iii), and 131.206(f)(1)(ii), respectively). During the
adoption of the yogurt standards, FDA reviewed extensively the question
of whether the standards should permit heat treatment of the product
after the culturing process. FDA acknowledged in its June 10, 1977,
proposal that yogurt is a cultured product containing microorganisms
but that in some cases, yogurt is heat-treated after culturing to kill
these microorganisms and extend the shelf life of the food (42 FR 29919
at 29920, June 10, 1977). FDA also opined that ``except for destroying
the microorganisms, these foods retain essentially the same
characteristic attributes'' of traditional yogurt and, therefore,
proposed to preserve the food ``yogurt'' unqualified in its traditional
form that is not heat-treated after culturing and to provide for
appropriate labeling ``to inform consumers when yogurt has been heat-
treated after culturing'' (42 FR 29919 at 29920). In response to
comments to that proposed rule, FDA further advised in a final rule
that ``it is in the best interest of both consumers and international
trade to permit heat treatment of yogurts and to require auxiliary
labeling to inform consumers that the product has been heat-treated''
(46 FR 9924 at 9931).
NYA's consumer survey data do not support the argument that heat
treatment following culturing is inconsistent with consumer
expectations of a food named ``yogurt.'' FDA has no evidence nor is it
aware of any information that suggests that the name ``yogurt,'' when
appropriately qualified by the phrase ``heat-treated after culturing,''
is misleading to consumers in that they believe this food
[[Page 2450]]
to be ``yogurt'' that is not heat-treated after culturing. Therefore,
FDA is not persuaded that heat treatment after culturing should be
prohibited by the yogurt standard. Accordingly, FDA is retaining in
Sec. 131.200(a) the provision that permits heat treatment of yogurt
after culturing to extend the shelf life of the food.
A review of the data that NYA submitted to support its assertion of
consumer expectations of live and active cultures as a characteristic
of yogurt also provides some information about consumers' understanding
of the term ``heat-treated after culturing.'' Although the surveys had
several methodological limitations, the data suggest that consumers do
not fully understand the meaning of the term ``heat-treated after
culturing'' on yogurt products (Ref. 4). However, no further
information or reasons for this finding can be ascertained; for
example, it is possible that consumers do not relate the heat treatment
statement to its impact on specific attributes of the food. If
consumers generally do not expect ``yogurt'' to contain live and active
cultures, as suggested by NYA's survey data, it is likely that they do
not associate the descriptor ``heat-treated after culturing'' with its
effect on live and active cultures in the food. With the exception of
these initial data, FDA does not have factual information or data that
would lead us to conclude at this time that ``heat-treated after
culturing'' is not an appropriate accompanying statement for yogurt
that is heat-treated after culturing. ``Heat-treated after culturing''
is a truthful statement that accurately and adequately describes the
basic identity of the food. Further, FDA provided for the use of this
phrase since the time the yogurt standards were adopted in 1981 and
some manufacturers appear to be using this descriptor in the labeling
of their products. Most consumer comments that FDA received at the time
of adoption of these standards expressed approval of the labeling
statement ``heat-treated after culturing'' to differentiate between
heat-treated and non-heat-treated yogurts (46 FR 9924 at 9931). FDA did
not receive any consumer comments in response to the ANPRM that
expressed a lack of understanding or other concerns with this
descriptor in the labeling of yogurts. Therefore, FDA is maintaining
the current descriptor ``heat-treated after culturing'' to accompany
the name of the food for yogurt that undergoes heat treatment after the
culturing process. However, to enhance consumer understanding of this
phrase, provide more meaningful information about the impact of the
heat treatment on specific attributes of the food, and distinguish
these products from traditional yogurt, FDA advises that manufacturers
may consider using additional truthful and nonmisleading statements,
such as ``does not contain live and active cultures,'' in the labeling
of their heat-treated yogurt products.
e. Use of reconstituted milk forms as basic dairy ingredients. The
current standards of identity for yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and nonfat
yogurt (Sec. Sec. 131.200, 131.203, and 131.206, respectively) do not
provide for the use of reconstituted dairy ingredients as basic dairy
ingredients in their manufacture. FDA stayed those portions of
Sec. Sec. 131.200(a), 131.203(a), and 131.206(a)) insofar as they
exclude the use of reconstituted dairy ingredients as basic ingredients
in the manufacture of yogurts in response to an objection to the
January 30, 1981, final rule that yogurt manufacturers in Florida and
the Southeastern States will be adversely affected because the fluid
milk supplies in these States are often insufficient for use in yogurt
manufacture (47 FR 41519 at 41521). FDA also stated that until such
time as this issue is resolved, the use of reconstituted dairy
ingredients as basic ingredients in the manufacture of yogurt, lowfat
yogurt, or nonfat yogurt will not be the basis for regulatory action
(47 FR 41519 at 41521).
According to NYA, manufacturers have routinely used reconstituted
dairy ingredients in the manufacture of yogurts. Comments in response
to the ANPRM also stated that reconstituted dairy ingredients are
currently used as basic ingredients in the manufacture of yogurts and
recommended that FDA adopt a modernized yogurt standard that permits
this typical industry practice. FDA is not aware of any data or other
information that would suggest that the use of reconstituted forms of
permitted dairy ingredients, i.e., cream, milk, partially skimmed milk,
and skim milk, has an adverse effect on yogurt quality or safety.
Moreover, FDA's standards currently permit the use of reconstituted
forms of dairy ingredients as basic ingredients in the manufacture of
other standardized dairy foods, such as cheeses and related cheese
products, ice cream, and frozen custard. Seeing no technical or safety
concerns, FDA tentatively concludes that it is appropriate to permit
reconstituted forms of cream, milk, partially skimmed milk, and skim
milk as basic ingredients in the manufacture of yogurt and its lower
fat versions. Therefore, FDA is proposing to revise Sec. 131.200 to
permit reconstituted forms of cream, milk, partially skimmed milk, and
skim milk as basic ingredients by (1) redesignating current Sec.
131.200(c) as proposed Sec. 131.200(b), (2) renaming the heading of
newly proposed Sec. 131.200(b) as ``Basic dairy ingredients'' instead
of ``Optional dairy ingredients'' because the proposed new nomenclature
better describes the proposed provision, and (3) revising newly
proposed Sec. 131.200(b) to include the reconstituted versions of the
dairy ingredients permitted in current Sec. 131.200(c). FDA seeks
comment on the need for and appropriateness of this proposed provision.
f. Use of safe and suitable milk-derived ingredients as optional
dairy ingredients. Stayed portions of the standards of identity for
yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt listed the optional milk-
derived ingredients (i.e., concentrated skim milk, nonfat dry milk,
buttermilk, whey, lactose, lactalbumins, lactoglobulins, and whey
modified by partial or complete removal of lactose and/or minerals)
that can be used for the purpose of increasing the nonfat solids
content of these foods above the minimum required 8.25 percent,
provided the ratio of protein to total nonfat solids of the food and
the protein efficiency ratio of all protein present is not decreased as
a result of adding these optional ingredients (Sec. Sec.
131.200(c)(1), 131.203(c)(1), and 131.206(c)(1); redesignated as
Sec. Sec. 131.200(d)(1), 131.203(d)(1), and 131.206(d)(1)). FDA stayed
these provisions in response to objections to the January 30, 1981,
final rule that these provisions preclude the use of other safe,
nutritional, and functional milk-derived ingredients and that there
appears to be no rational factual basis for the omission of traditional
ingredients such as partially delactosed skim milk, partially
hydrolyzed whey, and other safe and suitable ingredients (47 FR 41519).
NYA stated that manufacturers currently use a variety of safe and
suitable milk-derived ingredients for the purpose of increasing the
nonfat solids content of yogurts. FDA is not aware of any data or other
information that would suggest that expanding the current list of
optional milk-derived ingredients to permit the use of any safe and
suitable milk-derived ingredient, under the conditions stated in the
current standard to maintain the nutritional quality of yogurt, would
have an adverse effect on the overall quality or safety of yogurt. FDA
believes that it is appropriate to incorporate technological
flexibility into standards so long as the basic nature and essential
characteristics of the food are not
[[Page 2451]]
adversely affected. Therefore, FDA is proposing to permit the optional
use of any safe and suitable milk-derived ingredient as an optional
dairy ingredient in the manufacture of yogurt to increase the nonfat
solids content of the food above the minimum required 8.25 percent,
provided the ratio of protein to total nonfat solids of the food and
the protein efficiency ratio of protein present in the food are not
decreased as a result of the use of such ingredients. Specifically, FDA
is proposing, in new Sec. 131.200(c), ``Optional dairy ingredients,''
to permit other safe and suitable milk-derived ingredients to be used
to increase the nonfat solids content of the food, provided the ratio
of protein to total nonfat solids of the food and the protein
efficiency ratio of protein present in the food are not decreased as a
result of the use of such ingredients. FDA seeks comment on the need
for and appropriateness of this proposed provision.
g. Use of safe and suitable cultures in addition to the
characterizing bacterial cultures. The current standards of identity
for yogurt, lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt (Sec. Sec. 131.200,
131.203, and 131.206, respectively) do not prohibit the use of
bacterial cultures in addition to the two characterizing lactic acid-
producing bacteria, Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus
thermophilus. However, the standards do not explicitly state that other
bacterial cultures are permitted. NYA requested that FDA revise the
yogurt standard to clearly permit the use of other safe and suitable
bacterial cultures in addition to the characterizing bacterial
cultures. FDA tentatively concludes that explicitly providing for the
use of other optional bacterial cultures will enhance the clarity of
the yogurt standard. Therefore, FDA is proposing to clarify in new
Sec. 131.200(d)(1) that optional safe and suitable cultures may be
used only in addition to the required characterizing bacterial cultures
specified in the standard.
h. Use of sweeteners. The current standards of identity for yogurt,
lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt currently provide for the optional use
of certain nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners, specifically: Sugar (beet
or cane), invert sugar, brown sugar, refiner's syrup, molasses (other
than blackstrap), high fructose corn syrup, fructose, fructose syrup,
maltose, maltose syrup, dried maltose syrup, malt extract, dried malt
extract, malt syrup, dried malt syrup, honey, maple sugar, and any of
the sweeteners listed in 21 CFR part 168, except table syrup
(Sec. Sec. 131.200(d)(2), 131.203(d)(2), and 131.206(d)(2),
respectively, as redesignated in the September 21, 1982 final rule (47
FR 41519)). The term ``sweetened'' must accompany the name of yogurt,
lowfat yogurt, and nonfat yogurt that is sweetened without the addition
of characterizing flavor with any one or more of these permitted
sweeteners (Sec. Sec. 131.200(f)(1)(i), 131.203(f)(1)(ii), and
131.206(f)(1)(i), respectively, as redesignated in the September 21,
1982, final rule (47 FR 41519)).
NYA requested that FDA revise the current yogurt standards to
permit ``safe and suitable sweeteners'' without specifying a list, as
is permitted for ice cream (21 CFR 135.110(a)(1)), with the sweetener
being declared in the ingredient statement of the food so that non-
nutritive sweeteners may be used in yogurt without a specific
declaration of its presence in the name of the food. NYA argued that
under current regulations, manufacturers are able to use non-nutritive
sweeteners in yogurt that is modified to be eligible to bear a nutrient
content claim, for example, ``reduced calorie yogurt,'' without a
specific declaration of the presence of the non-nutritive sweetener in
the name of the food. Consumer comments to the ANPRM strongly opposed
this NYA recommendation and requested that the presence of non-
nutritive sweeteners be declared in the name of the food.
The regulatory framework governing the naming of standardized foods
that do not fully comply with the relevant standards of identity
changed with the passage of the NLEA in 1990 and the subsequent
establishment of the agency's requirements for foods named by use of a
nutrient content claim and a standardized term (Sec. 130.10).
Specifically, Sec. 130.10(d) permits the addition of safe and suitable
ingredients to a standardized food modified to be eligible to bear
defined nutrient content claims when these ingredients are needed to,
among other things, add sweetness to ensure that the modified food is
not inferior in performance characteristic to the standardized food
even though these ingredients are not specifically permitted by an
individual food standard.
In addition, these non-nutritive sweeteners must only be declared
by their common or usual names in the ingredient statement as required
by Sec. 101.4(a) (21 CFR 101.4(a)), as their presence in the
standardized food is not required to be declared within the name of the
food. Therefore, for example, a product named ``light sweetened
yogurt'' or ``reduced calorie sweetened yogurt'' may contain non-
nutritive sweeteners to add sweetness to the product so that it is not
inferior in its sweetness property compared to its standardized
counterpart, sweetened yogurt. The provisions of Sec. 130.10 do not
require these yogurt products to declare the presence of such non-
nutritive sweeteners within the name of these foods. The same is true
for other standardized foods modified under Sec. 130.10; for example,
``light ice cream'' and ``reduced calorie sweet chocolate.''
There are, however, certain exceptions where the regulatory
framework governing the naming of standardized foods that do not fully
comply with the relevant standards of identity was not changed by NLEA
or the establishment of Sec. 130.10. For example, a few artificially
sweetened foods are governed by standards of identity that establish
the phrase ``artificially sweetened'' as a part of the statement of
identity of these foods (for example, ``artificially sweetened canned
pears'' (see 21 CFR 145.176)). FDA may consider appropriate actions in
the future to bring these particular standardized foods in conformity
with NLEA. With the exception of these standardized artificially
sweetened foods, foods that are made using non-nutritive sweeteners are
not required to declare the presence of the non-nutritive sweetener
within the name of the food. Per the ingredient labeling requirements
of Sec. 101.4(a), the non-nutritive sweetener is declared by its
common or usual name in the ingredient statement of the food. Where
special labeling requirements are necessary for the safe use of a non-
nutritive sweetener, the conditions for including this information on
the label and how and where this information is to be presented on the
label are established in the relevant food additive regulation(s). For
example, labels of foods that contain aspartame are required to bear
the statement ``PHENYLKETONURICS: CONTAINS PHENYLALANINE'' either on
the principal display panel or on the information panel, in accordance
with 21 CFR 172.804. This regulation also requires that the statement
shall appear prominently and conspicuously in contrast to other printed
matter on the label. Any new sweetening ingredients developed and
permitted for use in foods in the future will be required to be labeled
in accordance with similar new labeling or other requirements necessary
for the safe use of the sweetener.
FDA recognizes that there is considerable interest in the special
labeling requirements for artificial sweeteners when used in foods in
general. Over the years, FDA has been asked to require the disclosure
of
[[Page