This week I attended a local food conference in Eau Claire, WI, and a woman from the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute handed out an urgent action alert. The reason for the urgency? Comments are due by January 28 (a.k.a. TOMORROW).
The USDA proposed a "naturally raised" label that doesn't provide for animal welfare or environmental stewardship at all. The label simply means "no hormones, antibiotics, or animal byproducts." Is that what the word natural means to most people? Who knows.
Maybe to you natural means that a cow was raised on a pasture, or wasn't stuffed into a feedlot to live in its own waste. Maybe it means that the cow lived in harmony with the earth, without contributing to a manure lagoon. Or it ate grass, not grain. But whether or not the label implies that, it doesn't mean that. Would you buy "naturally raised" meat without guessing how narrowly defined it was?
Note: The issue here isn't that a label for antibiotic, byproduct, and hormone free is a bad idea. It's that a CONFUSING label for that stuff is a bad idea... or rather, a worse idea than straightforward, clear labeling.
Michael Fields, who issued the action alert, is a highly respected organization located in East Troy, WI (near Milwaukee). We hope to welcome one of their ag policy experts, Margaret Krome, to speak at Netroots Nation this summer.
The action alert I received voices support for labels when they are easy for consumers to understand. In this case, Michael Fields takes issue with the fact that the proposed label is vague and non-comprehensive.
While these proposed requirements address very important concerns, this could more simply and accurately be signaled through "no supplemental hormones added" and "no antibiotic used" labels USDA had previously proposed in conjunction with the recently approved grassfed label, and another label claim under review for "free range" and "pasture raised." Feeding of animal byproducts could be addressed with a "no animal byproducts fed" label claim.
TO TAKE ACTION: Go here and comment. The docket number is AMS-LS-07-0131.
You can also fax to 202-720-1112 (Naturally Raised Marketing Claim, Room 2607-S, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 20250)
Some Talking Points
- The proposed "naturally raised" standard fails to address many of the high standards consumers expect from sustainable livestock production, including animal welfare, access to pasture, and conservation and environmental requirements. Quite simply, the "naturally raised" label as proposed would not mean what conumers would think it implies and should be abandoned.
- The naturally raised label claim would completely defeat a very important purpose of providing the label in the first place - to provide clear and reliable signals to consumers who want to make informed, environmentally-friendly, and healthy choices about their food purchases.
- Hormone and antibiotic supplementation, and the use of animal byproducts as a feed source are extremely important issues that should be succinctly and accurately addressed through individual labeling claim standards. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service had previously proposed the development of "no antibiotics used" and "no supplemental hormones used" labels, both of which would provide clear and reliable signals to consumers. USDA should move immediately to issue these clear and unambiguous label claims rather than issuing a misleading and vague naturally raised label claim.
- The implementation of a "naturally raised" claim would further mislead consumers who are already uncertain and skeptical about the meaning of the "natural" label claim currently overseen by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The natural claim refers to processing of meat whereas the naturally raised claim refers to the production of livestock. The implementation of two distinct claims, both using the term "natural" yet addressing completely distinct issues and administered by two separate agencies will create confusion for consumers and farmers alike.