[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62271-62273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30569]


      
 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 62271]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 97-030A]
RIN 0583-AC41


Labeling Standards for Ovine Carcasses, Parts of Carcasses, Meat 
and Meat Food Products

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to a requirement in the Farm Bill of 1996, the 
Department is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to 
determine the type of labeling standards it should establish for lamb 
and mutton and their meat food products. The principal issue of concern 
in the marketing of sheep is the identification, for the benefit of 
consumers, of the higher valued lamb carcasses compared to the lower 
valued mutton and sheep carcasses. One of the key elements of this 
issue is the attributes that give lamb meat products this higher value, 
such as flavor, texture, moisture, color, mouth feel, or portion size.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and two copies of written comments 
to FSIS Docket Clerk, Room 102 Cotton Annex, 300 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20250. Copies of USDA guidance material cited in this 
notice are available for review in the FSIS Docket Room. All comments 
submitted in response to this advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room, Room 
102 Cotton Annex from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Alfred Liepold, Food Technologist, 
Regulations Development and Analysis Division, Office of Policy, 
Program Development and Evaluation, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 205-0292.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 279 of H.R. 2854--Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996 (Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 104-127, 4/4/96) reads as 
follows:
SEC 279. LABELING OF DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED LAMB AND MUTTON
    Section 7 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 607) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) LAMB AND MUTTON.--The Secretary, consistent with United 
States international obligations, shall establish standards for the 
labeling of sheep carcasses, parts of carcasses, sheepmeat and 
sheepmeat food products.''
    According to the legislative history (House Conference Report, No. 
104-494), this provision originated in a Senate provision which also 
stated that the standard to be used was to be based on the break or 
spool joint method to differentiate lamb from mutton by the degree of 
calcification of bone to reflect maturity. Immature mammals have long 
bones composed of three bony parts--a central bony shaft and two bony 
plates, one at each end. The three parts are joined by cartilage and, 
as the animal grows more cartilage is formed and some of the existing 
cartilage turns to bone. As the animal matures enough of the cartilage 
turns to bone so that the three bony parts fuse into one. So long as 
the animal is immature, the bony plate at the end of the bone can be 
cleanly broken through the cartilage between the shaft and the end 
plate, leaving clean bone surfaces on both sides of the break. This is 
the break joint; the one used on lambs is the metacarpal bone of the 
foreleg between the shaft and the plate nearest the hoof. Industry 
terms for the metacarpal bones are canon bones or trotters. Once the 
bone fuses and will not cleanly separate, it is called a spool joint. 
It is not a true joint.
    This spool joint criterion of the Senate Bill did not carry through 
to the Farm Bill. Accordingly, the Secretary may prescribe objective 
criteria, or, in accordance with the regulatory reform initiative, 
specify the end to be achieved (performance standard), and allow 
producers to develop their own criteria to meet these performance 
standards.

Prior Grading Standards

    In the past, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published two 
standards voluntarily regulating the marketing of sheep, lamb, and 
yearling carcasses and their meat food products on the basis, among 
other things, of age and/or maturity. These two publications were 
titled ``Official United States Standards for Grades of Slaughter 
Lambs, Yearlings and Sheep'' and ``Official United States Standards for 
Grades of Lamb, Yearling Mutton, and Mutton Carcasses.''
    The purpose of these voluntary grading standards was to develop and 
establish efficient marketing methods and practices for agricultural 
commodities so that consumers could obtain the quality of product they 
desire at a reasonable cost. The grade standards were developed to 
provide uniform language to describe the characteristics of many meat 
food commodities in the marketplace. However, rapid changes in consumer 
preferences together with associated changes in commodity 
characteristics, processing technology, and marketing practices 
outpaced the issuance of regulatory modifications or revisions, leaving 
the marketplace burdened with outdated grading standards. Therefore, in 
line with the President's regulatory review initiative, the standards 
were removed from Volume 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations on 
December 4, 1995, but have been kept available as guidelines in 
pamphlet form.
    In the publication containing the grade standards for slaughter 
lambs, yearlings, and sheep, the term lamb is defined as: ``A lamb is 
an immature ovine, usually under 14 months of age, that has not cut its 
first pair of incisor teeth.'' The term yearling is defined as: ``A 
yearling is an ovine usually between one and two years of age that has 
cut its first pair of permanent incisor teeth but has not cut the 
second pair.'' The term sheep is defined as: ``A sheep is an ovine , 
usually over 24 months of age, that has cut its second pair of 
permanent incisor teeth.''
    In the publication containing the grade standards for lamb, 
yearling mutton, and mutton carcasses where the head is not available, 
the following criteria are used. Typical lamb carcasses tend to have 
slightly wide and

[[Page 62272]]

moderately flat rib bones and a light red color and a fine texture of 
lean. By contrast, typical yearling mutton carcasses have moderately 
wide rib bones which tend to be flat and a slightly dark red color and 
coarse texture of lean.
    The AMS standard recites that, in the dressing of ovine carcasses, 
both front cannon bones (trotters) normally are left attached to the 
carcass although in some instances, one or both trotters may be 
removed. If present, trotters will terminate in perfect break joints 
(all ridges forming the break joints are intact and well defined), 
imperfect break joints or spool joints. For determining the maturity of 
ovine carcasses, an imperfect break joint is considered the same as a 
spool joint and it is assumed that there was a spool joint on any 
missing trotter. These variations, as indicated by the following 
guidelines, are important considerations in determining whether a 
carcass is classed as lamb, yearling mutton, or mutton.
    A carcass with perfect break joints on both trotters will be 
classed as lamb or yearling mutton based on its other evidences of 
maturity.
    A carcass with spool joints on both trotters will be classed as 
yearling mutton or mutton based on its other evidences of maturity. 
Mutton carcasses always have spool joints on both front trotters.
    A carcass which has a perfect break joint on one trotter and has 
either (1) a spool joint on the other trotter, or (2) has had the other 
trotter removed, will be classed as a lamb if its other maturity 
characteristics are not more advanced than described in the grade 
specifications as typical of the more mature lamb group. Otherwise, 
such carcasses will be classed as yearling mutton. Maturity within the 
lamb class shall be based on the combination of lean and all skeletal 
characteristics.
    Except for the above referenced considerations given to break 
joints and spool joints, when making other maturity evaluations, more 
consideration is given to the characteristics of the flesh than is 
given to the characteristics of the skeleton.

Question Concerning New Grading Standards

    The criteria stated above are those used by AMS to distinguish the 
more valued lamb meat from the less valued meat of older ovines. The 
standards have been voluntary; the costs to secure grading by an 
authorized USDA employee have been paid for by the person requesting 
the service. By and large, the only grading used has been that for 
``lamb.'' If one were to set up a labeling standard and permit the 
marketplace to determine its own methods of objectively identifying 
lamb carcasses so that they were acceptable to buyer and seller, the 
goal of identifying the more valued meat might be achieved by more 
simple and less costly means. One of the necessities of such a labeling 
standard would be to determine the desirable attributes that make lamb 
meat more valuable and whether these attributes can be determined 
directly and objectively. If lamb is a more desirable meat than mutton 
because of its attributes, e.g., it is more moist, has a finer texture, 
or a different chewy feeling, then some type of analysis may be able to 
determine objective data concerning moisture and chewiness. If the 
increased desirability of lamb meat results from lighter color, milder 
flavor, or the size of the portions, such as lamb chops, a colorimetric 
test may be devised. On the other hand, flavor is too subjective to be 
easily used for grading purposes; and too many variables other than 
maturity can influence portion size to make that factor of much value.
    AMS has continued to grade lamb and mutton (sheep) carcasses, using 
the same grades as before the regulation change. The grading is on a 
voluntary basis, so the fact that the standards have been removed from 
the regulations has not affected such grading. As a practical matter, 
producers of lamb that they think will achieve U.S. Prime or Choice 
will have such lamb officially graded by AMS meat graders. But, since 
the program is voluntary, producers will not have other grades and 
classes of ovines graded. Further, although neither FSIS nor AMS has a 
definition of the word ``lamb'' in the regulations, when the term 
``lamb'' is used on a federally inspected meat food product, the 
product must come from meat that meets the definition of ``lamb'' in 
the AMS standards. It is clear that if new standards are developed, 
they could differ from the current voluntary AMS grading standards.
    This situation raises a number of practical questions: Should FSIS 
issue new grading standards or should AMS reissue the AMS standards in 
the regulations? If the standards are reissued, should compliance with 
such standards remain voluntary? Should the standards include the 
standard for yearling mutton, as the old AMS standard did? What 
criteria should FSIS use, if not the old AMS ones? Should FSIS only use 
some of these criteria, other criteria, some combination of these and 
other criteria, or performance standards? What would be the economic 
and other regulatory impacts of new standards on producers and 
processors?
    According to a representative of the New Zealand Meat Producers 
Board, the break joint method of determining maturity is not used in 
Australia or New Zealand and would be considered a ``thinly veiled 
attempt to erect a non-tariff trade barrier.'' The New Zealand 
representative states that the only appropriate method of defining lamb 
is to use a definition accepted throughout the world, namely; ``young 
sheep under 12 months with no permanent incisors in wear.'' Some U.S. 
authorities agree with the foreign comments that the break-joint method 
is not sufficiently reliable.1 However, the New Zealand 
definition differs from the AMS standards in the use of the term ``in 
wear'' and, more importantly, in the situation where there is no head 
on the carcass, the teeth method of defining is not viable. One issue 
there is whether the U.S. should accept the principle of grading in the 
export country, using the teeth method?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Field, Ray A., University of Wyoming, Letter to Rosemary 
Mucklow, Western States Meat Association, 6/1/94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other practical issues exist raised by the Farm Bill directly or 
indirectly, but not specifically mentioned in it; FSIS would appreciate 
any comments on these issues also: Attempts have been made in the past 
to label young ovine carcasses which had not been graded and which 
possibly do not meet the lamb criteria as ``no-roll lamb,'' meaning 
that the grade markings have not been applied, or rolled on, the 
carcasses. The Agency considered this misbranding, since the phrase 
included the term ``lamb'' which could be inapplicable. Should this 
policy be changed? Also should the nomenclature for carcasses of one to 
two year old ovines be changed as has been requested from ``yearling 
mutton'' to ``yearling lamb?'' At present this also is considered 
misbranding. Further, although there is no definition for ``lamb'' in 
the regulations, FSIS, in 9 CFR 317.8 (b)(4) does define the term 
``spring lamb'' or ``genuine spring lamb'' as applicable only to 
carcasses of new-crop lambs slaughtered during the period beginning in 
March and terminating not beyond the close of the week containing the 
first Monday of October. Should this present definition of ``spring 
lamb;'' be changed, deleted, or added to the standard? Also, as a 
matter of FSIS policy, sheep brains, hearts, and tongues are considered 
practically indistinguishable from lamb brains, hearts, and tongues, 
respectively; therefore, these articles from ovine carcasses may be 
designated as either sheep or lamb. Should this be changed?

[[Page 62273]]

    If the U.S. requires the grading of lambs, and, at the same time, 
permits the grading of imported lambs in the country of origin by 
officials of that country, the economic effects of such a compulsory 
grading standard on the exporting country would be lessened. If this is 
not permitted, the country would have to leave the bone ends on the 
trotters, a practice which is not routine at the present time. This 
would mean a change in the slaughter technique in the originating 
country, an increase of a few ounces in the shipping weight of each 
carcass, and an increased cost of having each imported carcass graded 
at producer expense by U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel. It 
appears that such mandatory grading would not materially affect the 
number of imported lambs, since imported lambs tend to be younger than 
domestic ones at time of slaughter. Under a required grading program, 
domestic stock would also have to be graded and some domestic producers 
may consider this an undesirable requirement.
    Any further information on these or other economic or regulatory 
impacts would be welcome. If there are related issues not mentioned, 
but relevant, any information or comments on such issues should also be 
submitted for evaluation.

    Done at Washington, D.C., on November 14, 1997.
Thomas J. Billy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-30569 Filed 11-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P