[Federal Register: October 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 58631-58637]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16oc07-43]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
[Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0113; LS-05-09]
United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims,
Grass (Forage) Fed Claim for Ruminant Livestock and the Meat Products
Derived From Such Livestock
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is establishing a
voluntary standard for a grass (forage) fed livestock marketing claim.
This standard incorporates revisions made as a result of comments
received from an earlier proposed standard. A number of livestock
producers make claims associated with production practices in order to
distinguish their products in the marketplace. With the establishment
of this voluntary standard, livestock producers may request that a
grass (forage) fed claim be verified by the Department of Agriculture
(USDA). Verification of this claim will be accomplished through an
audit of the production process in accordance with procedures that are
contained in Part 62 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7
CFR part 62), and the meat sold from these approved programs can carry
a claim verified by USDA.
DATES: Effective Date: November 15, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin E. O'Connor, Chief, Standards,
Analysis, and Technology Branch, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA,
Room 2607-S, 1400
[[Page 58632]]
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0254, facsimile (202)
720-1112, telephone (202) 720-4486, or e-mail Martin.OConnor@usda.gov.
The U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, Grass
(Forage) Fed Claim for Ruminant Livestock and the Meat Products Derived
from Such Livestock, is available through the above physical address or
by accessing the Web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/claim.htm
.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1622), directs and authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture ``To develop and improve standards of quality,
condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and
demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and
consistency in commercial practices.'' USDA is committed to carrying
out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of
agricultural products. One way of achieving this objective is through
the development and maintenance of voluntary standards by AMS.
AMS is establishing this voluntary U.S. Standard for Livestock and
Meat Marketing Claims, Grass (Forage) Fed Claim for Ruminant Livestock
and the Meat Products Derived from Such Livestock, in accordance with
procedures that are contained in Part 36 of Title 7 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection and recordkeeping
requirements for the services associated with the grass (forage) fed
marketing claim is approved under Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Control No. 0581-0124, which expires August 31, 2008.
Background
Individuals and companies often highlight production and marketing
practices in advertisements and promotions to distinguish their
products in the marketplace. Since the late 1970's, livestock and meat
producers (individuals and companies) have requested the voluntary
services of AMS to verify or certify specific practices to increase the
value of their products. The Livestock and Seed (LS) Program of AMS has
provided certification, through direct product examination, for a
number of production claims related to livestock and carcass
characteristics. The validity of such claims was enhanced since the
product was labeled as ``USDA Certified.'' The LS Program also offers
verification services through Quality System Verification Programs
(QSVP; http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/audit.htm) to substantiate
claims that cannot be determined by direct examination of livestock,
their carcasses, component parts, or the finished product. The QSVP
provides suppliers of agricultural products or services the opportunity
to distinguish specific activities involved in the production and
processing of their agricultural products and to assure customers of
their ability to provide consistent quality products or services. This
is accomplished by documenting the quality management program and
having the manufacturing or service delivery processes verified through
independent, third-party audits. One specific QSVP is the USDA Process
Verified Program which allows suppliers to make marketing claims--such
as feeding practices or other raising and processing claims--and label
and market their products as ``USDA Process Verified.''
As multiple marketers of specialized claims began to seek USDA
certification or verification for the same or similar production
practices, AMS determined it would be beneficial to establish standards
for common production and marketing claims and these standards will
collectively be a part of the voluntary U.S. Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims that may be used in conjunction with a
certified or verified program recognized by AMS. The livestock and meat
marketing claim standards will be instrumental in facilitating
communication, establishing a common trade language, and enhancing
understanding among producers, processors, and consumers. Past
experience indicates that standards sort a highly diverse population
into more homogeneous groups, and when standards are uniformly applied,
they provide a valuable marketing tool. AMS develops standards for
marketing and production claims based on experience with USDA Certified
Programs and USDA QSVP, research into standard practices and
procedures, and requests from the livestock and meat industries. One
such production practice is the raising of livestock on grasslands or
forage products. Accordingly, AMS is establishing the voluntary grass
(forage) fed marketing claim standard. AMS obtained input from a number
of individual experts in government, industry, and academia while
drafting this standard and the corresponding thresholds for compliance.
Product labels that include the grass (forage) fed marketing claim
must be submitted to USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS),
Labeling Program and Delivery Division (LPDD), for evaluation prior to
use. FSIS, LPDD, under the authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act
(FMIA; 21 U.S.C. 601, 607) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(PPIA; 21 U.S.C. 451, 457), regulates domestic and imported meat,
poultry, and egg product labeling, standards, and ingredients. AMS has
worked closely with FSIS, LPDD to develop the voluntary grass (forage)
fed marketing claim standard. The standard for a grass (forage) fed
marketing claim will be part of the voluntary U.S. Standards for
Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims which may be used in conjunction
with a USDA QSVP. Grass (forage) fed marketing claims may be verified,
as provided in 7 CFR Part 62, by a feeding protocol that confirms a
grass (forage)-based diet. However, since this is a voluntary marketing
claim, FSIS will not establish a new provision to limit the use of the
term grass (forage) fed to labels in which participants have a USDA
QSVP. Any specific labeling issues or questions not related to AMS'
services should be directed to the FSIS, LPDD.
Comments and Responses on the Proposed Marketing Claim Standard for the
Grass (Forage) Fed Claim
AMS originally proposed 13 U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat
Marketing Claims, as a notice and request for comments, in the December
30, 2002, Federal Register Notice (67 FR 79552), including the grass
(forage) fed claim. AMS then revised the grass (forage) fed claim and
re-proposed the claim in the May 12, 2006, Federal Register Notice (71
FR 27662). This final notice only covers the grass (forage) fed claim.
Other claims that appeared in the December 30, 2002, Federal Register
Notice (67 FR 79552) will be addressed at a later time.
In the December 30, 2002, Federal Register Notice (67 FR 79552),
the grass (forage) fed claim standard proposed that grass, green or
range pasture, or forage shall be 80 percent or more of the primary
energy source throughout the animal's life cycle. As a result of the
public comments received, AMS determined significant modification to
the proposed grass (forage) fed standard was needed. AMS re-proposed
the grass (forage) fed claim standard in the May 12, 2006, Federal
Register Notice (71 FR 27662). It proposed that grass (annual and
perennial), forbs (legumes, Brassica), browse, forage, or stockpiled
forages, and post-harvest crop residue
[[Page 58633]]
without separated grain shall be at least 99 percent of the energy
source for the lifetime of the ruminant specie, with the exception of
milk consumed prior to weaning.
By the close of the comment period for the May 12, 2006, Federal
Register Notice (71 FR 27662), AMS received 19,811 comments concerning
the grass (forage) fed claim from consumers, academia, trade and
professional associations, non-profit organizations, national organic
associations, consumer advocacy associations, retail and meat product
companies, and livestock producers. Summaries of issues raised by
commenters and AMS' responses follow.
Grass (Forage) Percentage
Comments: An overwhelming majority of the comments received
expressed support that AMS chose to develop and propose production
standards for grass fed animals. Further, the majority of comments
supported that the animal's diet must be 99 percent or higher grass or
forage-based. AMS also received a small number of comments suggesting a
percentage other than the proposed 99 percent. A few commenters
suggested the standard be 100 percent grass or forage-based. One
commenter in particular commented favorably on the increase from 80
percent to 99 percent but stated that a 100 percent would be easier to
verify. There were also commenters who stated that the 99 percent grass
or forage-based diet was too strict due to the diverse climate and
rangeland throughout the United States. One commenter stated that 99
percent of the diet coming from grass or forage is too high to have a
balanced ration that provides good weight gains and also reduces
nitrogen losses to the environment. One commenter stated that 75
percent of beef producers in the United States work with environments
with periods of zero plant growth, and only the highest quality stored
forages will result in weight gains approaching 1.0 kg/day. These
commenters recommended various levels from 90 to 97.5 percent grass or
forage-based diet to address these concerns. One comment suggested that
the grass (forage) fed claim require that grass (forage) be at least 99
percent of the energy source for the lifetime of the animal with the
exception of documented emergency feeding. Another commenter stated
that the 1 percent allowed for non-forage feed should be specified for
inadvertent or emergency cases only, but not part of the regular
ration. Beyond setting a percentage level, one commenter also asked AMS
to provide scientific justification for the level being at 99 percent.
Commenters were not only concerned about the percentage level but
also requested further clarification of what the percentage refers to.
One commenter supported the figure of 99 percent as the grass (forage)
fed standard but requested that the wording be changed from ``99% of
the energy source'' to ``99% of the dry matter intake.'' This
commenter's rationale was that the percentage of the energy source as
related to animal food intake is not a commonly calculated measure and
using it will cause confusion and various unintended interpretations on
how it is to be measured. Another commenter made a similar request that
the language require feeding of 100 percent forage and not 99 percent
of the energy from forage. Two other commenters also had similar
comments that the claim as stated is confusing, that the statement ``at
least 99 percent of the energy source'' does not correspond to ``a
grass or forage based diet that is 99 percent or higher'' and that the
first statement could be taken as any amount of protein (or other
nutrient) source could also be fed. Another commenter suggested that
the use of forage as an energy source should be changed to ``energy/
feed source'' to avoid the supplementation of non-forage-based
nitrogen, such as urea treated hay.
Agency Responses: After evaluating the extensive comments received
regarding the appropriate diet percentage, AMS determined that in order
to make a grass (forage) fed marketing claim, a diet of grass (forage)
should be maximized. AMS believes that the 99 percent grass or forage-
based diet proposed in the May 12, 2006, Federal Register Notice (71 FR
27662) was appropriate. However, AMS concurs it is easier to verify a
100 percent grass (forage)-based diet. AMS also concurs that as
proposed, various interpretations on what the percentage refers to and
how it will be measured (calculated) might occur. The language in the
standard regarding the use of grass (forage) as an ``energy source''
should be changed and clarified to represent that the standard is based
solely on the consumption of a grass (forage)-based diet. Removing the
``energy source'' terminology will further clarify that supplemental
energy and protein sources are not permitted and will remove any
confusion about how to measure (calculate) percent energy source.
Again, AMS believes that due to the nature of grass (forage) fed
production systems, it will be more appropriate to verify a maximized
(100 percent) grass (forage)-based diet. Therefore, AMS will not adopt
any of the other suggested percentage levels and will remove any
reference to a percentage in the standard. Accordingly, the grass
(forage) fed marketing claim will only apply to ruminant animals whose
diet throughout their lifespan is derived solely from grass (forage),
with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. AMS realizes that
incidental supplementation may occur due to inadvertent exposure to
non-forage feedstuffs or to ensure the animal's well being at all times
during adverse environmental or physical conditions. If incidental
supplementation occurs as described above, the producer must fully
document (e.g., receipts, ingredients, and tear tags) the incidental
supplementation that occurs including how much, how often, and what was
supplemented. The producer must maintain sufficient records of the
animal's diet for the lifespan of the animal to demonstrate compliance
with the requirement that, throughout its lifespan, the ruminant
animal's diet is derived solely from grass and forage, with the
exceptions previously discussed.
Finally, with regard to the commenter requesting scientific
justification for the 99 percent grass (forage)-based diet, AMS notes
that this is a marketing claim centered on a production method where
the animal's diet is derived from grass and not a computed scientific
figure.
Clarification of Language and Definition Relative to the Exclusion of
Grains
Comments: The majority of the comments received requested that the
standard be clarified, and stated that the language in the proposed
standard was ambiguous which could allow meat from grain fed animals to
be labeled as grass (forage) fed. Specifically, many of the commenters
asked for the meaning of ``immature grain'' to be clarified. AMS
received numerous comments with specific suggestions for the language
in the background section and definition of the grass (forage) fed
standard to ensure grain would be prohibited. Commenters suggested that
the standard should prohibit the use of any mature corn or other
traditional feed grains in feedstock used by producers seeking to
market products under a grass (forage) fed label. Numerous commenters
requested that crops normally harvested for grain (such as corn and
small grains) must be harvested or grazed when in the vegetative state
(pre-grain formation) in order to be considered eligible feed under
this standard. Several commenters suggested that ``hay,
[[Page 58634]]
haylage, baleage, silage, and ensilage may be fed, provided no grain
species have reached the milk stage or legume grain reached 10 percent
pod fill.''
A few other comments were also received regarding the language in
the standard. One commenter recommended that AMS reconsider the
definition of eligible feed provided in the 2002 Notice (i.e., grass,
green or range pasture, or forage) and include language regarding the
specific conditions where harvested grasses can be used. They stated
that if AMS changes the definition of ``grass,'' then AMS will need to
also look at the impact the change makes on meeting the nutritional
needs of the animal if the requirement is to still be 99 percent of the
energy needs. One commenter stated that it may be better to indicate
that legumes and Brassica are only examples of forbs, not the complete
list of acceptable forbs. One commenter requested that the word
``mother's'' be inserted before the phrase ``milk consumed prior to
feeding.'' Another commenter brought up the issue of calves raised on
milk replacer until weaning. This commenter stated that in dairy-
intensive regions of the United States it is possible for dairy bull
and steer calves to be part of grass fed beef production systems and
that it would be useful for the standard to clarify whether milk
replacer is an acceptable feed source.
Agency Responses: AMS did not intend for the standard to permit
meat from grain fed animals to be labeled as grass (forage) fed. AMS
agrees further clarification and more specific language are needed to
prevent the feeding of grain. AMS has incorporated several of the
suggested clarifications received through the comments on this point
and the definition of grass (forage) will be clarified so that crops
normally harvested for grain may qualify for forage only if they are
harvested or are grazed in the vegetative state (pre-grain). The
details regarding the language clarifications are set forth in this
standard. Regarding milk consumed by calves prior to weaning, AMS has
determined that it is not necessary to insert the word ``mother's'' as
one commenter suggested. Milk replacer fed prior to weaning is within
the intent of the grass (forage) fed standard, as it is an acceptable
alternative feed source to mother's milk. The remainder of the comments
were considered, but not incorporated into the standard as AMS has
determined the standard, with the revisions made, is clear, attainable,
and appropriate.
Stored and Harvested Forages and Other Supplements
Comments: One issue that particularly divided commenters was
allowing stored or harvested forages to be a part of the grass (forage)
fed claim. One commenter stated it is important to exclude ``green
chop'' forage, corn or sorghum grain, and soybeans. Another commenter
encouraged AMS not to allow harvested forage, corn silage, or other
grains that have been separated from their stalks to be part of the
grass (forage) fed claim. Another commenter specifically did not think
the feeding of fermented vegetative products like silage should be
permitted in the grass (forage) fed designation as they have undergone
significant chemical alteration. One commenter wanted animals raised
100 percent on live, green grass and that their diet should not include
hay, almond hulls, or other vegetable matter.
Some commenters stated mechanically harvested forage without grain
may be fed to animals while on grassland during periods of inclement
weather or low forage quality. Several commenters supported the
proposed standard to allow the feeding of harvested grass and forage to
grass fed animals. They stated that in northern climates, feeding of
harvested grass and forage during winter months is often necessary to
sustain animals in a healthy condition as well as in drought
conditions. Another commenter stated that stored forages should be
allowed, because in most regions of the country, cattle cannot graze
during the entire calendar year, and there will be year round demand
for locally produced grass fed, fresh products. This commenter stated
that their customers in the winter would rather purchase products
produced from grass fed animals fed stored forage than conventional
meat and dairy products, if they have the choice. This commenter also
stated that the use of hay and hay crop silage will be needed to
provide feed when snow cover prevents livestock from grazing live or
dormant pasture. Another commenter mentioned that the best stored
forage is grass that is mechanically harvested before grain is formed
and properly cured and stored to maintain as much ``green'' as possible
and that silage did not meet the ``green'' criteria.
AMS also received numerous comments suggesting various supplements
that should or should not be considered eligible to be included in the
grass (forage) fed diet. Again, the comments received regarding
supplements differed in that some commenters stated that certain
supplements should be allowed while others indicated that the
supplements should not be allowed. Specific supplements mentioned to be
excluded were processed or partially processed fruits, vegetables,
rice, nuts or nut hulls, soybean meal and soy hulls, dried distillers
grains, corn gluten feed, whole cottonseed, flax, beet pulp, citrus
pulp, cottonseed meal, livestock minerals for proper immune function
and general health, range cubes (75 percent ground alfalfa hay and 25
percent wheat and soybean meal, all organic certified), and wheat bran.
The commenters in support of feeding supplements stated that
supplemental feeding of ruminants that are on a very high forage diet,
whether on pasture or being fed stored forages during the pasture
dormancy period, is essential practice for both profitability, water
quality concerns, and is very important to balancing the ration given
to the ruminant.
One commenter submitted that mineral and vitamin supplementation
should not be routine, but only used when necessary for animal health
purposes.
Agency Responses: Due to the diverse range and climate conditions
across the United States, it is not practical to limit consumption to
grass (forage) consumed by the animal only while pasturing and to
restrict the use of harvested, stockpiled or stored forages. During
periods of inclement weather or low forage quality, the welfare and
nutritional needs of the animal must be taken into account. Allowing
harvested or stockpiled forages will address the lack of readily
available grass (forage) throughout the year. Accordingly, harvested
forage without grain is allowed. AMS realizes that silage is a
fermented vegetative product that has undergone significant chemical
alteration and is not as ``green'' as other freshly chopped forages;
however, restricting silage due to a ``green'' criterion is outside the
scope of the standard. As stated previously in the document, language
will be in the standard to exclude grain, specifically to exclude
forage crops containing grain as eligible feed.
With regard to other supplements mentioned in the comments, AMS
does agree that certain supplemental ingredients should not be allowed
in the diet because they are not grass (forage). These ingredients
include cereal grains, grain byproducts (starch and protein sources),
cottonseed and cottonseed meal, soybean and soybean meal, non-protein
nitrogen sources such as urea, and animal byproducts. By contrast,
[[Page 58635]]
roughage (e.g.>, cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, and almond hulls),
defined as any feed high in crude fiber and low in total digestible
nutrients, on an air-dry basis, can be supplemented in a grass
(forage)-based diet because it is low in nutrients and its bulk
stimulates peristalsis. Further, AMS believes that mineral and vitamin
supplements should be allowed so the animal's nutrient intake can be
adjusted and that deficiencies in the diet can be corrected.
Related Production Issues Including Access to Pasture, Confinement, and
Antibiotics and Hormones
Comments: Many of the comments received from both producers and
consumers were explicit in that they want grass fed raising practices
distinguished from conventional feeding practices. Commenters wrote
that consumers of grass fed animal products reasonably expect that
these animals are raised on pasture, in contrast to the feedlots and
other confinement operations typical of conventional animal
agriculture. Others specifically stated that they do not want the grass
(forage) fed label to mean an animal has been confined for up to 220
days, fed corn silage, and administered antibiotics and growth
hormones. Others requested for AMS to ensure that grass (forage) fed
means range or pasture raised, not produced from a conventional
confinement operation.
Many commenters also urged AMS to move quickly to develop the
revised requirements for livestock labeling claims related to hormones,
antibiotics, and pasture requirements. Commenters stated that the grass
(forage) fed claim will only become truly effective when it
comprehensively includes hormone, antibiotic, and free-range or pasture
fed standards.
Another issue raised was that the proposed standard neglected to
specify or require that animals be raised on pasture. Some commenters
specifically stated the term grass (forage) fed is, and should continue
to be, synonymous with animals having free access to pasture or
rangeland. Many other commenters stated that grass (forage) fed should
mean animals humanely raised in grass pastures from birth to harvest.
Other commenters stated that the 99 percent provision was appropriate,
but only in conjunction with the expectation that the bulk of an
animal's nutrition will come from a live, green pasture where,
according to season, the animal shall predominantly be raised.
Others commented that AMS should require that a significant amount
of the grass in the animal's diet come from grass and forage consumed
by animals while pasturing. Other commenters stated that at the
minimum, animals should graze during the growing season but for no less
than 120 days per year. One commenter said that grass fed ruminants
must graze pasture during the entire growing season and that exceptions
to this provision should be limited to (1) emergencies that may
threaten the safety and well being of the animals or soil; and, (2)
management practices such as roundups, sorting, shipping, and weaning.
This commenter also stated that the provisions should not be
interpreted as to exclude high intensity rotational grazing systems.
Some of the commenters also stated that similar to the issue of
pasture raised, the grass (forage) fed claim should also mean animals
are not to be raised in confinement (e.g., feedlot). Some commenters
suggested that grass fed animals should not be fed in confinement more
than 20-30 days per calendar year, unless an emergency situation arises
that poses a threat to the animal's health or well being (e.g., fire,
flood, and blizzard). Some suggested allowable confinement conditions
that include: times when animals are sorted, shipped, weaned, sold, and
harvested, and periods of extreme, adverse weather such as flooding,
drought, or blizzards.
Another production practice on which AMS received comments was the
use of antibiotics and hormones. Some of the commenters stated that in
their view the grass (forage) fed standard should restrict the use of
antibiotics and hormones. However, other commenters discussed the
complexities in completely restricting the use of antibiotics.
Agency Responses: In the May 12, 2006, Federal Register Notice (71
FR 27662), AMS determined that meat produced from animals which meet
the minimum requirements for grass (forage) feeding should be eligible
for the grass (forage) fed claim and additional production practices
that go beyond a grass (forage) fed diet should not be incorporated in
this standard. Additional labeling claims can be made in conjunction
with the grass (forage) fed claim (e.g., free-range, no antibiotics or
hormones administered) to highlight other production practices. AMS
also has determined that animals must graze live pasture during the
growing season as a requirement of the grass (forage) fed standard as
it is inherent to the term grass (forage) fed. With regards to the
issue of confinement and free-range, as stated in the May 12, 2006,
Federal Register Notice (71 FR 27662), AMS recognizes the synergistic
nature between grass feeding and free-range conditions; however, AMS
has determined it is preferable to keep the terminology separate and
develop two distinct standards for both grass (forage) fed and free-
range claims, particularly in view of possible distinctions in their
diet. Similarly, AMS has determined it is preferable to keep the
terminology separate for the use of antibiotics and hormones.
Verification, Compliance, and Labeling Issues
Comments: Several commenters stated that while the audit-based
verification procedures (USDA Process Verified Program) utilized to
substantiate label claims provides a high degree of assurance, the cost
of compliance with these standards can be unduly burdensome for small
and mid-sized producers and that all possible steps be taken to reduce
the fee-based requirements for participating in this program.
One commenter stated that it was unfortunate that this program does
not maintain any penalties for producers and handlers who utilize the
grass (forage) fed label without participating in the USDA Process
Verified Program. Another comment recommended that FSIS establish a new
provision within the Meat and Poultry Inspection Regulations and the
Meat and Poultry Inspection Manual, Directives and Notices that would
limit the usage of the term ``grass fed'' only to labels in which the
producer and handler of the product were approved participants under a
USDA Process Verified Program for grass (forage) fed labeling.
Other commenters stated a transition period for producers should be
allowed so that they may continue to sell products that claim to be
produced from grass fed animals while protocols are updated, and new
labels are approved by FSIS, printed, and applied to the product.
Another commenter asked to see language added that will not allow
producers to include the term ``grass fed'' in their company name
unless they are selling product verified by AMS. They stated if this
provision is not added ranches will just change their ranch name to
include the word grass fed instead of going through the paperwork
required of USDA Process Verified Programs.
One commenter objected to the voluntary program because their main
plant is located in Argentina and would not be able to be included in
the program, even though 99 percent of all animals and 100 percent of
all bulls and cows are grass fed in Argentina. This commenter stated
that this program discriminates against imported meat and meat
products, and is an added cost
[[Page 58636]]
to the end user, as the costs to approve the meat would be passed on to
the consumer.
Agency Responses: Relative to the cost of AMS audit-based
verification services, every effort has been made to make these
services available in the most cost-effective manner possible to all
applicants. The cost of AMS' verification services is outside the scope
of voluntary marketing claim standards.
In response to the issue of penalties for producers and handlers
who utilize a grass (forage) fed label without participating in the
USDA Process Verified Program, it should be noted that all label
claims, including the ones verified by a USDA Process Verified Program,
must be approved by FSIS, LPDD. FSIS, LPDD develops and implements
regulations and policies to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg product
labeling is truthful and non-misleading. Under FMIA and PPIA, the
labels of products must be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture,
who has delegated this authority to FSIS, before these products can
enter commerce. Accordingly, all labeling issues and questions,
including requiring a USDA Process Verified Program for approval of a
grass (forage) fed claim, transition periods, and the use of grass fed
in a company's name must be addressed by FSIS.
The purpose of voluntarily participating in a USDA Process Verified
Program is to obtain AMS verification for specific practices so that a
livestock or meat producer's products can be differentiated in the
marketplace. Although producers and handlers may use an approved grass
(forage) fed label without participating in a USDA QSVP, the use of any
official certificate, memoranda, marks, or other identifications, and
devices for purposes of the Agricultural Marketing Act without
complying with the program requirements may result in either a fine,
imprisonment, or both. Section 203(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 authorizes the imposition of fines, imprisonment, or both for
anyone who knowingly falsifies any official certificate, memorandum,
mark, or other identification, or device for making such mark or
identification, with respect to inspection, class, grade, quality,
size, quantity, or condition, issued or authorized pursuant to USDA
QSVP.
Relative to foreign producers who want to market grass (forage) fed
products in the United States, a cost-effective, voluntary program to
substantiate label claims can be developed between USDA and the
appropriate national-level counterpart in the producer's country
provided applicable FSIS regulatory approvals are in place.
Perceptions Associated With Grass (Forage) Fed Claim
Comments: Many commenters offered reasons for producing and
consuming meat from grass fed animals. Commenters stated that as a
consumer they wanted livestock raised in conditions that promote the
animal's health and protect the environment, and in conditions that
will produce meat products that contain the healthiest nutrients.
One commenter thought AMS should allow verifiable health claims,
such as low fat, or future verifiable health claims, such as Conjugated
Linoleic Acid (CLA) content. Another commenter also disagreed with any
prohibition on any claims regarding levels of Omega-3 fatty acids and
CLA in a specified serving of grass fed meat versus an identical
serving of grain fed meat. These commenters stated that sufficient
empirical scientific evidence now exists to clearly document the
attributes of grass feeding in regard to Omega-3 fatty acids and CLA.
Several commenters suggested that while the exact benefits of
increased CLA and the type and balance of Omega-3 fatty acids are still
under evaluation, the possibility that meat derived from grass (forage)
fed ruminants is better for consumers remains an open question. One
commenter stated that they support AMS' position that requirements or
characteristics beyond energy source (i.e., level of CLA or Omega-3
fatty acids) should not be incorporated into the standard. This
commenter stated that not all forages are equal in fatty acid
composition and feeding different types of forages to different types
of cattle across the country can result in differing concentrations of
CLA and Omega-3 fatty acids in the final product. They agreed grass fed
beef can contain significantly higher levels of these compounds than
grain fed beef; however, they stated that the industry lacks evidence
to suggest that these higher levels create a meaningful health benefit
for humans and agreed that this issue warrants further investigation
based on sound science.
Agency Responses: It will be up to the producer to make additional
distinctions in their meat products beyond the grass (forage) fed
claim. Further, it is up to an individual consumer to determine their
reason for eating meat from animals fed grass (forage). Reasons
consumers list for consuming meat from grass fed animals differ widely
and such standards would be based on those various perceptions.
However, this issue is not within the scope of this marketing claim
standard. Nutritional issues on labels are more appropriately addressed
through the FSIS, LPDD label approval process.
Additional Issues Raised
Comments: Some commenters also requested that the use of
genetically engineered plants and forage be prohibited and that
specifically the grass (forage) fed label should ensure the grass or
forage used as feed not be sourced from pasture or harvested from
grasses using genetically engineered varieties of alfalfa, Bahia grass,
tall fescue, Italian ryegrass or other such grasses.
Several comments supported that the standard covers all ruminants,
including cattle, goats, and sheep. However, multiple commenters
requested that the standard be written so as to clearly indicate that
dairy products derived from livestock meeting the grass (forage) fed
standard can be marketed using grass (forage) fed claims. One commenter
specifically proposed that the grass (forage) fed claim be applied to
all ruminant animal products including meat, meat products, milk, milk
products, animal fiber, and animal fiber products. Another commenter
asked that the standard address the reality of what a grass fed chicken
or a grass fed pig will eat.
One commenter also suggested that a standardized spelling of grass
fed be determined to minimize confusion among producers, marketers,
consumers, and industry organizations.
Agency Responses: At this time, a requirement prohibiting the use
of genetically engineered plants is not included due to the lack of
research showing effects on animals consuming genetically engineered
plants. Further, this voluntary standard applies only to meat products
from ruminants. Milk, milk products, animal fiber, and animal fiber
products are determined to be outside the scope of this standard. AMS
does agree a standardized spelling of grass fed would minimize
confusion and has applied a standardized spelling to the standard.
Accordingly, AMS establishes the following voluntary U.S. Standard
for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, in this notice.
U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, Grass (Forage)
Fed Claim for Ruminant Livestock and the Meat Products Derived From
Such Livestock.
Background: This claim applies to ruminant animals and the meat and
[[Page 58637]]
meat products derived from such animals whose diet, throughout their
lifespan, with the exception of milk (or milk replacer) consumed prior
to weaning, is solely derived from forage, which for the purpose of
this claim, is any edible herbaceous plant material that can be grazed
or harvested for feeding, with the exception of grain. Forage-based
diets can be derived from grass (annual and perennial), forbs (e.g.,
legumes, Brassica), and browse. Animals cannot be fed grain or grain
byproducts and must have continuous access to pasture during the
growing season. Growing season is defined as the time period extending
from the average date of the last frost in spring to the average date
of the first frost in the fall in the local area of production. Hay,
haylage, baleage, silage, crop residue without grain, and other
roughage sources also may be included as acceptable feed sources.
Consumption of seeds naturally attached to forage is acceptable.
However, crops normally harvested for grain (including but not limited
to corn, soybean, rice, wheat, and oats) are only eligible feed if they
are foraged or harvested in the vegetative state (pre-grain).
Upon request, verification of this claim will be accomplished
through an audit of the production process. The producer must be able
to verify for AMS that the grass (forage) marketing claim standard
requirements are being met through a detailed documented quality
management system.
Claim and Standard
Grass (Forage) Fed--Grass and forage shall be the feed source
consumed for the lifetime of the ruminant animal, with the exception of
milk consumed prior to weaning. The diet shall be derived solely from
forage consisting of grass (annual and perennial), forbs (e.g.,
legumes, Brassica), browse, or cereal grain crops in the vegetative
(pre-grain) state. Animals cannot be fed grain or grain byproducts and
must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season. Hay,
haylage, baleage, silage, crop residue without grain, and other
roughage sources may also be included as acceptable feed sources.
Routine mineral and vitamin supplementation may also be included in the
feeding regimen. If incidental supplementation occurs due to
inadvertent exposure to non-forage feedstuffs or to ensure the animal's
well being at all times during adverse environmental or physical
conditions, the producer must fully document (e.g., receipts,
ingredients, and tear tags) the supplementation that occurs including
the amount, the frequency, and the supplements provided.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
Dated: October 10, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. E7-20328 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P