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

by Ryan Nebeker

Published: 9/12/24, Last updated: 9/18/24

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

Learn more about

The most important thing to understand is that the new guidelines are not rules, and they don’t provide definitions or standards for the claims that companies make on labels. Rather, they’re recommendations to help businesses understand what they need to do to get their labels approved by FSIS, which is legally obligated to review and approve claims before they’re used to market a product.

The main change made in the new guidelines is the stipulation that producers have to explain what the claim means (either on the label itself or a website it links to) in order for it to be approved. This means that labels will need to be more specific than they have been in the past, and terms like “pasture raised,” “free range” or “sustainably grown” will need an explanation of what production practices are behind the claim. In theory, that’s a big upgrade for largely unregulated terms that could be used without further explanation in the past.

But that still allows companies to make a nebulous claim like “humanely raised,” provided they give a definition for what that means to them. And that definition can be pretty underwhelming: In one example label provided by FSIS, the hypothetical claim that pork is “humanely raised” is accompanied by the explanation that the company “defines humanely raised as all pork being provided with proper shelter and resting areas.”

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. 

Closing loopholes like these would require the USDA to set standards for claims, something it’s been unwilling to do. This is in part due to the fact that the agency doesn’t have on-farm oversight that would enable it to verify whether standards were being followed. As a solution, it delegates that responsibility out of the agency by encouraging producers to seek out third party certifications. But it still stops short of requiring them, since that would be functionally the same as the agency adopting those standards or taking responsibility for their enforcement itself.

That lack of enforcement is particularly glaring with antibiotic-related claims. While the rules around what companies can say about their antibiotic use practices are fairly tight — “no antibiotics ever,” for example, is actually supposed to mean no antibiotics were ever given to the animal — there’s no guarantee that the claim is accurate without testing and verification. With one recent USDA analysis finding antibiotic residues in that was marketed as “raised without antibiotics,” there’s clearly a gap between what companies say they’re doing and what actually happens on the farm. Given that a number of companies have stepped back from antibiotic-free commitments in the last few years, it is more important than ever that there be accurate, verified information about antibiotic use to help maintain accountability in the fight to slow the evolution and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Terms to Know
Regenerative Agriculture
Regenerative agriculture is a holistic systems approach that starts with the soil, and also includes the health of the animals, farmers, workers and community.

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.

What’s still missing there is verification, which, given the USDA’s refusal to require testing or evidence for claims, can only come from trustworthy third party certifiers that provide published standards and perform audits to ensure companies and products are meeting them. That means that if you’re trying to buy food that’s produced in a specific way, turning to brands with third-party certifications is your best bet.

Not every label addresses everything, and some have more stringent standards than others, so it’s worth comparing the options you might see at the store with our label guide, where we’ve also assembled many of our top picks for meats, dairy, eggs, seafood and produce.

As FoodPrint’s chief science advisor, Dr. Urvashi Rangan, explained in a previous interview, one good starting point for products like milk, eggs and produce is the USDA organic label, which is the one tightly regulated and verified production standard the agency does enforce itself. The organic rules aren’t perfect, but they do set a better-than-conventional baseline, one that makes a big difference for certain products. They’re also open to improving, as demonstrated by the significant improvements to animal welfare requirements that went into effect at the beginning of 2024.

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

More Reading

How can ecofeminism help us envision the future of food?

July 18, 2024

Switching from beef to chicken isn't the sustainability flex you think it is

June 12, 2024

Is it too cruel to eat veal, foie gras and octopus?

May 14, 2024

Nearly a year after USDA approval, lab meat is still off the menu

April 10, 2024

Can new rules help the organic label get better on animal welfare?

February 8, 2024

Can contract livestock farmers find a second act?

January 24, 2024

What does a resurgence in bird flu mean for the Thanksgiving turkey?

November 9, 2023

'No Meat Required,' less meat critical

September 26, 2023

Could We All Be Buying Lab-Grown Meat Soon?

March 8, 2023