[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73253-73257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19696]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 73253]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 317, 381, and 412

[Docket No. FSIS-2024-0010]


Availability of FSIS Guideline on Substantiating Animal-Raising 
or Environment-Related Labeling Claims

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION: Notification of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FSIS is announcing the availability of an updated version of 
its guideline on documentation needed to support animal-raising or 
environment-related claims on meat or poultry product labeling. 
Official establishments submit this documentation to the Agency when 
they apply for approval of labels with animal-raising or environment-
related claims. The updated guideline includes changes made in response 
to updated scientific information, FSIS sampling data, askFSIS 
questions, public comments, petitions, and other meetings with Agency 
stakeholders.

DATES: Submit comments on or before November 12, 2024.

ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this 
Federal Register document. Submit comments by one of the following 
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: This website allows commenters 
to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page 
or to attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions at that site for 
submitting comments.
     Mail: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence 
Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, Washington, DC 20250-3700.
     Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to 1400 
Independence Avenue SW, Jamie L. Whitten Building, Room 350-E, 
Washington, DC 20250-3700.
    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must 
include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2024-0010. Comments 
received in response to this docket will be made available for public 
inspection and posted without change, including any personal 
information, to https://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, 
call 202-720-5046 to schedule a time to visit the FSIS Docket Room at 
1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Edelstein, Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: 
(202) 205-0495.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products 
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601-695, at 601(n), 607; 21 U.S.C. 451-470, 
at 453(h), 457) (the Acts), FSIS develops and implements regulations to 
require that the labels of meat and poultry products are truthful and 
not misleading. Under the Acts, the Secretary of Agriculture, who has 
delegated this authority to FSIS, must approve the labels of meat and 
poultry products before the products can enter commerce (21 U.S.C. 
601(d); 21 U.S.C. 457(c)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FSIS has similar authority over egg products under the Egg 
Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 1036(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FSIS allows some labels to be generically approved if they bear all 
applicable mandatory labeling features,\2\ do not contain special 
statements or claims as defined at 9 CFR 412.1(e)(1), and otherwise 
comply with the Agency's labeling regulations (see 9 CFR 412.2). 
Generically approved labels do not need to be submitted to FSIS for 
approval before they can be used on products in commerce. However, a 
label with a special statement or claim (9 CFR 412.1(c)(3) and (e)) 
must be submitted to FSIS for approval before it may be used on a 
product distributed in commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Mandatory labeling features include the product name, 
handling statement, ingredients statement, name and place of 
business of the manufacturer, packer or distributor, net weight, 
legend, safe handling instructions, and nutrition labeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Animal-raising and environment-related claims are voluntary 
``special statements and claims'' (9 CFR 412.1(e)). Special statements 
and claims are statements, claims, logos, trademarks, and other symbols 
as defined in 9 CFR 412.1(e). Special statements and claims include 
those claims not defined in the Federal meat and poultry products 
inspection regulations or the Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book; 
``Natural'' claims; health claims; ingredient and processing method 
claims; structure-function claims; claims regarding the raising of 
animals (e.g., ``no antibiotics administered''; products labeled as 
organic; and instructional or disclaimer statements concerning 
pathogens).
    FSIS does not require such claims to appear on product labels. 
However, establishments may voluntarily add animal-raising or 
environment-related claims to their labels if they do not render the 
product misbranded. Examples of animal-raising claims include but are 
not limited to: ``Raised Without Antibiotics,'' ``Grass Fed,'' ``Free-
Range,'' and ``Raised Without the Use of Hormones.'' Examples of 
environment-related claims include but are not limited to: ``Raised 
using Regenerative Agriculture Practices,'' and ``Environmentally 
Responsible.'' FSIS evaluates labels bearing such claims on a case-by-
case basis by reviewing the animal production protocol submitted with 
the label approval application. FSIS approves the label if the 
documentation supports the claim made, if the claim is otherwise 
truthful and not misleading, if the claim (including any qualifying 
information) is prominently and conspicuously displayed on the label, 
and if the claim does not otherwise render the product misbranded under 
the Acts.
    At establishments that label products with animal-raising or 
environment-related claims, FSIS inspectors routinely verify that 
establishments maintain compliant label records on file. In addition, 
inspectors may also take appropriate regulatory control action, such as 
product retention, when they identify misbranded product. FSIS could 
also rescind approval of false or misleading labels per 9 CFR 500.8.
    On October 5, 2016, FSIS announced the availability of and 
requested

[[Page 73254]]

comments on its ``Labeling Guideline on Documentation Needed to 
Substantiate Animal Raising Claims for Label Submission'' (81 FR 
68933). FSIS published the guideline to advise establishments on the 
type of documentation they should submit to support animal-raising 
claims on meat or poultry product labels. FSIS uses this documentation 
to determine whether these claims are truthful and not misleading.
    On December 27, 2019, FSIS announced the availability of an updated 
version of the guideline (84 FR 71359). FSIS updated the guideline in 
response to public comments on the 2016 version and a petition for 
rulemaking. In the 2019 Federal Register notification, FSIS 
specifically requested comments on the label claim ``free range'' for 
poultry products in response to the petition. The comments and FSIS' 
responses are summarized below. After reviewing updated scientific 
information, FSIS sampling data, askFSIS questions, public comments, 
petitions, and other meetings with Agency stakeholders, FSIS has 
revised the guideline to improve readability, better assist 
establishments with substantiating animal-raising or environment-
related claims, and reduce consumer confusion regarding such claims.
    As discussed below, FSIS strongly encourages the use of third-party 
certification to substantiate animal-raising or environment-related 
claims, given the limits of FSIS jurisdiction. Third-party 
certification of animal-raising or environment-related claims helps 
ensure that such claims are truthful and not misleading by having an 
independent organization verify that standards are being met on the 
farm for the raising of animals and the use of environmentally 
supportive practices. This guidance document identifies criteria that 
ensures a third-party certification organization is credible and 
reliable. The Agency evaluates each third-party certification program 
to assess its suitability for substantiating these types of claims. The 
revised guideline is posted at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-guidelines.

FSIS Responses to Comments on the 2019 Guideline, Petitions, and Other 
Information

Free Range and Pasture-Raised Claims

    FSIS received over nine thousand comments in response to the 
previous guideline from individuals, animal advocacy groups, and 
industry groups on the previous version of this guideline that argued 
that living or raising conditions claims (e.g., ``free range'' and 
``pasture-raised'') could be considered misleading because they do not 
always match consumer expectations. Many commenters suggested that to 
avoid being considered misleading and to better align with consumer 
expectations, FSIS should define these claims. Lastly, many of the 
commenters stated that claims like ``free range'' should not be 
considered synonymous with other claims (i.e., ``free-roaming,'' 
``pasture-fed,'' ``pasture grown,'' ``pasture-raised,'' and ``meadow 
raised''). Many commenters argued that the production practices 
associated with these claims are fundamentally different and have 
different animal welfare implications.
    FSIS also received three petitions for rulemaking requesting 
changes to the Agency's guidance on animal-raising claims. In January 
2016, the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) submitted a petition for 
rulemaking \3\ requesting that FSIS amend its poultry products labeling 
regulations to define ``free range'' and to establish substantiation 
requirements for approval of the claim. The petition specifically asked 
that FSIS prescribe standards for ``free range'' claims to require that 
the birds are provided with (1) outdoor access during daylight hours 
daily for at least 51 percent of their lives; (2) outdoor space where 
at least half of the area has a vegetative cover; (3) multiple, large 
access points to the outdoors; and (4) natural or artificial shelter in 
the outdoor area. The petition also requested that FSIS require that 
applications for ``free range,'' ``free-roaming,'' and ``range grown'' 
labels include a signed affidavit accompanied by a detailed animal care 
protocol and photographs that illustrate that the birds were raised 
under conditions that qualify for a ``free range,'' ``free-roaming,'' 
or ``range grown'' claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register/petitions/petition-define-free-range-and-equivalent-terms-use-labeling-poultry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AWI argued that improperly labeled products could enter the market 
because FSIS does not define ``free range'' and its synonymous terms. 
AWI claimed that the free-range claim can be used in false and 
misleading ways that may be injurious to individual consumers and the 
broader market for properly packaged poultry products. The petition 
included 23 exhibits, consumer expectation data, askFSIS questions, and 
``free-range'' labels approved by FSIS that AWI believed should not 
have been approved.
    In December 2019, FSIS issued an interim response to the petition 
\4\ explaining that it updated the guideline to add information on the 
types of documentation typically needed to substantiate a ``free 
range'' claim on a poultry product. FSIS also explained that it 
requested comments on the Agency's approach for approving ``free 
range'' claims in the labeling of poultry products in the 2019 Federal 
Register notification accompanying the updated guideline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/16-01-response-123019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2023, Perdue Farms, LLC (Perdue) submitted a petition for 
rulemaking \5\ requesting that FSIS remove ``pasture-raised'' as a 
claim synonymous with ``free range.'' Perdue's petition also requested 
that FSIS define ``pasture-raised'' to apply only to chickens that 
spend the majority of their lives physically on ``pasture,'' and 
``pasture'' as a majority of rooted-in-soil vegetative cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/petitions/petition-submitted-perdue-farms-llc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Perdue's petition argued that consumers and industry actors 
perceive ``pasture-raised'' and ``free range'' as separate 
classifications, with the former as a more premium claim. In addition, 
the petition argued that making these changes would avoid false and 
misleading marketing of ``free range'' chickens that have only access 
to the outdoors and ``pasture-raised'' chickens that physically spend 
their life on a pasture. The petition contained consumer survey data to 
support their arguments. FSIS received 15 comments from third-party 
certifying organizations, establishments, industry groups, consumer 
groups, and members of Congress in support of the petition.
    Additionally, in July 2022, the People for the Ethical Treatment of 
Animals (PETA) submitted a petition for rulemaking \6\ requesting that 
FSIS stop its review and approval of animal-raising claims on food 
products. Specifically, PETA requested that FSIS amend 9 CFR 412.1 to 
no longer allow for approval of claims regarding the raising of animals 
on product labels. PETA also asked FSIS to rescind its guidelines 
regarding FSIS' approval of animal-raising claims on labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/petitions/petition-submitted-people-ethical-treatment-animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PETA argued that FSIS lacks jurisdiction to regulate on-farm, 
animal-raising activities; therefore, FSIS' review, approval, and 
allowance of animal-raising labels exceeds its statutory authority. 
According to PETA,

[[Page 73255]]

because FSIS does not have on-farm jurisdiction, establishments can 
make misleading or false claims concerning how animals are raised, 
leading to consumer confusion. The petition included examples of what 
PETA argued were misleading animal-raising claims that FSIS approved. 
FSIS didn't receive any public comments on the petition.

FSIS' Response

    FSIS has updated its animal-raising claims guidance in response to 
the concerns raised by commenters and petitioners. FSIS has, however, 
determined not to codify in its regulations any specific animal-raising 
claims definitions at this time.\7\ FSIS maintains that animal 
production practices vary and are continuously developing and that 
keeping a current list of codified allowable labeling claims would be 
impractical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Office of the Federal Register has published this 
document under the category ``Rules and Regulations'' pursuant to 1 
CFR 5.9(b). The categorization is solely for purposes of publication 
in the Federal Register and does not change the nature of the 
document and is not intended to affect the validity, content, or 
intent of the document. See 1 CFR 5.1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Codifying definitions for animal-raising claims could also hinder 
the development of new or improved animal production practices. 
Producers consistently innovate practices to improve the raising of 
livestock or poultry from birth to slaughter. Likewise, consumer 
expectations of animal-raising claims consistently evolve. If animal-
raising claims are codified, producers that improve their animal-
raising practices could lose the benefit of making certain claims, even 
if the improved practices better align with changing consumer 
expectations for such claims. For example, producer and consumer 
understanding of the animal welfare claim ``humanely raised'' have 
changed over time. Continued changes in on-farm practices, animal care 
prior to slaughter, and evolving consumer expectations mean that the 
understanding of this claim will continue to evolve in the future. 
Codifying such claims could, therefore, stifle innovation.
    Under FSIS' current policy, FSIS Labeling and Program Delivery 
Staff (LPDS) generally only approves animal welfare or living or 
raising conditions claims if establishments define their animal welfare 
or living conditions claims directly on the label. Alternatively, if 
the establishment has a website where the claim is defined, it may 
provide the website address on the label rather than directly define 
the claim. Also under current policy, for poultry products, 
establishments do not need to include additional explanation for the 
living or raising conditions claims ``Free Range,'' ``Free Roaming,'' 
``Pasture Fed,'' ``Pasture Grown,'' ``Pasture Raised,'' or ``Meadow 
Raised'' on the product labels. However, establishments must provide 
specific documentation to substantiate such claims. This policy helps 
ensure that consumers are not confused or misled by such claims.
    FSIS has updated the guidance to strongly encourage the use of 
third-party certifiers to substantiate animal-raising claims. As stated 
in the revised guideline, labels that truthfully display a third-party 
certifier's name, logo, and website do not need to further define their 
certified animal-raising claims on the product label as discussed 
above, provided that an explanation of the claim and the relevant 
standards and definitions are clearly posted on the certifier's 
website.
    Additionally, the guideline now strongly encourages establishments 
to provide additional documentation to the LPDS to substantiate label 
claims like ``pasture-raised,'' ``pasture-fed,'' ``pasture grown,'' and 
``meadow-raised.'' Specifically, FSIS encourages establishments to 
provide written documentation describing that animals are raised on 
pasture, i.e., land where the majority is rooted in vegetative cover 
with grass or other plants, for the majority of their life span from 
birth until slaughter.
    FSIS is not revising the guideline or its regulations to require 
applications for ``free range,'' ``free-roaming,'' and ``range grown'' 
labels to include a signed affidavit, accompanied by a detailed animal 
care protocol and photographs that illustrate that the birds were 
raised under conditions that qualify for a ``free range,'' ``free-
roaming,'' or ``range grown'' claim. To substantiate an animal-raising 
claim, establishments provide LPDS with documentation that supports the 
claim.
    The kind and amount of supporting documentation depends on the 
claim and could vary according to circumstances. For example, an 
establishment would need to submit the following documentation to 
substantiate a ``cage free'' labeling claim for LPDS approval: (1) A 
detailed written description explaining controls for ensuring that the 
animals are raised in a manner consistent with the meaning of the 
living or raising conditions claim that is valid from birth to 
slaughter or the period of raising being referenced by the claim; (2) A 
signed and dated document describing how the animals are raised to 
support that the claims are not false or misleading; (3) A written 
description of the product tracing and segregation mechanism from time 
of slaughter or further processing through packaging and wholesale or 
retail distribution; and (4) A written description of the 
identification, control, and segregation of non-conforming animals/
product. FSIS comprehensively evaluates these label applications on a 
case-by-case basis.
    FSIS will continue to evaluate animal-raising claims and approve 
labeling that complies with the Acts. Stopping FSIS review and approval 
of all animal-raising claims, as suggested by one petitioner, would 
effectively prohibit the display of such claims, including those that 
are truthful and not misleading. This action would, therefore, raise 
significant free speech issues and could be considered 
unconstitutional.

Negative Antibiotic Use Claims

    In April 2022, Science magazine published an article entitled 
``Policy Reform for antibiotic use claims in livestock,'' co-authored 
by the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at the George Washington 
University (GWU) School of Public Health and Food In-Depth (FoodID).\8\ 
The article reported on a study, where the urine of beef cattle 
designated for the raised without antibiotics market, specifically for 
a ``No Antibiotics Ever'' program, was tested for 17 antibiotics 
commonly administered in feed and water using the FoodID rapid 
immunoassay. According to the article, the study showed that 15 percent 
of the cattle feedlots sampled had one or more positive result. A 
subset of the urine samples that screened positive were subsequently 
tested in a third-party reference lab. Drug residues were confirmed and 
quantified in 24 of the 26 samples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Lance B. Price et al., Policy reforms for antibiotic use 
claims in livestock. Science 376, 130-132 (2022). DOI: 11.1126/
science.abj1823.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2023, USDA announced that it would be implementing a multi-
step effort aimed at strengthening the substantiation of animal-raising 
and environment-related claims.\9\ FSIS and the Agricultural Research 
Service (ARS) announced that the two Agencies would be conducting a 
sampling project to assess antibiotic residues in cattle destined for 
the raised without antibiotics market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2023/06/14/usda-launches-effort-strengthen-substantiation-animal-raising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In September 2023, FSIS and ARS announced that the Agencies began

[[Page 73256]]

exploratory sampling to assess whether antibiotics residues are 
detected in cattle intended for the raised without antibiotics 
market.\10\ FSIS collected liver and kidney samples from 189 eligible 
cattle at 79 slaughter establishments in 34 States, and ARS analyzed 
the samples using a method that targeted more than 180 veterinary drugs 
from various major classes of antibiotics. For the majority (74%) of 
these drugs, the method used by ARS is capable of detecting the drug at 
levels as low as 1 part per billion (ppb) in the animal tissue, with 
almost all drugs (95%) being detectable at or below 10 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/news-events/news-press-releases/constituent-update-september-22-2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exploratory sampling study found residues of antibiotic drugs 
in the liver or kidney of 37 raised without antibiotics cattle 
(equivalent to 20% of the total number of animals sampled) originating 
from 27 slaughter establishments. There were 46 residue detections in 
these 37 animals. Residues from 10 different types of drugs were 
detected (tulathromycin, monensin, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, 
tetracycline, penicillin, tildipirosin, tilmicosin, gamithromycin, and 
sulfamethazine).
    FSIS sent letters to establishments where antibiotic residues were 
found in cattle during the study. The letters notified the 
establishments about the positive test results, noted that the 
establishments may have produced misbranded products, and recommended 
that the establishments take actions to prevent further misbranded 
product from entering commerce. FSIS also notified the establishments 
that the results from the study would inform future policy changes, and 
that the Agency may elect to collect and analyze future samples that 
could be used to take a regulatory action. FSIS is still considering 
these issues and will inform the public of any future changes to label 
policy or Agency sampling.

FSIS' Response

    In response to the GWU/FoodID study in Science magazine and the 
FSIS/ARS sampling program results, FSIS has updated its recommendations 
in the guideline on how establishments substantiate negative antibiotic 
use claims. Specifically, the guideline now strongly encourages meat 
and poultry establishments to substantiate such claims by implementing 
a routine sampling and testing program to test for the use of 
antibiotics in animals prior to slaughter. In the alternative, the 
guideline strongly encourages that establishments obtain third party 
certification for negative antibiotic use claims from certifiers that 
routinely perform antibiotic sampling and testing as a condition of 
certification.

Environment-Related Claims

    The Environmental Working Group (EWG) submitted petitions for 
rulemaking in April and July 2023.\11\ EWG requested that FSIS: (1) 
reject climate-related and environment-related labeling claims like 
``low-carbon beef'' and ``climate-friendly'' made directly by 
establishments, (2) require third-party certification for climate 
claims, and (3) require a numerical carbon disclosure whenever such 
claims are made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/petitions/petition-submitted-environmental-working-group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EWG argued that many environmental welfare climate claims (e.g., 
Low-Carbon Beef, Net-Zero, Carbon Neutral, Carbon Negative, Climate 
Neutral, Net-Zero Carbon, Climate Positive, Climate Neutral, and Carbon 
Positive) are inherently misleading. According to EWG, most consumers 
believe these claims reflect reductions in actual greenhouse gas 
emissions in-house, not offsets of these emissions through changes in 
farming practices by others. The petitioner stated that when consumers 
are told that claims could be made by reliance on offsets instead of 
actual emissions reductions, most consumers report feeling misled.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See https://www.asa.org.uk/static/6830187f-cc56-4433-b53a4ab0fa8770fc/CCE-Consumer-Understanding-Research-2022Final-090922.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FSIS' Response

    In response to this petition, FSIS has updated the guideline to 
explain that establishments are strongly encouraged to provide 
additional documentation, such as environmental data or studies, to 
FSIS to support and substantiate their environment-related claims. This 
change to the environment-related claims guidance will help ensure that 
claims are truthful and not misleading. FSIS recommends that 
establishments contact LPDS to discuss potential environment-related 
claims and the documentation needed to support such claims before 
submitting a label application for prior approval.
    Under FSIS' current policy, establishments define their 
environment-related claims directly on the label. Alternatively, if the 
establishment has a website where the claim is defined, it may provide 
the website address (where the relevant standards are posted) on the 
label rather than directly define the claim. This policy helps ensure 
that consumers are not confused or misled by such claims.
    FSIS also updated the guideline to strongly encourage 
establishments using environment-related claims to use third-party 
certifiers. When label claims are certified by a third-party 
organization, which posts the standards used to define the claim 
conspicuously on its website, establishments do not need to include 
statements that fully explain their claims on their labels.

Third Party Certification

    FSIS' guideline now strongly encourages establishments to use a 
third-party organization to substantiate animal-raising or environment-
related claims. For example, FSIS recommends that third party 
certification should be performed by an organization independent of the 
establishment paying for the certification, that the third-party 
organization should routinely audit, validate, and verify claims on the 
label to ensure they meet related standards. Moreover, FSIS recommends 
that the third-party certifier conducts testing for raised without 
antibiotics claims. In response to concerns that third-party 
certification is costly for small and very small establishments, FSIS 
is exploring options to determine whether there are lower-cost third-
party certification programs, including those offered by the 
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), that meet the recommended 
criteria for third-party certifiers included in the revised guideline.

Summary of Changes to the Guideline

    FSIS made the following minor changes to the guideline in response 
to askFSIS questions and meetings with stakeholders:
     FSIS clarified that when establishments carry forward an 
animal-raising claim to a multi-ingredient product, the claim needs to 
include qualifying language such as ``used,'' ``raised,'' or ``made 
with'' to make clear that the animal-raising claim is specific to the 
meat or poultry component in the multi-ingredient product.
     FSIS added examples of common diet claims and added 
further guidance on the use of ``Vegetarian Fed'' and ``No Animal 
Byproducts'' claims to clarify that these claims mean that animals are 
solely fed plant-based feeds and no animal products.
     FSIS created a new email address for establishments to use 
when submitting requests to add new supplier documentation for a 
previously approved label without having to resubmit the label for 
another sketch approval.

[[Page 73257]]

     FSIS separated ``Animal Welfare'' and ``Environmental 
Stewardship'' sections and renamed ``Environmental Stewardship'' to 
``Environment-Related'' to better clarify the claims and the 
documentation to be submitted for each type of claim.
     FSIS made several changes to the formatting, language, and 
organizational structure of the guideline to improve readability.
    As explained above, FSIS also made some significant changes to the 
guideline in response to petitions and public comments on the last 
version of the guideline.
     FSIS updated documentation that establishments are 
strongly encouraged to submit to LPDS to substantiate claims like 
``Pasture Raised,'' ``Pasture Fed,'' ``Pasture Grown,'' and ``Meadow 
Raised.''
     FSIS recommended criteria for third-party organizations 
that certify animal-raising or environment-related claims.
     FSIS further emphasized that, to substantiate a third-
party certification claim, establishments should provide FSIS with a 
copy of their current certificate.
     FSIS further emphasized that if a claim was certified by a 
third-party organization, the Agency will approve the label bearing the 
claim only if it includes the certifying entity's name, website address 
(where the relevant standards can be found), and logo, when the 
organization has a logo.
     FSIS added language strongly encouraging establishments to 
substantiate negative antibiotic use claims by instituting a routine 
sampling program to test for the use of antibiotics in animals prior to 
slaughter or by using a third-party certifier who performs routine 
antibiotic sampling and testing as part of their certification 
standards.
     FSIS added language stating that establishments are 
strongly encouraged to provide FSIS with relevant data or studies 
(e.g., soil/land variation or air quality studies and results) to 
substantiate environment-related claims.
     FSIS added language strongly encouraging establishments to 
use third-party certification to substantiate animal-raising or 
environment-related claims, given the limits of FSIS jurisdiction.

Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy 
development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal 
Register publication online through the FSIS web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. FSIS will also make copies of this 
publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is 
used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, 
regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other 
types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our 
constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on 
the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS can provide information 
to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an 
email subscription service that provides automatic and customized 
access to selected food safety news and information. This service is 
available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from 
recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. 
Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the 
option to password-protect their accounts.

USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its 
Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions 
participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from 
discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, 
gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, 
disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived 
from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or 
retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity 
conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). 
Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
    Program information may be made available in languages other than 
English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of 
communication to obtain program information (e.g., Braille, large 
print, audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the 
responsible Mission Area, agency, or staff office; the USDA TARGET 
Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY); or the Federal Relay Service 
at (800) 877-8339.
    To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should 
complete Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 
which can be obtained online at https://www.usda.gov/forms/electronic-forms, from any USDA office, by calling (866) 632-9992, or by writing a 
letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant's 
name, address, telephone number, and a written description of the 
alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature and date 
of an alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or 
letter must be submitted to USDA by:
    (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20250-9410; or
    (2) Fax: (833) 256-1665 or (202) 690-7442; or
    (3) Email: [email protected].
    USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

    Done at Washington, DC.
Paul Kiecker,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-19696 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P