[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48961-48981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24309]
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 48961]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 381 and 441
[Docket No. 97-054P]
RIN 0583-AC26
Retained Water in Raw Meat and Poultry Products; Poultry Chilling
Performance Standards
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing
regulations to limit the amount of water retained by raw, single-
ingredient, meat and poultry products as a result of post-evisceration
processing, such as carcass washing and chilling. Meat and poultry
carcasses and parts would not be permitted to contain water resulting
from post-evisceration processing unless the establishment demonstrates
that water retention is necessary to meet applicable food safety
requirements. In addition, the establishment would be required to
disclose on the label the maximum percentage of retained water in the
product. The proposed labeling statement would provide information to
consumers of raw meat and poultry products that would help them to make
purchasing decisions. Establishments having data demonstrating that
there is no retained water in their products could choose not to label
the products with the retained-water statement or to make a no-
retained-water claim on the product label.
FSIS is also proposing to revise the poultry chilling regulations
to improve consistency with the Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Points (PR/HACCP) regulations, eliminate ``command-
and-control'' features, and reflect current technological capabilities
and good manufacturing practices.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 10, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Submit one original and two copies of written comments to
Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, Room 102, 300 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20250-3700. Please refer to docket number 97-054P in your comments. All
comments submitted in response to this proposal, as well as research
and background information used by FSIS in developing this document,
will be available for public inspection in the Docket Clerk's Office
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia F. Stolfa, Assistant Deputy
Administrator, Office of Policy, Program Development, and Evaluation,
Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 205-0699.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
FSIS carries out the mandates of the Federal Meat Inspection Act
(FMIA; 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(PPIA; 21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 1031 to 1056) to ensure that meat, meat food, poultry, and egg
products in interstate and foreign commerce are wholesome, not
adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged. The Agency
maintains continuous inspection oversight of operations in meat and
poultry slaughtering and processing establishments and in egg product
processing plants. Among the requirements enforced by the Agency are
those having to do with the post-evisceration handling and storage of
carcasses and parts.
Meat and poultry carcasses are handled in a manner intended to
yield wholesome, unadulterated products. After evisceration, raw meat
and poultry carcasses are subject to various processes, including
washing and chilling, to preserve the safety of the products. The
Agency is concerned about the potential for water absorption and
retention in the stages of processing after livestock and poultry
carcasses are eviscerated and trimmed. Because an eviscerated carcass
is open and exposed to water through the washing, chilling, and
spraying processes, it is likely to absorb and retain water under the
skin and in muscle tissue. There is a potential for product
adulteration due to excess water absorption and retention.
In livestock slaughtering establishments, carcasses undergo a final
wash after slaughter and dressing to remove any adhering foreign matter
before being placed in the cooler. Historically, meat carcasses have
been air-chilled. Since the late 1970's, FSIS has permitted air
chilling in combination with a water spray to minimize carcass
shrinkage and promote rapid heat loss.
Air chilling results in carcass weight loss from evaporation of the
natural water in the carcass during evaporative cooling. Spraying water
on livestock carcasses during air chilling either replaces the water
that would have evaporated during air chilling or prevents the water in
the carcass from evaporating. The result is that livestock carcasses
subjected to a water spray retain water, and consequently, weight,
which would have been lost as a result of air chilling. Water spray
systems must be operated in a manner that does not result in a shift's
production of meat carcasses from weighing, on average, more than their
pre-chilled weight. (FSIS Directive 6330.1) This directive recognizes
that it is technologically feasible and commercially practical to chill
livestock carcasses in a manner that, on average, does not result in an
increase in the carcass weight above the pre-chilled weight.
Although livestock slaughter establishments are not prohibited from
using water immersion chilling methods, federally inspected
establishments in the United States do not use immersion chilling for
livestock carcasses. Immersion chilling is impractical because of the
size of livestock carcasses and the associated costs of equipment and
other resources.
Processing and chilling methods used for some edible meat
byproducts and organ meats may result in water retention. For example,
cheek meat, meat from ears and tails, and organ meats are washed,
cleaned and chilled to preserve safety and wholesomeness before being
shipped. Tripe is bleached and scalded before being shipped.
Chitterlings (swine intestines) are washed and chilled before shipment
and are packaged with water. A few establishments chill beef cheek
meats in water, a process that may result in the absorption of water.
The product is labeled to indicate the maximum percentage added water
it may contain to alert buyers to the fact that the product may weigh
more because of the chilling process.
Unlike livestock establishments, poultry processors have
traditionally chilled poultry using the water immersion chilling
method. Although air chilling is permitted, immersion chilling is more
rapid and cost efficient. The use of water immersion chilling is
limited to whole poultry carcasses or major carcass portions. Poultry
establishments are required to reduce the internal temperature of
water-chilled poultry carcasses to 40 degrees F. or less within 4 to 8
hours after slaughter, depending on the size of the carcass (9 CFR
381.66(b)).
Water-immersion chilling is the preferred poultry chilling method
in the United States for several reasons. First, water is the most
effective and efficient conducting medium for removing animal heat.
[[Page 48962]]
Before the 1960's, poultry was chilled in layers of ice or immersed
in small tanks of ice water. The poultry was chilled using these
methods for a sufficient amount of time to reduce the temperature of
the poultry to 40 degrees F. or below, after which the tanks were
emptied. The use of small individual single-use tanks required
significant resources, including space, employees, and water or ice.
Because of these disadvantages, continuous immersion chillers were
developed. Continuous immersion chillers consist of one or more large
tanks where chilled water is continually replenished and poultry
carcasses continuously enter and exit. Modern chillers are equipped
with refrigeration units and systems for controlling water volume,
direction, and agitation. They are efficient, rapid, and economical.
Chilling poultry carcasses in water-immersion chillers always
results in some absorption and retention of water, primarily in the
skin and the tissue immediately under the skin. Also, some water
becomes bound to the muscle tissue.
FSIS has consistently required that the retention of water in meat
and in poultry products be minimized. FSIS is mandated to prevent the
distribution in commerce of meat and poultry products that are
adulterated or misbranded. A product is adulterated if, among other
circumstances, ``a substance has been added to or mixed with the
product to increase its bulk or weight or make it appear of greater
value than it is.'' (21 U.S.C. 601(m)(8), 453(g)(8)). Thus, a product
containing excessive water may be considered adulterated. Likewise, a
product containing excessive water may be considered misbranded. A
product is misbranded if, among other circumstances, its label is false
or misleading in any particular. (21 U.S.C. 601(n)(1), 453(h)(1)).
Immersion chilling of poultry could result in a product's becoming
misbranded or economically adulterated through the retention of
absorbed water. However, because immersion chilling is the most
efficient way to control bacterial growth in poultry products and to
ensure that establishments consistently meet applicable chilling time
and temperature requirements, FSIS has permitted the retention of some
water in poultry.
FSIS has limited water retention to amounts that are considered
unavoidable while achieving applicable food safety requirements. The
regulations generally require water absorption and retention in poultry
products to be minimized (9 CFR 381.66(d)(1)). FSIS promulgated
regulations defining maximum water retention levels for classes of
poultry in 1959, 1960, and 1971 (24 FR 9566 (12/1/59); 26 FR 6471 (7/
19/61); and 35 FR 739 (10/7/70)). Poultry products containing water in
excess of the regulatory limits are considered adulterated.
To ensure that poultry products do not exceed maximum water
retention levels, inspectors sample carcasses each day from each
chilling system at a point before the poultry is washed and again
shortly after the poultry exits the chiller. If the water limits are
exceeded, the poultry is retained until enough water has drained to
bring the poultry into compliance with the limits. As a practical
matter, establishments maintain overall water absorption averages below
the maximum limitation to consistently comply with the regulatory
limits. However, some firms equip and operate their processing lines in
a manner that will enable them to control retained water to a level as
close as possible to the regulatory limits. Sometimes the regulatory
limits are exceeded. The poultry may then be held at the plant for a
longer time to permit excess water to drain, or it may be diverted to
operations, such as boning and cut-up, or other processing operations
in which excess water is lost.
Concerns About Differences Between the Meat and the Poultry Regulations
Early in 1996, FSIS received a petition from several national
livestock industry associations concerning perceived inequities between
the meat and poultry regulations. The petitioners argued that the
restriction on water absorption in meat carcasses is inequitable in
comparison to the absorption allowance for poultry and that, moreover,
poultry carcasses with weight added through water absorption are
economically adulterated. The petitioners requested that FSIS prohibit
the retention of any water absorbed by poultry carcasses during
immersion chilling. This request was among those the petitioners
reiterated in a February 7, 1997, letter to the Department. FSIS plans
to address elements of the petitioners' requests other than the
absorbed-water issue in future rulemaking documents.
In 1994, a group of poultry consumers and red meat producers
brought an action against the Department in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa challenging several differences
in the regulatory requirements for meat and poultry, including the
contaminant removal methods, standards of identity, and water-
retention. (Kenney, et al. v. Glickman.)
Plaintiffs alleged that poultry products containing absorbed water
were both economically adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of
the PPIA. They also alleged that the regulations establishing maximum
levels for water retention violated the Administrative Procedure Act
because they were arbitrary and capricious when compared to the
regulatory prohibition on absorbed water in meat carcasses. The Court
found that poultry containing absorbed water was not economically
adulterated or misbranded under the PPIA. However, the Court also found
that the regulation specifying water absorption and retention limits
for ready-to-cook poultry that is to be frozen, cooked, or consumer-
packaged as whole poultry (9 CFR 381.66(d)(2)) was arbitrary and
capricious because the Secretary did not explain in the rulemaking
record how he determined the particular water retention levels, why
water retention cannot be reduced below current levels, or why meat and
poultry should be treated differently.
The Court left in place the general requirement at 9 CFR
381.66(d)(1) for establishments to minimize water absorption and
retention in poultry at the time of packaging. The Court also left
standing the regulations at 9 CFR 381.66(d)(3)-(6) controlling the
amount of retained water in chickens and turkeys that are to be cut up
or ice-packed.
The American Meat Institute (AMI), a trade association representing
meat and poultry slaughtering and processing establishments, petitioned
the Department on October 2, 1997, to amend the regulations governing
water absorption and retention in certain raw meat and poultry
products. This petitioner requested five specific changes:
Repealing regulations requiring poultry carcasses to be
chilled below 40 deg.F within a specified time
Requiring water retention in meat and poultry products to
have been minimized at the time of packaging
Allowing meat and poultry carcasses to absorb and retain
water that is incidental and unavoidable in chilling practices designed
to improve food protection
Measuring weight gain from water retention as the
difference between the hot carcass weight and the weight of packaged,
finished products
Requiring labeling of raw meat and poultry with retained
water above certain minimum absorption and retention levels FSIS
considered the petitioner's requests in developing this proposal.
[[Page 48963]]
Purpose for New Regulation
In proposing new regulations governing water retention in raw meat
and poultry products, FSIS intends: (1) to provide consumers with
additional information to help them in making purchasing decisions; (2)
to eliminate certain differences between the meat and the poultry
inspection regulations; (3) to establish regulations that are
consistent with the objectives of regulatory reform and with the
Agency's ``Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Points Systems (PR/HACCP)'' regulations (61 FR 38806; July 25, 1996);
and (4) to streamline the regulations.
This proposal would respond to the District Court's findings that
the regulations the Court set aside were ``arbitrary and capricious''
by providing: (1) that any water retention limits be established on the
basis of sound data; (2) that such limits be as low as technically
feasible in meeting food safety requirements; and (3) that, to the
extent possible, the same criteria for establishing water retention
limits apply both to meat and to poultry products.
FSIS currently lacks information on which to base any water
retention limit, or to determine whether any limit currently in use can
be further reduced. The proposal would be intended, in part, to ensure
the availability of data demonstrating that water retention in affected
products is unavoidable and that any water retention limits the Agency
sets are the minimum feasible. The soundness of the data would be
ensured in large measure by its having been collected under protocols
approved by FSIS (see below).
This proposal would respond, at least in part, to four of the five
requests in AMI's petition. It concerns water absorbed and retained in
product as a result of post-evisceration processing and, hence, the
difference between ``hot carcass'' and finished product weight. It
would require that water retention be minimized, that the processing
that resulted in water absorption have a food-safety purpose, and that
the amount of water retained be indicated on labels of affected
products.
This proposal does not address the time and temperature
requirements for chilling poultry carcasses. FSIS intends to undertake
a separate rulemaking on this subject.
Proposed Provisions To Limit Retained Water in Meat and Poultry
FSIS is proposing new requirements in new Part 441 to address water
retention in single-ingredient raw meat and ready-to-cook poultry
products as a result of post-evisceration processing. The proposed
requirements would replace those set forth in 9 CFR Sec. 381.66(d)(3)-
(8) as well as those in Sec. 381.66(d)(2). The intention is to
restrict, as much as feasible, the amount of water absorbed and
retained in meat and poultry products. The Agency would also require
product labels to state the maximum percentage of retained water the
products may contain.
Some quantitative limit or measure is necessary to determine
whether water retention has been minimized. Until the decision in
Kenney v. Glickman, FSIS used the limits specified in Sec. 381.66(d)(2)
to determine whether poultry establishments were meeting the
requirement to minimize water absorption and retention in whole birds.
The only currently available quantitative limit for determining
whether water retention in raw products has been minimized (other than
the limits for cut-up or ice-pack poultry in 9 CFR 381.66(d)(3)-(6)) is
zero percent. FSIS is aware that it may be difficult to eliminate water
retention for poultry and some meat products while continuing to meet
applicable food safety requirements. FSIS is therefore proposing an
alternative to a zero-percent retained-water requirement.
Establishments would be required to collect data, in accordance with a
protocol approved by FSIS, and demonstrate that water retention is an
unavoidable consequence of the process used to meet a food safety
requirement, such as the Salmonella performance standards or time/
temperature chilling requirements. FSIS expects that, to determine that
any unavoidable water retention is the minimum feasible, the protocol
would provide for testing the process under alternative equipment
settings or other variables.
FSIS would accept data generated from an approved protocol to
support water retention levels for multiple establishments using
similar post-evisceration processing techniques and equipment.
Depending on the design of the protocol and the adequacy of the data
collected under it, the data could be used to justify an industry-wide
water-retention limit, a limit applying to poultry products processed
by several establishments, or a limit applying only to a single
establishment's product. Establishments using an industry-wide or
multi-establishment limit would have to be able to demonstrate that the
conditions under which their products are processed match those assumed
or specified in the protocol used to justify the limit.
FSIS requests comment on the advisability of accepting, during the
comment period on this proposed rule, protocols for gathering data that
would justify industry-wide or process-specific water retention limits.
FSIS also requests comment on whether the Agency should accept
protocols submitted by industry groups for individual establishments.
In a recent Federal Register notice (62 FR 64767; December 9,
1997), FSIS requested comments on specifications for protocols to be
used for collecting data on chilled, ready-to-cook poultry products.
The suggested specifications for such a protocol included: a statement
of purpose; the type of washing or chilling system; a description of
the chiller system process, components, equipment, modifications, and
steps in the chilling process; the number of chillers in a series and
arrangements of components; the number of evisceration lines feeding
into a chiller; any pre-chilling steps; anti-microbial treatments, if
any; the length and velocity of dripping lines; any special apparatus
or procedure for removing excess water from birds; and a description of
chilling system factors affecting water absorption and retention, such
as the time of the birds in the chiller, the water temperature, and the
amount of chill water agitation.
To date, FSIS has received two comments on the notice. Three
livestock producer associations submitted a comment stating that they
were not in a position to provide information regarding protocols or
specifications for protocols to collect water retention data. They
maintained that the poultry industry would be supplying most, if not
all, the data needed to support any added-water limitations. They also
expressed the suspicion that data collected by the poultry industry
would reflect a ``push'' in the direction of maximum retention rather
than the true capability of technology and processing procedures to
minimize water retention.
The other comment was submitted by a trade association representing
turkey and other poultry producers and processors. The association
listed two principles and attendant considerations that, in its view,
should be observed in developing protocols. The first principle was
food safety: Considerations in achieving safety were rapid chilling of
carcasses and the efficiency of immersion chilling. The second
principle was product wholesomeness and quality. Attendant
considerations were restricting water absorption to the amount
necessary to achieve food safety, calculating water absorption from the
point of entry of carcasses into
[[Page 48964]]
the chilling medium, and recognizing that it is a documented fact that
water absorption is unavoidable in all poultry species. Additional
considerations presented in the comment were that water absorption is
not a food safety issue, and that water loss occurs during further
processing of carcasses.
FSIS has considered these comments and will be interested in
further discussion of water-data protocols in the context of this
proposal. Regarding the livestock producer associations' comment on
possible bias in data submitted by the poultry industry, FSIS notes
that any data submitted would have to have been collected under
scientifically designed protocols approved by the Agency. FSIS now
expects protocols it will approve to be composed of the elements listed
in Appendix A of this document. Further, any water retention in a
single-ingredient, raw meat or poultry product would have to be
reflected on the product label. The discipline of the marketplace as
well as FSIS regulatory oversight would help ensure the accuracy of
label statements.
Under proposed Sec. 441.10(a), meat or poultry products would have
to bear a label statement of the maximum percentage of water absorbed
and retained as a result of post-evisceration processes. A qualifying
statement accompanying the product name could read, ``may contain up to
__ percent absorbed water.'' The percentage would reflect the maximum
percentage of water that may be retained in the product. Alternatively,
the label could bear an accurate statement of the percentage of
retained water in the product. Establishments having data or
information to demonstrate that their products do not contain retained
water would not have to label the products and could include a no-
retained-water claim on the product label. The labels would be
generically approved pursuant to 9 CFR 317.5(b)(2) or 381.133(b)(2).
This proposed requirement, which is responsive, in part, to the AMI
petition discussed above, would ensure that accurate information
concerning the product is conveyed to the consumer in accordance with
the anti-misbranding provisions of the FMIA and the PPIA (especially 21
U.S.C. 601(n)(1), (6); 453(h)(1), (6)). It would ensure that the
product labeling is not misleading with respect to water retention in
the product. The placement of the required information on the label
would ensure that the information would be likely to be read and
understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of
purchase and use.
The information to be required would be analogous to the
information conveyed to consumers on the labels of ``ham--water added''
or fruit beverages labeled to indicate the actual percentage of juice
in the product. As a result, consumers would be able to determine
before they buy packaged raw meat or poultry products whether or not
the value of products with retained water was commensurate with prices
of alternatives in the meat case. The market will provide significant
incentives to plants to adopt new cost-effective technologies for
reducing retained water. FSIS requests comment on the usefulness to
consumers of the proposed labeling requirement.
The proposed requirements would affect only single-ingredient, raw,
whole, cut-up, or ground meat and poultry carcasses and parts,
including edible organs and other edible meat and poultry byproducts.
It would not affect raw products that now bear complete labeling or
nutrition labeling, such as pre-basted frozen turkeys, or further
processed products, such as deli meats. This proposal also would not
cover cooked and cured pork products, such as those currently subject
to protein-fat-free requirements (9 CFR 318.19(a)(5), 319.104-.105,
327.23).
FSIS personnel would verify an establishment's control of water
retention by checking the establishment records or by conducting in-
plant or in-distribution tests of products by methods that the Agency
would develop. FSIS would also conduct independent tests of the
establishment's absorbed-water control as part of investigations if a
problem were suspected or in the course of special studies.
Proposed Changes in Poultry Chilling Regulations
FSIS is proposing to amend the chilling requirements for poultry.
Various prescriptive requirements and specifications, such as the
minimum amount of fresh water intake by continuous chillers for each
poultry carcass, would be removed. Establishments would be given the
flexibility to take advantage of the latest technologies and
procedures.
This proposal would amend 9 CFR 381.65, which concerns general
operating procedures, by removing provisions that are redundant,
excessively detailed, or inconsistent with the PR/HACCP final rule. The
proposal would eliminate current paragraph (b), the prohibition on
handling and storing materials that could cause adulteration of poultry
products in any room where poultry products are processed, handled, or
stored. This provision will be unnecessary when HACCP plans are
implemented because each HACCP plan will specify the measures to be
taken to protect poultry products from physical, chemical, or
biological contamination. The requirements in current paragraphs (a)
and (c) of 9 CFR 381.65 would be retained as paragraphs (a) and (b)
because they set out general principles of good sanitation and
commercial practice that all establishments must observe.
The requirements in paragraphs (h) and (j) of 9 CFR 381.65,
relating to poultry thawing and dressing techniques, would be replaced
with two performance standards. The first would require simply that
establishments use thawing procedures that will prevent adulteration
of, or net weight gain by, the product. The second would require that
water used in thawing be permitted to drain freely from the carcass.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1), which would replace paragraph (h), would
require that frozen poultry be thawed for further processing in a
manner that will prevent product adulteration but would not require
that any specific thawing method be used.
The current thawing regulation does not prevent practices that may
constitute hazards to food safety. For example, it does not prevent re-
exposure of thawed, or partially thawed, product to a thawing medium
that may have become contaminated by previous use and that may be too
warm to prevent microbial growth. The current paragraph (h)(1)(i)
specifies a maximum permitted thawing medium temperature of 70 deg.F.,
which is too high to prevent microbial growth in product that is re-
exposed to or held in the medium. The regulation conflicts with HACCP
because establishments should assess thawing processes when conducting
their hazard analysis. Establishments must be given the responsibility
and flexibility to choose thawing measures that are effective and do
not create food safety hazards.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would replace the current paragraph (j),
which specifies the manner in which carcass wash water is to be
drained, with a performance standard requiring simply that the wash
water be permitted to drain freely from the carcass.
Current paragraph (d), which contains a requirement to remove
kidneys from mature chickens and turkeys, would be eliminated. The
kidneys of mature chickens and turkeys are a source of cadmium, which
can accumulate in the human liver and kidneys and cause acute or
chronic health problems.
[[Page 48965]]
Kidneys with excess cadmium are a ``food safety hazard reasonably
likely to occur'' that establishments will identify in their hazard
analyses and control through their HACCP systems. Thus, current
paragraph (d) is redundant with the HACCP regulations. The requirement
to remove kidneys is referenced in the definition of ``ready-to-cook
poultry'' at Sec. 381.1(b)(44). Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
amend that definition. Commenters on this proposal may wish to address
the need for regulatory food safety performance standards to control
heavy metal residues in organ meats, given the fact that establishments
will be operating HACCP systems.
Current paragraph (i), which specifies how poultry carcasses are to
be cut open for evisceration, would be removed. The regulation is
outdated, prescriptive, and may be an obstacle to improved product
safety. The current regulation is intended to ensure that opening cuts
are made without cutting the intestinal tract and without contaminating
the carcass. Unnecessary cuts are prohibited because they may result in
carcass contamination during evisceration or excessive water absorption
during chilling. The regulation is also intended to maximize the
viewing of the interior and viscera of the carcass by the postmortem
inspector.
In recent years, the poultry industry has developed new methods of
poultry evisceration that do not result in adulteration. For example,
ultrasound techniques are available for use as a diagnostic aid to
detect malformities or other defects before the carcasses are opened.
Also, equipment is available that can remove the viscera intact, using
vacuum suction, without breakage or spillage of intestinal contents,
and other available evisceration systems require that the carcass be
opened by a longitudinal cut. The current regulation generally limits
the opening cut to the area around the vent (cloaca) to prevent birds
from carrying excess water under the skin that could cause water-
control test failures. The new technologies can potentially improve
efficiency and product wholesomeness but are not likely to be
implemented unless the regulation is amended. The Agency believes that
establishments should have the flexibility to innovate and to implement
promising new technologies, consistent with their HACCP plans.
The requirement in current paragraph (k) to adequately drain ready-
to-cook poultry after chilling to remove ice and water before packaging
would be retained and the paragraph would be redesignated as paragraph
(d).
Current paragraphs (l) through (p) would be removed. These
paragraphs include requirements concerning the chilling of poultry
parts, the removal from establishments of offal resulting from
evisceration, the cleanliness of containers, the sturdiness of
packaging materials, and the use of protective coverings. These are all
matters to be addressed by establishments in their HACCP plans.
Finally, current paragraph (q), concerning the harvesting of
detached ova for human food, would be redesignated as paragraph (e) and
would be slightly revised to eliminate a command-and-control
requirement that the ova be identified past the point of inspection.
The requirement that ova may leave the official establishment only for
shipment to an egg products processing plant would remain.
In 9 CFR 381.66, paragraph (a) would be revised. This paragraph
requires that poultry be chilled or frozen in a manner that promptly
removes animal heat from the carcasses and does not adulterate the
product. The second sentence of the current paragraph, a command-and-
control requirement to file a description of the chilling or freezing
procedures with the inspector in charge, would be removed.
The general chilling requirements for poultry, paragraph (b), would
remain the same. FSIS regards the chilling of poultry to a safe
internal temperature within a minimum number of hours as a useful food-
safety precaution. However, as mentioned above, the Agency intends to
undertake rulemaking on this matter. The table of maximum times and
temperatures in paragraph (b) is based on the duration of the lag phase
of bacterial growth on the surfaces of dressed, ready-to-cook poultry
carcasses under plant conditions. Although interested persons are
encouraged to submit data that would justify a change in this
provision, amending the paragraph is outside the scope of the present
rulemaking.
The numerous detailed, prescriptive, command-and-control
requirements in paragraph (c) would be removed. For example, proposed
paragraph (c)(2)(i) does not specify chilling media temperatures and
the use of recording thermometers, as does the current paragraph
(c)(2)(i). Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would continue to require the use
of potable water, and proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) would continue to
require sufficient water for a continuous overflow from chilling system
sections. However, specific requirements (paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(iii)
and (c)(2)(v)) concerning the operation of continuous chilling systems,
including the minimum amount of fresh water intake per bird, would be
removed.
Current paragraph (c)(2)(iv) would be redesignated as (c)(2)(ii).
This paragraph, which concerns the chilling of major portions of
poultry carcasses, is the subject of a final rule (proposed at 62 FR
31017; June 6, 1997) that appears elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
Current paragraph (c)(2)(vi), the highly detailed and prescriptive
requirements concerning water reconditioning systems for poultry
chillers, including the requirement for prior approval of such systems
by FSIS, would be removed. Establishments subject to the poultry
products inspection regulations are not using these systems because
none have proven feasible in commercial operations.
The requirements in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (c)(4)(ii), concerning
the holding of poultry in chilling tanks, would be removed, and in
paragraph (c)(5), the highly specific requirements concerning the use
of continuous chillers to chill giblets would be removed.
Establishments will address the food safety hazards associated with
these procedures in their HACCP plans. However, the requirement to
chill giblets to less than 40 deg.F. in under 2 hours would remain.
Paragraph (d) of section 381.66 would be completely revised. The
general requirement to minimize water absorption by raw poultry, and
the requirement to furnish equipment necessary for water tests, would
remain. The tables setting water absorption and retention limits for
the various kinds and weight classes of poultry would be eliminated, as
would the requirements for daily water testing by FSIS inspectors. The
requirement to notify FSIS of any adjustments in washing, chilling, and
draining methods would be also be removed.
FSIS is proposing to remove current paragraph (d)(10), which
specifies how poultry may be ice-packed in barrels and requires FSIS
approval for the use of alternative types of containers. Establishments
will address any food safety hazards associated with containers in
their HACCP plans.
The Agency is likewise proposing to remove paragraph (d)(11), which
requires establishments to prevent free water from being included in
giblet packages. Among other things, the current regulation requires
use of a specific type of giblet wrapping material and incorporates by
reference the testing standards that must be met in evaluating the
material. This kind of detailed specification is no longer necessary
under the Agency's new regulatory
[[Page 48966]]
approach. Also, establishments must comply with the regulations on net
quantity of contents and net weight (9 CFR 317.18-.19, 381.121-121b).
This proposal would give establishments greater responsibility and
flexibility in choosing appropriate giblet packaging materials. By
complying with the proposed retained-water limitation requirements
(discussed below) and by appropriately labeling product, establishments
would be ensuring that water absorption is controlled and that
consumers are informed.
Finally, paragraph (e), on air chilling, and paragraph (f),
governing the freezing of poultry, would be retained substantially in
their present form. Paragraph (f)(6), concerning immersion or spray
freezing compounds and equipment, would be removed because it is a
prior-approval requirement inconsistent with the HACCP regulations and
is duplicative of other inspection regulations.
The removal of the current poultry chilling regulations would
eliminate prescriptive, command-and-control procedures for determining
product compliance and would encourage processors to use the most
efficient and effective methods of controlling microorganisms.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been determined to be economically
significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
under Executive Order 12866. The full text of the PRIA is published as
Appendix B of this document.
Summary: Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
The proposed rule resulted from an analysis of six alternative
regulatory approaches for addressing retained water in raw meat and
poultry products. The six alternatives include: (1) no limit on
retained water but mandatory labeling that identifies the percentage of
retained water in the product; (2) a requirement that all
establishments meet a water limit based on best available technology,
with mandatory labeling to indicate any retained water; (3) a moisture
limit based on best performance with existing equipment, with mandatory
labeling to show any retained water; (4) a standard of zero retained
moisture; (5) a requirement that no retained water could be included in
net weight; and (6) a requirement of zero retained water unless the
water retention is unavoidable in processes necessary to meet food
safety requirements, e.g., to reduce pathogens, with product labeling
to indicate the presence of retained moisture, where applicable. For
all alternatives where a limit on retained water is established, the
analysis assumed that the limits would be established by the regulated
industry associations or other groups.
FSIS chose the last alternative. The selected option would not
allow retained water in an affected product unless it is an inevitable
consequence of the process or processes used to meet applicable food-
safety requirements. Levels of unavoidable retained water would be
established by inspected establishments, associations, or other groups,
using acceptable protocols. Also, the maximum amount of retained water
that could be present would have to be indicated on the product label.
FSIS found that this option provides more benefits and fewer costs than
other options allowing retained water. By ``inevitable consequence''
the Agency means an unavoidable and irreducible side effect. A food-
safety requirement could be a regulatory prescription, such as the
temperature to which a product must be chilled and held. It could also
be a preventive measure taken at a CCP or a critical limit in the
establishment's HACCP plan. Given a food-safety requirement, an
establishment must choose a method for satisfying the requirement.
FSIS understands that the choice of method is based on a judgment
of technical and economic feasibility. FSIS understands that product
quality and product acceptability to the consumer are also important
factors. The Agency requests comment on these matters.
The method selected for meeting food safety requirements could have
side effects that cannot be eliminated. A side effect of an
antimicrobial treatment of carcasses or a carcass chilling method could
be an increase in the water content of carcasses and parts. FSIS is
proposing to require that the amount of water that might be retained in
carcasses and parts as a result of using such an antimicrobial or
chilling method be an unavoidable and irreducible side effect of using
that method.
To be applicable to the raw products of an inspected establishment,
a non-zero retained-water limit would have to be based on supporting
data collected in accordance with an FSIS-approved protocol. The
proposal would allow a protocol to be developed and data-generating
studies following the protocol to be carried out by an individual
establishment, an industry trade association, or other group using the
same or similar processing techniques and equipment. Depending on the
design of the protocol, the data gathered could justify water-retention
limits for a single establishment, a group of establishments with
similar equipment processing similar classes of raw product, or all
such establishments in an industry. To establish a non-zero retained
water limit, an inspected establishment, industry trade association, or
other group would have to generate the necessary supporting data. The
labels of products would have to indicate the presence of retained
water in the products.
This requirement would not appear to have a significant impact on
the meat industry because the meat industry is already achieving zero-
percent retained water. This proposal would, however, provide an
alternative for establishments that are having or will have trouble
meeting the Salmonella performance standards. These establishments
could use a full range of antimicrobial rinses or hot-water rinses
without having to worry about meeting zero-percent retained water. If
they can demonstrate that they need a non-zero limit to meet the
Salmonella standards, they can use the flexibility provided by the
proposed rule and establish a new water limit as long as they state the
maximum percentage of water absorbed and retained on product labels.
Immersion chilling is the process used by most poultry
establishments to meet the existing chilling requirements for poultry,
e.g., 9 CFR 381.66(b)(2) requires that poultry carcasses under 4 pounds
shall be chilled to 40 deg.F within 4 hours following evisceration. It
follows that, for most poultry establishments, the inevitable retained
water amount is the ``minimum'' level that can be reached with existing
immersion chiller equipment while still meeting the chilling
requirement. FSIS recognizes that this ``minimum'' must be established
within practical limits for operating parameters such as drip time and
chiller water temperature. The Agency believes that the industry
already has information concerning the chiller variable settings that
minimize water retention. FSIS, therefore, believes the poultry
industry can establish water retention limits for various chiller
systems with minimal costs. FSIS also recognizes that some poultry
establishments may require higher levels of retained water to meet the
Salmonella standards than they do to meet the existing chilling
requirements.
The proposal does not provide specific guidance on options
available for poultry processors that are already operating far below
the existing standards for Salmonella, such as by permitting higher
retained water levels
[[Page 48967]]
if data showed further pathogen reductions would be achieved.
The analysis estimates a range of costs the industry will incur to
meet this new regulatory requirement. If establishments are able to
demonstrate that current levels of retained water are necessary to
achieve applicable food safety standards, establishments would not
incur costs for reducing retained water. These establishments would
only incur costs for establishing limits and costs for labeling the
product. The costs of establishing limits for the poultry industry are
estimated to be $1.5 million. This estimate is based on each
establishment's conducting its own tests. The cost should be lower if
associations or other groups establish limits for different types of
chiller systems. Labeling costs are estimated to be $18.4 million if
all raw, single-ingredient poultry continues to retain water.
To the extent that establishments cannot demonstrate that current
retained water levels are necessary for achieving applicable food
safety standards, significant costs could be incurred as establishments
modify processes to minimize retained water levels. Reducing retained
water could entail a wide range of processing modifications, depending
on the type of chilling equipment currently used and amount of retained
water that would have to be removed. The PRIA estimates that the cost
of removing a substantial portion of the existing retained water could
easily approach $100 million. The PRIA estimates that the average
retained water for chicken as a percentage of net weight is currently
in the 5.0 to 6.5 percent range. The corresponding level for turkey is
4.0 to 4.5 percent.
The proposed rule should not have a significant impact on a large
number of small businesses. Almost half of all federally inspected
poultry slaughter establishments are large, based on the Small Business
Administration criterion of more than 500 employees. There are from 50
to 60 establishments that process under a million birds annually. Many
of these smaller operations do not use continuous immersion chillers.
They use ice or slush to meet the existing chilling requirements. Few,
if any, would have to reduce the current level of retained water. The
establishments most affected by this proposal are the firms operating
immersion chillers in a manner so as to target the maximum allowable
retained water.
Because of the Court's decision, FSIS needs to develop new
regulatory requirements to carry out its responsibilities for
protecting the public from economic adulteration. Preventing economic
adulteration provides a consumer benefit. Consumers would also benefit
from the additional information that would be provided by the labeling
requirement. The information on retained water should lead to more
informed purchasing decisions. The proposal would also provide all
affected establishments with the flexibility and market incentives to
implement new procedures for meeting pathogen reduction performance
standards. In addition, by replacing command-and-control requirements
with HACCP-consistent performance standards, the proposal would
eliminate some recordkeeping and reporting burdens, provide for
increased flexibility and reduce the costs of HACCP implementation.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. States and local jurisdictions are preempted by
the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (PPIA) from imposing any marking or packaging
requirements on federally inspected meat or poultry products that are
in addition to, or different than, those imposed under the FMIA and
PPIA. States and local jurisdictions may, however, exercise concurrent
jurisdiction over meat and poultry products that are outside official
establishments for the purpose of preventing the distribution of meat
or poultry products that are misbranded or adulterated under the FMIA
or PPIA, or, in the case of imported articles, which are not at such an
establishment, after their entry into the United States.
This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
There are no applicable administrative procedures that must be
exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this
proposed rule. However, the administrative procedures specified in 9
CFR 381.35 must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge of the
application of the provisions of this proposed rule, if the challenge
involves any decision of an FSIS employee relating to inspection
services provided under the FMIA or PPIA.
Executive Order 12898
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994),
``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-
Income Populations,'' FSIS has considered potential impacts of this
proposed rule on environmental and health conditions in low-income and
minority communities.
This proposed rule would provide new, uniform regulations limiting
the amount of water retained by raw, single-ingredient, meat and
poultry products as a result of post-evisceration processing, such as
carcass chilling, considered necessary to minimize pathogen growth on
the products. As explained in the economic impact analysis above, the
proposed regulations should generally benefit consumers of meat and
poultry products. The proposed regulations would not require or compel
meat or poultry establishments to relocate or alter their operations in
ways that could adversely affect the public health or environment in
low-income and minority communities. Further, this proposed rule would
not exclude any persons or populations from participation in FSIS
programs, deny any persons or populations the benefits of FSIS
programs, or subject any persons or populations to discrimination
because of their race, color, or national origin.
Paperwork Requirements
Title: Retained Water in Raw Meat and Poultry Products; Poultry
Chilling Performance Standards.
Type of Collection: Labels and labeling records; data or
information supporting labeling statements.
Abstract: Changes to product labels would be generically approved.
The paperwork and recordkeeping associated with such label approval is
approved under OMB control number 0583-0092. Slaughtering
establishments would have to have data to support percent-absorbed-
water statements on product labels and to demonstrate that the amount
of absorbed water in the product is unavoidable under the
establishments' HACCP plans. The data would have to have been collected
under FSIS-approved protocols.
This proposed rule would require an estimated 210,000 hours to
develop the data to support retained water levels above zero. All 300
federally inspected poultry establishments would need to conduct
studies to establish minimum retained water levels. The PRIA assumed
that the average establishment would conduct studies for two product
categories. The PRIA assumed that a reasonable study would examine 10
alternative chiller settings with four 50-bird water tests conducted
for each setting. Each test would require 2.5 hours. Thus, it would
take an estimated 200 hours for each of 300 poultry establishments, or
more than 30,000 hours.
[[Page 48968]]
The PRIA assumes that at most 500 meat establishments need to
develop non-zero water levels to meet the existing pathogen-reduction
performance standards. With larger carcasses, the recording time is
doubled to 200 hours per establishment. These 500 meat establishments
would also require 100 hours to collect microbial samples. Thus, the
information collection would be 300 hours for each of 500
establishments, or 150,000 hours.
All 800 establishments with non-zero levels would also have to
develop new, generically approved labels.
Estimate of Burden: Protocols for determining minimum feasible
water retention in product classes (3,000 hours); data supporting
absorbed-water label statements or the lack thereof (210,000 hours).
Respondents: Meat and poultry product establishments or trade
associations.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 800.
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 213,000 hours.
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained
from Lee Puricelli, Paperwork Specialist, Food Safety and Inspection
Service, USDA, Cotton Annex Building, Room 107, Washington, DC 20250.
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency'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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology. Comments may be sent to Lee Puricelli,
Paperwork Specialist, see address above, and Desk Officer for
Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.
Comments are requested by December 10, 1998. To be most effective,
comments should be sent to OMB within 30 days of the publication date
of this proposed rule.
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 381
Food labeling, Poultry and poultry products.
9 CFR Part 441
Consumer protection, Meat and meat products, Poultry and poultry
products.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to
amend 9 CFR Chapter III, as follows:
PART 381--POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 381 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f; 7 U.S.C. 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7 CFR
2.18, 2.53.
2. Paragraph (b)(44) of Sec. 381.1 would be revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 381.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(44) Ready-to-cook poultry. ``Ready-to-cook poultry'' means any
slaughtered poultry free from protruding pinfeathers, vestigial
feathers (hair or down), and from which the head, feet, crop, oil
gland, trachea, esophagus, feet, crop, oil gland, reproductive organs,
and lungs have been removed, and mature poultry from which the kidneys
have been removed, and with or without the giblets, and which is
suitable for cooking without need of further processing. Ready-to-cook
poultry also means any cut-up or disjointed portion of poultry or other
parts of poultry, such as reproductive organs, head, or feet that are
suitable for cooking without need of further processing.
* * * * *
3. Section 381.65 would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 381.65 Operations and procedures, generally.
(a) Operations and procedures involving the processing, other
handling, or storing of any poultry product shall be strictly in accord
with clean and sanitary practices and shall be conducted in such a
manner that will result in sanitary processing, proper inspection, and
the production of poultry and poultry products that are not
adulterated.
(b) Poultry shall be slaughtered in accordance with good commercial
practices in a manner that will result in thorough bleeding of the
carcasses and assure that breathing has stopped prior to scalding.
Blood from the killing operation shall be confined to a relatively
small area.
(c)(1) When thawing frozen ready-to-cook poultry in water, the
establishment shall use methods that prevent adulteration of, or net
weight gain by, the poultry.
(2) The water used in washing the poultry shall be permitted to
drain freely from the body cavity.
(d) Ready-to-cook poultry shall be adequately drained after
chilling, to remove ice and water before the poultry is packaged or
packed for shipping.
(e)(1) Detached ova may be collected for human food in the official
establishment provided the collection is sanitary. Ova from condemned
carcasses shall be condemned and treated as required in Sec. 381.95.
Ova for human food must be cooled, packaged, and handled so as to be
fit for human food.
(2) Detached ova harvested for human food may leave the official
establishment only for movement to an egg products processing plant for
processing as allowed in Sec. 59.440 of the regulations (7 CFR 59.440)
under the Egg Products Inspection Act, and when moved from the official
establishment shall bear labeling which indicates that the ova were
harvested under sanitary supervision of the Inspection Service.
4. Section 381.66 would be amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c),
and (d) and removing paragraph (f)(6), to read as follows:
Sec. 381.66 Temperatures and chilling and freezing procedures.
(a) General. Temperatures and procedures which are necessary for
chilling and freezing ready-to-cook poultry, including all edible
portions thereof, shall be in accordance with operating procedures
which ensure the prompt removal of the animal heat and will preserve
the condition and wholesomeness of the poultry and assure that the
products are not adulterated.
(b) * * *
(c) Ice and water chilling. (1) Only ice produced from potable
water may be used for ice and water chilling. The ice shall be handled
and stored in a sanitary manner.
(2)(i) Chillers must contain sufficient water or ice, or both, to
keep the chilling media clean and provide a continuous overflow from
each section of the chilling system. If there is no loss of water
between sections, multiple section chilling systems may be connected so
the overflow from subsequent sections serves as water intake for the
first section.
(ii) Partial trimming and salvage of parts of poultry carcasses
often result in parts of major size, either front or rear portions,
wherein the major portion of
[[Page 48969]]
the poultry carcass remains intact. These portions may be chilled in
water and ice, including chilling in continuous chillers. Individual
parts from salvage operations, including but not limited to drumsticks,
thighs, split carcasses, and split breasts, shall not be cooled in
water and ice but may be cooled in the air, or ice, or under a spray of
water with continuous drainage.
(3) Previously chilled poultry carcasses and major portions shall
be maintained constantly at 40 deg.F. or below until removed from the
vats or tanks prior to being cooled to 40 deg.F. or below, for
freezing or cooling in the official establishment. Such products shall
not be packed until after they have been chilled to 40 deg.F. or
below, except when the packaging will be followed immediately by
freezing at the official establishment.
(4) Giblets shall be chilled to 40 deg.F. or below within 2 hours
from the time they are removed from the inedible viscera, except that
when they are cooled with the carcass, the requirements of paragraph
(b)(2) of this section shall apply. Any of the acceptable methods of
chilling the poultry carcass may be followed in cooling giblets.
(d) Water absorption and retention. (1) Poultry washing, chilling,
and draining practices and procedures shall be such as will minimize
water absorption and retention at time of packaging.
(2) The establishment shall provide scales, weights, identification
devices, and other supplies necessary to conduct water tests.
* * * * *
5. A new Part 441 would be added to subchapter E to read as
follows:
PART 441--CONSUMER PROTECTION STANDARDS: RAW PRODUCTS
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 451-470, 601-695;
7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
Sec. 441.10 Retained water.
Raw meat and poultry carcasses and parts shall not contain water
resulting from post-evisceration processing unless the establishment
preparing them demonstrates to the Administrator, with data collected
in accordance with an FSIS-approved protocol, that any water retained
is an inevitable consequence of the process used to meet applicable
food safety requirements. Raw meat and poultry carcasses and parts that
retain water must bear a statement on the label in prominent letters
and contiguous to the product name indicating the maximum percentage of
water that may be retained. Raw meat and poultry carcasses and parts
that retain no water may bear a statement indicating that no water is
retained.
Done at Washington, DC on September 3, 1998.
Thomas J. Billy,
Administrator.
Appendix A--Expected Elements of a Protocol for Gathering Water
Retention Data
Purpose statement. The primary purpose of the protocol should be
to determine the amount or percentage of water absorption and
retention that is inevitable using a particular chilling system
while achieving the regulatory pathogen reduction performance
standard for Salmonella as set forth in the PR/HACCP regulations (9
CFR 310.25(b), 381.94(b)) and the time/temperature requirements set
forth in 9 CFR 381.66. Additional purposes that could be included
are determining chilling system efficiency and evaluating product
quality.
Type of washing and chilling system used by the establishment.
Any post-evisceration washing or chilling processes that affect
water retention levels in and microbial loads on raw product should
be described. For poultry establishments, the main chiller types,
identified by the mechanism used to transport the birds through the
chiller or to agitate the water in the chiller, are the drag-
through, the screw type, and the rocker-arm type.
Configuration and any modifications of the chiller system
components. A description of chiller-system configurations and
modifications should be provided. The description should include the
number and type of chillers in a series and arrangements of chilling
system components, and the number of evisceration lines feeding into
a chiller system. If there is a pre-chilling step in the process,
its purpose and the type of equipment used should be accurately
described. Any mechanical or design changes made to the chilling
equipment should be described.
Special features in the chilling process. Any special features
in the chilling process, such as antimicrobial treatments, should be
described. Also, the length and velocity of the dripping line should
be described, as well as the total time allowed for dripping. Any
special apparatus, such as a mechanism for squeezing excessive water
from chilled birds, should be explained.
Description of variable factors in the chilling system. The
protocol should describe variable factors that affect water
absorption and retention. In poultry processing, such factors are
typically considered to be the time in chiller water, the water
temperature, and agitation. The protocol should consider air
agitation, where applicable.
Additional factors that may affect water-absorption and
retention are scalding temperature and the pressure or amount of
buffeting applied to birds by feather removal machinery, and the
resultant loosening of the skin. Another factor that should be
considered is the method used to open the bird for evisceration.
Standards to be met by the chilling system. For example, the
chilling system may be designed simply to achieve a reduction in
temperature of ready-to-cook poultry to less than 40 deg.F. within
the time limit specified by the regulations, or in less time. As to
the standard for pathogen minimization, the Salmonella pathogen
reduction standards, as set forth in the PR/HACCP final rule, have
been suggested. Although there is not yet an applicable Salmonella
standard for turkeys, commenters are free to suggest a practicable
standard for use in gathering data on turkeys under the protocols
here suggested. Additional microbiological targets, such as E. coli
or Campylobacter levels, or reductions in numbers of other
microorganisms, may also be used.
Testing methods to be employed. The protocol should detail the
testing methods to be used both for measuring water absorption and
retention and for sampling and testing product for pathogen
reductions. The protocol should call for water retention and
pathogen reduction tests at various chilling equipment settings and
chilling time-and-temperature combinations. The method to be used in
calculating water absorption and retention should be reproducible
and statistically verifiable.
With respect to the pathogen-reduction aspect of the testing,
FSIS recommends the methods used for E. coli and Salmonella testing
under the PR/HACCP regulations. The number of samples, the type of
samples, the sampling time period, and the type of testing or
measurement should be included in the protocol.
Reporting of data evaluation of results. The protocol should
explain how data obtained are to be reported and summarized. The
criteria for evaluating the results and the basis for conclusions to
be drawn should be explained.
Conclusions. The protocol should provide for a statement of what
the data obtained demonstrate and what conclusions were reached.
Appendix B--Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis--Retained Water
in Meat and Poultry Products
August 1998--U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection
Service
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
II. Need for Regulatory Action
III. Background
IV. Description of Proposed Rule
V. Analysis of Existing Data on Retained Water
VI. Retained Water in Net Weight
VII. Economic Analysis of Retained Water in Meat and Poultry
VIII. Options Identified
IX. Analysis of Options
X. Cost of Proposed Rule
XI. Benefits of Proposed Rule
XII. Effect on Product Quality
XIII. Aggregate Market Effects
Executive Summary
This analysis was conducted to meet the requirements of
Executive Order 12866 and
[[Page 48970]]
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The proposed rule has been
designated economically significant because there is a potential
impact of $100 million or more. This Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis (PRIA) shows that the rule could lead to a substantial
reduction in the amount of retained water in poultry which could
have a significant economic impact on the poultry industry. Under
the proposed rule, raw, single-ingredient meat and poultry products
would not be permitted to contain water resulting from post-
evisceration processing unless the establishment demonstrates that
water retention is an inevitable consequence of the process or
processes used to meet applicable food safety requirements. There
are three types of costs associated with this proposed rule. There
are costs for conducting the tests necessary to establish retained
water levels. There are also costs associated with reducing retained
water to such levels. Finally, there are costs for revising product
labels to indicate the presence of retained water. Product labels
would indicate the percentage of net weight represented by retained
water. This information could be used by consumers in making product
choices. The market could provide incentives to firms to invest in
new technologies that would reduce retained water.
Most of the cost of this proposed rule would be experienced by
the poultry industry. Most, if not all, raw poultry products now
contain retained water whereas only a few meat byproducts or organ
meats may now contain retained water. Most costs experienced by the
meat industry would be associated with voluntary decisions to use
new or different processes to meet food safety requirements that
would result in some level of unavoidable retained water.
This analysis estimates a range of costs the poultry industry
would incur to meet this new regulatory requirement. If
establishments are able to demonstrate that current levels of
retained water levels are an inevitable consequence of the processes
used to meet applicable food safety standards, establishments would
not incur costs for reducing retained water. These establishments
would incur costs for justifying existing retained water levels and
costs for revising product labels. The costs of establishing limits
for the poultry industry are estimated to be $1.5 million. Label
revision costs are estimated to be $18.4 million if all raw, single-
ingredient poultry continues to contain retained water.
To the extent that poultry establishments cannot demonstrate
that current retained water levels are necessary for achieving
applicable food safety standards, significant costs could be
incurred as establishments modify processes to reduce retained water
levels. Reducing retained water could entail a wide range of
processing modifications, depending on the type of chilling
equipment currently used and the amount of retained water that would
have to be removed. The analysis estimates that the average retained
water for chicken as a percentage of net weight is probably in the
5.0 to 6.5 percent range. The average retained water for turkey as a
percentage of net weight is probably in the 4.0 to 4.5 percent
range.
If this proposed rule would require removing a substantial
portion of the existing retained water, then the costs to the
poultry industry could exceed $100 million. FSIS' retained water
tests on whole broilers show that retained water varies considerably
from establishment to establishment. For 13 establishments operating
under the 8 percent regulatory limit for whole broilers, the average
retained water at the end of the drip line ranged from 4.72 to 7.32
percent. FSIS believes that the establishments operating at the
higher end of this spectrum are targeting the regulatory limit and
establishments operating at the lower end of this spectrum are, most
likely, operating at or near the minimum necessary to meet existing
chilling requirements which are food safety standards. For this
reason, FSIS does not expect to see costs approaching the $100
million level. However, FSIS also recognizes that the retained water
levels at the lower end of the spectrum could be tied to purchase
specifications or other factors and may not be true minimum levels.
Therefore, this analysis has estimated the cost of removing a
substantial portion of the current levels of retained water from all
poultry establishments.
This PRIA estimates that using additional drain time to reduce
retained water in poultry by 4 to 5 percentage points in all
establishments could cost up to $94 million in one-time fixed costs.
Annual recurring costs are estimated at $10 million. These cost
estimates are based on situations where inspected establishments
were required to drain retained water that exceeded regulatory
limits. FSIS program personnel do not believe it is feasible to
eliminate all retained water from immersion-chilled poultry. Thus,
if establishments must eliminate a substantial portion of retained
water, they would incur the costs of minimizing the water plus the
costs of establishing the minimum or minimums and labeling costs.
The costs of the proposed rule, however, are highly dependent on the
level of retained water that is necessary to meet existing food
safety requirements. That level will remain unknown until
established by well-designed studies. However, as discussed above,
FSIS predicts that only those poultry establishments operating at
the higher end of the retained water spectrum would have to
substantially reduce their retained water levels. This prediction is
based on data showing that establishments can control retained water
and data showing that some are controlling retained water so as to
be at or near the applicable regulatory limit.
This proposal fills a regulatory void created by the U.S.
District Court decision to set aside the water retention limits for
whole birds. The regulatory limits that the Court set aside were not
based on adequate analytical support. Regulatory limits are
necessary to protect the public from economic adulteration.
Preventing economic adulteration provides a consumer benefit.
Consumers would also benefit from the additional information that
would be provided by the labeling requirement. The information on
retained water should lead to more informed purchasing decisions.
The proposal would also provide affected establishments with the
flexibility they need to choose the most appropriate means for
implementing HACCP plans for assuring the safety of raw product. For
example, under the proposed rule, both meat and poultry carcasses
would be allowed to retain absorbed water if data showed that such
water was unavoidable in order to assure compliance with the
pathogen reduction performance standards for Salmonella. In
addition, by replacing certain existing command-and-control
requirements with HACCP-consistent performance standards, the
proposal would allow increased flexibility which should reduce the
costs for HACCP implementation. This analysis does not attempt to
quantify the benefits of the increased flexibility that results from
eliminating command-and-control requirements. The proposal would
also remove certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
In terms of aggregate market effects, the analysis concludes
that, when compared to the present situation, the proposed rule
could result in higher prices for both poultry and meat, with less
poultry consumed and more meat consumed. However, when estimated
costs are compared with aggregate consumer expenditures, the
analysis shows that costs are very small compared with current
expenditures. Maximum first year cost estimates for the poultry
industry represent 0.36 percent of aggregate consumer expenditures
on poultry. Recurring costs to the poultry industry represent only
0.03 percent of consumer expenditures and 0.04 cents per pound.
I. Introduction
FSIS is proposing regulations limiting the amount of retained
water raw meat and poultry products may contain. The proposed
rulemaking would, among other things, amend the meat and poultry
inspection regulations governing water retained by carcasses and
parts of carcasses as a result of post-evisceration washing and
chilling necessary to ensure product safety and wholesomeness. The
amended regulations would apply the same retained-water standard to
both red meat and poultry. Meat and poultry carcasses and parts
would not be permitted to contain water resulting from post-
evisceration processing unless the establishment demonstrates that
water retention is an unavoidable consequence of the processing used
to meet existing food safety requirements. Under the proposal, raw
meat and poultry products that retain water would have to be labeled
indicating the maximum amount of retained water that may be present
as a percentage of product weight.
In addition to revising the regulations controlling retained
water, FSIS is also proposing to revise the poultry regulations
covering thawing procedures, water use and reconditioning, and
certain other operating procedures. These other regulations are
being revised to improve consistency with the Pathogen Reduction/
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (PR/HACCP) regulations,
eliminate ``command-and-control'' features, and reflect current
technological capabilities and good manufacturing practices. By
replacing command-and-control requirements with
[[Page 48971]]
HACCP-consistent performance standards, the proposal would allow
increased flexibility and should reduce costs for HACCP
implementation. Removing some command-and-control regulations would
also eliminate some existing recordkeeping and reporting burdens.
This analysis does not attempt to quantify the benefits of the
increased flexibility that results from eliminating command-and-
control requirements.
II. Need for Regulatory Action
Respond to Court Decision
The regulations controlling retained water in poultry carcasses
have consisted of three major components: (1) a performance standard
requiring washing, chilling, and draining practices that will
minimize water absorption and retention at time of packaging, (2)
limits for maximum retained water in birds that will be packaged as
whole carcasses, and (3) limits for maximum retained water in birds
that will be ice-packed or cut up prior to packaging. The
performance standard is interpreted as minimizing the water that is
absorbed and subsequently retained, i.e., it is not interpreted as
requiring minimization of both water absorption and water retention.
In implementing the standard, FSIS concludes that the performance
standard is met when retained water is under the maximum limits.
Until the Court case referred to below, the maximum retained
water for most whole chickens (those 4.25 pounds or under) was 8
percent. The maximum retained water for chicken that will be ice-
packed or subsequently cut up into parts is 12 percent. The 12
percent limit is based on the premise that chicken parts from whole
birds with water levels between 8 and 12 percent will reach the 8
percent level by the time the parts are packaged. The analogous
limits for turkey are similar but include unique limits for 12
different carcass weight categories. The maximum retained water
limits for whole turkey range from 4.3 to 8.0 percent depending on
weight. The corresponding limits for cut-up turkey range from 5.3 to
9.0 percent. The maximum retained water for whole ducks, geese and
guineas was 6 percent, the same limit that applied to chickens over
4.25 pounds.
The U.S. District Court, in the matter of Kenney v. Glickman,
set aside the water retention limits for whole birds. The Court
found that the analytical support for the existing limits was
insufficient. Thus, there are currently no regulatory criteria to
determine whether retained water has been minimized in chilled or
frozen whole birds. FSIS is mandated to prevent the distribution in
commerce of meat or poultry products that are adulterated or
misbranded. Under the meat and poultry statutes, a product is
adulterated if, among other circumstances, a substance has been
added to or mixed with the product to increase its bulk or weight or
make it appear of greater value than it is. Thus, if water has not
been minimized, the product may be considered adulterated. Such
product may also be considered misbranded. Without limits on
retained water, FSIS cannot adequately protect consumers from
adulteration and misbranding due to excessive retained water in
whole birds.
Eliminate Inconsistency
In addition to the situation created by the July 1997 Court
decision, FSIS sees additional need for regulatory action. With
respect to the regulation of retained water, there are differences
or inconsistencies both between the livestock and poultry industries
and within the existing regulatory framework for poultry. FSIS
allows poultry to retain water absorbed during processing as an
unavoidable result of traditional chilling practices. There is no
comparable allowance for meat. The regulatory definitions for
economic adulteration ``by substances added so as to increase bulk
or weight or make a product appear better or of greater value than
it is'' are identical for meat and poultry. Although the Secretary
of Agriculture has the authority to apply the adulteration
provisions differently, FSIS believes there can be more consistency
between the livestock and poultry industries in how the adulteration
provisions are applied to retained water in raw products. The
traditional differences in chilling practices have led to a
situation where the weight of a meat carcass usually decreases
during chilling while the weight of a poultry carcass increases.
The Department promulgated regulations limiting water absorption
in poultry in 1959, 1961, and 1970 (December 1, 1959, 24 FR 9566;
July 19, 1961, 26 FR 6471; October 7, 1970, 35 FR 739). The existing
regulations contain a standard of performance that calls for
minimization and maximum retained water limits for poultry carcasses
based on carcass weight and intended use. Under the existing
regulatory enforcement framework, a poultry establishment is
``minimizing'' retained water when it is operating within the
existing limits. FSIS is aware that not all establishments are
really minimizing retained water. Data analyzed for this PRIA show
that some poultry establishments have been controlling their
processes to retain the maximum allowed water. While this is
considered acceptable in the sense that product is not adulterated,
it is not consistent with a regulatory intent to minimize. However,
it may be consistent with food safety objectives to reduce
pathogens.
The existence of the 12 percent limit for cut-up chicken is in
itself inconsistent with the concept of minimization. Many
establishments pack both whole and cut-up chicken. In meeting the 8
percent limit for whole birds, they demonstrate that their minimum
is below 8 percent. The 12 percent limit serves as an opportunity to
maintain water levels in cut-up poultry. The 12 percent limit is
also available as default when the 8 percent limit is not achieved.
An establishment can divert birds to cut-up operations when they
fail the whole bird limit.
III. Background
There are no existing meat regulations that address retained
water in raw meat products. Without any regulatory limits, FSIS has
enforced the adulteration provision of the FMIA to mean that any
level of retained water is adulteration. FSIS has allowed cold water
spray chilling systems as a supplement to air chilling of beef and
hog carcasses under the conditions outlined in FSIS Directive
6330.1. That document requires that establishments develop quality
control systems and inspectors monitor these quality control
programs to make sure that the total weight of a group of spray-
chilled carcasses is not greater than the total pre-wash weight of
the same carcasses. Thus, while an individual carcass may show a
weight gain, FSIS enforces a standard of zero-retained water for
groups of beef or pork carcasses for spray chilling systems. In
contrast, FSIS has not required establishments to closely monitor
water when using pathogen reduction methods on the kill floor, such
as pre-evisceration carcass sprays or steam vacuum processes.
FSIS implements an extensive program to assure compliance with
existing limits for retained water in poultry. Retained water can
result from both carcass washing and carcass chilling, i.e., the
post-evisceration washing and chilling processes. The existing
procedures for conducting retained water tests for poultry are
outlined in Part 10 of the Meat and Poultry Inspection Manual. The
standard procedures instruct the inspector to tag and weigh a sample
of 10 birds from the eviscerating line before the final carcass
wash. The final carcass wash occurs before birds enter the chiller.
The same 10 birds are then weighed after the chiller at a point
specified in the establishment's water control procedures as
outlined on FSIS Form 528. The most common point is the end of the
drip line or the last accessible point on the drip line. The test
procedures are the same regardless of whether the whole bird or cut-
up limits apply.
Under standard procedures, inspectors conduct one test each
shift. Today, many establishments are tested once each week based on
history of compliance. The standard procedures state that test birds
must not be allowed extra draining, i.e., they must reflect the
production lot. The standard water procedures may specify that the
test birds are drained for a specific time if production is all
drained for the same time. For example, one establishment specifies
that test birds are to be drained four (4) hours before being
weighed. When water limits are exceeded, product is retained.
Violations do occasionally occur and appear to be a function of
how close to the regulatory limit an establishment is operating.
Existing data indicate that some establishments control their
process way below the limits and never come close to a violation.
Based on the data reviewed for this analysis, most establishments do
not have water violations or rarely exceed existing limits. A few,
however, appear to target the limit and frequently experience
retained product as an extra operating expense. In the data examined
for this analysis, retained product required additional drain times
ranging from 3 minutes to 12 hours.
FSIS' existing retained water control program is a relatively
resource intensive effort. In a poultry establishment with two
shifts and two chiller systems, FSIS may be conducting four 10-bird
tests each day. Each test takes from 40 to 60 minutes for selecting,
tagging, and weighing birds and then recording results and making
necessary calculations. Even with reduced testing in
[[Page 48972]]
many establishments, it appears reasonable to estimate that FSIS
conducts between 300 and 400 retained water tests each day. Assuming
a 260-day work year, FSIS conducts from 78,000 to 104,000 tests
annually. At 40 to 60 minutes each, the annual testing represents
from 25 to 50 staff years of 2,080 hours each. The Agency also
expends an estimated 560 staff-hours each year reviewing changes in
establishment washing, chilling, and draining procedures. These
estimates do not include the cost of addressing violations.
FSIS intends to pursue a new water control program that can
incorporate wholesale or retail sampling to identify establishments
that may be exceeding water limits and then target resources to
conduct follow-up testing to confirm compliance or noncompliance.
FSIS is aware of a retail testing method that has been developed and
used in European Union member States. The method involves measuring
drippage from sampled products against what is considered the
natural water content of the product.
In its 1980 net weight proposal, FSIS considered a ``building-
block'' approach to net weight compliance that was then being
reviewed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. This approach, as
described in the 1980 notice, ``would be modeled on a statistical
limits of variance technique developed by Switzerland for
application to imported, prepackaged foods. Inspectors would make
limited inspections for compliance at retail. If the sampling
technique indicates a noncompliance problem, additional inspection
of the same product would be made at retail and further back in the
marketing chain, including at processing plants. If the problem
continues following notification of the producers, a more precise
enforcement test would be applied.'' An alternative that lends
itself to this type of approach will rate high on the criterion for
an efficient, equitable enforcement system.
IV. Description of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would establish a single retained water
standard for all raw, single ingredient meat and poultry products.
This standard would allow retained water only if that water was an
inevitable consequence of the process or processes used to assure
compliance with existing food safety requirements. The presence of
any retained water would, however, have to be identified on product
labeling.
The proposed requirements would affect only single-ingredient,
raw, whole, cut-up, or ground meat and poultry carcasses and parts,
including edible organs and other edible meat and poultry
byproducts. It would not affect raw products with labeling that
includes a list of ingredients or nutrition labeling, such as pre-
basted frozen turkeys or individually quick frozen (IQF) poultry
parts labeled to indicate the addition of basting solutions.
The proposal would also modify other existing regulations
related to water use and chilling requirements. For example, the
proposal would remove a requirement that establishments must file a
description of chilling and freezing procedures with the inspector-
in-charge (IIC). At the same time, the proposal would remove the
requirements that the establishment submit written notice of any
adjustments to washing, chilling, and draining methods before any
changes are made and provide FSIS data showing the adjustments are
effective in meeting existing water limits. These modifications
would reduce recordkeeping and reporting burdens.
The proposal would also remove specific requirements concerning
the amount of fresh water intake required in the first section of a
continuous chilling system. The existing regulations require a
minimum of one-half gallon per frying chicken and proportionately
more for other classes of poultry, including not less than one
gallon per turkey. The potential for lowering water costs is
unknown. The general requirements for using potable water and
continuous overflow from one section of the chiller to the next will
remain. The requirement for continuous overflow would appear to
limit the opportunity for reduced water usage.
The regulations concerning water intake were established at a
time when FSIS assumed responsibility for controlling pathogen
levels and frequently did so with design requirements. In 1978, the
Department published a proposal (43 FR 14043, April 4, 1978) that
would reduce water intake requirements by 50 percent when chlorine
levels in the incoming water were at least 20 parts per million. The
proposal was subsequently withdrawn. Of concern during the
rulemaking were studies by USDA and the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University (VPI) that showed that bacteria
levels increased as intake water was reduced. While the relationship
of water intake and pathogen levels remains a public health concern,
FSIS is no longer attempting to design protection using command and
control regulations. Under the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP final rule,
establishments are required to meet pathogen reduction performance
standards. This current proposal is a performance-based standard
that will lead to retained water levels that are necessary to meet
pathogen reduction requirements and other food safety standards. The
current proposal is consistent with FSIS objectives of setting
performance standards and moving away from design requirements, such
as the minimum of one-half gallon of fresh water intake per chicken.
It is now industry's responsibility to establish how water intake
relates to both retained water and pathogen levels.
The proposal would also remove prescriptive requirements for
water reconditioning systems for poultry chillers. This change would
not have an impact because reconditioning systems have not proven
feasible in commercial operations.
FSIS intends to retain the existing requirements mandating that
the internal temperature of poultry carcasses be lowered to 40
deg.F. or less within a specified time. The Agency also will
continue to require that each establishment provide scales, weights,
identification devices, and other supplies necessary to conduct
water tests. While the Agency envisions a compliance-sampling
program using the deviation from an expected level of total water
content as a screening system, the Agency will still use the
existing sampling system to confirm potential compliance problems.
The poultry regulations discussed above concerning water use,
chilling requirements and water retention are all contained in 9 CFR
381.66 (Temperatures and chilling and freezing procedures). This
proposal would also remove several existing regulations from 9 CFR
381.65 that now address general operating procedures, many of which
are not related to water use or chilling procedures. Operating
procedure requirements that would be removed or revised under this
proposal include the following:
Specific requirements that prescribe the nature of
opening cuts for evisceration,
The requirement to remove kidneys from mature poultry,
Requirements pertaining to the handling and storage of
materials that could adulterate product,
Requirements for containers, packaging, and covering
materials,
Requirements on removing offal from establishments,
Requirements prescribing how to thaw frozen poultry and
drain ready-to-cook poultry,
Requirements on how establishments can chill parts of
carcasses, and
Requirements related to harvesting detached ova.
The regulations that would be eliminated are either regulations
that are overly prescriptive command and control regulations, such
as those defining opening cuts or regulations that are now redundant
with HACCP, e.g., the removal of kidneys. The reason for removing
the kidneys of mature chickens and turkeys is that they are a source
of cadmium, which can accumulate in the human liver and kidneys and
cause acute or chronic health problems. This is a ``food safety
hazard reasonably likely to occur'' that establishments will
identify in their hazard analyses and control through their HACCP
systems. Thus, a regulatory requirement for their removal would be
redundant with the HACCP regulations.
V. Analysis of Existing Data on Retained Water
As discussed above, most raw, single-ingredient meat products
are not currently allowed to contain any retained water. This
analysis assumes that these meat products will continue to be
produced without retained water. Products that are packed in water
or may retain water are already labeled to indicate such
information. Chitterlings (swine intestines) are washed and chilled
before shipment and are packaged with water. Certain organ meats and
meat from ears and tails are also washed and chilled using water. A
few establishments chill beef cheek meats in water, a process that
may result in the absorption of water. The product is labeled to
indicate the maximum percentage added water it may contain to alert
buyers to the fact that the product may weigh more because of the
chilling process. The Agency does not have data on the volume of
meat products with retained water or data on the current levels of
retained water. These products do not, however,
[[Page 48973]]
represent a major portion of the meat industry.
In order to estimate the current level of retained water, in
early 1997, the Agency's headquarters staff informally requested
field offices to forward readily available water data from poultry
plants. The material assembled varied from region-to-region and
plant-to-plant. The field offices did not use a standard method to
summarize available data. In some cases, the individual
establishments were identified; in other instances, all plant
identification was removed. The allowable water, i.e., the
applicable regulatory limit, was not always readily discernible. The
data covered the period of January through May 1997. Most of the
data was included on the Daily Moisture Records (FSIS Form 549 or
its replacement Form 6310-1). These records record the pre-wash and
post-chill weight of each individual bird for each 10-bird test.
Five 10-bird tests are recorded on each record.
While the data assembled was not systematically collected, it
has a degree of randomness and provides a preliminary estimate of
the amount of water currently absorbed and retained during the
washing and chilling process as measured by existing FSIS water test
procedures. An analysis was conducted using all the data that met
the following criteria for establishments slaughtering young
chickens.
{time} Minimum of twenty 10-bird tests (200 birds).
{time} Existing regulatory limit available.
{time} All available test data collected under a single applicable
limit.
{time} All results clearly legible.
{time} Establishment identified (to connect water data with
production).
The data from 33 establishments slaughtering young chickens met
the above criteria. These 33 establishments represented 17.5 percent
of FY 1996 production. Within the 33, 19 establishments were
operating under the 12 percent water limit that was applicable to
cut-up and ice-pack poultry. These 19 establishments accounted for
9.11 percent of the total FY 1996 production and 52 percent of the
production within the 33 establishments.
Thirteen establishments were operating under an 8 percent water
absorption limit during the period the data was collected. The 8
percent limit applies to whole carcass pack chickens or frozen
chickens that are 4.25 pounds or less. The 13 establishments
represented 7.95 percent of FY 1996 production. One establishment
was operating under the 6 percent limit for whole chickens over 4.25
pounds.
Among the 33 establishments, 48 percent of the young chickens
were being processed under the water limits for whole birds. Today,
the National Broiler Council estimates that only 10 percent of
broilers are ``marketed'' as whole birds. Two factors explain this
difference. First, if any birds in a production shift are to be
shipped whole, the entire shift is subject to the whole bird limit.
Second, some birds are shipped whole and then cut up in a second
establishment conducting further processing. The 10 percent
``marketed'' as whole birds refers to retail and food service
destinations.
The 13 establishments operating under the 8 percent limit had an
average absorbed water level of 5.81 percent and a production based
weighted average of 5.68 percent. Individual establishment averages
ranged from 4.72 to 7.32 percent. These percentages represent
percentage gain relative to the carcass weight prior to the final
carcass wash. The individual plant averages were calculated by
combining all available water tests from all shifts and all washer/
chiller systems. Averaging all water test results in this manner
assumes that each test represents an equal amount of production.
Many plants have more than one chiller system and multiple shifts.
Production may not be equally distributed across all shift-chiller
combinations.
The 19 establishments operating under the 12 percent limit had
an average absorbed water level of 9.11 and a weighted average of
9.02 percent. As above, these percentages represent percentage gain
relative to the carcass weight prior to the final carcass wash.
While 18 of these establishments had absorbed water levels close to
8 percent or above, one establishment had an average water level of
5.37 based on sixty 10-bird tests (600 birds) conducted from January
through April 1997. The establishment operates two systems, one
averaged 5.61 percent, the other 5.14. All the daily records were
checked to indicate the establishment was producing cut-up poultry.
In addition to the data analyzed above (33 establishments), the
1997 data included water tests from three young chicken
establishments that processed both whole birds under the 8 percent
limit and cut-up chickens under the 12 percent limit. For these 3
plants, there were at least 20 tests at each level.
The results are shown in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 percent 12 percent
Establishment limit Limit Difference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................................ 6.42 7.67 1.25
B................................ 5.26 6.15 0.89
C................................ 5.94 7.30 1.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An analysis of variance procedure indicated that, after accounting
for variability between plants, there is a statistically significant
difference (confidence greater than 99%) between the percentages of
water gain at the two regulatory limits. It follows that these
establishments are not really minimizing retained water when
operating under the 12 percent limit because they have lower
retained water when processing whole birds. The difference does not,
however, approach 4 percent.
Because there are 12 different water limits for different sizes
of turkeys, the approach to analyzing existing data had to be
different. It's common to see three different water limits for a
five-test series recorded on the Daily Moisture Records. The data
from turkey establishments was sorted using the following two
criteria:
Minimum of ten 10-bird tests conducted under limits
applicable to turkeys packaged as whole birds.
Establishment identified.
A review of the existing data identified six establishments that
were operating under the limits for whole carcass packing
procedures. These six establishments represented 12.7 percent of
federally inspected turkeys in FY 1966. An estimated 40 percent of
all turkeys are marketed as whole birds. Because of the 12 different
limits for whole turkeys depending on weight, this analysis did not
attempt to estimate absorbed water for different sizes of birds.
The six turkey plants had an average absorbed water level of
4.39 percent and a weighted average of 4.74 percent. Individual
plant averages ranged from 1.91 to 5.53 percent. This analysis did
not attempt to estimate water levels for cut-up or ice-packed
turkeys.
The review of Daily Moisture Records identified a couple of
potential issues that should be addressed by comments. First, some
of the highest water results occurred when line speeds were running
too slow for the established water control procedures. Since slowing
line speeds may be a response to higher pathogen levels there is
some indication that water pick up and pathogen levels may be
inversely related under some conditions. In one case, a company
conceded that it could not pass the 8 percent whole bird water
limits at certain lower speeds and agreed to divert birds to cut-up
operations when the line speed dropped to a certain level. By
diverting the birds to cut-up, the establishment avoided the process
of conducting a 50-bird test to establish the necessary drain time
to meet the 8 percent limit. Another plant noted that slower speeds
resulted in insufficient numbers of birds for proper travel through
their chiller system with rocker arms.
As a second issue, the data indicate that more problems arise
with very small birds, i.e., broilers in the 2\1/2\ to 3-pound
range. Individual birds would show water pick-up in the 20 to 24
percent ranges. FSIS staff notes that eviscerating equipment
sometimes causes extra large openings on small carcasses that lead
to pockets of water under the skin. These birds are informally
referred to as ``water bags.'' The water test is rather meaningless
for these birds if they are headed to cut-up operations because the
water in
[[Page 48974]]
these pockets drains quickly and easily at the cut-up operation.
VI. Retained Water in Net Weight
The proposed rule would require that product labels indicate the
percentage of net weight represented by retained water. All the data
presented in the previous section refers to retained water as a
percentage gain from the carcass weight prior to the final carcass
wash. The same volume of retained water expressed as a percentage of
net weight will be somewhat lower because net weight includes the
pre-wash carcass weight plus any absorbed water.
A second difference occurs because FSIS water tests normally
occur at the end of the drip line. The exact relationship between
the volume of retained water as recorded by FSIS tests and the
volume of retained water in finished packaged product is unknown.
Retained water in finished packaged product will be lower for
several reasons. First, an establishment's handling procedures will
lead to some water loss before the product is packaged and weighed.
Today, only 10 percent of broilers are ``marketed'' as whole birds.
Thus, a lot of broilers produced under whole bird limits are being
cut up in the originating establishment or in a subsequent
establishment before being packed as finished product. Second, any
product that exceeds existing limits is required to drain for a
specific time as determined by program personnel. Third, the
establishment may implement draining procedures to meet a customer's
purchase specifications. In these cases, the retained water included
in net weight could be far less than the retained water measured by
FSIS tests.
It is also difficult to compare the water data for whole birds
with the data on cut-up poultry. As discussed above, available data
showed whole young chickens to average 5.68 percent while cut-up
young chickens averaged 9.02 percent on a production-based weighted
average. The 12 percent limit on cut-up chickens was based on a
premise that if poultry for cut-up averages less than 12 percent at
the time of water test, it would drain to less than 8 percent during
the remaining handling prior to final packaging. This does not mean
that poultry destined for cut-up will drain 4 percent. It seems
reasonable to assume, however, that the level of 9.02 percent will
approach the whole bird level of 5.68 percent, probably ending up
somewhere between 6.0 and 7.0 percent.
Allowing for some drain in the whole bird packaging process and
considering the conversion to percentage of net weight, it seems
likely that the average retained water for chicken as a percentage
of net weight is probably in the 5.0 to 6.5 percent range. This
estimate is consistent with findings published in a study \1\
conducted in 1979 by the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives
Service (ESCS (now ERS)). That study, hereafter referred to as the
1979 ERS study, estimated that average water pickup for six
processors at the time of packaging was 5 to 6 percent. Because some
product undergoes further cut-up and packaging in other
establishments, the average water level leaving originating
establishments is not the same as the level in customer packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assessment of Proposed Net Weight Labeling Regulations,
Staff Report, Prepared by the Economics, Statistics, and
Cooperatives Service for the Food Safety and Quality Service, USDA,
August 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole bird data on turkeys, i.e., 4.74 percent retained
water, is a better estimate for packaged turkey since 40 percent are
marketed as whole birds. One would expect some additional drainage
before the birds are packaged. The average retained water level for
turkey as a percentage of net weight is probably somewhere in the
range of 4 to 4.5 percent.
VII. Economic Analysis of Retained Water in Meat and Poultry
This chapter examines the economic issues associated with
retained water in poultry. For analytical purposes, this chapter
assumes that the average retained water for all chicken is 5 percent
of net weight and the average for turkeys is 4 percent of net
weight. The analysis in Sections 4 and 5 concluded that the averaged
retained water for chicken is probably between 5.0 and 6.5 percent
and the average retained water for turkey is probably between 4.0
and 4.5 percent.
In FY 96, there were 7.67 billion chickens slaughtered under
Federal inspection. Based on an estimated average carcass weight of
3.36 pounds, the total weight of ready-to-cook chicken was 25.8
billion pounds. If the average retained water was 5 percent, then
one can view the total as 24.5 billion pounds of chicken and 1.3
billion pounds of retained water. Since the wholesale price of whole
broilers was $.6124 per pound,\2\ the chicken had an estimated whole
bird, wholesale value of $15.8 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Livestock, Diary and Poultry Situation and Outlook, LDP-M-
44, ERS, USDA, August 15, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In FY 96, there were 289.6 million turkeys slaughtered under
Federal inspection. Using an average carcass weight of 17.9 pounds,
the production was 5.18 billion pounds. The average FY 1996
wholesale price was $.665 per pound resulting in a total wholesale
value of $3.4 billion. Using an estimated average retained water
level of 4 percent, one could view the production as 4.97 billion
pounds of turkey and 0.21 billion pounds of retained water.
There are two ways of looking at the current situation. One is
the perspective that customers are paying $15.0 billion for the
chicken and $789.4 million for the retained water and $3.3 billion
for turkey and $136 million for retained water. The other is that
the water has no effect on the value of the poultry. In this case,
the value of the chicken is $15.8 billion and the value of the
turkey is $3.4 billion. The customer is simply not being informed
that the true wholesale price of the chicken on a ``zero added
water'' basis is $.6446 per pound and not $.6124. Similarly, the
customer is not being informed that the true wholesale value of
turkey is $.684 per pound and not $.665.
While the 1979 ERS study was focused on analyzing alternative
net weight regulations, the study addressed essentially the same
issue as retained water when it considered drained weight labeling.
The ERS study used an ``added water in chicken'' example to
illustrate the retail price effects of dry tare versus drained
weight labeling of packaged chicken. The example was a package of
chicken breasts selling for $1.20 per pound with a labeled weight of
3 pounds using a dry tare system. The tare is the weight of any
container, or wrapper, or other material not included in the stated
weight of a package. This package would cost the consumer $3.60. If
this package undergoes a water loss of 4 percent, and assuming the
net weight was exact under the dry tare system, the consumer
selecting this package would be receiving 2.88 pounds of drained
weight chicken and the real price per pound of chicken is $1.25
($3.602.88 pounds).
Under a drained weight system, assuming exact measurements, the
package would show a net weight of 2.88 pounds and a price per pound
of $1.25. The cost of the package would remain $3.60. The ERS study
used this example to illustrate that changing net weight
methodology, by itself, only changes the information a consumer
receives but not the real cost of the product. After analyzing the
``water in chicken'' issue, the 1979 ERS study concluded:
Whether consumers pay chicken prices for water is not clear simply
because a dry tare labeling weight is allowed. If $3.60 is the
competitive cost for a package of chicken breasts of that quality,
then the consumer is not paying $1.20/lb. for 0.12 lb. of water and
juices. The consumer is simply not being informed that the true
price of chicken at the retail level on a drained weight basis is
$1.25/lb. not $1.20. Consumers may well be paying more for chicken
or other meat and poultry products than can be justified. But to
verify such an assertion would require an extensive study of the
industrial organization of the industry and data on firm costs,
revenues, and profits. Answering that question is beyond the scope
of this study.
The economic issue raised by the retained water issue is whether
labels reflecting the price of poultry on a ``green weight'' basis
would have enough of an effect on the demand for poultry that
consumers would purchase less poultry and more product that competes
with poultry. This analysis, like the earlier ERS study, has not
attempted to predict the shifts in supply and demand that might
occur if product labels included the ``true'' price of poultry. The
marketplace issues are more complex than just pounds and cents.
Discussions with retail industry personnel indicate that they
believe many consumers object to free liquid in packages and that
``dry'' looking packages would have a positive impact on demand.
They also noted that labeling of water is not necessarily a
detraction. They point to the rapidly growing market for
Individually Quick Frozen (IQF) Ice-Glazed poultry. This product
sometimes includes labeling indicating the addition of basting
solutions to enhance flavor and juiciness. IQF Ice-Glazed and
marinated products are marketed based on convenience.
VIII. Options Identified
FSIS identified six options for regulating retained water in raw
meat and poultry products. These six options are:
[[Page 48975]]
No limits on retained water as long as the product
label indicated the amount of retained water.
A standard requiring zero retained water for all raw,
single-ingredient products.
A requirement that there could be no retained water in
the stated weight of the product.
A standard that would set limits for retained water
based on best available technology within traditional production
practices. This option would also require that retained water be
identified on product labels.
A standard that would set limits for retained water
based on optimum use of existing equipment. This option would also
require that retained water be identified on product labels.
A standard that would require an establishment to
demonstrate that any retained water is an inevitable consequence of
the process used to meet applicable food safety requirements. This
option would also require that retained water be identified on
product labels.
IX. Analysis of Options
This section provides an assessment of the six regulatory
options identified. The six options fit into three categories. The
first category is represented by Option 1 and can be characterized
as the option where there would be no limits on retained water for
any raw product as long as the label indicated the presence of that
water. The second category covers options where no retained water
would be allowed. This analysis discusses two variations, one
(Option 2) where no retained water would be allowed in the product
and another (Option 3) where no retained water could be included in
the product weight. Options 4, 5, and 6 are all similar in that they
would permit limited water retention and they would require that any
retained water be identified on product labels. These last three
options differ in the basis for establishing the limits for water
retention. The three options consider limits based on best available
technology, limits based on best performance with existing
equipment, and limits based on the retained water necessary to meet
existing food safety requirements. Setting new limits based on any
of these three criteria would have to meet the Court's requirement
that the rulemaking record explain how particular water retention
levels are set.
All six options provide consumers with improved information on
the ``true'' price of poultry. Improved information results from
either labeling the level of retained water, eliminating all
retained water, or a combination of labeling and limiting the amount
of retained water. Improved information provides a consumer benefit
in that it allows consumers to make more informed purchasing
decisions. The analysis that follows does not quantify the consumer
benefits of each option. FSIS recognizes that removing all retained
water informs consumers of the ``true'' price of poultry; no further
calculation balancing water content and label price would be
necessary. A combination of labeling with a limit on retained water
may have greater consumer benefits than labeling alone because the
labeled product price would provide improved information to those
consumers that would not use the retained water information.
Option 1--Labeling of Percentage Retained Water
Under this option, there would be no limit on retained water as
long as the amount, i.e., percentage of product weight, was
indicated on the product label. The same requirement would apply to
both meat and poultry products. To assure prominent notification,
the product name on the labeling of an affected product would be
accompanied by a statement, such as ``may contain up to __ percent
retained water'' or ``contains __ percent retained water.''
After identifying this option, the department concluded that
this regulatory option would not be consistent with the existing
adulteration provisions discussed earlier. In other words, unlimited
retained water would constitute economic adulteration, even if
identified through labeling. While this conclusion eliminates this
option, this analysis uses the option as a vehicle to discuss the
costs and benefits of using labels to inform consumers about
retained water.
The cost analysis presented later in Section X concludes that
all poultry labels could be revised at a cost of $18.4 million. This
cost would be an up-front, nonrecurring cost. The label revision
costs of $18.4 million are an estimate for the cost of revising
labels for raw poultry shipped from federally inspected poultry
establishments that both slaughter and further process raw poultry.
The estimate of $18.4 million does not include potential label
revision costs for product that is produced in one of the slaughter/
processing establishments and then further processed in a second
inspected establishment that does not slaughter poultry. To
illustrate, there are inspected establishments that purchase whole
birds and further process these carcasses into parts of carcasses
and other establishments that purchase parts of carcasses and
further process these parts. The inspected establishments purchasing
product that has ``percentage retained water labeling'' would have
to label their further processed, single-ingredient, raw products
unless they had data showing that the further processing they
conduct removes all the retained water. Presumably, the percentage
of retained water would decrease during further processing. The
further processing establishments would have to label their products
to indicate the presence of any remaining retained water. FSIS does
not have information on the number of establishments or labels that
could potentially be affected.
There are two other situations where revised labels could be
required. While most raw poultry sold in retail stores is packaged
and labeled in federally inspected establishments, some raw product
is repackaged and labeled at the retail level. Retail stores would
have to label their single-ingredient, raw products unless they had
data showing that the processing and repackaging they conduct
removes all retained water. Thus, there would be some cost for
labeling retained water at the retail level. Finally, there may also
be a few meat labels that need to be revised since some byproducts
and organ meats are now washed in water before being shipped.
There would also be the cost of establishing the level of
retained water. As discussed earlier, FSIS now employs from 25 to 50
staff years measuring retained water. Inspected establishments could
utilize FSIS test results or conduct there own retained water tests.
If such tests are conducted by Quality Control (QC) technicians
making $35,000 annually, the cost of 25 to 50 staff years represents
from $875,000 to $1.75 million, annually. This option would not
require any reduction in the current levels of retained water. Thus,
there would be no costs for modifying production practices. The cost
analysis in Section X addresses the cost of establishing a minimum
which is a different task than establishing the level.
The labeling of product to identify retained water benefits
consumers. The information provided has value because it allows
consumers to make better decisions. In the terminology of the 1979
ERS study, the labeling of retained water would help consumers
establish the ``true'' price of poultry.
The extent of the labeling benefit, i.e., the value of labeling
information to consumers, is affected by several factors. These
include the type of label that will eventually be required, the
number of different labels present in the marketplace and the
variation in retained water within a specific production lot. The
first factor affecting the value of the labeling information is the
type of label statement. If the label statement indicates ``up to
____ percent retained water,'' the consumer cannot use the
information to calculate a true price per pound because the label
would not specify the actual amount of retained water. The ``up to
____ percent'' type of label would provide consumers with general
information indicating that some level of added water was present.
This type of label does not provide the same incentive to minimize
added water as a label indicating a specific percentage, i.e.,
``contains ____ percent added water.''
The second factor affecting the value of labeling is the number
of different labels present in the marketplace. If different
establishments have different labels for different levels of
retained water, consumers could be faced with a multitude of
different labels making price comparisons very difficult. It is not
unusual for a large supermarket to stock raw poultry from more than
10 different federally inspected establishments. While it appears
reasonable to assume that a company or an establishment would prefer
to use a single retained water statement for all raw product labels,
it is possible that some establishments would develop alternative
labels for each product, each indicating a different level of
retained water. Added water content could be established on a day-
to-day or production-shift basis.
A third factor affecting the value of labeling is the variation
in retained water within a specific production lot. Natural
[[Page 48976]]
variation is a component of all food attribute labeling. Variation
does appear, however, to present a greater than usual concern with
retained water. Based on the 10-bird tests conducted by FSIS, the
package-to-package variation could be relatively high for whole
birds. In a randomly selected 10-bird test for whole broilers
(average ``green weight'', i.e., carcass weight prior to any water
absorption, was 3.6 pounds), the average retained water was 6.57
percent. The range was from less than 1.0 percent (0.95) to 14.6
percent. Only five birds were within 2.0 percent of the
average 6.57 percent. Two individual birds exceeded the 8.0 percent
limit. In a second 10-bird test of 3.2-pound broilers averaging 6.92
percent retained water, 6 of 10 were within 2.0
percent. Three individual birds exceeded the 8.0 percent limit. This
data raises an issue concerning how a percentage labeling option
would be implemented, i.e., what level would be required to appear
on product labels? Would it be the average or would it be a level
that included 90 or 95 percent of the individual birds?
The amount of retained water appears to vary less for turkeys.
In one randomly selected 10-bird test of smaller turkeys (regulatory
limit of 6.0 percent), 9 of 10 were within 1.0 percent
of an average retained water level of 5.45 percent. In a 10-bird
test of larger birds (regulatory limit 5.3 percent), 7 of 10 were
within 1.0 percent. One bird exceeded the regulatory
limit.
While the variation rate affects the value of the labeling
benefit, it does not eliminate the benefit. For an individual
purchase, purchasing a product labeled ``2% retained water'' does
not guarantee more useable product than purchasing a product labeled
``4% retained water.'' When averaged over several purchases,
however, the product labeled to indicate less retained water should
result in more useable product. In addition, a large portion of raw
poultry is now marketed as packages of thighs, wings, breast
quarters, leg quarters, and boneless, skinless breast meat, etc. For
these types of packages, the bird-to-bird variation is less of a
concern.
Option 2--Zero Retained Water
The Agency could establish a standard of zero retained water for
all raw, single-ingredient meat and poultry products. In theory,
given sufficient drip time or drain time or drying time, all raw,
single-ingredient products can be returned to a ``green weight.''
However, available data suggests that returning immersion-chilled
poultry to ``green weight'' may not be feasible. The 1979 ERS study
included data that supports the conclusion that water retained
during washing and chilling does not completely drain from poultry
by the time the product reaches the consumer. For the study, ERS, in
conjunction with ten local weights and measures agencies, measured
the percent drain in 297 retail packages of chicken from five
poultry processors. All packages were whole cut-up chicken packed at
establishments using immersion chilling. All brands had an average
water pickup of 5 to 6 percent at the time of packaging. For the 297
packages the average drain as a percentage of labeled net weight was
3.42 percent. Assuming the product started at an average of 5.5
percent, the product was still retaining approximately 2.0 percent
absorbed water when sampled at retail. The study did not indicate
how many days the product had been in distribution. One processor
was shipping to retail stores on both the east and west coast. Thus,
in some cases, there was considerable transportation time involved.
There was a second \3\ study that showed that the water loss
that occurs in the plant from the time the poultry is placed in the
package to the time it leaves the plant is substantially less than
total retained water. During the development of the 1989 Net Weight
Proposal (54 FR 9370, March 6, 1989), FSIS, in cooperation with the
National Broiler Council and the National Conference on Weights and
Measures, conducted a study on water loss. Data collected from ten
chicken processors showed that the average water loss occurring in
the plant after packaging was 1.8 percent. The study did not,
however, include data on the length of time the product stayed in
the plant after initial packing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), Report of the 73rd National Conference on
Weights and Measures, NIST Special Publication 750, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSIS technical personnel believe that a zero standard would
require the poultry industry to abandon immersion chilling because
attaining zero-retained water with immersion chilling is not
technically feasible. Installing air chilling or air chilling/spray
systems would require major reconstruction costs for the poultry
industry. There is also a potential cost associated with possible
increases in pathogen levels. Studies have shown that immersion
chilling reduces overall pathogen levels on poultry. If this option
would force the poultry industry to abandon immersion chilling and
pathogen levels increased, then there could be additional social
costs associated with increases in foodborne illness. With this
option there would be no need to revise product labels.
Under this option, consumers would benefit by being fully
informed as to the ``true'' price of both meat and poultry products.
No balancing of water content and label price would be necessary.
However, because the benefits of better informed consumers from a
zero-retained water standard are unlikely to surpass the costs, this
option was eliminated.
Option 3--``Green Weight'' Labeling
A variation on the concept of zero-retained water is the option
where there could be no retained water in the stated weight of the
product. Establishments would be required to establish a retained
water level for each ``lot'' or shift. Scales would then have to be
adjusted to account for retained water. The weight indicated on
product labels would be an estimate of the ``green weight'' prior to
the final carcass wash.
The only direct cost is the cost of establishing the amount of
retained water in order to adjust scales. There would be no need to
revise product labels or modify chilling practices. The major impact
would be a reduction in the labeled volume of poultry production by
an estimated 1.5 billion pounds. To maintain the current level of
sales in dollars, the poultry industry would have to raise the
wholesale price per pound by an average of 5.1 percent. Retail
prices would also increase. Consumers would, most likely, perceive
an increase in poultry prices. As the 1979 ERS study noted, however,
changing net weight methodology, by itself, only changes that
information a consumer receives but not the real cost of the
product. Consumers would, however, be fully informed as to the
``true'' price of poultry.
A disadvantage of this option would be that the labeled weight
would only be an estimate of the ``green weight.'' The package-to-
package variation would now be an issue for the accuracy of the net
weight statement rather than the accuracy of a qualifying statement.
There could also be considerable differences between labeled weight
and packaged weight. This option would require the Agency to revise
the overall system for regulating net weight accuracy.
If this option were selected, FSIS would have to reopen the net
weight regulations. In 1990, after four proposals and almost two
decades, FSIS published final rules for net weight labeling of meat
and poultry products (55 FR 49826, November 30, 1990). In the final
net weight rule, FSIS established a regulatory framework that for
all compliance testing in federally inspected establishments, the
net weight of raw chicken would be established using a dry tare
system. In a dry tare system, both free liquid and liquid absorbed
by packaging material would be included in the net weight of the
product. At the same time, the rule recognized that a few State and
local weights and measures authorities still prefer to conduct wet-
tare compliance testing. Under a wet-tare system, the free liquid
and liquid absorbed by packaging material are not counted in
measuring the product weight. The final rule established a 3 percent
``gray area'' where if fresh poultry minus any liquids (free liquid
plus liquid absorbed by any packaging material) is within 3 percent
of the labeled weight, further information is sought before any
determination is made. The 3 percent ``gray area'' applies only in
localities using wet-tare testing. The task force that recommended
the 3 percent gray area for raw poultry noted \4\ that the
recommended level would require over pack by manufacturers supplying
wet-tare localities to compensate for water lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), Report of the 73rd National Conference on
Weights and Measures, NIST Special Publication 750, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement of net weight requirements is an area where Federal,
State, and local authorities share responsibility and must
cooperate. The enforcement procedures, as adopted by the National
Conference on Weights and Measures, are published in NIST Handbook
133, Third Edition, Supplement, ``Checking the Net Contents of
Packaged Goods.'' FSIS' net weight regulations incorporate Handbook
133 by reference. The National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) has a statutory responsibility for ``cooperation with the
[[Page 48977]]
States in securing uniformity of weights and measures laws and
methods of inspection.'' At the same time, the FMIA and PPIA do not
allow State and local jurisdictions to impose any standards that
differ from those published by FSIS. In publishing the final net
weight regulations in 1990, FSIS stated that the ``rule is designed
to enhance the ability of Federal, State, and local agencies to
enhance the industry-wide use of strict net weight standards at the
packing, warehouse and retail level.'' Although this option would
enable FSIS to address economic adulteration, it was eliminated
because (1) the benefits in the form of consumer information do not
appear to outweigh the costs of adjusting scales and labels to show
green weight, and (2) because of the need to maintain uniformity in
weights and measures laws and methods of inspection.
Option 4--Retained Water Limits Based on Best Available Technology
Within Traditional Production Practices
Under this option, FSIS would require all establishments to meet
water limits based on the lowest levels that are currently being
achieved by those establishments using the best available water-
immersion chilling technology. The limit for retained water in
carcass beef, pork, lamb, and goat would remain at zero. There might
be some costs associated with establishing limits for the byproducts
and organ meats that are now processed separately from carcasses.
FSIS recognizes that, for the poultry industry, the concept of a
``minimum'' cannot be separated from some definition of standard
manufacturing practices that would include a reasonable drip or
drain time and some reasonable minimum temperature for chiller
water. Longer drip lines and lower chiller water temperatures are
both factors that would increase the cost of chilling poultry.
Under this option, it is envisioned that the new limits would be
established based on data from the establishments using the best
technology. There would be costs for collecting and analyzing the
data and costs from modifying processes to reduce water retention.
This option could impose considerable costs on those establishments
that do not currently have the best available technology.
The maximum allowed water level could actually be a series of
levels for different types and weights of meat and poultry products.
Under this option, products could not contain more than the
established limits and all products containing retained water would
have to be labeled indicating the presence of retained water. The
costs of labeling the percentage retained water would be similar to
those described under Option 1. The factors affecting the value of
labeling information would still exist, but there should be fewer
different labels because the range of permissible retained water
levels would be reduced.
Operating the best technology so as to minimize retained water
may not be consistent with minimizing pathogens. Thus, there is a
potential cost associated with increased pathogen levels and
increased foodborne illness.
This option would enable FSIS to effectively address economic
adulteration and would provide consumers information. However,
because the costs to industry to acquire the best available
technology would be large and would outweigh consumer benefits, this
option was eliminated. Furthermore, the option has the effect of a
design standard.
Option 5--Water Limits Based on Existing Equipment
This option would require all establishments to operate their
existing equipment so as to minimize retained water. As discussed in
the previous option, minimums would have to be based on some
reasonable limits for operating parameters. The retained water
requirement for carcass meat would remain at zero since meat
establishments are already operating at zero.
As with the previous option, new retained water limits are
required for this option. Data would have to be collected and
analyzed to establish minimum water levels for different types of
equipment. There would be costs for collecting and analyzing this
data, most likely greater than for the previous option. However, no
establishment would have to replace equipment, as all minimums would
be based on existing equipment. This option would presumably lead to
a larger number of retained water requirements. FSIS technical
staffs believe retained water is related to variables such as type
of chiller, water temperature, time in chiller and type and level of
agitation.
Retained water would have to be identified on product labels.
The costs of labeling retained water would be similar to those under
Options 1 and 4. The factors affecting the value of labeling would
still exist. Having different minimums for different equipment would
probably lead to a greater number of labeling variations.
Minimizing retained water may not be consistent with processes
that minimize pathogens. Thus, there is a potential cost associated
with increased pathogen levels and increased foodborne illness.
Option 5 is superior to Option 4 in that no establishment would
have to replace existing equipment or processes. This factor
outweighs the potentially higher cost of establishing limits and the
potential decrease in the value of labeling information due to a
greater number of labeling variations. Option 5 is deemed inferior
to the preferred option which follows because it does not provide
flexibility to the meat industry and does not integrate food safety
requirements. Options 4 and 5 may lead to increased pathogen levels
and increased costs of foodborne illness.
Option 6--Retained Water Limits Established by Processes Necessary
To Meet Food Safety Requirements
Under this option, all establishments would be expected to meet
a zero-retained water standard (i.e., Option 2) unless data
demonstrate that another level is necessary to meet existing food
safety standards using existing washing, chilling, and draining
systems (i.e., by introducing food safety objectives to Options 4
and 5). FSIS envisions that such data could be established on an
industry-wide basis, for a specific industry sector using similar
processes, or on an establishment-by-establishment basis. The data
could be collected and analyzed by individual establishments or by
trade associations or other groups.
There would be costs for collecting and analyzing data. For the
previous option, the data would be collected to establish a minimum.
For this option, the data would be collected to establish a minimum
while still meeting the existing chilling requirements. Thus, the
poultry industry costs for establishing the limits should be
essentially the same as the costs for the previous option. The meat
industry would establish limits for retained water only if they
viewed it as a new lower cost option for meeting pathogen reduction
performance standards. Any retained water would have to be
identified on product labels. The limits on retained water would,
most likely, be a series of levels for different types and weights
of meat and poultry products. The costs of labeling retained water
would be similar to those under Options 1, 4 and 5. The value or
usefulness of the labeling will depend on the number of different
limits and whether those limits are established on an industry-wide
basis or on an establishment-by-establishment basis.
The actual retained water limits for this option would be based
on the inevitable consequence of meeting food safety requirements
with existing processes. The necessity of meeting food safety
requirements would lead to equal or higher retained water levels
than those based on best available technology (Option 4) or best use
of existing equipment (Option 5). Since the costs of modifying
production processes decrease as the level of allowed retained water
increases, costs are the same or lower for this option than those
for Options 4 and 5. The costs for establishing the retained water
limits should be similar to those for Options 4 and 5. The labeling
costs are essentially the same. For this option, there are no
potential costs associated with increases in pathogen levels and
foodborne illness. Thus, since the labeling benefits are essentially
the same, this option is expected to have the greatest net benefits
of the three options that permit limited retained water. This option
was selected as the proposed rule.
X. Cost of Proposed Rule
The purpose of this section is to estimate the costs of proposed
rule. The proposed rule would create three types of costs: (1) the
costs for establishing water levels necessary to meet food safety
requirements, (2) the costs associated with reducing retained water
to such levels, and (3) the costs of revising product labels to
indicate the presence of retained water. Most of the potential cost
impact falls on the poultry establishments using water-immersion
chiller systems. There are approximately 300 federally inspected and
an estimated 65 State-inspected poultry slaughter establishments.
There will also be some impact on livestock slaughter establishments
and on retail stores that re-pack and re-label raw, single
ingredient meat and poultry products.
[[Page 48978]]
Cost of Establishing Water Limits
The proposed rule would prohibit retained water in raw meat and
poultry products unless the water is an inevitable consequence of
the process or processes used to meet applicable food safety
requirements. To establish a non-zero retained water limit, an
inspected establishment or trade association or other group would
have to generate supporting data. The proposal would allow such data
generating studies to be conducted for an individual establishment
or for an industry sector using the same or similar processing
techniques and equipment.
This requirement would not appear to have a significant impact
on the meat industry because the meat industry is already achieving
zero retained water. This proposal would, however, provide an
alternative for establishments that are having or will have trouble
meeting the Salmonella performance standards. These establishments
could utilize a full range of approved antimicrobial rinses or hot
water rinses without having to worry about achieving zero retained
water. If establishments can demonstrate that they need a non-zero
limit to meet the Salmonella standards, they can utilize the
flexibility provided by this rule and establish a new retained water
limit as long as they indicate the presence of retained water on
product labels.
It is assumed that 500 meat establishments (10% of the 5,000
affected meat establishments) would conclude that they cannot meet
the new pathogen reduction standards without using a process that
results in some level of retained water. The 10% estimate is from
the Final RIA published with the final PR/HACCP rule (see Federal
Register Vol. 61, No. 144, July 25, 1966, pages 38976-38977). In
that analysis, FSIS referred to historical data showing control
problems in from 5 to 10 percent of inspected establishments. The
estimated 500 establishments having difficulty meeting pathogen
reduction standards would be required to conduct water tests to
establish unavoidable levels and possibly some additional Salmonella
tests. The analysis assumes 200 hours per establishment for water
tests and 100 hours to collect a sample set for Salmonella. The
total cost would be 150,000 hours or $3.75 million for labor and
another $1.2 million for 35,000 sample analyses. These estimates are
based on cost factors from the FRIA for the PR/HACCP rule, i.e., $25
an hour for a quality control manager and $34 for a laboratory
analysis for Salmonella. The average sample set for meat is
approximately 70 samples considering 82 for steer or heifer
carcasses and 55 for swine carcasses. The total cost for the meat
establishments would be an estimated $5 million. The costs for
Salmonella testing and the costs of using alternative processes such
as carcass washing systems have already been addressed in the FRIA
for the PR/HACCP rule in the discussion of compliance costs for
meeting the Salmonella standards (Federal Register reference noted
above). The cost of establishing water limits (100,000 hours or $2.5
million) would be additional costs. In return, this rule provides an
alternative that doesn't currently exist.
FSIS does not consider air chilling an economically feasible
alternative for chilling poultry. Thus, it seems reasonable to
assume that the poultry industry would conclude that immersion
chilling is necessary to meet the existing chilling requirements for
poultry, e.g., 9 CFR 381.66(b)(2) requires that poultry carcasses
under 4 pounds shall be chilled to 40 deg. F. within 4 hours
following evisceration. It follows that the retained water necessary
to meet food safety requirements is the minimum level that can be
reached with existing equipment and still be in compliance with
chilling requirements. There is also the possibility that the
retained water necessary to meet the pathogen reduction performance
standards for Salmonella would be higher than the level necessary to
meet chilling requirements. The following discussion, however,
assumes that the unavoidable retained water levels are driven by the
chilling requirements.
The Agency believes that the industry already has considerable
information concerning the chiller variable settings that minimize
water retention. The variables of concern are chiller water
temperature, water intake, total time in chiller and level of
agitation. FSIS, therefore, believes the poultry industry can
establish water limits for various chiller systems with minimal
costs. Under current regulations (9 CFR 381.66(d)), establishments
must conduct a 50-bird test to demonstrate that any change in
chilling procedures does not affect compliance with existing
requirements. This analysis assumes that poultry establishments
could establish minimum retained water levels by conducting four 10-
bird tests at ten different chiller settings for each product
category. It is assumed that the average establishments would have
two product categories, e.g., light hens versus heavy toms. Each
test would take an estimated 2.5 hours to select birds, tag and
weigh birds, and reweigh birds after chilling. (The FSIS 10-bird
test takes from 40 to 60 minutes.) Time required between tests would
not be considered a cost. Thus, testing would cost each plant 200
hours or $5,000 using a quality control manager making $25 per hour.
The cost to 300 inspected establishments would be 60,000 hours or
$1.5 million. Some smaller federally inspected establishments and
presumably more State inspected establishments do not use immersion
chilling. They chill using ice and slush on processing tables/
counters and have retained water levels below 2 percent. In the data
collected from the field, two chicken establishments with annual
production under 200,000 birds had retained water levels of 1.58%
and 1.7%. It is assumed these smaller establishments are at a
minimum level and would incur no additional cost to establish a
minimum. These establishments do not appear to have any variables
that could be studied during a water test.
The proposal doesn't provide specific guidance on options
available for poultry processors that are already operating far
below the existing standards for Salmonella. As an illustrative
example, consider what options are available for a broiler slaughter
establishment that has an unavoidable retained water level of 5
percent (due to immersion chilling for time/temperature) and is
consistently achieving Salmonella positive levels of around 10
percent, well below the existing standard of 20 percent. Should this
establishment be able to operate at a higher retained water level if
data showed that the establishment could then achieve an even lower
level of Salmonella? Should the Agency's food safety objectives lead
to a solution where any level of water would be allowed if data
demonstrated a reduction in pathogens? While the current proposal
does not allow such flexibility, the Agency is requesting comment on
this aspect of the proposal. Under the current proposal, if FSIS
lowers the pathogen reduction standards as stated in the preamble to
the PR/HACCP rule, inspected establishments would have the option of
increasing retained water if appropriate tests showed that such
increases were unavoidable in meeting revised food safety standards.
Costs of Reducing Retained Water
If establishments are able to demonstrate that current levels of
retained water are necessary to meet food safety standards,
establishments would not incur costs for reducing retained water.
However, to the extent that establishments cannot demonstrate that
current retained water levels are necessary for meeting applicable
food safety standards, significant costs could be incurred as
establishments modify processes to minimize retained water levels.
Reducing retained water could entail a wide range of processing
modifications, depending on the type of chilling equipment currently
used and amount of retained water that would have to be removed.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) conducted some preliminary
analyses to begin to establish estimates of what it might cost to
significantly reduce the amount of retained water in raw poultry.
There are three ways to reduce retained water. The first involves
holding poultry in refrigerated rooms until excess water has drained
off the birds. The second involves making adjustments in the
chilling process to reduce water absorption. The third involves a
change in the chilling system, i.e., a move to air chilling or air
chilling in combination with a water spray. As noted elsewhere in
this PRIA, FSIS does not consider requirements that would mandate
air chilling to be economically feasible. The existing regulations
for air chilling (9 CFR 381.66(e)) require the internal temperature
of the carcass to be reduced to 40 deg.F or less within 16 hours.
There are limited data on costs of air chilling. Both reconstruction
costs and operating costs would be high. The 1979 ERS study included
an estimate from an industry source that air chilling uses more
energy and costs about 4 cents per pound more than immersion
chilling. The ERS study noted that there was only one major U.S.
poultry processor using air chilling in 1979. A draft Impact
Analysis Statement conducted for the 1978 proposal to reduce water
use requirements for chilling stated that retail prices for air
chilled birds were running approximately 20 percent higher than
water chilled birds. That analysis attributed the higher retail
prices to the higher capital cost and higher operating expenses.
[[Page 48979]]
The simplest way of viewing the cost of reducing retained water
is to consider the incremental operating costs under the conditions,
e.g., chiller temperature, that established the minimum unavoidable
water. Such conditions could also involve optimizing water
temperature and flow through the chillers, reducing the amount of
agitation of the chilling medium, and reducing the ``dwell time'' of
poultry in the chillers. If, as some believe, lower water
temperature reduces water absorption, the response to tighter
retained water requirements will be the installation of new or
heavier compressors to lower the temperature in the chiller units.
An installed additional compressor would cost an estimated $150,000
per establishment, or an estimated $45 million for all 300 federally
inspected establishments.
FSIS does not have a method for estimating a cost for operating
at conditions that establish a non-zero level of retained water
necessary to meet food safety requirements. As an alternative, this
PRIA estimates the cost of removing a substantial portion of the
existing water using an extended draining or dripping process. One
can view the estimated draining costs as an upper bound on the cost
of removing water. An establishment would only use draining under
conditions where the cost of draining was less than the incremental
operating costs.
To extend draining or dripping time, many establishments would
have to add refrigerated facilities, purchase vats for storing birds
being drained, hire additional personnel, and purchase additional
stock handling equipment. There would be inventory costs due to
holding birds off the market for a longer time before shipment.
Holding birds at inspected establishments would also reduce the
corresponding retail shelf life.
The ERS staff developed some cost estimates for holding poultry
based on the following industry input:
One common method of draining uses stainless steel vats
at a cost of $1,000 each.
Vats hold approximately 500 chickens or 100 turkeys.
Cooler space costs $125 per square foot.
Vats can be stacked two high.
Stacked vats with aisles require 12 square feet of
space per vat.
Forklifts to move vats cost $24,000 each.
With the above factors in mind, one can address the questions of:
``What are the fixed costs of draining a substantial amount of
absorbed water from poultry?''
The Daily Moisture Records sometime include a record of the
additional drain time required. The time varies considerably
probably depending on the initial water level, the drain
configuration, and the location of the excess water, i.e., under
skin versus between muscle tissue or within muscle tissue. The
available data, for cases where young chickens were more than 1
percent over the limit, indicates that it can take from \1/2\ to
3\1/2\ hours to drain one percent. In two cases where broilers
exceeded the 12 percent regulatory limit by more than 4 percent, the
required drain time was approximately 12 hours. Program personnel
estimate that the drain time per percent increases as the birds
approach ``green weight,'' i.e., it takes longer to drain from 8 to
4 percent than it does from 12 to 8 percent. Thus, it seems
reasonable to conclude that a 12-hour drain would be the minimum
time required to remove most of the retained water from chickens.
Most of the drain times for turkeys ranged from \1/2\ to 1 hour
on an ``hour per percentage reduction'' basis. However, two cases
showed drain times in the 10 to 11 hours per percentage reduction
range. All of the turkey violations noted were less than 1 percent
above the existing limit whereas some of the chickens started at
water levels 4 to 5 percentage points above existing limits.
The existing data from water control efforts indicates that it
could take at least 12 hours to remove a substantial portion of the
retained water in chickens. The 12-hour estimate is based on
starting at a relatively high percentage and lowering the level by 4
to 5 percentage points. Thus, a 12-hour drain would reduce the
existing level from 5 to 6.5 percent by an amount less than 4 to 5
percentage points. To drain chickens for 12 hours is somewhat
equivalent to saying the industry would need to add the extra
capacity to drain half a day's production, since most chicken is
processed in establishments running two shifts.
Since average chicken production is 29.5 million birds per day
(assuming a 260-day work year), half a day's production is 14.75
million birds. Using the above factors, this would require 29,510
vats at $29.5 million; 354,120 square feet of cooler space at $44.3
million; and $4.8 million of forklifts assuming the largest 200
chicken establishments would each require an additional forklift. In
this 12-hour case, the total fixed costs would be $78.6 million.
Similarly, half a day's production for turkeys is 557,000 birds
requiring 5,570 vats at a cost of $5.57 million and cooler space at
a cost of $8.36 million. Assuming that the largest 70 turkey
establishments would require an additional forklift at a total cost
of $1.68 million, the total fixed costs for draining all turkeys for
12 hours would be $15.6 million. Thus, total fixed costs for a 12-
hour drain for chickens and turkeys are estimated at $94.3 million.
One can argue that large plants already have the capacity to
store a shift's production. This occurs today when limits are
exceeded. The MPI Manual provides, as an alternative to calculated
drain time, a 24-hour continuous drain at 40 deg. F. or below before
shipping. The data reviewed for this analysis included two such
cases. Today's excess capacity can also be viewed as a contingency
capacity that would still be required over and above any additional
capacity needed to achieve an overall water reduction.
This analysis has not attempted to estimate the complete
variable costs of holding poultry to drain. Variable costs would
include increased labor costs, increased utility costs, increased
overhead, and the cost of carrying additional inventory. Holding
half a day's production is equivalent to continually storing a
wholesale value of $37 million in poultry ($19.2 billion divided by
520 shifts). At a 10 percent interest rate, the annual cost of
draining poultry for 12 hours would be $3.7 million.
It would also seem reasonable to assume a minimum average of one
additional employee per establishment. Three hundred employees at
$21,500 per year (average wage in chicken slaughter establishments
of $10.34 per hour) would result in an annual operating cost of $6.4
million. Thus, FSIS estimates the minimum variable costs at $10.1
million ($3.7 million plus $6.4 million) per year if the response is
to drain poultry.
The above analysis has provided an estimate of the cost of
reducing retained water by a ``substantial'' amount, i.e., an amount
that can be equaled to a 12-hour drain. Available data indicates
that a 12-hour drain could reduce overall water by an amount
somewhat less than 4 to 5 percentage points at an estimated first
year cost of $104.3 million ($94.2 plus $10.1 million) and recurring
annual costs of at least $10.1 million.
Cost of Revising Labels
The cost of revising labels is a relatively easy cost to
quantify. For previous rulemakings, FSIS has collected survey data
on the costs of label revisions. Labeling changes have been the
subject of several rulemakings in recent years.
The proposed rule would entail a one-time change in affected raw
meat and poultry product labels to add a statement of the percentage
of retained water in the product next to the product name.
Establishments would have to prepare or order new product labels to
comply with this requirement. FSIS would allow establishments to run
out their stocks of existing product labels before the proposed
labeling requirements would take effect. The establishments would,
therefore, not incur costs of discarding existing label inventories.
The cost of revising a label varies widely depending on the type
of label, the number of colors affected, and the printing process
used. Adding a water content statement is the lowest cost type of
modification because it involves single color printing and no
graphic art. The cost of revising labels is an up-front,
nonrecurring cost. This analysis uses an average cost of $1,000 for
each product label that must be modified. The cost can vary widely,
however. Discussions with turkey industry personnel indicate that it
can cost from $1,500 to $2,000 to change a label for one of the
opaque plastic bags used to package whole turkeys. In contrast, a
1992 survey conducted in conjunction with nutrition labeling
regulations found that many small firms use simplified labels that
can be revised for less than $200 per label.
The primary impact will be on the approximately 300 federally
inspected and 65 State inspected establishments that slaughter and
pack raw poultry. Currently, 135 of the federally inspected
establishments are considered large entities, according to Small
Business Administration (SBA) criteria (establishments having more
than 500 employees). The cost to these ``large'' establishments of
changing labels is estimated at approximately $12.5 million. There
are another 168 federally inspected poultry establishments that
slaughter and
[[Page 48980]]
pack raw poultry. The estimated labeling cost for these
establishments is $5.9 million. The method for estimating these
costs is illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2.--Costs of Revising Product Labels for Poultry Establishments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost at
Number of Average $1,000 per
Establishment category establishments number of label
labels ($000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Chicken................. 115 a 100 $11,500
Large Turkey.................. 20 50 1,000
Small Poultry................. 168 35 5,880
-----------------------------------------
Total..................... 303 ........... 18,380
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Available information indicates large chicken plants have more unique
labels, but many are modified by changing a retail chain specific
sticker on a base label. A single modification to a base label in
effect revises many labels.
There may be some labeling costs to the meat industry. Some
edible meat byproducts and organ meats are washed and cleaned before
being shipped in commerce and may be chilled or packed in water to
preserve their safety and wholesomeness. Tripe, for example, is
bleached and scalded before being shipped. Some organ meats, such as
chitterlings (swine intestines), are chilled and packed in water.
The Agency does not have any data to estimate the number of
establishments or number of labels affected. Similarly, the analysis
has not accounted for separate packaging of poultry giblets. Poultry
giblets, including livers, hearts, and gizzards (and necks, though
strictly speaking, necks are not giblets) are washed and chilled in
water before being packaged and shipped.
There will also be some labeling cost to retail stores that
repackage raw products. They would have to apply some form of label,
most likely a sticker, to store packaged product that has retained
water. Today, most raw poultry sold from retail meat counters is
packaged under Federal inspection. Thus, the overall retail impact
should be minimal. Many large supermarkets also prepare fried
chicken or rotisserie chicken that is marketed through their deli
departments. Obviously, if they prepare the product as ready-to-eat
product, it would no longer have to be labeled. The same would be
true for products that are marinated or otherwise seasoned and
marketed as convenience ready-to-cook products.
XI. Benefits of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule provides FSIS with the necessary regulatory
limits to prevent economic adulteration and misbranding due to
excessive retained water. Preventing economic adulteration provides
a consumer benefit. Quantifying that benefit is beyond the scope of
this analysis. Another consumer benefit results from the additional
labeling information that would be available to household consumers
and other customers to help them in their purchasing decisions. As
noted in Section VII, customers are currently not being informed as
to the true price of poultry. Customers would benefit from having
improved knowledge of product quality, in terms of meat or poultry
meat content.
The proposed rule would provide the meat industry with
additional flexibility for meeting pathogen reduction performance
standards. Meat processors would be able to utilize pathogen
reduction techniques without having to be concerned about meeting
the existing zero retained water requirement.
This proposed rule would also provide affected establishments
with increased flexibility to choose the most appropriate means for
implementing HACCP plans for protecting the safety of raw product
while minimizing the potential for economic adulteration. By
removing certain command-and-control requirements and providing
increased flexibility for HACCP implementation, this proposal could
reduce HACCP implementation costs.
As discussed in the background section, this proposal would
eliminate many requirements, including the following:
The requirement that poultry establishments must
provide FSIS with a description of all chilling and freezing
procedures.
The requirement that poultry establishments must notify
FSIS before any changes in chilling procedures are implemented and
provide FSIS with test results demonstrating the effectiveness of
any such changes.
The existing requirements that meat carcasses cannot
show any weight gain resulting from the use of carcass spray
systems.
The existing water intake requirements.
Retail stores could benefit from reduced water. While discussions
with retailers indicate a primary concern with packaging that
doesn't leak, reduced water should help prevent leakage which leads
to costs of cleaning retail counters.
XII. Effect on Product Quality
FSIS is aware that a substantial change in retained water could
have an effect on product quality and performance. Certainly,
consumers have become accustomed to purchasing fresh poultry that is
very moist and presumably could have a lot less retained water and
still have a moist surface. FSIS is not aware of any studies
concerning how water level affects cooking properties, flavor, shelf
life, or visual attributes. Discussions with officials in the retail
industry indicate that they do frequently hear consumer complaints
concerning excess water in packages. FSIS is interested in comments
providing any information as to whether poultry without retained
water would be too dry after cooking or whether consumers would
select packages if the product appeared less moist or if lower water
would be perceived as being less fresh. Since most meat products do
not currently have retained water, FSIS assumes that industry would
conduct marketing studies that would demonstrate the viability of
product with added water before any production practices were
changed.
XIII. Aggregate Market Effects
Comparative statics analysis provides insight into the
qualitative impacts of the proposed rule on the poultry and meat
markets. Focusing first on the unambiguous effects on costs of
production it is assumed that for the moment the rule has no direct
effect on consumer demand. The analysis also assumes that there will
be no direct effect on the meat market. The rule will increase the
cost of production for poultry. At a minimum there will be cost
increases resulting from developing and conducting the protocols and
from adding information on water levels to the product label. Costs
of production will increase more if poultry plants have to undertake
steps to reduce water by adding new equipment, constructing
facilities to drain poultry or operating existing equipment at
higher costs. In a comparative statics analysis, higher costs of
production would be represented by a decrease in the supply of
poultry. The result in the poultry market would be a new equilibrium
price that would be higher and a new equilibrium quantity that would
be lower. There would be an effect on the meat market because meat
is a substitute for poultry. Higher poultry prices would lead to an
increased demand for meat with the result that both the new
equilibrium price and equilibrium quantity consumed of meat would be
higher. Thus, compared to the present situation, the proposed rule
would result in higher prices for both poultry and meat, with less
poultry consumed and more meat consumed.
Consider now the direct effect of the proposed rule on demand
for poultry. There are two effects which may affect demand for
poultry. First, the rule is expected to result in drier poultry
being sold, that is, on average, the retained water in poultry will
be lower. Second, labels on retail packages of poultry will inform
consumers as to the
[[Page 48981]]
maximum retained water permitted in the plant from which the poultry
in a retail package was shipped. If consumers consider drier poultry
a desirable product quality, this would increase the demand for
poultry. This would lead to a higher equilibrium price for poultry.
However, the new equilibrium quantity consumed would be
indeterminate because of the simultaneous decrease in supply
described earlier. Again, the expected higher equilibrium price for
poultry will lead to new higher equilibrium price and quantity
consumed in the meat market.
The effect of label information on consumer demand for poultry
is unclear. Consumers could react to label information showing the
percentage retained water by reducing demand for poultry. The
reasoning being that consumers will perceive the product as less
desirable. If this is the consumer reaction, it would work against
the demand increasing effect of drier poultry. In such cases
comparative statics analysis cannot predict unambiguously the new
equilibrium price and quantity consumed of poultry nor the effect on
the meat market. However, consumers might react to label information
by increasing poultry demand. An argument for this reaction is that
consumers have greater assurance that the package of poultry they
purchase is of an acceptable water level. Currently, unless
consumers are aware of FSIS water regulations, they have no
objective measure of the amount of retained water. For example,
consumers who perceived poultry as high in water say, 12 percent,
might react favorably to label information reporting a 6 percent
maximum and increase demand for poultry. It seems likely that
consumers will use label information to select among poultry
supplied from plants with different water limits.
The analysis of costs considered the possibility that some meat
plants would not be able to meet the new pathogen reduction
standards without using a process that results in some level of
retained water. A comparative statics analysis of the meat market
would parallel what has been presented for poultry.
Comparative statics analysis can provide insights into the
qualitative effects of changes that affect supply and demand.
Insights into the magnitude of these effects would require
quantitative specifications of supply and demand relationships that
incorporate the variables of interest. FSIS is not aware of
empirical specifications that would be applicable to analyzing this
rule.
Data on the aggregate supply and use can provide additional
insight into the effects of this rule on the poultry and meat
markets. It was estimated that the cost of the proposed rule for
poultry was $1.5 million for establishing water limits, $104.3
million if plants had to reduce water, and $18.4 million for
revising labels. Total first year cost could be as high as $124.2
million. This compares to an estimated $34.5 billion spent by U.S.
consumers on poultry in 1997. In percentage terms, first year costs
would represent 0.36 percent of aggregate consumer expenditures on
poultry or about one half cent per pound of retail weight. In
subsequent years, recurring costs are $10.1 million, corresponding
to 0.03 percent of consumer expenditures and 0.04 cents per pound.
Estimated costs of the rule for meat were $2.5 million for
establishing water levels. No quantitative estimates are provided
for reducing water or for labeling but these are expected to be
quite small. Aggregate consumer expenditures on meat are estimated
at $80.3 billion dollars in 1997. The quantity consumed on a retail
weight basis was about 30.8 billion pounds.
The proposal is not expected to have significant impacts on
international trade. Like consumers, trading partners would benefit
from additional information that would facilitate purchasing
decisions. Countries exporting poultry to the United States would
have to have equivalent systems. Currently, annual poultry imports
are about 5 million pounds. Any imports containing retained water
would have to have product labeling indicating the presence of that
water.
Foreign buyers can develop their own purchase specifications in
the area of retained water. FSIS is aware that one large domestic
customer requires that product weight be adjusted downward based on
the results of a 48 hour drain. In other words, if a sample of birds
drains ``x'' percent in 48 hours, the product weight must be reduced
by ``x'' percent.
[FR Doc. 98-24309 Filed 9-8-98; 12:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P