Common or Usual Name for Raw Meat and Poultry Products Containing Added Solutions, 44855-44865 [2011-18793]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
calendar days of the date on which the
GSM receives the request for a hearing.
The hearing will be an informal
procedure. The exporter or the
exporter’s assignee and/or its counsel
may present any relevant testimony or
documentary evidence to the GSM. A
transcript of the hearing will not
ordinarily be prepared unless the
exporter or the exporter’s assignee bears
the costs involved in preparing the
transcript, although the GSM may
decide to have a transcript prepared at
the expense of the Government. The
GSM will make a decision regarding the
appeal based upon the information
contained in the administrative record.
The GSM will endeavor to issue his or
her written decision within 60 calendar
days of the date of the hearing or the
date of receipt of the transcript, if one
is to be prepared, whichever is later.
(4) The decision of the GSM will be
the final determination of CCC. The
exporter or the exporter’s assignee will
be entitled to no further administrative
appellate rights.
(c) Failure to comply with
determination. If the exporter or the
exporter’s assignee has violated the
terms of this subpart or the payment
guarantee by failing to comply with a
determination made under this section,
and the exporter or the exporter’s
assignee has exhausted its rights under
this section or has failed to exercise
such rights, then CCC will have the right
to take any measures available to CCC
under applicable law.
(d) Exporter’s obligation to perform.
The exporter will continue to have an
obligation to perform pursuant to the
provisions of these regulations and the
terms of the payment guarantee pending
the conclusion of all procedures under
this section.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 1493.195
Miscellaneous provisions.
(a) Maintenance of records and access
to premises. For a period of five years
after the date of expiration of the
coverage of a payment guarantee, the
exporter or the exporter’s assignee, as
applicable, must maintain and make
available all records pertaining to sales
and deliveries of and extension of credit
for agricultural commodities exported in
connection with a GSM–102 payment
guarantee, including those records
generated and maintained by agents,
intervening purchasers, and related
companies involved in special
arrangements with the exporter. The
Secretary of Agriculture and the
Comptroller General of the United
States, through their authorized
representatives, must be given full and
complete access to the premises of the
exporter or the exporter’s assignee, as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Jul 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
applicable, during regular business
hours from the effective date of the
payment guarantee until the expiration
of such five-year period to inspect,
examine, audit, and make copies of the
exporter’s, exporter’s assignee’s, agent’s,
intervening purchaser’s or related
company’s books, records and accounts
concerning transactions relating to the
payment guarantee, including, but not
limited to, financial records and
accounts pertaining to sales, inventory,
processing, and administrative and
incidental costs, both normal and
unforeseen. During such period, the
exporter or the exporter’s assignee may
be required to make available to the
Secretary of Agriculture or the
Comptroller General of the United
States, through their authorized
representatives, records that pertain to
transactions conducted outside the
program, if, in the opinion of the
Director, such records would pertain
directly to the review of transactions
undertaken by the exporter in
connection with the payment guarantee.
(b) Responsibility of program
participants. It is the responsibility of
all exporters, U.S. and foreign financial
institutions to review, and fully
acquaint themselves with, all
regulations, Program Announcements,
and Notices to Participants relating to
the GSM–102 program, as applicable.
All exporters, U.S. and foreign financial
institutions participating in this
program are hereby on notice that they
will be bound by this subpart and any
terms contained in the payment
guarantee and in applicable Program
Announcements.
(c) Submission of documents by
principal officers. All required
submissions, including certifications,
applications, reports, or requests (i.e.,
requests for amendments), by exporters
or exporters’ assignees under this
subpart must be signed by a principal of
the exporter or exporter’s assignee or
their authorized designee(s). In cases
where the designee is acting on behalf
of the principal, the signature must be
accompanied by: wording indicating the
delegation of authority or, in the
alternative, by a certified copy of the
delegation of authority; and the name
and title of the authorized person or
officer. Further, the exporter or
exporter’s assignee must ensure that all
information/reports required under
these regulations are submitted within
the required time limits.
(d) Officials not to benefit. No
member of or delegate to Congress, or
Resident Commissioner, shall be
admitted to any share or part of the
payment guarantee or to any benefit that
may arise there from, but this provision
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44855
shall not be construed to extend to the
payment guarantee if made with a
corporation for its general benefit.
(e) OMB control number assigned
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act. The information collection
requirements contained in this part (7
CFR Part 1493) have been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) in accordance with the
provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and
have been assigned OMB Control
Number 0551–0004.
Dated: June 24, 2011.
Suzanne E. Heinen,
Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity
Credit Corporation and Acting Administrator,
Foreign Agricultural Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–18403 Filed 7–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 319 and 381
[Docket No. FSIS–2010–0012]
RIN 0583–AD41
Common or Usual Name for Raw Meat
and Poultry Products Containing
Added Solutions
Food Safety and Inspection
Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing
to amend its regulations to establish a
common or usual name for raw meat
and poultry products that do not meet
standard of identity regulations and to
which solutions have been added.
Products with added solutions are
sometimes referred to as ‘‘enhanced
products.’’ The Agency is proposing that
the common or usual name for such
products include an accurate
description of the raw meat or poultry
component, the percentage of added
solution incorporated into the raw meat
or poultry product, and the individual
ingredients or multi-ingredient
components in the solution listed in the
descending order of predominance by
weight. FSIS is also proposing that the
print for all words in the common or
usual name appear in a single font size,
color, and style of print and that the
name appear on a single-color
contrasting background. In addition, the
Agency is proposing to remove the
standard of identity regulation for
‘‘ready-to-cook poultry products to
which solutions are added.’’
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
44856
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Submit comments by September
26, 2011.
ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested
persons to submit relevant comments on
the implementation of 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,
Beltsville, MD 20705–5273.
Instructions: All items submitted by
mail or electronic mail must include the
Agency name and docket number FSIS–
2010–0012. 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 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director,
Labeling and Program Delivery Division,
Office of Policy and Program
Development, FSIS, USDA, (301) 504–
0879.
DATES:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Federal Meat Inspection Act
(FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601–695) and Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21
U.S.C. 451–470) (‘‘the Acts’’) provide
that the labels of meat and poultry
products must be approved by the
Secretary of Agriculture, who has
delegated this authority to FSIS, before
these products can enter commerce. The
Acts also prohibit the distribution in
commerce of meat or poultry products
that are adulterated or misbranded.
Under the Acts, a meat or poultry
product is misbranded, among other
circumstances, if its labeling is false or
misleading in any particular or it is
offered for sale under the name of
another food (21 U.S.C. 601(n)(1),
453(h)(1), 601(n)(2), and 453(h)(2)). A
meat or poultry product that is not
subject to a standard of identity (9 CFR
Part 319 and Part 381 Subpart P) is also
misbranded ‘‘* * * unless its label
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Jul 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
bears the common or usual name of the
food, if any there be * * *’’ (21 U.S.C.
601(n)(9)(A) and 453(n)(9)(A)). The
FMIA and PPIA give FSIS broad
authority to promulgate such rules and
regulations as are necessary to carry out
the provisions of the Acts (21 U.S.C. 621
and 463(b)).
To prevent meat and poultry products
from being misbranded, the meat and
poultry products inspection regulations
require that the labels of meat and
poultry products contain specific
information and that such information
be displayed as prescribed in the
regulations (9 CFR part 317 and 381
subpart N). Under the regulations, the
principal display panel on the label of
a meat product and the label of a
poultry product must, among other
information, show the name of the
product. For products that purport to be
or are represented by a regulatory
standard of identity, the name of the
product on the label must be the name
of the food specified in the standard.
For any other product, the name on the
label must be ‘‘the common or usual
name of the food, if any there be.’’ If
there is no common or usual name, the
name on the label must be a ‘‘truthful,
descriptive designation’’ (9 CFR
317.2(c)(1) and 381.117).
FSIS poultry products regulations (9
CFR 381.169) provide that solutions
may be added to ready-to-cook, bone-in
poultry carcasses and parts, increasing
the weight by approximately 3 percent
over the weight of the raw product after
chilling and washing. Poultry products
with solutions that have been added in
accordance with this regulation must be
labeled with a conspicuous, legible, and
descriptive name, including terms that
concisely describe the method of
addition and function of the added
material. The regulation requires that all
major terms in the product name be
printed with the same prominence,
except that the words that describe the
function of the added materials (such as
‘‘injected for Flavored Basting’’) may be
more prominent. A qualifying statement
that identifies the percentage of added
solution must be printed at least onefourth the size of the most prominent
letter in the product name. The
ingredients in the solution must be
identified in the qualifying statement
and must be displayed with a minimum
size requirement of one-eighth the size
of the most prominent letter in the
product name. In addition, 9 CFR
381.169 contains labeling compliance
quality control criteria that must be
approved by the Administrator.
Since 9 CFR 381.169 was codified on
May 16, 1972 (37 FR 9706), and
subsequently amended on October 7,
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1974 (39 FR 36000), several changes
have taken place that have diminished
the relevance of 9 CFR 381.169 in
preventing the labels of poultry that
contain added solutions from being false
or misleading. Poultry processors have
developed technologies, such as using
injectors to inject solutions deep into
the muscle tissue, that incorporate more
than 3 percent solution into products.
While the practice of adding liquid
solution was initially used to flavor the
raw poultry product without
significantly increasing the product’s
net weight, the addition of the increased
levels of solution has resulted in
increasing the total weight of the
finished product. Also, with the May 30,
2000, publication of the Elimination of
Requirements for Partial Quality Control
Programs Final Rule (65 FR 34381), the
quality control criteria used to monitor
the percent added solution per 9 CFR
381.169(c) are no longer in effect.
To provide labeling guidance for
ready-to-cook, bone-in poultry products
with solutions above 3 percent and for
boneless poultry products with any
amount of added solution, neither of
which are covered under 9 CFR 381.169,
the Agency issued Policy Memo 042,
Raw Bone-In Poultry Products
Containing Solutions (February 1982)
and Policy Memo 044A, Raw Boneless
Poultry Containing Solutions
(September 1986). FSIS also issued
Policy Memo 066C, Uncooked Red Meat
Products Containing Added Substances
(November 2004) to provide similar
guidance for the labeling of ‘‘enhanced’’
uncured meat products. The Policy
Memos are available on the FSIS Web
site at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/
larc/Policies/Policy_Memos_082005.pdf.
The intent of labeling guidance
provided in the policy memoranda was
to provide guidance to industry to
develop truthful, easy-to-read labeling
information concerning the solutions
added to products so that consumers
could make informed purchasing
decisions. However, it has come to the
Agency’s attention, through the
petitions discussed below, comments
submitted by the public, and FSIS
review of labels, that some product
labels may not clearly and
conspicuously identify that the raw
meat or poultry products contain added
solution.
Under FSIS’s current regulatory
approach, raw products that contain
added solution and products that do not
contain added solution may have the
same product name. For example, the
name for a single-ingredient chicken
breast and a chicken breast with added
solution is ‘‘chicken breast,’’ even
though one is 100 percent chicken
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
breast and one may be 60 percent
chicken breast and 40 percent solution.
Although the labeling of the product
must include a qualifying statement that
reflects the fact that the product
contains added solution, this may not be
readily apparent to consumers because
the statement is not part of the product
name. For example, through label
review, FSIS has found that it is
common for product labels to contain
product names in bold fonts with strong
contrasting backgrounds, with the
qualifying statement on added solution
printed in tall, narrow, or slanted fonts
at the smallest height permitted, and on
background of poor color contrast.
While such labeling may be consistent
with existing Agency guidance, it may
not clearly identify to consumers that
the products contain added solutions.
Petitions and Public Comments Related
to Products That Contain Added
Solution
Since 2007, FSIS has received two
petitions related to products that
contain added solution. In July 2007,
the Truthful Labeling Coalition (TLC)
submitted a petition to the Agency
requesting that it ‘‘prevent the ongoing
marketing of so-called ‘enhanced’
(added solution) fresh poultry products
in all situations where ingredients
added to such products are not being
adequately labeled to prevent the
consuming public from being misled.’’
Included in the TLC petition were two
consumer research studies.1 2 Though
these studies are not generalizable, they
provide anecdotal evidence that
consumers read and use labels, and that
users of ‘‘enhanced’’ chicken are not
aware that it contains additives until
specifically directed to look at the label.
According to the Sorenson study, even
after looking at the label of an
‘‘enhanced’’ chicken product, about
20% participants in the study that
purchase the chicken failed to realize
that the chicken contains additives.’’ In
addition, almost one-third of these
participants indicated that they ‘‘care a
lot that their chicken contains
additives,’’ and after being informed
about the additives, these participants
said they probably or definitely would
not buy it again. Participants in the
study were also presented with the
following label descriptions that
communicated additive ingredients in
chicken: ‘‘Contains up to 15% water,
salt, and sodium phosphate,’’
1 Russell Research, Fresh Chicken Study Final
Report, June 2006.
2 ‘‘Enhanced’’ Chicken, Consumer Research,
November 2004, SAI Project #04177, Sorensen
Associates, Minneapolis, Minnesota (888–616–
0123), Portland, Oregon (800–542–4321).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Jul 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
‘‘Enhanced with up to 15% solution of
water, salt, and sodium phosphates,’’
‘‘Contains up to 15% chicken broth,’’
and ‘‘Enhanced with up to fifteen
percent chicken broth.’’ Respondents
considered the wording ‘‘Contains up to
15% water, salt, and sodium
phosphates’’ as most accurately
communicating additive ingredients in
chickens.
The TLC petition also pointed out
health concerns associated with the
addition of salt to these products. TLC
submitted a comparison of the sodium
content in 4 ounces of a single
ingredient, raw poultry product (45 mg
sodium) to 4 ounces of a poultry
product with added solution (370 mg
sodium), more than an eightfold
increase in the amount of sodium. TLC
argued that many consumers do not
realize that there may be a significant
difference in sodium content between a
single-ingredient, raw product and a
similar-looking product with added
solution.
In March 2009, the California
Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers
Association submitted a petition to
revoke FSIS’s September 9, 2008, Final
Rule, ‘‘Determining Net Weight
Compliance for Meat and Poultry
Products’’ (73 FR 52189), which
eliminated wet tare provisions for
determining the net weight of packaged
meat and poultry products. The petition
suggested that meat and poultry
products with added solution were
misleading to the consumer because
added liquids represent a high
percentage of product weight. The
petition stated that in 2006, California
Weights and Measures officials
conducted a study that indicated that, in
California alone, consumers spent an
estimated $246 million on solutions
added to ready-to-cook poultry. The
petition further stated that, assuming
California has approximately 12% of the
U.S. market share, the nationwide
impact is projected at a cost of $2 billion
annually for just the added solution.
In addition, after FSIS held a public
meeting on December 12, 2006, to solicit
public input on ‘‘natural’’ claims, the
Agency received more than 12,000
comments from a write-in campaign
sponsored by TLC that objected to the
use of ‘‘natural’’ claims in the labeling
of poultry product with added solutions
(71 FR 70503). The Agency received
similar comments in response to its
September 14, 2009, Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, ‘‘Product
Labeling: Use of the Voluntary Claim
‘Natural’ in the Labeling of Meat and
Poultry Products’’ (74 FR 46951).
Although the current proposed rule
does not address ‘‘natural’’ claims in
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44857
product labeling, we note that almost all
of the comments submitted as part of
the TLC write-in campaign also
requested that FSIS require poultry
products with added solution to bear a
prominent label that clearly reflects the
products’ true composition. This
proposed rule addresses the labeling of
products that contain added solution
and does not affect FSIS’s ‘‘natural’’
claims policy. The Agency intends to
pursue separate rulemaking to address
issues associated with ‘‘natural’’ claims.
Proposed Amendments
After considering the comments
submitted in response to the 2006
public meeting and the 2009 advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking, and the
information presented in the petitions
described above, along with the
Agency’s experience in reviewing labels
of meat and poultry products with
added solution, the Agency has
tentatively concluded that without
specific, clear, and conspicuous
information about the percentage of
added solution incorporated into the
product, the labeling of these raw meat
or poultry products that do not meet a
standard of identity is likely to be
misleading to consumers.
As noted above, raw products that
have added solution and singleingredient raw products currently have
the same product name, and the
qualifying statement required for
products with added solution may not
be readily apparent to consumers. Thus,
the labeling of meat and poultry
products with added solution that do
not meet a regulatory standard of
identity often does not adequately
reveal a significant material fact about
the nature of the product.
FSIS agrees with the petitions
discussed above, the comments
submitted in response to the 2006
public meeting on ‘‘natural’’ claims, and
the 2009 Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on ‘‘natural’’ claims that
without adequate information,
consumers likely cannot distinguish
between single-ingredient raw meat and
poultry products versus similar raw
meat and poultry products containing
added solution that do not meet a
standard of identity. The added solution
in a raw meat and poultry product is a
characterizing component of the
product, and, as suggested by the
consumer research discussed above, is
likely to affect consumers’ purchasing
decisions. Furthermore, as noted in the
TLC petition, the presence of added
solutions affects the product’s nutrition
profile because there may be a
significant difference in sodium content
between a single-ingredient raw product
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44858
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and a similar-looking product
containing added solution. The effect of
excess sodium may be compounded if
consumers unknowingly purchase a
product with added solution, believe it
to be a single-ingredient product, and
add salt during preparation or prior to
consumption.
Therefore, to ensure that labels
adequately inform consumers that raw
products that do not meet a standard of
identity in 9 CFR part 319 or 9 CFR part
381, subpart P, contain added solutions,
the Agency is proposing to establish a
common or usual name for such raw
products. FSIS is proposing that the
common or usual name of such product
consist of the following: an accurate
description of the raw meat or poultry
component; the percentage of any added
solution incorporated into the raw meat
or poultry product (total weight of
solution ingredients divided by the
weight of the raw meat or poultry
without solution or any other added
ingredients, multiplied by 100) using
numerical representation and the
percent symbol ‘‘%;’’ and the common
or usual name of all individual
ingredients or multi-ingredient
components in the solution listed in
descending order of predominance by
weight. For example, an applicable
product could be labeled as ‘‘chicken
breast—40% added solution of water,
salt and sodium phosphate’’ or ‘‘chicken
breast—40% added solution of water,
teriyaki sauce, and salt.’’ If the poultry
component of a poultry product is
represented by a standard cut for raw
poultry prescribed in 9 CFR 381.170, the
common or usual name of the product
would include the name of the standard
poultry cut, the percentage of added
solution, and the common or usual
names of the ingredients in the solution.
Under this proposal all of the letters
in the name would be required to
appear in a single font size, color, and
style of print and appear on a singlecolor contrasting background, as
opposed to the smaller type and
differing style that is currently
permitted for the qualifying statement.
This approach will clearly disclose that
the product has been formulated with
added solution, and it will clearly
distinguish raw meat and poultry
products that have added solution from
single-ingredient raw meat and poultry
products.
The Agency would like to receive any
consumer research information that
evaluates whether the proposed product
name requirements described above
would better inform consumers and
affect their purchasing habits.
Under the current regulations, as
noted above, the product label is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Jul 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
required to show the product name,
which, for a non-standardized product
with a common or usual name, would
be the common or usual name of the
food (9 CFR 317.2(c)(1) and 381.117).
Thus, if finalized, the common or usual
name for raw meat and poultry products
containing added solution subject to
this proposed rule would be different
from the name for similar raw products
without added solution. If this proposal
is finalized, raw products containing
added solution subject to the rule that
are not labeled with the prescribed
common or usual name would be
considered misbranded because their
labeling would be false or misleading
and they would be offered for sale under
the name of another food (21 U.S.C.
601(n)(1), 453(h)(1), 601(n)(2), and
453(h)(2)).
The Agency seeks to ensure that the
common or usual name consistently
conveys to consumers that these
products contain added solutions.
Various methods are used to add
solutions to meat and poultry products
(e.g., injecting, marinating, or tumbling).
The term ‘‘enhanced’’ is commonly used
to describe products with added
solutions, regardless of the method used
to incorporate solution into the product,
and was the term used in the petitions
submitted to the Agency. However, FSIS
recognizes that the term ‘‘enhanced’’
could imply a judgment about the value
of the product. As such, the Agency did
not propose to include the term
‘‘enhanced’’ in the common or usual
name for products containing added
solutions.
In addition, FSIS is proposing that the
common or usual name of such
products that contain added solution
include the common or usual name of
individual ingredients or multiingredient components in the solution
listed in descending order of
predominance. FSIS is proposing to
require this information in the product
name to ensure that consumers are
aware of the ingredients in the solution.
FSIS is proposing that the common or
usual names of applicable multiingredient components, rather than the
components’ individual ingredients,
may be listed in the common or usual
name to simplify the product name for
raw products that may contain
numerous ingredients. FSIS requests
comment on whether the common or
usual name of a multi-ingredient
component in the product name
sufficiently alerts consumers concerning
the content of the added solution. FSIS
acknowledges that many solutions
include salt and requests comment on
whether consumers are aware of that.
Under this proposal, when the common
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
or usual name includes the individual
ingredients in the solution, those
ingredients would not need to be listed
in a separate ingredients statement on
the label. However, when the common
or usual name includes multi-ingredient
components, all ingredients in the
product would be required to be
declared in a separate ingredients
statement on the label. Regulations
currently require that ingredients in the
ingredients statement on the label be
listed in descending order of
predominance (9 CFR 317.2(c)(2),(f) and
381.118(a)(1)).
Raw products are products that have
not received any type of heat treatment
or full lethality treatment to destroy
harmful bacteria. FSIS agrees with the
petitions and comments that without
adequate information, consumers have
difficulty distinguishing between singleingredient raw meat and poultry
products and raw meat and poultry
products containing added solution.
FSIS has not received information
indicating that consumers lack adequate
ingredient information for fully cooked
or partially heat-treated products
containing added solution. An example
of a partially heat-treated product
containing added solution is a raw
chicken strip with an added solution
that is breaded, and then immersed in
hot oil to set the breading. This product
and other similar products would not be
subject to the common or usual name
requirements proposed in this
rulemaking because FSIS has tentatively
concluded that consumers are unlikely
to be misled into thinking that these are
single-ingredient products based on the
product appearance. For example,
breaded products are obviously not
single-ingredient. Furthermore, the
petitions and comments submitted on
products containing added solution
expressed concern that without
adequate labeling consumers would
have difficulty distinguishing raw
products with solutions from singleingredient raw products. They did not
express the same concern regarding
partially heat-treated or cooked
products. FSIS requests comments on
whether it should establish a common
or usual name for non-standardized
fully cooked or partially-heated treated
products that contain added solutions.
Under this proposed rule, meat and
poultry products that comply with a
standard of identity in the regulations
will continue to be labeled as the named
food specified in the standard. For
example, ‘‘corned beef,’’ which includes
curing solution, is allowed up to a 10
percent gain from the fresh weight of the
uncured beef in accordance with the 9
CFR 319.100 standard of identity for
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
corned beef. Products that comply with
this standard would be named and
labeled as ‘‘corned beef.’’ However, if a
product similar to ‘‘corned beef’’
includes a solution amount that is
greater than the standard allows, the
product is no longer a standardized
product and, under this proposed rule,
it must be labeled with the common or
usual name, ‘‘corned beef containing up
to 15% of a solution.’’ The name would
follow the labeling requirements for font
size, color, and style and background
color as proposed.
This proposed rule is only applicable
to raw meat and poultry products that,
after post-evisceration processing, have
solutions added. Raw, single-ingredient
meat and poultry products that retain
water as the result of post-evisceration
processing are subject to the retained
water regulations (9 CFR 441.10). The
regulations at 9 CFR 441.10 also address
retained water as a result of the use of
anti-microbial solutions (66 FR 1766).
This proposal addresses most other
added solutions.
FSIS Directive 7620.3, ‘‘Processing
Inspectors’ Calculations Handbook,’’
provides instructions to inspection
personnel concerning the method to use
in determining the percent pickup of
solutions added to raw poultry and meat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Jul 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
products. The National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
Handbook 133 provides instructions to
personnel concerning the method to use
in determining the net weight of
enhanced products. Should this rule
become final, FSIS personnel will
continue to follow Directive 7620.3
when enforcing these labeling
requirements and the NIST Handbook
133 in order to determine the net weight
of these products.
In addition to proposing a common or
usual name for raw meat and poultry
products containing added solution,
FSIS is proposing to remove 9 CFR
381.169, the standard for ‘‘ready-to-cook
poultry products to which solutions are
added.’’ The Agency has evaluated the
provisions in 9 CFR 381.169 and has
determined that the provisions are not
necessary. If this proposal is finalized,
9 CFR 381.169 will not be necessary
because the labeling of all poultry and
meat products containing added
solution will be required to comply with
the common or usual name
requirements. Likewise, when these
proposed amendments are finalized,
Policy Memos 042,044A, and 066C will
be rescinded and references to these
policy memoranda will be deleted from
the FSIS Food Standards and Labeling
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44859
Policy Book. FSIS is requesting
comments on removing all of the
regulatory requirements in 9 CFR
381.169.
The misbranding provisions of the
Acts apply to all meat and poultry
products, including products that are
not subject to the inspection provisions
of the Acts (21 U.S.C. 623(d) and
464(e)). Thus, if finalized, these
proposed regulations will apply to raw
meat and poultry products containing
added solutions that do not meet a
regulatory standard of identity and that
are sold for retail sale, institutional use,
or further processing. If retail facilities,
such as grocery stores, produce such
products, the proposed labeling
requirements would apply to those
products. The proposed regulations
would also apply to raw meat and
poultry products containing added
solutions that have been sliced or cut up
and re-packaged at retail or another
official establishment.
These proposed amendments, if
finalized, will become effective on
January 1, 2014, the compliance date
provided by the Uniform Compliance
Date for Food Labeling Regulations (75
FR 71344).
BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
17:01 Jul 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
EP27JY11.018
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44860
BILLING CODE 3410–DM–C
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Jul 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
Justice Reform. Under this proposed
rule: (1) All State and local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with
this rule will be preempted, (2) no
retroactive effect will be given to this
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44861
rule, and (3) no retroactive proceedings
will be required before parties may file
suit in court challenging this rule.
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
EP27JY11.019
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
44862
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and
the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order (E.O.) 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. Section 4
of E.O. 13563 emphasizes flexible
approaches, including ‘‘provision of
information to the public in a form that
is clear and intelligible.’’ This proposed
rule has been reviewed under Executive
Order (E.O.) 12866. OMB has
determined that it is a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
E.O. 12866 and, therefore, it has been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
FSIS estimated that the proportion of
products containing added solutions is
about 39 percent of all raw meat and
poultry products sold. Based on FSIS’s
label review process estimates, 30
percent of the 49.2 billion pounds of
poultry 3 consumed by households (14.8
billion pounds), 15 percent of the 27.3
billion pounds of beef 4 consumed by
households (4.1 billion pounds), and 90
percent of the 21 billion pounds of
pork 5 consumed by household (18.9
billion pounds) contain added
solutions. As a result, approximately
37.8 billion pounds, or about 39 percent
of the 97.5 billion pounds of meat and
poultry products consumed by
households in the U.S. contain added
solutions.6 FSIS requests comments on
these estimates.
This rule will affect foreign
establishments that manufacture and
export products containing added
solutions to the United States, because
foreign establishments that manufacture
and export products containing added
solutions to the United States will be
required to follow these same labeling
requirements. FSIS requests information
on the number of foreign establishments
that may be affected by this proposed
rule.
3 U.S. Poultry & Egg Association: Poultry
Statistics, 2007.
4 Economic Research Service, USDA. U.S. Beef
and Cattle Industry: Background Statistics and
Information, 2007.
5 National Pork Producers Council: Background
Statistics and Information, 2007.
6 Totals do not necessarily add up due to
rounding.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Jul 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
If finalized, the proposed regulations
will apply to all raw meat and poultry
products containing added solution that
do not meet a standard of identity that
are produced at federal establishments.
The proposed labeling requirements
also apply to such products that are
produced at retail facilities, such as
grocery stores. FSIS requests comment
on the number of retail facilities that
produce product containing added
solution and the volume of such
product that would be subject to these
regulations.
Alternatives considered:
1. No Action.
FSIS considered taking no action but
did not select this alternative because of
evidence (Sorenson, November 2004) 7
that consumers view information about
these additives as important factors in
their purchasing decision.
2. Propose to require the word
‘‘enhanced’’ in the product’s common or
usual name, or propose the use of the
term ‘‘enhanced’’ in the containing
statement, e.g., ‘‘enhanced with a 15%
solution * * *’’.
FSIS did not select the alternative of
proposing to require the word
‘‘enhanced’’ in the product’s common or
usual name because the word implies
that the product is improved by the
addition of the solution. The intent of
this proposal is to increase transparency
to consumers, not to suggest that the
product is either better or worse than a
raw product without the added solution.
In addition, consumer research
(Sorenson, November 2004) 8 showed
that the containing statement,
‘‘enhanced with up to 15% solution of
water, salt, and sodium phosphates’’
was preferred by fewer study
participants (about 10% fewer) 9 than
the use of the description ‘‘contains up
to 15% water, salt, and sodium
phosphates.’’
3. Propose to require that the common
or usual name of the product include an
accurate description of the raw meat or
poultry component, the percentage of
added solution, and the common or
usual names of the ingredients in the
solution, with all of the print in a single
font size, color, and style on a singlecolor contrasting background (the
proposed amendments).
FSIS selected this alternative because
it is likely to improve consumer
awareness and understanding that the
raw meat or poultry product contains an
added solution. FSIS believes proposing
to require the percentage of the solution
footnote 2, page 8.
footnote 2, page 8.
9 The Sorenson study did not report statistical
significance.
PO 00000
and the ingredients of the solution as
part of the common or usual name is
information consumers need to make
informed purchasing decisions.
Expected Cost of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule will result in onetime costs to establishments and retail
facilities that produce and package
enhanced products pertaining to
modifying labels of products. The
estimated costs of modifying labels are
determined by the number of label
plates or digitalized label templates
required to be modified and the average
cost of modifying labels. This
methodology provides an estimated cost
for all labels of products with added
solution in commerce, including those
for retailers and foreign entities that sell
meat and poultry in the United States.
Based on the Agency’s Labeling
Information System database, FSIS
estimates that there were approximately
121,350 10 raw meat and poultry
product unique labels submitted by
official establishments and approved by
the Agency in 2009. Therefore, FSIS
estimates that there are 46,990 (121,350
* 39%) unique labels for meat and
poultry raw products containing added
solution in commerce.
The Agency is providing a primary
cost analysis based on the costs
published in the December 29, 2010,
final rule, ‘‘Nutrition Labeling of SingleIngredient Products and Ground or
Chopped Meat and Poultry Products’’
(75 FR 82148). In May 2011, the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA)
published a report, ‘‘Model to Estimate
Costs of Using Labeling as a Risk
Reduction Strategy for Consumer
Products Regulated by the Food and
Drug Administration, FDA.’’ A
secondary cost analysis based on the
FDA report is also provided for
comment. FSIS requests comment on
which cost analysis should be used for
the economic analysis of the final rule.
Primary Cost Analysis
The primary cost estimate for label
modification reflects administrative
activities, graphic design, prepress
activities, and plate engraving costs and
excludes nutrient analysis costs and all
other types of analysis. The mid-point
label design modification cost is an
estimated $1,557 per label (75 FR
82148). This estimate assumes separate
label costs for every unique product
containing added solution. Because
subsidiary establishments are owned by
parent companies, and subsidiaries
7 See
8 See
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10 Source: FSIS Labeling and Program Delivery
Division, Labeling Information System Database,
2009.
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
would likely use the same label, this
estimate probably overestimates the
total cost. Using this estimate, total costs
of modifying labels for all federally
inspected processors is $73 million as a
central estimate (46,990 * $1,557 label
modification cost).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Secondary Cost Analysis
This secondary cost analysis uses the
mid-point label design modification
costs for a minor coordinated label
change, as provided in a March 2011
FDA report.11 The Agency is requesting
comment on whether these costs
estimates are applicable to the
amendments in this proposed rule. The
mid-point label design modification
costs for a minor coordinated label
change is an estimated $310 per label
(with a range of $170 to $440). A
coordinated label change is when a
regulatory label change is coordinated
with planned labeling changes by the
firm. In this case, only administrative
and recordkeeping costs are attributed
to the regulation and all other costs are
not. Using this cost, FSIS estimates that
the total costs of modifying labels for all
federally inspected processors is about
$14.6 million as a central estimate
(46,990 labels * $310 label modification
costs), with a range of approximately
$8.0 to $20.7 million).
These estimated costs include the
labeling costs of imported and retailerproduced raw imported meat and
poultry products containing added
solutions. Under either of the cost
analyses presented above, the
compliance cost of this proposed rule
will be negligible as the cost of
modifying labeling is small relative to
the total sales of meat and poultry
products. The 2-year compliance
increments defined in the FSIS
regulation titled ‘‘Uniform Compliance
Date for Food Labeling Regulations’’ (75
FR 71344) will help affected
11 Model to Estimate Costs of Using Labeling as
a Risk Reduction Strategy for Consumer Products
Regulated by the Food and Drug Administration,
FDA, March 2011 (Contract No. GS–10F–0097L,
Task Order 5). The labeling model defines all
labeling changes as minor, major, or extensive. A
minor change is one in which only one color is
affected and the label does not need to be
redesigned. Examples of this type of change include
changing an ingredient list or adding a toll-free
number. A major change requires multiple color
changes and label redesign. An example of a major
change is adding a facts panel or modifying the
front of a package. An extensive change is a major
format change requiring a change to the product
packaging to accommodate labeling information. An
example of an extensive change is adding a peelback label or otherwise increasing the package
surface area. We, therefore, conclude that the
labeling change that would be required by this
proposed rule is a minor change. FSIS expects that
all label changes resulting from this proposed rule
will be coordinated with planned label changes.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Jul 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
establishments minimize the economic
impact of labeling changes because
affected establishments possibly could
incorporate multiple label redesigns
required by multiple Federal rules into
one modification during the 2-year
increments. Moreover, the ‘‘Uniform
Compliance Date for Food Labeling
Regulations’’ allows establishments time
to use existing labels and would,
therefore, result in minimal loss of
inventory of labels, if any. The
‘‘Uniform Compliance Date for Food
Labeling Regulations’’ also allows
establishments to incorporate the new
requirements as a coordinated change,
which reduces the cost of complying
with the proposed regulation.
FSIS Budgetary Impact of the Proposed
Rule
This proposed rule will result in no
impact on the Agency’s operational
costs because the Agency will not need
to add any staff or incur any non-labor
expenditures if the proposed rule is
adopted.
FSIS is soliciting comments and data
regarding any other potential costs that
might result from finalization of this
rule.
Expected Benefits of the Proposed Rule
The expected benefits of this
proposed rule are:
• Improved public awareness of
product identities by providing truthful
and accurate labeling of meat and
poultry products to clearly differentiate
products containing added solutions
from single-ingredient products.
• Consumers can better determine
whether products containing added
solutions are suitable for their personal
dietary needs through increased product
name prominence. For example,
consumers’ choices of meat and poultry
products with added solutions with a
high sodium content could have
unintended health consequences if
labels of these products were inadequate
in revealing the information of added
ingredients to the consumers.
This proposed action is not likely to
result in a market demand shift, relative
to other products, for meat and poultry
products, with or without added
solutions, because this proposed action
is unlikely to influence consumers’
preference for meat and poultry
products in general. The proposed
action, if adopted, will not add
monetary benefits to the meat and
poultry industry. Instead, the rule will
make clearer product content
information available to consumers of
meat and poultry products with added
solutions.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44863
This rule may also help consumers
reduce their sodium intake because the
new product names will better alert
consumers to the fact that the products
contain added solutions. The
prominence and design of the label on
the front of the package may increase
the likelihood that consumers review
the nutrition facts panel, including
information on sodium content, and
make more healthful food choices. The
benefits of improved market information
are not quantifiable due to lack of data.
FSIS is soliciting comments and data
that would permit the quantification of
the expected benefits.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The FSIS Administrator has made a
preliminary determination that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities in
the United States, as defined by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601). There are about 5,719 small
federally inspected establishments, of
which 2,616 are small (with 10 or more
but less than 500 employees), and 3,103
are very small (with fewer than 10
employees) based on Hazard Analysis
Critical Control Point (HACCP)
classification. Because only a portion of
all meat and poultry products is sold
with added solutions, a fraction of small
and very small establishments will be
impacted by this proposed rule at a
negligible cost.
In the primary cost analysis above,
FSIS estimated that the average onetime cost of modifying labels per unique
label is about $1,557 and the total onetime cost for the industry is about $73
million (the secondary cost analysis
total cost is $14.6 million). This results
in an average one-time cost per
establishment of about $11,969 ($73
million/6099 establishments). Because
small and very small establishments
produce less output and fewer unique
labels, their average one-time cost per
establishment will be lower. Therefore,
FSIS believes that the cost to small and
very small establishments of providing
modified labels for the meat and poultry
products with added solutions will be
negligible. FSIS requests comment on
the average number of labels of meat
and poultry products with added
solutions produced by small and very
small producers and invites small and
very small establishments to comment
on the estimation of the compliance cost
of the proposed rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
the information collection or
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44864
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
recordkeeping requirements included in
this proposed rule have been submitted
for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
Title: Product Labeling Requirements
for Meat and Poultry Containing Added
Solutions.
Type of Collection: New.
Abstract: FSIS is proposing common
or usual name labeling requirements for
raw meat and poultry products that do
not meet standard of identity
regulations and to which solutions have
been added. The proposed amendments
will require establishments that
manufacture products containing added
solutions to modify or redesign the
product label. The proposed
amendments will be effective on the
next compliance date provided by the
Uniform Compliance Date for Food
Labeling Regulations.
Estimate of Burden: FSIS estimates
that it will take a respondent 75 minutes
per response to comply with the
information collection associated with
product labeling requirements.
Respondents: Official establishments,
retail stores, and foreign firms.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
6,100.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 8.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 61,000 hours.
Copies of this information collection
assessment can be obtained from John
O’Connell, Paperwork Reduction Act
Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection
Service, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Room 6083, South
Building, Washington, DC 20250.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of FSIS’s functions, including whether
the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to both John
O’Connell, Paperwork Reduction Act
Coordinator, at the address provided
above, and the Desk Officer for
Agriculture, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington,
DC 20253. To be most effective,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Jul 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
comments should be sent to OMB
within 60 days of the publication date
of this proposed rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information
collection or recordkeeping
requirements included in this proposed
rule have been submitted for approval to
the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed
in accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. The review reveals that
this regulation will not have substantial
and direct effects on Tribal governments
and will not have significant Tribal
implications.
E-Government Act
USDA Nondiscrimination Statement
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all
its programs and activities on the basis
of race, color, national origin, gender,
religion, age, disability, political beliefs,
sexual orientation, and marital or family
status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to
all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication of
program information (Braille, large
print, audiotape, etc.) should contact
USDA’s Target Center at 202–720–2600
(voice and TTY).
To file a written complaint of
discrimination, write USDA, Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call
202–720–5964 (voice and TTY).
FSIS and USDA are committed to
achieving the purposes of the EGovernment Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et
seq.) by, among other things, promoting
the use of the Internet and other
information technologies and providing
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
Additional Public Notification
Public awareness of all segments of
rulemaking and policy development is
important. Consequently, in an effort to
ensure that minorities, women, and
persons with disabilities are aware of
this proposed rule, FSIS will announce
it online through the FSIS Web page
located at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/
regulations_&_policies/Federal_
Register_Publications_&_Related
_Documents/index.asp.
FSIS will also make copies of this
Federal Register publication available
through the FSIS Constituent Update,
which is used to provide information
regarding FSIS policies, procedures,
regulations, Federal Register notices,
FSIS public meetings, and other types of
information that could affect or would
be of interest to constituents and
stakeholders. The Update is
communicated via Listserv, a free
electronic mail subscription service for
industry, trade groups, consumer
interest groups, health professionals,
and other individuals who have asked
to be included. The Update is also
available on the FSIS Web page.
Through the Listserv and Web page,
FSIS is able to provide information to a
much broader and more diverse
audience. In addition, FSIS offers an
electronic mail subscription service
which provides automatic and
customized access to selected food
safety news and information. This
service is available at https://www.fsis.
usda.gov/News_&_Events/Email_
Subscription/. Options range from
recalls to export information to
regulations, directives and notices.
Customers can add or delete
subscriptions themselves, and have the
option to password protect their
accounts.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 317
Food labeling, Food packaging, Meat
inspection, Nutrition, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
9 CFR Part 381
Food labeling.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9
CFR Chapter III as follows:
PART 317—LABELING, MARKING
DEVICES, AND CONTAINERS
1. The authority citation for Part 317
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601–695; 7 CFR 2.18,
2.53.
2. Amend § 317.2 by redesignating
paragraph (e) as paragraph (e)(1) and
adding a new paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 317.2 Labels: definition; required
features.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2)(i) The common or usual name for
a raw meat product that contains added
solution and does not meet a standard
of identity in 9 CFR part 319 consists of:
(A) An accurate description of the raw
meat component;
(B) The percentage of added solution
(total weight of the solution ingredients
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
divided by the weight of the raw meat
without solution or any other added
ingredients multiplied by 100) using
numerical representation and the
percent symbol ‘‘%;’’ and
(C) The common or usual name of
individual ingredients or multiingredient components in the solution
listed in descending order of
predominance by weight (such as, ‘‘pork
tenderloin—15% added solution of
water and salt’’ or ‘‘beef—15% added
solution of water and teriyaki sauce’’).
(ii) The common or usual name must
be printed in a single font size, color,
and style of print and must appear on
a single-color contrasting background.
(iii) When the common or usual name
includes all ingredients in the solution,
a separate ingredients statement is not
required on the label. When the
common or usual name includes multiingredient components and the
ingredients of the component are not
declared in the product name, all
ingredients in the product must be
declared in a separate ingredients
statement on the label as required in
§§ 317.2(c)(2) and 317.2(f).
*
*
*
*
*
(2) The common or usual name must
be printed in a single font size, color,
and style of print and must appear on
a single-color contrasting background.
(3) When the common or usual name
includes all ingredients in the solution,
a separate ingredients statement is not
required on the label. When the
common or usual name includes multiingredient components and the
ingredients of the component are not
declared in the product name, all
ingredients in the product must be
declared in a separate ingredients
statement on the label as required in
§ 381.118.
PART 381—POULTRY PRODUCTS
INSPECTION REGULATIONS
RIN 3150–AI50
3. The authority citation for Part 381
continues to read as follows:
Domestic Licensing of Source
Material—Amendments/Integrated
Safety Analysis
4. A new § 381.117(h) is added to read
as follows:
Name of product and other
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Common or usual name for raw
products containing added solution. (1)
The common or usual name for a raw
poultry product that contains added
solution and does not meet a standard
of identity in 9 CFR part 381 consists of:
(i) An accurate description of the raw
poultry component;
(ii) The percentage of added solution
(total weight of the solution ingredients
divided by the weight of the raw poultry
without solution or any other added
ingredients multiplied by 100) using
numerical representation and the
percent symbol ‘‘%;’’ and
(iii) The common or usual name of all
individual ingredients or multiingredient components in the solution
listed in descending order of
predominance by weight (such as,
‘‘chicken breast—15% added solution of
water and salt’’ or ‘‘chicken breast—
40% added solution of water, teriyaki
sauce, and salt’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Jul 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
[Removed and reserved]
5. Remove and reserve § 381.169.
Done at Washington, DC, on July 20, 2011.
Alfred Almanza,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–18793 Filed 7–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 40
[NRC–2009–0079 and NRC–2011–0080]
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138F, 450; 21 U.S.C.
451–470; 7 CFR 2.7, 2.18, 2.53.
§ 381.117
labeling.
§ 381.169
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Extension of public comment
period and public meeting.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is proposing to
amend its Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 40
regulations by adding additional
requirements for source material
licensees who possess significant
quantities of uranium hexafluoride
(UF6). The proposed rule and proposed
guidance document were published in
the Federal Register on May 17, 2011
(76 FR 28336), for public comment and
an administrative correction to 76 FR
28336 was published in the Federal
Register on June 1, 2011 (76 FR 31507).
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), in a
letter dated June 21, 2011, requested the
NRC to hold a public meeting on the
proposed rule and draft guidance
document and to extend the public
comment period.
Based on NEI’s request, the NRC will
conduct a public meeting on August 17,
2011, to seek public input on the
proposed rule and its associated draft
guidance document. In addition, the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44865
NRC is extending the public comment
period for the proposed rule and
associated draft guidance document
from 75 days to 115 days to allow the
public ample opportunity to submit
written comments.
DATES: Submit comments specific to the
proposed rule and draft guidance
document by September 9, 2011.
Comments received after this date will
be considered if it is practical to do so,
but the NRC is able to assure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
The public meeting will be held on
Wednesday, August 7, 2011, from 9 a.m.
to 12 p.m. (eastern daylight time).
ADDRESSES: Please include the
applicable Docket ID in the subject line
of your comments. Comments submitted
in writing or in electronic form will be
posted on the NRC Web site and on the
Federal rulemaking Web site, https://
www.regulations.gov. Because your
comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information,
the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed. The NRC requests that any
party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for
submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their
comments to remove any identifying or
contact information, and therefore, they
should not include any information in
their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed. You may submit
comments on the proposed rule (Docket
ID NRC–2009–0079) by any one of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2009–0079 for the proposed rule.
Address questions about NRC dockets to
Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301–492–
3668; e-mail: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C. 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
• E-mail comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you
do not receive a reply e-mail confirming
that we have received your comments,
contact us directly at 301–415–1677.
• Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852,
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal
workdays. (Telephone 301–415–1677)
• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
You may submit comments on the
proposed draft guidance document
(Docket ID NRC–2011–0080) by any one
of the following methods:
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44855-44865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18793]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 319 and 381
[Docket No. FSIS-2010-0012]
RIN 0583-AD41
Common or Usual Name for Raw Meat and Poultry Products Containing
Added Solutions
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to
amend its regulations to establish a common or usual name for raw meat
and poultry products that do not meet standard of identity regulations
and to which solutions have been added. Products with added solutions
are sometimes referred to as ``enhanced products.'' The Agency is
proposing that the common or usual name for such products include an
accurate description of the raw meat or poultry component, the
percentage of added solution incorporated into the raw meat or poultry
product, and the individual ingredients or multi-ingredient components
in the solution listed in the descending order of predominance by
weight. FSIS is also proposing that the print for all words in the
common or usual name appear in a single font size, color, and style of
print and that the name appear on a single-color contrasting
background. In addition, the Agency is proposing to remove the standard
of identity regulation for ``ready-to-cook poultry products to which
solutions are added.''
[[Page 44856]]
DATES: Submit comments by September 26, 2011.
ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested persons to submit relevant comments
on the implementation of 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, Beltsville, MD 20705-5273.
Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must
include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2010-0012. 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 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director,
Labeling and Program Delivery Division, Office of Policy and Program
Development, FSIS, USDA, (301) 504-0879.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695) and
Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470) (``the
Acts'') provide that the labels of meat and poultry products must be
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, who has delegated this
authority to FSIS, before these products can enter commerce. The Acts
also prohibit the distribution in commerce of meat or poultry products
that are adulterated or misbranded.
Under the Acts, a meat or poultry product is misbranded, among
other circumstances, if its labeling is false or misleading in any
particular or it is offered for sale under the name of another food (21
U.S.C. 601(n)(1), 453(h)(1), 601(n)(2), and 453(h)(2)). A meat or
poultry product that is not subject to a standard of identity (9 CFR
Part 319 and Part 381 Subpart P) is also misbranded ``* * * unless its
label bears the common or usual name of the food, if any there be * *
*'' (21 U.S.C. 601(n)(9)(A) and 453(n)(9)(A)). The FMIA and PPIA give
FSIS broad authority to promulgate such rules and regulations as are
necessary to carry out the provisions of the Acts (21 U.S.C. 621 and
463(b)).
To prevent meat and poultry products from being misbranded, the
meat and poultry products inspection regulations require that the
labels of meat and poultry products contain specific information and
that such information be displayed as prescribed in the regulations (9
CFR part 317 and 381 subpart N). Under the regulations, the principal
display panel on the label of a meat product and the label of a poultry
product must, among other information, show the name of the product.
For products that purport to be or are represented by a regulatory
standard of identity, the name of the product on the label must be the
name of the food specified in the standard. For any other product, the
name on the label must be ``the common or usual name of the food, if
any there be.'' If there is no common or usual name, the name on the
label must be a ``truthful, descriptive designation'' (9 CFR
317.2(c)(1) and 381.117).
FSIS poultry products regulations (9 CFR 381.169) provide that
solutions may be added to ready-to-cook, bone-in poultry carcasses and
parts, increasing the weight by approximately 3 percent over the weight
of the raw product after chilling and washing. Poultry products with
solutions that have been added in accordance with this regulation must
be labeled with a conspicuous, legible, and descriptive name, including
terms that concisely describe the method of addition and function of
the added material. The regulation requires that all major terms in the
product name be printed with the same prominence, except that the words
that describe the function of the added materials (such as ``injected
for Flavored Basting'') may be more prominent. A qualifying statement
that identifies the percentage of added solution must be printed at
least one-fourth the size of the most prominent letter in the product
name. The ingredients in the solution must be identified in the
qualifying statement and must be displayed with a minimum size
requirement of one-eighth the size of the most prominent letter in the
product name. In addition, 9 CFR 381.169 contains labeling compliance
quality control criteria that must be approved by the Administrator.
Since 9 CFR 381.169 was codified on May 16, 1972 (37 FR 9706), and
subsequently amended on October 7, 1974 (39 FR 36000), several changes
have taken place that have diminished the relevance of 9 CFR 381.169 in
preventing the labels of poultry that contain added solutions from
being false or misleading. Poultry processors have developed
technologies, such as using injectors to inject solutions deep into the
muscle tissue, that incorporate more than 3 percent solution into
products. While the practice of adding liquid solution was initially
used to flavor the raw poultry product without significantly increasing
the product's net weight, the addition of the increased levels of
solution has resulted in increasing the total weight of the finished
product. Also, with the May 30, 2000, publication of the Elimination of
Requirements for Partial Quality Control Programs Final Rule (65 FR
34381), the quality control criteria used to monitor the percent added
solution per 9 CFR 381.169(c) are no longer in effect.
To provide labeling guidance for ready-to-cook, bone-in poultry
products with solutions above 3 percent and for boneless poultry
products with any amount of added solution, neither of which are
covered under 9 CFR 381.169, the Agency issued Policy Memo 042, Raw
Bone-In Poultry Products Containing Solutions (February 1982) and
Policy Memo 044A, Raw Boneless Poultry Containing Solutions (September
1986). FSIS also issued Policy Memo 066C, Uncooked Red Meat Products
Containing Added Substances (November 2004) to provide similar guidance
for the labeling of ``enhanced'' uncured meat products. The Policy
Memos are available on the FSIS Web site at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/larc/Policies/Policy_Memos_082005.pdf.
The intent of labeling guidance provided in the policy memoranda
was to provide guidance to industry to develop truthful, easy-to-read
labeling information concerning the solutions added to products so that
consumers could make informed purchasing decisions. However, it has
come to the Agency's attention, through the petitions discussed below,
comments submitted by the public, and FSIS review of labels, that some
product labels may not clearly and conspicuously identify that the raw
meat or poultry products contain added solution.
Under FSIS's current regulatory approach, raw products that contain
added solution and products that do not contain added solution may have
the same product name. For example, the name for a single-ingredient
chicken breast and a chicken breast with added solution is ``chicken
breast,'' even though one is 100 percent chicken
[[Page 44857]]
breast and one may be 60 percent chicken breast and 40 percent
solution. Although the labeling of the product must include a
qualifying statement that reflects the fact that the product contains
added solution, this may not be readily apparent to consumers because
the statement is not part of the product name. For example, through
label review, FSIS has found that it is common for product labels to
contain product names in bold fonts with strong contrasting
backgrounds, with the qualifying statement on added solution printed in
tall, narrow, or slanted fonts at the smallest height permitted, and on
background of poor color contrast. While such labeling may be
consistent with existing Agency guidance, it may not clearly identify
to consumers that the products contain added solutions.
Petitions and Public Comments Related to Products That Contain Added
Solution
Since 2007, FSIS has received two petitions related to products
that contain added solution. In July 2007, the Truthful Labeling
Coalition (TLC) submitted a petition to the Agency requesting that it
``prevent the ongoing marketing of so-called `enhanced' (added
solution) fresh poultry products in all situations where ingredients
added to such products are not being adequately labeled to prevent the
consuming public from being misled.''
Included in the TLC petition were two consumer research
studies.1 2 Though these studies are not generalizable, they
provide anecdotal evidence that consumers read and use labels, and that
users of ``enhanced'' chicken are not aware that it contains additives
until specifically directed to look at the label. According to the
Sorenson study, even after looking at the label of an ``enhanced''
chicken product, about 20% participants in the study that purchase the
chicken failed to realize that the chicken contains additives.'' In
addition, almost one-third of these participants indicated that they
``care a lot that their chicken contains additives,'' and after being
informed about the additives, these participants said they probably or
definitely would not buy it again. Participants in the study were also
presented with the following label descriptions that communicated
additive ingredients in chicken: ``Contains up to 15% water, salt, and
sodium phosphate,'' ``Enhanced with up to 15% solution of water, salt,
and sodium phosphates,'' ``Contains up to 15% chicken broth,'' and
``Enhanced with up to fifteen percent chicken broth.'' Respondents
considered the wording ``Contains up to 15% water, salt, and sodium
phosphates'' as most accurately communicating additive ingredients in
chickens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Russell Research, Fresh Chicken Study Final Report, June
2006.
\2\ ``Enhanced'' Chicken, Consumer Research, November 2004, SAI
Project 04177, Sorensen Associates, Minneapolis, Minnesota
(888-616-0123), Portland, Oregon (800-542-4321).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TLC petition also pointed out health concerns associated with
the addition of salt to these products. TLC submitted a comparison of
the sodium content in 4 ounces of a single ingredient, raw poultry
product (45 mg sodium) to 4 ounces of a poultry product with added
solution (370 mg sodium), more than an eightfold increase in the amount
of sodium. TLC argued that many consumers do not realize that there may
be a significant difference in sodium content between a single-
ingredient, raw product and a similar-looking product with added
solution.
In March 2009, the California Agricultural Commissioners and
Sealers Association submitted a petition to revoke FSIS's September 9,
2008, Final Rule, ``Determining Net Weight Compliance for Meat and
Poultry Products'' (73 FR 52189), which eliminated wet tare provisions
for determining the net weight of packaged meat and poultry products.
The petition suggested that meat and poultry products with added
solution were misleading to the consumer because added liquids
represent a high percentage of product weight. The petition stated that
in 2006, California Weights and Measures officials conducted a study
that indicated that, in California alone, consumers spent an estimated
$246 million on solutions added to ready-to-cook poultry. The petition
further stated that, assuming California has approximately 12% of the
U.S. market share, the nationwide impact is projected at a cost of $2
billion annually for just the added solution.
In addition, after FSIS held a public meeting on December 12, 2006,
to solicit public input on ``natural'' claims, the Agency received more
than 12,000 comments from a write-in campaign sponsored by TLC that
objected to the use of ``natural'' claims in the labeling of poultry
product with added solutions (71 FR 70503). The Agency received similar
comments in response to its September 14, 2009, Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, ``Product Labeling: Use of the Voluntary Claim
`Natural' in the Labeling of Meat and Poultry Products'' (74 FR 46951).
Although the current proposed rule does not address ``natural'' claims
in product labeling, we note that almost all of the comments submitted
as part of the TLC write-in campaign also requested that FSIS require
poultry products with added solution to bear a prominent label that
clearly reflects the products' true composition. This proposed rule
addresses the labeling of products that contain added solution and does
not affect FSIS's ``natural'' claims policy. The Agency intends to
pursue separate rulemaking to address issues associated with
``natural'' claims.
Proposed Amendments
After considering the comments submitted in response to the 2006
public meeting and the 2009 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, and
the information presented in the petitions described above, along with
the Agency's experience in reviewing labels of meat and poultry
products with added solution, the Agency has tentatively concluded that
without specific, clear, and conspicuous information about the
percentage of added solution incorporated into the product, the
labeling of these raw meat or poultry products that do not meet a
standard of identity is likely to be misleading to consumers.
As noted above, raw products that have added solution and single-
ingredient raw products currently have the same product name, and the
qualifying statement required for products with added solution may not
be readily apparent to consumers. Thus, the labeling of meat and
poultry products with added solution that do not meet a regulatory
standard of identity often does not adequately reveal a significant
material fact about the nature of the product.
FSIS agrees with the petitions discussed above, the comments
submitted in response to the 2006 public meeting on ``natural'' claims,
and the 2009 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on ``natural''
claims that without adequate information, consumers likely cannot
distinguish between single-ingredient raw meat and poultry products
versus similar raw meat and poultry products containing added solution
that do not meet a standard of identity. The added solution in a raw
meat and poultry product is a characterizing component of the product,
and, as suggested by the consumer research discussed above, is likely
to affect consumers' purchasing decisions. Furthermore, as noted in the
TLC petition, the presence of added solutions affects the product's
nutrition profile because there may be a significant difference in
sodium content between a single-ingredient raw product
[[Page 44858]]
and a similar-looking product containing added solution. The effect of
excess sodium may be compounded if consumers unknowingly purchase a
product with added solution, believe it to be a single-ingredient
product, and add salt during preparation or prior to consumption.
Therefore, to ensure that labels adequately inform consumers that
raw products that do not meet a standard of identity in 9 CFR part 319
or 9 CFR part 381, subpart P, contain added solutions, the Agency is
proposing to establish a common or usual name for such raw products.
FSIS is proposing that the common or usual name of such product consist
of the following: an accurate description of the raw meat or poultry
component; the percentage of any added solution incorporated into the
raw meat or poultry product (total weight of solution ingredients
divided by the weight of the raw meat or poultry without solution or
any other added ingredients, multiplied by 100) using numerical
representation and the percent symbol ``%;'' and the common or usual
name of all individual ingredients or multi-ingredient components in
the solution listed in descending order of predominance by weight. For
example, an applicable product could be labeled as ``chicken breast--
40% added solution of water, salt and sodium phosphate'' or ``chicken
breast--40% added solution of water, teriyaki sauce, and salt.'' If the
poultry component of a poultry product is represented by a standard cut
for raw poultry prescribed in 9 CFR 381.170, the common or usual name
of the product would include the name of the standard poultry cut, the
percentage of added solution, and the common or usual names of the
ingredients in the solution.
Under this proposal all of the letters in the name would be
required to appear in a single font size, color, and style of print and
appear on a single-color contrasting background, as opposed to the
smaller type and differing style that is currently permitted for the
qualifying statement. This approach will clearly disclose that the
product has been formulated with added solution, and it will clearly
distinguish raw meat and poultry products that have added solution from
single-ingredient raw meat and poultry products.
The Agency would like to receive any consumer research information
that evaluates whether the proposed product name requirements described
above would better inform consumers and affect their purchasing habits.
Under the current regulations, as noted above, the product label is
required to show the product name, which, for a non-standardized
product with a common or usual name, would be the common or usual name
of the food (9 CFR 317.2(c)(1) and 381.117). Thus, if finalized, the
common or usual name for raw meat and poultry products containing added
solution subject to this proposed rule would be different from the name
for similar raw products without added solution. If this proposal is
finalized, raw products containing added solution subject to the rule
that are not labeled with the prescribed common or usual name would be
considered misbranded because their labeling would be false or
misleading and they would be offered for sale under the name of another
food (21 U.S.C. 601(n)(1), 453(h)(1), 601(n)(2), and 453(h)(2)).
The Agency seeks to ensure that the common or usual name
consistently conveys to consumers that these products contain added
solutions. Various methods are used to add solutions to meat and
poultry products (e.g., injecting, marinating, or tumbling). The term
``enhanced'' is commonly used to describe products with added
solutions, regardless of the method used to incorporate solution into
the product, and was the term used in the petitions submitted to the
Agency. However, FSIS recognizes that the term ``enhanced'' could imply
a judgment about the value of the product. As such, the Agency did not
propose to include the term ``enhanced'' in the common or usual name
for products containing added solutions.
In addition, FSIS is proposing that the common or usual name of
such products that contain added solution include the common or usual
name of individual ingredients or multi-ingredient components in the
solution listed in descending order of predominance. FSIS is proposing
to require this information in the product name to ensure that
consumers are aware of the ingredients in the solution. FSIS is
proposing that the common or usual names of applicable multi-ingredient
components, rather than the components' individual ingredients, may be
listed in the common or usual name to simplify the product name for raw
products that may contain numerous ingredients. FSIS requests comment
on whether the common or usual name of a multi-ingredient component in
the product name sufficiently alerts consumers concerning the content
of the added solution. FSIS acknowledges that many solutions include
salt and requests comment on whether consumers are aware of that. Under
this proposal, when the common or usual name includes the individual
ingredients in the solution, those ingredients would not need to be
listed in a separate ingredients statement on the label. However, when
the common or usual name includes multi-ingredient components, all
ingredients in the product would be required to be declared in a
separate ingredients statement on the label. Regulations currently
require that ingredients in the ingredients statement on the label be
listed in descending order of predominance (9 CFR 317.2(c)(2),(f) and
381.118(a)(1)).
Raw products are products that have not received any type of heat
treatment or full lethality treatment to destroy harmful bacteria. FSIS
agrees with the petitions and comments that without adequate
information, consumers have difficulty distinguishing between single-
ingredient raw meat and poultry products and raw meat and poultry
products containing added solution.
FSIS has not received information indicating that consumers lack
adequate ingredient information for fully cooked or partially heat-
treated products containing added solution. An example of a partially
heat-treated product containing added solution is a raw chicken strip
with an added solution that is breaded, and then immersed in hot oil to
set the breading. This product and other similar products would not be
subject to the common or usual name requirements proposed in this
rulemaking because FSIS has tentatively concluded that consumers are
unlikely to be misled into thinking that these are single-ingredient
products based on the product appearance. For example, breaded products
are obviously not single-ingredient. Furthermore, the petitions and
comments submitted on products containing added solution expressed
concern that without adequate labeling consumers would have difficulty
distinguishing raw products with solutions from single-ingredient raw
products. They did not express the same concern regarding partially
heat-treated or cooked products. FSIS requests comments on whether it
should establish a common or usual name for non-standardized fully
cooked or partially-heated treated products that contain added
solutions.
Under this proposed rule, meat and poultry products that comply
with a standard of identity in the regulations will continue to be
labeled as the named food specified in the standard. For example,
``corned beef,'' which includes curing solution, is allowed up to a 10
percent gain from the fresh weight of the uncured beef in accordance
with the 9 CFR 319.100 standard of identity for
[[Page 44859]]
corned beef. Products that comply with this standard would be named and
labeled as ``corned beef.'' However, if a product similar to ``corned
beef'' includes a solution amount that is greater than the standard
allows, the product is no longer a standardized product and, under this
proposed rule, it must be labeled with the common or usual name,
``corned beef containing up to 15% of a solution.'' The name would
follow the labeling requirements for font size, color, and style and
background color as proposed.
This proposed rule is only applicable to raw meat and poultry
products that, after post-evisceration processing, have solutions
added. Raw, single-ingredient meat and poultry products that retain
water as the result of post-evisceration processing are subject to the
retained water regulations (9 CFR 441.10). The regulations at 9 CFR
441.10 also address retained water as a result of the use of anti-
microbial solutions (66 FR 1766). This proposal addresses most other
added solutions.
FSIS Directive 7620.3, ``Processing Inspectors' Calculations
Handbook,'' provides instructions to inspection personnel concerning
the method to use in determining the percent pickup of solutions added
to raw poultry and meat products. The National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) Handbook 133 provides instructions to personnel
concerning the method to use in determining the net weight of enhanced
products. Should this rule become final, FSIS personnel will continue
to follow Directive 7620.3 when enforcing these labeling requirements
and the NIST Handbook 133 in order to determine the net weight of these
products.
In addition to proposing a common or usual name for raw meat and
poultry products containing added solution, FSIS is proposing to remove
9 CFR 381.169, the standard for ``ready-to-cook poultry products to
which solutions are added.'' The Agency has evaluated the provisions in
9 CFR 381.169 and has determined that the provisions are not necessary.
If this proposal is finalized, 9 CFR 381.169 will not be necessary
because the labeling of all poultry and meat products containing added
solution will be required to comply with the common or usual name
requirements. Likewise, when these proposed amendments are finalized,
Policy Memos 042,044A, and 066C will be rescinded and references to
these policy memoranda will be deleted from the FSIS Food Standards and
Labeling Policy Book. FSIS is requesting comments on removing all of
the regulatory requirements in 9 CFR 381.169.
The misbranding provisions of the Acts apply to all meat and
poultry products, including products that are not subject to the
inspection provisions of the Acts (21 U.S.C. 623(d) and 464(e)). Thus,
if finalized, these proposed regulations will apply to raw meat and
poultry products containing added solutions that do not meet a
regulatory standard of identity and that are sold for retail sale,
institutional use, or further processing. If retail facilities, such as
grocery stores, produce such products, the proposed labeling
requirements would apply to those products. The proposed regulations
would also apply to raw meat and poultry products containing added
solutions that have been sliced or cut up and re-packaged at retail or
another official establishment.
These proposed amendments, if finalized, will become effective on
January 1, 2014, the compliance date provided by the Uniform Compliance
Date for Food Labeling Regulations (75 FR 71344).
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
[[Page 44860]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JY11.018
[[Page 44861]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JY11.019
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-C
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. Under this proposed rule: (1) All State and local
laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be
preempted, (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and
(3) no retroactive proceedings will be required before parties may file
suit in court challenging this rule.
[[Page 44862]]
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order (E.O.) 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. Section 4 of E.O. 13563 emphasizes flexible approaches,
including ``provision of information to the public in a form that is
clear and intelligible.'' This proposed rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. OMB has determined that it is a
significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and,
therefore, it has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
FSIS estimated that the proportion of products containing added
solutions is about 39 percent of all raw meat and poultry products
sold. Based on FSIS's label review process estimates, 30 percent of the
49.2 billion pounds of poultry \3\ consumed by households (14.8 billion
pounds), 15 percent of the 27.3 billion pounds of beef \4\ consumed by
households (4.1 billion pounds), and 90 percent of the 21 billion
pounds of pork \5\ consumed by household (18.9 billion pounds) contain
added solutions. As a result, approximately 37.8 billion pounds, or
about 39 percent of the 97.5 billion pounds of meat and poultry
products consumed by households in the U.S. contain added solutions.\6\
FSIS requests comments on these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Poultry & Egg Association: Poultry Statistics, 2007.
\4\ Economic Research Service, USDA. U.S. Beef and Cattle
Industry: Background Statistics and Information, 2007.
\5\ National Pork Producers Council: Background Statistics and
Information, 2007.
\6\ Totals do not necessarily add up due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule will affect foreign establishments that manufacture and
export products containing added solutions to the United States,
because foreign establishments that manufacture and export products
containing added solutions to the United States will be required to
follow these same labeling requirements. FSIS requests information on
the number of foreign establishments that may be affected by this
proposed rule.
If finalized, the proposed regulations will apply to all raw meat
and poultry products containing added solution that do not meet a
standard of identity that are produced at federal establishments. The
proposed labeling requirements also apply to such products that are
produced at retail facilities, such as grocery stores. FSIS requests
comment on the number of retail facilities that produce product
containing added solution and the volume of such product that would be
subject to these regulations.
Alternatives considered:
1. No Action.
FSIS considered taking no action but did not select this
alternative because of evidence (Sorenson, November 2004) \7\ that
consumers view information about these additives as important factors
in their purchasing decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See footnote 2, page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Propose to require the word ``enhanced'' in the product's common
or usual name, or propose the use of the term ``enhanced'' in the
containing statement, e.g., ``enhanced with a 15% solution * * *''.
FSIS did not select the alternative of proposing to require the
word ``enhanced'' in the product's common or usual name because the
word implies that the product is improved by the addition of the
solution. The intent of this proposal is to increase transparency to
consumers, not to suggest that the product is either better or worse
than a raw product without the added solution.
In addition, consumer research (Sorenson, November 2004) \8\ showed
that the containing statement, ``enhanced with up to 15% solution of
water, salt, and sodium phosphates'' was preferred by fewer study
participants (about 10% fewer) \9\ than the use of the description
``contains up to 15% water, salt, and sodium phosphates.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See footnote 2, page 8.
\9\ The Sorenson study did not report statistical significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Propose to require that the common or usual name of the product
include an accurate description of the raw meat or poultry component,
the percentage of added solution, and the common or usual names of the
ingredients in the solution, with all of the print in a single font
size, color, and style on a single-color contrasting background (the
proposed amendments).
FSIS selected this alternative because it is likely to improve
consumer awareness and understanding that the raw meat or poultry
product contains an added solution. FSIS believes proposing to require
the percentage of the solution and the ingredients of the solution as
part of the common or usual name is information consumers need to make
informed purchasing decisions.
Expected Cost of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule will result in one-time costs to establishments
and retail facilities that produce and package enhanced products
pertaining to modifying labels of products. The estimated costs of
modifying labels are determined by the number of label plates or
digitalized label templates required to be modified and the average
cost of modifying labels. This methodology provides an estimated cost
for all labels of products with added solution in commerce, including
those for retailers and foreign entities that sell meat and poultry in
the United States. Based on the Agency's Labeling Information System
database, FSIS estimates that there were approximately 121,350 \10\ raw
meat and poultry product unique labels submitted by official
establishments and approved by the Agency in 2009. Therefore, FSIS
estimates that there are 46,990 (121,350 * 39%) unique labels for meat
and poultry raw products containing added solution in commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Source: FSIS Labeling and Program Delivery Division,
Labeling Information System Database, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency is providing a primary cost analysis based on the costs
published in the December 29, 2010, final rule, ``Nutrition Labeling of
Single-Ingredient Products and Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry
Products'' (75 FR 82148). In May 2011, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) published a report, ``Model to Estimate Costs of Using Labeling
as a Risk Reduction Strategy for Consumer Products Regulated by the
Food and Drug Administration, FDA.'' A secondary cost analysis based on
the FDA report is also provided for comment. FSIS requests comment on
which cost analysis should be used for the economic analysis of the
final rule.
Primary Cost Analysis
The primary cost estimate for label modification reflects
administrative activities, graphic design, prepress activities, and
plate engraving costs and excludes nutrient analysis costs and all
other types of analysis. The mid-point label design modification cost
is an estimated $1,557 per label (75 FR 82148). This estimate assumes
separate label costs for every unique product containing added
solution. Because subsidiary establishments are owned by parent
companies, and subsidiaries
[[Page 44863]]
would likely use the same label, this estimate probably overestimates
the total cost. Using this estimate, total costs of modifying labels
for all federally inspected processors is $73 million as a central
estimate (46,990 * $1,557 label modification cost).
Secondary Cost Analysis
This secondary cost analysis uses the mid-point label design
modification costs for a minor coordinated label change, as provided in
a March 2011 FDA report.\11\ The Agency is requesting comment on
whether these costs estimates are applicable to the amendments in this
proposed rule. The mid-point label design modification costs for a
minor coordinated label change is an estimated $310 per label (with a
range of $170 to $440). A coordinated label change is when a regulatory
label change is coordinated with planned labeling changes by the firm.
In this case, only administrative and recordkeeping costs are
attributed to the regulation and all other costs are not. Using this
cost, FSIS estimates that the total costs of modifying labels for all
federally inspected processors is about $14.6 million as a central
estimate (46,990 labels * $310 label modification costs), with a range
of approximately $8.0 to $20.7 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Model to Estimate Costs of Using Labeling as a Risk
Reduction Strategy for Consumer Products Regulated by the Food and
Drug Administration, FDA, March 2011 (Contract No. GS-10F-0097L,
Task Order 5). The labeling model defines all labeling changes as
minor, major, or extensive. A minor change is one in which only one
color is affected and the label does not need to be redesigned.
Examples of this type of change include changing an ingredient list
or adding a toll-free number. A major change requires multiple color
changes and label redesign. An example of a major change is adding a
facts panel or modifying the front of a package. An extensive change
is a major format change requiring a change to the product packaging
to accommodate labeling information. An example of an extensive
change is adding a peel-back label or otherwise increasing the
package surface area. We, therefore, conclude that the labeling
change that would be required by this proposed rule is a minor
change. FSIS expects that all label changes resulting from this
proposed rule will be coordinated with planned label changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These estimated costs include the labeling costs of imported and
retailer-produced raw imported meat and poultry products containing
added solutions. Under either of the cost analyses presented above, the
compliance cost of this proposed rule will be negligible as the cost of
modifying labeling is small relative to the total sales of meat and
poultry products. The 2-year compliance increments defined in the FSIS
regulation titled ``Uniform Compliance Date for Food Labeling
Regulations'' (75 FR 71344) will help affected establishments minimize
the economic impact of labeling changes because affected establishments
possibly could incorporate multiple label redesigns required by
multiple Federal rules into one modification during the 2-year
increments. Moreover, the ``Uniform Compliance Date for Food Labeling
Regulations'' allows establishments time to use existing labels and
would, therefore, result in minimal loss of inventory of labels, if
any. The ``Uniform Compliance Date for Food Labeling Regulations'' also
allows establishments to incorporate the new requirements as a
coordinated change, which reduces the cost of complying with the
proposed regulation.
FSIS Budgetary Impact of the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule will result in no impact on the Agency's
operational costs because the Agency will not need to add any staff or
incur any non-labor expenditures if the proposed rule is adopted.
FSIS is soliciting comments and data regarding any other potential
costs that might result from finalization of this rule.
Expected Benefits of the Proposed Rule
The expected benefits of this proposed rule are:
Improved public awareness of product identities by
providing truthful and accurate labeling of meat and poultry products
to clearly differentiate products containing added solutions from
single-ingredient products.
Consumers can better determine whether products containing
added solutions are suitable for their personal dietary needs through
increased product name prominence. For example, consumers' choices of
meat and poultry products with added solutions with a high sodium
content could have unintended health consequences if labels of these
products were inadequate in revealing the information of added
ingredients to the consumers.
This proposed action is not likely to result in a market demand
shift, relative to other products, for meat and poultry products, with
or without added solutions, because this proposed action is unlikely to
influence consumers' preference for meat and poultry products in
general. The proposed action, if adopted, will not add monetary
benefits to the meat and poultry industry. Instead, the rule will make
clearer product content information available to consumers of meat and
poultry products with added solutions.
This rule may also help consumers reduce their sodium intake
because the new product names will better alert consumers to the fact
that the products contain added solutions. The prominence and design of
the label on the front of the package may increase the likelihood that
consumers review the nutrition facts panel, including information on
sodium content, and make more healthful food choices. The benefits of
improved market information are not quantifiable due to lack of data.
FSIS is soliciting comments and data that would permit the
quantification of the expected benefits.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The FSIS Administrator has made a preliminary determination that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities in the United States, as defined
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). There are about 5,719
small federally inspected establishments, of which 2,616 are small
(with 10 or more but less than 500 employees), and 3,103 are very small
(with fewer than 10 employees) based on Hazard Analysis Critical
Control Point (HACCP) classification. Because only a portion of all
meat and poultry products is sold with added solutions, a fraction of
small and very small establishments will be impacted by this proposed
rule at a negligible cost.
In the primary cost analysis above, FSIS estimated that the average
one-time cost of modifying labels per unique label is about $1,557 and
the total one-time cost for the industry is about $73 million (the
secondary cost analysis total cost is $14.6 million). This results in
an average one-time cost per establishment of about $11,969 ($73
million/6099 establishments). Because small and very small
establishments produce less output and fewer unique labels, their
average one-time cost per establishment will be lower. Therefore, FSIS
believes that the cost to small and very small establishments of
providing modified labels for the meat and poultry products with added
solutions will be negligible. FSIS requests comment on the average
number of labels of meat and poultry products with added solutions
produced by small and very small producers and invites small and very
small establishments to comment on the estimation of the compliance
cost of the proposed rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, the information collection or
[[Page 44864]]
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Title: Product Labeling Requirements for Meat and Poultry
Containing Added Solutions.
Type of Collection: New.
Abstract: FSIS is proposing common or usual name labeling
requirements for raw meat and poultry products that do not meet
standard of identity regulations and to which solutions have been
added. The proposed amendments will require establishments that
manufacture products containing added solutions to modify or redesign
the product label. The proposed amendments will be effective on the
next compliance date provided by the Uniform Compliance Date for Food
Labeling Regulations.
Estimate of Burden: FSIS estimates that it will take a respondent
75 minutes per response to comply with the information collection
associated with product labeling requirements.
Respondents: Official establishments, retail stores, and foreign
firms.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,100.
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 8.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 61,000 hours.
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained
from John O'Connell, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety
and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 6083,
South Building, Washington, DC 20250.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to both John O'Connell, Paperwork Reduction
Act Coordinator, at the address provided above, and the Desk Officer
for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253. To be most effective,
comments should be sent to OMB within 60 days of the publication date
of this proposed rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget.
E-Government Act
FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-
Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) by, among other things,
promoting the use of the Internet and other information technologies
and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
Additional Public Notification
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy
development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that
minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this
proposed rule, FSIS will announce it online through the FSIS Web page
located at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Federal_Register_Publications_&_Related_Documents/index.asp.
FSIS will also make copies of this Federal Register publication
available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide
information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal
Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information
that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and
stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free
electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups,
consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals
who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS
Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide
information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition,
FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service which provides
automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and
information. This service is available at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Email_Subscription/. Options range from recalls to
export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers
can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to
password protect their accounts.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation
will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and
will not have significant Tribal implications.
USDA Nondiscrimination Statement
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination
in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,
national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,
sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for
communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,
etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and
TTY).
To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TTY).
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 317
Food labeling, Food packaging, Meat inspection, Nutrition,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
9 CFR Part 381
Food labeling.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to
amend 9 CFR Chapter III as follows:
PART 317--LABELING, MARKING DEVICES, AND CONTAINERS
1. The authority citation for Part 317 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
2. Amend Sec. 317.2 by redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph
(e)(1) and adding a new paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 317.2 Labels: definition; required features.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2)(i) The common or usual name for a raw meat product that
contains added solution and does not meet a standard of identity in 9
CFR part 319 consists of:
(A) An accurate description of the raw meat component;
(B) The percentage of added solution (total weight of the solution
ingredients
[[Page 44865]]
divided by the weight of the raw meat without solution or any other
added ingredients multiplied by 100) using numerical representation and
the percent symbol ``%;'' and
(C) The common or usual name of individual ingredients or multi-
ingredient components in the solution listed in descending order of
predominance by weight (such as, ``pork tenderloin--15% added solution
of water and salt'' or ``beef--15% added solution of water and teriyaki
sauce'').
(ii) The common or usual name must be printed in a single font
size, color, and style of print and must appear on a single-color
contrasting background.
(iii) When the common or usual name includes all ingredients in the
solution, a separate ingredients statement is not required on the
label. When the common or usual name includes multi-ingredient
components and the ingredients of the component are not declared in the
product name, all ingredients in the product must be declared in a
separate ingredients statement on the label as required in Sec. Sec.
317.2(c)(2) and 317.2(f).
* * * * *
PART 381--POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS
3. The authority citation for Part 381 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138F, 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7 CFR 2.7,
2.18, 2.53.
4. A new Sec. 381.117(h) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 381.117 Name of product and other labeling.
* * * * *
(h) Common or usual name for raw products containing added
solution. (1) The common or usual name for a raw poultry product that
contains added solution and does not meet a standard of identity in 9
CFR part 381 consists of:
(i) An accurate description of the raw poultry component;
(ii) The percentage of added solution (total weight of the solution
ingredients divided by the weight of the raw poultry without solution
or any other added ingredients multiplied by 100) using numerical
representation and the percent symbol ``%;'' and
(iii) The common or usual name of all individual ingredients or
multi-ingredient components in the solution listed in descending order
of predominance by weight (such as, ``chicken breast--15% added
solution of water and salt'' or ``chicken breast--40% added solution of
water, teriyaki sauce, and salt'').
(2) The common or usual name must be printed in a single font size,
color, and style of print and must appear on a single-color contrasting
background.
(3) When the common or usual name includes all ingredients in the
solution, a separate ingredients statement is not required on the
label. When the common or usual name includes multi-ingredient
components and the ingredients of the component are not declared in the
product name, all ingredients in the product must be declared in a
separate ingredients statement on the label as required in Sec.
381.118.
Sec. 381.169 [Removed and reserved]
5. Remove and reserve Sec. 381.169.
Done at Washington, DC, on July 20, 2011.
Alfred Almanza,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-18793 Filed 7-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P