Nutrition Labeling of Single-Ingredient Products and Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry Products, 67736-67800 [E9-29323]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Food Safety and Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 242 (Friday, December 18, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67736-67800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29323]



[[Page 67735]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Department of Agriculture





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Food Safety and Inspection Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



9 CFR Parts 317 and 381



Nutrition Labeling of Single-Ingredient Products and Ground or Chopped 
Meat and Poultry Products; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 242 / Friday, December 18, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 67736]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 317 and 381

[FDMS Docket No. FSIS-2005-0018]
RIN: 0583-AC60


Nutrition Labeling of Single-Ingredient Products and Ground or 
Chopped Meat and Poultry Products

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Supplemental Proposed Rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is issuing this 
supplemental proposed rule that, if finalized, will amend the Federal 
meat and poultry products inspection regulations to require nutrition 
labeling of the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry 
products, unless an exemption applies.

DATES: Submit comments on or before February 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this 
proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by either of the following 
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the 
ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this 
Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions at that site for 
submitting comments.
     Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROMs, and hand- or 
courier-delivered items: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA), FSIS, Room 2-2127, George Washington Carver Center, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Mailstop 5474, Beltsville, MD 20705-5474.
    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must 
include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2005-0018. Comments 
received in response to this docket will be made available for public 
inspection and posted without change, including any personal 
information, to https://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to background documents or to comments received, 
go to the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. All comments submitted in 
response to this proposal, as well as background information used by 
FSIS in developing this document, will be available for public 
inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 
8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Jones, Senior Technical Advisor, 
Labeling and Program Delivery Division, Office of Policy and Program 
Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Beltsville, MD 20705; (301) 504-0878.

Section I

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Supplemental Proposed Rule: On January 18, 2001, FSIS published a 
proposed rule in the Federal Register entitled, ``Nutrition Labeling of 
Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry Products and Single-Ingredient 
Products'' (66 FR 4969). Because of the length of time since the 
publication of the proposed rule, FSIS is providing the public an 
opportunity to comment on this supplemental proposed rule. FSIS also 
welcomes comments on relevant issues for which there is new evidence 
since the proposed rule was issued.
    This supplemental proposed rule responds to all comments received 
on the January 18, 2001 proposed rule and explains how the Agency 
intends to proceed with a final rule. Although FSIS has come to 
tentative conclusions regarding the issues raised by the commenters, in 
this supplemental proposed rule, FSIS is requesting additional comments 
on policies for which there were significant differences of opinion 
among commenters.
    Specifically, under the ``Provisions of the Supplemental Proposed 
Rule'' heading below, FSIS is requesting comments on whether nutrition 
information should be allowed on point-of-purchase materials for ground 
or chopped products, as an alternative to requiring nutrition 
information on the product labels. FSIS is also requesting comments on 
the use of statements of lean percentages on the label or in labeling 
of ground or chopped products that do not meet the regulatory criteria 
for ``low fat.'' In addition, under the ``Provisions of the 
Supplemental Proposed Rule'' heading below, FSIS is requesting comments 
on whether it should provide an exemption from nutrition labeling 
requirements for small businesses that include a fat percentage 
statement and lean percentage statement on the labeling or in labeling 
of ground or chopped product. FSIS is requesting copies of any studies, 
surveys, or other data on consumers' perception of and use of point-of-
purchase materials versus nutrition labels for ground or chopped 
product and on consumers' understanding of the nutrient content of 
ground or chopped products. FSIS is also requesting copies of any 
studies, surveys, or data on consumers' use and understanding of fat 
percentage and lean percentage statements on ground or chopped 
products. FSIS will post on its Web site, with this supplemental 
proposed rule, all studies and data submitted to the Agency in response 
to this request. FSIS requests comment on the potential effects of 
disallowing a statement of lean percentage on ground or chopped 
products.
    FSIS will consider all comments received in response to this 
supplemental proposed rule. After evaluating the comments, FSIS intends 
to respond to them, make any appropriate and necessary changes to this 
rule, and issue the final rule in the Federal Register.

The Proposed Rule

    Major cuts: FSIS proposed to require nutrition labeling of the 
major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products 
identified in Sec. Sec.  317.344 and 381.444 that are not ground or 
chopped, except for certain exemptions. FSIS proposed that ``ground 
beef regular without added seasonings,'' ``ground beef about 17% fat,'' 
and ``ground pork'' would no longer be included in the list of major 
cuts in Sec.  317.344.
    FSIS proposed to make the guidelines in place for the voluntary 
nutrition labeling program mandatory for the major cuts of single-
ingredient, raw products that are not ground or chopped. Thus, for 
these products, FSIS proposed that nutrition information be provided on 
the label or at point-of-purchase, unless an exemption would apply. For 
further explanation of the guidelines for voluntary nutrition labeling, 
see 66 FR 4971, January 18, 2001. For further explanation of the 
proposal to make these guidelines mandatory for the major cuts of 
single-ingredient, raw products that are not ground or chopped, see 66 
FR 4973-4975, January 18, 2001.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, FSIS explained that, in its 
two most recent surveys of the voluntary nutrition labeling of single-
ingredient, raw products, FSIS found that significant participation in 
the voluntary nutrition labeling program did not exist (66 FR 4972, 
January 18, 2001). FSIS regulations provide that a food retailer is 
participating at a significant level (1) if the retailer provides 
nutrition labeling information for at least 90 percent of the major 
cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products it sells; and

[[Page 67737]]

(2) if the nutrition label on these products is consistent in content 
and format with the mandatory program, or if nutrition information is 
displayed at point-of-purchase in an appropriate manner. The required 
nutrition labeling provisions for multi-ingredient and heat processed 
products are referred to as ``the mandatory program.'' The regulations 
also provide that significant participation by food retailers exists if 
at least 60 percent of all companies that are evaluated are 
participating in accordance with the guidelines (Sec.  317.343 and 
Sec.  381.443). The term ``companies,'' as used in these regulations, 
refers to individual stores. FSIS used a representative sample of 
stores to assess participation (see 58 FR 640, January 6, 1993). Based 
on the survey data from the two most recent surveys, less than 60 
percent of stores evaluated were participating in accordance with the 
guidelines.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, FSIS explained that, because 
the most recent surveys showed that significant participation in the 
voluntary nutrition labeling program did not exist, FSIS believed that 
the proposed rule was necessary. FSIS stated that, without nutrition 
information, consumers are not able to assess the nutrient content of 
the major cuts and thus cannot make educated choices about these 
products based on nutrition information. FSIS believed that the lack of 
nutrition information on the labeling of the major cuts was misleading 
(66 FR 4973-4974, January 18, 2001) because it fails to disclose 
material facts about the consequences of consumption of these products. 
Consumers can compare the fat content in major cuts of poultry based on 
whether the product has skin and based on the levels of attached fat in 
the product. Similarly, consumers can compare the fat content among 
major cuts of meat products based on internal marbling and attached 
fat. However, without nutrition labeling for the major cuts, consumers 
cannot assess precise levels of fat (e.g., 10 grams vs. 20 grams of fat 
per serving) and cannot know the levels of specific nutrients, such as 
saturated fat, in these products. Therefore, without nutrition labeling 
of these products, consumers cannot make educated choices about 
consuming the major cuts.
    The FMIA and PPIA provide that product is misbranded if its 
labeling is false or misleading in any particular (21 U.S.C. 601(n)(1) 
and 453(h)(1)). Without nutrition information for the major cuts of 
single-ingredient, raw products, FSIS tentatively concluded that these 
products would be misbranded under section 1(n) of the FMIA or section 
4(h) of the PPIA because the label would fail to reveal significant 
material facts about the consequences of consuming these products(66 FR 
4974, January 18, 2001).
    As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, although FSIS 
believed that nutrition information on the labels of individual 
packages of single-ingredient, raw products is useful, the Agency 
proposed that nutrition information for the major cuts could also be 
provided on point-of-purchase materials, because consumers have 
reasonable expectations as to the nutrient content of these products. 
Also, FSIS stated that the nutrient content of a given major cut is 
relatively uniform across the market, and these products are not 
formulated in the manner of ground or chopped products (66 FR 4974, 
January 18, 2001).
    Ground or Chopped Products: Ground or chopped products that are 
multi-ingredient or heat processed products are subject to the 
requirements of the mandatory nutrition labeling program; therefore, 
these products are already required to bear nutrition labels, unless 
they qualify for an exemption. FSIS proposed to extend mandatory 
nutrition labeling requirements to all ground or chopped products, 
including single-ingredient, raw ground or chopped products, unless an 
exemption applies. Thus, FSIS proposed to require that nutrition labels 
be provided for all ground or chopped products (livestock species) and 
hamburger, with or without added seasonings, unless an exemption 
applies. Similarly, FSIS proposed to require that nutrition labels be 
provided for all ground or chopped poultry (kind), with or without 
added seasonings, unless an exemption applies. Under the proposed rule, 
products that would be required to bear nutrition labels include 
single-ingredient, raw hamburger, ground beef, ground beef patties, 
ground chicken, ground turkey, ground chicken patties, ground pork, and 
ground lamb.
    In the proposed rule, FSIS explained that, unlike other single-
ingredient, raw products, producers are able to formulate precisely the 
fat content of ground or chopped products. Therefore, in this respect, 
these products are similar to products in the existing mandatory 
program that are required to bear nutrition labels (66 FR 4975, January 
18, 2001). FSIS noted that other single-ingredient, raw products cannot 
be formulated in the same manner or to the same degree as ground beef 
products (66 FR 4976, January 18, 2001).
    FSIS noted that it believed that consumers could not easily see the 
fat in ground or chopped beef. In ground or chopped beef products, the 
fat is uniformly distributed throughout the product, and is not clearly 
distinguishable on the surface of the product (66 FR 4975, January 18, 
2001). FSIS also explained that the Agency believed that consumers 
cannot estimate the level of fat in ground or chopped beef and cannot 
compare the levels of fat in these products to those in other products 
(66 FR 4975, January 18, 2001). Similarly, FSIS explained that ground 
lamb and ground pork may contain varying amounts of fat and varying 
nutrient content, which consumers cannot visually detect (66 FR 4976, 
January 18, 2001). Additionally, FSIS noted that producers sometimes 
use meat from advanced meat recovery (AMR) systems and low temperature 
rendering in ground or chopped beef or pork products, which can affect 
their nutrient content (66 FR 4975 and 4976, January 18, 2001). 
Finally, FSIS noted that, as with the fat on ground meat products, 
consumers cannot readily detect the fat content of ground poultry 
products (66 FR 4976, January 18, 2001). For these reasons, FSIS 
tentatively concluded that ground or chopped meat and poultry products 
that did not bear nutrition information would be misbranded under 
section 1(n)(1) of the FMIA and section 4(h)(1) of the PPIA (66 FR 
4977, January 18, 2001).
    FSIS proposed to require that nutrition information for ground or 
chopped products appear on the label of these products (unless an 
exemption applies), as is required for multi-ingredient and heat 
processed products, rather than on point-of-purchase materials because 
ground or chopped products are similar to multi-ingredient and heat 
processed products in that certain parameters, such as their fat 
content, can be controlled precisely to obtain the desired product. In 
addition, because there are numerous formulations of ground or chopped 
products, it would be difficult for producers or retailers to develop 
point-of-purchase materials that would address all the different 
formulations that exist for these products. Furthermore, it would be 
difficult for consumers to find the correct information for a specific 
ground or chopped product on point-of-purchase materials that include 
information concerning numerous formulations of these products (66 FR 
4977, January 18, 2001).
    Exemptions: FSIS proposed that certain exemptions from nutrition 
labeling requirements would apply to the major cuts of single-
ingredient, raw meat and poultry products and ground or chopped meat 
and poultry products. FSIS proposed the following

[[Page 67738]]

exemptions from nutrition labeling requirements for ground or chopped 
products: ground or chopped products that qualify for the small 
business exemption in Sec. Sec.  317.400(a)(1) and 381.500(a)(1); 
ground or chopped products in packages that have a total surface area 
available to bear labeling of less than 12 square inches, provided that 
the product's labeling includes no nutrition claims or nutrition 
information and provided that an address or telephone number that a 
consumer can use to obtain the required information is included on the 
label; ground or chopped products that are intended for further 
processing; ground or chopped products that are not for sale to 
consumers; ground or chopped products that are in small packages that 
are individually wrapped packages of less than \1/2\ ounce net weight; 
ground or chopped products that are custom slaughtered or prepared; and 
ground or chopped products that are intended for export.
    FSIS proposed the following exemptions for major cuts of single-
ingredient, raw products that are not ground or chopped: major cuts 
intended for further processing; major cuts not for sale to consumers; 
major cuts in small packages that are individually wrapped packages of 
less than \1/2\ ounce net weight; major cuts that are custom 
slaughtered or prepared; and major cuts that are intended for export.
    FSIS proposed to exempt ground or chopped products that qualified 
for the small business exemption from nutrition labeling requirements 
for the main reason stated in the January 6, 1993, final rule: because 
these requirements would create undue economic hardship for small 
businesses (58 FR 638). FSIS stated in the proposed rule that it did 
not believe that the reasons that necessitated the establishment of the 
small business exemption, as explained in the January 6, 1993 final 
rule, are applicable to the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat 
and poultry products produced by small businesses. For these products, 
FSIS proposed that nutrition information may be provided on labels or, 
alternatively, at their point-of-purchase. In addition, FSIS explained 
that it intended to make point-of-purchase materials available over the 
Internet free of charge. Therefore, the nutrition labeling requirement 
for major cuts of single-ingredient, raw products should not impose an 
economic hardship for ``small businesses'', including those that are 
retail stores (66 FR 4978, January 18, 2001).
    In the preamble to the January 6, 1993, final rule, FSIS explained 
that it was proposing an exemption from nutrition labeling requirements 
for products intended for further processing and products not for sale 
to consumers because consumers do not see the nutrition information on 
products used for further processing or products that are not for sale 
to consumers. The Agency also explained that it would exempt 
individually wrapped packages of less than \1/2\ ounce net weight, 
provided no nutrition claim or nutrition information was made on the 
label, because these products are an insignificant part of the diet. 
With regard to the custom exemption, the Agency explained that an 
exemption should apply because these custom services are performed 
solely for individuals. Finally, the Agency explained that products 
intended for export should be exempt because these products are labeled 
according to the requirements of the country where the product is to be 
exported (58 FR 639, January 6, 1993). In the January 18, 2001, 
proposed rule, the Agency proposed these exemptions because the Agency 
had tentatively determined that the bases for these exemptions, as 
explained in the January 6, 1993, final rule, are valid as applied to 
nutrition labeling for ground or chopped products and for major cuts of 
single-ingredient, raw products. Therefore, FSIS proposed that any 
ground or chopped product or major cut of single-ingredient, raw 
product that qualifies for any of these exemptions will continue to be 
exempt (66 FR 4979, January 18, 2001).
    Under current regulations, products in packages that have a total 
surface area available to bear labeling of less than 12 square inches 
are exempt from nutrition labeling, provided the product's labeling 
includes no nutrition claims or nutrition information and provided that 
an address or telephone number that a consumer can use to obtain the 
required information is included on the label. FSIS allowed for 
nutrition information to be provided by alternative means for products 
of this size in order to incorporate sufficient flexibility in the 
regulations (58 FR 47625, January 6, 1993). As explained in the 
proposed rule, for ground or chopped products, FSIS believes it is 
necessary to provide this flexibility for products in packages that 
have a total surface area available to bear labeling of less than 12 
square inches, provided that the labels for these products bear no 
nutrition claims or nutrition information. However, because nutrition 
information for the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and 
poultry products may be provided on point-of-purchase materials, FSIS 
proposed that the provisions for providing nutrition labeling by 
alternate means for products in packages that have a total surface area 
available to bear labeling of less than 12 square inches would not 
apply to the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry 
products (66 FR 4979, January 18, 2001).
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, FSIS explained that 
restaurant menus that include ground or chopped products generally do 
not constitute nutrition labeling or fall within the scope of the 
proposed regulations. Similarly, although a restaurant menu would most 
likely not include a major cut of single-ingredient, raw product, if it 
did, the menu would not fall within the scope of the proposed 
regulations. Finally, the preamble explained that, under the proposed 
rule, any ground or chopped product or major cut of single-ingredient, 
raw product represented or purported to be specifically for infants and 
children less than 4 years of age would not be allowed to include 
certain nutrient content declarations, because infants and children 
less than 4 years of age have different nutrition needs than adults and 
children older than 4 years of age (66 FR 4979, January 18, 2001).
    In the 1993 final rule on nutrition labeling, FSIS exempted from 
mandatory nutrition labeling requirements multi-ingredient products 
processed at retail, and ready-to-eat products packaged or portioned at 
retail. The reasons that FSIS provided these exemptions in the 1993 
final rule were that FSIS believed that it would be impractical to 
enforce nutrition labeling requirements on these products prepared or 
served at retail and because the Agency concluded, based on a review of 
National Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) data, that the average person's 
diet consisted of an insignificant proportion of ready-to-eat retail 
packaged products or retail processed products (58 FR 639, January 6, 
1993).
    The proposed rule did not provide an exemption for ready-to-eat 
ground or chopped products packaged or portioned at retail, or multi-
ingredient ground or chopped products that are processed at retail 
because, as FSIS explained in the 2001 nutrition labeling proposed 
rule, there may be a significant amount of multi-ingredient ground beef 
retail processed products or ready-to-eat retail packaged products. 
Also, FSIS explained that the Agency no longer believes enforcement of 
nutrition labeling requirements at retail stores to be impractical 
because FSIS is already conducting testing for Escherichia coli

[[Page 67739]]

(E. coli) O157:H7 at retail (66 FR 4979, January 18, 2001).
    For further explanation of the reasons for the proposed exemptions, 
see 66 FR 4978-4980, January 18, 2001.
    Nonmajor Cuts of Single-Ingredient, Raw Meat and Poultry Products 
That Are Not Ground or Chopped: FSIS did not propose to require 
nutrition information for single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry 
products that are not major cuts and that are not ground or chopped. 
However, FSIS proposed that if nutrition information is provided for 
these products, it must be provided according to the existing 
guidelines for the current voluntary nutrition labeling program. 
Therefore, under the proposed rule, if nutrition information were 
provided for these products, it would be consistent with the nutrition 
information required for the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw 
products. In the preamble to the proposed rule, FSIS explained that the 
Agency could not determine whether it would be beneficial to require 
nutrition labeling for nonmajor cuts that are not ground or chopped 
until it assessed whether adequate nutrition information is being 
provided for these products (66 FR 4974, January 18, 2001).
    Enforcement and Compliance: FSIS conducts sampling and nutrient 
analysis of products that fall under the mandatory nutrition labeling 
program. FSIS proposed that the procedures set forth for FSIS product 
sampling and nutrient analysis in Sec. Sec.  317.309(h)(1) through 
(h)(8) and 381.409(h)(1) through (h)(8) would be applicable to ground 
or chopped meat and to ground or chopped poultry products, 
respectively. FSIS explained that under the proposal, FSIS would sample 
and conduct nutrient analysis of ground or chopped products to verify 
compliance with nutrition labeling requirements, even if nutrition 
labeling on these products is based on the most current representative 
data base values contained in USDA's National Nutrient Data Bank or the 
USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference and there are no 
claims on the labeling. Therefore, FSIS would treat these products as 
it treats other products required to bear nutrition labels (66 FR 4980, 
January 18, 2001).
    FSIS explained that it would treat ground or chopped products in 
this way because the fat content of these products can vary 
significantly. In addition, the preamble to the proposed rule stated 
that FSIS employees cannot visually assess whether nutrition 
information on the label of ground or chopped products accurately 
reflects the labeled products' contents because, in most cases, it is 
not possible to visually assess the level of fat in a ground or chopped 
product (66 FR 4980, January 18, 2001).
    FSIS also proposed that if nutrition labeling of the major cuts of 
single-ingredient, raw products (other than ground beef or ground pork) 
is based on USDA's National Nutrient Data Bank or the USDA's National 
Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, and there are no nutrition 
claims on the labeling, FSIS would not sample and conduct a nutrient 
analysis of the products. The preamble explained that, for the major 
cuts, FSIS personnel can visually identify the particular cut. FSIS 
further explained that, if the nutrition information for these products 
is based on USDA's National Nutrient Data Bank or the USDA National 
Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, and there are no nutrition 
claims on the labeling, it is not necessary for FSIS to verify the 
accuracy of the data because they are USDA data. USDA has already 
evaluated these USDA data and determined that they are valid (66 FR 
4980, January 18, 2001).
    Permitting Percent Lean Statements on labels or in labeling of 
ground or chopped products: FSIS also proposed to permit a statement of 
lean percentage on the label or in labeling of ground or chopped meat 
and poultry products that do not meet the regulatory criteria for ``low 
fat,'' provided that a statement of the fat percentage is also 
displayed on the label or in labeling. FSIS proposed that the required 
statement of fat percentage be contiguous to, in lettering of the same 
color, size, and type as, and on the same color background as, the 
statement of lean percentage. FSIS stated that many consumers have 
become accustomed to this labeling on ground beef products, and that 
FSIS believed this labeling provided a quick, simple, and accurate 
means of comparing all ground or chopped meat and poultry products (66 
FR 4981, January 18, 2001).

Provisions of the Supplemental Proposed Rule

    Major cuts and nonmajor cuts that are not ground or chopped: 
Consistent with the proposal, should this rule become final, FSIS will 
require nutrition information for the major cuts, either on their label 
or at their point-of-purchase. The provisions of the voluntary 
nutrition labeling program will be mandatory for the major cuts. As 
FSIS proposed, ``ground beef regular without added seasonings,'' 
``ground beef about 17% fat,'' and ``ground pork'' will no longer be 
included in the list of major cuts in Sec.  317.344 because FSIS has 
decided to treat ground meat and poultry products differently than 
single cuts of meat for the purposes of this regulation. Should this 
rule become final, ground meat and poultry products will be required to 
bear nutrition labeling on their packages, unless an exemption applies. 
Nutrition information at the point-of-purchase for ground or chopped 
products will not meet the requirements of these regulations.
    FSIS believes that without nutrition information, consumers are not 
able to assess the nutrient content of the major cuts and, thus, cannot 
make educated decisions about these products based on nutrition 
information. FSIS has concluded that the lack of nutrition information 
for the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw products, either on their 
label or at their point-of-purchase, makes these products misbranded 
under 21 U.S.C. 601(n)(1) and 453(h)(1). Although FSIS believes that 
nutrition information on the labels of individual packages of the major 
cuts of single-ingredient, raw products is useful, this final rule 
provides that nutrition information for these products may be provided 
at their point-of-purchase.
    In the 1991 proposed rule and the 1993 final rule on nutrition 
labeling, FSIS stated that if it determined, during any evaluation of 
its voluntary guidelines, that significant participation did not exist, 
it would initiate proposed rulemaking to determine whether it would be 
beneficial to require nutrition labeling on single-ingredient, raw meat 
and poultry products (56 FR 60306, November 27, 1991; 58 FR 640, 
January 5, 1993). Therefore, FSIS initiated rulemaking to propose 
requiring nutrition labeling for the major cuts of single-ingredient, 
raw products. Through this rulemaking, FSIS has determined that because 
nutrition information has not been universally available for the major 
cuts of single-ingredient products, consumers have not been able to 
assess the nutrient content of these products and, thus, cannot make 
educated choices about them, and about the significant portion of their 
diet that these products represent, based on nutrition information. 
Without nutrition information, the labeling of major cuts of single-
ingredient, raw meat and poultry products fails to include material 
facts about the consequences of consuming these products. FSIS has 
concluded that the lack of nutrition information for the major cuts of 
single-ingredient, raw products, either on their label or at their 
point-of-purchase, makes these products misbranded under 21 U.S.C. 
601(n)(1) and 453(h)(1). FSIS has determined that this rule is 
necessary to ensure that consumers obtain nutrition information 
concerning

[[Page 67740]]

these products. Through the supplemental proposed regulatory impact 
analysis (PRIA), FSIS has determined that this rule would result in 
benefits to consumers and net benefits to society.
    Consistent with the proposed rule, this supplemental proposed rule 
will not require nutrition information for nonmajor cuts of single-
ingredient, raw meat and poultry products that are not ground or 
chopped.
    FSIS has determined that it is not appropriate or necessary to 
require nutrition information for nonmajor cuts that are not ground or 
chopped at this time. They do not contribute in a major way to the 
diet. Thus, at this time, the consequences of consuming these products 
cannot be considered to be a material fact. In the future, FSIS will 
reassess the production and consumption volume of nonmajor cuts that 
are not ground or chopped and will determine the levels of consumption 
of these products and whether sufficient nutrition information is being 
made available about them. After FSIS assesses the volume of these 
products and assesses the adequacy of nutrition information provided 
for them, FSIS will determine whether it is necessary to propose 
nutrition labeling requirements for these products, and whether 
nutrition labeling requirements for these products would be beneficial.
    Should this rule become effective, if establishments or retail 
facilities voluntarily provide nutrition information for nonmajor cuts 
of meat and poultry products that are not ground or chopped, they will 
have to provide it according to the nutrition labeling requirements for 
the major cuts. Should establishments or retail facilities choose to 
provide nutrition information for these products, they will have to 
either provide it at the point-of-purchase, in accordance with Sec.  
317.345 or Sec.  381.445, or on their label, in accordance with Sec.  
317.309 or Sec.  381.409. Thus, the nutrition labeling provisions for 
these products will be consistent with those for the voluntary 
nutrition labeling program.
    As proposed, the supplemental proposed rule would allow nutrition 
information for the major cuts and nonmajor cuts of single-ingredient, 
raw products that are not ground or chopped to be declared on either an 
``as packaged'' basis or an ``as consumed'' basis because most of these 
products will not need FSIS compliance scrutiny. If FSIS conducts 
nutrient analysis of products under 317.309(h) or 381.409(h), it does 
so on the packaged product. If nutrition information for these products 
is based on USDA's National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, 
and there are no claims on the labeling, FSIS will not conduct a 
nutrient analysis of these raw products and, therefore, will not 
evaluate ``as packaged'' nutrition labeling information for these 
products.
    Also consistent with the proposed rule, under this supplemental 
proposed rule, the declaration of the number of servings per container 
would not need to be included on the nutrition label for the major or 
nonmajor cuts of single-ingredient, raw products that are not ground or 
chopped, because these products are typically random weight products. 
Existing regulations do not require the number of servings on the 
nutrition label of random weight products (see Sec. Sec.  
317.309(b)(10)(iii) and 381.409(b)(10)(iii)).
    Ground or Chopped Products: Consistent with the proposed rule, this 
supplemental proposed rule would extend the mandatory nutrition 
labeling requirements to all ground or chopped products, including 
single-ingredient, raw ground or chopped products, unless an exemption 
applies. Should this rule become effective, FSIS will require that 
nutrition labels be provided for all ground or chopped products 
(livestock species) and hamburger, with or without added seasonings, 
unless an exemption applies. This rule would also require that 
nutrition labels be provided for all ground or chopped poultry 
products, with or without added seasonings, unless an exemption 
applies. After analyzing the comments and for the reasons discussed in 
the proposed rule and discussed below in the response to comments 
section, FSIS has concluded that ground or chopped meat and poultry 
products that do not bear nutrition information on their label are 
misbranded under 21 U.S.C. 601(n)(1) and 453(h)(1).
    FSIS recognizes that single-ingredient, raw ground or chopped 
products have not been required to bear nutrition labels. In the 
proposed rule, FSIS explained that, on June 3, 1997, the Center for 
Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) submitted a petition to the 
Agency stating that FSIS should require complete ``Nutrition Facts'' on 
ground beef labels that make nutrient content claims. This petition 
brought many of the issues concerning the need for nutrition labeling 
of ground or chopped products to FSIS's attention. Consistent with 
CSPI's petition, FSIS has determined that nutrition information should 
be required on packages of all ground or chopped meat and poultry 
products, unless an exemption applies. (For more information on the 
petition from CSPI, see 66 FR 4975, January 18, 2001).
    Most industry commenters did not support requiring on-package 
nutrition information for ground or chopped products. Some of these 
commenters supported requiring nutrition labeling for these products at 
their point-of-purchase. Individuals, consumer organizations, and 
nutrition organizations supported mandatory nutrition labeling on the 
packages of ground or chopped products.
    FSIS requests comments on how retailers or official establishments 
would prepare point-of-purchase materials that would address all 
possible combinations of percent fat and percent lean in ground or 
chopped products. FSIS also requests comments on how point-of-purchase 
materials would convey the nutrient values of ground or chopped 
products that contain AMR product or product from low temperature 
rendering (e.g., finely textured beef or lean finely textured beef). In 
addition, FSIS requests comments on how consumers would identify which 
nutrient values on point-of-purchase materials correspond to specific 
ground or chopped products available in the store, if a statement of 
fat percentage or lean percentage is not required on the product. Such 
statements would not be required under this supplemental proposed rule. 
Finally, FSIS requests surveys, studies, or other data on consumers' 
perception and use of point-of-purchase materials versus nutrition 
labels for ground or chopped products and on consumers' understanding 
of the nutrient content of such products.
    Exemptions: This supplemental proposal would provide all the 
exemptions that it proposed for the major cuts of single-ingredient, 
raw meat and poultry products and for ground or chopped products for 
the reasons set forth in the proposal. Consistent with the proposed 
rule, it does not provide an exemption for ready-to-eat ground or 
chopped products packaged or portioned at retail or multi-ingredient 
ground or chopped products that are processed at retail. As FSIS 
explained in the 2001 nutrition labeling proposed rule, there may be a 
significant amount of multi-ingredient ground beef retail processed 
products or ready-to-eat retail packaged products. Also, as was stated 
in the proposed rule, FSIS no longer believes enforcement of nutrition 
labeling requirements at retail stores to be impractical because FSIS 
is already conducting testing for E. coli O157:H7 at retail.
    In response to comments, the supplemental proposal provides an

[[Page 67741]]

exemption from nutrition labeling requirements for products that are 
ground or chopped at an individual customer's request and that are 
prepared and served or sold at retail, provided that the labels or 
labeling of these products bear no nutrition claims or nutrition 
information.
    Enforcement and Compliance: Consistent with the proposed rule and 
the reasons discussed in it, under this supplemental proposed rule, 
FSIS would sample and conduct nutrient analysis of ground or chopped 
products to verify compliance with nutrition labeling requirements, 
even if nutrition labeling on these products is based on the most 
current representative database values contained in USDA's National 
Nutrient Data Bank or the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard 
Reference and there are no claims on the labeling. Also consistent with 
the proposed rule, for the major cuts that are not ground or chopped, 
if nutrition labeling of these products is based on USDA's National 
Nutrient Data Bank or the USDA's National Nutrient Database for 
Standard Reference, and there are no nutrition claims on the labeling, 
FSIS would not sample and conduct a nutrient analysis of these 
products.
    Permitting Percent Lean Statements on labels or in labeling of 
ground or chopped products: Consistent with the proposed rule, the 
supplemental proposed rule would permit a statement of lean percentage 
on the label or in labeling of ground or chopped meat and poultry 
products that do not meet the regulatory criteria for ``low fat,'' as 
long as a statement of fat percentage is contiguous to, in lettering of 
the same color, size, and type as, and on the same color background as, 
the statement of lean percentage. Because the percent fat statement 
must be contiguous to the percent lean statement and must be in 
lettering of the same color, size, and type as, and on the same color 
background as, the lean percentage statement, FSIS believes that the 
percent lean statements will not mislead consumers.
    Under the proposed rule, if small businesses produced ground or 
chopped product and included a statement of lean percentage and fat 
percentage on the product's label or in labeling, the business would 
have been required to include nutrition information on the product 
label. Based on the National Cattleman's Beef Association (NCBA) 
National Meat Case Study in 2004, 93 percent of ground beef packages 
had statements of lean or fat percentages. Sixty-eight percent of 
packages with such statements had nutrition facts panels and 25 percent 
did not. Because 25 percent of ground beef packages in the NCBA study 
had statements of lean or fat percentages but did not have nutrition 
facts panels, FSIS found it reasonable to conclude that many small 
businesses may include a statement of the lean percentage on the label 
of ground products but may not include nutrition facts panels on the 
product label. On this basis, FSIS concluded that requiring small 
businesses that use the lean percentage statement on the label of 
ground products to also include nutrition information on the label of 
such products may result in significant expenses for small businesses. 
Therefore, in this supplemental proposed rule, small businesses that 
use statements of percent fat and percent lean on the label or in 
labeling of ground products would be exempt from nutrition labeling 
requirements, provided they include no other nutrition claims or 
nutrition information on the product labels or labeling.
    The majority of industry associations supported the use of a 
statement of lean percentage on the label or in labeling of ground 
products that do not meet the regulatory criteria for ``low fat.'' 
Because of the longstanding use of the statements of percent fat and 
percent lean on the label or in labeling of ground beef and hamburger 
products, FSIS has concluded that such statements on the label or in 
labeling of ground products produced by small businesses will not 
mislead consumers, even if the small businesses do not include 
nutrition information on the products' labels.
    However, individuals and consumer and nutrition organizations 
generally did not support the use of statements of lean percentages on 
the label or in labeling of ground or chopped products that do not meet 
the regulatory criteria for ``low fat.'' Therefore, FSIS requests 
comments on whether such statements should be prohibited on the label 
or in labeling of ground or chopped products that do not meet the 
regulatory criteria for ``low fat.'' FSIS requests comments on whether 
lean percentage statements are inherently misleading to consumers on 
the label or in labeling of ground or chopped product that does not 
meet the regulatory criteria for ``low fat'' when contiguous to fat 
percentage statements, as the rule would require. FSIS also requests 
comments on whether lean percentage statements are redundant on the 
label or in labeling of such products when contiguous to fat percentage 
statements. If commenters believe the regulations should prohibit lean 
percentage statements on the label or in labeling of ground or chopped 
products that do not meet the ``low fat'' criteria, FSIS requests 
comments on whether a fat percentage statement on the label or in 
labeling of such products would be useful. If commenters believe such a 
statement would be useful, do they believe it should be required on the 
label or in labeling for these products?
    FSIS also requests comments on whether the final rule should allow 
a lean percentage statement and fat percentage statement on the label 
or in labeling of ground or chopped products produced by small 
businesses if such product does not include nutrition information on 
the product label. If commenters believe that nutrition information 
should be required on labels of any ground or chopped product for which 
a lean percentage and fat percentage statement is provided on the label 
or in labeling, FSIS requests comment on the costs of this requirement 
for small businesses.
    FSIS requests copies of surveys, studies, or other data on 
consumers' use and understanding of lean percentage and fat percentage 
statements on ground or chopped products.

Effective Date

    Should this rule become final, FSIS intends that the requirements 
for ground or chopped products would become effective on January 1, 
2012. FSIS issued final regulations to establish this date as the 
uniform compliance date for new food labeling regulations that are 
issued between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010 (73 FR 75564; 
December 12, 2008). As is discussed in the response to comments below, 
FSIS issued the uniform compliance regulations to minimize costs 
associated with on-package labels. Because this supplemental proposed 
rule would allow for the presentation of nutrition information for the 
major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products at their 
point-of-purchase, FSIS intends to make the labeling requirements for 
the major cuts effective one year from the date of publication of the 
final rule. FSIS requests comments on these two planned effective 
dates.

Availability of Nutrition Information

    FSIS intends to make available nutrition labeling materials that 
can be used at the point-of-purchase of the major cuts at the following 
Internet address: https://www.fsis.usda.gov. Also, the Food Marketing 
Institute (FMI) has made available materials that can be used at the 
point-of-purchase of the major cuts at the following Internet address: 
https://www.fmi.org/consumer/nutrifacts/.

[[Page 67742]]

    The USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference is 
developed and maintained by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and 
can be found on the Internet at the following address: https://www.ars.usda.gov\nutrientdata. Information is available at this site 
for ground beef products containing 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30% 
fat. In addition, ARS has included a calculator on the Internet, with 
the Database. Parties can enter the amount of fat (5% to 30% percent 
fat) or lean (70% to 95% lean) in a particular raw ground beef product, 
and the calculator will calculate the nutrient values for the product 
based on the fat value entered.
    The USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference also 
includes a set of tables with nutrient values for ground pork with fat 
levels from 4 to 28%, in one percent increments. ARS did not develop a 
calculator because, at this time, labeling for ground pork at retail 
does not include statements of percentage fat or percentage lean. The 
USDA Nutrient Database also includes nutrient values for raw and cooked 
ground chicken but does not include nutrient values for such product at 
varying fat levels. Ground chicken is not typically produced over a 
wide range of fat levels. ARS also has nutrient data for three types of 
commonly marketed ground turkey products. Nutrient values for these 
products are not yet in the database. However, ARS expects that the 
nutrient values for these ground turkey products will be available in 
the database by August 2010. Most ground poultry products are produced 
and labeled at Federal establishments rather than at retail.
    FSIS requests comments on whether provision of nutritional tables 
will be sufficient for retailers and establishments to provide 
nutrition labels for ground pork. FSIS also requests comments on 
whether the available data for ground chicken and ground turkey in the 
USDA Nutrient Database will be sufficient for retailers and 
establishments.
    Below are examples of nutrition labels for ground or chopped 
products that would meet the requirements of the supplemental proposed 
rule. Should this rule become final, FSIS will make additional examples 
of acceptable nutrition labels for ground or chopped products available 
on the Agency's Web site.
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P

[[Page 67743]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE09.421


[[Page 67744]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE09.422

BILLING CODE 3410-DM-C

Summary of and Response to Comments

    FSIS received approximately 5,000 comments on the proposed rule 
from individuals, consumer advocacy organizations, academia, trade and 
professional associations, health and nutrition organizations, two 
county health departments, meat and poultry producers, and food 
retailers. The majority of the comments (approximately 3,500) were 
generated from a letter writing campaign initiated by a consumer 
organization. In addition, there were approximately 450 form letters 
that expressed consumers' concerns and did not identify an affiliation 
with any organization, approximately 60 form letters from a consumer 
co-op organization, and two sets of form letters from relatively small 
retail chains (approximately 10 letters in each set).
    A summary of issues raised by commenters and the Agency responses 
follows.

Nutrition Labeling for the Major Cuts of Single-Ingredient, Raw Meat 
and Poultry Products

    Comment: The majority of letters from individuals, consumer groups, 
and health organizations stated that FSIS should require on-package 
nutrition labeling for all single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry 
products (major and nonmajor cuts). They stated that point-of-purchase 
materials fail to convey effectively the nutrition information for 
specific fresh meat or poultry products because the materials are 
difficult to find and difficult to read. Some of these commenters also 
stated that nutrition labels are particularly important for meat and 
poultry products because they are a major source of fat, saturated 
fatty acids, and calories.
    A health organization stated that because the same cut of meat can 
be labeled by different names, consumers would be better served by 
nutrition information on the labels of the products. Several commenters 
stated that an advantage of including nutrition information on the 
label is that consumers could review the nutrient content once the 
product is taken home, and others, besides the primary food purchaser, 
would have better access to the nutrition information. A nutrition 
association stated that if FSIS permits point-of-purchase information 
for fresh meat and poultry packages, the Agency should require on-
package messages directing consumers to point-of-purchase labeling at 
another location in the store.
    One consumer association noted that a recent telephone survey 
showed an overwhelming percentage (78%) of the respondents said that it 
was ``more useful'' to provide nutrition information about raw meat and 
poultry products on package labels than on posters or brochures.
    Comments from a coalition of health and consumer organizations 
suggested that the nutrient content for ground products often has less 
variance than the nutrient content of specific cuts. Thus, the 
coalition believes that it is more important to provide nutrition 
information on the labeling of major cuts than on ground products. The 
coalition also stated that the reasons provided by the Agency for 
mandating nutrition labeling on the packaging of ground products would 
be the reasons for mandating nutrition labeling on

[[Page 67745]]

packaging of the major cuts of meat or poultry (see 66 FR 4977). This 
coalition also stated that there are more major cuts than there are 
ground products, and it would be difficult for producers or retailers 
to develop point-of-purchase materials to address the different 
formulations and trim levels of the major cuts; and it would be 
difficult for consumers to locate the appropriate information for a 
particular cut on the point-of-purchase materials.
    One health group stated that although on-package labeling may be a 
more effective approach for conveying nutrition information than point-
of-purchase materials, the organization has historically supported the 
use of point-of-purchase materials as an acceptable means of nutrition 
labeling. This commenter also stated that for single-ingredient, raw 
products, other than ground or chopped products, the use of 
standardized averages is likely to be the most effective way to provide 
nutrition information, either on the package or at point-of-purchase. 
An individual also stated that for many major cuts, having the 
nutrition label next to the product would be sufficient.
    A consumer organization did not believe that consumers have 
reasonable expectations as to the nutrient content, including the fat, 
of raw meat and poultry products. The organization referenced a 
consumer telephone survey in which most respondents were unable to 
identify which cut of meat had the highest fat content among four 
choices. One medical organization stated that although it may be true 
that the nutrient content of the major cuts is relatively uniform, 
consumers generally have no idea of the nutrient content of these 
foods.
    The majority of industry and industry associations supported the 
continued use of point-of-purchase nutrition information materials for 
the major cuts, rather than nutrition labels on the packages of these 
products. Two of these groups presented results of focus group research 
demonstrating that consumers currently understand and use point-of-
purchase materials in numbers comparable to the number of consumers who 
read and use the nutrition information on the labeling of products 
subject to the requirements of the mandatory nutrition labeling 
program. Additionally, according to the commenters, the focus group 
research demonstrates that consumers are generally satisfied with the 
current nutrition information provided for fresh meats.
    One industry association stated that the use of individual 
nutrition labels may result in consumers' viewing a smaller portion of 
the product and paying a higher amount for the product, because of the 
cost associated with maintaining a vast number of labels to be placed 
on the package. Additionally, according to this commenter, if the 
consumer intends to trim the fat from meat or remove the skin from 
poultry products, the nutrition information on the label would not 
adequately represent the product's nutrition information after fat had 
been trimmed from it or skin from it had been removed.
    One industry commenter stated that it is extremely difficult to 
provide accurate nutrition information for each major muscle cut 
because nutrient content varies depending on the breed and quality of 
each animal. Another industry commenter stated that although 
``average'' numbers from the USDA database are appropriate for point-
of-purchase materials, because of the potential variations in specific 
individual cuts, trims and grades, the average numbers are not 
appropriate for on-package labeling, where consumers justifiably expect 
a label to accurately define the exact nutrient content of what is in 
that package.
    Two industry commenters stated that according to the Agency's own 
survey, 62.7% of men and 57.9% of women rarely or never use the 
nutrition information provided on raw meat, poultry or fish (see 66 FR 
4982, January 18, 2001). They speculated that this low usage may in 
part be explained by the fact that consumers already have reasonable 
expectations regarding the nutrient values of these products as a 
result of industry's voluntary efforts to provide this information. 
Similarly, one retail association stated that consumers have reasonable 
expectations as to the nutrient content of major cuts, and that the 
nutrient content of a given major cut is relatively uniform across the 
market. An industry commenter stated that, unlike ground meat, 
consumers can see and remove the fat from whole muscle meat.
    Another industry organization stated that single-ingredient, raw 
meat and poultry products have a unique quality: the structure of the 
cut, including the amount of fat, is visible both on the exterior and 
within the muscle cut. As a result, consumers can visibly discern which 
products are leanest. However, the commenter also believed that 
consumers would benefit from additional nutrition information because 
consumers cannot discern the quantitative nutrient content of single-
ingredient, meat and poultry products without the nutrition information 
provided on point-of-purchase materials.
    Response: As FSIS proposed, should this rule become final, it will 
require that nutrition information be provided for the major cuts of 
single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, either on the label 
or at the point-of-purchase. Although FSIS continues to agree with the 
commenters who stated that nutrition labels on the major cuts of 
single-ingredient, raw products are useful, FSIS believes that 
consumers have reasonable expectations as to the nutrient content of 
these products and can make comparative judgments about the fat content 
of the various cuts. While consumers' expectations for these products 
may not be perfect, they are significantly more aware of the 
nutritional content of single cuts of meat than the nutritional content 
of ground meat. Thus, the rule allows an alternative way of providing 
nutrition information for major cuts of single-ingredient, raw 
products. As is discussed above, even though FSIS believes that 
consumers have reasonable expectations concerning the nutrient content 
of the major cuts, without nutrition information for these products, 
consumers cannot assess specific nutrient levels in them and cannot 
make educated choices about consuming them. These educated choices are 
significant to a consumer's effort to construct a healthy diet.
    FSIS does not believe that the telephone survey results used by a 
consumer organization in support of their belief that most consumers do 
not have reasonable expectations of the nutrient content of raw meat 
and poultry demonstrate that consumers do not have reasonable 
expectations concerning the major cuts. FSIS does not believe it is 
reasonable to expect consumers in a telephone survey to be able to 
identify which individual cuts of meat or poultry have the highest fat 
levels. However, if shown pictures of the various cuts (that are not 
ground or chopped), FSIS believes that most consumers could identify 
the cut with the most fat, by its internal marbling and external fat 
cover. The medical organization commenter that stated that consumers 
generally have no idea of the nutrient content of the major cuts 
provided no data to substantiate this statement.
    Although individuals, and consumer organization commenters, stated 
that point-of-purchase materials are difficult to read, they provided 
no explanation for their assertion that these materials are difficult 
to read. Their other concern about the difficulty of finding point-of-
purchase materials will be taken care of

[[Page 67746]]

by this rule. Should it become final, the rule will require that point-
of-purchase materials be made available in close proximity to the food 
(Sec.  317.345(a)(3) and Sec.  381.445(a)(3)).
    Regarding the health organization's comment that the same cut of 
meat can be labeled by different names, and thus consumers would be 
better informed by nutrition information on a product's label, FSIS is 
not aware that consumers are confused about the names of the major cuts 
of single-ingredient, raw products listed on point-of-purchase 
materials. FMI was involved in developing these materials, and that 
organization has the most current names used to designate the major 
cuts. However, if necessary, retail facilities and establishments can 
include multiple names for a major cut on point-of-purchase materials. 
In addition, if FSIS is informed of specific cuts that are identified 
by different names, FSIS will revise the point-of-purchase materials 
that it is making available on the Internet.
    After the comment period for the proposed rule ended, FSIS received 
correspondence from industry stating that the list of major cuts in the 
regulations should be changed to reflect more accurately the most 
popular cuts in the market. This correspondence recommended removing 
certain cuts and adding others. Because FSIS did not propose to amend 
the codified list of major cuts in the regulations and did not provide 
an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the 
list, FSIS is not amending the list of major cuts in the regulations at 
this time. However, FSIS will review this issue, and if the Agency 
determines that a change in the list of major cuts is warranted to 
accurately represent the market, FSIS will pursue future rulemaking.
    Regarding the comments that noted that an advantage of including 
nutrition information on the label is that consumers can review the 
nutrient content of the product once the product is taken home, and 
others besides the primary food purchaser would have better access to 
this information, surveys, including the Diet and Health Knowledge 
Survey (DHKS), show that a majority of individuals report using labels 
while buying foods. Although the DHKS shows that adults who are not 
main household shoppers use labels, the survey shows that the main 
shoppers use labels at a higher rate than those who are not main 
household shoppers. Also, FSIS assumes that if individuals in a 
household have certain nutrition practices and needs, the person who 
purchases food for the household would take other household members' 
needs and preferences into account. In addition, FSIS assumes that 
purchased food would typically be consumed by members of the household 
and not thrown away.
    In response to the comment that the nutrient content of the major 
cuts may be more variable than that of ground products, FSIS recognizes 
that there is significant variability in the nutrient content of the 
major cuts depending on the grade of the product and the levels of 
exterior fat on the products. However, the point-of-purchase materials 
that FSIS and FMI have developed to convey nutrition information for 
the major cuts take into account this variability and reflect average 
nutrition information for these products. The information on the point-
of-purchase materials is meaningful and accurate for the major cuts. 
Consumers can view the point-of-purchase materials to make educated 
choices based on nutrition information among the different major cuts. 
In addition, to further distinguish among different packages of the 
same major cut, consumers can make comparisons based on levels of 
visible fat on the product.
    This coalition's other concern that it would be difficult for 
producers or retailers to develop point-of-purchase materials to 
address the different formulations and trim levels of the major cuts 
need not be a concern. FSIS and FMI have made available nutrition 
information that can be displayed at the point-of-purchase of the major 
cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products. These point-
of-purchase materials will meet the nutrition labeling requirements of 
this rule, should it become final. Furthermore, requiring that all 
major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products bear 
nutrition labels would be a significant cost to the industry based on 
FSIS's supplemental proposed cost analysis.
    Comment: Two industry commenters stated that it was appropriate for 
FSIS to provide point-of-purchase materials via the Internet. They 
believed that this would lessen the burden on retailers unable to 
develop appropriate customized nutrition information. One of these 
commenters also stated that the Agency should develop point-of-purchase 
materials so that the nutrition information supplied would be accurate 
and consistent.
    With regard to the type of point-of-purchase materials used to 
display nutrition information, several commenters stated that easy to 
understand charts that convey the information would be more helpful and 
informative to consumers than a collection of individual labels on 
display. One industry organization commenter, however, stated that each 
option of the display of nutrition information on charts or on 
individual display panels had advan