Farm Progress

Groups comment on importance of requiring “Product of USA” label for products from animals born, raised and harvested in U.S.

Jacqui Fatka 2, Farm Policy Editor, Farm Futures

August 21, 2018

5 Min Read
USDA

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) has extended the comment period regarding the petition seeking a change to FSIS guidance policy that currently allows any beef product passing through a U.S. slaughtering or processing plant to bear a "Product of USA" label.

The new deadline for comments is Sept. 17, 2018. However, some groups that support the label change already have voiced support for the petition that FSIS should change current regulations to require that beef be of domestic origin to be eligible for the “Product of the USA” label.

The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) and the American Grassfed Assn. (AGA) filed a joint petition on June 12, 2018, to restore the original FSIS handbook definition of “Product of U.S.A.” The original definition was based on the origin of the ingredients being labeled. Sometime between April 1985 and August 2005, the ingredient-based standard was repealed by FSIS and replaced with an undefined processing standard.

Citing “significant interest from stakeholders,” USDA offered an extension.

Supportive comments were submitted by farm organizations that include: the National Farmers Union (NFU), National Family Farm Coalition and U.S. Cattlemen’s Assn. (USCA); more than 50 members of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, including Farm Aid and Union of Concerned Scientists; policy and community organizations, including the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy and Western Organization of Resource Councils; United Food & Commercial Workers; The Humane Society of the United States, and businesses such as Natural Grocers and Strauss Brands.

However, support is not unanimous. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn. (NCBA) said in their comments, “As the trusted voice of America’s cattle producers, we urge you to deny the petition.”

NCBA’s comments stated: “For starters, FSIS should not base a regulatory action off the phrase ‘having a bearing on consumer preference.’ Given the ever-changing nature of consumer preference, the phrase can never truly be defined. Such ambiguity introduces needless uncertainty into the regulatory environment and lends itself to future abuse. The existing policy has been in use for over 30 years, and for those of us actively engaged in the beef industry, the term ‘processed’ has never lacked clarity.”

Max Moncaster, spokesman for NCBA said, the petition seems like another attempt to institute mandatory country-of-origin labeling (mCOOL). “We continue to believe voluntary programs are preferable and that mCOOL does more harm than good for our industry,” he said.

However, those in support of the petition did cite consumer confusion and the need to differentiate U.S. born, raised and slaughtered as a key component of what needs to be addressed.

“Any product that is simply processed in the U.S. can be labeled ‘Product of U.S.A.’ This standard allows beef that is born, raised and slaughtered in another country to be labeled ‘Product of U.S.A.,’ provided it passes through a USDA-inspected plant. This permits product labeling that misleads consumers and places U.S. ranchers at a market disadvantage,” NFU president Roger Johnson wrote.

The current standards allow foreign interests and multinational corporations to take advantage of market opportunities that should be reserved for U.S. family farmers and ranchers, according to NFU. “This financially harms U.S. beef producers who currently find themselves in a highly consolidated marketplace,” Johnson said. “Today, four companies -- Cargill, Tyson, JBS and National Beef -- control over 80% of the beef market. All four of these multinational corporations depend on imported meat and meat products.”

Johnson cited Federal Meat Inspection Act and FSIS regulations that clearly prohibit meat and meat product labels that are misleading to consumers.

“USDA has a responsibility to correct “Product of U.S.A.” labeling standards. Current labeling practices do not satisfy the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act or federal regulations,” Johnson added.

R-CALF USA warned that the FSIS guidance policy proposed would result in an unenforceable policy that would continue allowing the misapplication of a USA label, even on foreign beef.

In its comments, the group pointed out that the FSIS guidance policy is intended to cover all meat and poultry commodities. However, because both the current policy and the proposed amendment allow a change of origin to occur at processing, R-CALF USA stated that the guidance would violate the U.S. mCOOL law that prohibits the use of a U.S. origin designation on any lamb, chicken, goat meat or venison that is not exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.

Recognizing that beef and pork are now outliers from the COOL law, the group nevertheless recommended that FSIS adopt the stricter born, raised and slaughtered standard, because only then could the guidance policy accurately apply to all meat and poultry commodities.

Although this was R-CALF USA’s only recommendation, it also pointed out that FSIS has not properly implemented the Federal Meat Inspection Act, which incorporates the labeling requirements of the Tariff Act of 1930. Those labeling requirements state that only when an imported meat product is changed into a different product during processing can the foreign meat product lose its foreign identity.

USCA’s comments focused on the need for accurate labeling information in order to inform consumer purchases and reduce confusion in the marketplace.

USCA board director Maggie Nutter commented on the group's submission of comments, noting, “Producers across the country are demanding accurate labeling of U.S. beef products, and USCA will continue its work to secure this needed transparency. The comments submitted reflect our ongoing work on this issue, and we will continue to push for labels that clearly state and designate those products born, raised and harvested in the U.S.”

About the Author(s)

Jacqui Fatka 2

Farm Policy Editor, Farm Futures

Subscribe to receive top agriculture news
Be informed daily with these free e-newsletters

You May Also Like