Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 5, 2006 / Notices 70503 

response time of 2.7 hours per form, 

representing a total annual burden for 

this form to be 34,177 hours. Thus, for 

this CRIS information collection 

CSREES estimates a total of 68,638 

annual burden hours. 

Comments: Comments are invited on: 

(a) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

and (e) the expanded use of CRIS forms 

for education and extension programs, 

particularly programs that are 

competitive, project-based, and funded 

under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever 

Act (7 U.S.C. 341). 

Dated: November 24, 2006. 

Gale Buchanan, 

Under Secretary, Research, Education, and 

Economics. 

[FR Doc. E6–20555 Filed 12–4–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

[Docket No. FSIS 2006–0040] 

Product Labeling: Definition of the 

Term ‘‘Natural’’

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of petition and public 

meeting; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing 

receipt of a petition from Hormel Foods 

to establish a definition for the 

voluntary claim ‘‘natural’’ and to 

delineate the conditions under which 

the claim can be used on the labels of 

meat and poultry products. The use of 

the claim ‘‘natural’’ is an issue of 

significant interest to the Agency, to 

industry, and to the public. Therefore, 

the Agency is inviting comments on the 

issue generally and on the petition and, 

to facilitate the comment process, is 

announcing that it will hold a public 

meeting to discuss the petition. After 

the comment period closes, FSIS will 

initiate rulemaking on the claim 

‘‘natural.’’ The Agency has decided to 

initiate rulemaking because it is the 

most appropriate, open, and transparent 

method to deal with issues surrounding 

the definition and use of the claim 

‘‘natural.’’

DATES: The public meeting will be held 

on Tuesday, December 12, 2006, from 9 

a.m. to 1 p.m. Comments on this notice 

must be received by January 11, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held in the rear of the Cafeteria, South 

Agriculture Building, United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250. 

FSIS invites interested persons to 

send comments on this notice. FSIS will 

finalize an agenda on or before the 

meeting date and will post it on the 

FSIS Internet Web page http:// 

www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

News?Meetings_&_Events/. The petition 

discussed in this notice is available for 

viewing by the public in the FSIS 

Docket Room (see address below) and 

on the FSIS Web site at: http:// 

www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

News?Meetings_&_Events/. The official 

transcript of the meeting will be 

available for viewing by the public in 

the FSIS docket room and on the FSIS 

Web site http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

News?Meetings_&_Events/ when it 

becomes available. 

Comments on this notice may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Mail, including floppy disks or CD–

ROM’s, and hand-or courier-delivered 

items: Send to FSIS Docket Room, 

Docket Clerk, USDA, FSIS, 300 12th 

Street, SW., Room 102 Cotton Annex, 

Washington, DC 20250. 

• Electronic mail: 

fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: This 

Web site provides the ability to type 

short comments directly into the 

comment field on this Web page or 

attach a file for lengthier comments. Go 

to http://www.regulation.gov and in the 

‘‘Search for Open Regulations’’ box, 

select ‘‘Food Safety and Inspection 

Service’’ from the agency drop-down 

menu, then click on ‘‘Submit.’’ In the 

Docket ID column, select FDMS Docket 

Number 2006–0040 to submit or view 

public comments and to view 

supporting and related materials 

available electronically. 

All submissions received by mail or 

electronic mail must include the Agency 

name and docket number 2006–0040. 

All comments sent in response to this 

document, as well as research and 

background information used by FSIS in 

developing this document, will be 

available for public inspection in the 

FSIS Docket Room at the address listed 

above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday. Comments will 

also be posted on the Agency’s Web site 

at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

regulations_&_policies/ 

regulations_directives_&_notices/ 

index.asp. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information: Dr. Robert C. 

Post, Director, Labeling and Consumer 

Protection Staff, Office of Policy, 

Program, and Employee Development, 

USDA, FSIS, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, 

(202) 205–0279, FAX: (202) 205–3625, 

e-mail: Robert.Post@fsis.usda.gov. 

Pre-registration for this meeting is 

recommended. To pre-register, please 

contact Diane Jones by telephone at 

(202) 720–9692 or be e-mail at 

Diane.Jones@fsis.usda.gov. Persons 

requiring a sign language interpreter or 

special accommodations should contact 

Ms. Jones as soon as possible. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

FSIS is the public health regulatory 

agency in the USDA responsible for 

ensuring that the nation’s commercial 

supply of meat, poultry, and egg 

products is safe, wholesome, and 

truthfully labeled and packaged. In 

particular, FSIS develops and 

implements national policies to ensure 

that meat, poultry, and egg product 

labeling is truthful and non-misleading. 

Labeling Guidance on the Voluntary 

Claim ‘‘Natural’’ 

To guide manufacturers in the 

development of labeling that FSIS was 

likely to determine to be truthful and 

not misleading with regard to the 

voluntary claim ‘‘natural,’’ FSIS 

published policy guidance in the form 

of Standards and Labeling Policy 

Memorandum (Memo) 055, dated 

November 22, 1982. The policy guide 

states that the term ‘‘natural’’ may be 

used on labeling for meat products and 

poultry products provided that the 

applicant for such labeling demonstrates 

that: 

(1) The product does not contain any 

artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring 

ingredient, or chemical preservative (as 

defined in 21 CFR 101.22), or any other 

artificial or synthetic ingredient; and (2) 

the product and its ingredients are not 

more than minimally processed. 

Minimal processing may include: (a) 

Those traditional processes used to 

make food edible or to preserve it or to 

make it safe for human consumption, 

e.g., smoking, roasting, freezing, drying, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
70504 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 5, 2006 / Notices 

and fermenting, or (b) those physical 

processes that do not fundamentally 

alter the raw product or that only 

separate a whole, intact food into 

component parts, e.g., grinding meat, 

separating eggs into albumen and yolk, 

and pressing fruits to produce juices. 

Relatively severe processes, e.g., solvent 

extraction, acid hydrolysis, and 

chemical bleaching, would clearly be 

considered more than minimal 

processing. Thus, the Policy Memo 

explained, the use of a flavor or 

flavoring, for example, that has 

undergone more than minimal 

processing would, in general, mean that 

a product in which the ingredient is 

used could not be called ‘‘natural.’’

The Policy Memo acknowledged, 

however, that there are exceptions to 

this general view, and that the presence 

of an ingredient that has been more than 

minimally processed would not 

necessarily preclude a product from 

being promoted as ‘‘natural.’’ The Policy 

Memo stated that exceptions of this type 

would be granted on a case-by-case 

basis if it could be demonstrated that 

the use of such an ingredient would not 

significantly change the character of the 

product to the point that it could no 

longer be considered a ‘‘natural’’

product. In such cases, the ‘‘natural’’

claim would have to be qualified to 

clearly and conspicuously identify the 

ingredient, e.g., ‘‘all natural ingredients 

except dextrose, modified food starch, 

etc.’’

Policy Memo 055 further stated that 

all products claiming to be ‘‘natural’’ or 

a ‘‘natural’’ food should be accompanied 

by a brief statement that explains what 

is meant by the term ‘‘natural,’’ i.e., that 

the product is a ‘‘natural’’ food because 

it contains no artificial ingredients and 

is only minimally processed. This 

statement should appear directly 

beneath or beside all ‘‘natural’’ claims 

or, if elsewhere on the principal display 

panel of the label, an asterisk should be 

used to tie the explanation to the claim. 

According to the 1982 policy, the 

decision of the Agency to approve or 

deny the use of a ‘‘natural’’ claim may 

be affected by the specific context in 

which the claim is made. For example, 

claims indicating that a product is 

‘‘natural’’ food, e.g., ‘‘natural’’ chili or 

‘‘chili—a ‘‘natural’’ product’’ would be 

unacceptable for a product containing 

beet powder which artificially colors the 

finished product. However, ‘‘all natural 

ingredients’’ might be an acceptable 

claim for such a product. 

Since 1982, except for the conditions 

in points (1) and (2) of the Policy Memo 

stated above, FSIS modified the 

guidance on occasion to make it 

consistent with prevailing policies, to 

reflect case-by-case decisions made by 

the Agency, and to update references to 

regulations. In August 2005, FSIS 

modified the guidance by 

acknowledging that sugar, sodium 

lactate (from a corn source), and natural 

flavorings from oleoresins or extractives 

could be acceptable for products bearing 

‘‘natural’’ claims. 

The Agency has come to recognize, 

based on the controversy that has arisen 

about ‘‘natural’’ in recent months, that 

there is significant disagreement about 

aspects of the August 2005 policy 

modification, particularly the 

recognition of sodium lactate as an 

ingredient that could be included in 

products that bear a ‘‘natural’’ claim. 

The Agency has received information 

that raises questions about when, and if, 

a food to which sodium lactate has been 

added would be fairly characterized as 

‘‘natural.’’ The Agency has come to 

believe that this question, like 

numerous others alluded to in this 

document, is best resolved through a 

rulemaking process. Therefore, FSIS has 

removed the reference to sodium lactate 

from the 2005 modification. As the 

Agency moves through the stages of 

rulemaking on ‘‘natural,’’ ‘‘natural’’

claims for foods in which sodium 

lactate is used will continue to be 

considered by FSIS on a case-by-case 

basis, in light of factors such as the level 

used, the claimed technical effect of the 

sodium lactate, and the actual effect that 

it is having on the product. 

Advances in Food Processing 

In recent years, the longstanding 

policy on ‘‘natural’’ has been challenged 

by advances in food processing and in 

packaging methods, e.g., the use of 

techniques such as high pressure 

processing, food ingredients that are 

regulated to provide multiple technical 

effects, and modified atmosphere 

packaging. The value and integrity of 

the 1982 policy is challenged further by 

new uses of ingredients that have 

previously been used for flavoring 

purposes, for example, as antimicrobial 

agents. While the food safety purpose of 

using antimicrobial agents is important, 

their effects raise questions as to 

whether they can be used in products 

labeled ‘‘natural.’’

Petition 

On October 9, 2006, Hormel Foods 

submitted a petition to FSIS for 

rulemaking to codify in the Federal 

meat and poultry inspection regulations 

a definition of ‘‘natural.’’ The petitioner 

requested that FSIS begin rulemaking 

procedures to clarify the circumstances 

in which the claim may be used on the 

labeling of a meat or poultry product. 

The petition states that, consistent with 

FSIS’s longstanding policy, a meat or 

poultry product should not be labeled as 

‘‘natural’’ unless (1) It does not contain 

artificial flavorings, artificial coloring 

ingredients, other artificial or synthetic 

ingredients, or chemical preservatives; 

and (2) it is not more than minimally 

processed. The petition further states 

that consumer confidence and 

consistency in labeling dictate that 

exceptions for specific chemical 

preservatives and synthetic ingredients 

should not be allowed. 

In support of the need for a regulatory 

definition of ‘‘natural,’’ the petition 

explains that consumer interest and 

concern in natural products are rising. 

Meat and poultry food manufacturers 

are seeking to establish marketing 

presence in this growing area of 

labeling. The petitioner cites the 

difficulty in maintaining a level playing 

field among manufacturers wishing to 

establish a marketing presence with 

FSIS’s acceptance of ingredients such as 

sodium lactate and the AMS National 

Organic Program ‘‘national list’’ of food 

substances as a reference to support that 

such ingredients may be considered 

‘‘natural.’’ According to the petition, as 

a result, there is a significant likelihood 

of inconsistent guidance that provides 

an opportunity for food manufacturers 

to manipulate exceptions in the policy 

and to undercut the intent for ‘‘natural’’

labeling. The petitioner requests that the 

Agency conduct rulemaking regarding 

the claim ‘‘natural’’ to provide clarity 

and certainty in its use of product 

labeling in the interest of consumer 

protection and consumer confidence in 

labeling. 

Public Meeting 

FSIS is holding a public meeting in 

order to gain public input on the use of 

the ‘‘natural’’ claim and the points 

raised by the petition, the ideas set out 

in this notice, and the impact of 

possible changes discussed herein. 

Following the public meeting, the 

Agency intends to initiate rulemaking 

on ‘‘natural’’ claims. 

In order to benefit from this public 

meeting, FSIS seeks input on the 

following questions concerning the 

petition discussed above: 

1. Considering the types of food 

processing methods that are 

commonplace today, as opposed to 24 

years ago when the policy on ‘‘natural’’

claims was established, is it reasonable 

to include as part of the definition of 

‘‘natural’’ a stipulation that products, to 

be eligible to bear the claim, can be no 

more than minimally processed? Are 

there any accommodations necessary to 

allow for certain operations because 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 5, 2006 / Notices 70505 

food processing and packaging 

techniques for enhancing safety may 

disqualify a product as ‘‘natural?’’

2. What are the implications and 

conflicts that exist with regard to using 

current and new food processing 

methods, e.g., chlorine in poultry 

chillers; steam pasteurization of 

carcasses; high pressure processing; and 

modified atmosphere packaging and 

uses of certain classes of ingredients, 

e.g., antimicrobial agents, and the 

meaning of the claim ‘‘natural’’ on the 

labels of meat and poultry products? 

3. Are there available data, in addition 

to the data provided in the petition, 

from consumer studies on views, 

perceptions, and beliefs about what the 

claim ‘‘natural’’ means on the labels of 

food products, including meat and 

poultry products? What do consumers 

think that the terms ‘‘minimal 

processing,’’ ‘‘artificial and synthetic,’’

and ‘‘preservatives’’ mean? 

4. Do food safety and consumer 

protection benefits of using what 

historically may have been considered 

more than minimal processing 

techniques and antimicrobial agents 

outweigh conflicts with the meaning of 

‘‘natural?’’ In recent years, FSIS has put 

a great deal of emphasis on improving 

food safety. In some ways, however, 

some definitions of ‘‘natural’’ might 

unnecessarily undercut this objective. 

For example, some definitions of 

‘‘natural’’ could discourage the use of 

antimicrobials, which are used to 

reduce and prevent the growth of 

Listeria monocytogenes in foods. The 

Agency seeks comment on how it best 

determines an appropriate and rational 

balance between the need to ensure the 

safety of the food supply and the need 

to ensure that labels are truthful and not 

misleading. 

Additional Public Notification 

Public awareness of all segments of 

rulemaking and policy development is 

important. Consequently, in an effort to 

ensure that minorities, women, and 

persons with disabilities are aware of 

this notice, FSIS will announce it online through the FSIS Web page located 

at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/ 

2006_Notices_Index/. FSIS will also 

make copies of this Federal Register 

publication available through the FSIS 

Constituent Update, which is used to 

provide information regarding FSIS 

policies, procedures, regulations, 

Federal Register notices, FSIS public 

meetings, recalls, and other types of 

information that could affect or would 

be of interest to constituents and 

stakeholders. The update is 

communicated via Listserv, a free 

electronic mail subscription service for 

industry, trade and farm groups, 

consumer interest groups, allied health 

professionals, and other individuals 

who have asked to be included. The 

update is available on the FSIS Web 

page. Through the Listserv and Web 

page, FSIS is able to provide 

information to a much broader and more 

diverse audience. In addition, FSIS 

offers an e-mail subscription service 

which provides automatic and 

customized access to selected food 

safety news and information. This 

service is available at http:// 

www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/ 

email_subscription/. Options range from 

recalls to export information to 

regulations, directives, and notices. 

Customers can add or delete 

subscriptions themselves and have the 

option to password protect their 

account. 

Done at Washington, DC on: December 1, 

2006. 

Barbara J. Masters, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–9546 Filed 12–1–06; 2:25 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Notice of Proposed Fee Changes; 

Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act, (Title VIII, Pub. L. 

108–447) 

AGENCY: Malheur National Forest, 

USDA Forest Service. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Fee Changes. 

SUMMARY: The Malheur National Forest 

is planning to increase fees at numerous 

campgrounds as well as begin charging 

fees at other campgrounds. Funds from 

fees collected will be used for the 

continued operation and maintenance of 

fee campgrounds on the Malheur 

National Forest. 

DATES: Fees will be charged beginning 

on: May 28, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Forest Supervisor, Malheur 

National Forest, 431 Patterson Bridge 

Road, John Day, OR 97845. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Harris, Recreation Fee 

Coordinator, 541–575–3008. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement 

Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108–447) directed 

the Secretary of Agriculture to publish 

a six-month advance notice in the 

Federal Register whenever new 

recreation fee areas are established. 

These new fees will be reviewed by a 

Recreation Resource Advisory 

Committee prior to a final decision and 

implementation. 

The Malheur National Forest 

currently has 35 campgrounds. Of these 

35 campgrounds, the Malheur National 

Forest is proposing modest increases in 

fees at 15 sites where fees are currently 

charged and to begin charging fees at 8 

additional sites. A market analysis 

indicates that the proposed increases 

and fees are both reasonable and 

acceptable for this sort of recreation 

experience. The following is being 

proposed: 

Proposed Increases: 

Parish Cabin Campground .......................................................................................................................................... Increase fee to $8. 

Starr Campground ....................................................................................................................................................... Increase fee to $6. 

Delintment Lake Campground ................................................................................................................................... Increase fee to $10. 

Emigrant Campground ................................................................................................................................................ Increase fee to $8. 

Falls Campground ....................................................................................................................................................... Increase fee to $8. 

Idlewild Campground ................................................................................................................................................. Increase fee to $10. 

Joaquin Miller Campground ....................................................................................................................................... Increase fee to $8. 

Yellowjacket Campground ......................................................................................................................................... Increase fee to $10. 

Deerhorn Forest Camp ................................................................................................................................................ Increase fee to $8. 

Dixie Campground ...................................................................................................................................................... Increase fee to $8. 

Magone Lake Campground ......................................................................................................................................... Increase fee to $13. 

Middle Fork Campground .......................................................................................................................................... Increase fee to $8. 

Big Creek Campground ............................................................................................................................................... Increase fee to $8. 

Strawberry Campground ............................................................................................................................................. Increase fee to $8. 

Trout Farm Campground ............................................................................................................................................ Increase fee to $8. 

Proposed Charging Fees: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES