The USDA updated label guidelines to increase transparency — is it enough?

At the end of August, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) updated its guidelines on environmental and animal welfare claims that appear on food labels. On a first pass, the new guidelines appear to take aim at the nebulous buzzwords that have become so common: what does it mean for beef to be “climate friendly?” For pork to be “humanely raised?” For eggs to be from “free-range hens?”

The new guidelines do stipulate a new level of transparency, but they disappointingly stop short of defining most of these terms. So what do these new guidelines actually change about food labels and how we should navigate them?

What the new guidelines address — and what they don’t

There are a lot of practices involved in making sure animals like pigs are raised humanely, and while shelter is one piece of that, it’s hardly all of it. More comprehensive labels, like Animal Welfare Approved, include stipulations that ban the use of gestation crates for pregnant sows, restrict unnecessary surgical alterations and more. But under the FSIS guidelines, simply providing the explanation that access to shelter is what “humanely raised” means to the company is enough to keep using the term, which certainly gives a more holistic impression of the animals’ welfare than the small print specifies. Unfortunately, this leaves the door wide open for companies to keep exploiting these labels without committing to practices that actually increase animal welfare or meaningfully reduce the environmental footprint of their products.

That can be particularly problematic when it comes to climate claims, given that many on-farm practices that companies could point to as helping offset their greenhouse gas emissions may not all have a proven impact. Some, like methane digesters, show an on-paper reduction in greenhouse gases despite their many problems, including that they reinforce a factory farming model that’s fundamentally unsustainable in the first place. 

Will the guidelines change anything?

Without requirements for evidence or third party verification, can we expect any actual changes? Potentially. Adopting the new guidelines could help cut back on undefined or unspecific claims, which have grown increasingly troublesome as terms like “regenerative” and “sustainably grown” have gone mainstream, much like the explosion (and subsequent decline) of “foods a few decades ago. Simply mandating that companies explain what they mean when they use these terms isn’t nearly as useful as setting a consistent standard for what they mean. It will, however, at least force some transparency that will help consumers decide whether the claim means anything. And even if FSIS isn’t requiring evidence for more specific claims around animal welfare, antibiotic use or the environment, it can still choose to deny claims if it thinks they’re misleading or untrue, which could help deter companies from printing egregious, provable lies on their packaging.

It’s also worth noting that, while FSIS does have an obligation to prevent companies from making untrue claims about their products, their approval isn’t the only mechanism holding companies accountable for misleading customers: The lawsuit that forced Hormel’s to stop misusing “natural” claims on deli meat or the advancing suits against JBS for claiming it is going “carbon neutral” and against Tyson Foods for its bogus “climate-smart” beef are recent examples of litigation that provides another important deterrent against false advertising.

So how can you tell what claims actually mean?

The new guidelines aren’t totally useless for us as consumers, since they do give us access to slightly more information than we’ve had about claims like humanely raised, carbon neutral, climate friendly or sustainably farmed than we’ve had in the past. If explanations for the terms lack depth or point to only one standard, those claims may be pretty hollow. However, if the explanations for those claims give multiple details, they may be more useful. Single issue claims, like “fed an all vegetarian diet” or “100% grass fed” are a little more specifically defined, and therefore less likely to be a misleading marketing effort.

Some kinds of claims are still difficult to certify, particularly those relating to regenerative agriculture. As we’ve explored in the past, the market for these labels and claims is still evolving as scientists and farmers work to establish which practices make a significant difference when it comes to climate change, soil health, biodiversity and other factors. So, beware of the word “regenerative” slapped on a box or carton and instead look for a certified regenerative label like Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) and Certified Regenerative by AGW.

For a comprehensive overview of third party certified labels, see FoodPrint’s food label guide.

Top photo by Kristina Blokhin/Adobe Stock.