U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat marketing Claims, Naturally Raised Claim for Livestock and the Meat and Meat Products Derived From Such Livestock

3541

Notices

Federal Register
Vol. 74, No. 12
Wednesday, January 21, 2009

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains documents other than rules or
proposed rules that are applicable to the
public. Notices of hearings and investigations,
committee meetings, agency decisions and
rulings, delegations of authority, filing of
petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are
examples of documents appearing in this
section.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
[Doc. No. AMS–LS–07–0131; LS–07–16]

United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims, Naturally
Raised Claim for Livestock and the
Meat and Meat Products Derived From
Such Livestock

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) is establishing a
voluntary standard for a naturally raised
marketing claim that livestock
producers may request to have verified
by the Department of Agriculture
(USDA). This standard incorporates
revisions made as a result of comments
received from an earlier proposed
standard. A number of livestock
producers make claims associated with
production practices in order to
distinguish their products in the
marketplace and there are a growing
number of entities that are capturing
value-added opportunities by using
alternative production methods to meet
the demands of consumers and markets
seeking meat and meat products from
naturally raised livestock. This
voluntary standard will allow livestock
producers to utilize AMS’ voluntary,
third party verification services to
provide validity to such naturally raised
livestock claims and, in certain cases,
access to markets that require AMS
verification. AMS verification of this
claim would be accomplished through
an audit of the production process in
accordance with procedures that are
contained in Part 62 of Title 7 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part
62).
DATES: Effective Date: Standard will
become effective once related
information collection provisions

VerDate Nov<24>2008

18:54 Jan 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) are met.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martin E. O’Connor, Chief, Standards,
Analysis, and Technology Branch,
Livestock and Seed Program, AMS,
USDA, Room 2607–S, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0254; facsimile:
(202) 720–1112; telephone: (202) 720–
4486; or e-mail:
Martin.OConnor@usda.gov. Additional
information can also be found by
accessing the Web site at http://
www.ams.usda.gov/SAT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1622),
directs and authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture ‘‘to develop and improve
standards of quality, condition,
quantity, grade, and packaging, and
recommend and demonstrate such
standards in order to encourage
uniformity and consistency in
commercial practices.’’ USDA is
committed to carrying out this authority
in a manner that facilitates the
marketing of agricultural products. One
way of achieving this objective is
through the development and
maintenance of voluntary standards by
AMS. Utilization of this voluntary
standard would be accomplished
through an audit of the production
process in accordance with procedures
that are contained in Part 62 of Title 7
of the Code of Federal Regulations (7
CFR Part 62).
Paperwork Reduction Act
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the
information collection provisions
associated with this notice have been
submitted to OMB for approval as a new
collection and will be published for
public comment.
Background
Individuals and companies often
highlight production and marketing
practices in advertisements and
promotions to distinguish their products
in the marketplace. Since the late 1970s,
livestock and meat producers
(individuals and companies) have
requested the voluntary services of AMS
to verify or certify specific practices to
increase the value of their products. The
Livestock and Seed (LS) Program of
AMS has provided certification through

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

direct product examination for a
number of production claims related to
livestock and carcass characteristics.
The validity of such claims utilizing LS
Program voluntary certification services
is enhanced since the product is labeled
as ‘‘USDA Certified.’’ The LS Program
also offers verification services through
Quality System Verification Programs
(QSVP; http://www.ams.usda.gov/
ARCaudits) to substantiate claims that
cannot be determined by direct
examination of livestock, their
carcasses, component parts, or the
finished product. The QSVP provides
suppliers of agricultural products or
services the opportunity to distinguish
specific activities involved in the
production and processing of their
agricultural products and to assure
customers of their ability to provide
products or services of a consistently
high quality. This is accomplished by
documenting the quality management
system and having the manufacturing or
service delivery processes verified
through independent, third-party audits
by AMS.
In addition to the market
differentiation that AMS certification
and verification services provide,
certain other markets require AMS
certification or verification services as a
prerequisite. This is especially true with
certain foreign markets that require a
competent government entity, such as
AMS to provide the certification or
verification activity. Since animal
raising claims cannot be evaluated in
finished products through direct
product examination (as certification
provides), the claims must be verified
through the QSVP program.
The majority of claims currently
citing naturally raised animal
production methods are defined by the
individual company selling the product.
Depending upon the branded program
making the claims, the production
activities and associated requirements
can vary since there is currently no
standard to specify which attributes
must be addressed and to what level,
other than to be truthful and not
misleading. This has led to confusion in
the industry and the marketplace as to
what requirements must be met in order
to have a uniform, explicit claim that
can be easily understood.
There has also been growing
recognition that livestock producers
targeting niche markets can provide the

E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM

21JAN1

3542

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

most value-added alternatives by
developing production systems that
include the widest array of marketing
opportunities. Thus, instead of losing
the market premium of an animal
intended to be marketed for a specific
marketing claim because it no longer
met program requirements, some
premium could be obtained if the
animal qualified for other value-added
markets.
The key to the success of this
approach for the producer is to ensure
that he or she develops a program scope,
which encompasses all requirements
that need to be addressed in any of the
potentially applicable marketing
strategies. Thus, animals may be shifted
into other programs depending upon
circumstances and management
decisions. This allows producers more
flexibility than an all or nothing
approach, which would be the case if
only one program was included in a
marketing strategy. Producers must
determine whether viable markets exist
for any verification program they wish
to make use of.
Another critical key to success is
understanding that there are commonly
understood and verifiable programs
available in the market, but that AMS’
verification can augment or complement
these programs. Consistent with its
mission, AMS has determined that it
can best support producers and the
development of markets, by providing
verification services and, as necessary,
defining standards based on their
experience with USDA Certified
Programs and USDA QSVP, research
into standard practices and procedures,
and requests from the livestock and
meat industries.
With respect to the Naturally Raised
Claim, AMS developed and proposed a
standard with explicit attributes that
could easily be understood by market
participants as the basis for a naturally
raised marketing claim as it relates to
live animal production practices. As
part of this process, AMS has obtained
input from a number of individual
experts in government, industry,
academia, and other interested parties
while establishing this voluntary
standard.
Relationship of the Naturally Raised
Claim to Other Marketing Claims
The U.S. Standard for the Naturally
Raised Claim for Livestock and the Meat
and Meat Products Derived from such
Livestock is intended to stand alone or
to be used in conjunction with other
marketing claims. This flexibility is
intended to allow producers to develop
marketing plans utilizing recognized
standards and terms, and to ensure

VerDate Nov<24>2008

18:54 Jan 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

product characteristics are expressed
and understood more clearly by market
participants. It does not limit in any
way the ability of market participants to
make additional marketing claims.
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS), under the authority of
the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA;
21 U.S.C. 601, 607) and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA; 21
U.S.C. 451, 457), regulates domestic and
imported meat and poultry product
labeling, standards, and ingredients.
AMS’ standard for a naturally raised
marketing claim would be verified, as
provided in 7 CFR Part 62. However,
since this is a voluntary marketing claim
standard, FSIS will not necessarily limit
the use of the term naturally raised to
labels in which participants employ and
meet AMS’ standard. FSIS label
approval requirements for the use of the
term naturally raised and other claims
about livestock production practices are
based upon the substantiation provided
at the time of label approval application.
QSVP verified claims, like other label
approval applications, must be
submitted to FSIS for approval. Any
specific labeling questions not related to
AMS services should be directed to
FSIS.
Meat products marketed under a
specific production marketing claim
should not be construed to imply that it
is safer or somehow better than
conventionally produced livestock and
the meat and meat products derived
from such livestock. Rather, marketing
claims are meant to distinguish or
differentiate products in the
marketplace; thus, allowing purchasers
to assess the value of their purchase on
factors other than price.
Comments and Responses on the
Proposed Naturally Raised Marketing
Claim Standard
AMS proposed the Naturally Raised
Marketing Claim standard as a notice
and request for comments in the
November 28, 2007, Federal Register
Notice (72 FR 67266). AMS then
reopened and extended the comment
period in the January 31, 2008, Federal
Register Notice (73 FR 5789) because a
number of interested producers,
processors, and marketers requested
additional time to evaluate the impact of
the requirements of the proposed
standard in order to provide more
meaningful and substantive comments.
By the close of the comment period,
AMS received over 44,000 comments
concerning the Naturally Raised
Marketing Claim standard from
consumers, veterinarians, trade and
professional associations, non-profit
organizations, national organic

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

associations, as well as consumer,
agriculture, and animal advocacy
organizations, retail and meat product
companies, food service, livestock
producers, and allied animal industries.
Approximately 43,000 of the over
44,000 comments received were form
letter comments. A breakout of the
comments by issues raised, including
the comments from form letters, and
AMS’ responses follow.
The majority of the commenters felt
the scope of the Naturally Raised
Marketing Claim standard was too
narrow and thus opposed the standard
as proposed; however, nearly all of the
commenters concurred that the three
core criteria proposed (animals raised
without growth promotants and
antibiotics and have never been fed
mammalian or avian by-products) in the
November 28, 2007, Federal Register
Notice (72 FR 67266) should be a part
of a naturally raised marketing claim
standard.
AMS has determined that these three
core criteria best represent the current
industry consensus of naturally raised
claims existing in the marketplace and
that broadening the focus of the
proposed standard would limit the
usefulness of the claim to a very small
segment of producers, would render it
unlikely to be used, and would be of
little value in facilitating the marketing
of agricultural products. Commenters
that were in favor of the standard
identified additional clarifications,
practices, and attributes for
consideration which will be addressed
below in the specific sections for each
issue raised. The revisions incorporated
into the standard include (1) a
clarification of the meaning of animal
by-products, (2) the addition of a
prohibition of aquatic by-products, and
(3) a provision that would allow
coccidiostats for parasite control as long
as their use is disclosed. The majority of
the comments received provided
information related to one or more of
the categories below as a justification for
or against the proposed standard or as
a suggested revision to the proposed
standard.
Diet
Comments: AMS received many
comments regarding the diet of
naturally raised livestock. Some
commenters wanted the diet of naturally
raised livestock to be restricted to a
vegetarian diet or a grass diet, while
other commenters suggested allowing a
grain fed diet. Some commenters stated
that AMS should regulate the diet to be
natural to the species. Others
commented that the diet of naturally
raised livestock should allow organic

E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM

21JAN1

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices
grains only while other commenters
stated that the proposed standard
should prohibit genetically modified
feedstuffs.
The only diet requirement addressed
in the proposed standard was that
livestock have never been fed
mammalian or avian by-products. Many
commenters expressed support for this
requirement; however, numerous
commenters asked that the definition of
animal by-products be clarified. Some
commenters asserted that pigs were
omnivores and that eggs and milk were
commonly used in pigs’ diet and
requested that the requirement of no
mammalian and avian derived products
be clarified to prohibit slaughter byproducts but not food items such as eggs
and milk in the porcine diet. Some
commenters also suggested aquatic byproducts be prohibited.
Agency Response: As stated
previously, the only diet requirement
addressed in the proposed standard was
that livestock have never been fed
mammalian or avian by-products. After
reviewing the comments received
suggesting the clarification of the
definition of mammalian and avian byproducts, AMS has determined to revise
the standard to clarify the definition of
animal by-product to specifically state
what is prohibited. For the purpose of
the Naturally Raised Marketing Claim
standard, AMS will prohibit animal
(mammalian, avian, and aquatic) byproducts derived from the slaughter/
harvest processes including meat and
fat, animal waste materials (e.g., manure
and litter), and aquatic by-products (e.g.,
fishmeal and fish oil). This prohibition
includes meat by-products as defined by
FSIS in 9 CFR 301.2. Mammalian and
avian products (e.g., milk and eggs) that
are not derived from the slaughter/
harvest processes are allowed.
The remainder of the comments
regarding diet were considered, but not
incorporated into the standard as AMS
has determined the standard, with the
revisions made, is appropriate and will
be most useful in meeting the needs of
producers as they develop a program
scope and marketing strategies. In
addition, as we point out above, the
Naturally Raised Marketing Claim can
be used in conjunction with other
marketing claims, thus accommodating
many of the suggestions made regarding
diet. This flexibility allows producers to
develop marketing plans incorporating
other recognized standards and terms in
the livestock and meat industries
thereby allowing product characteristics
to be articulated in the marketplace and
to be more clearly understood by market
participants.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

18:54 Jan 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

Production Issues
Comments: AMS received numerous
comments regarding the living and
raising conditions of livestock to be
included in a naturally raised marketing
claim standard. Commenters suggested
that animals be raised in an
environment natural to the species,
allowed to exhibit natural behaviors,
and allowed to socialize. Some
commenters wanted animals to graze or
be pastured only and many commenters
stated that animals should not be
confined (e.g., free range, no Confined
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), no
cages, or no crates). Other commenters
also suggested that livestock be raised in
sunshine, allowed fresh air, provided
clean water, and in inclement weather,
provided un-crowded enclosure with
good manure handling.
Commenters also provided input
regarding animal handling and welfare
(live animal and slaughter). Numerous
commenters stated that the standard
should require animals to be treated and
raised humanely using acceptable
animal welfare practices, and that
animals should be humanely
slaughtered. Some commenters
specifically requested that the standard
include requirements regarding the
humane handling of downers while
other commenters requested that
downer animals be prohibited.
AMS received comments on
environmental stewardship and
sustainability. Commenters stated that
sustainable production methods should
be used and that AMS should require
conservation and sustainable
environmental measures.
Additional production/management
practices that AMS received comments
on were suggestions to prohibit genetic
selection, early weaning, artificial
insemination, tail docking, and surgical
mutilation. Many commenters also
expressed the view that meat from
cloned animals be prohibited. Some
commenters also stated that the
standard should require smaller herd
sizes and allow as little interference
from humans as possible. AMS received
comments requesting that the proposed
standard also include poultry and dairy
production requirements.
Agency Response: The comments
received provided no clear, unified
approach other than that the three core
criteria proposed (animals raised
without growth promotants and
antibiotics and that have never been fed
mammalian or avian by-products)
should be a part of a naturally raised
marketing claim. Accordingly, the
comments did not provide an adequate

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

3543

basis to establish a broader, more
encompassing standard.
Therefore, AMS determined that it
was not appropriate to expand the scope
of this standard to incorporate the
diverse range of suggested practices or
attributes into the naturally raised
standard. Furthermore, attempting to
broaden the list of practices or attributes
incorporated in a standard to be applied
on a nationwide basis would be
inherently difficult as practices vary
from region to region and by producer.
Due to the geographic diversity of the
United States, livestock production
practices vary considerably due to soils,
climate, and availability of the
production inputs and other necessities
such as shelter, feedstuffs, and labor.
AMS concluded that many of the
production activities identified through
the comment process would be more
appropriately addressed as standards
themselves or incorporated into other
more encompassing standards or
marketing programs that they would be
more appropriately associated with.
AMS reiterates that the naturally raised
standard was designed to stand alone or
be used in conjunction with other
marketing claims. For example, the
naturally raised claim can be used in
conjunction with other descriptive
marketing claims such as ‘‘grass (forage)
fed.’’ This flexibility is intended to
allow producers to develop marketing
plans incorporating a variety of
appropriate standards, assuring that
their products’ characteristics are
communicated to and understood by
market participants.
Thus, while these comments
regarding production practices were
considered, they were not incorporated
into the standard. Finally, the inclusion
of poultry and dairy production
requirements in the standard is outside
the scope of the standard which is
intended for livestock and the meat and
meat products derived from such
livestock.
Use of Antibiotics, Growth Promotants,
Health Treatments, and Pesticides and
Chemicals
Comments: Many commenters agreed
with the proposed standard that for
naturally raised livestock, antibiotics
should be prohibited at all stages of the
animal’s life. However, other
commenters expressed that medical
treatment should be allowed only when
sick. One specific issue commenters
raised involved the question of whether
to allow coccidiostats for parasite
control. The majority of the commenters
who specifically commented on this
topic were in favor of the use of
coccidiostats/parasite control while

E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM

21JAN1

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

3544

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices

others felt coccidiostats should not be
allowed. AMS also received a few
comments on whether the proposed
standard should or should not allow
vaccines. One commenter specifically
stated that the proposed standard
should address what is excluded rather
than what is allowed. Regarding the use
of growth promotants, many
commenters agreed with the proposed
standard that for naturally raised
livestock growth promotants and
hormones should be prohibited. Other
commenters also suggested that the
proposed standard should prohibit
chemicals and use of pesticides.
Agency Response: AMS has
incorporated a suggested revision to the
proposed standard as a result of the
comments received on this subject. In
the proposed standard, coccidiostats,
which include ionophores and
sulfonamides, were prohibited. Based
upon our evaluation of the comments
and after further consideration of the
issue, AMS has determined that
coccidiostats in the form of ionophores
(not sulfonamides) when used as a
preventative measure for coccidiosis, as
well as for the prevention and treatment
of other types of parasitism, should be
allowable. Coccidiosis is a parasitic
disease of the intestinal tract of
livestock animals, primarily of young or
immune-compromised animals.
Coccidiosis is an infectious disease that
causes either severe illness with
possible death or subtle illness causing
stress and debilitation of the animal,
resulting in secondary disease that
further jeopardizes the health of the
animal. Treatment and control must
include both good animal husbandry
measures, as well as the use of
anticoccidial drugs to prevent further
disease and premise contamination.
When marketed, the animals or meat
product must be clearly identified with
a statement that no antibiotics other
than ionophores were used to prevent
parasitism. Ionophores may only be
used according to the manufacturer’s
label recommendations for coccidiostat
levels (parasite control).
AMS has concluded that for the
Naturally Raised Marketing Claim
standard, the use of vaccines is
acceptable and appropriate. The use of
vaccines, according to manufacturers’
label recommendations, is an important
component of control and prevention of
infectious diseases and protects against
losses from disease in livestock herds.
Vaccination is an essential part of good
herd management and animal
husbandry practices. AMS has also
concluded that if antibiotics are used for
medical treatment when animals are
sick, the animals cannot be marketed as

VerDate Nov<24>2008

18:54 Jan 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

naturally raised. AMS has not
incorporated standards related to the
use of pesticides and chemicals because
it is unclear whether the variation in
practices from region to region would
allow such a standard to meet the needs
of producers throughout the Nation as
they define and determine the scope of
their programs and develop marketing
plans.
Finally, AMS is clarifying the
standard to make clear that production
promotants are included within the
term ‘‘growth promotants.’’
Additional Issues Raised Including
Perceptions Associated With the
Naturally Raised Claim
Comments: AMS received numerous
comments comparing the Naturally
Raised Marketing Claim standard to the
FSIS label approval policies with
respect to the term natural for meat
products. Many commenters requested
that AMS address what the commenters
perceive as confusion between the terms
natural and naturally raised. Some
commenters felt that the Naturally
Raised Marketing Claim should be
linked to the FSIS policies regarding the
use of the natural claim and that a single
standard cover naturally raised livestock
all the way to the meat product and
meat processing (make naturally raised
a class of natural); however, there were
many other commenters who asserted
that the naturally raised claim should
continue to be distinct from the natural
claim.
Many commenters tended to compare
the Naturally Raised Marketing Claim
standard to other marketing programs.
Commenters requested that the
Naturally Raised Marketing Claim
standard not compromise other labels
such as organic and Certified Naturally
Grown. Some commenters requested
that the requirements for a naturally
raised standard be created at a higher
threshold than organic, while other
commenters thought it should be similar
to organic or ‘‘organic-like’’, while
others thought it was or should be
‘‘organic-light’’.
AMS received comments stating that
the Naturally Raised Marketing Claim
standard would contribute to confusion
in the marketplace but also received
other comments stating that the
proposed standard provided clarity.
Many commenters stated that the
proposed standard would mislead
consumers; however, other commenters
stated that the proposed standard is a
step in the right direction and is long
overdue. Many commenters felt that
single, separate standards (e.g., ‘‘no
antibiotics used,’’ and ‘‘no supplemental
growth promotants administered,’’ and

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

‘‘no animal by-products’’) would
indicate raising practices more
accurately rather than one umbrella
claim and urged AMS to abandon or
withdraw the proposed naturally raised
standard.
Some commenters also stated that the
proposed standard would create a
competitive disadvantage for small
farmers and companies and confer an
advantage on large corporate farms and
businesses. Some commenters stated
that the Naturally Raised Marketing
Claim standard should be mandatory
while other commenters asserted that
the standard should be voluntary. A few
commenters stated that the Government
should not be involved with marketing
claims and should leave the
development of marketing claims to
producers and industry.
Agency Response: AMS reiterates that
the Naturally Raised Marketing Claim
standard is independent of and distinct
from FSIS label approval policies
governing use of natural claims with
regard to post-harvest processing. The
naturally raised claim pertains only to
pre-harvest livestock production
practices. AMS developed the Naturally
Raised Marketing Claim standard to be
a distinct standard. AMS is adopting
this standard at this time because it fills
a need that has been identified to AMS.
Nonetheless, AMS recognizes that there
is considerable merit in the comments
that suggested that there is a need for
AMS and FSIS to coordinate the
definitions of ‘naturally raised’ and
‘natural’ to avoid creating consumer
confusion. AMS and FSIS are
committed to developing a coordinated
approach to defining labeling terms that
will maximize consistency and
minimize differences when similar
terminology is addressed by the two
agencies. FSIS intends to address this
matter in a forthcoming Federal
Register document, and AMS will work
with FSIS on that document. It is clearly
distinguishable from the USDA organic
standard, as well as from other
marketing claims (e.g., grass fed) and
similar programs.
AMS has concluded that the standard
is clear, reasonable, and attainable. AMS
believes this standard will create
marketing opportunities for all
businesses, small and large. AMS QSVP
is voluntary and not mandatory.
Producers will choose to comply with
the standard, be certified by AMS, and/
or place a claim on their product based
on whether doing so would meet their
production and marketing needs. They
will not be required to do so.
Accordingly, AMS establishes the
following voluntary U.S. Standard for

E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM

21JAN1

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims,
by this notice.
U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat
Marketing Claims, Naturally Raised
Claim for Livestock and the Meat and
Meat Products Derived From Such
Livestock
Background: This claim applies to
livestock used for meat and meat
products that were raised entirely
without growth promotants, antibiotics,
and animal (mammalian, avian, and
aquatic) by-products derived from the
slaughter/harvest processes including
meat and fat, animal waste materials
(e.g., manure and litter), or aquatic byproducts (e.g., fishmeal and fish oil).
The administration of growth
promotants, including natural
hormones, synthetic hormones,
production promotants, estrus
suppressants, beta agonists, or other
synthetic growth promotants is
prohibited from birth to slaughter.
Collectively, these substances are
referred to in the Naturally Raised
Marketing Claim standard as ‘‘growth
promotants.’’
No antibiotics can be administered, by
any method (e.g., through feed or water,
or by injection), from birth to slaughter.
This includes low-level (subtherapeutic) or therapeutic level doses,
sulfonamides, ionophores (except for
ionophores used as coccidiostats for
parasite control as long as the animals
marketed or meat product label states no
antibiotics other than ionophores were
used to prevent parasitism), or any other
synthetic antimicrobial. Ionophores may
only be used according to
manufacturer’s label recommendations
for coccidiostat levels (parasite control).
If an animal is in need of medical
attention, proper treatment should be
administered in an attempt to improve
the health of the animal. If any
prohibited substances are administered,
the treated animal must be identified
and excluded from the program.
Vitamin and mineral supplementation is
permissible.
Verification of the claim will be
accomplished through an audit of the
production process. The producer must
be able to verify for AMS that the
Naturally Raised Marketing Claim
standard requirements are being met
through a detailed, documented quality
management system.
Claim and Standard:
Naturally Raised—Livestock used for
the production of meat and meat
products that have been raised entirely
without growth promotants, antibiotics
(except for ionophores used as
coccidiostats for parasite control), and
have never been fed animal

VerDate Nov<24>2008

18:54 Jan 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

(mammalian, avian, or aquatic) byproducts derived from the slaughter/
harvest processes, including meat and
fat, animal waste materials (e.g., manure
and litter), and aquatic by-products (e.g.,
fishmeal and fish oil). All products
labeled with a naturally raised
marketing claim must incorporate
information explicitly stating that
animals have been raised in a manner
that meets the following conditions: (1)
No growth promotants were
administered to the animals; (2) no
antibiotics (other than ionophores used
to prevent parasitism) were
administered to the animal; and (3) no
animal by-products were fed to the
animals. If ionophores used only to
prevent parasitism were administered to
the animals, they may be labeled with
the naturally raised marketing claims if
that fact is explicitly noted.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.
Dated: January 13, 2009.
James E. Link,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E9–1007 Filed 1–16–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
[Docket No. APHIS–2008–0146]

Notice of Request for Approval of an
Information Collection; National
Animal Health Laboratory Network
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Approval of an information
collection; comment request.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service’s intention to
request approval of an information
collection associated with the National
Animal Health Laboratory Network.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before March 23,
2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/main?main=DocketDetail&
d=APHIS-2008-0146 to submit or view
comments and to view supporting and
related materials available
electronically.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Please send two copies of your comment
to Docket No. APHIS–2008–0146,

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

3545

Regulatory Analysis and Development,
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD
20737–1238. Please state that your
comment refers to Docket No. APHIS–
2008–0146.
Reading Room: You may read any
comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading
room is located in room 1141 of the
USDA South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room
hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 690–2817 before
coming.
Other Information: Additional
information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information on the National Animal
Health Laboratory Network, contact Dr.
Barbara Martin, Coordinator, National
Animal Health Laboratory Network,
NVSL, VS, APHIS, 1800 Dayton
Avenue, Ames, IA 50010; (515) 663–
7731. For copies of more detailed
information on the information
collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles,
APHIS’ Information Collection
Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: National Animal Health
Laboratory Network.
OMB Number: 0579–XXXX.
Type of Request: Approval of an
information collection.
Abstract: The Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
conducts activities and maintains
records pursuant to its missions and
responsibilities authorized by the
Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
8301–8317); Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–188);
Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-7; and Homeland Security
Presidential Directive-9.
The purpose of the National Animal
Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) is
to coordinate and network Federal
laboratory capacity with the capacity
and extensive infrastructure (facilities,
professional expertise, and support) of
State and university laboratories. APHIS
uses the system to enhance early
detection of foreign animal disease
agents and newly emerging diseases, to
better respond to animal health
emergencies (including bioterrorist
events) that threaten the nation’s food
supply and public health, and to assist
in assessing the nation’s animal health
status through targeted surveillance and
shared animal health diagnostic data.

E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM

21JAN1