FTC Staff Comment Before the Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Concerning Meat and Poultry Labeling

L/ ~I / ic) /5
COMMISSION AUTHORllm
* 	These comments 	represent the views 	ot the staff 	of 	the
Bureaus 	of 	Consumer Protection and Economics 	of the 	Federal 	Trade
Commission. 	They do 	not 	necessarily 	represent 	the views 	of the
Commission or any 	individual 	Commissioner. 	Inquiries 	concerninq
this 	document may be 	addressed to 	Pauline 	Ippolito 	(202-326-
3477), 	Bureau of Economics, 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission, 	Washinqton,
D.C. 	20580.
. : ~ .~.:: :.:" .
; .. ' .
,:"
PQliCYOftioe, 	FSIS
South Building, 	Rooa 	3171
U.S. 	Department. ot Agriculture
Washington, 	D.C. 	20250
Comments 	of the. staff of 	the 	Bureaus 	of
Consumer Protection and Economics 	of the
Federal 	Trade Commission.
Submitted to the 	'.
lood Safety and Inspection Service
Department of Agriculture
. June 3; 	1991."
In Response 	to a .
. . .' 	Requ~st for Public Comment-on ita-
. . 	Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemakinq
ReqardinqNuuitionLabelingof H at and POUltry
........ Docket Ko'.;91-0061f 	." 	. >
, - 	,', 	. 	'[56"PR J.3564], 	.'

I. 	INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The 	regulations 	governing 	food 	labels 	have 	been 	adopted 	over
a 	course 	of 	decades, 	in 	part, 	to 	help 	Americans make 	better
dietary 	choices. 	Yet, 	as 	reflected 	in 	the 	broad 	range 	of
questions 	in 	the 	notice 	from 	the 	Department 	of Agriculture
(USDA), 	there 	are 	many 	issues 	that 	arise 	in 	attempting 	to 	design
the 	best 	policies 	to 	achieve 	this 	goal. 	Based 	on 	our 	experience
in 	analyzing 	the 	effects 	of 	information 	in 	consumer product
markets 	and 	in 	considering 	regulations 	that 	address 	information
issues, 	the 	staffs 	of 	the 	Bureau 	of 	Consumer 	Protection 	and 	the
Bureau 	of 	Economics 	of 	the 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission 	(FTC) 	offer
the 	following 	comments 	to 	assist 	the USDA 	in 	its 	deliberations. 1
The 	FTC 	is 	a 	law enforcement 	agency 	charged with 	prosecuting
violations 	of 	Sections 	5 	and 	12 	of 	the 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission
Act, 	which 	prohibit 	deceptive 	or unfair practices 	in 	or 	affecting
commerce. 2 One 	of 	the 	FTC's major 	goals 	is 	to 	regulate 	national
1 	These 	comments 	are 	the 	views 	of 	the 	staff 	of 	the 	Bureaus
of 	Consumer 	Protection and 	Economics 	of 	the 	Federal 	Trade
Commission. 	They 	do 	not 	necessarily 	represent 	the views 	of 	the
Commission 	or 	any 	individual 	Commissioner. 	Inquiries 	concerning
this 	document 	may be 	addressed 	to 	Pauline 	Ippolito 	(202-326-
3477), 	Bureau 	of Economics. 	The 	staff 	of 	the 	FTC 	also 	provided
comments 	to 	the 	Food 	and 	Drug Administration 	(FDA) 	in 	its
rulemaking 	(Docket 	No. 	89N-0226) 	regarding 	related 	issues 	for
nonmeat 	food 	labels.
2 	15 U.S.C. 	§§ 	45 	~ 	seg. 	The 	FTC has 	jurisdiction over
~he advertising 	of 	food 	and 	has 	concurrent 	jurisdiction with 	the
FDA and USDA over 	the 	labeling 	of 	food. 	The 	FTC 	also 	has
atatutory 	authority 	to 	enforce 	a 	number 	of 	laws 	that mandate
disclosure, 	including 	the 	Federal 	Cigarette 	Labeling 	and
Advertising 	Act, 	the 	Truth 	in 	Lending Act, 	and 	the 	Energy 	Policy
and 	Conservation Act, 	which 	regulates 	appliance 	labeling, 	and 	to
enforce 	several 	laws 	relating 	to 	standard-setting, 	including the
Wool 	Products 	Labeling Act 	and 	the 	Magnuson-Moss 	Warranty 	& FTC
Improvement Act. 	In 	addition, 	the 	FTC 	has 	promulgated 	disclosure
(continued .•• )

advertising 	in 	a 	way 	that 	protects 	consumers 	from 	deception, 	but
at 	the 	same 	time, 	minimizes 	the 	extent 	to 	which dissemination 	of
truthful 	advertising 	is 	prevented 	or 	chilled. 	The 	staff 	of 	the
FTC 	has 	developed 	considerable 	expertise 	in 	understanding 	the
roles 	of 	advertising 	and 	labeling 	in 	providing 	consumers with
information 	and 	in 	analyzing 	the value 	of 	required 	information
disclosure 	or mandated product 	standards 	when 	the 	market
otherwise 	fails 	to 	provide 	adequate 	information. 3 We 	recognize,
however, 	that 	significant 	differences 	between 	claims 	on 	food
labels 	and 	those 	in 	advertising may 	require 	somewhat 	different
regulatory 	approaches.
Our 	analysis 	of 	the 	USDA's 	potential 	amendments 	to 	labeling
regulations 	for 	meat 	and 	poultry products 	relies 	on 	the 	basic
premise 	that 	consumers 	need 	two 	types 	of 	information 	to make
2( ..• continued)
rules, 	such 	as 	the 	R-Value 	Rule, 	which 	regulates 	thermal
insulation 	labeling, 	the 	Used 	Car Rule, 	which 	requires 	warranty
disclosures, 	and 	the 	Care 	Labeling Rule, 	which 	regulates 	clothing
labeling.
3 	Relevant 	FTC 	staff 	research 	includes M. 	Frankena, 	M.
Cohen, 	T. 	Daniel, 	L. 	Ehrlich, 	N. 	Greenspun 	& D. 	Keenan, 	Alcohol
Advertising, 	Consumption, 	and Abuse, 	(1985); 	M. 	Lynch, 	R. 	Miller,
C. 	Plott 	& W. 	Porter, 	Experimental 	Studies 	of Markets 	with 	Buyers
Ignorant 	of 	Quality 	Before 	Purchase: 	When 	do 	'Lemons' 	Drive 	out
High 	Quality 	Products? 	(1986); 	P. 	Ippolito 	& A. 	Mathios, 	Health
Claims 	in 	Advertising 	and 	Labeling: 	A study 	of 	the 	Cereal 	Market
(1989). 	The 	FTC 	staff 	explicitly examined 	issues 	involving
identity 	standards 	in 	its 	Comments 	to 	the 	Food 	Safety 	and
Inspection Service, 	USDA, 	on 	the 	Standard 	for 	Frankfurters 	and
Similar 	Cooked Sausages, 	Docket No. 	85-009E, 	52 	Fed. 	Reg. 	2,416
(1987) 	(9 	C.F.R. 	§ 	319.180 	(1989». 	In 	addition, 	the 	FTC 	staff
developed 	expertise 	on 	the 	entry deterring 	effects 	of 	standards
in 	connection with 	a 	proposed 	FTC 	rulemaking 	(J. 	Mooney, 	R.
Schroeder, 	D. 	Graybill, 	W. 	Lovejoy, 	Standards 	and 	Certification:
Proposed 	Rule 	and 	Staff 	Report 	(1978».
2
bE
dj
hE
is
at
e:l<
to
of
a
im
in
i 	sc
~< 	he~
I
I
;
is	1
i 	me	i
•
i,i,
t po'
i
1 	co	f
i ch,
US:
by
es'
fa'
woo
cl
at

but 	better dietary 	choices. 	First, 	they 	need 	information 	about 	how
of 	diet 	is 	related 	to 	health 	and 	the 	importance 	of 	particular diet-
he 	health 	issues. 	Second, 	once 	alerted 	to 	a 	particular 	diet-health
issue, 	they 	also 	need 	information 	about 	how the 	characteristics
n
of 	specific 	food 	products 	relate 	to 	that 	health 	issue. 	For
example, 	a 	consumer who 	understands 	that 	saturated 	fat 	is 	related
to 	the 	risk 	of 	heart 	disease may benefit 	from 	required 	labeling
;e, 	of 	saturated 	fat. 	However, 	the 	same 	labeling 	is 	of 	little 	use 	to
a 	consumer who 	is 	unaware 	of 	this 	relationship. 	We 	believe 	it 	is
by 	not 	adopting 	different 	definitions 	for 	the 	standardized 	terms
established by 	the 	Food 	and 	Drug Administration 	(FDA) 	(~, 	"low
tat" 	or 	"low cholesterol"). 	We 	also 	agree with 	the USDA that 	it
would 	be 	desirable 	to 	provide 	a 	mechanism 	to 	allow additional
claims 	for 	meat 	and 	poultry products 	that 	are 	nutritionally
consumer's 	ability 	to make 	informed 	dietary 	choices 	in 	this
changing 	environment. 	This 	analysis 	leads 	us 	to 	agree 	with 	the
USDA 	approach, 	which 	avoids 	the 	potential 	for 	consumer 	confusion	r,
rs
dt
important 	that 	the USDA 	is 	considering both types 	of 	diet
information 	in 	revising 	its 	labeling 	regulations. 	Also, 	since
ng 	scientific 	understanding 	of 	the 	relationship 	between 	diet 	and
health 	continues 	to 	change, 	and 	since 	the 	range 	of 	food 	options
is 	also 	changing, 	it 	is 	important 	that 	regulations 	provide
mechanisms 	to 	deal 	with 	changes 	as 	they 	develop.
Our 	analysis 	of 	the 	proposed 	regulations 	governing meat 	and
poultry 	labeling 	focuses 	on how these 	regulations 	affect 	the
.ng
attractive 	compared with 	other products 	in 	the 	category. 	Thus,
3

we 	support 	the USDA proposal 	to 	allow additional 	descriptors 	Oi
(§hg., 	"lean" 	or 	"extra 	lean") 	for 	meats 	and 	poultry.4 	Consumers 	c:
can 	benefit 	from 	competition on 	fat 	content 	and 	other health 	cc
dimensions 	within 	the 	meat 	and poultry 	category. 	However, 	the 	pc
proposed 	FDA descriptors, 	by themselves, 	are 	unlikely 	to 	foster 	tJ
such 	competition. 	The 	tentative 	FDA 	thresholds 	for 	the 	"low 	fat" 	il
and 	"low 	cholesterol" 	descriptors 	are 	set 	at 	a 	level 	such 	that 	de
virtually no 	meat 	or 	poultry 	item 	could 	qualify 	if 	reasonable 	d:
serving 	sizes 	are 	used. 	Cl
If, 	like 	the 	FDA, 	the 	USDA adopts 	standardized 	definitions 	gl
for 	a 	variety 	of 	descriptors, 	we 	think 	it 	is 	important 	that 	0;
labels 	also 	be 	judged 	on 	the 	basis 	of whether 	they 	are 	likely 	to
deceive 	consumers, 	since 	even 	standardized 	terms 	can be 	deceptive 	a:
in 	certain 	instances. 	In 	addition, 	we 	recommend 	that 	the 	Hf
establishment 	of 	standardized 	terms 	not 	preclude 	the 	provision 	of 	rf
il
4 	Both the USDA and 	the 	FDA use 	the 	term 	"descriptor" 	to
refer 	to 	terms 	used 	on 	labels 	to 	highlight 	desirable 	nutritional 	C(
characteristics 	of 	foods, 	often 	on 	the. principal 	display 	panel 	of
the 	package. 	In 	the 	regulations, 	descriptors 	are 	treated 	b.
differently 	than 	"comparative 	claims," 	in which 	a 	comparison 	is
made 	between 	substitutable products 	and 	in which 	explicit 	d:
numerical 	information 	is 	given 	on 	the 	two 	compared products. 	For
instance, 	"reduced 	fat" 	on 	the 	box would be 	treated 	as 	a
"descriptor," 	but 	the 	claim 	"Brand X has 	50 	percent 	less 	fat 	than
Brand 	Y; 	only 	4 	grams 	per 	serving 	compared 	to 	8 	grams 	per 	af
serving" 	is 	a 	comparative 	claim. 	Because 	of 	the 	amount 	of
information 	required 	in 	comparative 	claims, 	they 	are 	generally 	11
less 	useful 	for 	prominent 	treatment 	on 	the 	principal 	display
panel 	of 	the 	label.
Our 	comment 	focuses 	on 	the 	issues 	associated with 	the 	use 	of
descriptors. 	The USDA 	also 	proposes 	to 	allow truthful
comparative 	claims 	for 	products 	that 	have 	at 	least 	a 	25 	percent 	s
difference 	on 	the 	relevant 	dimension. 	We 	agree 	that 	comparative 	d
claims 	are 	also 	important 	for 	enhancing 	competition 	and 	for 	p
improving 	consumer 	information 	on 	the 	nutritional 	characteristics 	~
of 	foods. 	E
4
I

mers
other 	truthful 	and 	nonmisleading 	information 	on 	food 	labels.
Creative 	producer 	efforts 	to provide 	truthful 	information 	to
oonsumers 	should be 	encouraged by 	labeling 	regulations 	as 	much 	as
1e 	possible. 	Producers 	can be 	an 	important 	source 	of 	information 	to
:er
fat"
the 	public 	and 	can 	add variety 	and 	creativity to 	the 	standardized
information provided 	in 	the 	nutrition 	label 	and 	in 	standardized
descriptor 	terms. 5 Thus, 	if 	truthful, 	labels 	that 	discuss
dietary 	recommendations, 	compare 	foods 	on mUltiple 	dimensions, 	or
oreatively 	depict 	desirable 	dietary 	characteristics 	of 	foods 	with
ns 	qraphics 	or 	illustrations 	can be 	a 	valuable 	addition 	to 	the 	flow
of 	information 	coming 	from 	other 	sources.
to 	We 	also 	support 	the USDA proposal 	to 	provide 	regulations 	to
:ive 	allow appropriate 	health 	claims 	on meat 	and 	poultry 	labels.
Health 	claims 	that 	help 	to 	inform and 	remind 	consumers 	about
of 	relationships 	between diet 	and 	health 	can be 	useful 	to 	consumers
301
of
'or
an
)f
s
:':
in making 	their 	food 	choices. 	Obviously, 	it will 	be 	important 	to
oonsider 	this 	area 	carefully to 	insure 	against 	deception, 	but we
believe 	this 	can 	be 	accomplished without 	precluding the
dissemination 	of 	truthful 	diet-health 	information.
Also we believe 	it 	is 	appropriate 	to 	allow products 	designed
as 	an 	entire meal, 	such as 	frozen 	dinners, 	to provide 	nutrition
information 	and 	to 	make 	truthful 	claims 	on 	a 	per-meal 	basis,
5 	A recent 	FTC 	study 	of 	the 	ready-to-eat 	cereal 	market
showed 	these 	effects 	to 	be 	substantial 	in 	spurring the
development 	of 	better products 	and 	in 	improving consumption. 	See
Pauline M. 	Ippolito 	and Alan 	D. 	Mathios, 	Health 	Claims 	in
Advertising 	and 	Labeling, 	A Study 	of 	the 	Cereal 	Market, 	Bureau 	of
Economics 	Staff 	Report, 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission, 	August 	1989.
5

since 	this 	is 	how most 	consumers 	will 	use 	the 	product. 	Finally,
we 	agree 	with 	the USDA that 	it may 	be 	useful 	to 	allow 	firms 	the
option 	of 	also 	disclosing 	information 	on 	a 	metric 	basis 	on 	labels
to 	facilitate 	international 	trade 	and 	competition.
II. 	DESCRIPTORS 	AND RELATED ISSUES
Descriptors, 	such 	as 	"low calorie," 	"low sodium" 	or 	"light,"
have 	been 	used by many 	producers 	to 	highlight 	nutritional
features 	of 	their 	products. 	If 	not 	used 	deceptively, 	such 	terms
can 	serve 	as 	valuable 	signals 	for 	consumers 	trying 	to 	find
products 	consistent with particular dietary 	goals. 	Under 	current
regulations, 	use 	of 	such terms 	usually 	triggers 	nutritional
labeling, 	which 	provides 	a 	means 	for 	consumers 	to 	compare 	the
product 	on 	the 	dimensions 	of 	particular 	interest.
In 	the 	Nutrition 	Labeling 	and 	Education Act 	of 	1990 	(NLEA),
Congress 	amended 	certain provisions 	of 	the 	Federal 	Food, 	Drug 	and
Cosmetic Act 	(Pub. 	L 101-535, 	104 	Stat. 	2353) 	to 	require 	the 	FDA
to 	issue 	regulatory 	definitions 	for 	a 	number 	of 	descriptors 	used
to 	characterize 	the 	level 	of 	nutrients 	on 	food 	labels, 	including
"free," 	"low," 	"light" 	or 	"lite," 	"reduced," 	"less" 	or 	"high."
In 	addition, 	the 	FDA has 	developed 	proposed definitions 	for 	fat
and 	cholesterol 	descriptors. 6 For 	instance, 	under 	these
(
~
G
II
~
C
t
s
t
I:
I t;:
! i
c
i
c
c
s
i
a
6 	The 	tentative 	final 	rule 	for 	cholesterol 	descriptors 	was
published on July 	19, 	1990 	(55 	Fed. 	Reg. 	29456). 	There 	have 	been
no 	formal 	proposals 	for 	fat 	descriptors, 	but 	interim working
definitions 	have 	been given. 	For 	a 	description 	of 	these 	and
other 	rules 	on 	FDA descriptors, 	see 	Committee 	on 	the 	Nutrition
components 	of 	Food 	Labeling, 	Nutrition 	Labeling, 	Issues 	and
Directions 	for 	the 	1990s, 	National 	Academy 	of 	Sciences, 	National
Academy 	Press, 	Washington, 	D.C., 	1990.
6
1

lIly,
the
.abels
definitions 	"low cholesterol" 	could be 	used 	only 	for 	foods 	with
20 	mg 	or 	less 	of 	cholesterol 	per 	serving 	and with 	less 	than 	5
grams 	of 	fat 	and 	2 	grams 	of 	saturated 	fat 	per 	serving, 	and
"reduced 	cholesterol" 	could be used 	only 	for 	foods 	with 	75
ght,"
::orent
percent 	less 	cholesterol 	than 	the 	comparison 	food. 	Under 	the
current working 	definitions 	at 	the 	FDA, 	the 	term 	"low 	fat" 	could
be 	used 	only 	for 	foods 	with 	no 	more 	than 	2 	grams 	of 	fat 	per
erms 	.erving, 	and 	the 	term 	"reduced 	fat" 	could be 	used 	only 	for 	foods
that 	have 	at 	least 	a 	50 	percent 	reduction 	in 	fat 	from 	the 	regular
product.
Table 	1 	gives 	nutritional 	data 	for 	a 	selection 	of meat 	and
poultry products. 	This 	selection 	of 	items was 	chosen 	to
illustrate 	the 	range 	of 	fat 	and 	cholesterol 	amounts
A), 	characterizing 	common meat 	products. 	In 	partiCUlar, 	the 	table
and 	illustrates 	that 	there 	is 	considerable variation 	in 	the 	fat 	and
~DA 	cholesterol 	characteristics 	of meat 	products 7 and 	that 	consumers
led 	could 	substantially 	reduce 	fat 	and 	cholesterol 	in 	their 	diets 	by
.ng 	.witching among 	such products. 	However, 	the 	table 	also
illustrates 	that 	even with 	relatively 	small 	serving 	sizes
t 	(approximately 	3.5 	ounces), 	the 	thresholds 	used 	in 	the 	FDA 	fat
·.nd cholesterol 	descriptor 	terms 	discussed 	above 	do 	not 	allow
virtually 	any meat 	or poultry product 	to 	differentiate 	itself 	as
.s 	ower 	in 	fat 	or 	cholesterol 	using 	descriptor 	terms. 	All 	meats
~en
1
7 	Throughout 	our 	comments, 	we 	will 	often use 	the 	term
at" 	to 	refer 	to 	meats 	and 	pOUltry, 	that 	is, 	the 	items
gulated by the USDA.
7

Table 1. 	Nutritional Features of Selected Meat, Poultry. & Fish Products
(Per 100 grams = 3.5 ounces, Separable Lean Only, Trimmed to 1/4" fat)
he'
Total 	Sat. 	Stearic 	ch,
Calories 	Fat 	Fat 	Acid 	Cho1es.
(kcal) 	(g) 	(g) 	(g) 	(mg) 	wi'
Th!
BEEF (Good/Select)
Rib, broiled 	206 	10.4 	4.2 	1.4 	77 	cj ••
Bottom Round, braised 	196 	6.8 	2.3 	0.7 	96
Eye of Round, roasted 	160 	4.0 	1.5 	0.4 	69 	cal
Top Round, broiled 	169 	3.7 	1.3 	0.4 	84
Ground Beef, medium, pan-fried
Regular 	306 	22.6 	8.9 	2.7 	89
Lean 	275 	19.1 	7.5 	2.3 	84
Extra Lean 	255 	16.4 	6.5 	1.9 	81 	tel
Frankfurter 	322 	29.4 	12.0 	4.1 	48 mel
PORK
Ham, roasted 	tel
Cured (II % fat) 	178 	9.0 	3.1 	1.1 	59
Extra lean (5% fat) 	145 	5.5 	1.8 	0.6 	53 	COl
Loin, center, broiled 	258 	14.9 	5.2 	1.7 	94
Loin, tenderloin, roasted 	166 	4.8 	1.7 	0.5 	93 go'Bacon, fried (3 strips) 	109 	9.4 	3.3 	1.1 	16
CHICKEN tel
Light Meat fOl	Roasted, wo/skin 	173 	4.5 	1.3 	0.3 	85
Roasted, w /skin 	197 	7.8 	2.2 	0.5 	84
Fried, flour-coated 	222 	8.9 	2.5 	0.6 	89
w/skin
Dark Meat 	al:
Roasted, wo/skin 	205 	9.7 	2.7 	0.6 	93
Fried, flour-coated 	254 	14.4 	3.9 	1.0 	94 	CUl
w/skin
Frankfurter 	257 	19.5 	5.5 	1.1 	101 of
FISH chi	Haddock, broiled 	112 	0.9 	0.2 	0.0 	74
Haddock, breaded, fried 	205 	10.4 	2.6 	1.0 	80
Shrimp, steamed 	99 	1.1 	0.3 	0.1 	195 	di
DAT A. 	Nutrition data from Agricultural Handbook, Number 8, 1990. pr
NOTE. 	Under the proposed FDA definitions, the term "low cholesterol" 	of
could be used only for foods with less than 20 mg cholesterol, 5 grams of fat
and 2 grams of saturated fat per serving. 	The term "low fat" would require suthe food to have less than 2 grams of fat per serving.
th
8

,....
r~__-.
;.;..
'.~'
'.'
$;.
have 	cholesterol 	levels 	that 	are 	too 	high 	for 	the 	FDA 	standards
and most 	meats 	have 	too 	much 	fat 	for 	the 	definitions.
These 	facts 	do 	not 	imply 	that 	the 	FDA definitions 	should be
changed; 	the 	FDA presumably 	designed 	their 	definitions 	to 	deal
with 	the 	broad 	range 	of 	nonmeat 	food 	products 	that 	they 	regulate.
These 	facts 	simply 	illustrate 	the 	difficulties 	of 	standardizing
definitions 	to 	apply 	to 	a 	wide 	range 	of 	circumstances, 	or 	in 	this
case 	to 	a 	wide 	range 	of 	food 	items.
One 	option 	for 	the USDA would 	be 	to 	redefine 	the 	descriptor
terms 	used 	by 	the 	FDA 	to 	reflect 	the 	dietary 	characteristics 	of
meats. 	However, 	multiple 	definitions 	for 	the 	same 	standardized
terms 	have 	the 	potential 	to 	mislead 	consumers, 	especially 	if
consumers 	expect 	uniformity 	from 	terms 	regulated 	by 	the
government. 	The USDA avoids 	this 	potential 	problem with 	its
tentative 	position 	that 	it 	expects 	to 	adopt 	the 	same 	definitions
for 	the 	standardized descriptors 	established by 	the 	FDA.
However, 	we 	believe 	it 	may be 	in 	the 	consumers' 	interest to
allow additional 	descriptors 	for 	meat 	products 	beyond those
currently 	envisioned by 	the 	FDA. 	As 	shown 	in Table 	1, 	while 	none
of 	the 	meat 	products would 	qualify 	as 	"low 	fat" 	or 	"low
cholesterol" 	by 	FDA 	standards, 	there 	clearly 	are 	significant
differences 	in 	fat 	and 	cholesterol 	content 	among 	poultry 	and 	meat
products. 	Furthermore, 	meat 	and 	poultry 	are 	significant 	sources
of 	fat 	in 	the American diet. 	In 	1985, 	USDA 	food 	consumption
8urvey 	data 	indicates 	that 	approximately 	one-third 	of 	the 	fat 	in
the 	diet 	of 	adult 	women 	came 	from meat 	and poultry 	products, 	and
9

for 	men 	the 	percentage was 	even 	higher. 8 Moreover, 	more 	than 	80 	r
percent 	of women did 	not 	meet 	the 	dietary 	recommendation 	to 	t
consume 	only 	30 	percent 	of 	calories 	from 	fat; 	and 	34 	percent 	of
women 	consumed 	in 	excess 	of 	40 	percent 	of 	calories 	from 	fat. 9 	t:
Clearly, 	if 	adults 	in 	the U. 	S. 	are 	going 	to 	meet 	the 	dietary 	c'
recommendations 	for 	daily 	fat 	consumption, 	it would 	be 	desirable 	II
for 	them to 	be 	able 	to 	choose 	among meat 	and 	poultry 	products 	in 	0:
order 	to 	reduce 	fat 	consumption. 	.:
An 	alternative way 	consumers 	can 	reduce 	the 	fat 	and 	~(
cholesterol 	consumed 	from meat 	products 	is, 	of 	course, 	to 	reduce 	pl
the 	amount 	of meat 	they 	consume. 	However, 	there 	are 	a 	number 	of 	Wl
problems 	with 	relying 	on 	this 	approach 	alone. 	Even 	if 	desirable
from 	a 	dietary 	perspective, 	severe 	dietary 	changes 	are 	difficult 	1f
for 	most 	people 	to 	sustain. 	Moreover, 	there 	are 	a 	number 	of 	cc
important 	nutrients 	in meat 	products 	that 	are 	desirable 	for 	good 	tl
health. 	For 	instance, 	in 	1985 more 	than 	80 	percent 	of women 	of 	aJ
childbearing 	age were 	not meeting 	the 	Recommended 	Daily Allowance 	41:
(RDA) 	for 	iron, 	and more 	than 	50 	percent were 	not 	getting 	even 	70 	un
percent 	of 	the 	RDA. 10 Because dietary 	iron deficiency 	can 	lead
to 	anemia, 	both 	the 	Surgeon 	General's 	Report 	on 	Nutrition 	and
Health 	and 	the 	National 	Research 	Council's 	Diet 	and 	Health
8 	National 	Research 	Council, 	Designing 	Foods, 	Animal
Product 	options 	in 	the 	Marketplace, 	National 	Academy 	Press,
Washington, 	D.C., 	1988, 	pp. 	27-28. 	; I
9
10
ibid, 	pp. 	48-49.
ibid, 	p. 	60.
No 	comparable 	data 	are 	given 	for 	men.
10
• t

n 80
of
{
lble
• in
uce
of
)le 	t~~
Ji.
LIt 1~
~':.
_.
;,',
::-~.
~~
r.
od
f
lce
70
recommend 	lean 	red meats 	as 	a 	good 	source 	of 	iron 	for 	women 	in
this 	age 	group.l1
If 	consumers 	could 	easily 	find 	the 	lower 	fat 	meat 	products,
they 	could more 	easily 	improve 	the 	types 	of meats 	consumed, 	which
could have 	a 	substantial 	impact 	on 	the 	total 	fat 	in 	their 	diets.
In 	this 	type 	of 	situation, 	where 	consumers may 	not 	be 	fully 	aware
of 	the 	considerable variation 	among 	products, 	it 	is 	important 	to
allow producers 	to 	compete 	on 	these 	quality 	dimensions.
competition 	creates 	pressures 	for 	all 	producers 	to 	improve 	their
products 	and 	to 	inform 	consumers 	of 	desirable 	characteristics 	in
ways 	that 	are 	easier 	for 	them to 	notice 	and understand. 12
For 	these 	reasons, 	we 	believe 	that 	consumers would 	benefit
if 	the USDA 	labeling 	regulations 	were 	to 	allow producers 	to
convey 	the 	desirable 	nutritional 	features 	of 	their products 	in
truthful 	and nondeceptive ways. 	USDA's 	tentative 	position 	to
allow 	additional 	descriptors 	for 	meat 	products, 	such 	as 	"lean"
and 	"extra 	lean," 	is 	one 	approach 	to 	fostering 	the 	provision 	of
useful 	information. 	We 	believe 	that 	allowing 	additional
11 	A similar 	recommendation 	is 	made 	for 	children 	and
adolescents. 	See 	Surgeon 	General's 	Report 	on 	Nutrition 	and
Health, 	U. 	S. 	Department 	of Health 	and 	Human 	Services, 	1988, 	p.
16, 	and National 	Research 	council, 	Diet 	and 	Health, 	National
Academy 	of 	Sciences, 	1989, 	p. 	13.
12 	See 	Ippolito 	and Mathios, 	Ope 	cit., 	for 	evidence 	of
these 	effects 	in 	the 	ready-to-eat 	cereal 	market.
11

descriptors 	is 	an 	important 	element 	in 	the 	USDA's 	revisions 	of
its 	labeling 	rules 	for 	meat 	and 	poultry products. 1S ad
If 	the USDA decides 	to 	adopt 	standardized descriptors 	for 	im:
meat 	products, 	we 	believe 	that 	it 	is 	important 	that 	the USDA 	also 	ce:
retain 	the 	authority 	to 	reject 	label 	claims, 	even 	those 	using 	of
standardized 	descriptors, 	if 	the 	claims 	are 	deceptive 	in 	context. 	au·
There 	are many 	situations 	in which 	the 	context 	of 	a 	claim 	is 	de:
critical 	to 	meaning. 	abc
For 	example, 	suppose 	a 	condiment, 	such 	as 	a 	steak 	sauce 	or a
substitute 	tartar 	sauce, 	contains 	fat 	but 	qualifies 	for 	a 	"Iowa'
cholesterol" 	or 	"low 	fat" 	descriptor using 	the 	FDA mandated 	th,
serving 	size 	of 	1 	or 	2 	tablespoons 	for 	such 	products. 	Suppose 	tn
also 	that 	the 	label 	includes 	prominent 	treatment 	of 	a 	recipe 	for 	pre
a 	main 	entree 	sauce using 	the 	condiment 	as 	the major 	ingredient, 	she
with 	an 	illustrated 	serving 	size 	of 	a 	half 	cup 	or more 	of 	the 	Pre
sauce. 	In 	this 	case, 	the 	amount 	of 	fat 	and 	cholesterol 	in 	the 	thE
illustrated use 	of 	the 	product 	could be 	substantially greater 	in1
than 	consumers might 	expect 	and 	substantially greater than 	in 	the 	dee
standard 	serving 	size. 	Even though 	the 	product meets 	the 	legal 	whj
def ini tion 	of 	the 	terms, 	if 	the 	"low cholesterol" 	or 	"low 	fat" 	pre
descriptors 	were 	used 	in 	the 	context 	of 	the 	recipe 	panel, 	there 	goe
is 	a 	potential 	for 	consumer 	deception. 	dOl
ed'
IS 	In 	choosing 	descriptors USDA can 	further 	avoid 	consumer 	II:
confusion by 	using 	terms 	that 	are 	not 	readily 	confused with 	the
FDA descriptors. 	The USDA might 	also 	consider 	requiring
nutrition 	labeling whenever 	nutrition 	claims 	or descriptors 	a~e
used 	for 	meat 	products 	that 	are 	not 	covered by 	the USDA's 	st·
mandatory 	nutrition 	labeling 	rules.
12

s 	of 	The 	problem of 	context 	is 	a 	serious 	concern 	in 	regulating
advertising, 	where 	the 	context 	of 	the 	claims 	is 	often very
for 	important 	in determining 	the message 	to 	consumers. 	While 	less
~ also 	central 	to 	labeling 	issues, 	context 	can 	also 	affect 	the 	meaning
ng 	of 	labeling claims. 	Thus, 	we 	recommend 	that 	the USDA 	retain 	the
ntext.
s
authority 	to 	reject 	claims, 	including those 	using 	standardized
descriptors, 	if 	in 	context 	they 	harm 	consumers 	by 	deceiving 	them
about 	the 	nutritional 	characteristics 	of 	the 	food.
.ow
! 	or 	a 	Finally, 	if 	the USDA does 	adopt 	standardized 	definitions 	for
a 	variety 	of 	descriptors, 	we 	think 	it 	is 	also 	important 	that
these 	standardized 	terms 	not 	preclude 	the 	provision 	of 	other
se 	truthful 	and 	nonmisleading 	information 	on 	food 	labels. 	Creative
for 	producer 	efforts 	to 	provide 	truthful 	information 	to 	consumers
!nt, 	ahould 	be 	encouraged by 	labeling 	regulations 	as 	much 	as 	possible.
Producers 	can be 	an 	important 	additional 	source 	of 	information to
e 	the 	public 	and 	can 	add variety 	and 	creativity 	to 	the 	standardized
information 	provided 	in 	nutrition 	labels 	and 	in 	standardized
~
the 	r 	descriptor 	terms. 	Some 	recent 	labels 	on 	frozen 	food 	dinners, 	in
II
e
which 	overall 	dietary 	advice 	is 	described 	along with 	the
product's 	contribution 	to 	each 	of 	the 	relevant 	dimensions 	are
qood 	examples 	of 	the 	types 	of 	creative 	producer 	efforts, 	which 	if
done 	nondeceptively, 	can be 	a 	helpful 	complement to 	public
education 	efforts.
III. 	HEALTH 	CLAIMS
In 	its 	Advanced 	Notice 	of 	Proposed RUlemaking, 	the USDA
.tates 	that 	it 	is 	considering a 	revision 	of 	its 	labeling 	policy,
13

which 	currently 	bans 	the 	use 	of 	health 	claims, 	to 	allow, some 	...
health claims 	on meat 	product 	labels. 	Since 	no 	details 	are
provided 	about 	the 	USDA's 	specific policy 	in 	this 	area, 	we 	cann 	1n
comment 	on 	the 	details 	of 	implementation. 	However, 	we 	do 	belie 	...
that 	amending USDA's 	rules 	to 	allow some 	health 	claims 	on 	food 	~t
labels 	is 	desirable. 	Consumers 	are 	less 	likely 	to 	benefit 	from 	.
nutrition 	labeling 	if 	they do 	not 	know why particular nutrients 	.. tt.
are 	important. 	Truthful 	producer health 	claims 	can 	be 	an
important 	complement 	to public 	education 	efforts 	on 	diet 	and 	wi
health, 	helping 	to 	spread 	information 	about 	the 	relationships 	~
between diet 	and 	health 	and helping 	to 	remind 	consumers 	that 	a 	d!
variety 	of 	foods 	can help 	them to 	improve 	their 	overall 	diets. 1• 	Q(
IV. 	OTHER ISSUES
1. 	Nutrition Information and Claims 	For Meal-Type 	Products .... 	1:
A "meal-type product" 	is 	any product 	that 	is 	packaged 	for
use 	by 	one 	person, 	that 	contains 	ingredients 	from 	mUltiple 	food 	..:, 	1·
groups, 	and that 	is 	typically 	the main 	food 	item 	for 	a 	meal
(commonly 	referred 	to 	as 	an 	entree). 	These 	products 	include
tl
0:
frozen 	dinners, 	pot 	pies, 	pizza 	for 	one 	and 	similar 	items. 	The 	P
USDA proposes 	to 	list 	nutrition 	information 	for 	such 	products 	in
their 	entirety, 	even 	if 	this 	deviates 	from 	standard 	serving 	sizes
used 	for multiple-serve 	packages 	or 	for 	the 	components 	of 	the
14 	For 	a 	detailed 	evaluation of 	the 	effects 	of 	allowing
producer health 	claims 	in 	the 	cereal 	market, 	see 	Ippolito 	and
Mathios, 	Ope 	cit., 	which 	found 	that 	consumers 	increased 	their
consumption of more 	healthful 	cereals, 	and producers 	were 	induced
to 	provide 	better products, 	once 	competition was 	able 	to 	focus
more 	directly 	on 	the 	health dimensions 	of 	cereal 	products.
14
1
t

~me 	••a1. 	The USDA 	also 	proposes 	to 	allow 	special 	descriptors 	for
~e 	••a1-type 	packages, 	which 	are 	different 	from 	those 	used 	for
! 	cannot 	individual 	food 	items. 	We 	agree 	that 	treating meal-type 	packages
believe 	.s 	units 	for 	the 	purposes 	of 	both 	labeling 	and 	claims 	will
food 	probably provide 	the 	best 	information 	for 	consumers.
from 	In 	jUdging 	the 	appropriate 	basis 	for 	nutrition 	information,
ients 	there 	are 	two 	issues 	that must 	be weighed: 	the 	usefulness 	of 	the
, 	•• asure 	in 	giving 	consumers 	nutrition 	information about 	what 	they
ld 	viII 	actually consume 	from 	a 	product, 	and 	the 	usefulness 	of 	the
ps 	" 	•• asure 	in 	allowing 	consumers 	to 	compare 	nutrient values 	across	~::.
t 	a 	different 	food 	products. 	In 	the 	case 	of meal-type 	products, 	most
or
)od
:S.14
ucts
fr 	consumers 	will 	consume the 	entire 	contents 	of 	the 	food 	product.
av 	Thus, 	describing 	the 	nutrition 	profile 	of 	the 	entire package 	is
~.
r 	likely 	to 	be 	the 	best measure 	of what 	the 	consumer will 	actually
~:
~ .•at. 	Moreover, 	if 	a 	consumer 	is 	purchasing 	a 	meal-type 	product,
~ it 	is 	likely 	that 	he 	will 	be 	choosing 	among 	similar products, 	and
this 	measure will 	also provide 	good 	comparative 	information •
... Only 	in 	cases where 	the 	consumer 	is 	considering 	a 	meal-type
he 	product 	as 	a 	replacement 	for 	a 	meal 	prepared 	from 	individual 	food
.,;-
in 	", items 	will 	the 	per-meal 	information be 	less 	useful 	for 	comparison
15
-;' 	16 	However, 	even here, 	the 	consumer 	simply has 	to 	add 	up
:ed;!7-the 	nutrition 	from 	the 	component 	items 	in 	the 	meal 	to 	get 	a
j~:r.asonable 	comparison 	of what will 	be 	consumed 	from 	the 	two
J!j: ohoices.
Lzesi,;than 	individualized 	information. 16
Similarly, 	to 	require meal-type 	products 	to 	use 	only 	the
;descriptors 	designed 	for 	use 	on 	individual 	food 	items would 	limit

producers' 	ability 	to 	highlight 	accurately 	the 	desirable
nutrition 	characteristics 	of meal-type 	products. 	Most 	consumers 	r
eat 	3 	or 	4 	food 	items 	in 	a 	meal, 	and 	the 	thresholds 	used 	to
define 	the 	FDA descriptors 	were 	chosen 	accordingly. 	If 	a 	meal- 	P
type 	product, 	such 	as 	a 	frozen 	dinner, 	is 	not 	allowed 	to 	use 	a
other descriptors, 	a 	product 	that 	would 	have met 	the 	standards 	P
for 	each 	of 	the 	components 	of 	the 	meal 	separately will 	not 	be 	m
able 	to 	highlight 	that 	fact 	easily 	for 	consumers: 	when 	the 	(
individual 	food 	items 	in 	the 	meal 	are 	added 	together, 	the 	total 	W
fat 	content would 	no 	longer meet 	the 	threshold. 	This 	does 	not 	C
help 	consumers 	who 	use 	these 	products. 	The 	problem can be 	a
remedied 	easily by 	allowing meal-type 	products 	to 	use 	descriptors 	0
that 	are 	reasonable 	for 	meals 	taken 	as 	a 	whole 	(~, 	by 	allowing
descriptors 	such 	as 	"low 	fat 	meal").
For 	these 	reasons, 	we 	believe 	that 	the 	tentative USDA 	1,
position, 	which 	states 	that 	labeling 	regulations 	will 	treat 	meal- 	U:
type 	products 	as 	a 	separate 	category, 	is 	appropriate: 	providing 	d
nutrition 	information 	for 	the 	entire meal 	and 	allowing 	different 	tJ
descriptors 	for 	such products 	is 	likely 	to 	provide 	better 	f,
information 	to 	consumers who 	use 	such 	products. 	tl
of 	j
r
We 	i
f
c
r
2 • 	units 	of Measure
The USDA 	states 	in 	its 	advanced 	notice 	of 	proposed
rulemaking 	that 	it will 	adopt 	ounces 	as 	the 	unit 	of measure 	for
meat 	and 	poultry 	products, 	but will 	also 	allow optional 	use
metric 	weights 	(grams) 	to 	facilitate 	international 	trade.
agree 	with 	this 	position.
16
c
u

Pounds 	and 	ounces 	are 	the 	units 	of weight 	measure 	most
lSumers 	familiar 	to 	the 	U. 	S. 	consumer. 	However, 	international 	trade 	of
:0
meal-
packaged 	consumer 	products 	is 	becoming more 	important 	to 	American
producers. 	As 	much 	as 	possible, 	labeling 	regulations 	should
se 	adopt 	flexibility 	towards 	mUltiple 	declarations 	to 	ease
lrds 	producers' 	ability 	to 	operate 	in multi-national 	markets. 	At 	a
be 	minimum, 	allowing producers 	to 	adopt 	dual 	labeling 	of 	products
otal
lot
ptors
(for 	example, 	in 	both 	ounces 	and metric 	measures, 	or 	in both
weight 	and 	volume 	measures) 	does 	not 	appear 	to 	impose 	substantial
costs 	on 	the U. 	S. 	consumer 	and 	this 	flexibility 	may 	be 	enough 	to
allow 	firms 	to 	design 	a 	single 	label 	for 	products 	traded 	in 	aome
other 	countries.~
::>wing 	v. 	CONCWSION
mt
Our 	analysis 	of 	the 	proposed 	regulationa 	qovern1n; 	tha
labeling 	of meat 	and 	poultry 	products 	leads 	us 	to 	aqr•• 	that 	the
USDA 	avoids 	the 	potential 	for 	consumer 	contu.ion 	by 	not 	adoptinG
different 	definitions 	for 	the 	standardized 	desoriptors 	detined 	~y
the 	FDA. 	However, 	because 	the 	FDA 	descriptors 	would 	not
facilitate 	competition 	among 	meat 	products, 	it 	i. 	important 	that
the USDA 	also 	allow 	the 	use 	of 	other 	truthtul 	and 	nonmialaad1n9
~ 	claims 	for 	meat 	products. 	Our 	evaluation 	also 	supports 	the
USDA's 	plan 	to 	remove 	its 	ban 	on 	the 	use 	of 	health 	claims 	on •• at
16 	For 	instance, 	Canada 	requires 	producers 	of 	jams 	and
jellies 	to 	label 	their 	products 	by volume, 	but U. 	S. 	regulations
require 	labeling 	by 	weight. 	Allowing 	a 	firm 	to 	label 	the 	product
in both ways 	(~, 	16 	ounces, 	250 ml) 	could 	eliminate 	the 	need
for 	distinct 	labels 	for 	each 	country. 	Similarly, 	meat 	producers
could 	be 	allowed 	to 	label 	in both 	ounces 	and 	grams 	to meet 	the
requirement 	in 	both 	countries.
17

labels. 	We 	also 	support 	treating meal-type 	products 	as 	units 	for
purposes 	of 	nutrition 	claims 	and 	labeling. 	Finally, 	we 	believe
it 	appropriate 	to 	allow enough 	flexibility 	in 	labeling 	to 	permit
dual 	declarations 	of measures 	on 	labels 	to 	facilitate
international 	trade 	of 	packaged 	consumer 	products.
18
i 0"
~'.