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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 97-030A]

RIN 0583-AC41

Labeling Standards for Ovine Carcasses, Parts of Carcasses, Meat

and Meat Food Products

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to a requirement in the Farm Bill of 1996, the

Department is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to

determine the type of labeling standards it should establish for lamb

and mutton and their meat food products. The principal issue of concern

in the marketing of sheep is the identification, for the benefit of

consumers, of the higher valued lamb carcasses compared to the lower

valued mutton and sheep carcasses. One of the key elements of this

issue is the attributes that give lamb meat products this higher value,

such as flavor, texture, moisture, color, mouth feel, or portion size.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and two copies of written comments

to FSIS Docket Clerk, Room 102 Cotton Annex, 300 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20250. Copies of USDA guidance material cited in this

notice are available for review in the FSIS Docket Room. All comments

submitted in response to this advance notice of proposed rulemaking

will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room, Room

102 Cotton Annex from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Alfred Liepold, Food Technologist,

Regulations Development and Analysis Division, Office of Policy,

Program Development and Evaluation, Food Safety and Inspection Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 205-0292.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 279 of H.R. 2854--Federal Agriculture Improvement and

Reform Act of 1996 (Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 104-127, 4/4/96) reads as

follows:

SEC 279. LABELING OF DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED LAMB AND MUTTON

Section 7 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 607) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

``(f) LAMB AND MUTTON.--The Secretary, consistent with United

States international obligations, shall establish standards for the

labeling of sheep carcasses, parts of carcasses, sheepmeat and

sheepmeat food products.''

According to the legislative history (House Conference Report, No.

104-494), this provision originated in a Senate provision which also

stated that the standard to be used was to be based on the break or

spool joint method to differentiate lamb from mutton by the degree of

calcification of bone to reflect maturity. Immature mammals have long

bones composed of three bony parts--a central bony shaft and two bony

plates, one at each end. The three parts are joined by cartilage and,

as the animal grows more cartilage is formed and some of the existing

cartilage turns to bone. As the animal matures enough of the cartilage

turns to bone so that the three bony parts fuse into one. So long as

the animal is immature, the bony plate at the end of the bone can be

cleanly broken through the cartilage between the shaft and the end

plate, leaving clean bone surfaces on both sides of the break. This is

the break joint; the one used on lambs is the metacarpal bone of the

foreleg between the shaft and the plate nearest the hoof. Industry

terms for the metacarpal bones are canon bones or trotters. Once the

bone fuses and will not cleanly separate, it is called a spool joint.

It is not a true joint.

This spool joint criterion of the Senate Bill did not carry through

to the Farm Bill. Accordingly, the Secretary may prescribe objective

criteria, or, in accordance with the regulatory reform initiative,

specify the end to be achieved (performance standard), and allow

producers to develop their own criteria to meet these performance

standards.

Prior Grading Standards

In the past, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published two

standards voluntarily regulating the marketing of sheep, lamb, and

yearling carcasses and their meat food products on the basis, among

other things, of age and/or maturity. These two publications were

titled ``Official United States Standards for Grades of Slaughter

Lambs, Yearlings and Sheep'' and ``Official United States Standards for

Grades of Lamb, Yearling Mutton, and Mutton Carcasses.''

The purpose of these voluntary grading standards was to develop and

establish efficient marketing methods and practices for agricultural

commodities so that consumers could obtain the quality of product they

desire at a reasonable cost. The grade standards were developed to

provide uniform language to describe the characteristics of many meat

food commodities in the marketplace. However, rapid changes in consumer

preferences together with associated changes in commodity

characteristics, processing technology, and marketing practices

outpaced the issuance of regulatory modifications or revisions, leaving

the marketplace burdened with outdated grading standards. Therefore, in

line with the President's regulatory review initiative, the standards

were removed from Volume 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations on

December 4, 1995, but have been kept available as guidelines in

pamphlet form.

In the publication containing the grade standards for slaughter

lambs, yearlings, and sheep, the term lamb is defined as: ``A lamb is

an immature ovine, usually under 14 months of age, that has not cut its

first pair of incisor teeth.'' The term yearling is defined as: ``A

yearling is an ovine usually between one and two years of age that has

cut its first pair of permanent incisor teeth but has not cut the

second pair.'' The term sheep is defined as: ``A sheep is an ovine ,

usually over 24 months of age, that has cut its second pair of

permanent incisor teeth.''

In the publication containing the grade standards for lamb,

yearling mutton, and mutton carcasses where the head is not available,

the following criteria are used. Typical lamb carcasses tend to have

slightly wide and

[[Page 62272]]

moderately flat rib bones and a light red color and a fine texture of

lean. By contrast, typical yearling mutton carcasses have moderately

wide rib bones which tend to be flat and a slightly dark red color and

coarse texture of lean.

The AMS standard recites that, in the dressing of ovine carcasses,

both front cannon bones (trotters) normally are left attached to the

carcass although in some instances, one or both trotters may be

removed. If present, trotters will terminate in perfect break joints

(all ridges forming the break joints are intact and well defined),

imperfect break joints or spool joints. For determining the maturity of

ovine carcasses, an imperfect break joint is considered the same as a

spool joint and it is assumed that there was a spool joint on any

missing trotter. These variations, as indicated by the following

guidelines, are important considerations in determining whether a

carcass is classed as lamb, yearling mutton, or mutton.

A carcass with perfect break joints on both trotters will be

classed as lamb or yearling mutton based on its other evidences of

maturity.

A carcass with spool joints on both trotters will be classed as

yearling mutton or mutton based on its other evidences of maturity.

Mutton carcasses always have spool joints on both front trotters.

A carcass which has a perfect break joint on one trotter and has

either (1) a spool joint on the other trotter, or (2) has had the other

trotter removed, will be classed as a lamb if its other maturity

characteristics are not more advanced than described in the grade

specifications as typical of the more mature lamb group. Otherwise,

such carcasses will be classed as yearling mutton. Maturity within the

lamb class shall be based on the combination of lean and all skeletal

characteristics.

Except for the above referenced considerations given to break

joints and spool joints, when making other maturity evaluations, more

consideration is given to the characteristics of the flesh than is

given to the characteristics of the skeleton.

Question Concerning New Grading Standards

The criteria stated above are those used by AMS to distinguish the

more valued lamb meat from the less valued meat of older ovines. The

standards have been voluntary; the costs to secure grading by an

authorized USDA employee have been paid for by the person requesting

the service. By and large, the only grading used has been that for

``lamb.'' If one were to set up a labeling standard and permit the

marketplace to determine its own methods of objectively identifying

lamb carcasses so that they were acceptable to buyer and seller, the

goal of identifying the more valued meat might be achieved by more

simple and less costly means. One of the necessities of such a labeling

standard would be to determine the desirable attributes that make lamb

meat more valuable and whether these attributes can be determined

directly and objectively. If lamb is a more desirable meat than mutton

because of its attributes, e.g., it is more moist, has a finer texture,

or a different chewy feeling, then some type of analysis may be able to

determine objective data concerning moisture and chewiness. If the

increased desirability of lamb meat results from lighter color, milder

flavor, or the size of the portions, such as lamb chops, a colorimetric

test may be devised. On the other hand, flavor is too subjective to be

easily used for grading purposes; and too many variables other than

maturity can influence portion size to make that factor of much value.

AMS has continued to grade lamb and mutton (sheep) carcasses, using

the same grades as before the regulation change. The grading is on a

voluntary basis, so the fact that the standards have been removed from

the regulations has not affected such grading. As a practical matter,

producers of lamb that they think will achieve U.S. Prime or Choice

will have such lamb officially graded by AMS meat graders. But, since

the program is voluntary, producers will not have other grades and

classes of ovines graded. Further, although neither FSIS nor AMS has a

definition of the word ``lamb'' in the regulations, when the term

``lamb'' is used on a federally inspected meat food product, the

product must come from meat that meets the definition of ``lamb'' in

the AMS standards. It is clear that if new standards are developed,

they could differ from the current voluntary AMS grading standards.

This situation raises a number of practical questions: Should FSIS

issue new grading standards or should AMS reissue the AMS standards in

the regulations? If the standards are reissued, should compliance with

such standards remain voluntary? Should the standards include the

standard for yearling mutton, as the old AMS standard did? What

criteria should FSIS use, if not the old AMS ones? Should FSIS only use

some of these criteria, other criteria, some combination of these and

other criteria, or performance standards? What would be the economic

and other regulatory impacts of new standards on producers and

processors?

According to a representative of the New Zealand Meat Producers

Board, the break joint method of determining maturity is not used in

Australia or New Zealand and would be considered a ``thinly veiled

attempt to erect a non-tariff trade barrier.'' The New Zealand

representative states that the only appropriate method of defining lamb

is to use a definition accepted throughout the world, namely; ``young

sheep under 12 months with no permanent incisors in wear.'' Some U.S.

authorities agree with the foreign comments that the break-joint method

is not sufficiently reliable.1 However, the New Zealand

definition differs from the AMS standards in the use of the term ``in

wear'' and, more importantly, in the situation where there is no head

on the carcass, the teeth method of defining is not viable. One issue

there is whether the U.S. should accept the principle of grading in the

export country, using the teeth method?

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

\1\ Field, Ray A., University of Wyoming, Letter to Rosemary

Mucklow, Western States Meat Association, 6/1/94.

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

Other practical issues exist raised by the Farm Bill directly or

indirectly, but not specifically mentioned in it; FSIS would appreciate

any comments on these issues also: Attempts have been made in the past

to label young ovine carcasses which had not been graded and which

possibly do not meet the lamb criteria as ``no-roll lamb,'' meaning

that the grade markings have not been applied, or rolled on, the

carcasses. The Agency considered this misbranding, since the phrase

included the term ``lamb'' which could be inapplicable. Should this

policy be changed? Also should the nomenclature for carcasses of one to

two year old ovines be changed as has been requested from ``yearling

mutton'' to ``yearling lamb?'' At present this also is considered

misbranding. Further, although there is no definition for ``lamb'' in

the regulations, FSIS, in 9 CFR 317.8 (b)(4) does define the term

``spring lamb'' or ``genuine spring lamb'' as applicable only to

carcasses of new-crop lambs slaughtered during the period beginning in

March and terminating not beyond the close of the week containing the

first Monday of October. Should this present definition of ``spring

lamb;'' be changed, deleted, or added to the standard? Also, as a

matter of FSIS policy, sheep brains, hearts, and tongues are considered

practically indistinguishable from lamb brains, hearts, and tongues,

respectively; therefore, these articles from ovine carcasses may be

designated as either sheep or lamb. Should this be changed?

[[Page 62273]]

If the U.S. requires the grading of lambs, and, at the same time,

permits the grading of imported lambs in the country of origin by

officials of that country, the economic effects of such a compulsory

grading standard on the exporting country would be lessened. If this is

not permitted, the country would have to leave the bone ends on the

trotters, a practice which is not routine at the present time. This

would mean a change in the slaughter technique in the originating

country, an increase of a few ounces in the shipping weight of each

carcass, and an increased cost of having each imported carcass graded

at producer expense by U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel. It

appears that such mandatory grading would not materially affect the

number of imported lambs, since imported lambs tend to be younger than

domestic ones at time of slaughter. Under a required grading program,

domestic stock would also have to be graded and some domestic producers

may consider this an undesirable requirement.

Any further information on these or other economic or regulatory

impacts would be welcome. If there are related issues not mentioned,

but relevant, any information or comments on such issues should also be

submitted for evaluation.

Done at Washington, D.C., on November 14, 1997.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97-30569 Filed 11-20-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P