Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations D. Guidance for Specific Industries Some commenters requested tailored guidance for specific industries.
Specifically, representatives of the beef and shrimp industries requested guidance on whether the Rule would apply to their products, and specific guidance on how to apply all or virtually all in these contexts.
1. Beef The Commission received more than 450 comments urging the Commission to clarify that the rule applies to beef products. These stakeholders, primarily U.S. ranchers and industry groups representing domestic ranchers, generally supported the rule and argued it should supersede United States Department of Agriculture USDA
guidance on using Product of USA
claims on beef product labels. Although they acknowledged the USDAs longstanding authority over beef labeling, they expressed concern USDAs Food Safety Inspection Service FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book currently authorizes producers to place Product of USA
labels on beef products processed in the USA but comprised of cattle born, raised, and slaughtered overseas. These commenters argued such labels deceive consumers, and put U.S. family farmers and ranchers at an unfair disadvantage in the marketplace, because they are not able to differentiate their domestically produced meat and meat products from foreign produced meat and meat products. 85
Accordingly, they argued the all or virtually all standard should apply to beef products, and beef products should only bear a Product of USA label if they derive from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States.86
In contrast, five commenters argued Congress granted the USDA generally, and the FSIS specifically, authority to address country-of-origin labeling for meat and meat food products. Therefore, they argued, the FTC should defer to the USDA on this issue.87 The North American Meat Institute and the Meat Importers Council of America submitted a joint comment stating beef 85 North
Dakota Farmers Union 412.
Commission also received more than 150
comments stating country-of-origin labeling should be mandatory for beef products.
87 See, e.g., Mexicos National Confederation of Livestock Organizations 431; North American Meat Institute and Meat Importers Council of America 508; National Cattlemens Beef Association 589; Montana Stockgrowers Association 635; Embassy of Canada 637. Some of these stakeholders argued the FTC should specifically exempt meat labeling from the Rules coverage.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

86 The
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:14 Jul 13, 2021

Jkt 253001

commenters concerns are misplaced because they fail to recognize that the USDAs FSIS has primary jurisdiction over the meat and poultry labeling through the authority provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act FMIA and the Poultry Products Inspection Act PPIA. 88 The Montana Stockgrowers Association agreed, explaining that even though it supports USA beef as being defined as born, raised, harvested, and processed in the USA . . . its members think the USDA should be the lead agency to address enforcement of labels that include all meat products. 89
Moreover, some commenters raised concerns applying the FTCs rule to beef products could lead to challenges in, or even sanctions by, the WTO, given past proceedings relating to beef labeling.90
2. Shrimp The Commission also received dozens of comments from representatives of the domestic shrimp industry. Most of these expressed general support for the proposed rule, and recommended the FTC allow MUSA labels only for shrimp caught, harvested, and processed in the United States.
Although they expressed enthusiasm for the potential application of the proposed MUSA rules all or virtually all standard in shrimp labeling, commenters acknowledged that USDAs Country of Origin Labeling COOL
regulations 91 have primary authority in this space. The COOL regulations require retail establishments to provide country-of-origin information for wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish,92 and incorporate specific standards under which marketers can label shrimp as MUSA.93 However, commenters identified a possible gap in regulatory coverage, explaining that, pursuant to USDA Agricultural Marketing Service AMS regulations governing country-of-origin labeling for fish and shellfish, COOL does not apply to processed shrimp products, including 88 North American Meat Institute and the Meat Importers Council of America 508. See also National Cattlemens Beef Association 589
reminding FTC that the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq. grants the U.S.
Department of Agriculture USDA primary jurisdiction over all meat food product oversight activities, including the approval and verification of geographic and origin labeling claims..
89 Montana Stockgrowers Association 635.
90 Mexicos National Confederation of Livestock Organizations 431; National Cattlemens Beef Association 589; see also Embassy of Canada 637
stating, in light of 2015 WTO proceedings, the Government of Canada will continue to closely monitor the development of the proposed Rule.
91 7 CFR part 60.
92 7 U.S.C. 16381.
93 7 CFR 60.128.

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

37029

breaded or marinated shrimp.94 In addition, as described above in Section II.C.1., these commenters noted that USDA COOL regulations do not apply to claims regarding shrimp or shrimp products on restaurant menus.95 Thus, these commenters urged the FTC to use its authority to enforce the MUSA
rule with respect to these categories of shrimp products, thereby . . . filling a void in federal labeling accountability and providing certainty to the seafood market during this time of widespread economic instability. 96
3. Analysis The FTC shares jurisdiction over country-of-origin claims for agricultural products with the USDA and, in some instances, the Food and Drug Administration FDA. USDA and FDA have primary jurisdiction over labeling issues for the food products within their purview.97 Section 45a specifically provides that Nothing in this section shall preclude the application of other provisions of law relating to labeling. 98 Accordingly, Section 323.5a of this rule makes clear that the rule does not supersede, alter, or affect the application of any other federal statute or regulation relating to country-of-origin labeling requirements, including but not limited to regulations issued under the FMIA, 21 U.S.C. 601
et seq.; the Poultry Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.; or the Egg Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 1031
et seq.
Congress has granted the USDAs FSIS specific authority to regulate agricultural products, including, among others, beef and chicken products. The USDA regulates labels on meat products sold at retail pursuant to the FMIA, which prohibits misleading labels.99
Although FSISs Policy Book has permitted voluntary claims of Product of USA for imported products under FSISs jurisdiction, including beef products, processed in the USA, FSIS
recently explained this guidance may be misleading to consumers and may not meet consumer expectations of what Product of USA signifies. 100
Accordingly, the USDA announced plans to initiate a rulemaking to alleviate any potential confusion in the 94 ASPA

633 citing 7 CFR 60.119.
e.g., Southern Shrimp Alliance 380.
96 ASPA 633, at 2.
97 See Memorandum of Understanding between Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration, 36 FR 18539 Sept. 16, 1971.
98 15 U.S.C. 45a.
99 21 U.S.C. 601n1; 9 CFR 317.8a prohibiting labels that convey any false indication of origin.
100 See R. Edelstein Letter to E. Drake Mar. 26, 2020.
95 See,
E:FRFM14JYR1.SGM

14JYR1