#### ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.9270833333333333in" height="0.8541666666666666in"}

November 14, 2008

Docket Clerk,

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Food Safety and Inspection Service,

FSIS Docket Room,

1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2534

Washington D.C. 20250

Re: Docket No. FSIS-2008-0026

*Federal Register,* Friday, October 10, 2008

Vol. 73, No. 198

Pages 60228-60230

Gentlemen:

On behalf of Agri Beef Co., we respectfully submit the following
comments in response to the *Federal Register* Notice of Public Meeting
and solicitation for comments on "Product Labeling: Use of the Animal
Raising Claims in the Labeling of Meat and Poultry Products."

Agri Beef Co. is a vertically integrated beef supply company based in
Boise, ID with locations throughout the Northwest and Kansas. It has
been involved in every step of beef production including ranching,
cattle feeding, animal nutrition, beef processing, marketing and sales.
As a large player in the beef industry, we feel the industry would feel
the ramifications of the "Product Labeling: Use of the Animal Raising
Claims in the Labeling of Meat and Poultry Products." Agri Beef Co. has
a great interest in this *Federal Register* Notice of the public meeting
and request for comments.

##### FSIS QUESTIONS

1.  Should FSIS continue to approve label claims based on animal raising
    standards developed by private certifying entities and by companies
    themselves if FSIS has reviewed the standards and determines that
    they would not render a claim false or misleading?

> No, FSIS should cease from approving animal raising claims. FSIS does
> not have the expertise or the regulatory oversight authority to
> regulate animal production methods. If FSIS feels compelled to
> intervene in this non-food safety area, they should continue the
> status quo so as not to create havoc in the marketplace.

2.  **Should FSIS establish any performance criteria or standards for
    private certifying entities? Should the Agency require that private
    certifying entities be reviewed and approved by AMS?**

> No, not FSIS but an AMS approach. This is out of the scope of FSIS's
> mandate. AMS has an established program for these activities and
> should continue to provide these services to facilitate marketing.

3.  **Should FSIS establish minimum standards that companies would have
    to achieve to qualify to use certain animal raising claims?**

> No. FSIS should not be the ones establishing these. Once again, if the
> livestock industry desires a marketing standard, then AMS should have
> the responsibility of establishing standards.

4.  **For those animal raising claims for which AMS has adopted
    standards, should FSIS adopt the AMS standards as the minimum
    standards?**

> FSIS should not have other standards as they are not needed. Approve
> or deny a label based solely on the AMS Standard. If FSIS insist on
> being involved, they should continue their current methods and for AMS
> verified claims, FSIS should make label claim approvals based on AMS
> direction.

5.  **Would the approach outlined in this document create any inequities
    or create any problems for companies interested in using animal
    raising claims on the labels of their meat or poultry products?**

> If a company wants to set a new standard or make a new claim, we need
> to know the logistics of getting the claim established and a timeline
> for completion. Inequities would exist due to the approach outlined in
> the *Federal Register* document. FSIS is not equipped to provide the
> oversight and standards for marketing claims. The extent of USDA
> involvement in these claims should rest solely with AMS.

6.  **What other approaches should FSIS consider for evaluating and
    approving animal raising claims?**

> FSIS should focus on food safety. The approval of labels should be
> limited to food safety issues and product characteristics that are the
> target of their statutory scope. The only role FSIS should have on
> animal raising claims is when the claim references a statutory program
> like USDA Organic, Country of Origin Labeling or AMS verification. In
> those cases, like with country of origin labeling, FSIS should rely on
> AMS to be responsible for the accuracy of the claim. Otherwise, animal
> raising claims should not be the subject of FSIS review. Like with
> other consumer products, if the market place has concerns about the
> use of marketing claims or product advertising information, there
> exists oversight mechanisms, like the Federal Trade Commission,
> available for a remedy.

Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Rick Stott

Executive Vice President

Agri Beef Co.