[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-4891] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: March 3, 1994] _______________________________________________________________________ Part III Department of Agriculture _______________________________________________________________________ Food Safety and Inspection Service _______________________________________________________________________ 9 CFR Parts 301 and 318 Meat Produced by Advanced Meat/Bone Separation Machinery and Meat Recovery Systems; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service 9 CFR Parts 301 and 318 [Docket No. 94-003P] RIN 0583-AB76 Meat Produced by Advanced Meat/Bone Separation Machinery and Meat Recovery Systems AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations by amending the definition of meat to include as meat product resulting from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems that do not crush, grind, or pulverize bones to remove attached skeletal tissue from the bones of livestock carcasses and parts of carcasses, establishing the criteria for meat from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems to assure consistency with the characteristics and composition of meat, and establishing requirements for the handling of meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems, as well as the material from which it is derived. This action is being taken to update the definition of meat to acknowledge and include as meat product derived from the advances made in the modification of traditional mechanical means of separating meat from the bones of livestock and the development of advanced recovery systems that do not involve grinding, crushing, or pulverizing bones to remove the adhering skeletal tissue. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 2, 1994. ADDRESSES: Written comments to: Policy Office, Attn: Diane Moore, FSIS Hearing Clerk, room 3171, South Building, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250. (See also ``Comments'' under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John W. McCutcheon, Deputy Administrator, Regulatory Programs, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-2709. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive order 12866 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12778 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. States and local jurisdictions are preempted under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) from imposing with respect to the premises, facilities, and operations of federally inspected establishments any requirements that are in addition to, or different than, those imposed under the FMIA. States and local jurisdictions may, however, impose recordkeeping and other requirements within the scope of section 202 of the FMIA, if consistent therewith, with respect to any such federally inspected establishment. States and local jurisdictions are also preempted under the FMIA from imposing any marking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirements on federally inspected meat products that are in addition to, or different than, those imposed under the FMIA. States and local jurisdictions may, however, exercise concurrent jurisdiction over meat products that are outside official establishments for the purpose of preventing the distribution of meat products that are misbranded or adulterated under the FMIA, or, in the case of imported articles, which are not at such an establishment, after their entry into the United States. Under the FMIA, States that maintain meat inspection programs must impose requirements that are at least equal to those required under the FMIA. The States may, however, impose more stringent requirements on such State inspected products and establishments. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule. The administrative procedures specified in 9 CFR 306.5 must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule, if the challenge involves any decision of a program official. The administrative procedures specified in 9 CFR part 335 must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the application of the provisions of this rule with respect to labeling decisions. Effect on Small Entities The Administrator has determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). This rule does not require either large or small establishments to use meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems. Although there are initial costs involved with the purchase of machinery and establishing quality control programs, there are no apparent direct competitive advantages that large establishments would have over small establishments. Paperwork Requirements Manufacturers producing ``meat'' resulting from advances in meat/ bone separation machinery that does not grind, crush, or pulverize bone in order to remove skeletal muscle tissues (i.e., meat) adhering to livestock bones would be required to develop and maintain a quality control program that provides the controls and information necessary to assure that the product will meet the requirements established for such product as proposed. The paperwork requirements contained in this proposed rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Comments Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this proposal. Written comments should be sent to the Policy Office and refer to Docket No. 94-003P. All written comments submitted in response to this proposal will be available for public inspection in the Policy Office from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Background Introduction The FMIA (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that the Secretary of Agriculture administer an inspection program that assures consumers that meat and meat food products distributed in commerce and within designated States\1\ are wholesome, not adulterated, and are properly marked, labeled, and packaged. Under the FMIA and regulations promulgated thereunder, FSIS provides mandatory inspection, except for certain exceptions, of meat and meat food products prepared for distribution in interstate and foreign commerce, as well as for distribution within designated States. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Designated States are States that have failed to develop or are not effectively enforcing requirements at establishments, within their jurisdiction, for the slaughter of livestock and/or the preparation of products thereof, that are at least equal to those of subchapters I and IV of the FMIA. Once a State is designated, the provisions of subchapters I and IV of the FMIA apply to the operations and transactions of establishments that operate solely within the State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal meat inspection regulations define meat in 9 CFR 301.2(rr) as follows: The part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, which is skeletal or which is found in the tongue, in the diaphragm, in the heart, or in the esophagus, with or without the accompanying and overlying fat, and the portions of bone, skin, sinew, nerve, and blood vessels which normally accompany the muscle tissue and which are not separated from it in the process of dressing. It does not include the muscle found in the lips, snout, or ears. This term, as applied to products of equines, shall have a meaning comparable to that provided in this paragraph with respect to cattle, sheep, swine, and goats. The Federal meat inspection regulations also establish a definition and standard of identity for a meat food product called ``mechanically separated (species)'' (MS(S)) in 9 CFR 319.5. ``Species'' refers to the species of livestock, e.g., beef or pork. At various times, this product has also been called mechanically deboned meat and mechanically processed (species) product. This meat food product is defined as ``any finely comminuted product resulting from the mechanical separation and removal of most of the bone from attached skeletal muscle of livestock carcasses and parts of carcasses'' and meeting the other provisions specified in 9 CFR 319.5. This provision and other provisions in the Federal meat inspection regulations provide, among other things, for: (1) A definition and standard that classifies MS(S) as a meat food product, (2) limitations on the amount of MS(S) that can be used in permitted products (viz., 20 percent of the livestock and poultry product portion of the product), (3) prohibitions on the use of MS(S) in certain products (e.g., baby food), (4) limitations on certain components of MS(S), e.g., bone particle size, bone content (measured as calcium content), protein quality, and a maximum fat content and minimum protein content, (5) requirements for handling and for the production of MS(S) under an approved quality control program, and (6) a requirement that MS(S) be separately identified in the ingredients statement of a meat food product (9 CFR 317.2 (c) and (f), 318.18, 319.5, and 319.6). FSIS's 1982 final rulemaking on MS(S) (47 FR 28214) indicates that the Agency determined that material differences in the consistency and the composition of MS(S) place it outside the scope of product traditionally defined as meat (9 CFR 301.2(rr)), and that its differences are such that it should be defined as a distinctive standardized product. As such, it should be identified by a name that adequately differentiates it from meat, viz., MS(S). When MS(S) is used in meat food products, it must be separately listed in the ingredients statement by its standardized name, e.g., ``mechanically separated beef (or pork).'' FSIS is considering issues in regard to the lack of a regulatory definition and standard for certain poultry products produced by mechanical deboning--products which are deemed to be similar to MS(S). Poultry products produced by mechanical deboning result from the mechanical separation and removal of most of the bone from attached skeletal muscle and other tissue of poultry carcasses and parts of carcasses. Over the years, the meat and poultry industries have referred to poultry product produced by mechanical deboning as ``mechanically deboned poultry'' and ``comminuted poultry,'' and have declared the product as poultry or poultry meat (e.g., ``chicken'' and ``turkey meat'') on the labels of products in which they are used as ingredients. Several red meat sausage manufacturers have alleged that without a regulatory definition and standard for poultry products produced by mechanical deboning, a disparate situation exists between labeling poultry products produced by mechanical deboning and MS(S) which poses an unfair advantage for the manufacturers of poultry products. FSIS has considered the appropriate course for addressing these issues and has initiated two actions in response to them. FSIS is contemplating proposing regulations on poultry products produced by mechanical deboning, and will be soliciting comments and requesting data on various tentative positions in a notice that appears elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. The second action is the subject of this proposed rule which focuses on the meat product derived from the advances in meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems that is comparable to ``meat'' as traditionally defined in 9 CFR 301.2(rr). FSIS now believes that advances in meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems, which do not grind, crush, or pulverize bone in order to remove skeletal muscle tissue adhering to bones of livestock (i.e., bones of cattle, sheep, swine, and goats) result in a product which, unlike MS(S), is comparable to ``meat'' as traditionally defined. Since the 1970's, there has been increasing commercial production of processed meat products that are formulated with comminuted (i.e., ground) meat, e.g., hot dogs, in order to meet the demands of the market for such products. Most of the technology that has found commercial use will evolve in the form of improvements to meet the demands of consumers and industry. The demands of the industry have centered around the desire to harvest more usable protein, i.e., muscle tissue, and to find alternatives to recovering more usable protein, from livestock carcasses to meet consumer demands for the processed meat products formulated with skeletal muscle tissue obtained by mechanical removal. Mechanization also diminishes the economic implications of removing meat by hand caused by repetitive motion disorders for workers that hand-debone carcasses and parts of carcasses using knives, and by knife accidents. Industry data\2\ indicate that over 300,000 cases of cumulative trauma disorder (e.g., Carpal Tunnel Syndrome) have occurred in the meat industry due to the strain of repetitive movements to remove meat from bones. The demands of the consumer and industry have resulted in improvements in meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems to improve yields and, simultaneously, to make the process better ergonomically. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\Data received in comments from Longmont Foods and Butterball Turkey Company on Docket No. 93-008ANPR, ``Labeling of Poultry Products Produced by Mechanical Deboning and Products in Which Such Poultry Product is Used,'' (58 FR 33040) June 1993. These data are available for public inspection in the FSIS Hearing Clerk's office. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Over the past decade, FSIS has monitored the tremendous strides in modernizing the meat/bone separation machinery. FSIS believes that there are meat/bone separators and meat recovery systems that are fundamentally different than the machines used to manufacture MS(S). These differences occur in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of the process of separating skeletal muscle tissue and bone. The Removal of Muscle Tissue From Livestock Bones Since the advent of automatic means of skeletal muscle tissue removal from bone using high-speed knives, e.g., the Wizard knife, machines that are classified as meat/bone separators have been developed that emulate the physical action of the high-speed knives. The advances in meat/bone separation have led to recovery systems that separate meat from bone without crushing, grinding, or pulverizing bones such that the meat is removed by shaving, pressing, or scraping the muscle tissue from the bone surface similar to the action of the hand-held high-speed knives. Thus, this meat is obtained in much the same manner as that which is obtained using traditional hand-deboning techniques, where the bones emerge separately from the meat in the process, essentially intact and in natural physical conformation. For example, the most commonly used bones would include rib bones and loin bones and would be recognized as such when they emerge from the meat/ bone separation machinery. FSIS believes that the description of the bones from which muscle tissue has been removed as ``essentially intact'' is consistent with the description of the bones resulting from the removal of muscle tissue by hand-deboning using knives, including high-speed mechanical knives, such as the Wizard knife. FSIS recognizes that even with the use of hand-operated knives, e.g., in the processing establishment, at the supermarket meat counter, or by the consumer, there is the possibility of shaving, pressing, or scraping close to the bone surface so as to unavoidably remove a minute amount of the bone's surface when meat is removed. FSIS believes that this is a normal occurrence because of the difficulty in exercising precision in hand- deboning operations, and, as such, it is still in conformance with good manufacturing practices that render products safe and wholesome. Because the bones emerge from the advanced meat/bone separators in their natural shape and structure, i.e., with the connective tissue linkages that normally occur in bones, FSIS maintains that they are in natural physical conformation. Furthermore, under FSIS's longstanding boneless meat inspection procedure for meat derived by hand-deboning techniques, it is expected that the finished comminuted (i.e., ground) meat product made from the meat removed from livestock bones contains no bone perceptible to sight or touch. This result would be expected for meat derived from the advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems. In contrast, the mechanism of traditional mechanical deboning machines from which MS(S) results, involves mechanically separating and removing most of the bone from attached skeletal muscle of livestock through the application of high pressure to crush, grind, and pulverize bones from which most of the meat has already been removed, and then using high pressure to force the resulting paste through a sieve to separate bone particles and fragments that result from crushing and pulverizing bones during processing. Due to the mechanism of the machinery used to manufacture MS(S), bone and bone particles, including bone marrow, are incorporated into the finished product. The regulation on MS(S) in 9 CFR 319.5 does not specify the type of equipment used to separate and remove bone because it is intended to cover the product manufactured by any such machinery that operates on the differing resistance of hard bone and soft tissue to passage through small openings, whether it employs sieves, screens, or other devices and whether or not bones are pre-broken before being fed into such equipment. However, the regulation on MS(S) is not intended to apply to whole pieces of muscle tissue which have been removed from livestock bones by mechanical or other means (47 FR 28223). FSIS has determined that the consistency of MS(S) and its content of bone, including bone marrow, and certain minerals, as well as muscle tissue, are materially different from those of ``meat,'' and that these differences have potential consequences for finished product quality and for health and safety which are addressed by the regulations for MS(S) (9 CFR 318.18, 319.5, and 319.6) and supported by the Agency's 1979 report on the health and safety aspects of mechanically deboned meat.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\A copy of the report entitled, ``Health and Safety Aspects of the Use of Mechanically Deboned Meat, Final Report and Recommendations Select Panel'' and ``Health and Safety Aspects of the Use of Mechanically Deboned Meat, Volume II. Background Materials and Details of Data'' is available for public inspection in the FSIS Hearing Clerk's office. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Starting Materials The starting materials from which the meat from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems results are intact livestock bones with adhering skeletal muscle and other soft tissue. While it has been reported that it is possible to use whole carcasses, the raw materials for this type of processing generally are parts of carcasses with skeletal muscle attached. Adhering skeletal muscle tissue usually varies in amount, depending on the anatomical origin and size of the bones. Typically, the livestock bones with adhering skeletal tissue applicable to the advances in meat recovery are those where the adhering tissue cannot be efficiently or effectively removed by traditional hand-deboning techniques, and the bones are of sufficient hardness and of appropriate size compatible with the operation of the advanced meat/bone separator/meat recovery system. It is FSIS's understanding that the advanced machinery is capable of handling medium to smaller size bones, e.g., rib bones, button bones, loin bones, and feather bones. The fact that no bone crushing, grinding, or pulverizing occurs limits the types of bones that are used. The bones must be hard enough to emerge from the process essentially intact and in natural physical conformation. In the traditional mechanical deboning process, described in the 1982 final regulations on MS(S) (47 FR 28214), it is possible to use whole carcasses; however, generally, the raw materials for the conventional process are parts of carcasses from which most of the skeletal muscle already has been removed by traditional hand-deboning methods. With the mechanical deboning technology described in the regulations on MS(S), these bones are broken up and pushed under high pressure through equipment with apertures that allow a small amount of powdered bone to pass through with the soft tissue. Characteristics and Composition of Meat FSIS believes that the resulting product derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems is comparable to meat derived by hand-deboning techniques, including the use of mechanical knives and that, as such it warrants classification as ``meat.'' FSIS believes that current relevant Federal meat inspection regulations on labeling meat should apply, and, as such, the ``meat'' derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems may be described by any term that accurately reflects it as meat. Advanced meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems apply a process mechanism that shaves, presses or scrapes adhering tissue from the surface of livestock bones. The machines do not grind, crush, or pulverize bones to separate muscle tissue, and the bones and the interconnecting soft tissues that link bones emerge from the process in a manner consistent with hand-deboning operations that use knives. Meat products derived by advanced meat/bone separation are characterized by identifiable muscle fiber structure, visible differentiation of lean and fat, and components normally associated with and expected in meat obtained by hand-deboning. The advanced recovery systems produce distinct whole pieces of skeletal muscle tissue with a well-defined particulate size similar in consistency to (species) trimmings derived by hand-deboning and used to formulate processed meat products. The color of the meat derived from these systems is similar to that of (species) trimmings.\4\ As such, the meat derived from the advanced recovery systems conforms to the definition of ``meat'' because it has the functional and chemical characteristics of meat; there are no powdered bone or constituents of bone, e.g., bone marrow, that are not in conformance with the definition and expectation of meat or that which would render the product adulterated or misbranded under the regulations. It is FSIS's belief that, unlike MS(S), consumer expectations of ``meat'' are met with regard to the product obtained from the advances in meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems, because the product's characteristics, in terms of appearance and texture, and its composition are similar to those of ``meat,'' as currently defined in 9 CFR 301.2(rr). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\Data provided to the Agency by Millbank Processing Machinery Inc., Englewood, Colorado, are available for public inspection in the FSIS Hearing Clerk's office. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In contrast, MS(S) differs from hand-deboned meat and the meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation due to its highly comminuted, spread-like consistency and its content of varying amounts of bone, including bone marrow, and certain minerals, as well as muscle tissue. MS(S) is amorphous and lacks the characteristic components seen in meat, e.g., muscle fiber, the presence of connective tissue fibers in the way they occur naturally, and distinct lean and fat components. These characteristics render the product materially different than meat. The Proposal FSIS is proposing to amend the definition of meat in the Federal meat inspection regulations (9 CFR 301.2(rr)) to include as meat product resulting from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems, establish criteria for meat from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems, and establish requirements for the handling of meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems, as well as the material from which it is derived. FSIS is proposing these amendments to the Federal meat inspection regulations to update the definition of meat to include as meat product produced from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems. It is FSIS's intent to recognize that (1) substantial advances have occurred with regard to the machinery for separating skeletal muscle of livestock carcasses and parts of carcasses from livestock bones, since the promulgation of rules on the production, use, and labeling of MS(S) and the products in which it is used as an ingredient, and that (2) the characteristics and composition of the meat from these advances are comparable to the product traditionally defined as ``meat.'' In proposing the amendments, FSIS continues to fulfill its statutory responsibility to prevent the preparation and distribution in commerce of meat and meat food products which are adulterated or misbranded or not properly marked, labeled, or packaged. 1. Definition of Meat The proposal would amend the definition of ``meat'' set forth in 9 CFR 301.2(rr) of the Federal meat inspection regulations to include as meat product, meeting certain criteria, that is derived from the mechanical separation of skeletal muscle tissue from the bones of livestock by using advanced mechanical meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems that do not crush, grind, or pulverize bones, and from which the bones emerge comparable to those resulting from hand-deboning, i.e., essentially intact and in natural physical conformation such that they are recognizable as loin bones, rib bones, etc., when they emerge from the machinery. As previously stated, FSIS believes that meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems has the functional and chemical characteristics of ``meat.'' This product is also comparable to meat derived by hand-deboning techniques, including mechanical high-speed knives. FSIS further believes that consumer expectations of ``meat'' are met with regard to the identity of the product, because the product's characteristics, in terms of appearance and texture, and its composition are similar to those of ``meat,'' as currently defined in 9 CFR 301.2(rr). Therefore, FSIS is proposing to amend the definition of ``meat'' to include meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems. 2. Criteria for Meat Derived From Advanced Meat/Bone Separation Machinery and Recovery Systems The proposal would establish protein quality and calcium content criteria for meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems and assure its compliance with such criteria through a quality control program in order to assure conformance with consumer expectations of ``meat'' and production of ``meat'' comparable to that obtained by hand-deboning techniques. A maximum calcium content (as a measure of bone solids) of not more than 0.15 percent or 150 mg/ 100 gm of product (within a tolerance of 0.03 percent or 30 mg) and a minimum protein quality requirement of a protein digestibility- corrected amino acid score of not less than 40 expressed as a percent, or an alternative measure of at least 33 percent essential amino acids of the total amino acids present, would be established for the product. FSIS has carefully considered whether there is a need to establish minimum protein and/or maximum fat content(s) for product derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems. FSIS believes that such action is not necessary because protein and fat are nutrients whose declaration becomes mandatory on the labeling of most multi-ingredient meat and poultry products upon the effective date of the nutrition labeling regulations which is July 6, 1994 (58 FR 632). These regulations also establish a voluntary nutrition labeling program for single-ingredient, raw products, and specify that FSIS will evaluate significant participation of the voluntary program. If significant participation is not found, FSIS shall initiate rulemaking to require nutrition labeling on those products under the voluntary program. Therefore, with certain exceptions, consumers will have complete information about the two nutrients in muscle meat that are the sole source of calories and are characteristic of the nutrient profile of meat. Such information will ensure that consumers are not misled about the composition of products containing meat obtained using advanced meat/bone separation machinery. FSIS recognizes that not all products sold to consumers at the retail level will carry nutrition labeling. FSIS's final regulation on nutrition labeling provided for certain exceptions, including products produced by small businesses and products in individually wrapped packages of less than \1/2\ ounce net weight, provided that the labels for these products bear no nutrition claims or nutrition information. However, labeling will be required on most processed products purchased by consumers in retail stores so that, together with the voluntary program for retail store information on single-ingredient, raw products, consumers will have information on protein and fat for most products purchased for consumption at home. Furthermore, FSIS believes that the fat and protein contents of meat derived from advanced meat/ bone separation machinery and recovery systems would be comparable to the fat and protein contents of meat derived from hand-deboning. Based on these considerations, FSIS maintains that there is no need to establish minimum protein and/or maximum fat contents for products derived from advanced meat/bone separation and recovery systems. a. Calcium content. FSIS is proposing to include in the amendment to the definition of ``meat,'' criteria on maximum calcium content (as a measure of bone solids content) of this meat to assure that the meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems is both consistent with consumer expectations of ``meat,'' e.g., beef trimmings, and comparable to ``meat,'' as traditionally defined, that is used to formulate further processed meat food products. The criteria is a measure designed to ensure that bones are not crushed, ground, or pulverized during processing. The maximum calcium content of 0.15 percent or 150 mg/100 gm of product is supported by data submitted to FSIS for the product derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery.\5\ Furthermore, based upon analytical repeatability studies conducted by the Agency for calcium, FSIS proposes to establish a tolerance, i.e., allowance for statistical variability, of 0.03 percent or 30 mg/100 gm for individual samples.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\A summary report of data provided to FSIS on the calcium content of meat from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems is available for public inspection in the FSIS Hearing Clerk's Office. \6\A copy of an FSIS report containing data on the repeatability of analyzing calcium content (June 1992) is available for public inspection in the FSIS Hearing Clerk's Office. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. Protein quality. FSIS is proposing to require that meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems meet a minimum protein quality requirement--a protein digestibility- corrected amino acid score of not less than 40 expressed as a percent and to accept as evidence of compliance with this requirement an alternative measurement--the content of 7 essential amino acids being at least 33 percent of the total of 17 amino acids present. Protein quality is a measure of the content, proportion, and availability of essential amino acids in food protein and a measure of the ability of the food protein to support human growth and body protein maintenance. When the regulations on MS(S) were published in 1982 (47 FR 28214), one of the methods specified for measuring protein quality was the Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) procedure. The PER method measures the ability of a protein source to support growth in young growing rats, and is an expensive and time-consuming assay. FSIS adopted a newer method for measuring protein quality, in order to assure the value of the protein contributed by meat and poultry to human dietary needs, in its final regulations on nutrition labeling of meat and poultry products published in the Federal Register on January 6, 1993 (58 FR 632). The newer procedure, termed the protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score method, is contained in ``Protein Quality Evaluation, Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Protein Quality Evaluation,'' Rome, 1990.\7\ The protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score method is based on human amino acid requirements and, therefore, is more appropriate for evaluating the protein quality of foods for human consumption than the PER which is based on amino acid requirements of rats. The protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score method measures the ability of amino acids in food proteins to meet the dietary protein needs of humans. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\A copy of the document is available for public inspection in the FSIS Hearing Clerk's Office. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FSIS is proposing to require that the protein in meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation and recovery systems have a protein quality value that is a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score of not less than 40 expressed as a percent. The protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score would be required to be determined by methods given in sections 5.4.1, 7.2.1, and 8.00 in the ``Protein Quality Evaluation, Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Protein Quality Evaluation'' which is incorporated by reference in the proposed rule. The proposed protein digestibility- corrected amino acid score or not less than 40 expressed as a percent is consistent with nutrition labeling requirements for protein in foods for children older than one but less than four years of age, as provided in 21 CFR 101.9(c)(7), which FSIS cross-referenced in its final nutrition labeling regulations (58 FR 632) in 9 CFR 317.309(b). FSIS believes this value protects the young consumer from inadequate nutrition from the use of poor quality protein (i.e., protein that does not meet the dietary needs for growth) and, in turn, protects people other than young consumers. FSIS also believes it is appropriate to assure comparability of the meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation systems with that derived by hand-deboning to maintain the quality and integrity of the meat supply. FSIS is proposing to permit an alternative measurement to the protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score method, which requires a digestibility measurement in addition to an amino acid analysis, to control the cost of monitoring compliance with the protein quality requirement. FSIS is proposing that, for the purpose of measuring the protein quality of meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems, an alternative measurement of protein quality would be allowed that is comparable to the protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score. This measure would be based on a comparison between the ``essential amino acid content of meat'' and ``total amino acids present in meat,'' i.e., an essential amino acid content of at least 33 percent of the total amino acids present in the meat. Essential amino acid content includes isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, and valine content, and the total amino acids present include isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, valine, tyrosine, arginine, histidine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, glycine, proline, serine, and hydroxyproline content. The essential amino acid content would be required to be determined by methods given in sections 5.4.1, 7.2.1, and 8.00 in the ``Protein Quality Evaluation, Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Protein Quality Evaluation'' which is incorporated by reference in the proposed rule. FSIS continues to believe that meat found to be in compliance by the proposed amino acid content measurement would have protein of high quality. This belief is supported by the 1982-83 evaluation of an Expert Work Group that was organized by the Department's Agricultural Research Service, in cooperation with the University of Maryland, to develop recommendations based on available scientific knowledge for consideration in policy decisions regarding the protein quality of meat, poultry, and their products.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\``The Protein Nutritional Quality of Meat and Poultry Products: Scientific Basis for Regulation'' is the final report of the Expert Working group, with accompanying background papers. C.E. Bodwell, ed., American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 40(3): 671- 742, supplement, September 1984. A copy of the report is available for public inspection in the FSIS Hearing Clerk's office. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The public should be aware that FSIS continues to have interest in investigations of protein quality which include among their objectives the identification of improved methods for determining protein quality. In evaluating the possible use of alternative approaches to assuring protein quality, FSIS will consider data and other comments submitted by the public. c. Qualify control. FSIS is proposing to require that meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems be produced under an approved quality control program. FSIS believes quality control is necessary to assure that establishments manufacture meat from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems that complies with the provisions of the proposed amendment of the definition of meat. Utilization of such a quality control program in producing this product would be prerequisite for the approval of labels for products consisting of or containing meat from advanced recovery systems. In other words, an approved quality control program would be necessary prior to the production of meat using advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems. The function of a quality control program would be to restrict potential deviations from the prescribed definition of meat by controlling the factors that can affect conformance with the definition. Thus, it is proposed to require that the quality control program provide the controls and information necessary to assure that the meat from advanced meat/bone separation and recovery systems will meet each of the requirements of the regulations and will enable establishment personnel and FSIS to monitor it for effectiveness. FSIS is focusing on methods that will maintain the uniformity of starting materials and control the handling and processing of starting materials and resulting product. The methods of analysis for calcium and protein quality that are permitted and are intended to be used should be identified in the quality control system. Under the proposal, the owner or operator of an establishment that intends to manufacture meat from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems would request the Administrator of FSIS to approve the establishment's quality control program. The procedures and criteria for receiving such requests and assessing the adequacy of programs for quality control, as well as for terminating approval, would be those set forth in 9 CFR 318.4. These provisions provide guidance on the development and maintenance of appropriate quality control programs. FSIS believes that with a quality control approach to preventing noncompliance from occurring, the need for testing the resulting product to assure compliance can be reduced and, consequently, the costs of production kept down. Moreover, the proposed quality control requirement builds on the control and information programs that processors use to predict and minimize the likelihood of manufacturing products that are inconsistent and of varying quality, and do not comply with regulatory requirements. Proposing to rely on a approved quality control program, rather than continual testing by processors, is a means for assuring that operations achieve compliance with the applicable proposed requirements and, thereby, prevents misbranding and adulteration of the resulting meat. The goal of preventing misbranding and adulteration are key issues with regard to meat products produced by mechanical meat/bone separation, and can be achieved effectively and efficiently where a program for quality control incorporates appropriate methods and monitoring techniques, and adheres to good manufacturing practices. FSIS believes that product exceeding the calcium limit should not be classified as meat because if it exceeds the proposed calcium limits, it would reflect unacceptable incorporation of bone in the product during processing. To ensure that product satisfies the calcium requirement, FSIS is proposing that a sample of at least one pound from each lot of production would be taken and analyzed for calcium. A lot would consist of the meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems, designated as such by the operator of the establishment or his or her agent, from the product produced from a single species of livestock in no more than one continuous shift of up to 12 hours. The results from chemical analyses would be compared to the requirement of 150 mg/100 gm of product within a tolerance of 0.03 percent or 30 mg. If statistical evidence exists that product may not be in compliance, then further sampling of the product will be required to demonstrate that the product is in compliance with requirements for meat derived from meat/bone separation and recovery systems. It is proposed that statistical evidence of non-compliance exists when an individual analytical result is more than 0.03 percent (i.e., 30 mg) above the requirement, i.e., greater than 0.18 percent (i.e., 180 mg). (This tolerance is derived by equating it to three times the expected standard deviation (i.e., 0.1 percent) of the analytical procedure used by FSIS to measure the calcium contents in samples.)\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\Data from a FSIS study are available for public inspection in the FSIS Hearing Clerk's office. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If any single analytical result is more than 0.18 percent, FSIS proposes that, before product from a production lot that is still at the establishment or one subsequently produced can be considered to be in compliance, at least three samples\10\ from that lot must be taken and analyzed for calcium, either separately or as a composite (i.e., combining the three samples for analysis), at the option of the establishment. The average of the results or the composite result must comply with the requirement for calcium (i.e., less than or equal to 0.15 percent). Taking three samples from each lost would continue until five consecutive lots\11\ have mean or composite results less than or equal to 0.15 percent. Individual results or an average of results would be rounded to the nearest 0.01 percent based on the precision of the methodology for measuring calcium. If the FSIS program official detects any results out of compliance, the program official may undertake normal compliance procedures. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\Three samples, either analyzed as individual samples or as a composite sample (i.e., combining the three samples), are statistically representative for measuring calcium in a production lot. \11\The provision for sampling five consecutive production lots is based on statistical sampling principles that ensure the process is in control and that mean or composite calcium results are less than or equal to the calcium requirement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FSIS believes that, if the statistical evidence indicates that a production lot is not in compliance with the calcium requirement, the lot must be labeled as MS(S) and meet the requirements for MS(S) in 9 CFR 319.5. In this situation, FSIS believes that the process is out of control, and there is the likelihood that too much calcium has been incorporated in the recovered meat, and, therefore, it should be identified as MS(S). FSIS is proposing that at least one pound of product be sampled each week during production of a lot for conformance with protein quality criteria. Once three consecutive results from 3 production lots are in compliance with the criteria on protein quality (i.e., a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score or essential amino acid content), sampling of production lots can be reduced to a monthly basis. After 6 months, sampling of production lots can be reduced to a quarterly basis.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\This sampling schedule ensures the statistical representation of the production lots is achieved in regard to measuring protein quality. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subsequently, if samples are out of compliance, sampling each week would be repeated until the results are in compliance. A major concern of FSIS is the assurance that consumers receive the quality of meat they expect in terms of the value of protein needed to sustain good nutrition. Therefore, FSIS is proposing that product from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems that does not meet the requirements of the criteria for protein quality must be identified as ``(species) fat'' or ``(species) connective tissue,'' and labeled in accordance with the applicable provisions in 9 CFR Part 317. Protein quality values less than the proposed criteria are comparable to those associated with ``(species) fat'' and ``(species) connective tissue.'' 3. Handling requirements. FSIS is proposing to specify requirements for the handling of material that is to be processed into meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems and for handling such product. FSIS is proposing that the handling of such material comply with the same provisions as are currently prescribed in 9 CFR 318.18 for handling material for mechanical processing. FSIS believes that potential bacterial hazards are diminished as long as handling accords with good manufacturing practices. Because meat from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems consists of particulates of muscle tissue having more surface area than whole muscle cuts, there is a greater potential for bacterial hazards. FSIS has, therefore, concluded that processing and storage requirements are warranted for the raw materials used to make the product and for the product itself. FSIS is proposing to adopt the handling requirements prescribed in 9 CFR 318.18. These requirements would provide that material to be processed into meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems be processed within 1 hour from the time it is cut or separated from livestock carcasses or parts of carcasses, except that such product may be held for no more than 72 hours at 40 deg.F (4 deg.C) or less, or held indefinitely at 0 deg.F (-18 deg. C) or less. Meat from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems must be used as an ingredient in a meat food product directly after being processed, except that it may be held prior to such use for no more 72 hours at 40 deg.F (4 deg.C) or less or indefinitely at 0 deg.F (-18 deg. C) or less. List of Subjects 9 CFR Part 301 Meat inspection. 9 CFR Part 318 Incorporation by reference, Meat inspection, Quality control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Rule For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR parts 301 and 318 as follows: PART 301--DEFINITIONS 1. The authority citation for part 301 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.55. 2. Section 301.2 would be amended by revising paragraph (rr) to read as follows: Sec. 301.2 Definitions. * * * * * (rr) Meat. (1) The part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, which is skeletal or which is found in the tongue, in the diaphragm, in the heart, or in the esophagus, with or without the accompanying and overlying fat, and the portions of bone, skin, sinew, nerve, and blood vessels which normally accompany the muscle tissue and which are not separated from it in the process of dressing. It does not include the muscle found in the lips, snout, or ears. This term, as applied to products of equines, shall have a meaning comparable to that provided in this paragraph with respect to cattle, sheep, swine, and goats. (2) The product derived from the mechanical separation of the skeletal muscle tissue from the bones of livestock using the advances in mechanical meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems that do not crush, grind, or pulverize bones, and from which the bones emerge comparable to those resulting from hand-deboning (i.e., essentially intact and in natural physical conformation such that they are recognizable, such as loin bones and rib bones, when they emerge from the machinery) which: (i) Meets the criteria of no more than 0.15 percent or 150 mg/100 gm of product for calcium (as a measure of bone solids content) within a tolerance of 0.03 percent or 30 mg and meets the criteria of a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score of not less than 40 expressed as a percent or an essential amino acids content of at least 33 percent of the total amino acids present in the meat, as assured by an approved quality control program described in Sec. 318.24 of this subchapter; (ii) Is produced under an approved quality control program set forth in Sec. 318.24 of this subchapter; and (iii) Is handled in conformance with Sec. 318.18 of this subchapter. * * * * * PART 318--ENTRY INTO OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENTS; REINSPECTION AND PREPARATION OF PRODUCTS 3. The authority citation for part 318 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.55. 4. Section 318.18 would be revised to read as follows: Sec. 318.18 Handling of certain material for mechanical processing. Material to be processed into ``Mechanically Separated (Species)'' or meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems shall be so processed within 1 hour from the time it is cut or separated from carcasses or parts of carcasses, except that such product may be held for no more than 72 hours at 40 deg.F. (4 deg.C.) or less, or held indefinitely at 0 deg.F. (-18 deg.C.) or less. ``Mechanically Separated (Species)'' or meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems shall, directly after being processed, be used as an ingredient in a meat food product, except that it may be held prior to such use for no more than 72 hours at 40 deg.F. (4 deg.C.) or less or indefinitely at 0 deg.F. (-18 deg.C.) or less. 5. Part 318 would be amended by adding a new Sec. 318.24 to read as follows: Sec. 318.24 Compliance procedures for meat derived from advanced meat/ bone separation machinery and recovery systems. (a) The product resulting from the separating process shall not have a calcium content exceeding 0.15 percent or 150 mg/100 gm of product within a tolerance of 0.03 percent or 30 mg, and it shall have a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score of not less than 40 expressed as a percent (except as modified in paragraph (b) of this section). (b) An essential amino acid content of at least 33 percent of the total amino acids present in the meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems shall be accepted as evidence of compliance with the protein quality requirement set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. For purposes of this paragraph, essential amino acid content includes isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, and valine content, and the total amino acids present include isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, valine, tyrosine, arginine, histidine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, glycine, proline, serine, and hydroxyproline content. (c) A prerequisite for label approval for meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems is that it shall have been produced by an establishment under an approved plant quality control program. The Administrator shall receive, evaluate, and approve requests for plant quality control in accordance with Sec. 318.4(d) (1) and (2) and (e). Such a plant quality control system shall provide the controls and information necessary to assure that the product will meet the requirements described in Sec. 301.2(rr)(2) of this subchapter and will enable establishment personnel and program employees to monitor the system for effectiveness. The system shall include a written description of the methods used by the establishment to maintain uniformity of the raw ingredients used in manufacturing the product and to control the handling and processing of the raw ingredients and the finished product, and shall contain provisions for chemical analyses of the product and other procedures to determine and assure compliance with the definition of the product. For purposes of this paragraph, a lot shall consist of the meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems, designated as such by the operator of the establishment or his or her agent, from the product produced from a single species of livestock in no more than one continuous shift of up to 12 hours. All units of any lot must be available for inspection by program employees. The plant quality control program shall be subject to periodic review, and the approval of such program may be terminated in accordance with Sec. 318.4(g). (1) To verify the calcium content in meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems, an analysis of a sample of at least one pound from each lot shall be performed by the operator of the establishment or his or her agent. Individual results from the chemical analyses shall be compared to the calcium limit, prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section, in order to demonstrate compliance. If compliance is not demonstrated, that is, if any single analytical result is more than 0.18%,\1\\2\ before product from a production lot that is still at the establishment or one that is subsequently produced can be considered to be in compliance, at least three samples from that production lot shall be taken and analyzed for calcium, either separately, or, at the option of the establishment, as a composite (i.e., combining the three samples for analysis). The average of the results or the composite result must be less than or equal to 0.15%. Taking three samples from each subsequently produced lot and analyzing them in order to demonstrate compliance shall continue until five consecutive lots have mean or composite results less than or equal to 0.15%. If the statistical evidence indicates that a production lot is not in compliance with the calcium limit, as prescribed in Sec. 301.2(rr)(2) of this subchapter, the lot must be labeled as MS(S) and meet all of the requirements for MS(S) in Sec. 319.5 of this subchapter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\The value 0.18% was derived by multiplying by 3 the expected analytical standard deviation obtained by FSIS laboratories on the approved chemical procedure for measuring calcium which uses Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) as provided in the ``Official Methods of Analysis of the AOAC International'' (formerly the Association of Official Analytical Chemists), 15th Ed. (1990). \2\Individual or an average of results shall be rounded to the nearest 0.01% calcium. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) To verify the protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score or the essential amino acid content in meat derived from advanced meat/ bone separation machinery and recovery systems, an analysis of a sample of at least one pound shall be performed by the operator of the establishment or his or her agency each week during production of a lot to assure that product will meet the requirements of Sec. 301.2(rr)(2) of this subchapter. Once three consecutive results from three production lots are in compliance with the criteria on protein quality (i.e., a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score of not less than 40 expressed as a percent, as reflected in paragraph (a) of this section or an essential amino acid content of at least 33 percent of the total amino acids present, as reflected in paragraph (b) of this section), sampling of production lots can be reduced to a monthly basis. After 6 months, sampling of production lots can be reduced to a quarterly basis. Subsequently, if samples are out of compliance, sampling each week would be repeated until three consecutive results from three production lots are in compliance. The protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score and the essential amino acid content shall be determined by methods given in sections 5.4.1, 7.2.1, and 8.00 in ``Protein Quality Evaluation, Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Protein Quality Evaluation,'' Rome, 1990. The ``Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Protein Quality Evaluation'' as published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization is incorporated as it exists on the date of approval. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies are available from the Division of Nutrition, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFF-260), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204. It is also available for inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol St. NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. Product resulting from the separating process which fails to meet the protein quality requirement in Sec. 301.2(rr)(2) of this subchapter, shall be labeled as ``(Species) fat'' or ``(Species) connective tissue.'' Done at Washington, DC on: February 25, 1994. Patricia Jensen, Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Inspection Services. [FR Doc. 94-4891 Filed 3-2-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-M