LSP Member-Farmers Applaud New USDA Grass-Fed Meat Labeling Standards

Label a ‘Vast Improvement’ Over Original Proposals

CONTACT: Terry VanDerPol, LSP, 320-269-2105

10/15/07
Farmer-members of the Minnesota-based Land Stewardship Project (LSP) gave the USDA’s new labeling standards for grass-fed meat an enthusiastic thumbs up, calling them a vast improvement over original proposals. The final rules, which were released today by the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), call for a “grass-fed” meat product to come from a ruminant animal that has been fed only grass and forage during its lifetime.

“If a standard like this is going to have any real meaning it has to be strong, and this one is,” said Don Struxness, an LSP member who raises grass-fed beef near Milan, in western Minnesota. “This final standard closes many of the loopholes that were present in the USDA’s original proposals.”

Under the standard, animals considered “grass-fed” cannot be fed grain or grain byproducts and must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season. The grass-fed labeling standard does allow milk to be consumed before weaning. Under the voluntary standard, after Nov. 15 livestock producers are eligible to request that a grass-fed claim be verified by the USDA through an auditing process.

“The new rule is good news for farmers who produce and market grass-fed meat as well as consumers who want to know that purchasing grass-fed meat means that what they’re getting is just that—grass-fed,” said Terry VanDerPol, Director of the Land Stewardship Project’s Community Based Food Systems Program and a grass-fed beef producer from near Granite Falls, in western Minnesota. VanDerPol co-chaired the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition’s Marketing and Rural Development Committee, which advised USDA on the grass-fed standard.

During the past few years, LSP members joined over 19,000 farmers and consumers from across the country in providing comments on what the final grass-fed standards should look like. VanDerPol said the vast majority of the comments called for tighter restrictions on what can be labeled “grass-fed.” The public’s involvement in the rulemaking process paid off, she said.

“In 2002, the proposed rule was for 80 percent of the energy to be derived from grasses and forage, a standard nearly any feedlot animal could meet. The 2006 revision was better, but left the door open for too many questionable practices,” said VanDerPol.  “The final standard released today is an excellent example of the public’s input being taken seriously by USDA. Farmers and others are to be commended for their perseverance, and AMS is to be commended for its willingness to pull a bad rule and re-negotiate a good one.”

-30-