The updated guidelines, an advanced copy of which was published in the Federal Register Aug. 28, “recommends” routine testing to detect antibiotic use in animals prior to slaughter or obtaining third-party certification that includes testing. It also “strongly encourages” third-party certification to substantiate other animal-raising claims, such as grass-fed or free-range, and environment-related claims, such as “climate-friendly” and “raised using regenerative agriculture practices.”
While the USDA Sec. Tom Vilsack says these updates “will help level the playing field for businesses who are truthfully using these claims” and help reassure consumers about the veracity of such claims, many animal welfare advocates say the changes do not go far enough.
“The USDA’s updated guidelines are largely meaningless in effecting real change. To protect farmers, animals, consumers and small businesses from deceptive labeling and unfair competition, the department must require – not merely encourage – third-party certification of animal welfare claims,” Zack Strong, acting director and senior attorney for the Animal Welfare Institute’s Farmed Animal Program, said in a statement.
“While the revised guidelines are a small step in the right direction, they remain insufficient to combat misleading label claims used to market meat and poultry products,” Strong added. “When consumers see claims such as ‘humanely raised,’ they expect that the animals involved received better care than the industry status quo. The USDA continues to allow companies to essentially make up their own definitions with no repercussions.”
USDA verifies widespread antibiotic residues in cattle in ‘Raised Without Antibiotics’
Voluntary animal-raising and environmental-related claims have proliferated in recent years and research shows many consumers will pay more for products they believe are produced in a manner that is healthier for the animals and the planet.
USDA is tasked with reviewing and approving animal-raising and environmental-related claims to ensure they are not false or misleading, but it does not regulate on-farm animal welfare and sustainability practices. As such, it must rely on the animal production protocols submitted with the label approval application on a case-by-case basis.
This process came into question in recent years after a study by the Antibiotics Resistance Action Center at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University along with Food ID published in Science in April 2022 found a “substantial portion of cattle destined for the ‘Raised without Antibiotics’ market had been given antibiotics.”
USDA’s Agriculture Research Service (ARS) and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) found similar results in a study they conducted last year, the agency revealed this week.
“FSIS collected liver and kidney samples from 196 eligible cattle at 84 slaughter establishments in 34 states, and ARS analyzed the samples using a method that targeted more than 180 veterinary drugs, including various major classes of antibiotics. The study found antibiotic residues in approximately 20% of samples tested from the ‘Raised Without Antibiotics’ market” originating from 27 slaughter establishments, USDA reported.
“FSIS will take enforcement action against any establishments found to be making false or misleading negative antibiotic claims,” USDA stressed in announcing the updated guidance for animal-raising and environmental claims.
USDA also advised the establishments with positive results revealed by the ARS-FSIS study to conduct root cause analysis and implement corrective action to ensure future products are not misbranded.
“Moreover, FSIS may consider future additional actions, including random sampling and rulemaking to further strengthen the substantiation of animal-raising and environmental clams,” USDA said.
In the meantime, the agency said this week’s updated guideline for animal-raising and environmental-related claims on meat or poultry product labels will support “transparency and high-quality standards.”
USDA leans on third-party certifiers, declines to define animal-raising, environmental claims
In the updated guideline, USDA declined to codify animal-raising claims as requested in comments and petitions by multiple animal welfare groups, industry groups, individuals and other stakeholders, and instead opted to “encourage” companies to use third-party certifications for such claims.
FSIS “determined not to codify in its regulations any specific animal-raising claims definitions at this time” because it says “animal production practices vary and are continuously developing and that keeping a current list of codified allowable labeling claims would be impractical,” USDA explained in the guideline.
“Codifying definitions for animal-raising claims could also hinder the development of new or improved animal production practices” as “producers that improve their animal-raising practices could lose the benefit of making certain claims, even if the improved practices better align with changing consumer expectations for such claims,” it adds.
USDA explained that FSIS staff “generally” will only approve animal welfare claims if establishments define the animal welfare and living conditions claims directly on the label or website.
The agency made a similar argument for environmental-related claims, underscoring that documentation for potential environmental claims should be submitted to FSIS for prior approval.
In both cases, FSIS updated the guideline to “strongly encourage” establishments to use third-party certifiers that post the standards used to define the claims conspicuously on their websites.
‘Failing to require … third-party certification leaves the door open for Big Ag loopholes’
Animal welfare and consumer protection groups acknowledged these changes are a step in the right direction, but many said the agency does not go far enough and should require, rather than encourage, third-party certification.
“While USDA’s proposed guideline changes move towards addressing deceptive labels, failing to require, rather than simply encourage, third-party certification leaves the door open for Big Ag loopholes. Industry can continue making false and misleading claims that [undermine] producers who are adhering to higher welfare and sustainability standards,” Molly Armus, animal agriculture policy program manager at Friends of the Earth, argues in a statement.
“Third-party certification is essential to verifying claims around environmental stewardship and animal welfare, and prohibiting blatantly greenwashed falsehoods like ‘low-carbon beef,’” she added, referencing a brouhaha surrounding the launch of a beef product that claimed to have a 10% reduction in climate footprint and subsequent approval by the USDA for other low-carbon claims associated with animal products.
This sentiment was echoed by other stakeholders, including Chloë Waterman, senior program manager at Friends of the Earth, who said in a statement that such claims sow confusion for consumers and create an unfair playing field.
“Secretary Vilsack’s commitment today to strengthen substantiation of animal raising claims is a strong step in the right direction. USDA must ensure that all animal raising claims are backed up by a third-party certification that exceeds conventional production standards, and prohibit claims like ‘low-carbon beef’ that are fundamentally misleading,” she said.
As the public comment period moves forward on this proposal, USDA must reconsider and require independent certification of any stewardship claims.
FSIS encourages stakeholders to submit comments on the revised guideline within 60 days of its publication in the Federal Register, according to an advanced copy of the notification to be published. Those interested in commenting can do so at Docket No. FSIS-2024-0010.
