Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 98
5
Policies Affecting the Marketplace
The animal products industry has been
remarkably responsive to consumer demand
considering its inherent biological and tech-
nological constraints. In the animal products
industry in general, en c! in the meat industry
in particular, "high quality" has historically
been associated with high fat content. Meat
producers have responded over the years
to the market signals they have received by
breeding and beetling for fatter animals. But
this has changed dramatically in recent years
as more information has become available
linking diet and health. We have every
reason to believe that producers will be
equally responsive to this new situation,
producing leaner animals ant! developing
leaner products, given market signals re-
flecting informed consumer choice.
The industry has, for the most part,
aIreacly recognized that consumers are
changing their dietary habits, especially to
reduce fat intake. Producers, processors,
and retailers are developing innovative re-
sponses to this new environment. Beef and
pork producers, in particular, have taken
important steps in this direction that should
be further encouraged by developing mar-
ketplace signals that provide reinforcement
98
and by eliminating the policy constraints
that inhibit constructive responses. Specif-
ically, the committee is encouraged that
· Consumers are taking an active interest
in planning their diets and monitoring their
own health status;
· The percentage of calories in the diet
from animal sources of fat is declining, and
total fat and the percentage of total calories
from fat in individual diets appear to be
declining also; ant!
· A variety of initiatives within the pri-
vate sector are well uncler way to reduce
the fat content of animal products, increase
their nutritional value, en cl present the
consumer with better, clearer information
about the nutrient content of these prod-
ucts.
The committee is discouraged that
· Consumers in most purchase situations
cannot obtain the necessary nutrition infor-
mation they need to make informed choices
to meet their individual needs;
· Despite demonstrated general con-
sumer interest in less fat in food products,
the national food supply continues to show
OCR for page 99
POLICIES AFFECTING THE MARK! TPLACE
annual increases in total fat content. Market
forces based more on consumer preference
for convenience and taste than on nutritional
merit continue to dominate the food system;
and
· Although the private sector has taken
the initiative in providing nutrition infor-
mation at points of purchase and is providing
a greater choice of animal products with less
fat, salt, and cholesterol, these efforts lack
coordination across the food sectors, lack
standardization, super from impeding gov-
ernment policies, and are based on minimal
research as to how to best shape the food
and food marketing system to the nutritional
interests of the consumer. In short, the
initiatives are purposeful but not clearly
focused.
In the face of tremendous strides in sci-
entific knowledge, changing consumer pref-
erences, and a responsive industry, the
overall federal role in the food system ap-
pears disjointed, sometimes functioning at
cross-purposes. Moreover, tremendous sci-
entific and technological opportunities to
produce even better food products appear
within reach. Yet many poorly focused gov-
ernment programs and policies continue
without recognition of the new priorities.
A principal finding of the committee is
that public policies influence consumer
choice. And new policies are needed to
further encourage the positive trends now
evident both among consumers and
throughout the animal products industry.
Committee objectives include providing
consumers with the opportunity to exercise
personal choice in the marketplace, en-
couraging the development of a range of
products consistent with those choices, and
ensuring sufficient consumer education and
information to make those choices "in-
formed decisions."
PRODUCTION POLICIES
Since producers have always been re-
sponsive to the markets, much of the im
99
provement in animal products at the pro-
duction level will flow from the incentives
produced by the policy changes recom-
mended in this chapter. However, progress
can also be made at the initiative of indi-
vidual producers.
The starting point is a recognition by
producers and their industry associations
that they need to understand marketplace
trends and the role of foods in a healthy
diet. This involves a basic knowledge of
nutrition and an understanding of the way
consumers are modifying their dietary prac-
tices. Without this, the proper positioning
of animal products for the marketplace of
the near future will be difficult, if not
impossible.
Production policies can affect the levels
of fat, cholesterol, and other nutrients in
animal products. Technologies are already
available to produce foods that are lower in
fat and cholesterol by applying appropriate
feeding programs and slaughtering animals
at optimal ages. Further progress can be
made through breeding and selection. A
detailed discussion of these technological
options is provided in the appended papers.
The committee recommends a commit-
ment on the part of producers to understand
the role of foods in a healthy diet and to
implement the appropriate feeding, breed-
ing, and selection programs to produce feed
animals consistent with this role.
GRADE S
It is essential that producers be given the
proper economic incentives to reinforce the
progress they have made in meeting the
demands of today's marketplace. Grading is
basic to the marketing and pricing proc-
esses, but the current U.S. grading system
deters the production of lean red meat.
The U. S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) grades for carcasses of red meat
animals are based on estimations of the
relative quality (flavor, juiciness, and
tenderness) of the meat when cooked and
OCR for page 100
100
on relative cutability (yield of trimmed cuts
from the carcass). Nomenclature for the
gracling systems is not identical for beef,
pork, and lamb; but, in general, words like
Prime and Choice are used to indicate
quality and numbers are used to indicate
cutability. The wholesomeness of the meat
and freedom from disease ensures] by USDA
inspection do not relate to grade but rather
are determinecl prior to gracling.
The main determinant user] in the quality
grading of carcasses of red meat animals is
the amount of intramuscular fat. The higher
the fat content of the muscles, the higher
the quality gracle, because marbling im-
proves the chances of the meat being fla-
vorful, juicy, and tencler when cooked. The
main determinant for yield grading of car-
casses is the lean to fat ratio. The higher
the fat content of the carcass in the form of
external, seam, ant! bocly cavity fat deposits,
the lower the yielc] grade. Higher yield
grades (higher fat) are denotes] by higher
numbers.
In 1984, 65.1 percent of steer and heifer
beef (53.5 percent of total beef) in the U.S.
feclerally inspected] slaughter was officially
gradecl en c! stamped. Of that, 3 percent was
Prime, 93 percent was Choice, and 4 per-
cent was Good/Select. In that same year, 3
percent was yield grade 1, 42 percent was
yield grade 2, 49 percent was yielcl grade
3, ant] 5 percent was yield grade 4. Of the
12 billion pouncis of red meat (beef, lamb,
calf, and veal) that was officially graded and
stamped in 1984, more than 90 percent was
beef.
Essentially all beef and lamb carcasses
are presented to USDA officials for grading,
but packers selclom allow rolling of the
carcasses with the official grade stamp unless
the carcasses qualify as Prime or Choice ant]
as 1, 2, or 3 yield gra(les. Thus, the ungra(led
carcasses are brought together under the
term No-Roll for marketing as a single
carcass type. This ungraded 47.5 percent of
the beef slaughter in 1984 container] beef
ranging in quality from high GoocI/Select to
DESIGNING FOODS
the bottom of the Canner grade, but the
majority consisted of the ungraded 35.9
percent of the steer and heifer beef, most
of which would have graded Good/Select or
Standard. Assuming that the No-Roll steer
and heifer beefal1 would grade Good/Select,
then the steer ant! heifer quality grades in
the market for 1984 were 2 percent Prime,
62 percent Choice, and 36 percent Good/
Select.
Over the years, the lower quality grade
names of Good/Select, Standard, ant] Utility
have come to signify inferior quality, al-
though they are often leaner, a factor side-
stepped to some extent with the unofficial
No-Roll designation. All the current grade
terms designating quality levels are mean-
ingress in the supermarket, however, where
the average consumer is confused about
grade names, often equating Choice or Prime
with low fat content. Prime and Choice have
meaning only in the context of the specialty
restaurant business, where the focus con-
tinues to be primarily on optimal tender-
ness, juiciness, and flavor.
It is USDA policy that grading of red
meat can only be done in the carcass form
to ensure that grading decisions are accurate
and consistent. Therefore, grading is pro-
vided only at the point of slaughter. Once
the meat has been cut and packaged for
sale, its equivalent carcass grade cannot be
determined.
For beef, the quality grades and the yield
grades are said to be coupled; that is, neither
grade can be assigned without simultane-
ously assigning the other grade. The grading
systems are uncoupled for lamb carcasses.
In practice, lamb carcasses are seldom yield-
graded because the industry has not chosen
to use yield grades in the trading process.
The committee considered the extent to
which the current quality grading system is
a deterrent to increasing the leanness of red
meat animals. There is no question that it
does encourage overfattening of both lambs
and cattle, but not swine. (The pork grading
system is not hierarchical and is not used
OCR for page 101
POLICIES AFFECTING THE MARKETPLACE
by the industry in the same way as the
quality grading system for beef or lambs.)
The current grading system for cattle
provides ample incentive to cause overfeed-
ing to the point of obesity in the hope of
achieving the Choice or Prime gracle, and
a premium price. Statistics indicate that 64
percent of the steer and heifer beef achieves
these grades, and the incentive promotes
acIdition of fat to No-Roll steers and heifers.
In fact, this incentive pushes the system
beyond the level of fatness necessary for
consumer acceptability, which is a Slight
clegree of marbling 3 to 4 percent intra-
muscular fat in the Good/Select grade (Sav-
ell and Cross, this volume). Increasing fat-
ness to the level required for a carcass to
gracle Choice requires an overall increase
in carcass fat. While a significant amount of
that excess fat can be trimmed, the increase
in intramuscular fat cannot, en c] there is the
risk that the trimmed fat will be reintro-
duced into the food supply at some later
point.
Lambs can attain fatness levels sufficient
to grade Choice or Prime without ever
having been fee] grain, so overfeeding to
achieve a certain quality grade almost never
occurs.
The greatest incentive to overfeeding and
excessive fattening of both cattle and lambs
has been the use of dressing percentage
(weight of the carcass as a percentage of live
weight) in the current pricing system whereby
packers pay more for animals that have a
higher dressing percentage. To increase
ciressing percentage, cattle and lamb feeders
overfeed and overfatten their animals. The
push for fattening to increase (lressing per-
centages has persisted only because whole-
salers and retailers have tolerated the ad-
clitional fat knowing that it is consiclere(1 by
the consumer to be an indicator of"quality."
Now that consumer tastes are changing in
favor of leaner products and the retailers
are responding rapidly with quarter-inch fat
trim, this impetus will no longer exist. There
is, in acIdition, enough genetic variability
]01
among animals that types of cattle can be
iclentified that will deposit marbling in the
muscles sufficient to qualify for the Choice
and Prime grades without depositing exces-
sive quantities of subcutaneous, intermus-
cular, or kidney-pelvic fat.
In fact, market incentives are already
beginning to reverse this overfattening trend.
The committee therefore believes that com-
plete restructuring of the gracling system is
not necessary and agrees with the conclu-
sions drawn by the National Cattlemen's
Association, Beef Grading Subcommittee
(1986), which state that
· Consumers want lean beef regardless
of USDA quality gra(le;
· Changing the USDA beef quality grac3-
ing standarcls is not a prerequisite for pro-
ducing leaner beef;
· The retail consumer market is seg-
mented between those who place emphasis
on taste and a high clegree of marbling and
those who place greater emphasis on lean
ness;
· Combining the Choice and Good/Select
grades into one grade wouIcl reduce the
industry's ability to market beef effectively
to those two consumer segments; ant!
· Any attempt to change the USDA beef
quality grading stanciarcls would be inter-
preted by consumers as negative.
The committee supports the recent name
change of the Goof] grade to Select and
recommends consideration of guidelines for
trimming fat on the slaughter floor.
Renaming the Good Grade
In the wake of the 1985 National Con-
sumer Retail Beef stiffly (Cross et al., 1986),
the Public Voice for Food an :1 Health Policy
(1986) petitioner] the USDA to replace the
word Good with the word Select as a gracle
name for beef carcasses having a Slight
amount of marbling (3.0 to 4.3 percent fat
in the longissimus dorsi muscle). It argued
that "the consumer in search of leaner beef
OCR for page 102
102
at the supermarket is not assisted by the
federal gracles" and concluded that such a
change in nomencIaturc" although one
purely of semantics would be in the best
interest of all concerned.
The name substitution would not dis-
courage the consumption of leaner beef and
might, if properly promoted, allow con-
sumers to finct a grade of beef with very
low intramuscular fat content. The appeal
of the word Select to consumers was dem-
onstrated in the National Consumer Retail
Beef study and in a subsequent study con-
ducted by the American Meat Institute;
Select was perceived to have a more positive
connotation than Good by individuals in
focus-group discussions (Schroeter Research
Services, 1986; Yankelovich, Skelly and
White, Inc., 1985~.
On March 4, 1987, the USDA issued a
formal proposal in the Federal Register to
"rename the US Good grade as US Select."
The proposal states that the proposed changes
would! "provide the industry with an op-
portunity, through the use of a more positive
grade name, for improved marketing of beef
with less marbling than Prime or Choice,"
ant! "also provide consumers who desire
beef having the attributes of Select with an
officially graded product as an alternative
to the Prime and Choice grades." The
proposed rule change was accepted! and
became elective November 23, 1987 (U. S.
Department of Agriculture, 1987~.
Trimming Fat on the Slaughter Floor
There is no doubt that the production of
lean products in line with consumer tastes
and preferences is in the interest of the
entire meat industry. In the long run, this
involves giving producers the appropriate
price signals to encourage production of
leaner animals. In the short run, it involves
removing excess fat from products. It makes
economic sense to c30 this as early as possible
in the fabrication process to minimize trans
DESIGNING FOODS
portation costs and to encourage efficient
use of by-products.
In late 1986, the American Meat Institute
(AMI) took the position that the trimming
of external fat to one-quarter inch, as initi-
ated by retailers, was clesirable. It also stated
that the most efficient place to accomplish
most fat removal was the slaughter floor.
AMI suggested that this hot-fat trimming
(removing subcutaneous fat immediately af-
ter slaughter) would
· Remove dressing percentage as a price-
determining factor in purchases of live cat-
tle,
· Discourage overfeeding and overfatten-
ing of cattle,
· Allow for removal of excess fat at a
point where its value is highest, and
· Make possible payment to producers
of the highest prices for the leanest cattle.
If excess external fat is removed on the
slaughter floor and cattlemen are paid only
for the remaining carcass weight, there
would be no incentive to overfatten cattle.
Beef is now graded after the carcasses
have been chilled. Because yield grades and
quality grades are currently couplet! for
beef, carcasses that are trimmed prior to
presentation for gracling cannot be accu-
rately yield graded and so are ineligible for
quality gracing. This has led to a recent
proposal to uncouple yield and quality gracI-
~ng.
Although removal of excess external (sub-
cutaneous) fat on the slaughter floor clearly
appears to be a step forward, there is a
danger that the uncoupling of the current
grading system could result in some exces-
sively fat carcasses going undetected through
the hot-fat trimming process. Carcasses that
would previously have been identified as
yield grade 4 could be more difficult to
detect; those carcasses would produce
wholesale cuts with a higher degree of
intermuscular (seam) fat than desired by the
retailer and consumer. Since only 4 to 5
percent of all beef carcasses now officially
OCR for page 103
POLICIES AFFECTING THE MARKETPLACE
graded are of yield grades 4 or 5 and since
hot-fat trimming would discourage further
production of these overfat animals, this
problem can be overcome.
The committee recommends that proce-
dures to allow hot-fat trimming on the
slaughter floor be given serious consiclera-
tion. This could be accomplished by a change
in official grade standards allowing for un-
coupling of yielc! and quality gracles for
those carcasses moving through a hot-fat
trim process. This change would allow pack-
ers who wish to hot-fat trim to have the
carcasses quality-grade(l, and permit pack-
ers who wish to continue assigning both
yield and quality grades under the present
system without hot-fat trimming to do so.
A further improvement could be made by
extending the uncoupling to No-Roll car-
casses that could then be yielcI-gradec3. At
present, because of the coupling of yield
and quality Oracles, No-Roll carcasses are
not graded at all. These two changes would
encourage an orderly movement toward
efficiencies in the system without preclud-
ing continuation of current practices.
Before uncoupling is ejected, the com-
mittee recommencis that the USDA inves-
tigate methods (for example, ultrasound) for
making reliable determinations of USDA
yield grades on the untrimmed carcass so
that yield grade 4 and 5 carcasses can be
cletectec] and treated differently (for exam-
ple, muscle-boned to remove seam fat) from
yield grade 1, 2, and 3 carcasses. The lean
to fat ratio in the meat as it would be cut
for retail use is important to both retailer
and consumer. A rapid and economical
method for determining yield grade, the
proportion of lean to fat tissue in carcasses,
or both would] make removal of fat on the
slaughter floor feasible without yield grade
uncertainty and without the risk of excessive
seam fat in wholesale or retail cuts.
These suggestions may not be long-term
solutions. Success in the long run will be
indicated by shifts in the amounts of target
nutrients in the food supply. New monitor
103
ing protocols are needed to assess whether
policy implementations are achieving target
goals. If they are not, restructuring of the
grading system should be considered.
Options to the Present System
The committee was presented with alter-
natives to the present grading system. The
ones showing the most promise for effecting
improvements in the nutritional character-
istics of animal products were those that
aban(loned descriptive terms alluding to
subjective aspects of quality in favor of
alphanumerical systems to objectively relate
the most important quality characteristics
of the product. The most practical example
of the use and efficacy of such a system is
the Canadian approach to beef grading. In
1972, Canada changed its beef grading sys-
tem to counter the economic bias toward
fat. The letters A through E denote increas-
ing animal maturity and, presumably,
toughness. The numbers 1 through 4 denote
levels of fatness. The A-1 grade denotes
carcasses from young, lean beef; the E-4
grade signifies carcasses from old, fat bulls
or stags. Prices have varied with the inter-
play of clemand for levels of maturity and
fat.
Before 1972, the Canadian grading system
matched that used in the United States and
Choice gracle cattle dominated the market
(65 percent). Since the gracling change, the
market has become dominatecl by A-1 and
A-2 type cattle, most closely associates] with
the U.S. Goof! grade, and it is these types
that bring premium prices. The arguments
against the Canadian system are that it does
not detect economically important varia-
tions in yield, en cl total grading costs in-
crease as the grade becomes essential to
marketing. Although the grading system is
not compulsory, 100 percent of carcasses
are graded.
The Canadian grading system at this time
is not, in the view of the committee, the
ideal system. It does, however, demonstrate
OCR for page 104
104
that a grading system can profoundly affect
the factors for change targeted by the com-
mittee. The USDA, together with the pri-
vate sector, should continue to explore a
structure of the U.S. gracling system that
would! present a full range of options to
consumers and bring the U.S. food supply
more in line with the targets recommended.
The question is still open as to whether the
cleaned target levels of nutrients can be met
within the present grading system.
LABELING AND STANDARDS OF
IDENTITY
Proper market signals and information
are just as important to consumers as they
are to producers. Information on the label
or as conveyed by standards of identity is a
basic starting point for consumers wishing
to exercise informed choice in the market-
place.
Food labels and standards have been a
matter of controversy for nearly a century.
USDA personnel review every meat and
poultry product label before it can be used
and require an ingredient statement even
if the product is covered by a standard of
identity. In 1985, 134,000 labels were ap-
proved and 19,000 were disapproved. The
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does
not review labels, nor floes it require in-
gredient statements for standardized foods.
Currently, the Food, Drug en cl Cosmetic
Act ant] the Federal Meat Inspection Act
leave it to the USDA or FDA to determine
whether a standard of identity is needed to
protect the public. The USDA has standards
of identity that set specific requirements for
a food's composition.
The most formal procedure for changing
the rules for labeling or standards of identity
is the issuance of a new regulation. New
regulations are typically published in the
Federal Register followed by a comment
period! and sometimes a public hearing. The
USDA can avoid formal regulation changes
by issuing policy memos to make modest
DESIGNING FOODS
changes in policy, which it (toes about 25
times each year. These are also published
in the Federal Register but only as a matter
of public information. The USDA considers
policy memos to be interpretations of reg-
ulations. But because the memos do not
have the same legal status as formal regu-
lations, it is not always clear that they
supersede state or local regulations for the
product in question.
A recent proposer! rule was published by
the FDA in the November 25, 1986, edition
of the Federal Register (U.S. Department
of Health ant! Human Services, 1986~. The
rule would set forth definitions for the terms
choZestero! free, low cholesterol, and cho-
[estero! reduced in the labeling of food
proclucts.
Cholesterol Labeling
Dietary cholesterol is present only in
animal products. It is now widely accepted
that a number of Americans should probably
reduce their cholesterol intake. However,
current FDA regulations are restrictive as
to the inclusion of cholesterol information
on product labels. The proposer! rule men-
tione(1 above would] "encourage the volun-
tary declaration of cholesterol and fatty acid
contents on labeling to assist indivicluals in
lowering their intake of these substances
should they so desire, as well as to assist
those individuals who have been medically
directed to modify their intake."
The committee agrees with the FDA that
regulations restricting truthful and nonmis-
leading information are not in the consum-
er's best interest. The committee therefore
recommends that cholesterol labeling be
encouraged through adoption of either the
currently proposed rule or one very similar
in context and purpose.
Controlling Use of the Terms Natural
and Lite
The committee evaluated the trend to-
ward promotion of red meat products la
OCR for page 105
POLICIES AFFECTING THE MARKETPLACE
belec] Natural and Light or Lite. Exact
implications of such claims are in the pur-
view of the Standards and Labeling Division
of the USDA, Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS).
The term Natural is being promoted by
some elements of the industry as repre-
senting meat from animals that have not
been exposed to drugs, growth promoters,
hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, or feed
adclitives. It is being used by others to
represent animals that are reared in open
spaces or on the range as opposed to feecilots
and that are fed forages or roughages instead
of grains. However, these usages are not
codified in state or federal regulations. The
committee therefore recommends that use
of the term Natural for meat products be
standardized in a manner similar to the
current FDA effort to standardize use of
the terms to be user! in cholesterol labeling.
However, care must be taken not to imply
that meat from animals otherwise desig-
nated is somehow unnatural and thus un-
healthy. This would be wholly inappropriate
en c] misleading.
In addition, the terms Light, Lite, and
Lean are being used in an inappropriate
manner by some elements of the foot] in-
dustry to imply superiority in leanness when
such may not be the case. USDA-FSIS
Policy Memos 071A and 070B state that the
terms Lean and Low Fat can be used only
on products containing no more than 10
percent fat. Extra Lean may be used only
for those products that contain no more than
5 percent fat except for ground beef and
hamburger. Light, Lite, Leaner, and Lower
Fat can be user! only on products that
contain at least 25 percent less fat than the
majority of such products in the market-
place. Prior to issuance ofthese memoranda,
fat claims such as these could be used
interchangeably on meat and poultry prod-
ucts containing 25 percent less fat than a
comparable product and on products con-
taining no more than 10 percent fat.
Enforcement of these two policy memos
105
began on April 1, 1987 and November 18,
1987, respectively. The impact of this new
use of terminology should be assessed to
determine whether the original intent is
being met.
The committee is concerned that these
descriptive adjectives are used for red meat
products at the retail level, even though
the verification of relative leanness is made
at the carcass level. This can result in
erroneous designations because retail cuts
from a lean carcass can clepending on the
extent of trimming be either fat or lean
after the meat is fabricated at the time of
presentation to the consumer. The com-
mittee recommends that the USDA restrict
use of such terminology to products in the
form that would be presenter! to the con-
sumer. In other words, certification of the
relative leanness of carcasses should not
simply be carrier] over from the carcass level
to the retail cut as is now often clone. Use
of this descriptive terminology at the retail
level should require some objective stand-
arc! for verification of leanness of the cut
itself.
Standards of Identity
Standards of identity are an established
range of mandatory ingredients for certain
foocis, such as catsup, mayonnaise, frank-
furters, and bologna, that do not have to
appear on the product label. Food science
and technology and most ofthe food industry
as we know it today (licl not exist at the
time when most standards of identity, leg-
islation, and regulations were first promul-
gatecl. Several additional laws ant! regula-
tions have been enacted or amender! over
the last two decades to further protect an(l
inform consumers on the issues of food
additives, pesticides, and nutrition labeling.
Standards of identity specifications for
some animal products are so restrictive that
replacing the high-fat or high-cholesterol
components of foods with nonfat or low-fat
ingredients is impossible. For example, hot
dogs can contain no more that 10 percent
OCR for page 106
106
added water, thereby restricting the man-
ufacturer's ability to produce a lower fat
product. Low-fat ant] low-soclium cheeses
have no standards of identity and cannot
legally be called cheese. There is little
agreement as to the consumer perception
of standards of identity modifiers such as
Low, Lite, ant! Lean. Still pending is AMI's
Oct. 1984 petition to USDA for light sau-
sages, containing 25 percent less fat.
The committee recommends that all fed-
eral standards of identity regulations be
made consistent and reduced in number.
Particular attention shouic3~ be given to elim-
inating all specific ingredient and manufac-
turing process restrictions beyond those
minimally necessary to maintain the rec-
ognizec3 characteristics of each standardized
food and to enhancing industry's ability to
produce and market new low-fat ant] low-
sodium products. This recommendation is
made in view of the lack of uniformity in
the promulgation and enforcement of stand-
ards of identity, the presence of additional
new regulations to protect consumers, the
mature nature of the food industry, and the
great advances in food science and technol-
ogy macle since standards of identity were
first developed.
POINT-OF-PURClIASE INFORMATION
The creation of a wide range of market-
place options allows consumers maximum
flexibility in matching products to their own
dietary and life-style needs. However, for
the system to work effectively, shoppers
must have the information needed to make
informed choices. Nutrition labeling is an
important step in this direction, but addi-
tional information available at the point of
purchase should also be encouraged. Gen-
eral nutrition information and dietary guide-
lines are important, but many people find
it difficult to bridge the gap from general
nutrition guidelines to specific product
choices when shopping for food. Point-of-
purchase materials for example, pam-
phlets and information tags on products
DESIGNING FOODS
could help consumers actually apply the
principles of good nutrition.
Point-of-purchase information could also
play an important role in helping consumers
understand the new low-fat products. Some
low-fat products may look different from the
traditional products consumers are accus-
tomed to seeing in the store. All are likely
to require some modification in cooking
procedures because they usually require
more careful preparation than do their tra-
ditional counterparts.
The market has already demonstrated an
ability to respond to shopper information
needs with a variety of innovative programs
such as in-store brochures, shelf tags indi-
cating nutritional attributes of specific prod-
ucts, and the Meat Nutri-Facts_ program.
However, inconsistent en cl needlessly com-
plex government regulations discourage the
use of point-of-purchase materials. This sit-
uation can and should be corrected.
FDA regulations currently allow for point-
of-purchase information programs that pres-
ent factual nutrition information without
subjective comment. But approval is diffi-
cult to obtain, and these programs are
treated as experimental with no guarantee
that they will be continued after a limited
trial period.
Both the FDA and USDA have broad
statutory authority to regulate nutrition in-
formation. In addition, the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) has the authority to
regulate nutrition information presented in
advertising. The FTC and the FDA have
entered into a Memorandum of Understand-
ing that restricts the initiation of dual pro
ceedings to highly unusual situations in
order to avoid duplication of work. This
leaves the FDA with jurisdictional primacy
over nutritional information in most cases.
The FDA considers point-of-purchase in-
formation to include nutrition claims made
through labeling. Therefore, to the extent
that such programs make any nutrition in-
formation available about specific products,
those products must bear complete nutrition
OCR for page 107
POLICIES AFFECTING THE MARKETPLACE
labeling. This interpretation follows the Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)~ which
defines labeling as "all labels and other
written, printed, or graphic matter (1) upon
any article or any of its containers or wrap-
pers or (2) accompanying such article" (21
USC §321 im] [19764~. It is the FDA's view
that to highlight one or more nutritional
attributes of a particular product and not
provide a complete nutritional profile is to
misbrand] in violation of the FDCA.
The USDA exerts statutory authority over
meat and poultry products. The USDA and
FDA slider in their approach in two impor-
tant respects. First, the statutes adminis-
tered by the USDA do not explicitly require
that products bear complete nutrition la-
beling whenever any nutrition information
is providecI. Second, the USDA has not
adopted rigid nutrition information labeling
regulations. Therefore the USDA is far
,
more flexible in its approach to the regu-
lation of nutrition information programs.
Since most of the nutrition information
programs currently being pursued by food
retailers involve predominantly FDA-reg-
ulatec! products, the USDA's approach is of
limited usefulness. However, the innova-
tion possible under this approach has been
amply demonstrated. The most notable ex-
ample is the Meat Nutri-Facts_ nro~ram
cleveloped jointly by the Food Marketing
Institute, the American Meat Institute, ant]
the National Live Stock & Meat Board.
The Meat Nutri-Facts_ program intro-
duced in May 1985 presents factual nutrient
data about fresh meat products by using
placarc3-style graphics at the point of pur-
chase, on-pack stickers that give calorie
information, recipes for low-calorie meals,
and supplementary informational materials
available in the stores. At present, more
than 9,000 supermarkets across the United
States are participating in this program.
In September 1986, the American Die-
tetic Association awarder! Meat Nutri-Facts_
its President's Circle Nutrition Education
Awarcl for "excellence in providing scientif
107
ically sound nutrition education to the pub-
lic." The award has been given only once
before, to the National Dairy Council in
1983.
Although this program presents only fac-
tual information without subjective claim,
the nutrient information carried on the
placards is not complete or set forth in the
format established by FDA regulations and
stickers attached to packages give calorie
information only. For all these reasons, the
program is not in compliance with FDA
regulations. Similar difficulties surround the
creation of innovative programs that would
display factual information on the shelf for
other products under FDA regulation. The
agency has provided an impractical alter-
native, but one that could be mollifies! to
eliminate the problem.
In 1983, the FDA amended its regulations
to permit food retailers to engage in labeling
experiments even for products not bearing
complete nutrition information on their la-
bels (21 CFR Part 101.108 t19854~. These
exemption regulations, despite their in-
tencled flexibility, remain highly restrictive
in that they require that a company under-
ta~e SUCh a program in an experimental
mode limited to a specific geographic area
and time period. The application is to in-
clude information regarding the dates on
which the experiment will begin and ens!
and on which a written report or analysis of
the experimental data will be submitted to
the FDA. Furthermore, such an experi-
mental program must receive the FDA's
approval before it can begin. At least one
retail food chain experienced a delay of
several years before receiving the necessary
permission to start.
The reality of the current situation is that
few food retailers are willing to undertake
the development of innovative point-of-pur-
chase information programs in the face of
the FDA's uncertain bureaucratic process.
The committee therefore recommencis that
the FDA make available permanent exemp-
tions for such programs as quickly as possible
OCR for page 108
108
in light of the continued growth of point-
of-purchase nutrition information programs,
the popularity of these programs with cus-
tomers, ant] the demonstrated willingness
of retailers and processors to make infor-
mation avaflable beyond that now supplied
on labels. This could easily be done by
publishing specific guidelines for providing
factual nutrition data presented without sub-
jective judgment or comment. This would
remove the rigidity of receiving prior ap-
proval for a program that wfl] evolve in form
and content as customer reaction is ob-
tained, as well as the uncertainty of being
able to continue the program once the
investment has been made in program de-
velopment and customer education. In-
cleec3, this would be a great step forward in
encouraging development of the kind of
point-of-purchase information consistent with
the doctrine of informed consumer choice.
Restaurants are also beginning to parti-
cipate in modified point-of-purchase nutri-
tion information programs, particularly those
chains with fixed menus. But current prac-
tices minimize consumer exposure to this
information. Generally, consumers must
either ask for the material or otherwise
make special efforts to obtain it. Unlike the
efforts of supermarkets, these informational
programs seldom become an integral part
of a restaurant's advertising program or a
direct factor in customer purchases.
Until restaurants use the information di
rectly as an inducement to consumers to
make choices between food products, these
programs are not likely to shape demand
significantly on the basis of nutritional qual-
ity. Still, true point-of-purchase nutrition
information at these outlets could have a
tremendous impact on the quality of the
American diet for two reasons. first, tast-
fooc! restaurants provide an ever-increasing
share of the calories in the average consum-
er's diet. Second, they tent! to use large
amounts of fat in their food. The committee
recommends that restaurants be encouraged
to provide meaningful an(1 reality accessible
DESIGNING FOODS
point-of-purchase nutrition information to
their customers.
SOURCES OF DATA
As point-of-purchase nutrition information
programs are developer! that reach beyond
the information currently supplied on package
labels, an easily accessible source of credible
data is essential. Product manufacturers ob
viously have access to data on their own
products. Providers of point-of-purchase nu-
trition information do not. They must rely on
nutrition information provided in public data
banks or supplied voluntarily by the manu-
facturers. Several ciata banks currently exist
with overlapping jurisdictions ant] conflicting
formats. The two most notable are those of
the USDA and the FDA.
The committee recommencis that all gov-
ernment food (lata banks be consolidated
under a common oversight body with con-
sistent procedures and formats. Any deci-
sions made in consolidating the data base
should involve food retailers and processors,
who can ensure that the end product will
meet the needs of the marketplace.
Serving Sizes
Users of public data bases must rely on
the serving sizes indicate(l in the ciata bases.
As a result, point-of-purchase nutrition in-
formation programs are often criticized for
selecting an inappropriate serving size, even
though no alternative may have been avail-
able. There is a current controversy as to
whether serving sizes should conform to
amounts commonly eaten or to amounts
consistent with dietary guidelines. For ex-
ample, should the serving size for meat
products be the 3-ounce serving recom-
mencled by health professionals, or should
it reflect the larger serving size more com-
monly found in tociay's (liets?
The committee recommends that the es-
tablishment of a consolidated data base be
accompanied by the establishment of stand
OCR for page 109
POLICIES AFFECTING THE MARKETPLACE
arcs for serving sizes and a mechanism for
reviewing those serving sizes periodically.
Advertising and Promotion
Probably no policy issue has received
more attention from regulators, consumer
advocacy groups, and food manufacturers
than claims that a particular food or food
product promotes health or prevents dis-
ease. Aside from the fact that such claims
may initiate mandatory nutrition labeling,
the major problem appears to be satisfactory
documentation of their validity.
The high level of public awareness of nu-
trition information is the result primarily of
consumer education and the availability of
product alternatives in the marketplace rather
than specific health claims in advertising.
Consumers appear to have a general idea of
desirable calorie ant] cholesterol consumption
levels and, given a choice, will exercise their
options without considering specific health
claims by food manufacturers.
The committee recommends that indus-
try give serious consideration to developing
advertising and promotional guidelines that
restrict or eliminate the use of misleading
claims and claims that specific foocis can
cure, or prevent, disease.
GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN NUTRITION
EDUCATION
Government has a dual role to play in
nutrition education. It must communicate
clear and accurate nutrition information to
consumers and communicate the latest in
scientific information and marketplace trends
to producers.
One of the problems in nutrition educa-
tion is that misinformation often passes for
scientific fact, particularly in the popular
press. In aciclition, inconsistent recommen-
dations can be issued by different agencies
within the federal government; target nu-
trient levels serve as an example. Because
of the many conflicting claims and counter-
claims made in the field of nutrition, gov
109
ernment agencies play a vital role in estab-
lishing the basic facts for consumers and
producers. Organizations such as the Food
and Nutrition Boars! of the National Re-
search Council and the American Heart
Association translate research into practical
information for use by nutrition educators.
The Food and Nutrition Board's Recom-
mencled Dietary Allowances, which are
widely used around the world, are an ex-
ample of this process. USDA's Extension
Service provides a nationwide nutrition ed-
ucation system that connects nutrition and
agricultural concerns. Through its vast net-
work of nutrition professionals, educators,
scientists, and consumer groups, it can ef-
{ectively communicate to targeted audi-
ences. The committee recommends that the
various government agencies make every
effort to reach consensus positions that would
enable them to speak with one voice on
nutrition ant! health issues.
Although much remains to be done, a
great deal of progress has already been made
in nutrition education. Unfortunately, as
the popular image of animal fat has changed,
so has the image of nonfat animal products.
To a large extent, animal products of all
kinds serve in the minds of American con-
sumers as proxies for fat. Consequently,
consumers tend not to make distinctions
important to their dietary health.
The committee strongly cautions con-
sumers not to reduce fat consumption sim-
ply by avoiding all animal products or only
animal products. This could dangerously
widen the current malclistribution of essen-
tial nutrients, particularly by keeping cer-
tain nutrients from segments of the popu-
lation already deficient in them. This is
especially true for women, who are typically
deficient in calcium and who should not
eliminate (fairy products from their diets,
and for young children and women of chilcl-
bearing age who are typically deficient in
iron and thus should not eliminate red meat
from their diets.
Lowering the fat content of the diet by
OCR for page 110
110
selecting leaner meats and lower fat milk
products actually enriches the concentra-
tions of desired nutrients like protein, cal-
cium, iron, ant] B vitamins. Without careful
analysis of added fats ant! oils in substituted
nonanimal products, a person can easily fail
to make any reduction in the total calories
derived from fats and simultaneously pro-
duce deficiencies in many essential nu-
trients.
The committee recommends a coordi-
nated effort by the government to dispel
the dietary misinformation present among
consumers by communicating the following
basic information:
· Animal fats contain a variety of fatty
acids. Like plant fats, some fatty acids are
saturated and some are unsaturated. On the
average, most animal fats have a higher
percentage of saturated fatty acids than do
plant fats;
· Not all fatty acids are harmful in the
diet;
· For many consumers, the separated
animal fats and oils (butter, salac! dressings,
cooking oils, and fats and oils added to
fabricated foods such as bakery goods, choc-
olate bars, and potato chips) are important
contributors to the total fat content in the
diet;
· The amount of intramuscular fat in the
GoocI/Select grade of beef allows use of this
grade in diets designed with target levels
of under 30 percent for total calories from
fat. White meats are also useful in such
diets. Both are rich sources of protein,
bioavailable iron, B vitamins, and zinc;
· We do not yet understand all the ad-
vantages or disadvantages associated with
animal products and their ejects on human
health; and
· The technology exists to further im-
prove the nutritional composition of animal
products.
DESIGNING FOODS
inaccurately estimated this amount, partic-
ularly for animal fat. Attempts are currently
under way by the USDA to improve dietary
survey methodologies to more accurately
reflect actual intake. The committee com-
mends this and recommends that the foot]
disappearance data also be modified to bet-
ter reflect actual use. In addition, the gov-
ernment should take steps to more accu-
rately distinguish and monitor the fatty acic!
composition of fats in the diet. The com-
mittee also recommencis that the USDA
obtain (lata on the fat content of partially
trimmed meats and, if possible, on the
percentage of consumers who trim their
meats completely, partially, or not at all.
The committee encourages coordinates] ef-
forts among the various government agen-
cies and industry to deliver consumer in-
formation at the point of purchase. The most
recent example of a program of this type is
the "Eat for Health" program developer] by
Giant Foo(ls Inc., a regional supermarket
chain in the Washington, D.C.-Baltimore,
Maryland, area, and the National Cancer
Institute of the U. S. Department of Health
an(l Human Services. This is a 2-year ex-
perimental program to promote changes in
shopping behavior by informing customers
about nutrition, health, ant] the relationship
between diet and certain types of cancer.
It consists of customer information bulletins,
in-store signs and shelf labels, an(1 media
support.
Other joint information programs have
been undertaken with manufacturers an(l
retailers by agencies such as the FDA; the
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute;
and the American Heart Association. These
programs combine the expertise of govern-
ment and private industry and should] be
encouraged where appropriate.
INTEGRATED RESEARCEI AND
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
One basic piece of Information essential
to dietary recommendations is the level of
fat consumed by the typical American. In
the past, government ciata sources may have
There is a pressing need for more bal-
ance(1 coordination among all the appropri-
ate disciplines in issues relating to food,
OCR for page 111
POLICIES AFFECTING THE MARKETPLACE
nutrition, and public health. Fragmentation
of effort often leads to inefficiencies, waste,
inertia, and duplication of effort ant! pre-
vents development of the necessary tools
for assessing and responding to structural
changes in the food system.
A major policy issue emerging from the
111
focus producer attention on the changing
consumer marketplace. In addition, failure
to devote appropriate funding to research
might result in lost opportunities to develop
science and technology designed to improve
leanness, reduce the saturated fatty acic]
content, lower cholesterol, and increase the
quantities of desirable nutrients such as
zinc, iron, calcium, and B vitamins in meat
products.
Producer groups that have supported re-
search projects along with their promotional
programs are to be commended. This activ-
ity should be encouraged. The committee
1 .1 . 1
committee s deliberations is the need to
promote a total food systems approach to
all aspects of animal and plant agriculture.
Integration should include food production,
processing and fabrication, storage, distri
bution and marketing, nutrient supply, health
and safety factors, and the extent of con
sumer options. There are four basic com- recommences that proctucer check-on pro
ponents to a total systems approach, each grams include regular funding for total sys
carrying equal weight: tems research as it pertains to specific prod
· Biological and physical sciences;
· Social and behavioral sciences;
· Economics and commerce; and
· Public health, ecology, safety, law, ep-
idemiology, and biometry.
A systems approach is basic to a better
understanding of consumer and producer
behaviors ant] the need for consumer-di-
rected options in the marketplace. The
national goal of optimum health is consistent
with the producer's goal of a robust animal
agriculture and the consumer's interest in
a healthy economy that provides a wide
range of food product alternatives. A sys-
tems approach does not call for more diverse
data, but rather for less data better se-
lected to facilitate understanding of the total
system.
The committee recommends that all re-
search pertaining to animal agriculture take
a full systems approach whenever possible.
This extends to the expenditure of funds
raised by producer groups through check-
oRprograms. Check-o~programs include a
per-head fee assessed when animals are
slaughtered. The organizations charged with
collecting check-offfuncis use the money for
special programs such as research or edu-
cation. There is a temptation to spend such
funds solely on advertising and promotion,
but this tactic misses the opportunity to
ucts.
1 1 1~
REGULATIONS AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
The committee urges an evaluation of
government policies that may impede the
implementation of new technologies. It is
imperative that the United States maintain
the high quality and safety standards asso-
ciated with its foods and food products.
However, research and development initi-
atives are being inhibited in the public and
private sectors because of overly stringent
regulations and an unwillingness to accept
research data from other countries. The
committee encourages a responsive regu-
latory policy that does not inhibit creativity
or innovation.
Hesitation in the approval of new food
ingredients (for example, blood proteins),
food labels, or standards of identity; exces-
sive testing and development requirements
that force companies to develop and market
new agricultural products in foreign coun-
tries; and requirements that mandate full
testing of new applications of products even
though they have met quality and safety
stanciards when used in other situations will
all have major influences in the United
States.
After more than 2 years of work by 18
federal agencies, the final part of the "Co
OCR for page 112
112
ordinated Framework for the Regulation of
Biotechnology" was published in the Fed-
eral Register on June 26 (Office of Science
and Technology Policy, 1986~. These policy
guidelines are baser] on generally accepted
scientific principles ant! provide a rational
basis for regulation. The guidelines are now
being user! by the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), FDA, USDA, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), and others.
A Biotechnology Science Coordinating
Committee (BSCC) has been formed that
inclucles the Commissioner of the FDA, the
Director of the NIH, the Assistant Secretary
of the USDA, the Assistant Administrators
of the EPA for Pesticides and Toxic Sub-
stances and Research and Development,
and the Assistant Director of the National
Science Foundation for Biological, Behav-
ioral and Social Sciences. The BSCC focuses
on scientific questions ant! acts to coordinate
agency interaction.
The committee commencis the agencies
for developing this interdisciplinary ap-
proach to science ant] regulation and urges
a dynamic interaction of the agencies ant]
the scientific community.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations are made in the fol-
lowing areas.
Production Policies
The starting point for change is a recog-
nition by producers and industry associa-
tions of the need to understand marketplace
trends and the role of foods in a healthy
diet. The committee recommencis a com-
mitment on the part of producers to under-
stand how diet relates to health and to
implement appropriate feeding, breeding,
and selection programs.
Grades
The committee supports the recent change
in the name of the Good grade of beef to
DESIGNING FOODS
Select. The objective is to provide a term
that would encourage the consumption of
leaner beef. The change, which became
effective November 23, 1987, will provide
the industry with an opportunity to improve
marketing of beef with less marbling than
is found in Prime or Choice.
The committee recommencis that proce-
clures to allow hot-fat trimming on the
slaughter floor also be considered. A change
in official USDA gracle standards would
allow for uncoupling of yield and quality
grades that would enable packers who wish
to hot-fat trim on the slaughter floor to still
have carcasses quality-graded while per-
mitting packers who wish to continue the
present practice of assigning both quality
and yielcl gracles to do so.
Before uncoupling is effected, the com-
mittee recommends that the USDA investi-
gate methods such as ultrasound that can
reliably detect carcasses of yield grades 4 and
5 so that they can be treater! clifferently from
yield grade 1, 2, and 3 carcasses. The lean to
fat ratio in the meat as it would be prepared
for retail clisplay is important to both retailer
and consumer. A rapid and economical method
for determining yield grade and the propor-
tion of lean to fat tissue in carcasses would
make removal of fat on the slaughter floor
feasible without yield grade uncertainty and
with less risk of excessive seam fat in wholesale
or retail cuts.
The USDA should monitor the effects of
both these recommendations and of industry
initiatives to lower the amounts of fat, sat-
urated fatty acids of animal origin, and
cholesterol in the food supply. Options to
restructure the grading system should be
established so that target goals can be met
without undue delay.
Labeling and Standards of Identity
The committee agrees with the FDA that
regulations restricting truthful and nonmis-
leading information are not in the consum-
er's best interest. It therefore recommends
that cholesterol labeling be encouraged either
OCR for page 113
POLICIES AFFECTING THE MARKETPLACE
through adoption of the currently proposed
rule (U. S. Department of Health ant! Hu-
man Services, 1986) or of one very similar
in context ant! purpose.
The committee recommencis that use of
the term Natural for meat products be
standardizer] in a manner similar to the
current FDA effort to standarclize the use
of terms to be user] in cholesterol labeling.
However, in standardizing the term, care
should be taken that use of the term Natural
not connote that meat from animals other-
wise designated is somehow unnatural ant!
thus unhealthy.
The committee recommends that the
USDA restrict use of the words Light, Lite,
or Lean to products in the form that would
be presented to the consumer. Further-
more, use of this descriptive terminology
on retail cuts should require some objective
standard for the cut itself.
Point-of-Purchase Information
The creation of a wide range of market-
place options allows consumers maximum
flexibility in matching products to their
dietary ant] life-style needs. However, for
the system to work electively, shoppers
must have the information needed for in-
formec3 choice. Nutrition labeling is an im-
portant step in this direction, but additional
information available at the point of pur-
chase is also encouraged.
The committee recommends that the FDA
make available permanent exemptions for
point-of-purchase information programs as
quickly as possible. This could easily be
done by publishing specific guidelines for
providing factual nutrition data presenter!
without subjective judgment or comment.
The committee also recommends that res-
taurants be encouraged to provide mean-
ingful and readily accessible point-of-pur-
chase information for their customers.
113
Sources of Data
The committee believes that all govern-
ment food (lata banks should be consolidated
under a common oversight body with con-
sistent procedures and formats. Food re-
tailers and processors should be involved to
share their experience with data banks and
to ensure that the end product will meet
the needs of the marketplace. The commit-
tee further recommends that the establish-
ment of a consolidated data base be accom-
panied by the establishment of standards
for serving sizes together with a mechanism
for reviewing those serving sizes periodi-
cally.
Advertising and Promotion
Probably no policy issue has received
more attention from regulators, consumer
advocacy groups, and food manufacturers
than claims that certain foods can promote
health or prevent disease. The committee
recommends that industry seriously con-
sider cleveloping advertising and promo-
tional guidelines that restrict or eliminate
the use of misleading claims and claims that
specific foods can cure or prevent disease.
Government's Role in Nutrition
Education
Government has a dual role to play in
nutrition education. It must communicate
nutrition information to consumers ant] re-
lay the latest in scientific information and
marketplace trends to producers.
One of the problems in nutrition educa-
tion is that misinformation often passes for
scientific fact. Because of the many conflict-
ing claims made in the field of nutrition,
government agencies play a vital role in
establishing the basic facts for both con-
sumers and producers. The Extension Serv-
ice of the USDA provides a nationwide
nutrition education system that connects
nutrition and agricultural concerns. Through
its vast network of nutrition professionals,
OCR for page 114
114
educators, scientists, and consumer groups,
it can effectively communicate to targeted
audiences.
The committee recommends that the var-
ious government agencies make every effort
to reach consensus on nutrition and health
issues. The committee further recommends
a coordinated effort by government to dispel
the dietary misinformation hell! by con
sumers.
The level offal consumption by the typical
American is essential to any dietary rec-
ommendation. It is clear that current gov-
ernment data overestimate the amount of
fat consumed that is of animal origin, par-
ticularly from red meat products. The com-
mittee recommends that the USDA modify
the food disappearance data to reflect more
accurately consumption of animal proclucts.
The committee also encourages coordinated
efforts between the various government
agencies ant] industry to deliver nutrition
information at the point of purchase.
Integrated Research and Education
Programs
The committee recommends that all re-
search pertaining to animal agriculture take
a systems approach whenever possible. This
also pertains to the expenditure of funds
raised by producer groups through check-
off programs. Those producer groups that
have already supported research projects
are to be commended. Such activity should
be encouraged, with consideration given to
integrating activities under the oversight of
an appropriate body like the land-grant
university system. The committee further
recommends that producer check-oE pro-
grams include regular funding for total sys-
tems research as it relates to specific prod-
ucts.
Regulations and Biotechnology
The committee urges that government
policies that could inhibit the implementa
DESIGNING FOODS
lion of new technologies be evaluated. It is
imperative that the United States maintain
the high quality and safety standards asso-
ciated with its foods and food products, but
research and development initiatives are
currently being impeded in the public and
private sectors because of overly stringent
regulations and an unwillingness to accept
research data from other countries. The
committee encourages a responsive regu-
latory policy that does not inhibit creativity
. .
or innovation.
REFERENCES
Cross, H. R., J. W. Savell, R. E. Branson, D. S. Hale,
J. J. Francis, J. W. Wise, and D. L. Wilkes. 1986.
National Consumer Retail Beef Study. Final report
to the Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
National Cattlemen's Association, Beef Grading Sub-
committee. 1986. Consensus Report on Topics Re-
lated to Beef Quality Grading. Denver, Colo.: Na-
tional Cattlemen's Association.
Office of Science and Technology Policy. 1986. Coor-
dinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology.
Federal Register 51~123~:23302-23393.
Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. 1986. Citizen
petition to change the name of the "Good" federal
beef grade to reflect that it is leaner than "Prime"
or "Choice." Before the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Agricultural Marketing Service, May 6.
Schroeter Research Services. 1986. Beef grades-
consumer attitudes. Focus groups conducted for the
Center for Beef Marketing Research, American Meat
Institute. Weston, Conn.: Schroeter Research Serv-
ice.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1987. Standards for
Grades of Slaughter Cattle and Standards for Grades
of Carcass Beef. Federal Register 52~184~:3567
35683.
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.
1986. Food Labeling; Definitions of Cholesterol
Free, Low Cholesterol, and Reduced Cholesterol.
Federal Register 514227):4258~1 12593.
Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc. 1985. Laboratory
Test Market Study of Fresh Beef Products. Report
to the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, the
Texas A&M University System. New York: Yanke-
lovich, Skelly and White, Inc.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
animal products
