FSIS Policy Memoranda Table of Contents 

PM.No. Subject 

001 Pizza Containing Cheese Substitutes 

002 Butifarra Sausage 

003 Reduced Price or Money Savings Claims 

004A Sweet Red Peppers and Pimientos 

005A Labeling of Certain Cooked Sausage Products Containing Both Livestock and Poultry 

Ingredients 

006 Poultry Salami Products 

007 Rescinded 

008 Rescinded 

009 Rescinded 

010 Label Approval Guidelines for Sausages Containing Cheese 

011 Label Approval Guidelines for Sausages and Pudding Containing Potatoes 

012 Uncooked Meat and Poultry Teriyaki 

013 Chili Verde and Chili Colorado 

014 Handling Statements in Addition to the Requirements of 9 CFR 317.2(k) & 9 CFR 381.125 

015A Sausage Product Labeled "Linguica" 

016B Combinations of Ground Beef or Hamburger and Soy Products 

017 Potassium Sorbate 

018A Dual Weight Requirement for Stuffed Poultry Labels 

019B Negative Ingredient Labeling 

020A Labeling of Cooked Mettwurst 

021 Sausage Products Labeled "Longaniza" and "Longaniza Puerto Rican Style" 

022C Rescinded 

023 Labeling of Boneless Ham Products 

024 Rescinded 

025 Rescinded 

026 Rescinded 

027 Clarification of "Meat" Definition in Chopped Beef, Ground Beef or Hamburger 

028 Rescinded 

029 Labeling Poultry Products Containing Livestock Ingredients 

030A Labeling Meat Products Containing Poultry Ingredients 

031A "Cooked Salami" Labeling 

032 Raw Poultry Meat (9 CFR 381.117(b) 

033 Labeling of Cured Meat Products 

034 Fresh Chorizos 

035 High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) in Meat or Poultry Products 

036 Plastic Cans 

037 Alternate Principal Display Panels 

038 Labeling Cured Products as "Honey Cured", "Sugar Cured" or "Honey and Sugar Cured" 

039 Rescinded 
040 Smoked Products 

041B Labeling of Boneless Ham Products, Whole Muscle Roast Beef Products, and Boneless Poultry 

 Products (Except Turkey Ham (9 CFR 381.171) Containing Ground and/or Emulsified 

 Trimmings 

042 Raw Bone-in Poultry Products Containing Solutions 

043 Rescinded 

044A Raw Boneless Poultry Containing Solutions 

045 Product Names of Margarine Substitutes 

047 Net Weight Statements on Packages with Header Labels 

048 Level of Beef in Berliner 

050B Canadian Style Bacon 

051 Species Sausage 

052 The Use of Cured Pork Tissue in Making Lard 

053 Rescinded 

054 Quality Control Claims 

055 Rescinded 

056 Potassium Sorbate and Propylparaben on Semi-dry Sausage 

057A Labeling Turkey Ham Products Containing Added Water 

058A Smoked Products 

059 Labeling Turkey Ham Products Containing Ground Turkey Thigh Meat 

060 Rescinded 

061A Corn Dogs 

062 Rescinded 

063A Labeling Requirements for Products Labeled as "Uncured" 

064 Rescinded 

065 Rescinded 

066C Uncooked Red Meat Products Containing Added Substances 

067 Rescinded 

068 Requirements for the Use of Geographic and Related Terms on Product Labels 

069 Labeling for Substitute Products 

070C Rescinded 

071B Rescinded 

072 Composite Ingredients Statements 

073 Rescinded 

074 Rescinded 

075 Dual Inspection Legends on Product Containers 

076 Standards and Labeling Requirements for Duck Liver and/or Goose Liver "Foie Gras" Products 

077 Labeling and Standards Requirements for Quiche Products 

078A Rescinded 

079 Rescinded 

080 Rescinded 

081A Rescindment of Policy Memo 081 (Permitted Processing Procedures for Marinated Products) 

082 Labeling of Institutional and Wholesale Type, Large, Immediate Containers 

083A Check-off Blocks on Labeling 

084A Cooked Red Meat Products Containing Added Substances 

085 Rescinded 

086A Rescinded 
087A Word Size in Labeling of Product Names and Fanciful Names 

088 Labeling of Meat and/or Poultry Products with the Term Nuggets 

089 Use of the Term “Breaded” on Labels for “Fritters” 

090B Protective Coverings 

091 Ground Beef Chuck and Ground Beef Round 

092 Veal Parmigiana Made with Veal Patties 

093 Adjusting for Protein Fat Free (PFF) Controlled Pork 

094B Sulfiting Agents in Meat and Poultry Food Products 

095 Colored Casings-labeling of Meat and Poultry Products 

096 Rescinded 

097 Label Approval Guidelines for Wild Boar Products 

098B Labeling and Use of Beef Cheek Meat and Beef Head Meat, and Pork Cheek Meat and Pork 

Head Meat 

099 Labeling of Products Which Include Packets of Other Components 

100 Poultry Tenders and Poultry Tenderloins 

101A Use of Quality Grade Terms and Subjective Terms on Labels 

102 The Labeling of Products Containing Meat with Added Solutions or Other Nonmeat Ingredients 

in Secondary Products 

103 Boneless, Raw, or Cooked, Poultry Containing Binders 

104 Handling Statements on Retorted Products 

105 Labeling Requirements for Pump-cured Bacon Products Treated with D-or-dl-alpha-tocopherol 

in Surface Applications 

106A Poultry Bacon 

107 Use of "New" and Similar Terms 

108B Water-misted and Ice-glazed Meat and Poultry Products 

109 Labeling Prominence Guidelines for Cured, Cooked Products with Added Substances That Do 

 Not Return to Green Weight 

110 Perishable, Uncured Meat and Poultry Products in Hermetically Sealed Containers 

111 Labeling of Meat and Poultry Stick Items 

112 Caramel Coloring 

113 Labeling of Products Which Are Artificially Colored 

114A Point of Purchase Materials 

115 Rescinded 

116 Canadian Style Bacon Made With/from Pork Sirloin Hips 

117 Smoked Flavoring 

118 Use of the Terms "Extra" and "More Than" 

119 Labeling of Safe Thawing Instructions on Consumer Packages 

120 Sausage Type Products with Fruits and Vegetables 

121B Labeling of Modified, Substitute Versions of Fresh (Species) Sausage, Hamburger, or Ground 

 Beef Products with Added Ingredients Used to Replace Fat That Qualify for Use of Certain 

 Nutrient Content Claims Associated with a Reduction in Fat Content 

122 Meat Content Requirements for Meat Soup 

123 Modified Breakfast Sausage, Cooked Sausage, and Fermented Sausage Products Identified by a 

 Nutrient Content Claim and a Standardized or Traditional Name 

124 Declaration of Net Quantity of Contents on Combination Packages Containing Liquid and Solid 

Products 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 001 

May 6, 1980 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Acting Director, MPSLD 

Subject: Pizzas Containing Cheese Substitutes (9 CFR 319.600) 

ISSUE: Appropriate labeling requirement for pizza products containing both cheese and cheese substitutes. 

POLICY: Labels which contain cheese in a ratio of at least one part per nine parts cheese substitute and which 

otherwise comply with the requirements of the standard may be approved. Labels of product with cheese in 

smaller amounts must contain additional qualifying information. 

BASIS: The current regulation specifies cheese as a necessary characterizing ingredient in product to be 

labeled pizza. It does not specify percentages nor does it address questions regarding the use of cheese 

substitutes. Informal policy has evolved which has permitted label approvals without qualifying information, as 

long as the product contains some cheese, but concerns have developed that consumers might be misled by 

labels of products in which the actual cheese content is very low. These issues may not be fully resolved until 

the completion of pending rulemaking. Nevertheless an interim policy decision is necessary to assure that 

product is not misbranded. This policy should assure that the product is sufficiently characterized by cheese 

ingredient without imposing any substantial burden upon those who have relied on the policy as it has 

developed to date. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 002 

May 30, 1980 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Acting Director, MPSLD 

Subject: Butifarra-Sausage (319.140 - 319.141) 

ISSUE: Appropriate labeling for sausage product featuring the term "Butifarra" 

POLICY: Labeling that features the term "Butifarra" would require in addition one of the following products: 

Pork Sausage - for those products that meet the fresh pork sausage standard. 

Fresh Sausage - for those products that include by-product but do not meet the standard for pork sausage. 

Sausage - for those products that are incubated or fermented. 

The term "Puertorrican Style" would be applicable if manufactured in Puerto Rico. Other label applications 

will be considered on an individual basis. 

BASIS: To the best of our knowledge the English translation of Butifarra is Sausage. 

Information from inspection located in Puerto Rico indicates that Butifarra is historically an uncured sausage 

made in several different ways according to the locality. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 003 

June 10, 1980 

From: Robert G. Hibbert 

Acting Director 

MPSLD 

Subject: Reduced Price or Money Saving Claims 

ISSUE: Guidelines for approval of these claims. 

POLICY: Claims suggesting or stating that a product or a line of products are being sold at a price that is less 

than the customary or ordinary price for that product or similar products may be used under the following 

conditions: 

The company initiating the claims must be capable, upon request, of verifying that the cost of the product to the 

retailer has been reduced sufficiently to enable the retailer to pass the price reduction on to the consumer. This 

may entail the keeping, maintaining, or securing of invoices and other records through all levels of commerce. 

A company unable to produce sufficient verification upon request or a company identified by an inspector in 

charge of not fulfilling the claims stated will have all such labels rescinded and will not obtain approval for any 

labels with similar claims until the company can demonstrate the ability to ensure their accuracy. 

BASIS: Previous regulation and policy have not addressed the use of reduced price or money saving claims 

which are becoming more prevalent throughout the marketplace. However, it is the responsibility of the 

Department through the prior label system to ensure that all labeling terminology is accurate and not 

misleading. At the time of label approval the information necessary to assure the validity of such a claim may 

not be available. Thus the labels will be approved with the understanding that firms are responsible for 

demonstrating that the foods are being offered to the consumer at reduced prices commensurate with a claim. 

The goal of this policy is to establish guidelines for the use of these terms while not unnecessarily involving the 

staff in questions of pricing policy. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 004A 

 August 20, 1980 

From: Robert G. Hibbert 

Director 

MP Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Sweet Red Peppers and Pimientos 

ISSUE: The labeling of sweet red peppers as pimientos. 

DECISION: Pimientos are classified as a variety of sweet red peppers however, not all sweet red peppers are 

pimientos. To use pimiento in a product name, e.g., "Pickle and Pimiento Loaf," pimientos must be the variety 

of sweet red peppers used. See also Section 17.13(0)(3) of the Meat and Poultry Inspection Manual. 

RATIONALE: In the past, sweet red peppers have been considered as pimientos. However, according to 

several references, pimientos are defined only as a variety of sweet red peppers. Therefore, all types of sweet 

red peppers would not fulfill the definition of pimiento. This policy should assure that products with pimiento 

in the product name contain pimientos. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 005A

 November 25, 1987 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Technical Services 

Subject: Labeling of Certain Cooked Sausage Products Containing Both Livestock and Poultry Ingredients 

ISSUE: What names should be used to identify nonstandardized cooked sausages of the frank, bologna, 

Vienna, and knockwurst variety which contain both livestock and poultry ingredients? 

POLICY: This policy memo supersedes Policy Memo 005. It does not apply to cooked sausage products 

which contain poultry ingredients up to 15 percent of the total ingredients (excluding water). The labeling of 

these products must be in accordance with 9 CFR 319.180. 

Meat food products (i.e., those in which more than 50 percent of the livestock and poultry product portion 

consists of livestock ingredients): Such cooked sausage products which contain poultry ingredients at more than 

15 percent of the total ingredients (excluding water) must have product names that indicate the species of 

livestock and kind(s) of poultry ingredients, e.g., Beef and Turkey Frankfurter or Frankfurter made From Beef 

and Turkey. 

Poultry products (i.e., those in which more than 50 percent of the livestock and poultry products portion 

consists of poultry ingredients): Such cooked sausage products which contain livestock ingredients at more than 

20 percent of the total poultry and livestock ingredients must have product names that indicate the kind(s) of 

poultry and species of livestock ingredients, e.g., Turkey and Beef Frankfurter or Frankfurter Made From 

Turkey and Beef. Such cooked sausage products which contain livestock ingredients at 20 percent or less of the 

total poultry and livestock ingredients, must have product names that are appropriately qualified to indicate the 

inclusion of livestock ingredients, e.g., Turkey Frankfurter - Pork Added or Turkey Frankfurter - With Pork. 

(The product names of cooked sausage products which contain no livestock ingredients designate the kind(s) of 

poultry ingredients, e.g., Turkey Frankfurter.) Cooked sausage products containing over 50 percent meat 

ingredients would carry the red meat legend while those containing over 50 percent poultry ingredients would 

carry the poultry legend. 

See Policy Memo 087A regarding word size in the labeling of product names. 

RATIONALE: Frank, bologna, Vienna, knockwurst, and similar cooked sausages are standardized meat food 

products subject to 9 CFR 319.180. Those products may contain poultry ingredients up to 15 percent of the total 

ingredients, excluding water. The poultry (and other) ingredients in such products are declared in the 

ingredients statements. This policy memo is issued to ensure that other nonstandardized, comminuted, 

semisolid cooked sausage products which contain both livestock and poultry ingredients are properly identified. 

The approach to nomenclature set forth herein is essentially the one utilized in Policy Memo 029, Labeling 

Poultry Products Containing Livestock Ingredients, and Policy Memo 030A, Labeling Meat Food Products 

Containing Poultry Ingredients. 

To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 006 
 July 30, 1980 

From: Robert Hibbert, Director 

MPSLD 

Subject: Poultry Salami Products (Policy Book page 144) 

ISSUE: Product names that will truthfully and accurately describe the type of salami made from poultry. 

DECISION: Poultry sausages prepared to resemble salami and offered to consumers as a salami shall bear 

product names as follows: 

1. "(Kind) Salami," e.g., Turkey Salami, shall be the product name when the moisture to protein ratio in the 

finished product does not exceed 1.9:1. This product resembles a dry salami made from red meats. 

2. "Cooked (Kind) Salami," e.g., Cooked Turkey Salami, shall be the product name when the product is 

 cooked and the moisture to protein ratio is above 1.9:1. This product resembles a "Cooked Salami" made 

 from red meats. 

RATIONALE: Labels have been inadvertently approved bearing the product name "(Kind) Salami," e.g., 

Turkey Salami for both cooked and dry varieties of poultry salami. This decision reiterates the policy identified 

in the Policy Book and is consistent with the policy followed for the labeling of red meat salami products. The 

consistency afforded by the policy provides a descriptive product name that allows the consumer to make an 

informed value judgment in the market place. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 010 

MPSLD 

 September 8, 1980 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

MPSLD 

Subject: Label Approval Guidelines for Sausages Containing Cheese 

ISSUE: What are the Guidelines for Sausages Containing Cheese as an Ingredient? 

POLICY: Sausages may contain cheese under the following conditions. 

1. If there is a standard for that particular sausage it must be met as though it contained no cheese. 

2. The cheese must characterize the product and appear as part of the product name. Ex. "Italian Sausage 

 with Cheese," "Salami with Cheese." 

BASIS: This policy was established for a product identified as "Sweet Italian Sausage with Cheese and 

Parsley." See Control Sheet 78-158 dated December 20, 1978. It is felt the addition of cheese with proper label 

declaration is a product in itself and that the sausage identified must meet the standard for that particular 

sausage without cheese. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 011

 MPSLD 

 September 8, 1980 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

Subject: Label Approval Guidelines for Sausages and Pudding Containing Potatoes 

ISSUE: What are the appropriate guidelines for these products? 

POLICY: Labels for sausages and pudding identified as "Potato Sausage," "Potato Brand Sausage," "Potato 

Ring," and "Potato Brand Sausage" should be approved under the following guidelines: 

1. The product must contain a minimum of 45 percent meat and no byproducts. 

2. Water must be limited to 3 percent at formulation. 

3. When extenders or binders are used, they must be limited to 3.5percent and 2 percent of the finished 

product. 

4. The product must include a minimum of 18 percent potatoes. 

Sausage identified as "Swedish Style Potato Sausage" is provided for under the following guidelines: 

1. The product must contain a minimum of 65 percent meat and no byproducts 

2. Water must be limited to 3 percent at formulation. 

3. No extenders or binders are permitted. 

4. The product must include a minimum of 18 percent potatoes. 

Meat food product identified as "Potato Pudding" is provided for under the following guidelines: 

1. The product must contain a minimum of 18 percent potatoes. 

2. The product does not meet the other requirements for products identified as "Potato Sausage," "Potato 

Ring," or "Swedish Style Potato Sausage." 

BASIS: The present policies concerning sausages that contain potatoes are confusing and difficult to follow. 

This delineation of policy will hopefully serve to clarify the matter without departing to any great extent from 

past practices or approvals. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 012

 MPSLD 

 September 8, 1980 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

MPSLD 

Subject: Uncooked Meat and Poultry Teriyaki 

ISSUE: Can a meat food product be identified as a Teriyaki product without being cooked? 

POLICY: We are not requiring that a meat or poultry teriyaki be cooked provided certain labeling 

requirements are met. The label must be so designed that a prominent statement is on the principal display 

panel informing the consumer that the product is not cooked. Example" "Ready to Bake," "Ready to Cook" and 

"Raw." 

BASIS: Further review of information presented has indicated that meat and/ or poultry marinated in teriyaki 

sauce would be recognized as teriyaki and that a consumer would cook prior to consumption. It is felt that 

prominent labeling relating the fact that the product is not cooked must be on the principal display panel. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 013

 MPSLD 

 September 12, 1980 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

MPSLD 

Subject: Chili Verde and Chili Colorado 

ISSUE: Required ingredients for products labeled "Chili Verde" and "Chili Colorado." 

POLICY: "Chili Verde" meets the requirements of section 319.300 and the chili peppers used are exclusively 

green chilis or Verde chili peppers. If a prepared chili powder is used, it must have been prepared from 

exclusively green chilies or Verde chili peppers. "Chili Verde with Beans" shall comply with section 319.301 

and the above requirements for "chili Verde." 

Chili Colorado meets the requirements of section 319.300 and the chili peppers used are exclusively the red 

variety. If a prepared chili powder is used it must be prepared from exclusively red chili peppers. "Chili 

Colorado with Beans" shall comply with section 319.301 and the above requirements for "Chili Colorado." 

BASIS: Chili peppers are available both as the red and green varieties. It is common to prepare Mexican and 

Spanish dishes with one or the other exclusively and identify the product as "Verde" (green) or as Colorado or 

Rojo (Red). 

The word "Colorado" is used for red more than "Rojo" in Mexico. The term "Rojo" is used more in Spain, 

Puerto Rico, and Cuba. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 014

 MPSLD 

 September 12, 1980 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

MPSLD 

Subject: Handling Statements in Addition to the Requirements of 9 CFR 317.2(k) and 9 CFR 381.125 

ISSUE: Acceptable handling statements in addition to those required in sections 317.2(k) and 381.125 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

POLICY: Labels that feature terms such as, "Keep Refrigerated-May Be Frozen" or "Keep Refrigerated-Can 

Be Frozen" are considered acceptable informative phrases. 

RATIONALE: After reviewing data of prior label approvals and input from the label reviewers, we found this 

has been accepted for some time and apparently serves a consumer need for acceptable handling after purchase. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 015A

 MPSLD 

 June 22, 1981 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

MPSLD 

Subject: Sausage Product Labeled Linguica - 9 CFR 319.140 

ISSUE: Standard for product labeled "Linguica." 

POLICY: This replaces Policy Memo #15 on Linguica. Sausage product labeled "Linguica" is considered to 

be a Portuguese-type sausage containing pork to the exclusion of other meat and meat by-products and usually 

containing condiments such as vinegar, cinnamon, cumin seed, garlic, red pepper, salt and sugar. The product 

may also contain paprika. Linguica usually contains nonfat dry milk and cures are acceptable in this product. 

RATIONALE: The present policy combines the standards for Longaniza and Linguica although the two 

products have different, distinct standards. The standards are being separated to eliminate confusion. The 

treatment for trichinae will be determined by the Field Operations program. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 016B

 August 18, 1994 

From: Cheryl Wade, Director 

Food Labeling Division, RP 

Subject: Combinations of Ground Beef or Hamburger and Soy Products 

ISSUE: The labeling of combinations of ground beef or hamburger and soy products. 

POLICY: This Policy Memo replaces Policy Memo 016A. 

Combinations of ground beef or hamburger and soy products may be descriptively labeled, e.g., "Hamburger 

and Textured Vegetable Protein Product" or "Ground Beef and Isolated Soy Protein Product" if the combination 

product is not nutritionally inferior to hamburger or ground beef. If the combination products are nutritionally 

inferior, they are to be labeled as Imitation Ground Beef (or Imitation Hamburger) or Beef Patty or Beef Patty 

Mix in accordance with Section 317.2(j)(1) and Section 319.15(c) respectively. 

RATIONALE: The descriptive labeling permitted for combination products not nutritionally inferior to 

ground beef or hamburger is considered to be a useful and informative alternative to the names beef patty or 

beef patty mix and is in keeping with the Department's policy to allow descriptive labeling, in lieu of imitation 

labeling, for products which are not nutritionally inferior to a standardized product. 

Policy Memo 016B eliminates the section from Policy Memo 016A which encouraged nutrition labeling even 

though it was not required, since nutrition labeling is now mandatory on most multi-ingredient products. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 017

 MPSLD 

 December 9, 1980 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

MPSLD 

Subject: Potassium Sorbate 

ISSUE: The use of potassium sorbate as an external mold inhibitor on imitation dry sausage products, dry beef 

snacks, and beef jerky. 

POLICY: Potassium sorbate may be used as an external mold inhibitor (applied by dipping or spraying) on 

imitation dry sausage products, dry beef snacks which may contain soy flour, and beef jerky. The presence of 

potassium sorbate must be declared on the label. 

BASIS: The current regulation (9 CFR 318.7(c)(4)) states that potassium sorbate may be used on dry sausage 

casings to retard mold growth and in oleomargarine or margarine to preserve the product and to retard mold 

growth. The regulation has also been interpreted to permit the use of potassium sorbate on beef jerky (letter of 

I. Fried dated July 26, 1978 and Policy Book, p. 106a). Imitation dry sausages and dry beef snacks are not 

unlike dry sausage and beef jerky in terms of moisture/protein ratio. Therefore, label approvals involving 

external use of potassium sorbate on imitation dry sausage, dry beef snacks and beef jerky represent a consistent 

application of the regulation. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 018A

 Standards and Labeling Division 

 December 26, 1985 

From: Joseph Germano/Acting for 

 Margaret O'K. Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Dual Weight Requirements for Stuffed Poultry Labels (9 CFR 381.121 (b)) 

ISSUE: When must the label on consumer size retail packages of stuffed poultry and other stuffed poultry 

products declare the total net weight of the product and the minimum weight of the poultry in the product? 

POLICY: This replaces Policy Memo 018. Poultry products that consist solely of bone-in poultry and stuffing 

such as a "Stuffed Turkey" and “Stuffed Turkey Breast" shall bear weight statements on its label indicating the 

total net weight of the product and a statement indicating the minimum weight of the poultry in the product. A 

poultry product such as a dinner or an entree that contains a stuffed poultry product as one of its components 

needs only the total net weight of the product on the label. 

RATIONALE: The amount of stuffing in a whole bone-in bird or part is dependent upon the size of the bird, 

the bird's cavity, and the extent to which the product is stuffed. Because the amount of stuffing is difficult to 

determine, the consumer needs to be informed about the amount of poultry in the product compared to the 

amount of stuffing. This policy is not applicable to stuffed boneless poultry where the amount of stuffing is not 

dependant upon cavity size and where the amount of stuffing is more easily determined by examination. 

Moreover, the stuffing content of these products is generally self-limiting in that the boneless poultry 

encasement tends to disassemble when overstuffed. Dinner and entree products are also exempt because of the 

minimum poultry requirements they must meet. For example, the poultry products inspection regulations 

require a poultry dinner to contain 18 percent or 2 ounces of cooked deboned poultry meat irrespective of the 

amount of stuffing. The same is true of an entree for which minimum poultry content is based on the total of all 

components. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 019B

 August 18, 1994 

From: Cheryl Wade, Director 

Food Labeling Division, RP 

Subject: Negative Ingredient Labeling 

ISSUE: Appropriate labeling of meat and poultry products bearing negative ingredient statements. 

POLICY: This policy memo replaces Policy Memo 019A. The guidelines for the use of negative ingredient 

statements on meat and poultry labels are as follows: 

1) Negative labeling is allowed if it is unclear from the product name that the ingredient is not present. For 

example, the use of the term "no beef" on the label of "Turkey Pastrami" would further clarify that the product 

does not contain beef. 

2) Negative labeling is allowed if the statement is beneficial for health, religious preference, or other similar 

reasons. For example, highlighting the absence of salt in a product would be helpful to those persons on 

sodium-restricted diets. 

3) Negative labeling is allowed if the claims are directly linked to the product packaging, as opposed to the 

product itself. For example, flexible retortable pouches could bear the statement "No Preservatives, 

Refrigeration or Freezing Needed with This New Packaging Method." 

4) Negative labeling is allowed if such claims call attention to the absence of ingredients because they are 

prohibited in a product by regulation or policy. The statement must clearly and prominently indicate this fact, 

so as not to mislead or create false impressions. For example, "USDA regulations prohibit the use of 

preservatives in this product" would be an acceptable statement for ground beef. 

5) Negative labeling is allowed to indicate the absence of an ingredient when that ingredient is expected or 

permitted by regulation or policy. This could also apply to ingredients which are not expected or permitted by 

regulation or policy if the ingredients could find their way into the product through a component. For example, 

the use of "no preservatives" on the label of "spaghetti with meat and sauce" (where regulations do not permit 

the direct addition of preservatives) would be acceptable if the product contained an ingredient, such as cooking 

oil, which could contain antioxidants but do not. 

The guidelines contained in this policy memo do not preempt the requirements of the nutrition labeling 

regulations. Therefore, negative claims such as "unsalted" would have to comply with the provisions stated in 

the nutrition labeling regulations. 

RATIONALE: These guidelines are issued to identify the policy for labeling negative ingredient claims since 

the promulgation of the nutrition labeling regulations. Essentially, the guidelines reflect the policy that has 

been applied for a number of years, with the exception of nutritive ingredients and health-related claims that 

will be subject to the provisions stated in the nutrition labeling regulations. 
It is believed that negative ingredient labeling, when properly used, can be useful and meaningful to consumers 

as an aid in understanding product contents. It also offers a direct means of alerting consumers to the absence 

of ingredients they prefer to avoid for religious beliefs, food intolerance or other nonnutrition related reasons. 

Using the above guidelines, consumers can be protected from claims believed to be misleading without 

precluding the use of accurate, informative statements on product labels. 

Where the direct addition of ingredients, such as artificial colors, preservatives, etc., are prohibited by 

regulation, previous policy required an accompanying explanation to the negative claim, such as "USDA does 

not permit the use of artificial colors in this product." Realizing that, in some cases, preservatives and other 

food additives could be introduced into the food indirectly through a component, it is not necessary to 

accompany certain negative claims with a qualifier when the product includes a component that could contain 

food additives but do not. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 020A

 MPSLD 

 March 26, 1981 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

MPSLD 

Subject: Labeling of Cooked Mettwurst 

ISSUE: Whether sausage products currently labeled as "Mettwurst" may be precooked and how they should be 

labeled. 

POLICY: Mettwurst is a cured sausage. Mettwurst which is cooked must be labeled "cooked mettwurst," and 

may contain up to 10 percent water based on the finished product. 

RATIONALE: The Policy Book (p. 88) currently states that mettwurst is an uncooked sausage. This 

presumably reflects traditional practice in which the time interval between production and consumption was 

shorter than it is today. With the development of larger distribution networks and extended shelf exposure, 

producers have resorted to cooking mettwurst before it is sold. This is supported by the label approval record 

which shows that a significant number of products currently labeled as "mettwurst" are pre-cooked. 

Implementation of this policy will resolve the discrepancy between the Policy Book and the label approval 

record regarding cooked mettwurst. The water limitation for cooked mettwurst is consistent with that for 

cooked bratwurst. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 021

 MPSLD 

FEB 6 1881 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

MPSLD 

Subject: Sausage Products Labeled "Longaniza" and "Longaniza Puerto Rican Style" 

ISSUES: Standard for product labeled "Longaniza" and "Longaniza Puerto Rican Style" 

POLICY: "Longaniza" is an acceptable name for Puerto Rican sausage made from pork which may contain 

beef but does not contain annatto. "Longaniza Puerto Rican Style" is acceptable labeling for sausage made 

from pork which may contain beef and does contain annatto. Added fat is not permitted in either product, 

although up to three percent lard may be used as a carrier for annatto in "Longaniza Puerto Rican Style." 

When annatto is used in "Longaniza Puerto Rican Style" it should be included in the ingredients statement as 

"annatto" and declared on the label by a phrase such as "colored with annatto" in accordance with section 

317.2(j)(5) of the meat inspection regulations. 

RATIONALE: After discussing the nature of these products and the traditional manufacturing technique used 

for these products with inspection personnel located in Puerto Rico, it is apparent that a policy change is 

necessary to more accurately identify and differentiate the content and labeling of these two products. The use 

of annatto as a distinguishing feature between these two kinds of sausage is supported by a statistical analysis of 

past label approvals. The treatment for trichinae will be determined by the Field Operations Program. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 023

 FEB 10 1981 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

MPSLD 

Subject: Labeling of Boneless Ham Products (9 CFR 317.2(b)(13)) 

ISSUE: Under what circumstances is the use of the term "ham" without qualification an acceptable product 

name and under what circumstances must the product name be so qualified. 

POLICY: The term "sectioned and formed" is no longer required on boneless ham labels. Product previously 

labeled "ham - sectioned and formed" may now be simply labeled as "ham". The same labeling policy applies 

to product to which is added small amounts of ground meat as a binder; provided such ground meat is made 

from trimmings (such as shank meat) that are removed during the sectioning process. The addition of ground 

meat must be limited to natural proportions and shall not result in any readily discernible appearance of a 

ground or emulsified product. Ham having any discernible appearance of a ground or emulsified product shall 

be labeled "a portion of ground ham added." This does not change any labeling policy or conformance with 

existing product standards. Policies regarding the required use of terminology such as "chunk," chunked and 

formed" and "ground and formed" will continue unchanged. 

RATIONALE: Although terminology such as "sectioned and formed" has been required for several years, 

concerns have developed regarding the appropriateness of its use. Rapid advances in meat processing have 

provided the technology to prepare ham products, with and without ground meat added, that assume all the 

characteristics associated with the term "ham”. Since those products conform to the public's expectations for 

ham, consumers may be confused or misled by this terminology which seems to connote an inferior product. 

Moreover, the original requirement has not been uniformly applied at the inspection level. Therefore, 

discrepancies and confusion exist in areas such as contract bidding. 

Certain types of processing, such as grinding, serve to recharacterize the product in a way that is significantly 

different from that normally expected by consumers. Therefore, qualifiers such as "chunked and formed" and 

aground and formed" will continue to be required. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 027

 June 15, 1981 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

MPSLD 

Subject: Clarification of "Meat" Definition in Chopped Beef, Ground Beef or Hamburger 

ISSUE: What ingredients, defined as meat in the regulations (301.2 (tt)), may be utilized in preparing chopped 

beef, ground beef or hamburger (319.15(a) and (b))? 

POLICY: Beef of skeletal origin, or from the diaphragm or esophagus (weasand) may be used in the 

preparation of chopped beef, ground beef or hamburger. Heart meat and tongue meat, as organ meats, are not 

acceptable ingredients in chopped beef, ground beef or hamburger. 

RATIONALE: Historically organ meats such as heart meat and tongue meat have not been permitted as 

ingredients in chopped beef, ground beef or hamburger. Heart meat and tongue meat have never been 

considered as beef or permitted to be declared as beef on labels and are not expected ingredients in chopped 

beef, ground beef or hamburger. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 029

 SEP 4 1981 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

SLD 

Subject: Labeling Poultry Products Containing Livestock Ingredients 

ISSUE: How poultry products containing livestock ingredients should be labeled. 

POLICY: Poultry products containing livestock ingredients in amounts that exceed 20 percent of the total 

livestock and poultry product portion of the poultry product must be descriptively labeled to indicate the 

presence of the livestock ingredients, e.g., Chicken and Beef Stew or Stew made with Chicken and Beef. 

Poultry products containing livestock ingredients in amounts at 20 percent or less of the total livestock and 

poultry product portion of the poultry product must have names that are qualified to indicate the presence of the 

livestock ingredients, e.g., Chicken Stew-Beef Added. 

However, poultry products that do not meet specified minimum poultry ingredient requirements because 

livestock ingredients are replacing any part of the required poultry ingredients must be descriptively labeled to 

indicate the presence of livestock ingredients, e.g., Turkey and Pork Chop Suey. 

RATIONALE: Consumers do not expect livestock ingredients in products identified as poultry products. 

Therefore, to ensure that product names of poultry products are not misleading to consumers, the presence of 

the livestock ingredients should be indicated. In the case of poultry products containing significant quantities of 

livestock ingredients it is important that the livestock ingredients become a part of the basic product name. 

Similarly, it is important that poultry products not meeting specified minimum poultry ingredient requirements 

have descriptive names that include the presence of the livestock ingredients. The use of a qualifier to the 

product name satisfactorily indicates the presence of the livestock ingredients for poultry products containing 

proportionately smaller amounts of livestock ingredients. The 20 percent level has been used for other products 

and is considered a satisfactory benchmark. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 030A

 SEP 13 1982 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Labeling Meat Food Products Containing Poultry Ingredients 

ISSUE: How meat food products containing poultry ingredients should be labeled. 

POLICY: This Policy Memo replaces and clarifies Policy Memo 030. Meat food products containing poultry 

ingredients in amounts that exceed 20 percent of the total livestock and poultry product portion of the meat food 

product must have product names that indicate the presence of the poultry ingredients, e.g., Beef and Chicken 

Chili or Chili made with Beef and Chicken. 

Meat food products containing poultry ingredients in amounts at 20 percent or less of the total livestock and 

poultry product portion of the meat food product must have product names that are qualified to indicate the 

presence of the poultry ingredients, e.g., Beef Stew - Turkey Added. 

However, meat food products that do not meet specified minimum livestock ingredients requirements because 

poultry ingredients are replacing any part of the required livestock ingredients must have product names that 

indicate the presence of the poultry ingredients, e.g., Beef and Turkey Stew or Stew made with Beef and 

Turkey. 

This policy does not apply to: (1) red meat products that are expected to contain poultry ingredients, e.g., 

Brunswick Stew and Potted Meat Food Product (Section 319.761); (2) cooked sausages identified in section 

319.180 of the meat regulations (see Policy Memo 005); or (3) non-specific loaves, rolls, logs, etc., e.g., Pickle 

and Pimento Loaf. 

RATIONALE: Consumers do not expect poultry ingredients in products historically prepared from red meats 

only. Therefore, to ensure that product names of meat food products are not misleading to consumers, the 

presence of the poultry ingredients should be indicated. In the case of meat food products containing significant 

quantities of poultry ingredients, it is important that the poultry ingredients become a part of the basic product 

name. Similarly, it is important that meat food products not meeting specified minimum livestock ingredient 

requirements have product names that include the presence of poultry ingredients. The use of a qualifier to the 

product name satisfactorily indicates the presence of the poultry ingredients for red meat products containing 

proportionately smaller amounts of poultry ingredients. The 20 percent level has been used for other products 

and is considered a satisfactory benchmark. Non-specific loaves, logs, rolls, etc., are not covered by this policy 

since these products are expected to contain various meat components and extenders and because the 

ingredients statement of these products, in accordance with the regulations, constitutes a part of the product 

name. Potted Meat Food Product is not covered by his policy because chicken has been used in its preparation 

for a number of years and has become an expected ingredient. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 031A

 July 23, 1986 

From: Margaret O' K. Glavin , Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPTIS 

Subject: Salami Labeling 

ISSUE: What is the appropriate labeling for the product “Salami?” 

POLICY: The product "Salami" must be labeled to include the word "Cooked" regardless of the type and size 

of its packaging, unless it is one of the following: 

1) A salami with a moisture protein ratio of no more than 1.9 to 1; 

2) "Genoa salami" with a moisture protein ratio of no more than 2.3:1; 

3) "Sicilian salami,' with a moisture protein ratio of no more than 2.3 : 1 ; or 

4) Labeled, as . . . , (a) Kosher Salami, (b) Kosher Beef Salami , (c) Beef Salami, (d) Beer Salami, and 

(e) Salami for Beer. 

RATIONALE: At one time, "Cooked Salami" in consumer size packages was not required to be labeled 

“Cooked Salami,” since it was believed that the differences in the nature of this product, in comparison to dry 

salami products, were obvious from the packaging. We indicated in policy memo 031 that we believed such a 

position was untenable and created a situation that was not easily controlled. “Cooked Salami” and the dry 

variety have vastly different characteristics including keeping qualities. Thus, it is necessary to use descriptive 

labeling for this product that will serve to alert consumers to the type of product being marketed, regardless of 

the type and size of packaging used. However, there are certain salamis, as indicated by the above historically 

established names, which are not regarded as dry salamis and which have traditionally not been labeled to 

include the term “cooked". These were not spelled out in Policy Memo 031. Therefore, we are revising the 

memo as 031A to include them. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 032

 SEP 4 1981 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Raw Poultry Meat (381-117(b)) 

ISSUE: Appropriate labeling requirements for poultry meat obtained from other than young poultry. 

POLICY: The nomenclature for poultry meat obtained from other than young poultry shall include the class 

designation such as "Yearling Turkey Meat" or "Mature Chicken Meat". 

BASIS: Section 381.117(b) specifies that parts or portions cut from mature poultry shall include along with the 

part or portion name, the class name or the qualifying term "mature” unless the product is cooked or heat 

processed. Questions have arisen as to the applicability of this provision to the labeling of poultry meat which 

is not cooked, heat processed or otherwise recharacterized by further processing. The term portions appears to 

be applicable to this category of product, and a contrary interpretation seems inconsistent with the intent of the 

regulation. There appears to be an increasing amount of mature poultry meat being diverted to retail concerns, 

and the need to allow consumers to distinguish between the various types of product is as valid with a portion of 

meat as it is with a part. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 033

 SEP 4 1981 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Labeling of Cured Meat Products 

ISSUE: Can the traditional names of cured meat products be used even though mechanical reduction has taken 

place before the product has acquired the characteristics expected? 

POLICY: The traditional names of cured meat products, e.g., bacon, may be used even though mechanical 

reduction, e.g., chopping or chunking, has taken place before the product has acquired the characteristics 

expected of the product provided the finished product acquires the characteristics expected. Furthermore, the 

mechanical reduction must be noted in the product name or in a qualifier to the product name (e.g., chopped 

bacon or bacon-chopped and formed). 

RATIONALE: In the past, the traditional names of cured meat products could only be used if the products 

were made in the traditional manner prior to chopping, chunking, etc. and any subsequent reforming. For 

example, a product labeled “chopped and formed bacon" would be the name for a product that consisted of 

bacon prepared by curing and smoking pork bellies in the usual manner and then chopping and forming the 

product. If, for example, chopped pork bellies were cured and smoked, or cured pork bellies were chopped 

prior to smoking and any reforming, the product name could not include the term "bacon" but, instead consisted 

of a description of the steps taken to prepare the raw product, e.g., cured, chopped, smoked, and formed pork 

belly. After careful review, this policy is viewed as unnecessarily restrictive. As long as the finished product 

has all the characteristics and ingredients of the traditional product, conforms to consumer expectation, and is 

properly labeled there is no need to dictate the order of processing. Therefore, this new policy is established to 

provide flexibility to processors without sacrificing the quality of the product reaching consumers. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 034

 SLD 

OCT 1 1981 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

SLD 

Subject: Fresh Chorizos 

ISSUE: Limitations on water and other liquids in fresh chorizos. 

POLICY: Fresh chorizos (uncured, uncooked) shall not contain more than 

three percent added water in accordance with section 319.140. These products may contain vinegar under 

section 318.7(c)(1). The vinegar used must have a strength of no less than 4 grams of acetic acid per 100 cubic 

centimeters (20o

C). 

RATIONALE: "Chorizo" is Spanish for "pork sausage."* Its meaning has expanded in commercial practice 

to include dry or semi-dry cured pork sausage as well as uncooked sausages that may contain beef. The 

standards regulations for uncooked sausage are quite specific in limiting added water or ice to three percent. 

The fresh sausage standards do not, however, restrict the content of liquids other than water, except for 

condimental proportions of condimental substances which may be liquid. The policy specifies a minimum 

strength for vinegar added to chorizos in order to control dilution with additional water. The minimum strength 

specified above is consistent with the trade and regulatory issuances of the Food and Drug Administration. 

References: 

* Cassell's Spanish Dictionary, E.A. Peers et al. (eds.), Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1968. 

* Spanish and English Dictionary, Velazquez et al. (eds.), Follett Publishing Company, Chicago, 1967. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 035

 SLD 

Oct 27 1981 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

SLD 

Subject: High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) in Meat or Poultry Products 

ISSUE: Appropriate use limitations and labeling of HFCS in meat or poultry products. 

POLICY: HFCS may be used to flavor meat or poultry products in amounts sufficient for its intended purpose 

provided the following conditions are met: 

1. HFCS must contain not less than 40 percent fructose on a solids basis. 

2. HFCS must have a dextrose equivalence (D.E.) of not less than 93. 

3. HFCS must have a sweetening power greater than or equal to sugar (sucrose). 

4. HFCS must be identified on the label as High Fructose Corn Syrup in the ingredient statement, curing 

statement, etc. 

RATIONALE: The meat inspection regulations (9 CFR 318.7(c)) provide for the use of corn syrup as a 

flavoring for certain meat products but limits usage to 2 percent calculated on a dry basis. These restricted uses 

of corn syrup have been in effect for many years. These usage limits were established to prevent use of corn 

syrup as a "filler" or economic diluent. In recent years the corn industry has developed a new class of 

sweeteners known as HFCS which were not commercial products of use when these regulations were 

promulgated. The dextrose equivalence and fructose specifications given above are consistent with industry 

specification sheets for these products. HFCS, as defined by items 1 through 3 above, is self limiting in its 

usage level, as is sugar, and cannot serve as an essentially inert filler or economic diluent. Since HFCS was not 

an item of commerce when the regulatory restrictions were promulgated, HFCS was not intended to be included 

in the corn syrup category and should not be restricted in usage as are traditional corn syrups. 

The maximum amount of corn syrups currently allowed in poultry products (9 CFR 381.147(f)) is that amount 

that is "sufficient for purpose." This policy on HFCS does not change that limitation. However, this policy does 

require that HFCS used in poultry products be declared on the label as "High Fructose Corn Syrup." This 

provision is necessary to enable individuals with fructose intolerance to avoid foods containing fructose. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 036

 SLD 

Nov 6 1981 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

SLD 

Subject: Plastic Cans 

ISSUE: Whether plastic packaging for meat food products may be considered to be a "can" under 319.104(e). 

POLICY: Plastic material may be used to package cured pork products under section 319.104(e) of the meat 

inspection regulations only if it meets the following requirements: 

(1) The plastic packaging material is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and/or the USDA 

Food Ingredient Assessment Division as appropriate. 

(2) The plastic container encloses the product during thermal processing. 

(3) The plastic container is impermeable and hermetically sealed. 

(4) The plastic container has a label bearing all required handling statements. 

RATIONALE: In response to an industry request for approval of flexible crimped nylon tubing as a "can" 

under section 319.104(e), the USDA consulted several can manufacturers and trade associations. The 

consensus was that a can should be retortable and hermetically sealed. The Dictionary of Standard Definitions 

of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) states that a can may also be made of plastic. In the 

interest of public safety, any plastic material used in packaging cured pork products must be approved by the 

Food and Drug Administration and/or the Food Ingredient Assessment Division as a food packaging material. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 037

 Nov 4 1981 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Alternate Principal Display Panels (9CFR 317.2(d) and 381.116(b)) 

ISSUE: When is a panel bearing a number of mandatory labeling features considered an alternate principal 

display panel? 

POLICY: The determination as to whether or not a panel is an alternate principal display panel shall be based 

on whether or not the panel is likely to be displayed, presented, shown, or examined under customary 

conditions of sale. In some cases this means that the manufacturer will need to provide us with information 

regarding the manner in which the product is marketed and displayed. If the intent of the panel cannot be 

determined or demonstrated, and it has the appearance of a principal display panel, the presence of three or 

more mandatory labeling features shall serve to characterize the panel as an alternate principal panel. As such, 

any remaining mandatory features required to be placed on a principal display panel must also be included. 

RATIONALE: In the past, the determination as to whether or not a panel is an alternate principal display 

panel has been based solely on the fact that a manufacturer has elected to display a certain number of 

mandatory labeling features on the panel. After careful review of this policy, it has been decided that this 

approach may not always be the best method for making this determination since there are occasions when a 

panel bearing several mandatory labeling features would not serve as an alternate principal display panel, i.e., a 

panel likely to be presented under customary conditions of sale. Therefore, this determination will be made by 

reviewing the label and any information presented by the manufacturer to help us determine the purpose of the 

panel. If, however, the purpose of the panel cannot be demonstrated or determined, it is believed that the 

presence of three or more mandatory features sufficiently characterizes the panel as significant enough to 

require that any remaining mandatory features required on a principal display also be included on the panel. 
To: Branch Chiefs, Policy Memo 038

 Standards and Labeling Division 

Dec 16 1981 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Labeling Cured Product as "Honey Cured", "Sugar Cured", or "Honey and Sugar Cured" (Sugar and 

Honey Cured) 

ISSUE: What are the guidelines for the use of "Honey Cured", "Sugar Cured" or "Honey and Sugar Cured" 

(Sugar and Honey Cured) on labeling? 

POLICY: "Honey Cured" may be shown on the labeling of a cured product if: (1) the honey used contains at 

least 80 percent solids or is U.S. Grade C or above; (2) honey is the only sweetening ingredient or when other 

sweetening ingredients are used in combination with honey, they do not exceed one-half the amount of honey 

used; and (3) honey is used in an amount sufficient to flavor and/or affect the appearance of the finished 

product. 

"Sugar Cured" may be used on the labeling of a cured product if: (1) the sugar used is cane sugar or beet sugar; 

(2) sugar is the only sweetening ingredient or when other sweetening ingredients are used in combination with 

sugar, they do not exceed one-half the amount of sugar used; and (3) sugar is used in an amount sufficient to 

flavor and/or affect the appearance of the finished product. 

"Honey and Sugar Cured" or "Sugar and Honey Cured" may also be used on labeling if: (1) the honey and sugar 

are of the nature described above; (2) the honey and sugar are the only sweetening agents or when other 

sweetening ingredients are used in combination with the honey and sugar they do not individually exceed either 

the amount of honey or sugar used and collectively do not exceed one-half the total amount of honey and sugar; 

and (3) the honey and sugar is used in amounts sufficient to flavor and/or affect the appearance of the finished 

product. 

RATIONALE: A labeling claim that purports the product to possess a specific flavor and/or appearance 

characteristic may be misleading because: (1) the specific flavor is not used; (2) the specific flavor is used in an 

amount insufficient to characterize the product; and (3) a substitute ingredient is used that resembles or 

reinforces the flavor and/or appearance characteristics expected. The flavor and/or appearance characteristics 

imparted to a product by honey and sugar are similar, both impart sweetness and when heated have a tendency 

to darken. 

However, there are other sweetening ingredients such as dextrose, corn syrup, and sorbitol that can impart 

similar characteristics. These ingredients could substitute, in whole or in part, for the honey and/or sugar 

necessary to characterize a product. Such substitution in a product bearing a honey and/or sugar claim would 

mislead the consumer into believing that the flavor characteristics and/or appearance of the product were due to 

the use of the specific flavor claimed. Therefore, this policy establishes guidelines for the use of sweetening 

ingredients in cured products bearing a honey and/or sugar claim on its label. The policy is adopted from the 

guidelines that have been used for years with regard to "sugar cured" claims. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 040

 January 18, 1982 

From: Robert G. Hibbert 

Director 

SLD 

Subject: Smoked Products 

ISSUE: Can products be labeled as "smoked" if they have been exposed to natural liquid smoke which has 

been transformed into a vapor by mechanical means? 

POLICY: Products which have been exposed to natural liquid smoke which has been transformed into a vapor 

(mist, fog, gas) by mechanical means, e.g., atomization may be labeled as "smoked". 

RATIONALE: Presently, products labeled "Smoked" must be processed with smoke generated from burning 

hardwood, hardwood sawdust, or corn cobs or from natural liquid smoke that has been transformed into a 

gaseous state by the application of direct heat. The transformation of liquid smoke into a vapor by 

mechanical means results in products that, after analysis of processing procedures and product sampling, 

possess the same smoke characteristics as the products resulting from the gaseous natural liquid smoke process 

which is currently approved. Consequently, products are believed to meet consumer expectations of smoked 

products. The efficacy of natural liquid smoke for use in producing acceptable smoked meat and poultry 

products has already been demonstrated. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 041B

 February 15, 1991 

From: Ashland L. Clemons 

Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, RP 

Subject: Labeling of Boneless Ham Products, Whole Muscle Roast Beef Products, and Boneless Poultry 

Products (Except Turkey Ham (9 CFR 381.171)) Containing Ground and/or Emulsified Trimmings 

ISSUE: Under what circumstances are the product names for boneless ham products, whole muscle beef 

products for roasting, and boneless poultry products acceptable without qualification, and when must the 

product names be qualified to reflect the use of like ground and emulsified trimmings? 

POLICY: This policy memo replaces Policy Memo 041A (Labeling of Boneless Ham Products) and also 

addresses boneless roast beef and boneless poultry products. The addition of small amounts of ground or 

emulsified ham trimmings, beef trimmings, or poultry trimmings to these products may be used without 

declaration. However, if poultry skin is being used to produce poultry trimmings, it may not exceed natural 

proportions as prescribed in 9 CFR 381.117 and 381.118 of the Poultry Products Inspection Regulations. The 

amount of ground or emulsified trimmings that may be used can represent no more than 15 percent of the fresh 

or green weight of the ham, beef, or poultry block at the time of formulation (e.g., 85 lbs. intact muscle and 15 

lbs. of trimmings). these trimmings may be from a different process, however, they must be derived from like 

cuts or parts, e.g., emulsified round trimmings injected into product called "Boneless Roast Beef Round," 

emulsified breast meat trimmings injected into product called "Boneless Roasted Turkey Breast," or emulsified 

chuck trimmings injected into product called "Cooked Roast Beef" derived from the beef chuck. The 

information pertaining to the source of trimmings and cut of product being used must be indicated in the 

product formulation on label submittals. Emulsified trimmings consist of suspending ground trimmings in a 

curing solution or other solutions (i.e., that impart flavor) through the use of a mechanical emulsifier, then 

injecting the liquid suspension directly into the whole muscle portion of the hams, beef roasts, or poultry 

products. The emulsified suspension must be used during the same day of production. Furthermore, a written 

proposal outlining processing procedures for injecting the suspensions of ham, beef, or poultry trimmings into 

the boneless product must be submitted by establishments, through appropriate inspection channels, to the 

Processed Products Inspection Division, Science and Technology, for review and approval. Such approval is a 

prerequisite for label use. Products containing more than 15 percent ground trimmings or emulsified 

trimmings must be labeled to indicate the presence of the ground ham, beef or poultry trimmings added or 

emulsified ham, beef or poultry trimmings being injected, e.g., "A Portion of Ground Ham Added," 

"Emulsified Beef Added," "Ground Poultry Trimmings Added," or "Emulsified Beef Trimmings Added." 

Policies regarding the required use of terminology such as "chunked and formed" and "ground and formed" 

will continue. 

RATIONALE: This revision extends coverage of Policy Memo 041A Labeling of Boneless Ham Products (9 

CFR 317.2(b)(13)), to ground beef trimmings and ground poultry trimmings, and also reflects changes in 

technology that enable emulsified trimmings to be added to whole muscle meat and poultry products. 

Furthermore, these recent advances in processing have provided the technology to process ground trimmings in 

a curing solution, or other solution, through the use of an emulsifier, then injecting the mixture directly into 
the whole muscle portion of the ham, beef roast, or poultry product. It is our belief that products to which 

ground or emulsified trimmings are added or injected are not recharacterized by levels of trimmings up to 15 

percent. A number of establishments have requested approval to inject suspensions of ground trimmings and 

curing solutions (or other solution) into boneless meat and poultry products. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 042

 February 3, 1982 

From: Robert G. Hibbert 

Director 

SLD 

Subject: Raw Bone-In Poultry Products Containing Solutions 

ISSUE: Labeling of raw bone-in poultry and poultry parts to which solutions are added. 

POLICY: Unless addressed by other regulations and policies, water and/or oil based solutions may be added 

to raw bone-in poultry and poultry parts at various levels with an appropriate qualifying statement to the 

product name. 

The statement must include terms adequate to inform the consumer of the amount and manner of the addition 

and include the common or usual names of the ingredients in their proper order of predominance (e.g., 

"Injected with up to 12 percent of a solution of water, salt, and phosphates"). Other similar designations will 

be considered on their merits. The statement must be contiguous to the product name and printed in a style and 

color as prominent as the product name. The statement of the manner and amount of addition must be 

one-fourth the size of the most prominent letter in the product name. The ingredients of the solution can be in 

print one-eighth the size of the most prominent letter of the product name. Terms such as "Basted," 

"Marinated", "For Flavoring" and similar terms contemplated within the provisions of Section 381.169 of the 

poultry products inspection regulation can not be used if the amount of the solution added is more than needed 

to baste, marinate, or flavor the product. In the case of bone-in poultry and poultry parts, the amount is 

approximately 3 percent as prescribed by the regulations. 

RATIONALE: The addition of various water and/or oil base solutions has been approved in various products 

including beef for further cooking, roasts, bone-in poultry, poultry rolls, and steaks. These solutions are added 

by injection, marination, etc., to impart favorable flavoring and other sensory characteristics to the finished 

product. Existing policies and regulations, however, do not address the addition of solutions above the 3 

percent level in bone-in products. Such additions are considered appropriate, but since the nature of the product 

is changed, it is necessary that the product name be qualified to identify the composition of the solution and 

the manner and the amount of the solution added. This is consistent with policies relating to the addition of 

solutions to other meat and poultry products. The prohibition of the use of terms such as "Basted", 

"Marinated" and "For Flavoring" is based on the fact that the level prescribed in the regulation for bone-in 

poultry products is adequate for basting, marinating, and flavoring. The use of solutions above this stated 

amount is unnecessary for these purposes. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 044A

 September 2, 1986 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin 

Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Raw Boneless Poultry Containing Solutions 

ISSUE: Labeling of raw boneless poultry and poultry parts to which solutions are added. 

POLICY: This policy memo replaces Policy Memo 044. Unless addressed by other regulations and policies, 

water and/or oil based solutions may be added to raw boneless poultry and poultry parts at any level if the 

addition and the amount of solution are identified. A statement indicating that the addition of a solution has 

taken place must appear contiguous to the product name wherever it appears on the labeling. "Contains a 6 

percent solution" and "Injected with up to 12 percent of a solution" are examples of acceptable statements. The 

ingredients of the solution may accompany the statement or appear in locations prescribed for ingredients 

statements. The statement must be one-fourth the size of the most prominent letter in the product name. If the 

ingredients are included within the statement, they must appear in print one-eighth the size of the most 

prominent letter of the product name. Terms such as "Basted," "Marinated," "For Flavoring," and similar 

terms contemplated within the provisions of section 381.169 of the poultry products inspection regulation 

cannot be used if the amount of the solution added is more than needed to baste, marinate, or flavor the 

product. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the amount is believed to be 8.0 percent for boneless 

poultry. A quality control program must also be approved by the Processed Products Inspection Division 

before the label can be used. 

RATIONALE: This policy memo is being issued to clarify the nature of the statement that must accompany 

the product name whenever solutions are added to raw boneless poultry and poultry parts. Also the permission 

to place the ingredients of the added solutions in locations normally reserved for ingredients statements is 

being addressed to provide consistency with present policy which permits the list of ingredients to appear on an 

information panel (see Policy Memo 007) or in the case of products in cartons on the front riser. The 

regulations relating to the addition of solutions to ready-to-cook bone-in poultry, which require the solution 

statement including the list of ingredients to appear on the principal display panel, are still in effect. The 

addition of various water and/or oil base solutions has been approved in various products including beef for 

further cooking, roasts, bone-in poultry, poultry rolls, and steaks. These solutions are added by injection, 

marination, etc., to impart favorable flavoring and other sensory characteristics to the finished product. 

Existing policies and regulations, however, do not address the addition of solutions to most boneless products. 

Such additions are considered appropriate, but since the nature of the product is changed, it is necessary that 

the product be labeled to identify the amount and composition of the solution and its function. Furthermore, 

both the meat and poultry regulations require that a product have a standardized name or, if none exists, a 

common or usual name. If neither exists, the product must have a truthful descriptive name. Since these 

products have neither a standardized or common or usual name, a descriptive name is needed. The traditional 

name, supplemented with the required qualifiers to create the necessary distinction from the traditional 

product, serves this function. The prohibition of the use of terms such as "Basted," "Marinated," and "For 

Flavoring" on the labeling of products containing solutions above the level necessary to baste, marinate, or 
flavor the product is consistent with the policies for the addition of solutions to bone-in poultry and poultry 

parts. The 8 percent level for boneless products is the amount of solution that would be present in the flesh of 

the poultry, primarily the breast and thighs, after a 3 percent solution was added to the bone-in product in 

accordance with 9 CFR 381.169. The need for a quality control program is consistent with the requirements 

of 9 CFR 381.169 for bone-in poultry. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 045

 April 7, 1982 

From: Robert G. Hibbert 

Director 

SLD 

Subject: Product Names of Margarine Substitutes 

ISSUE: What guidelines should be followed when approving labels for products that are substitutes for 

margarine? 

POLICY: Meat food products that are substitutes for margarine because they contain less than 80 percent fat 

and/or oil need not be labeled "Imitation" if the product has a fully descriptive name and the finished product 

contains 15,000 international units of vitamin A per pound. The descriptive name of the product may include 

the term "Spread" (or "Spred"), which has been widely adopted as a generic fanciful name for this class of 

products. 

The following guidelines shall be used in selecting the appropriate descriptive product name: 

1. "Animal Fat Spread (or Spred)" is an acceptable product name for a product prepared from animal fat as 

the sole source of fat. 

2. "Animal Fat and Vegetable Oil Spread (or Spred)" is an acceptable product name for a product prepared 

with a combination of animal fat(s) and vegetable oil(s) in which the vegetable oil(s) content is greater than 20 

percent of the total of the fat(s) and oil(s) used but less than 50 percent of the total. 

3. "Animal Fat Spread (or Spred)-Vegetable Oil Added" is an acceptable product name for a product 

prepared with a combination of animal fat(s) and vegetable oil(s) in which the vegetable oil(s) content is 20 

percent or less of the total of the fat(s) and oil(s) used but greater than 2 percent of the total. 

4. The fanciful name "Spread" (or "Spred") accompanied by a list of all ingredients individually identified 

by their common or usual name in order of decreasing predominance is an acceptable product name regardless 

of the nature and amount of fat(s) and/or oil(s) used. In 1, 2, and 3 above the descriptive product name may 

include the percent of each fat and/or oil and may include the common or usual name of each fat and/or oil 

used. 

RATIONALE: Section 301.2(ii)(3) of the meat inspection regulations provides that a product must be labeled 

"imitation" if it is an imitation of another 

 food. The policy of the agency also permits a descriptive name for the substitute food if the product is not 

nutritionally inferior to the product being substituted. In the case of margarine-like products, nutritional 

inferiority is determined on the basis of the product's vitamin A content. Since margarine is required to contain 

15,000 international units of vitamin A per pound, margarine-like products must also contain this amount or be 

considered nutritionally inferior. The word "Spread" (or "Spred") has been adopted by the industry as a term 

that differentiates these products from margarine and is considered an acceptable term if the fat and/or oil used 
in preparing the product is identified generally or specifically in the product name description. The descriptive 

name including the fat and/or oil is necessary to inform the consumer of the nature of the product. This policy 

is also consistent with section 317.2(e) with regard to the use of a fanciful name accompanied by a list of 

ingredients as an alternative to a descriptive product name and with past labeling policy with regard to the use 

of qualifying statements. The 20 percent level has been used for other products and is considered a satisfactory 

benchmark. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 047

 May 3, 1982 

From: Robert G. Hibbert 

Director 

SLD 

Subject: Net Weight Statements on Packages with Header Labels* (9 CFR 317.2(h) and 9 CFR 381.121) 

ISSUE: What are the size and location requirements for the net weight statements on packages with header 

labels? 

POLICY: The guidelines for determining the size and location of net weight statements on meat food product 

packages that have header labels are as follows: 

1. The entire front of the package is considered the principal display panel of the package and its area is used 

to determine the size of the net weight statement. Print size specifications for the net weight statement 

specified by the regulations must be followed. 

2. The net weight statement should be placed within the lower 30 percent area of the header label if no other 

mandatory labeling features are printed on the rest of the principal display panel of the package. If mandatory 

features do appear below the header label, the net weight statement must be placed within the lower 30 percent 

of the total area containing any mandatory information. 

RATIONALE: As prescribed by the regulations in 9CFR 317.2(h)(6) and 9CFR 381.121 the size of the net 

weight statement is dependent on the size of the principal display panel of the package. Thus the total area of 

the front of the package with a header label must be used to determine the size of the net weight statement. 

This is consistent with the requirement for all other packages. The use of header labels has been commonplace 

within the meat and poultry industries for years. Header labels usually bear all mandatory and other 

information found on the package. Because of the nature of the packaging, the area below the header label is 

often ideal for the placement of additional information, which is most often non-mandatory in nature. The use 

of this area for other information has raised questions about whether the net weight statement should then be 

located in the lower 30 percent of the principal display panel of the package or the lower 30 percent of the area 

containing the additional information, or whether the net weight statement should remain in the header label 

area. The regulations specify that the net weight statement should be placed on the principal display panel of 

the label within the bottom 30 percent of the panel, but the regulations in these situations are not clear as to 

what constitutes the principal display panel of the label. The regulations do specify that the principal display 

panel of the label should be large enough to accommodate all mandatory label information. Consequently, it is 

believed both reasonable and in accord with the regulations to require that in those cases where the processor 

has elected to place mandatory information below the header label the net weight statement must be placed 

within the lower 30 percent of the total area containing any mandatory information. However, it is considered 

unnecessary and unduly restrictive to require the relocation of the net weight statement because of the addition 

of non-mandatory information in the area below the header label. *A "Header Label" is a small label applied 

across the top of a package usually bearing all of the mandatory labeling information. The rest of the package 
most often is a clear film containing a meat or poultry product such as luncheon meat. This type of packaging 

is designed to be used on peg board type displays. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 048

 May 18, 1982 

From: Robert G. Hibbert 

Director 

SLD 

Subject: Level of Beef in Berliner 

ISSUE: What is the maximum amount of beef allowed in a sausage product called Berliner?" 

POLICY: "Berliner" may be made from pork or a mixture of pork and beef. When beef is used it shall not 

exceed 50 percent of the meat block. 

RATIONALE: In the past, "Berliner" was described in the Policy Book as a cooked smoked sausage usually 

made from coarsely cut cured pork. It could contain up to 15 percent beef. This policy has not been applied 

consistently to label approvals. Eight of 30 establishments which make "Berliner" have label approvals for 

"Berliner" which contains up to 50 percent beef. Some of these labels have been in effect for 10 years or more. 

It is apparent after this length of time that many consumers expect "Berliner" to contain mixtures of beef and 

pork up to and including as much as 50 percent beef. Therefore the maximum level of beef permitted in 

"Berliner" shall be 50 percent of the meat block and the Policy Book shall be corrected to show this level. A 

level of beef in excess of 50% would completely change the nature of the product from a pork or pork and beef 

product to one which is predominantly beef. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 050B

 Standards and Labeling Division 

 December 19, 1985 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Canadian Style Bacon 

ISSUE: Appropriate labeling and standards of identity for "Canadian Style Bacon"? 

POLICY: This replaces Policy Memo 50A on Canadian Style Bacon. Product which is identified as 

"Canadian Style Bacon" is made from a trimmed boneless pork loin. On the shoulder end, the cross section of 

the longissimus dorsi muscle shall be equal to or larger than the combined cross sectional areas of the splenius 

and semispinalis capitis muscles. The ham end shall be removed anterior to the illium. The exposed faces 

shall be approximately perpendicular with the skin surface. The dorsal and ventral side on each end of the 

"Canadian Style Bacon" shall not be more than 1.0 inch different in length. The belly is removed adjacent to 

the longissiums dorsi muscle. All bones and cartilage shall be removed. The tenderloin and the flesh overlying 

the blade bone are excluded. The surface fat (and false lean when necessary) shall be trimmed to 0.3 inches 

thick at any point. The fat on the ventral and dorsal sides is neatly beveled to meet the lean. As further 

clarification, the enclosed diagram (see diagram--reference hard copy of this Policy Memo) shows a 

cross-sectional view through the loin-shoulder separation. The area below and to the left of the perforated lines 

represents the "Canadian Style Bacon" with the belly, the blade bone (Scapula) and overlying flesh removed. 

The term "Canadian Style Bacon", when featured on the label as a product name or part of a product name (i.e. 

as a descriptor, etc.), may stand alone without an additional qualifier indicating the true geographical origin of 

the product. 

RATIONALE: The Issuance of Policy Memo 050 raised some questions about the identity of various muscles 

mentioned and the clarity of the description of the Institutional Meat Purchase Specification (IMPS) for 

Canadian Back. The revision of the description and the enclosed diagram are intended to provide clarification 

of the tissues involved. Until recently, the Division has regarded Canadian Style Bacon as a term suggesting 

geographical origin or charaterization, and thus has required that the true product origin be identified along 

with the product name (e.g. Made in U.S.A). In evaluating the connotation of the term, it has become apparent 

that Canadian Style Bacon is a commonplace term which is widely recognized by consumers and industry as a 

type or style of bacon and which holds no geographical relevance. This is best demonstrated by the various 

information publications which specifically identify Canadian Style Bacon as a section of the pork loin, as 

described above. 

(For diagram, see paper copy of this policy memo.) 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 051

 September 13, 1982 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Species Sausages 

ISSUE: The labeling and standards of sausage products labeled with species identification. 

POLICY: (Species) sausages identified in 319.141, 319.142, 319.144 and 319.160 of the meat inspection 

regulations which are also cooked, cured or smoked (or any combination) must comply with the standards 

before this processing if the product name is to include "(species) sausage." For example, fresh beef sausage 

identified in 319.142 which is cured and cooked may be labeled "cured, cooked beef sausage." Prior to this 

processing, these products could not contain more than the 3 percent water permitted by the standard. 

Cooked cured sausages or smoked cured sausages containing up to 10 percent added water in the finished 

product and prepared from one species may be labeled as "cooked cured sausage" or "smoked sausage" or as 

"cooked cured sausage made with (species)" or "smoked sausage made with (species)." Semi-dry and dry 

sausages made from a single species may be labeled "(species) sausage", e.g., "beef sausage." This policy 

does not apply to cooked sausages identified in section 319.180 of the meat regulations. 

RATIONALE: (Species) sausages identified in 319.141, 319.142, 319.144 and 319.160 are not permitted to 

contain more than 3 percent water at time of formulation. If these products are cooked, smoked or cured (or 

any combination), they would not be expected to contain more than the 3 percent water permitted by their 

respective standards. Appropriate labeling for these products would include "(species) sausage" and a 

description of the processing that has taken place, e.g., cured, smoked pork sausage. Certain cooked or 

smoked cured sausages are traditionally expected to contain up to 10 percent added water. These products are 

often labeled "smoked sausage" or "cured cooked sausage." If species identification is desired for these 

products, it is necessary that labeling be used to differentiate these products from those discussed in the 

preceding paragraph. The most appropriate labeling is "cured cooked sausage made from (species)" or 

"smoked sausage made from (species)." Since semi-dry and dry sausages are sufficiently different in 

appearance and character including keeping qualities, they may be labeled "(species) sausage." 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 052

 SLD 

 September 15, 1982 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

SLD 

Subject: The Use of Cured Pork Tissue in Making Lard 

ISSUE: May cured pork tissues be used in the preparation of lard? 

POLICY: Cured pork trimmings may be rendered to produce lard manufactured in compliance with the lard, 

leaf lard standard. 

RATIONALE: On June 13, 1973, the Department published in the Federal Register (38 FR 15519-20) a 

proposed standard for lard. The first two sentences of 319.702(a) (9 CFR 319.702(a)) of this proposed 

standard read as follows: 

(a) Lard is the fat rendered from clean and sound edible tissues from swine. The tissues may be fresh, 

frozen, cured, (emphasis added) cooked, or prepared by other processes approved by the Administrator in 

specific cases upon his determination that the use of such processes will not result in the adulteration or 

misbranding of the lard. 

This provision to allow cured tissues in these products was explained in the preamble to the proposal as 

follows: 

 The principal changes proposed by the amendment in the ingredients of lard would be the authorization 

for use of cured and/or cooked pork tissues. This is in recognition of product processing changes that 

have occurred. Pork curing methods formerly involved holding pork cuts for periods of considerable 

length after the addition of the cure ingredients. Problems of rancidity were frequently encountered. At 

 present, cures are added to pork cuts just prior to cooking and smoking operations. Insufficient time 

exists for rancidity to occur. 

These statements are still technically valid, and, as such, provide the basis for the allowance of cured tissues in 

these products. However, on October 18, 1977, the Department published a general request for data regarding 

the use of nitrates and nitrites in cured products (42 FR 55626-7) in order to gain further information from any 

interested party prior to taking any final action regarding the use of nitrates and nitrites in a variety of meat 

food products. At the time the final rule for lard was being developed the data received in response to this 

notice were being reviewed by the agency. According to the preamble to the final rule on lard published on 

June 13, 1978, (43 FR 25420) "since the nitrite and nitrate data have not been reviewed and other important 

safety issues concerning nitrosamine formation have not been fully resolved, the Department has concluded 

that it should withhold cured pork tissues as materials used in the production of lard, at least for the present 

time. As further information becomes available, the Department will reconsider its position". Therefore, the 

final rule did not specify cured tissues as an ingredient in lard. A review of these data and other materials has 

been completed. It has been shown that, because of the low temperatures at which lard is rendered, there is 
little likelihood of nitrosamine formation. (J. I. Gray, "N-Nitrosamines and their precursors in Bacon: A 

Review", Journal of Milk and Food Technology, Vol. 39, No. 10, pages 686-692 and J.W. Pensabene et. al, 

"Effect of Frying and Other Cooking Conditions on Nitrosopyrrolidine Formation in Bacon"; Journal of Food 

Science, Vol. 39, pages 314-316). The Department has therefore determined that cured pork tissue is a 

satisfactory material from which to manufacture lard. Since the Department indicated in the preamble to the 

final rule that further action, based upon its review of the data, was contemplated, and since all cured tissues 

would be either cooked or fresh, categories which are both specified in the current regulation, further 

regulatory action does not appear necessary. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 054

 November 10, 1982 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director, SLD 

Subject: Quality Control Claims (9 CFR 318.4(f) and 381.145(f)) 

ISSUE: What guidelines should be followed in approving labels bearing claims indicating that the product's 

quality is controlled or assured? 

POLICY: Product labels bearing claims such as "quality controlled," "quality assurance," and words of 

similar connotation, other than those claims specifically allowed by regulation for establishments under total 

quality control programs approved by the Administrator (9 CFR 381.4(f) and 381.145(f)), may only be 

approved under the following conditions: 

(l) If the claim relates to a firm's own quality control program that is not approved by USDA, the claim 

must indicate that the firm is responsible, e.g., "Quality Assured by Joe's Packing Company." 

(2) If the claim relates to a partial quality control program approved by USDA, the claim must indicate the 

nature of the program. The claim may include wording to indicate that the quality control program operated 

by the official establishment for the stated quality has been approved by USDA. An example of such a claim 

would be "Fat Content Quality Controlled - USDA Approved." 

(3) Claims approved consistent with (l) and (2) above may not be incorporated into a branding symbol, 

starburst, or similar design that may give the semblance of the official USDA labeling logo authorized in 9 

CFR 318.4(f) and 381.145(f) for firms under total plant quality control programs approved by USDA. 

(4) Claims approved consistent with (l) and (2) above may not include words indicating total plant quality 

control, directly or indirectly, unless the establishment has an approved program authorized in accordance 

with 9 CFR 318.4(f) and 381.145(f). 

RATIONALE: The meat and poultry products inspection regulations allow processors to participate in two 

different quality control programs: either "Total Plant Quality Control" program for all products through all 

stages of preparation or a "Partial Quality Control" program for a specific product, operation, or a part of an 

operation. In both cases, detailed information concerning the manner in which the system will function is 

approved by the Administrator. The regulations (sections 318.4(f) and 381.145(f)) authorize the use of a 

labeling logo reading "Quality Control USDA Approved" for products prepared under a "Total Plant Quality 

Control" program but do not provide for a labeling logo for products prepared under a "Partial Quality Control" 

program. In contrast to a "Total Plant Quality Control" program, a "Partial Quality Control" program may 

involve only quality control of the percentage of fat declared on the product label or the nutritional information 

that is shown. In addition, many processors operate their own quality control programs outside the scope of the 

USDA approved programs. Recently, processors have submitted labeling bearing claims intended to inform 

consumers that their product is produced under some type of quality control program. However, the labeling 

may be confusing as to whether it is an official USDA approved total quality control program, a partial quality 

control program approved by USDA, or one operated solely by the processor. Because of this potential for 
confusion and the increasing interest in the Agency's total quality control program, guidelines are necessary 

for approving labeling that bears phrases such as "Quality Controlled," "Quality Assured," or phrases of similar 

connotation to insure that they are properly qualified and not misleading. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 056

 SLD 

 January 12, 1983 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

SLD 

Subject: Potassium Sorbate and Propylparaben on Semi-Dry Sausage 

ISSUE: The use of potassium sorbate or propylparaben as an external mold inhibitor on semi-dry sausages. 

POLICY: Potassium sorbate or propylparaben may be used as an external mold inhibitor (applied by dipping 

or spraying) on semi-dry sausages which have a moisture-protein ratio of 3.1:1 or less and a pH of 5.0 or less. 

The presence of potassium sorbate or propylparaben must be declared on the label. 

RATIONALE: The current regulation (9 CFR 318.7(c)(4)) states that potassium sorbate or propylparaben 

may be used on dry sausage casings to retard mold growth and potassium sorbate may be used in 

oleomargarine or margarine to preserve the product and to retard mold growth. The regulation has also been 

interpreted to permit the use of potassium sorbate on beef jerky (letter of Irwin Fried dated July 26, 1978 and 

Policy Book, p. 106A). Policy Memo 17 extends this usage to imitation dry sausage products and dry beef 

snacks also. 

Semi-dry sausages having a moisture - protein ratio of 3.1:1 or less and a pH of 5.0 or less are shelf-stable. 

They do not require refrigeration and will not undergo microbiological spoilage at room temperature. The use 

of a mold inhibitor on the surface will not hide or mask interior deterioration. In this respect they are 

analogous to dry sausages and the use of potassium sorbate or propylparaben on the surface represents a 

consistent application of the regulations. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 057A

 September 16, 1985 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Labeling Turkey Ham Products Containing Added Water 

(9 CFR 381.171) 

ISSUE: What is the appropriate labeling for a Turkey Ham product that contains added substances? 

POLICY: This Policy Memo replaces Policy Memo 057. A product otherwise conforming to the standard for 

Turkey Ham under section 381.171 of the poultry products inspection regulations but weighing more than the 

original weight of the turkey thigh meat used prior to curing shall be descriptively labeled as follows: 

(l) The product name must include in addition to "Turkey Ham", words that specify the amount of the 

additional substances, e.g., "and percent Water", "With Percent Water Added" or "Turkey Ham and Water 

Product Percent of Weight is Added Ingredients" (The ingredients of the added solution may be incorporated 

into the product name, e.g., "Turkey Ham and Water Product Percent of Weight is Added Water, Salt, 

Dextrose, Sodium Phosphate, and Sodium Nitrite.") The blank is filled in with a percent determined by 

subtracting the original weight of the turkey thigh meat from the weight of the cooked finished product. 

"Turkey Ham and 12 Percent Water" is an example. 

(2) In retail and non-retail size packaging, the qualifying statements described in (1), i.e., "With 

Percent Water Added", "and Percent Water," " Percent of Weight is Added Ingredients," and similar 

statements must be shown in lettering that is either not less than three-eighths inch in height or is at least 

one-third the size of the letters used in the product name, and in the same color and style and on the same 

background as the product name. Full length of the product labeling is not required. 

(3) The "Turkey Ham" portion of the product name must be qualified with the statement "Cured Turkey 

Thigh Meat" in the manner described in 381.171(e). This may be effected by using an asterisk as long as there 

is no type or other designs between the total product name and the qualifying statement. Other means of 

qualifying "Turkey Ham" will be evaluated based on clarity. Alternatively, the total name as described in (l) 

and (2) may be qualified with a statement that includes "Cured Turkey Thigh Meat" and the amount of added 

water, e.g., "Cured Turkey Thigh Meat and 12 Percent Water." The statement should be presented in the 

manner described in 381.171(e). 

(4) The product name shall be further qualified with the statement(s) required by section 381.171(f) and 

any other statement required in Part 381. A product complying with the standard for Turkey Ham, containing 

added substances and descriptively labeled as stated above, must be produced under a Partial Quality Control 

(PQC) program approved by the Processed Products Inspection Division (PPID) prior to the use of the approved 

label. 

RATIONALE: Processors using the newer cook-in films are finding it difficult to process Turkey Hams in 

compliance with the standard. The use of cook-in films results in a minimal amount of cooked-out juices with 

the excess moisture retained in the product. In addition, processors desire to provide consumers with a 
product similar in compositional characteristics to hams with added water. While the poultry product 

inspection regulations do not yet specifically provide for a Turkey Ham containing added substances, they do 

provide for descriptive labeling of non-standardized products. In addition, this policy statement is consistent 

with the intent of labeling policies developed for various meat and poultry products containing added solutions, 

including those products covered under the Protein Fat Free (PFF) regulations. Labeling policies which 

historically have been followed for cured pork products are now being superseded by new policies 

accompanying the recently installed PFF regulations. Accordingly, labeling policy changes are also being 

made for Turkey Ham, a product which, by compositional design, closely approximates a cured pork product. 

One of these changes includes the lifting of the requirement that when ham products containing added 

solutions are placed in packages other than consumer-size, such products shall be marked with the qualifying 

statement the full length of the product. The new labeling policy for such additional label information no 

longer distinguishes consumer-size packages from those intended for non-retail uses. The other change allows 

the qualifying statements to be either in three eighths inch lettering or one third the size of the product name if 

in the same style, color and on the same background. This should provide processors with sufficient flexibility 

in producing a product to meet various economic and nutritional needs of consumers while still providing fully 

informative labeling as required by the Poultry Products Inspection Act. The need for a PQC program 

approved by PPID is consistent with the requirement for other similar products. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 058A

 August 5, 1983 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director, SLD 

Subject: Smoked Products 

ISSUE: What guidelines should be followed when approving labeling for product prepared with natural 

smoke and/or smoke flavor (natural or artificial)? 

POLICY: This replaces Policy Memo 058. The guidelines for approving labels for products prepared with 

natural smoke and/or smoke flavor (natural or artificial) are as follows: 

(l) Meat or poultry products which have been exposed to smoke generated from burning hardwoods, 

hardwood sawdust, corn cobs, mesquite, etc., may be labeled as "Smoked" or with terms such as "Naturally 

Smoked" to indicate that the traditional smoking process is used. 

(2) Meat or poultry products which have been exposed to natural liquid smoke flavor which has been 

transformed into a true gaseous state by the application of heat or transformed into vapor by mechanical means, 

e.g., atomization, may be labeled "Smoked." (See Policy Memo 040). 

(3) Meat or poultry products may be labeled "Smoked" if natural liquid smoke flavor is applied by 

spraying, dipping, liquid flooding or similar processes prior to or during heat processing. In such cases, the 

natural liquid smoke flavoring must be transformed into a true gaseous state by the heat of processing. 

(4) Meat or poultry products to which smoke flavor (natural or artificial) has been directly applied to the 

exposed product surface, e.g., massaging or marination, or incorporated into the product by such means as 

injection, must be labeled to identify the smoke flavor as part of the product name, e.g., "Ham-Natural Smoke 

Flavor Added" and in the ingredients statement. 

(5) Meat or poultry products that are smoked as provided for in (1), (2) and (3) above and also treated with 

smoke flavor as described in (4) may only be labeled "Smoked" or with terms such as "Naturally Smoked" as 

appropriate, if it is clearly disclosed that the product is also treated with smoke flavor. The presence of the 

smoke flavor must be identified as part of the product name, e.g., "Smoked Ham-Smoke Flavoring Added" and 

in the ingredients statement. 

RATIONALE: In the past few years, labeling policy has been developed that permits products exposed to 

natural liquid smoke flavor under certain specified conditions to be labeled "Smoked." However, product 

smoked in the traditional manner, i.e., exposed to smoke generated from burning hardwood, etc., has for many 

years been labeled "Smoked." Thus, the consumer cannot distinguish between a product smoked in the 

traditional manner from a product treated with smoke flavor unless labeling in addition to the term "Smoked" 

is permitted. Processors smoking products in the traditional manner, i.e., by exposing product to smoke 

generated from burning hardwood, etc., have expressed a desire to label such products with terms such as 

"Naturally Smoked" to indicate that the traditional process was used. This policy statement provides for the 

use of this and similar phrases for traditionally smoked products because they are appropriate and serve to 

provide a distinction between the traditional smoking process and the newer methods. 
Present labeling policy makes a distinction between smoke flavor added to the outside of a product and natural 

smoke flavor that is added as an ingredient so that it becomes an integral component of the product. This 

policy statement is in part intended to clarify this distinction. It has been industry practice in the past to use a 

smoke flavoring solution to shower sausages and meat food products in casings to impart a smoke 

characteristic to the product during the cooking process. It is also becoming a practice to shower products that 

are not in casings. Since the heat of processing vaporizes the smoke flavoring which then imparts the smoked 

characteristic to the product, the product does not have to be labeled to indicate the presence of the smoke 

flavoring and may be labeled as "Smoked." However, there is a distinction to be made when the smoke 

flavoring solution is applied directly to the exposed product surface by such means as massaging or marination 

or incorporated into the product by such means as injection. In such cases, the smoke flavoring solution itself 

becomes an ingredient and an integral part of the product and must be declared on the labeled product. 

Furthermore, questions have been raised about the required labeling for products that have been smoked and 

also treated in some way with smoke flavor. This policy statement sets forth the need to identify the use of the 

smoke flavor as a qualifier to the product name and in the ingredients statement on the labeling for a product 

that is also smoked and labeled as "Smoked" or "Naturally Smoked." The meat and poultry inspection 

regulations (9 CFR 317.2(j)(3) and 381.119) already require that if a smoked flavor is added as an ingredient 

that the product name must be qualified to indicate its presence and be declared in the ingredients statement. 

Product meeting the criteria necessary to be labeled "Smoked" and to which a smoke flavor is also applied 

either to the exposed product surface or incorporated into the product so that it becomes an ingredient, would 

be misbranded if the labeling did not identify the use of the smoke flavor. Since not all of the smoke character 

of the product is imparted by the smoking process, the consumer would be led to believe that the product was 

only smoked and could not make a proper value judgment without further labeling information. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 059

 March 29, 1983 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director, SLD 

Subject: Labeling Turkey Ham Products Containing Ground Turkey Thigh Meat (9 CFR 381.171). 

ISSUE: What is the appropriate labeling for a Turkey Ham product containing ground turkey thigh meat? 

POLICY: Small amounts of ground turkey thigh meat may be added as a binder in turkey ham products as 

defined in 9 CFR 381.171 without declaration provided the ground turkey thigh meat is made from trimmings 

that are removed from the turkey thighs during the boning and trimming process. The amount of ground turkey 

thigh meat that may be used can represent no more than the amount that was trimmed and in no case more than 

15 percent of the weight of the turkey thigh meat ingredients at the time of formulation. Products containing 

any ground turkey thigh meat not removed during the boning and trimming processes or products containing 

more than 15 percent ground turkey thigh meat must be labeled to indicate the presence of the ground turkey 

thigh meat, e.g., "a portion of ground turkey thigh meat added." The provision in the regulations (9 CFR 

381.171(f)) regarding the required use of terminology such as "Chunked and Formed," "Chopped and Formed," 

and "Ground and Formed" will continue to be followed. 

RATIONALE: Rapid advances in processing have provided the technology to prepare products with and 

without small amounts of ground trimmings that assume all the characteristics associated with the product. 

Since these products conform to public expectations, consumers may be confused or misled by terminology 

which seems to connote an inferior product. Total product that has been subject to mechanical reduction, such 

as grinding, serves to recharacterize the product in a way that is significantly different from that normally 

expected by consumers. Therefore, qualifiers such as "Ground and Formed" will continue to be required. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 061A

 Standards and Labeling Division September 16, 1985 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Corn Dogs 

ISSUE: In labeling corn dogs prepared using poultry franks, how should the kind name "Chicken" or 

"Turkey" be shown? 

POLICY: This policy memorandum replaces policy memorandum 61. "Corn Dogs" made from poultry 

cooked sausages such as poultry franks or poultry frankfurters must show the "kind" of the poultry used in 

conjunction with the coined name, "Corn Dogs" as "Chicken (or Turkey) Corn Dogs." The kind name should 

be shown in type size at least one-third the size of the largest letter of the coined name. A descriptive name 

such as "Batter Wrapped Chicken Franks on a Stick" must accompany the coined name. If the descriptive 

name is at least one-third the size of the coined name, the kind name need not precede the coined name. 

RATIONALE: "Corn Dog" or "Korn Dog" has been accepted as a coined name when followed by a 

descriptive name such as "Batter Wrapped Frank on a Stick." Consumers do not normally expect poultry as the 

main ingredient in corn dogs which have historically been prepared from red meat only. The use of poultry 

franks in preparing "Corn Dogs or Korn Dogs" has been increasing in popularity. The present labeling 

policies do not make it clear how a corn dog made with poultry ingredients should be labeled. Since these 

products are traditionally red meat products, prominent and clear labeling must be used when product is 

prepared using poultry franks. The original policy memorandum 061, which required the kind name to be the 

same size, did not follow previous practices in this type labeling nor did it agree with the requirements of 

policy memorandum 087 which stipulates one-third the size for other parts of product names on other products. 

The Division believes that with the use of the one-third concept the consumer will have sufficient information 

upon which to base his or her selection. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 063A

 August 2, 1996 

From: Cheryl Wade, Director 

 Food Labeling Division, Regulatory Programs 

Subject: Requirements for Products Identified as "Uncured" 

ISSUE: What are the labeling requirements for products identified as "uncured?" 

POLICY: This Policy Memo revises the policy stated in Policy Memo 063 by (1) rescinding the requirement 

to submit samples of "uncured" products for review by the Food Standards and Ingredients Branch, Product 

Assessment Division (PAD), as part of the label approval process, and (2) including important information 

regarding the identity of "uncured" products. In accordance with Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR), 

sections 317.17 and 319.2, a product, such as bacon, pepperoni, or ham, in which nitrite and/or nitrate is a 

required or expected ingredient, may be prepared without such cure agents when the product name is 

immediately preceded by the term 'uncured" as part of the product name in the same size and style of lettering. 

These "uncured' products must comply with performance characteristics as stated in 9 CFR 317.17(b), i.e., they 

must be similar in size, flavor, consistency, and general appearance to such product as commonly prepared with 

nitrate or nitrite, or both. However, to determine conformance with section 317.17(b) of the regulations, it is 

not necessary to submit a product sample for administrative review for a product-by-product evaluation as part 

of the prior label approval process because the product name conveys the performance characteristics expected 

of the uncured version. For example, an 'Uncured Beef Frankfurter' is expected to have a link form, pinkish 

brown color, spongy texture, and possess the flavor and aroma of a cured version made in accordance with 

section 9 CFR 319.180 for frankfurters and similar products. 

An "uncured" product addressed in 9 CFR 317.17 must have labeling features as required in 9 CFR 317.17(c), 

e.g., the statements "No Nitrate or Nitrite Added," and "Not Preserved-Keep Refrigerated Below 40 degrees F. 

At All Times," unless it has been thermally processed to destroy sporeforming pathogens; it has been fermented 

or pickled to pH of 4.6 or less; or it has been dried to water activity (Aw) of 0.92 or less; or contains an amount 

of salt sufficient to achieve an internal brine concentration of 10 percent or more. 

Products such as smoked sausage, which are frequently found in either the cured or uncured state, may be 

prepared without curing ingredients such as nitrite or nitrate. These uncured products may or may not be 

labeled as "uncured." However, if such a product is labeled with the term "uncured," labeling statements are 

required similar to those in 9 CFR 317.17 whenever the term 'uncured" is voluntarily used as part of the product 

name. Samples of these products for administrative review have never been required as part of the prior label 

review process. 

RATIONALE: This Policy Memo revises the policy stated in Policy Memo 063 by: 

(1) clarifying regulatory requirements for labeling products identified as "uncured," and 
(2) discontinuing the policy of requiring submission of a product sample for evaluation by the Food Standards 

and Ingredients Branch, PAD, as part of the prior label approval process for uncured products subject to 9 CFR 

317.17. 

According to 9 CFR 317.17, uncured versions of products in which nitrate or nitrite is expected or required to 

be added, must possess characteristics associated with the cured products. Therefore, these products must be 

compatible with performance characteristics expected of the cured versions, viz., they must be similar in size, 

flavor, consistency, and general appearance to such product as that which is commonly prepared with nitrate or 

nitrite. Products addressed in 9 CFR 317.17 were new at the time the regulation was promulgated, but are now 

common in the marketplace. Therefore, there is no longer a need for command and control, product-by-product 

evaluation to assure performance characteristics as stated in 9 CFR 317.17. The quality and aesthetic 

characteristics of uncured products are subject to the scrutiny of the marketplace as well as to Agency review 

during the inspection process, if the conditions of section 317.17 of the regulations are not met. As always, if 

questions arise regarding the regulations and policies on characterizing or expected ingredients, such as nitrite 

in cured products, or the lack of nitrite in uncured products, responses will be provided by the Food Standards 

and Ingredients Branch, PAD. 

Current meat inspection regulations do not specifically address the labeling of product names for products 

which may be found in either the cured or uncured state, e.g., smoked sausage, Linguica, and Chinese Style 

Sausage, when processors elect to precede the name of an uncured product with the term "uncured." This policy 

is designed to eliminate confusion and assure proper handling for uncured product. Samples for technical 

review by PAD have never been required for these products, since they retain characteristics associated with 

their name whether they are cured or not. However, when the term "uncured" is used as part of the product 

identity, it is important to include the handling statements specified in 9 CFR 317.17(c) (2) in labeling to 

provide consistency in identifying uncured products, help prevent temperature abuse, and to otherwise provide 

consumers with useful information regarding product handling. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 066C

 30 NOV 1994 

From: Cheryl Wade, Director 

Food Labeling Division 

 Regulatory Programs 

Subject: Uncooked Red Meat Products Containing Added Substances 

ISSUE: What are the policies for labeling uncooked (both cured and uncured) red meat products that weigh 

more than the weight of the fresh article? 

POLICY: This Policy Memo replaces Policy Memo 066B. Solutions intended to impart flavor (not extend the 

product) may be added in any amount to uncooked, cured and uncooked, uncured red meat products including 

those that have been chunked, ground, wafer sliced, etc., and formed/shaped. Whenever an uncooked, cured red 

meat product is injected, massaged, tumbled, etc., with a flavoring or seasoning solution, the product name must 

be qualified with a statement indicating that the addition of a solution has taken place, e.g., "Containing 6% of a 

Solution," "Injected with up to 12% of a Flavoring Solution." The qualifier must appear contiguous to the 

product name whenever it appears on the label. The ingredients of the solution may accompany the qualifier or 

appear in locations prescribed for ingredient statements. 

For products marinated (i.e., soaked, steeped, massaged, tumbled, or injected in order to improve taste, texture, 

tenderness, or other sensory attributes, such as color or juiciness) and identified as "marinated," the solution 

added is limited to 10 percent. The qualifying statement must include the percentage of solution contained in 

the product, e.g., "Marinated with up to 8% of a Solution of Water, Salt, and Sugar." 

In situations where it has been customary to coat a product by rubbing, spraying, or dipping water mixed with 

seasonings, flavorings, etc., onto the surface of the meat, the qualifying statement describing this treatment does 

not have to include the amount and a partial quality control program is not needed. If, however, these 

components are incorporated into the meat by excessive rubbing, massaging, or tumbling, a qualifying 

statement indicating the composition and the amount of any solution absorbed is needed as described herein. 

An approved partial quality control program is also needed. 

The addition of an enzyme solution to meat products is limited to 3 percent of the raw meat product (green 

weight) by the meat inspection regulations (9 CFR 318.7(c)(4)). If a product is treated with an enzyme solution 

and a flavoring solution, separately or in one step, both treatments must be separately identified on the label, 

e.g., "Tenderized with Papain," and "Marinated with up to 7% of a Solution." No particular order is required for 

these qualifying statements. Combined tenderization/marination solutions are limited to 10 percent of the raw 

meat product (green weight). 

For all products, the qualifying statement must be at least one-fourth the size of the largest letter in the product 

name. If the ingredients of the solution accompany the qualifier, they must appear in print at least one-eighth 

the size of the largest letter in the product name. Product name labeling prominence guidelines are found in 

Policy Memo 087A. 
For uncooked products, the percent added substances for the label statement is determined by subtracting the 

fresh (green) weight of the article from the weight of the finished (total) product, i.e., after injecting, 

marinating, etc., dividing by the weight of the fresh article, and multiplying by 100. 

In all situations where the percentage of a solution is disclosed, a partial quality control (PQC) program for the 

addition of solutions must be approved before the label can be used regardless of the amount of solution added. 

Since the meat inspection regulations (9 CFR 319.101 and 102) allow uncooked corned beef brisket to contain 

20 percent, and uncooked corned beef round and other cuts to contain 10 percent of a curing solution above the 

weight of the fresh, uncured (green weight) product without disclosure, the above labeling scheme does not 

apply until these levels are exceeded. If these levels are exceeded, the total amount of added solution, not just 

the level above compliance, must be indicated in the format described for other uncooked, cured products. 

Similarly, the labeling scheme does not apply to uncooked cured pork trimmings or uncooked cured pork 

products that are not labeled to indicate the presence of hams, loins, shoulders, butts, picnics, or cured pork 

made from parts not covered by the cured pork products regulation (9 CFR 319.104) until more than 10 percent 

added substance is present. 

This policy memo does not apply to uncooked cured pork products covered by the cured pork products 

regulation. The labeling schemes for indicating the presence of added substances in these products are outlined 

in the meat inspection regulations (9 CFR 319.104 and 105) and FSIS Directive 7110.2 (Rev. 1). The 

percentage of the weight of added ingredients is determined as described above. 

Cooked red meat products containing added substances are addressed in Policy Memo 084A. 

RATIONALE: Policy Memo 066C is generally consistent with the requirements and the intent of labeling 

policies now followed for uncooked red meat products containing solutions above the green weight of the fresh 

article. Furthermore, the need for a PQC program is consistent with past labeling policies for percentage 

labeling declarations. 

This policy issuance clarifies the labeling requirements for products to which solutions are added to impart 

flavor. The addition of various solutions has been approved in various uncooked red meat products. These 

solutions are added by various means to impart favorable flavoring and other sensory characteristics to the 

finished product. In the past, policies did not address the addition of solutions to all meat products and often a 

limit of 10 percent of the raw meat product was placed on the addition in most situations. Today, additions 

above 10 percent are considered appropriate, but because of the ever-changing nature of the meat products, it is 

necessary that these products be labeled to identify the amount and composition of solutions added to them. 

This policy issuance provides further guidance for compliance with 9 CFR 317.2(b). The intent of labeling 

prominence policy for these products is consistent with Policy Memo 087A regarding word size in labeling of 

product names. The labeling of qualifying statements and ingredient statements for red meat products 

containing added solutions is consistent with current practice. 

This policy is intended to clarify and update the guidelines for products that are marinated within the definition 

communicated in Policy Memo 081A. A declaration of the percentage of marinate solution is required in order 

to provide consistency with the labeling of products that are injected, massaged, tumbled, etc., and to provide 

consistency with poultry guidelines which also require a declaration of percentage added solution whenever 

poultry is marinated. 
In essence, we have established that a "contains" statement, an "injected" statement, and a "marinated" 

statement are all satisfactory ways of disclosing the amount of added solution before cooking. 

This issuance clarifies the labeling requirements not previously addressed for red meat products to which an 

enzyme solution has been added together with a flavoring solution. 

This policy continues to allow the placement of ingredient statements of the added solutions in locations 

normally reserved for ingredient statements. The policy provides consistency with policy which permits the list 

of ingredients to appear on an information panel or in the case of products in cartons, on the front riser. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 068

 SLD 

 February 9, 1984 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

SLD 

Subject: Requirements for the Use of Geographic and Related Terms on Product Labels 

ISSUE: What are the requirements for product labels containing terms of geographical origin to be in 

compliance with the Federal meat inspection regulations (9 CFR 317.8(b)(1)) and the Federal poultry products 

inspection regulations (9 CFR 381.129(b)(2)? 

POLICY: Any label representation that expresses or implies a particular geographical origin of the product or 

any ingredient of the product shall not be used except when such representation is: 

1) A truthful representation of geographical origin, e.g., "Virginia Ham" for a ham produced in the State of 

Virginia; or 

2) A trademark or trade name which: 

a) has been so long and exclusively used by a manufacturer or distributor that it is generally understood by 

consumers to mean the product of the particular manufacturer or distributor, e.g., "Swiss Chalet"; or 

b) is so arbitrary or fanciful that it is generally understood by the consumer not to suggest geographical 

origin, e.g., "Moon Sausage"; or 

3) A part of the name required or allowed by an applicable Federal law, regulation or standard, e.g., 

"Frankfurter", "Vienna;" or 

4) A name whose market significance is generally understood by consumers to connote a particular class, kind, 

type or style of product or preparation rather than to indicate geographical origin of the product, e.g., "Mexican 

Style Dinner", "Italian Style Pizza". Such terms must be qualified with the word "style" or "type" unless 

specifically approved by the Administrator as a generic term, e.g., "Lebanon Bologna," "Genoa Salami," "Milan 

Salami". 

Any geographical representation that does not meet the aforementioned guidelines should be qualified by the 

word "brand" provided that the word "brand" is not used in such a way as to be false or misleading. A 

qualifying statement identifying the place where the product was actually made is required in proximity to the 

brand name, e.g., Milwaukee Brand Bacon, Made in Chicago, Illinois". The word "Brand" must be in the same 

size and style of type as the geographical term. If the product has a foreign brand name, it may be identified as 

having been made in this country, e.g., "Scandinavian Brand Bacon, Made in U.S.A.". 

RATIONALE: For many years, terms of geographical origin have appeared on the labeling of meat and 

poultry products. If the term has geographical significance, it is permitted under conditions specified in section 

317.8(b)(1) of the Federal meat inspection regulations and section 381.129(b)(2) of the Federal poultry products 
inspection regulations. This policy memorandum acknowledges that some products whose labels contain 

geographic references may conform to certain ethnic or cultural expectations regarding product composition, 

characteristics or method of preparation without necessarily being false or misleading or connoting any 

geographical significance to the consumer, e.g., "Mexican," "Italian". However, as the use of these features 

has become common and widespread, the possibility still exists for indiscriminate use of these terms which may 

be confusing or misleading to consumers. Accordingly, the Standards and Labeling Division is issuing these 

guidelines to further prescribe and define interpretations of the regulations in which terms having geographical, 

cultural or ethnic significance may be used. These guidelines are similar to the food and drug regulations on 

geographic representations (21 CFR 101.18(c). 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 069

 March 23, 1984 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director, SLD 

Subject: Labeling for Substitute Products 

ISSUE: Appropriate labeling for products which resemble and are not nutritionally inferior to standardized 

meat or poultry products. 

POLICY: If a product fails to comply with a standard only because the meat or poultry content is lower than 

required and the product has a generic identity as a non-meat product (e.g., pizza, stew, pies), then the product 

may be designated by the non-meat terminology in the standardized name (e.g., "PIZZA", "STEW", "PIE") 

provided the meat/poultry content of the product is conspicuously disclosed contiguous to the product name 

along with a statement of the amount of meat/poultry in the standardized product. For example, PIZZA 

(contains 5 percent sausage; SAUSAGE PIZZA contains 12 percent sausage). Such product may not be 

nutritionally inferior to the standardized product it resembles. For this purpose, nutritional inferiority is 

defined, consistent with the requirement of 21 CFR 101.3(e)(4), as any reduction in the content of an essential 

nutrient that is present at 2 percent or more of the U.S. RDA per serving of protein or any of the vitamins or 

minerals for which U.S. RDAs are established. A quality control procedure must be approved for such products 

by the Processed Products Inspection Division before the label can be used. 

If a product is nutritionally inferior to the standardized product it resembles, it must be labeled "imitation" in 

accordance with 9 CFR 317.2(j) and 9 CFR 381.1(b). 

RATIONALE: This policy allows some flexibility in developing and marketing products that may be 

substituted for a standardized product while maintaining the product's nutritional quality and providing labeling 

that better informs the public of the actual characteristics of the new products. The use of such an approach is 

in keeping with the Department's policy to allow descriptive labeling, in lieu of imitation labeling, for products 

which are not nutritionally inferior to a standardized product. The need for a quality control program is 

consistent with the Department's policy regarding percentage labeling. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 072

 May 18, 1984 

 From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Composite Ingredients Statement 

ISSUE: Can some form of composite ingredient labeling be used for a multi-ingredient component of a meat or 

poultry product? 

POLICY: This Policy Memo replaces Policy Memos 060 and 065. Processors who find it necessary to use as 

an ingredient a multi-ingredient product, e.g., pepperoni from various sources, each having similar but different 

formulations, may identify all the ingredients that may be present from all the various formulations (i.e., a 

composite ingredients statement). However, the ingredients identified as those that may be present can only be 

those ingredients that are minor in nature and cannot include ingredients such as the meat component that have 

a bearing on the overall characteristics or value of the product. The minor ingredients must be identified using 

one of the following examples of acceptable formats: 

l) ... pepperoni (pork, beef, water, salt, spices, sodium nitrite. May also contain lactic acid starter culture, sugar, 

and sodium ascorbate). 

2) ... bacon bits (cured with water, salt, dextrose and/or sugar, sodium nitrite). 

3) ... pepperoni (pork, beef, water, sweeteners (contains one or more of the following: sugar, dextrose, fructose, 

corn syrup), salt, spices, sodium nitrite). 

The application for label approval must identify all the ingredients of each type of component that is used so the 

accuracy of the composite ingredients statement can be determined. All labeling for meat and poultry products 

must either comply with this type of format or, alternatively, accurately list all ingredients used in the product 

formulation within six months of the date of this memo. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 075 

 August 14, 1984 

From: Joseph V. Germano/for 

Robert G. Hibbert, Director, SLD 

Subject: Dual Inspection Legends on Product Containers 

ISSUE: May both the meat inspection legend and the poultry product inspection legend be printed on the same 

product container? 

POLICY: Containers of products intended for sale to household consumers can bear only the official mark of 

inspection of the product enclosed. Containers of products intended for distribution to other than the retail trade 

may bear both the official meat inspection legend and the official poultry products inspection legend. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 076

 Standards and Labeling Division September 21, 1984 

MPITS 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Standards and Labeling Requirements for Duck Liver and/or Goose Liver "Foie Gras" Products 

ISSUE: What are the standards and labeling requirements for duck liver and/or goose liver "foie gras" 

products? 

POLICY: Goose liver and duck liver foie gras (fat liver) are obtained exclusively from specially-fed and 

fattened geese and ducks. Products in which foie gras is used are classified into the following three groups 

based on the minimum duck liver or goose liver foie gras content: 

A) FRENCH PRODUCT NAME ACCEPTABLE ENGLISH PRODUCT NAME 

Foie Gras D'Oie Entier Whole Goose Foie Gras 

Fois Gras de Canard Entier Whole Duck Foie Gras 

These are products in which goose liver or duck liver foie gras are the only animal tissues present. They may 

contain added substances such as seasonings and cures and when truffles are featured in the product name, they 

are required at a minimum three percent level. 

B) FRENCH PRODUCT NAME ACCEPTABLE ENGLISH PRODUCT NAME 

Foie Gras D'Oie Goose Foie Gras 

Foie Gras de Canard Duck Foie Gras 

Bloc de Foie Gras D'Oie Block of Goose Foie Gras 

Bloc de Foie Gras de Canard Block of Duck Foie gras 

Parfait de Foie Gras D'Oie Parfait of Goose Foie Gras 

Parfait de Foie Gras de Canard Parfait of Duck Foie Gras 

These products are composed of a minimum 85 percent goose liver or duck liver foie gras, although "parfaits" 

may contain mixtures of goose liver and/or duck liver foie gras. These products may also contain a wrapping or 

stuffing consisting of the lean or fat of pork, veal, or poultry, pork liver, and/or aspic jelly. When these 

ingredients are used, their presence must be indicated in a product name qualifier. Truffles, when featured in the 

product name, are required at a minimum three percent level. 

C) FRENCH PRODUCT NAME ACCEPTABLE ENGLISH PRODUCT NAME 

Pate de Foie D'Oie Pate of Goose Liver 

Pate de Foie de Canard Pate of Duck Liver 

Galantine de Foie D'Oie Galantine of Goose Liver 

Galantine de Foie de Canard Galantine of Duck Liver 
Puree de Foie D'Oie Puree of Goose Liver 

Puree de Foie de Canard Puree of Duck Liver 

These products must contain a minimum of 50 percent duck liver and/or goose liver foie gras and may also 

contain a wrapping or stuffing of the lean or fat of pork, veal, or poultry, pork liver, aspic jelly, extenders, 

and/or binders. When these ingredients are used, their presence must be indicated in a product name qualifier. 

Truffles, when featured in the product name, are required at a minimum one percent level. 

In all groups, an English translation of the term "foie gras" is not required, although all other product name 

terms must be translated into English. The kinds of poultry liver(s) used must be indicated in the product name. 

Also, other species and/or binders used must be indicated in a product name qualifier immediately following the 

product name, while the ingredient statement must follow the product name or qualifier as the case may be. 

RATIONALE: In 1975, representatives of the French government petitioned the USDA to adopt the French 

standards for foie gras products. An agreement was reached between our respective governments to follow 

these standards pending a rulemaking procedure. Although a rulemaking was not finalized at that time, over the 

years the French standards were followed and applied to foie gras products. 

In June of 1980, the French government and trade associations revised their 1973 standards for foie gras 

products and requested our renewal and approval of the new regulations. Since the standards followed over the 

years for the imported product have become obsolete and the marketing and consumption of these products 

have become more popular, SLD has decided to follow these requirements with some modifications including 

the English translation of French terms, the requirements for product name qualifiers, and other general policy 

requirements. The adoption of these requirements will eliminate confusion and provide a descriptive 

classification for these products. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 077

 October 11, 1984 

From: Robert G. Hibbert, Director, SLD 

Subject: Labeling and Standards Requirements for Quiche Products 

ISSUE: What are the appropriate labeling and standards requirements for quiche products? 

POLICY: 

Labeling 

The term "Quiche" does not have to be qualified to indicate it is a custard cheese pie. However, when 

characterizing ingredients, such as bacon, ham, chicken, onion, etc., are used either alone or in combination, the 

ingredients shall be either clearly identified as part of the product name or prominently displayed elsewhere on 

the principle display panel (PDP) of the label (e.g., Bacon Quiche, Ham and Onion Quiche, etc.). Similarly, the 

characterizing ingredients in Quiches bearing fanciful names shall be identified as part of the product name or 

highlighted elsewhere on the PDP, (e.g., Quiche Bercy - made with ham and wine). Since "Quiche Lorraine" is 

widely recognized, the characterizing ingredients do not have to be identified as a part of the product name or 

elsewhere on the PDP. 

Standards 

Meat and poultry quiches must contain at least 8 percent cooked meat or poultry and sufficient cheese so that 

the combined total at least comprises 18 percent of the finished product. Quiche Lorraine must contain cooked 

bacon and/or ham and the only cheeses are Swiss and/or Gruyere. 

If other characterizing ingredients (excluding cheese) such as onions, peppers, olives, etc., are used in addition 

to the meat or poultry ingredient in Quiche Lorraine or in any other quiche, the combination of these other 

characterizing ingredients and the meat or poultry ingredients must comprise at least 8 percent of the total 

product and the cooked meat or poultry portion must be at least 5 percent of the total product. 

RATIONALE: Quiche products, with the exception of Quiche Lorraine, have been required to be labeled 

with descriptive terms that specifically convey to the consumer that it is a custard cheese pie. Since these 

products have gained widespread familiarity among consumers, the practice of including this additional 

information in the name of the product is unnecessary. However, it is important that other characterizing 

ingredients be prominently displayed to ensure that quiche products are easily identified by the consumer so 

that an informed choice can be made. Like the term "quiche" itself, Quiche Lorraine has been employed to the 

point where it can be considered a common or usual name of a product, thereby eliminating the need for this 

additional information. 

Other requirements concerning the composition for meat and poultry quiches, combination quiches, and Quiche 

Lorraine have been established to promote uniformity among similarly named products, and to ensure that such 
products will be consistent with consumer expectations. The standards reflect longstanding requirements and 

the prior approval record. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 081A

 Standards and Labeling Division 

 October 22, 1985 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Rescindment of Policy Memo 081 

Policy Memo 081 is hereby rescinded. Marination may include the traditional steeping process as well as 

massaging, tumbling, and injection. However, the limits for solution pick-up still apply whenever marinated or 

similar terms appear on the label. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 082

 Standards and Labeling Division 

May 2, 1985 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin, Acting Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Labeling of Institutional and Wholesale Type, Large, Immediate Containers 

ISSUE: Is it necessary that all mandatory information appear on the principal display panel of institutional and 

wholesale, large-size, immediate containers? 

POLICY: On institutional and wholesale type, large, immediate containers, all mandatory information must 

appear on the principal display panel except that the first usable panel to the right of the principal display panel 

may be used for the firm's name and address and the ingredients statement. 

RATIONALE: Although there may have been some deviations from the aforesaid policy in the past, sections 

317.2(c) and 381.116(a) of the meat and poultry inspection regulations require the mandatory information to 

appear on the principal display panel of "all" labels. This would therefore include any size and type of 

immediate container labels. Labels not conforming to the policy should be corrected no later than January 1, 

1986. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD, TS Policy Memo 083A

 May 12, 1988 

From: Ashland Clemons/for 

 Margaret O'K. Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Technical Services 

Subject: Check-Off Blocks on Labeling 

ISSUE: Should check-off blocks on immediate container labeling be used for identifying products that look 

alike or are different in composition? 

POLICY: The use of check-off blocks on immediate containers for identifying products that look alike but are 

different in composition is not permitted. 

Examples of product that may look alike but are different in composition are as follows: 

- Ground Beef and Beef Patty Mix 

- Partially Defatted Chopped Beef and Partially Defatted Beef Fatty Tissue 

- Frankfurters and Frankfurters with Variety Meats 

- Finely Ground Chicken and Finely Ground Chicken Meat 

- Comminuted Chicken and Comminuted Chicken with Kidney and Sex Glands Removed 

However, exceptions to this policy may be granted. Exceptions would require that the establishment operators 

develop a procedure which the assigned inspector can readily monitor to ensure correct labeling. Such 

procedures, accompanied by written comments from the assigned inspector and where possible, the circuit 

supervisor, must be forwarded to the area supervisor for review and approval. 

Approved procedures must be attached to the label transmittal forms accompanying new or modified labels 

submitted for approval. 

RATIONALE: The use of multiple check-off blocks and product names on immediate container labeling is an 

acceptable practice that permits the economical utilization of packaging and labeling materials by official 

establishments. 

However, consideration must be given to the potential for misbranding the product, either intentionally or 

unintentionally, when multiple check-off blocks are used. It is very easy for an establishment employee to 

check the wrong block or to forget to check any block. In such situations, our field inspectors and compliance 

officers are seriously handicapped in assuring the accuracy of the label. For example, the fat content of ground 

beef patties is limited to 30 percent while beef patty mix may contain more fat than the other. Comminuted 

chicken and comminuted chicken with kidneys and sex glands removed may look alike but only the latter could 

be used in meat sausages. Partially defatted chopped beef and partially defatted beef fatty tissues look alike but 
the source materials used in processing are different and control is exercised at the point of processing. 

Furthermore, these products often differ widely in value. 

It is realized that procedures can be set up by an establishment whereby there is tight control over the packaging 

of end products that look alike with the assurances that the appropriate check-off block will be marked. The 

procedures developed must demonstrate what steps the establishment operators will take so the assigned 

inspector can readily monitor the product to ensure proper labeling. If the procedures are approved, they can be 

submitted with labels for check-off blocks for products that look alike but are different in composition. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 084A

 November 30, 1994 

From: Cheryl Wade, Director 

 Food Labeling Division, Regulatory Programs 

Subject: Cooked Red Meat Products Containing Added Substances 

ISSUE: What are the policies for labeling cooked corned (cured) beef products, and cooked cured pork 

products not addressed by the cured pork products regulation (9 CFR 319.104), and cooked uncured products 

that weigh more than the weight of the fresh uncured article? 

POLICY: This Policy Memo replaces Policy Memo 084 and includes cooked uncured products previously 

addressed in Policy Memo 066B. 

Cooked corned beef products and cooked cured pork products not addressed by the cured pork products 

regulation (9 CFR 319.104), that weigh more than the weight of the fresh uncured article, may be prepared if 

they are descriptively labeled to indicate the presence and amount of the additional substances. Acceptable 

product names include: "Cooked Corned Beef and X% Water" or "Cooked Cured Pork and Water Product, X% 

of Weight is Added Ingredients,” and "Cooked Pastrami and Up to 20% of a Solution.” The ingredients of the 

solution may accompany the product name or appear in locations prescribed for ingredient statements. Product 

name prominence guidelines are found in Policy Memo 087A and Policy Memo 109. If product name 

qualifiers, such as "X% of Weight is Added Ingredients," are used, the labeling prominence guidelines used for 

cured pork products as found in 9 CFR 319.104(b) apply. 

Uncured red meat products that weigh more than the weight of the fresh article after cooking should be labeled 

with a qualifying statement indicating the amount of solution remaining after cooking, e.g., "After cooking, 

contains X% of a seasoning solution of . . . .” The ingredients of the solution may accompany the qualifying 

statement or appear in locations prescribed for ingredient statements. The qualifying statement must be onefourth the size of the largest letter in the product name. If the ingredients of the solution accompany the 

qualifier, they must appear in print one-eighth the size of the most prominent letter in the product name. Other 

labeling prominence guidelines are found in Policy Memo 087A. 

If cooked, uncured red meat products that contain added solutions/substances prior to cooking are cooked back 

to or below the weight of the fresh (green weight) article, words, such as "seasoned" and "flavored," are to be 

used to reflect the addition of the added substances, e.g., "Seasoned Cooked Beef." For cooked products, the 

percent added substances for the label statement is determined by subtracting the fresh (green) weight of the 

article from the weight of the finished cooked product, (i.e., after injecting, marinating, etc., and cooking), 

dividing by the weight of the finished product, and multiplying by 100. 

This policy is intended to apply to solutions that impart favorable flavor and other sensory characteristics, but 

not to solutions containing ingredients used to extend a product, such as isolated soy protein and carrageenan. 

A prerequisite for use of labels for these products is a partial quality control (PQC) program approved by the 

Food Safety and Inspection Service, as described in section 318.4 of the Federal meat inspection regulations. 
Uncooked red meat products containing added substances are addressed in Policy Memo 066C. 

RATIONALE: Policy Memo 084A consolidates and clarifies the labeling requirements for cooked red meat 

products containing added solutions. These policies were previously covered by Policy Memo 084 and a 

portion of Policy Memo 066B. Since calculations for the percent of added solutions or ingredients depend on 

whether the product is cooked or uncooked, it was logical to include the policy for cooked products previously 

in Policy Memo 066B into the new Policy Memo 084A and revise Policy Memo 066B to address only 

uncooked products. 

Policy Memo 084A is generally consistent with the requirements and intent of labeling policies now followed 

for cured and cooked products containing solutions above the green weight of the fresh article. The traditional 

name supplemented with additional information offers the descriptive labeling necessary to distinguish these 

products from the traditional products. Furthermore, the need for a PQC program is consistent with past 

labeling policies for use of percentage labeling declarations on labeling. 

This policy issuance provides further guidance for compliance with 9 CFR 317.2(b). The intent of labeling 

prominence policy for these products is consistent with Policy Memo 087A regarding word size in labeling of 

product names. The labeling of qualifying statements for the cured products is consistent with Policy Memo 

109 and 9 CFR 319.104(b). The labeling of qualifying statements and ingredient statements for uncured 

products is consistent with current practice. 

This policy issuance clarifies the labeling requirements for products to which solutions are added to impart 

flavor and are subsequently cooked. The addition of various solutions has been approved in various uncooked 

red meat products, including beef for further cooking, roasts, chops, and steaks. These solutions are added by 

various means to impart favorable flavoring and other sensory characteristics to the finished product. In the 

past, policies did not address the addition of solutions to all meat products and often a limit of 10 percent of the 

raw meat product was placed on the addition in most situations. Today, additions above 10 percent are 

considered appropriate, but because of the ever-changing nature of the meat products, it is necessary that these 

products be labeled to identify the amount and composition of solutions added to them. A differentiation must 

be made to avoid situations where, for example, a product that has had no solution added to it and cooked is 

labeled the same as a product that has had 20 percent of a solution added and cooked back to green weight. The 

traditional name supplemented with additional information offers the descriptive labeling necessary to 

distinguish these products from the traditional products. 

This policy issuance changes the previous requirement for a statement of solution added prior to cooking on 

labels of cooked, uncured red meat products. In reviewing the application of this policy, it has become evident 

that the use of the previously optional "after cooking" statement has increased and the use of such a statement 

alone will sufficiently provide the purchaser with the needed information. Thus, we are permitting the use of 

this statement in lieu of the "prior to" statement. 

In essence, we have established that a "contains" statement, an "injected" statement, and a "marinated" 

statement are all satisfactory ways of disclosing the amount of added solution before cooking or after cooking. 

Thus, if a company chooses to use two statements, i.e., before and after cooking, it is conceivable that any 

combination of these terms could be used. 
This policy issuance also provides a change in permitted nomenclature for indicating when cooked, uncured red 

meat products that contain added solutions/substances prior to cooking are cooked back to green weight or 

below green weight. The use of words, such as "seasoned" and "flavored," as part of the product name would 

connote the addition of substances in processing just as "Ham" is understood to represent a product to which 

cure solution has been added in processing. 

This policy continues to allow the placement of ingredient statements of the added solutions in locations 

normally reserved for ingredient statements. The policy provides consistency with policy which permits the list 

of ingredients to appear on an information panel or in the case of products in cartons, on the front riser. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 087A

 Standards and Labeling Division 

 September 16, 1985 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Word Size in Labeling of Product Names and Fanciful Names 

ISSUE: In labeling meat and poultry products, what restrictions should be placed on the size of words used in 

product names and fanciful names? 

POLICY: This clarifies and replaces Policy Memo 087. Words in product names or fanciful names may be of 

a different size, style, color or type, but in all cases, the words must be prominent, conspicuous and legible. 

Moreover, no word in a product name, i.e., a common or usual name, a standardized name, or a descriptive 

name should be printed in letters that are less than one-third the size of the largest letter used in any other word 

of the product name. The same guidelines apply to letters of words in fanciful names that may accompany the 

product name. 

For example, for a product labeled Chili Mac--Beans, Macaroni and Beef in Sauce, "Chili Mac" is the fanciful 

name and "Beans, Macaroni and Beef in Sauce" is the product name. No letter in "Chili Mac" may be smaller 

than one-third the size of the largest letter in "Chili Mac." Similarly, no letter in the descriptive name may be 

smaller than one-third the size of the largest letter in the descriptive name. This policy is not intended to 

address the relative size of words in fanciful names versus product names. The size of words in qualifying 

statements, e.g., "Water Added," "Contains up to ...," "Smoke Flavoring Added," etc., are not affected by this 

policy memo. 

Labeling not in compliance with these guidelines may be used until present supplies are exhausted. InspectorsIn-Charge shall determine the amount of present supplies. 

RATIONALE: A trend has been observed that some words within a product name, be it a common or usual 

name, a standardized name, a descriptive name or words within a fanciful name, are being printed with 

increasingly smaller letters. If this trend continues, it is likely that some words will attract disproportionate 

attention, causing the label to become misleading to consumers. This policy clarifies the amount of variation in 

letter size which will still allow some emphasis on significant words in the names of products without resulting 

in misleading labels. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 088 

 May 23, 1985 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin 

Acting Director 

SLD 

Subject: The Labeling of Meat and/or Poultry Products with the Term “Nuggets" 

ISSUE: What guidelines should be followed when approving labeling for products which includes the term 

"nuggets?" 

POLICY: This policy memo clarifies and replaces Policy Memo 067. Nuggets are irregularly shaped, usually 

bite-sized meat and/or poultry products, which are usually breaded and deep fat fried and intended to be used as 

finger foods. There are a number of different types of nuggets; the labeling for which is described below: 

(1) Products made from a solid piece of meat or poultry may use the term "Nugget" as part of the product name 

without further qualification (e.g., "Chicken Nugget", "Beef Nugget"). 

(2) Products made from chopped and formed meat or poultry may use the term "Nugget" as part of the product 

name provided a qualifying statement describing such process is shown contiguous to the product name, e.g., 

"Chicken Nugget, Chopped and Formed" or "Beef Nugget, Chopped and Formed." 

(3) Products made from chopped meat or poultry and containing binders, extenders and/or water may use the 

term "Nugget" as a fanciful name provided a descriptive name immediately follows "Species" or "Kind" nugget. 

An example of a descriptive name would be "Breaded Nugget Shaped Chicken Patties." 

(4) Products described in 1, 2, and 3 above which are breaded shall be labeled as "breaded" and shall be limited 

to 30 percent breading. 

RATIONALE: These nugget-type products have become increasingly popular for both retail and institutional 

distribution. With the increase in popularity has come an increasing number of processes and formulations. 

317.2(c)(1) and 381.117(a) of the meat and poultry regulations require that if there is no published standard for 

a product that the name of the product is a truthful descriptive designation. Furthermore, 381.117(d) requires 

that boneless poultry products be labeled in a manner that accurately describes their actual form and 

composition. A method of labeling which differentiates the various categories of nugget products is needed. 

The policy stated above requires labeling which accurately describes the products and prevents unfair 

advantages for the different types of products. Labels not conforming to the above should be corrected prior to 

September 1, 1985. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 089

 Standards and Labeling Division 

 May 29, 1985 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin, Acting Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Use of the Term "Breaded" on Labels for "Fritters" 

ISSUE: Is it permissible to use the term "breaded" in conjunction with product name "fritters?" 

POLICY: The item named "fritter" may be qualified with the term "breaded" when the fritter is coated after 

fabrication with no more than 30 percent breading. When the term "fritter" is being used to describe the product 

which is coated with more than 30 percent breading, the term "breaded" may not be used. 

RATIONALE: The term "fritter" is generally accepted to describe (1) a product which contains breading in 

excess of the 30 percent allowed by 319.880 and 381.166 of the meat and poultry inspection regulations and (2) 

a patty like product containing breading and/or other extenders mixed with ground meat and/or poultry. In 

labeling the product described under (1), it is not appropriate to use the term "breaded" since in these instances, 

the term “fritter" is being used because the "breading" limitation is being exceeded. However, product described 

under number (2) could also be breaded after fabrication with no more than 30 percent breading and be labeled 

as a "breaded fritter." 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 090B

 December 18, 1990 

From: Ashland Clemons, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

 Regulatory Programs 

Subject: Protective Coverings 

This replaces Policy Memo O90A. 

ISSUE: Under what circumstances can immediate containers be considered protective coverings? 

POLICY: Processed or Prepared Product - Immediate containers such as bags, cardboard cartons, tray packs, 

and film bags enclosing processed or Prepared product can be considered protective coverings and exempt from 

the marking and labeling requirements if placed in a shipping container which meets all mandatory labeling 

requirements of an immediate container. This does not exempt the mandatory identification and marking which 

is specifically required on the immediate container of cooked beef (9 CFR 318.17). In addition, the shipping 

container must be clearly marked "Packed for Institutional Use" or an equally descriptive statement of intended 

limited distribution, i.e., locations where the entire contents are consumed on the premises. Unlabeled product 

may not be removed from shipping containers for further distribution nor displayed or offered for sale. 

Unprocessed Meat Cuts - Transparent film bags enclosing individual meat cuts in an unprocessed state can be 

considered protective coverings and exempt from the marking and labeling requirements if placed in a shipping 

container which meets all mandatory labeling of an immediate container. These unlabeled meat cuts may only 

be removed from the shipping container for resale and further distribution to retailers, hotels, restaurants, and 

similar institutions if the product itself or the film bag bears a clearly legible official mark of inspection and the 

establishment number. If these products are repackaged or reboxed at another establishment, the official mark 

of inspection and the corresponding establishment number of the repackaging or reboxing company must be 

used unless the original producing establishment has officially, through the use of FSIS Form 7227-1 (Permit to 

Ship Labels between Establishments), provided their labels to the repackaging establishment. 

RATIONALE: The subdividing of unpackaged processed or prepared product into smaller units such as 

vacuum bags, cardboard cartons, and tray packs has become a popular practice as a means to promote sanitary 

product handling and to protect product quality. This practice, however, raises the question of whether these 

smaller units are immediate containers subject to the labeling or marking requirements of the Act and the 

regulations or are intended solely to protect the product against soiling or excessive drying during 

transportation and storage. Since this policy memo restricts the use of these smaller units to circumstances 

where they will be contained in fully labeled or marked shipping containers, these smaller units can be 

considered protective coverings. Cooked beef is specifically required to bear certain identification and marking 

on their immediate container (9 CFR 318.17). These containers must continue to bear the required information 

because of the trace back concerns associated with cooked beef product. 

Unprocessed Individual Meat Cuts in transparent containers may be distributed in protective wrappings or 

transparent coverings if the official mark of inspection is clearly legible on the product or protective covering. 
This parallels the regulatory authority given in 9 CFR 317.1 for the use of protective coverings on dressed 

carcasses and primal parts. This policy memo clarifies that any repackaging or reboxing and labeling that 

occurs at a location other than the producing establishment is acceptable. 

Policy Memo 090 originally stated that the product or the film bag needed to bear a legible mark of inspection 

and the establishment number of the producing plant. Policy Memo 090 was not clear about which 

establishment number (i.e., producing or repackaging) was to be used on repackaged or reboxed products. The 

new phrasing of this section clarifies that it is acceptable for the establishment number of the repackaging or 

reboxing establishment to appear on bags of unprocessed meat cuts, or that, with the use of FSIS Form 7227-1, 

the labels of the original producing establishment may be used. Policy Memo O90A added a requirement, to 

provide consistency with processed or prepared products, that the shipping container would need a statement of 

limited distribution. This requirement is deleted because it is believed to be unnecessary for unprocessed meat 

cuts. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 091

 September 16, 1985 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Ground Beef Chuck and Ground Beef Round 

ISSUE: What guidelines should be followed in the review and approval of labeling for "Ground Beef Chuck" 

and "Ground Beef Round"?

POLICY: Product to be labeled "Ground Beef Chuck" or "Ground Beef Round" must comply with the 

following guidelines: 

1. "Ground Beef Chuck" must be derived from all or part of the primal part of the beef carcass commonly 

referred to as the "Beef Chuck" except as provided for in 3. The product must comply with the fat requirements 

of 9 CFR 319.15(a). 

2. "Ground Beef Round" must be derived from all or part of the primal part of the beef carcass commonly 

referred to as the "Beef Round" except as provided for in 3. The product must comply with the fat requirements 

of 9 CFR 319.15(a). 

3. Generally, shank meat may be added but may not exceed the natural proportion of the beef carcass, which is 

considered to average 6 percent. Higher quantities of shank meat may be used if the shank meat remains 

attached during the cutting and boning of the boneless chuck or round, or if the processor can demonstrate that a 

higher percentage is applicable. 

4. The products must be produced under a partial quality control program. Time necessary to revise any 

approved PQC program or to reformulate any product as a result of this policy memo should be requested from 

the MPIO Regional Operations Staff. 

RATIONALE: These guidelines clarify the policy contained in MPI Bulletin 82-67, dated 12-22-82, titled 

"Ground Beef Chuck" and "Ground Beef Round." SLD has received questions such as; Are trimmings from 

these parts limited? Is there a fat limitation? Is shank meat limited? Should shank meat be excluded? etc. 

It has been an accepted practice to include as source material for product labeled "Ground Beef Chuck" or 

"Ground Beef Round" any portion(s) of the primal part identified in the product name. 

The inclusion of shank meat became an issue as a result of an established and accepted practice for producers to 

cut and bone the entire shank on chuck or shank on round as a single unit to formulate these products. Including 

the shank meat under this condition has been permitted as incidental to the boning operation although the shank 

itself is a primal part of the beef carcass. 

This policy recognizes the established practice of marketing the shank on chuck or shank on round as a single 

wholesale unit. Its use at higher than natural proportions of the Beef Carcass cannot however, be considered 
incidental and the product must be labeled with terms such as: "Ground Beef," "Ground Beef Chuck and 

Shanks," or "Ground Beef Round and Shanks". 

Applying a 30 percent fat level ensures that during the grinding and blending of the various portions of the 

chuck or round that the finished product will not exceed the total fat limits allowed in other ground beef 

products. 

The partial quality control (PQC) program assures adequate identification of the source material prior to 

fabrication. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 092

 December 16, 1985 

From: Margaret O'K Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Veal Parmagiana Made with Veal Patties 

ISSUE: What is the appropriate labeling for Veal Parmagiana made with Veal Patties? 

POLICY: The labeling of Veal Parmagiana made from a veal patty shall include Veal Patty in the product 

name, e.g., "Breaded Veal Parmagiana made with Veal Patties" or "Breaded Veal Patty Parmagiana". The 

ingredients of the veal patty do not have to be a part of the product name. 

RATIONALE: On the label of Veal Parmagiana made with veal patties, the ingredients statement for the total 

product should sufficiently inform the consumer of the contents of the patty. The need to disclose the 

ingredients of the veal patty in a qualifying statement contiguous to the product name is not believed necessary. 

This additional disclosure, which has been a longstanding requirement for this product, is incongruent with the 

labeling for other similar meat patty products. Further, the standards of composition are even more restrictive 

for veal patties used in Veal Parmagiana since the minimum meat requirement specified automatically limits the 

level at which components such as extenders, water, beef fat, and seasonings may be added. Thus, it seems 

unjustified to prescribe this additional labeling requirement for this patty product when other similar, but less 

ingredient-restrictive patty products, are not bound by this requirement. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 093

 December 16, 1985 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Adjusting for Protein Fat Free (PFF) Controlled Pork 

ISSUE: What formula adjustments are necessary when using protein fat free (PFF) controlled pork to meet 

minimum meat content standards in other products?

POLICY: Protein Fat Free (PFF) controlled cured pork products with qualifying statements, e.g., "Ham-Water 

Added," may be used in place of PFF controlled cured pork products without qualifying statements, e.g., Ham,

to meet the minimum meat requirements of various products. However, the amounts of the PFF controlled cured 

pork products with qualifying statements used will need to be increased. For example, if a standard requires a 

certain amount of Ham and a processor wishes to use "Ham-Water Added," a greater amount of the "HamWater Added" will be needed to meet the standard. The magnitude of the additional amount is directly related 

to the relationship between the respective PFF values. 

Example: Ham Salad requires 35 percent Cooked Ham. "Ham Water Added" will be used in the product 

formula. 

Calculation: Multiply the PFF value for Ham (20.5) by the amount of required Ham (35 percent). Divide this 

answer by the PFF value of the product being used to formulate the product. (In this example PFF value for 

"Ham-Water Added" is 17.0). 

Answer: ((0.35 x 20.5) / 17.0) x 100 = 42.21 percent "Ham-Water Added" needed in the formula. 

Example: Ham Pie requires 25 percent Ham based on green weight. "Ham with Natural Juices" will be used in 

the product formula. 

Calculation: Multiply the PFF value for Ham (20.5) by the amount of required ham (25 percent). Divide this 

answer by the PFF value of the product being used to formulate the product. 

(In this example PFF value for "Ham with Natural Juices" is 18.5). 

Answer: ((0.25 x 20.5) / 18.5) x 100 = 27.70 percent "Ham with Natural Juices" needed in the formula. 

ADJUSTING FOR "HAM AND WATER PRODUCT X PERCENT OF THE WEIGHT IS ADDED 

INGREDIENTS." 

Consider a formulated product which is required to contain at least 50 percent Cooked Ham. Suppose the 

processor wishes to use a "Ham and Water Product (HWP)" in which 20 percent of the weight is added 

ingredients as the source of the Ham in the formulation. This product contains 80 percent Ham and 20 percent 

added ingredients. Clearly, the processor must use more than 50 percent HWP in the process. Using 50 percent 

HWP would result in only 40 percent Ham in the finished product, i.e., the added ingredients in the HWP 

represents 25 percent of the ham content. (If it were a 10 lb., HWP, there would be 8 lbs., of Ham and 2 lbs. of 
added ingredients. (2 / 8 x 100 = 25 percent). Consequently, an additional 25 percent of HWP is required in the 

formulation. 

The following example may be used to determine the percentage HWP needed to equal Ham:

 Ham and Gravy requires 50 percent Cooked Ham. "Ham and Water 

 Product 20 percent of Weight is Added Ingredients" will be used in 

 the formulation. 

Step 1: Subtract the percent added ingredients from 100 percent 

 (In this example: 1.00 - 0.20 = 0.80) 

Step 2: Determine the amount of Ham needed in the formula: 

 (In this example: 50 percent) 

Step 3: Divide the amount of Ham required (Determined in 

 Step 2) by the answer in Step 1 (In this example: 

(0.50 / 0.80 = 0.625) 

Step 4: Multiply the answer in Step 3 by 100. Answer for this 

 example is 62.50 percent "Ham and 20 percent Water Product" 

 is needed as the equivalent of 50 percent Ham. 

RATIONALE: In accordance with sections 9 CFR 319.104 and 319.105 of the Federal meat inspection 

regulations, certain cured pork products are required to meet established PFF values which reflect the minimum 

meat protein content indigenous to the raw unprocessed pork. Historically, most meat food product standards 

are based on minimum meat content requirements and reflect the definition of meat as contained in 9 CFR 

301.2(tt). However, when PFF controlled cured pork products with qualifying statements are used in other 

products with the intention of meeting minimum meat content standards, non-meat ingredients, such as water, 

may alter the composition of the finished product. This policy is being adopted to assure that product standards 

are based on meat content requirements only. This policy memo formalizes the content of a similar memo 

issued earlier. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 094B

 Standards and Labeling Division 

 December 17, 1986 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Sulfiting Agents in Meat and Poultry Food Products 

This replaces Policy Memo 094-A and will become effective 6 months from date of publication or July 9, 1987, 

whichever is later. 

ISSUE: Whether sulfiting agents present in sulfite labeled ingredients which are incorporated into meat and 

poultry food products need to be declared on the label of the finished product. 

POLICY: The presence of sulfiting agents (sulfur dioxide, sodium sulfite, sodium bisulfite, potassium bisulfite, 

sodium metabisulfite, and potassium metabisulfite) in or on sulfite labeled ingredients used in the preparation of 

meat or poultry food products must be declared on the label of the meat or poultry food product if the 

concentration of sulfiting agent(s) in the finished meat or poultry food product is 10 ppm or higher. However, 

some finished meat and poultry food products may be comprised of multiple separable components, e.g., 

potatoes or apple cobbler in a frozen dinner. For these products, if a separable component contains 10 ppm or 

more sulfiting agent(s), the sulfiting agent(s) must be declared even though the total product contains less than 

10 ppm of sulfiting agent(s). When sulfiting agents are required to be declared under conditions described 

above, their declaration shall be according to the following: 

(1) Sulfiting agents shall be declared by their specific name or as "sulfiting agent(s)." 

(2) Declaration shall be in the ingredient statement in order of predominance or at the end of the ingredient 

statement with the statement "This Product Contains Sulfiting Agents" (or specific name(s)). 

(3) When the total product contains less than 10 ppm, but a separable component contains 10 ppm or more, the 

sulfiting agent must be declared as part of the component according to (1) and (2) above. 

RATIONALE: Sulfiting agents are not permitted as direct additives to meat or poultry food products. They 

may, however, be present in meat or poultry food products as the result of being present in ingredients which 

are used in formulating processed meat and poultry food products. Many consumers are sensitive to sulfiting 

agents and need to be made aware of their presence in food. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is 

requiring labeling of finished products which contain sulfiting agents so that consumers may determine the 

presence of sulfiting agents by reading labels rather than possibly undergoing their allergic response. These 

labeling requirements are similar to those required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and will ensure 

common labeling of all food products containing sulfiting agents whether they are produced under the 

inspectional jurisdiction of FSIS or FDA. 

To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 095 
 Standards and Labeling Division February 27, 1986 

MPITS 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Colored Casings-Labeling of Meat and Poultry Products 

ISSUE: What are the labeling requirements for meat and poultry products in colored casings that do not 

transfer color to the products? 

POLICY: Colored casings on meat and poultry products which do not transfer color to the product, but which 

change and give a false impression of the true color of the products, must be labeled to indicate the presence of 

the casings. Acceptable terminology includes "Casing Colored" or "Artificially Colored." These phrases must 

appear contiguous to the product name. 

Casings which are the same color as the product or are not misleading or deceptive, e.g., a white opaque casing 

on a summer sausage, do not have to be so labeled. Also products consisting of whole muscle bundles, e.g., 

hams, pork butts, etc., packaged in colored wrappings where a cut surface is not visible through the casing are 

exempt from this labeling. 

RATIONALE: Under the provisions of Sections 301.2(ii)(4) and 381.1(b)(30)(iv) of the Federal meat 

inspection regulations and the poultry products inspection regulations, respectively, a product is considered 

misbranded if its container (e.g., casing) is "made, formed, or filled as to be misleading." Section 317.2(j)(8) 

adds "...no such casing may be used if it is misleading or deceptive with respect to color, quality, or kind of 

product." Therefore, for many years colored casings that changed the expected or true color of the product 

could only be used if the product name was clearly and properly qualified to indicate the presence of the 

casings. Thus the consumer could make an informed selection in the marketplace about the true nature of the 

product. The use of colored wrappings on whole muscle bundles is widespread apparently due to esthetic 

reasons. In this situation, the coloring should not mislead the consumer into believing that the product is leaner, 

different, or of a better quality than similar products. If a cut surface is visible, the potential for deception is a 

real possibility. Since there has been some confusion over the intent of this policy, this policy memo is being 

issued to reiterate the policy and clarify its intent. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 097

 Standards and Labeling Division 

June 4, 1986 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin 

Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Label Approval Guidelines for Wild Boar Products 

ISSUE: What are the criteria and requirements for product labels bearing the term "Wild Boar"? 

POLICY: Products prepared from wild boar from feral swine are amenable and subject to the meat inspection 

regulations. 

"Wild Boar" is an acceptable label term for a product provided the words "Wild Boar" are directly followed by 

the statement "Meat from Feral Swine." The statement "Meat from Feral Swine" must appear prominently on 

the principle display panel as described in 9 CFR 317.2(d)(1)(2) and (3). If the statement "Meat from Feral 

Swine" does not directly follow the term "Wild Boar," then an asterisk may be included with the term "Wild 

Boar" and the statement "Meat from Feral Swine" should appear prominently elsewhere on the principal display 

panel. "Wild Boar from Feral Swine," "Wild Boar Meat* *from Feral Swine," "Wild Boar (byproduct) from 

Feral Swine," are also acceptable product names. 

In order to obtain approval for a product label bearing the name "Wild Boar from Feral Swine," or similar 

acceptable names, a statement describing and verifying the following physical and environmental 

characteristics typical of wild boar is required: color patterns such as white stripes or spots, longer bristly 

haircoat, elongated snout with visible tusks, a "razorback" body shape and wild boar males which are 

uncastrated. (We acknowledge both males and females under the term "Wild Boar.") The purchased hogs 

should be obtained from a nonrestrictive environment which permits foraging for uncultivated feed, natural 

selection and breeding and farrowing without confinement. A letter should be submitted with "Wild Boar from 

Feral Swine" labels describing the environment where such swine live and their method of capture or 

entrapment. These same criteria would also apply to imported "Wild Boar Meat from Feral Swine" and 

arrangements should be made through Foreign Programs for slaughter and export from approved 

establishments. 

In multi-ingredient products, such as "Beans in Sauce with Wild Boar," the "Wild Boar" part of the product 

name must be followed by an asterisk and a statement "(Meat or meat byproduct) from Feral Swine" must 

appear somewhere on the principal display panel. The ingredient wild boar, wild boar meat, or wild boar 

byproduct, must be listed as "Wild Boar* ((Meat or meat byproduct) From Feral Swine)" in the ingredient 

statement in its proper order of predominance. 

RATIONALE: There are an increasing number of products entering the market which purport to contain wild 

boar. The Agency recognizes that extensive interbreeding between domestic and European wild boar hog types 

occurs and thus dilutes any true wild boar line. However, the Agency recognizes that these hog crosses do have 

distinguishing characteristics resembling wild boar and it finds that "Wild Boar, Meat from Feral Swine" is an 

accurate labeling description of these hogs and the resulting pork. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 098B

 Standards and Labeling Division 

 August 1, 1990 

From: Ashland L. Clemons, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

 Regulatory Programs 

Subject: Labeling and Use of Beef Cheek Meat and Beef Head Meat, and Pork Cheek Meat and Pork Head 

Meat 

ISSUE: What guidelines should be followed for the labeling and use of beef cheek meat and/or beef head meat, 

and pork cheek meat and/or pork head meat? 

POLICY: This Policy Memo replaces Policy Memo 098A. The following guidelines apply to the use and 

labeling of beef cheek meat and/or beef head meat, and pork cheek meat and/or pork head meat: 

Beef cheek meat and pork cheek meat refer to beef and pork cheeks from which the glandular material has been 

removed. 

Beef head meat and pork head meat refer to muscle tissue remaining on the beef and hog skull after removal of 

the skin, cheeks, tongue, and lips. The meat normally attached to and considered as part of the tongue 

trimmings when detached from the tongue trimmings may also be included as beef head meat or pork head meat 

although it can be labeled as "beef" or "pork." 

When beef cheek meat and/or beef head meat are included in boneless beef, their presence must be specifically 

declared. Examples include "Boneless Beef - Contains Beef Cheek Meat and Beef Head Meat," "Boneless Beef 

Head Meat," "Boneless Beef - Ingredients: Beef, Beef Head Meat, Beef Cheek Meat," or "Boneless Beef - 20 

percent Beef Head Meat, 15 percent Beef Cheek Meat." 

Beef cheek meat and/or beef head meat may be used in unlimited quantities and identified as "beef" in meat 

food products unless restricted by regulatory standards for specific products as indicated in 9 CFR 319.15(a) 

(Chopped beef, ground beef), 319.15(b) (Hamburger), 319.15(d) (Fabricated steak), 319.81 (Roast beef 

parboiled and steam roasted), 319.100 (Corned beef), 319.300 (Chili con carne), 319.301 (Chili con carne with 

beans), and 319.303 (Corned beef hash). 

The presence of pork head meat is not required to be identified on the labeling of boneless pork. However, 

inspection personnel must not allow the use of boneless pork in Chili con carne (9 CFR 319.300) or Chili con 

carne with beans (9 CFR 319.301) unless they are assured of the absence of head meat or informed of the 

amount present. 

Pork cheek meat and/or pork head meat may be used in unlimited quantities and identified as "pork" in meat 

food products except for Chili con carne and Chili con carne with beans. 

RATIONALE: Policy Memo 098A set forth a policy which required the presence of pork cheek meat and/or 

pork head meat to be identified on the labeling of boneless pork regardless of the amount of cheek meat and/or 

head meat. Since that memo was issued, we have been informed that industry practice is to include pork head 
meat with pork trimmings but to always ship pork cheek meat separately. In addition, since the use of pork 

cheek meat and pork head meat is only restricted by two regulatory standards, we believe it is an unnecessary 

burden to require labeling of the presence of cheek meat and/or head meat on the labeling of boneless pork. 

To ensure that pork head meat is not used incorrectly by a processor in restricted products, processors of Chili 

con carne and Chili con carne with beans must be able to verify to inspection personnel that boneless pork does 

not include head meat or if head meat is included in the boneless pork, the percentage of head meat present. 

This should ensure that regulatory limits on head meat are not exceeded in those few products where such use is 

limited. Since it is not industry practice to commingle cheek meat and boneless pork, problems with 

identification and usage do not exist. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 099

 September 2, 1986 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin 

Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Labeling of Products Which Include Packets of Other Components 

ISSUE: What sort of product name and net weight declaration is required when meat and/or poultry products 

are packed with small packets of gravy, sauces, seasoning mixtures or the like? 

POLICY: Wording indicating that the product contains, in addition to the meat or poultry product, another 

component such as a gravy, sauce or seasoning packet must appear in conjunction with the name of the product 

in such a manner that it is obvious to the purchaser that he or she is also purchasing that packet along with the 

meat and/or poultry product. The wording must be shown in print no smaller than one third the size of the 

largest letter in the rest of the product name, of such color that will insure it not being overlooked at point of 

purchase, and positioned contiguous to the rest of the product name and so as not to appear in whole or part on 

any panel except the main display panel. The net weight statement shall show the total net weight of all the 

edible components. In addition to the total net weight, weights of individual components may be shown but are 

not required 

RATIONALE: The labeling of these type products must clearly demonstrate to the consumer that he or she is 

paying not only for a meat and/or poultry product but also for a packet or container of another component. It 

was brought to this office's attention that on some labels the wording announcing the inclusion of these 

components was being shown in sizes, colors and positions which tended to obscure it. Therefore, it was 

apparent that a policy needed to be developed. The one third letter size stipulated above is the same as that 

required for product names by Policy Memorandum 087A. Inspectors should review label approvals for these 

types of products and, if they believe that they do not conform to the aforementioned policy, identify them to 

the Standards and Labeling Division by approval number in order that all labels can be corrected no later than 

November 1, 1986. The requirement that the total net weight be shown is consistent with what has been 

required in the past for meat and poultry products. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 100

 September 3, 1986 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Poultry Tenders and Poultry Tenderloins 

ISSUE: When "(Kind) Tenders" or "(Kind) Tenderloins" are used as a product name, what products are being 

described?

POLICY: A "(Kind) Tender" is any strip of breast meat from the kind of poultry designated. 

A "(Kind) Tenderloin" is the inner pectoral muscle which lies alongside the sternum (breast bone) of the kind 

indicated. 

RATIONALE: These terms have been used for a number of years for muscles from the breast without a clear 

cut definition to distinguish one from the other. The policy stated above appears to be what is being done as 

general practice. Since the Division continues to receive questions concerning these terms it is necessary that 

this policy memorandum be issued to make the definitions available to all. 

Previously, the word "breast" has been required to be used in conjunction with these terms. However, because 

of the long usage of these terms for breast muscles only, that requirement is being dropped. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 101A

 August 30. 1988 

From: Ashland Clemons 

Acting Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, Technical Services 

Subject: Use of Quality Grade Terms and Subjective Terms on Labels 

ISSUE: How and when may terms which denote quality grades and certain other subjective terms be used on 

labels for meat and/or poultry products? 

POLICY: This policy memo supersedes Policy Memo 101. Terms designated as grades of meat, i.e., prime, 

choice, select, good, etc., may only be used on red meat which has been officially graded. However, the 

Standards and Labeling Division (SLD) will take no action to rescind currently approved labels which contain 

the word "select." Labels for new or reformulated products or new product lines will be approved in accordance 

with the policy for grading terms described above. 

Letter grades A, B, C, which are designated grades for poultry may only be used on poultry (whole birds and 

parts) that are officially graded, and may not be used on red meat. Although poultry grade terms (U.S. Grade A, 

etc.) are not allowed to be used on red meats, the terms prime, choice and select may be used on poultry (whole 

birds or parts), that are equivalent to U.S. Grade A. The use of a possessive, e.g., XYZ's Prime, does not relieve 

a company of this requirement. The use of quality grade terms on further processed meat and poultry products 

will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if they wrongly infer that the meat or poultry used in 

these products has been graded. 

Terms which are subjective in nature such as, but not limited to, fancy, finest, super, supreme, ultimate, 

premium, greatest, best, old fashioned, homestyle, hotelstyle, deluxe, special, famous, and old time may be used 

unqualified on labels for meat and/or poultry products. The term "selected" as well as other terms, will be 

considered individually by the Standards and Labeling Division, again to determine if these terms wrongly infer 

that the meat or poultry has been graded. 

RATIONALE: Historically, the Department has allowed the quality grade terms prime and choice to be used 

on poultry, provided it was the equivalent of U.S. Grade A. Because the new grade term "select" also conveys 

high quality, its use on poultry should also require that the poultry be equivalent to U.S. Grade A. Poultry grade 

terms are not allowed on red meats. Policy Memo 101 was in error in this regard. 

As explained in Policy Memo 101, the use of the possessive in conjunction with quality terms was considered 

unnecessary since terminology such as "best," "premium," etc., has been accepted as nothing more than 

advertising puffery which neither misleads nor deceives the public. Policy Memo 101 did not make it clear that 

the use of the possessive in conjunction with meat grading terms was not appropriate for poultry that was not 

the equivalent of U.S. Grade A. The use of red meat grading terms, although in the possessive, would still imply 

incorrectly that the poultry has been graded. In the past, the term "select" was permitted to be used on labels of 

meat and poultry products as a subjective term without regard to grading. Recently, the official grade term U.S. 

Good, designated for beef and lamb, was changed to U.S. Select for beef, consequently, the word "select" will 
no longer be allowed as a subjective term. However, continued use of the term "select" will be allowed for 

products for which companies have obtained prior approval for labels which include the term "select." Denying 

these companies the use of the term "select" on these products would place unwarranted economic burdens on 

these companies through the loss of previous investments in advertising and labeling materials. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 102

 January 6, 1987 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin 

Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: The Labeling of Products Containing Meat with Added Solutions or other Nonmeat Ingredients in 

Secondary Products 

ISSUE: What are the labeling requirements for products containing a component consisting of meat with added 

solutions or other nonmeat ingredients? 

POLICY: In those situations where meat containing an added solution, or other nonmeat ingredients, e.g., 

Ham-Water Added, Corned Beef and Water Product, Beef-Containing up to 10 percent of a solution, are used in 

secondary products in sufficient quantities to meet the minimum meat requirement without including the added 

solution, or nonmeat ingredients, the product name need not include any reference to the added solution or 

nonmeat ingredients; e.g., Corned Beef and Cabbage would be an acceptable name for a product if the corned 

beef portion of the corned beef and water product was present in a sufficient quantity to satisfy the 25 percent 

cooked corned beef requirement. The ingredients statement, however, must include nomenclature as required by 

the regulations or policy (see also Policy Memos 066B and 084). In this example, the ingredients statement 

would list "Corned Beef and Water Product-X percent of added ingredients are..." 

For products in which the added solution ingredient as a whole is used to meet the minimum meat requirement, 

the product name must include nomenclature required for the component, e.g., Beef (containing up to 10 

percent of a flavoring solution) Burgundy. The ingredients statement must also include the same nomenclature 

for the meat ingredient. 

RATIONALE: Historically, most meat product standards are based on minimum meat requirements. 

However, in recent years the proliferation of meat ingredients with added flavoring solutions or other 

ingredients has resulted in processors requesting the use of these ingredients in traditional products. This policy 

memo identifies the approach used to label the finished products. The traditional names are considered 

appropriate if the finished products contain sufficient meat exclusive of the added solutions or other ingredients 

to meet the requirements of the standard. If the meat ingredient with the added solution or other ingredients is 

used to meet the standard, then it is necessary to descriptively label the secondary product to indicate to the 

purchaser the presence of the ingredient. In all cases, the ingredients statement must show the complete 

common or usual, standardized, or descriptive name of the added solution ingredient as required by the Acts 

and the regulations. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 103

 February 13, 1987 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin 

Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Boneless, Raw or Cooked, Poultry Containing Binders 

ISSUE: Labeling of boneless, raw or cooked, poultry to which binders are added. 

POLICY: Binding agents may be added individually or collectively in amounts not to exceed 3 percent for 

cooked poultry products and 2 percent for raw poultry products based on total finished product. When binders 

are added in excess of these levels, the common or usual name of the binder or the generic term "Binders 

Added" shall be included in a product name qualifier; e.g., "Turkey Breast-Gelatin Added." In all cases, 

ingredient statement identification is required. 

This policy is intended to apply to binders which are used in chopped or chunked poultry products that are 

formed into rolls, loaves, etc., but not to binders added directly into whole muscle by injection, massaging, 

tumbling, etc., which then act as extenders. 

Processors of products with labeling not in compliance with this policy memo must make the necessary labeling 

changes within 6 months of the date of this policy memo. 

RATIONALE: The addition of binders has been approved in various boneless poultry products such as 

poultry rolls and loaves. Existing policies and regulations, however, do not address the labeling of boneless 

poultry products to which binders have been added except for poultry rolls (9 CFR 381.159). The policy stated 

above provides consistency with requirements for poultry rolls and reflects current practice. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 104

 February 13, 1987 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin 

Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Handling Statements on Retorted Products 

ISSUE: Can handling statements such as "keep refrigerated" or "keep frozen" appear on labels for products 

which are packaged and processed to provide safety and stability at ambient temperatures? 

POLICY: Handling statements may appear on labels for shelf stable product, even though such product does 

not have to be refrigerated or frozen, and provided the statement will accurately reflect conditions of 

distribution and sale. These products are to be handled in the plant as shelf stable items including incubation 

and condition-of-container examinations. Once the product is refrigerated or frozen for shipment, distribution, 

and display for sale it is to be handled as a refrigerated or frozen item. 

RATIONALE: Recently this office has received requests to allow handling statements such as exemplified 

above on these shelf stable products. Some receive a heat process sufficient to achieve stability while others are 

rendered shelf stable through a combination of heat and some other treatment(s) such as the addition of salt, 

nitrite or an approved acidulent. One firm may have products in a certain line under a certain brand name which 

require refrigeration or freezing and may also have products in the same line under the same brand name which 

are shelf stable. This could lead to mishandling by the consumer of products which require refrigeration or 

freezing due to the availability of similarly packaged product which would not require such special handling. 

Therefore, SLD will allow handling statements on retorted products even if product does not have to be 

refrigerated or frozen. In effect, at times, this will provide for more protection than is necessary. Product should 

be treated as shelf stable at the plant to assure safety and handled as refrigerated or frozen product after it leaves 

the plant to prevent confusion by the purchaser between these products and similar products which are not shelf 

stable. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 105

 April 13, 1987 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin 

Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Labeling Requirements for Pump-Cured Bacon Products Treated with d- or dl-alpha-tocopherol in 

Surface Applications 

ISSUE: What are the labeling requirements for pump-cured bacon which has been surface treated with d- or 

dl-alpha-tocopherol? 

POLICY: Pump-cured bacon treated on the surface with d- or dl-alpha-tocopherol must be labeled with a 

product name qualifier which identifies the substances involved and the method of application. The qualifier 

must identify both the carrier and active substance in their order of predominance. The specific names, d- or dlalpha-tocopherol, or the term, Vitamin E, may be used in the name qualifier. Examples of acceptable name 

qualifiers are "Sprayed with a solution of vegetable oil and Vitamin E" or "Dipped in a solution of corn oil and 

d-alpha-tocopherol." The name qualifier must be contiguous to the product name and printed in a style as 

prominent as the product name. The type used for the statement must be at least one-fourth the size of the most 

prominent letter in the product name, except that the ingredients of the mixture may be in print not less than 

one-eighth the size of the most prominent letter in the product name. The specific name of the ingredients, dalpha-tocopherol or dl-alpha-tocopherol, and of the carrier, must be listed as such in the ingredients statement, 

or curing statement, as required by 9 CFR 317.2(f)(1). 

RATIONALE: Labeling requirements for pump-cured bacon treated with d- or dl-alpha-tocopherol applied to 

the surface should be consistent with other surface-treated products where product name qualifiers have been 

required (e.g., potassium sorbate to sausage casings, added solution statements, etc.). The processing carrier 

listing in the qualifier is necessary because food grade oil mixtures are not expected ingredients on bacon. 
To: Branch Chiefs, FLD Policy Memo 106A

 December 17, 1991 

From: Ashland L. Clemons, Director 

Food Labeling Division 

Regulatory Program 

Subject: Poultry Bacon 

ISSUE: Can bacon products be prepared from poultry and, if so, how are they labeled and controlled? 

POLICY: This Policy Memo replaces Policy Memo 106. Bacon products prepared from poultry are 

acceptable. The product may be designated as (Kind) Bacon. However, a true descriptive name must appear 

contiguous to (Kind) bacon without intervening type or design, in letters at least one-half the size of the letters 

used in the (Kind) bacon, in the same style and color, and on the same color background. An example of an 

acceptable designation is "Turkey Bacon-Cured Turkey Breast Meat Chopped and Formed." The descriptive 

name can stand alone as the true product name. 

The weight of the finished product shall be no more than the original weight of the fresh uncured poultry. The 

ingredient restrictions as well as the labeling and packaging requirements that apply to red meat bacon also 

apply to poultry bacon. Poultry bacon is not subject to nitrosamine monitoring. 

RATIONALE: Traditionally, bacon products have been prepared from other than pork bellies provided the 

nomenclature clearly identifies the nature of the product. Examples are: "Pork Shoulder Bacon," "Bacon 

Squares-Pork Jowl Bacon," "Beef Bacon-Cured and Smoked Beef Plate." Furthermore, many other poultry 

products are present in the market place with nomenclature normally associated with red meat products, e.g., 

Turkey Ham or Turkey Pastrami. As a result, the policy identified is a reasonable extension of existing 

practice. 

The restrictions and controls on the finished products as well as the labeling and packaging requirements are 

consistent with those placed on other bacon products. The requirement for nitrosamine monitoring has been 

deleted because there is no evidence to support a nitrosamine problem in products that are not high in fat. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 107

 August 18, 1987 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin 

Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Use of "New" and Similar Terms 

ISSUE: Under what conditions may the terms "new," "now," and similar declarations be used on approved 

labeling? 

POLICY: Terms such as "new," "now," "improved," and similar terms may be used within the following 

guidelines: 

1. The terms may only be used for a period of 6 months from the date of the initial approval except as noted in 

2, 3, and 4 below. 

2. Extensions to the 6-month period may be granted if: 

a. Processors can demonstrate that production or distribution delays precluded the use of the approved 

labeling as scheduled. In such situations, the lost time can be restored. 

b. Processors can demonstrate that labeling inventory needs for the 6-month period were overestimated due to 

poor sales. The processors must maintain records which indicate the amount and the date the labeling was 

originally purchased. In this situation, up to an additional 6 months can be granted. No further extension will be 

considered. 

3. In those situations where it is customary to distribute "new" products to various geographical regions, each 

geographic area may receive a temporary approval for 6 months if the processor can assure adequate controls 

over the segregation and distribution of the products. 

4. In situations where it is customary to test market product in no more than approximately 15 percent of the 

intended total marketing area before total distribution begins, labeling for the test market area can receive an 

initial temporary approval and also be included in the 6-month temporary approval given to the labeling of the 

product distributed to the total marketing area. Processors must be able to assure that only 15 percent of the 

total market is involved in test marketing. 

RATIONALE: This policy memo is issued for the purpose of amending and further clarifying the use and 

labeling of terms such as "new," "now," and similar terms on approved labeling materials. Generally, the terms 

have been used on labels to indicate the introduction of a new product or new formula. In the interest of truthful 

labeling, however, the use of these terms has been previously limited to a 6-month period for each geographical 

area or location for which requests are made. Processors making such requests were held primarily responsible 

for controlling labeling inventories and informing inspection personnel of distribution schedules and the 

particular locations involved. 
The firmness with which we have governed requests for approval of the terms "new," "now," and similar 

declarations has been viewed adversely by the regulated industry. The current 6-month policy is perceived to 

have a chilling effect on new product development initiatives, technological advances, and innovative 

marketing strategies. Since it is often very difficult for marketing managers to predict the necessary quantities 

of packaging supplies for test market purposes, rigid enforcement of the 6-month rule forces companies to 

under-order these materials or be left with expensive label inventories which must eventually be discarded or 

left unused. An FTC advisory opinion on the use of the term "new" in advertising follows the policy in (4) 

above. 

Therefore, in order to provide additional flexibility, our policy will be revised as stated in items (2) through (4) 

above, when the use of the terms "new," "now," and similar declarations are requested. 
To: Branch Chiefs, FLD Policy Memo 108B

 Branch Chiefs, PAD 

 June 24, 1993 

From: Ashland L. Clemons, Director 

Food Labeling Division 

 Regulatory Programs 

Subject: Water-Misted and Ice-Glazed Meat and Poultry Products 

ISSUE: What is the appropriate labeling for meat and poultry products that are protected with a thin layer of 

water or ice, or treated with a water-mist to prevent shrinkage during freezing? 

POLICY: This revises Policy Memo 108A to address the water-misting of hamburger patties, ground beef 

patties, and chopped beef patties to prevent shrinkage during freezing. The previous policy, outlined in Policy 

Memos 108A and 108, has not, heretofore, addressed water-misting of these products for this purpose. 

When meat or poultry products are water-misted or ice-glazed, the net weight of the product may not include 

the weight of the water or ice. An acknowledgment to this effect must be indicated on the label application 

form. A prominent and conspicuous statement must appear on the principal display panel adjacent to the 

product name describing that the product is protected with a water-mist or ice glaze (e.g., "Product Protected 

with Ice Glaze"). 

If the manufacturer can show that a water-mist or ice-glaze is sublimed from the unpackaged product during 

freezing so as not to compromise the integrity of the product's formulation or the standard with which it must 

comply, the labeling of the product need not bear the statements identified above. A partial quality control 

program to assure that such a water-mist or ice-glaze is not present in the product as sold must be approved 

before labels for these products are used. 

Regulatory standards that preclude the addition of water as a functional ingredient in formulating certain 

products have not changed, e.g., the addition of water to hamburger, ground beef, and chopped beef is not 

permitted by their respective regulatory standards in 9 CFR 319.15. Because the regulatory standard precludes 

the addition of water, hamburger, ground beef and chopped beef patties cannot be ice-glazed and, if there is 

evidence of an ice-glaze on such patties subsequent to freezing, they must be labeled appropriately to be sold in 

commerce, e.g., as "beef patties." However, water-misting of formed hamburger, ground beef, or chopped beef 

patties just prior to freezing individual patties is permitted if (1) the water applied in misting acts as a 

processing aid to prevent shrinkage of the patties, and (2) the misted water sublimes from the surface of the 

patties during the freezing process such that the weight of the patty exiting the freezer does not exceed the green 

weight of the patty just prior to water-misting and freezing. These conditions are assured through an adequate 

partial quality control program. 

RATIONALE: This policy has been applied to raw and cooked meat and poultry products for some time, e.g., 

ice-glazed poultry and water-misted (frozen) meat pizzas. In the past, there have been questions about whether 

water could be misted onto cooked chicken fritters to partially rehydrate the breading of the fritter if the 

breading plus water did not exceed the allowed amount of breading for this product. Water-misting or iceglazing of any meat or poultry product is likely to be perceived by consumers as similar in nature to ice glazing 
of poultry and water-misting of meat food products prior to freezing. As such, the same labeling scheme is 

necessary to inform consumers about the presence of the water or ice as ingredients and the reason for the 

glazing. A statement adjacent to the product name, which identifies the product as water-misted or ice-glazed, 

is sufficient to inform consumers. 

In some cases, manufacturers have been able to demonstrate that a very fine water-mist is sublimed during 

freezing of the product. In such cases, where the water added as a mist is no longer present, the labeling 

scheme 

identified above is unnecessary; however, a partial quality control program is needed to assure the water is not 

present. 

Prior to the issuance of this policy memo, the Standards and Labeling Policy Book entry on "water-misting" 

prohibited water-misting of products that do not permit the addition of water, e.g., hamburger patties. However, 

in the case of hamburger patties that are water-misted to minimize freezer shrink, the water would be 

considered a processing aid because (1) it serves a function to improve processing but is removed before the 

patties are packaged, and (2) it is without functional effect in the finished product because it has sublimated. 

The classification of water-misting as a processing aid requires adequate process controls to ensure that the 

water does not become a functional ingredient in the product formulation, thereby conflicting with regulatory 

standards. A control program would ensure the weight of the individual frozen hamburger patties exiting the 

freezer does not exceed the weight of raw hamburger patties just prior to water-misting and freezing. The same 

policy is extended to ground beef and chopped beef patties because they fall under the same general regulatory 

standard as hamburger patties and are, therefore, similar products. 

Ice-glazing of hamburger, ground beef, and chopped beef patties is not permitted because the presence of an 

ice-glaze would violate the regulatory standard which precludes the presence of added water in these products. 

Such products could not be used in rework for products identified as hamburger, ground beef, or chopped beef 

patties and would need to be labeled with a name to which a standard does not apply or which allows the 

presence of added water, e.g., "beef patties." 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 109

 October 8, 1987 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin 

Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, MPITS 

Subject: Labeling Prominence Guidelines for Cured, Cooked Products with Added Substances That Do Not 

Return to Green Weight 

ISSUE: What guidelines are needed to assure the product name and product name qualifiers for cured cooked 

products with added substances, that weigh more than the weight of the fresh uncured article (the green weight), 

are prominently disclosed? 

POLICY: The cured, cooked products covered by sections 319.100 ("corned beef"), 319.101 ("corned beef 

brisket"), 319.102 ("corned beef round and other corned beef cuts"), and 319.104(a) ("cured pork products" 

under PFF) of the Federal meat inspection regulations; and by Policy Memos 057A ("Labeling Turkey Ham 

Products Containing Added Water") and 084 ("Cooked Corned Beef Products and Cured Pork Products with 

Added Substances"), whose weights after cooking exceed the weight of the fresh uncured article, shall bear the 

product name and qualifying statements on the principal display panel in accordance with the following 

guidelines: 

(l) The product name and the qualifying statements must be prominent and conspicuous. 

(2) The label will bear the product name on the principal display panel in lettering not less than one-third the 

size of the largest letter in terms commonly associated with the product name, e.g., cooked, boneless, chopped, 

pressed, smoked, or words which could be a part of the product name, e.g., steak, butt portion, shank portion. 

(3) The product name will be judged prominent if the lettering is of the same style and color, and on the same 

color background as that which is used for the terms commonly associated with the product name or words 

which could be a part of the product name (see guideline 2). If other styles, colors, and/or backgrounds are 

used, the prominence must be judged equal to those terms and words which could be associated with or part of 

the product name. 

(4) The product name must be distinct and separate from other label information. Thus, the product name 

should not be part of or embedded in qualifying phrases or descriptions that include a list of added solution 

ingredients. Examples of acceptable terminology are "Corned Beef and Water Product" and "Cured Pork and X 

% of a Solution." 

(5) The label for the products covered by this policy memo must also bear qualifying statements that conform to 

established policies on the size of the lettering in these statements in relation to product name (as outlined in 

Policy Memo 087A, FSIS Directive 7110.2 and Policy Memo 057A). Labels for products to which this policy 

memo is applicable must comply within 6 months of the date of issuance. 
RATIONALE: This policy memo provides further guidance for compliance with 9 CFR 317.2(b). The intent 

of this policy is consistent with Policy Memo 087A, regarding word size in labeling of product names. 

It is becoming increasingly evident that the prominence of the product names for cured products with added 

solutions (e.g., "Ham and Water Product," "Ham, Water Added, " and "Cooked Corned Beef Round and X % 

Added Water”) is not sufficient to satisfactorily identify these products to the consumer. A trend has been 

observed for labeling these product names with smaller letters, inconspicuous styles, and poorly contrasting 

colors and backgrounds. As a result, the terms commonly associated with the product name (e.g., cooked, 

boneless, chopped, pressed) or which could be part of the product name (e.g., steak), attract disproportionate 

attention, causing the label to be misleading to consumers. In addition, product names are being embedded in 

other label information (e.g., the ingredient statement) making them inconspicuous. A guideline is, therefore, 

necessary to make the pertinent labeling statements prominent. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 110

 December 8, 1987 

From: Margaret O'K. Glavin 

Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, TS 

Subject: Perishable, Uncured Meat and Poultry Products in Hermetically Sealed Containers 

ISSUE: What additional requirements are necessary to obtain approval and use of final labels for certain 

perishable, uncured meat and poultry products packaged in hermetically sealed (airtight or impervious) 

containers bearing a "Keep Refrigerated" or similar statement? 

POLICY: Establishments seeking approval of label applications for perishable, uncured products which have 

received a less rigorous heat treatment than traditionally canned product (9 CFR 318 and 381, SUBPARTS G 

and X, respectively) must submit a sufficiently detailed processing procedure either incorporated on or attached 

to the FSIS Form 8822-1, APPLICATION FOR APPROVALS OF LABELS, MARKING OR DEVICE. The 

procedure must include a description of product formulation, method(s) of preparation, cooking and cooling 

temperatures, type of container, and cooking and handling instructions. Hermetically sealed containers include 

glass jars, metal cans, flexible retortable pouches, plastic semirigid containers, etc., that are airtight and/or 

impervious after filling and sealing. 

The policy does not apply to raw meat or poultry, cooked or roast beef, cooked poultry rolls and similar 

products, whole or uncut cured products, or products that are distributed and marketed frozen. However, 

products containing cured meat or poultry as components in combination with raw vegetables, such as pasta 

salads and other chilled meat/poultry meals or entrees containing raw or partially cooked vegetables, are 

covered under this policy, provided the above-mentioned procedural attributes are indicative of the 

manufacturing process. 

In addition, an approved partial quality control program (PQCP) is required which must address the critical 

points in the manufacturing process. As such, the PQCP must contain a detailed description of: ingredient 

storage controls, product formulation and preparation; container filling and sealing; any heat treatment 

(times/temperatures) applied including a description of the equipment used; any other treatments applied; 

cooling procedures (times/ temperatures); lot identification procedures; finished product storage conditions; 

inplant quality control procedures; and records maintenance procedures. The PQCP must be forwarded to the 

Processed Products Inspection Division (PPID) for appropriate review and approval before the product label 

may be used. Guidelines for development of PQCP's for these products may be obtained from PPID upon 

request. 

RATIONALE: The current trend of consumers demanding fresh, convenience foods has encouraged 

production of an increasing variety of ready-to-serve or ready-to-eat products packaged in hermetically sealed 

(airtight or impervious) containers. These recently developed products are appearing in new forms of 

packaging, such as flexible or semirigid pouches, plastic "cans" or bowls, trays, and shrink wrap films of the 

high barrier type. Some containers, such as glass jars and metal cans, have been traditionally viewed by 

consumers as containing shelf stable products. Also, in recent years, containers that have been commonly used 
for "Keep Refrigerated" products (e.g., pouches and semirigid bowls and trays) are now being used for shelf 

stable products. These new developments have raised concerns that the products may be more susceptible to 

severe temperature abuse by distributors, retailers and consumers. Moreover, if these new "Keep Refrigerated" 

products are not processed in a manner that provides absolute assurance that they are free of pathogenic 

microorganisms, the finished products may represent a potential public health hazard. 

Therefore, this policy is intended to provide added assurance that official establishments producing meat and 

poultry products of the kind stipulated herein may continue to manufacture products that are safe. The need for 

an approved PQCP is consistent with previous labeling policies. In this instance, prior review of proposed 

processing procedures and controls by the Agency will assist establishments in producing safe and wholesome 

products. Processors currently manufacturing and packaging products with labeling not conforming to the 

provisions of this policy memo or in need of a PQCP must make the necessary adjustments within six months of 

the date of this memo. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 111

 June 6, 1988 

From: Ashland L. Clemons 

Acting Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Labeling of Meat and Poultry Stick Items 

ISSUE: What is the required labeling for meat and poultry stick items, (e.g., "beef sticks," "pepperoni sticks," 

or "beef jerky")? 

POLICY: Stick items such as beef jerky, pepperoni sticks, and beef sticks must be labeled (i.e., contain the 

required label features as outlined in 9 CFR Parts 317 and 381, Subpart N) according to the following 

guidelines: 

(l) If sold in fully labeled bulk containers, i.e., canisters, caddies, or similar containers, stick items do not have 

to be fully labeled unless they are individually wrapped. This type of container cannot be reused. 

(2) If sold in bulk containers, i.e., canisters, caddies, or similar containers, that are not fully labeled, stick items 

must be fully labeled. Bulk containers such as these may only be refilled with fully labeled product. 

(3) If sold in small, fully labeled cartons, boxes, or similar containers (e.g., 3 oz., net weight) that are only 

intended for retail sale intact, stick items may be individually wrapped and unlabeled. 

RATIONALE: FSIS Notice 70-87 (October 15, 1987), entitled "Labeling of Meat and Poultry Stick Items," 

was issued in an attempt to clarify the labeling policy for meat stick products. Unexpectedly, many questions 

have been raised about situations that were not specifically addressed in the Notice. This policy memo is 

intended to address those situations as well as to clarify the intent of the Notice. The effective date of the 

Notice, and therefore, this policy memo, is July 15, 1988. 

The principal policy issue is a determination of whether the wrapping on an individually wrapped stick item is 

considered to be an immediate container, which requires full labeling as required by the Meat and Poultry 

Inspection Regulations, or is a protective covering (per Policy Memo 090). Because stick items are ideally 

suited by their size and typical usage to be sold individually intact, this policy clarifies that in all cases stick 

items in individual wrappers must be fully labeled with the exception of individually wrapped sticks in small 

cartons, boxes, etc., that are sold intact as a unit. In this situation, the individually wrapped sticks are considered 

to be in protective coverings. When "naked" sticks are sold in a canister or similar bulk packaging, the bulk 

packaging is the immediate container and, therefore, must be fully labeled. 

The policy memo also clarifies that fully labeled canisters, caddies, or similar bulk containers cannot be reused 

because they bear the mark of inspection and product can only be placed in such containers under Federal 

inspection. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 112

 June 6, 1988 

From: Ashland L. Clemons 

Acting Director 

Standards and Labeling Division, TS 

Subject: Caramel Coloring 

ISSUE: How are products to be labeled when they contain caramel coloring? 

POLICY: Caramel coloring is considered as an artificial color. Therefore, its use where permitted, requires that 

the name of the product be qualified to indicate its presence, e.g., cooked roast beef-caramel coloring added. 

This requirement does not apply to gravies, sauces, and similar products where the use of such coloring is 

customary. Caramel coloring may be used on the surface of raw products, e.g., beef patties, if the name is 

appropriately qualified. However, caramel coloring may not be added directly to the formulation of a raw 

product where the caramel coloring becomes an integral part of the total product. Seasoning mixes containing 

small quantities of caramel coloring may be used in such products if the caramel coloring does not impart color 

to the finished product. 

If a product to which caramel coloring is added, is a component in another product, e.g., roast beef in a roast 

beef dinner, the name of the dinner does not have to be qualified to indicate its presence. However, the 

ingredients statement must include the caramel coloring. 

RATIONALE: Caramel coloring has long been considered as an artificial coloring by USDA as well as the 

Food and Drug Administration. As such, the labeling requirements parallel, for the most part, the labeling 

requirements for artificial colorants. 

Caramel coloring is an expected and usual ingredient in gravies, brown sauces, and similar products and, 

therefore, product name qualification is not required. Caramel coloring is not permitted in raw product other 

than surface application because of concerns about the proper handling and cooking of the product. 

The absence of a requirement for a qualifying statement in the names of secondary products is based on the 

belief that certain characteristics of components are more suitably disclosed in the ingredients statement. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 113

 June 24, 1988 

From: Ashland L. Clemons, Acting Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Technical Services 

Subject: Labeling of Products Which Are Artificially Colored 

ISSUE: How should products which are artificially colored be labeled? 

POLICY: Labels of products which are artificially colored either by artificial colors or natural colors must 

bear a statement to indicate the presence of the coloring, e.g., "artificially colored" or "colored with annatto." 

Products whose true color is disguised by packing media, e.g., colored pickling solutions, must also have labels 

that include a statement that indicates the presence of the color. The statement must appear in a prominent and 

conspicuous manner contiguous to the product name. Products which have a component, e.g., breading, sauce, 

sausage, etc., that is artificially colored, do not have to have names that are qualified to indicate the presence of 

the color. However, in all cases, the presence of the coloring must appear in the ingredients statement. 

Whenever FD&C Yellow No. 5 is used, it must be declared in the ingredients statement by FD&C Yellow No. 

5 or Yellow 5. Some products, e.g., chorizos and some of the sausages of the longaniza variety, are expected to 

be characterized by coloring. In these situations, the presence of the coloring need only be indicated in the 

ingredients statement. Also see Policy Memo 112 on caramel coloring and Policy Memo 095 on colored 

casings. 

RATIONALE: Both the Meat and Poultry Inspection Regulations speak to the labeling required whenever 

"product" contains or bears coloring. The intent of the regulations is clear, viz, that the presence of coloring 

that misleads or deceives the purchaser into believing that a product is of a different color, quality, or kind than 

expected must be indicated by a statement. However, it is apparent that the regulations never envisioned the 

variety of products or the ever changing character of the products available to today's consumer. Thus, the 

regulations are not explicit about the labeling required for products that have as a component a product that is 

colored. This policy memo is issued to clarify when it is necessary that the product name be qualified and to 

make it clear that in all cases the presence of the coloring must be declared in the ingredients statement. The 

policy memo adopts the belief that the product name does not need to be qualified to indicate a characteristic of 

a component and that the ingredients statement is the most appropriate place to disclose component 

information. This approach is also used for many other situations. The specific declaration for FD&C Yellow 

No. 5 is in accordance with the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 114A

 August 18, 1994 

From: Cheryl Wade, Director 

Food Labeling Division 

 Regulatory Programs 

Subject: Point of Purchase Materials 

ISSUE: To establish guidelines for use of point of purchase promotional materials for meat and poultry 

products. 

POLICY: This Policy Memo supersedes Policy Memo 114. Point of purchase materials which refer to 

specific meat or poultry products are considered labeling under certain circumstances. When printed and/or 

graphic informational materials (e.g., pamphlets, brochures, posters, etc.) accompany or are applied to products 

or any of their containers or wrappers at the point of purchase, such materials and the claims that they bear are 

deemed labeling and they are subject to the provisions of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act. 

Although the Food Labeling Division (FLD) does not exercise its authority to subject point of purchase 

materials to specific prior approval (materials shipped with the products from the federally inspected 

establishment are an exception), we do expect point of purchase materials to be in accordance with the Federal 

regulations and all current labeling policies. Upon request, FLD will review and comment on the point of 

purchase materials submitted to our office. During the review process, promotional materials will be 

scrutinized for special claims, particularly those related to nutrition, diet, and animal husbandry practices. 

Claims related to nutrition and diet must be made in accordance with all current nutrition labeling regulations. 

Continuing compliance with stated claims will be assured through periodic sampling, as necessary. claims are 

expected to be within the compliance parameters identified in the nutrition labeling regulations. 

Animal husbandry claims (e.g., the nonuse of antibiotics or growth stimulants) may be made only for products 

shipped in containers or wrappers labeled with the same animal production claims. 

RATIONALE: Historically, point of purchase materials generally consisted of printed and/or graphic 

literature located in close proximity to a product at the retail counter. However, the nature of promotional 

materials which bear claims about specific products has broadened and presently includes materials which 

adhere directly to a package, are inserted into a package, or enclose an entire product as it is sold to the 

consumer. 

Since such point of purchase materials are deemed labeling and subject to the provisions of the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act but have not been reviewed for prior label approval, a 

process is still needed by which the accuracy of the information presented to the consumer can be substantiated. 

In the case of animal husbandry claims, accuracy is best assured if labeling bearing the same claims has been 

granted prior approval and is subject to the monitoring procedures available through the authority of prior label 

approval. Without review for prior label approval, virtually no practical methods exist to assure accuracy. 
The nutrition - labeling regulations, effective July 6, 1994, differ dramatically and, in many cases, are far more 

restrictive than previously published nutrition labeling policies. It is important that nutrition-related 

information included in point of purchase materials comply with the new nutrition labeling regulations. As 

before, analytical sampling offers a means of assuring the accuracy of the stated nutritional claims. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 116

 July 11, 1988 

From: Ashland L. Clemons, Acting Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Subject: Canadian Style Bacon Made With/From Pork Sirloin Hips 

ISSUE: What is the appropriate labeling for a Canadian Style Bacon product made exclusively from, or which 

includes, the sirloin end or hip portion of pork loins? 

POLICY: This Policy Memo does not replace Policy Memo 050B. Rather, it establishes new identity 

standards for Canadian Style Bacon products (l) made exclusively from the sirloin hip portion of a pork loin, or 

(2) which include the sirloin hip portion of a pork loin in addition to the portion of the pork loin that has 

traditionally been used to prepare Canadian Style Bacon (see Policy Memo 050B). 

The sirloin is obtained by removing a 5 to 7-inch section of the pork loin immediately in front of the hip or 

pelvic bone. The sirloin hip is obtained by removing the half of the sirloin which comprises the posterior end of 

the pork loin. The tenderloin is not included and surface fat shall be trimmed to 0.3 inches in thickness. The 

sirloin hip portion of the pork loin is shown in the enclosed illustrations. The area to the right of illustration 4, 

after the perpendicular line, represents the sirloin hip. 

The labeling for these Canadian Style Bacon products must bear a qualifying statement, adjacent to the product 

name, clarifying that pork sirloin hips are included or that the product is made entirely from pork sirloin hips, 

e.g., "Canadian Style Bacon -- Includes Pork Sirloin Hips" or "Canadian Style Bacon--Made from Pork Sirloin 

Hips." The qualifier should be printed such that the smallest letter in the qualifier is not less than one-third the 

size of the largest letter used for the product name, and be of equal prominence to the product name. Chunked 

(or chopped) and formed varieties, and substances controlled by the protein fat free (PFF) regulation for cured 

pork products (9 CFR 319.104) shall be labeled in accordance with applicable guidelines. 

RATIONALE: Several months ago, the Division informed all Canadian Style Bacon producers that they 

could no longer manufacture a product labeled as such for which formulation included the use of pork sirloin 

ends or hips either attached or detached from the pork loin. Based on information received over the past several 

months, and in view of current industry practices and available processing technology, we have decided to 

establish separate standards of identity for Canadian Style Bacon products which include, or are made 

exclusively from sirloin ends of pork loins. This policy is consistent with previous decisions to allow bacon to 

be labeled in novel ways, provided the name of the product is appropriately qualified to identify the source of 

the cut, e.g., "Beef Bacon -- Smoked Cured Beef Plate," or "Pork Shoulder Bacon." In addition, because of the 

long history of pork sirloin hips not being included in Canadian Style Bacon, product which includes the sirloin 

hip should be labeled in such a way that consumers are aware that this product is somewhat different from the 

traditional Canadian Style Bacon. 

The letter size and prominence requirements for the qualifying statement are consistent with other labeling 

prominence requirements as identified in Policy Memos 87A and 109. 
Enclosure 

Pork Loin 

Pork loins are cut numerous ways. The four most commonly used methods in the U.S. are shown in the 

following illustrations. 

1. Loin Roasts--Center Chops 

(For illustration, reference hard copy of this Policy Memo) 

 In this method of cutting, a blade or bladeless 

 loin roast containing from 5 to 7 ribs and a 5 to 

 7-inch sirloin roast are removed. 

2. Portion Pieces--Center Chops 

(For illustration, reference hard copy of this Policy Memo) 

 From 8 to 10 ribs are left in the rib portion 

 while the sirloin is cut from 8 to 10 inches in length. 

3. Whole or Half Loins 

(For illustration, reference hard copy of this Policy Memo) 

 The loin is divided as nearly in the middle as 

possible. This leaves 2 or 3 ribs in the sirloin half. 

4. Center Loin or Strip Loin 

(For illustration, reference hard copy of this Policy Memo) 

 The blade loin roast is removed by cutting 

 immediately behind the blade bone usually 

between the 3rd and 4th ribs of the loin. 

 The sirloin roast is cut off immediately in 

front of the hip bone. 

As indicated by the previous illustrations describing the four basic methods of cutting pork loins, the retailer 

can merchandise a pork loin many different ways. Consequently, the names of retail cuts from the pork loin are 

often confusing. Depending on the section of the country, a center loin chop may be a loin chop or rib chop. 

End cut chops may either be sirloin chops or loin blade chops. The fact that the loin includes all of the rib and 

short loin and parts of the sirloin and shoulder does not simplify matters, either. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 117

 August 30, 1988 

From: Ashland L. Clemons, Acting Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Technical Services 

Subject: Smoke Flavoring 

ISSUE: What are the labeling requirements for products containing a component to which smoke flavoring has 

been added? 

POLICY: The use of smoke flavoring (natural or artificial) in a component of a meat or poultry food product, 

e.g., ham in a ham salad, does not require that the product name be qualified to indicate the presence of the 

smoke flavoring. However, the smoke flavoring must be declared in the ingredients statement on the meat or 

poultry product labels. 

RATIONALE: The Meat and Poultry Inspection Regulations, 9 CFR 317.2(j)(3) and 381.119, require that 

when an approved artificial smoke flavoring or an approved smoke flavoring is added as an ingredient in the 

formula of a meat and/or poultry food product, the presence of the smoke flavoring must be shown contiguous 

to the product name and listed in the ingredients statement. The Meat and Poultry Inspection Regulations, 

however, do not explicitly address whether this requirement applies to smoke flavoring which is an ingredient 

of a component that is used in a meat food product or poultry food product (secondary product). Because of the 

absence of clarity in the regulations, confusion and inconsistency in the approval of labeling has resulted over 

the years. 

We see no useful purpose in requiring a qualifying statement in the name of the secondary product. The 

presence of the smoke flavoring in the ingredients statement will provide the necessary information to those 

consumers who are interested in knowing if a component has been treated with smoke flavoring. We believe 

this requirement is sufficiently informative and does not in any regard misrepresent the meat and/or poultry 

food product to consumers. 

This policy is consistent with current policy for labeling secondary products and is intended only to clarify the 

procedures already being implemented by the Division. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 118

 October 31, 1988 

From: Ashland L. Clemons, Acting Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Technical Services 

Subject: Use of the Terms "Extra" and "More Than" 

ISSUE: Under what conditions may the terms "extra" or "more than" be declared for components of meat and 

poultry products on approved labeling 

(e.g., "extra tomatoes," "extra topping," "more (meat) than...")? 

POLICY: The terms "extra" or "more (component) than" may be used provided the following guidelines are 

followed: 

(l) There is at least a 10 percent increase in the particular component of interest over the amount that is 

found in the usual or "regular" formulation. 

(2) Information must be provided with the label application that compares the product formulation 

containing the "extra" amount of the component to the regular formulation of the same product to establish that 

at least a 10 percent increase in the component has occurred. Therefore, the usual or "regular" formulation 

would need to accompany submittals for "extra" or "more than" component claims at the time of label review so 

that the necessary comparison of formulations can be made. 

(3) In the situation where production of the "regular" product formulation ceases the "extra" or "more 

(component) than" product labels would be given a 6 month temporary approval. 

(4) A comparison to a similar product on the market may be made to support the "extra" or "more/than"-

type claim provided suitable market basket data are submitted with the label application that establish the 

similarity of formulations and show the increased amount of the component over the "usual" amount. 

RATIONALE: This policy memo is issued for the purpose of clarifying the use of the terms "extra" and 

"more (component) than" on approved labeling materials. There has been an increased general use of these 

terms in marketing strategies to connote the addition of more than the usual amount of one or more components 

of a product formulation. However, the use of these terms has been without a defined minimum additional 

amount over that which is found in a "reference" formulation. Furthermore, there has not been consistency in 

comparison to formulations of the same type of product (e.g., a sauce with meat to another sauce with meat). 

This situation has resulted in a confused processor and consumer perception as to what makes a component of a 

formulation "extra." Therefore, a minimum percentage above a reference to a "regular" formulation is required. 

The minimum 10 percent figure is consistent with the current policy for allowing declarations that a product has 

a greater amount of a component than another, e.g., claims of "significant" nutrient value as per 21 CFR 

lOl.9(c)(7)(v). 
In the situation where production of the "regular" product formulation ceases, the "extra" or "more (component) 

than" product label would be handled as are products that contain "new" on the label; a 6 month temporary 

approval can be granted. 

Processors whose approved labels contain the above captioned declarations and fall under the purview of this 

policy memo must comply with its requirements within 6 months from the date of issuance. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 119

 Standards and Labeling Division 

 September 28, 1989 

From: Ashland L. Clemons, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

Technical Services 

Subject: Labeling of Safe Thawing Instructions on Consumer Packages 

ISSUE: What guidelines should be followed when thawing instructions for frozen meat and poultry products 

appear on a label? 

POLICY: Thawing instructions which appear on the label of a frozen meat or poultry product must be given in 

accordance with FSIS' recommendations for safe thawing procedures. These procedures are as follows: 

1. Thawing product in the refrigerator. 

2. Thawing product in cold water, changing water every 30 minutes until product is thawed. 

3. Thawing product in a microwave oven for less than two hours. Cook immediately. 

Upon request, alternative thawing procedures may be considered. However, scientific evidence which 

thoroughly establishes the safety of an alternative thawing procedure must be presented with the procedure 

when it is submitted for review. 

RATIONALE: Consumer interest concerning the safe handling of meat and poultry products has prompted 

some manufacturers to voluntarily include thawing instructions on the labels of frozen meat and poultry 

products. However, consumer inquiries about these instructions, as well as information derived during the label 

review process, indicate that the information provided sometimes reflects thawing procedures that FSIS 

considers unsafe (i.e., thawing at room temperature, or at room/refrigerator temperature combinations). As a 

result, this policy will establish guidelines which will help to ensure that the thawing instructions included on a 

label adequately reflect procedures which are in accordance with FSIS safe food handling recommendations. 
To: Branch Chiefs, SLD Policy Memo 120

 August 1, 1990 

From: Ashland L. Clemons, Director 

Standards and Labeling Division 

 Regulatory Programs 

Subject: Sausage Type Products with Fruits and Vegetables 

ISSUE: What are the standards and labeling requirements for sausage type products that contain unexpected 

ingredients, such as fruits, vegetables, wild rice, or nuts? 

POLICY: Sausage type products that contain unexpected ingredients that significantly alter the character of 

the product may be descriptively labeled as "(characterizing ingredient) Sausage," e.g., "Cherry Pecan Sausage" 

or 

'Wild Rice Sausage," or with other equally descriptive names such as "Sausage with Wild Rice." 

For fresh sausages, the sausage portion of the product, prior to the addition of the characterizing ingredient(s), 

must meet any applicable standards including fat and added water limitations, moisture/protein ratios, and use 

of binders and extenders. For cooked, smoked, dry, etc., sausages, the finished sausage type product must meet 

any standard that was applicable to the sausage prior to the addition of the characterizing ingredients. 

The unexpected ingredient must be present in sufficient quantity or form to characterize the sausage type 

product in flavor, texture, or other sensory attributes. However, there are no minimum use levels. 

This policy applies to products containing unexpected food ingredients, e.g., fruits and vegetables, such as 

cherries, pecans, tomatoes, etc., that change the character of the product by the addition of unique flavor and 

other sensory characteristics. The policy does not apply to imitation products, i.e., products formulated to 

resemble in taste, texture, color, etc., the traditional sausage products, but which are nutritionally inferior. 

Sausages containing cheese are addressed in Policy Memo 010 and Potato Sausages are addressed in Policy 

Memo 011. 

RATIONALE: The need to formally define the standards and labeling requirements for sausage type products 

which contain certain unexpected ingredients, such as apples, figs, jalapeno peppers, pecans, wild rice, etc., that 

significantly alter the character of the product, has been made evident by the recent proliferation of requests 

from industry for approval of labeling for these products. 

Since these sausage type products do not have either a standardized name or a common or usual name, they are 

given a descriptive product name. We believe that a name such as Cherry Pecan Sausage, for example, satisfies 

the intent of the regulations in providing a fully descriptive product name. Since, in sufficient quantities, the 

ingredients, e.g., cherries and pecans, serve to characterize the flavor and other sensory characteristics of the 

product, they are appropriately given prominence in the product name. Furthermore, since these characterized 

sausage type products are truly new products rather than imitations of traditional products, they do not require 

imitation labeling. 
Limitations such as fat, added water, binders, etc., are handled differently for fresh sausage products versus 

cooked, smoked, etc., sausage products, i.e., formulation versus finished product analysis. Likewise, such 

limitations for sausage type products with unexpected characterizing ingredients will also be handled differently 

depending on whether the finished product is fresh or cooked, etc. 

No minimum use levels have been established since, for example, it would take less of an ingredient, such as 

jalapeno peppers, than apples to characterize the product. However, if use levels are questionably small or 

processing procedures are vague, e.g., it is unclear whether the wild rice is ground or whole, samples may be 

required to verify that the ingredient is actually characterizing the product as opposed to extending the product 

and, thus, imitating traditional sausages. 

This labeling is similar to the labeling for Italian sausage with tomatoes, garlic bologna, and cheesefurters 

where tomatoes, garlic, or cheese characterize the product. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 121B

 January 20, 1995 

From: Cheryl Wade, Director 

Food Labeling Division, RP 

Subject: Labeling of Modified Substitute Versions of Fresh (Species) Sausage, Hamburger or Ground Beef 

Products with Added Ingredients Used to Replace Fat that Qualify for Use of Certain Nutrient Content Claims 

Associated with a Reduction in Fat Content 

ISSUE: This policy allows modified versions of fresh (species) sausages, ground beef, or hamburger to contain 

non-meat or poultry, "fat-replacing ingredients" (e.g., binders such as carrageenan, modified food starch) and to 

be identified by certain nutrient content claims in accordance with nutrition labeling regulations effective on 

August 8, 1994, in conjunction with descriptive labeling, e.g., "Lean Pork Sausage with a X% Solution of ...," 

or "Low Fat Ground Beef, Water, and Carrageenan Product." 

This policy allows for the use of terms defined in regulations, e.g., "Lean," "Reduced Fat," "Low Fat," etc., to 

be used to describe fresh (species) sausage, ground beef, or hamburger products with a reduction in fat content 

resulting from the use of added ingredients (i.e., "fat replacers" such as carrageenan and isolated soy protein). 

These products must meet the criteria for use of the nutrient content claim associated with the fat reduction. 

The nutrient content claim may be used in conjunction with the standardized name provided the consumer is 

informed of the actual components of the product through labeling, i.e., descriptive product name, ingredients 

statement, and Nutrition Facts. 

Meat products, including those that meet the criteria established for claims, such as "Lean," "Low Fat," "Lower 

Fat," "Reduced Fat," etc., that combine fresh (species) sausage, ground beef, or hamburger, and other safe and 

suitable ingredients, for the principal purpose of replacing fat, may be descriptively labeled. Examples of such 

products are "Lean Ground Beef, Water, and Carrageenan Product," "Low Fat Ground Beef With a X% 

Solution of ...," "Lean Beef Sausage, Water, and Carrageenan Product," or "Reduced Fat Pork Sausage, Water, 

and Binders Product," provided conditions prescribed in the regulations, viz., 9 CFR 317, for use of the nutrient 

content claim are satisfied. In contrast, modified versions of fresh (species) sausage, ground beef or hamburger 

product containing added ingredients that do not qualify for use of a nutrient content claim prescribed in the 

nutrition labeling regulations must be labeled as Imitation Pork Sausage, Imitation Beef Sausage, Imitation 

Ground Beef, Imitation Hamburger, Beef Patty or Beef Patty Mix in accordance with 9 CFR Section 317.2(j)(1) 

and Sections 319.141 (Fresh pork sausage), 319.142 (Fresh beef sausage), and 319.15 (Miscellaneous beef 

products), respectively. 

Descriptively labeled, modified, substitute versions of fresh (species) sausage, ground beef, or hamburger 

product with a reduction in fat content must comply with the following guidelines: 

(1) The descriptive name of a modified, substitute product with a reduction in fat content is the applicable 

nutrient content claim used in conjunction with the appropriate standardized name and fat-replacing ingredients, 

e.g., "Low Fat Ground Beef, Water and Carrageenan Product," or "Lean Pork Sausage with a X% Solution of 

Water, Modified Food Starch, Spices, and Salt." Words in the descriptive name may be of a different size, 

style, color, or type but, in all cases, the words must be prominent, conspicuous, and legible. Moreover, no 
word in the descriptive name should be printed in letters that are less than one-third the size of the largest letter 

used in any other word in the descriptive name. The solution statement, when used, is considered to be part of 

the descriptive product name and must comply with descriptive name sizing requirements. 

(2) Fat-replacing ingredients (e.g., binders and water) and fat in the finished product may not exceed 30 percent 

of the product as formulated for the modified, substitute ground beef, hamburger, or fresh beef sausage product, 

and no more than 40 percent of the product formulation for the substitute fresh pork sausage. The fat content 

must be in accordance with requirements for use of the applicable nutrient content claim. 

(3) The product includes mandatory nutrition labeling prescribed in the meat inspection regulations, viz., 9 CFR 

317. 

(4) The product is formulated with approved safe and suitable ingredients, e.g., those identified in 9 CFR 

318.7(c)(4), and which are determined to be safe and suitable by the Food Standards and Ingredients Branch, 

Product Assessment Division, that are used at the lowest level necessary to achieve the intended effect as a fatreplacing ingredient (i.e., binder). 

(5) If percentage labeling is included as part of the product name, e.g., "Extra Lean Ground Beef With a X% 

Solution of ...," a Partial Quality Control (PQC) program for the addition of solutions must be approved before 

the label can be used. 

RATIONALE: Advances in food processing technology have encouraged development of an increasing array 

of processed meat and poultry products with a reduction in fat content demanded by today’s consumers. These 

modified products are intended to assist consumers in meeting the nutritional goal of reducing fats in their diets. 

This policy allows flexibility for developing and marketing meat products with reduced fat content that may be 

substituted for fresh (species) sausages, ground beef and hamburger while maintaining the product’s nutritional 

quality. 

This policy memo (1) replaces PM 121A to conform with nutrition labeling regulations, (2) extends the 

previous policy to include fresh (species) sausages (i.e., sausages that are not expected to contain added 

ingredients, such as binders, and are generally considered by consumers to be similar to hamburger and ground 

beef), (3) establishes labeling requirements that inform the consumer of the actual constituents of the product, 

and (4) conforms with the Department’s policy on descriptive labeling. 

Previously, PM 121A allowed ground beef or hamburger to contain added ingredients to replace fat provided 

the substitute products had no more than 30 percent of a combination of fat and added substances and no more 

than 10 percent fat and were labeled with the term “Low Fat” in conjunction with the standardized name and 

the identification of the added ingredients, e.g., “Low Fat Ground Beef, Water, and Carrageenan Product.” 

Most ground beef or hamburger combination products produced in accordance with PM 121A will not qualify 

to use the term “low fat,” now defined in the regulations, viz., 317.362. However, many of these substitute 

products will qualify to use the term “lean,” and some may qualify to use other nutrient content claims 

associated with meat products with a reduction in fat content. The Agency believes that it is in the best interest 

of both the consumer and industry to provide for labeling of modified, substitute ground beef and hamburger 

products containing added ingredients used to replace fat that meet the criteria for use of nutrient content claims 

for products with a reduction in fat contents. Moreover, the Agency believes that extending PM 121B to 

include modified versions of fresh (species) sausages with a reduction in fat content will encourage 

development of fresh (species) sausages with improved nutritional profiles. 
This policy differs from the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulations for modified substitute foods 

(21 CFR 130.10) and from PM123 which addresses modified substitute breakfast sausage, cooked sausage, and 

fermented sausage products in that unexpected ingredients (i.e., fat-replacing ingredients such as water and 

binders) are identified in the descriptive product name. The Agency believes this difference is justified because 

binders have not historically been allowed in the subject products’ formulations. Therefore, the unexpected 

ingredient/s (i.e., water, binder/s) must be identified as part of the modified substitute product name. 

This policy described herein is intended to serve as interim policy while the appropriate regulatory actions 

related to standards modernization are developed by the Food Standards and Ingredients Branch, Product 

Assessment Division. In this regard, the conditions and requirements described in this issuance may change as 

a result of the public notice and comment rulemaking process. 

This policy permits the use of approved, safe and suitable ingredients for fat replacement. 

The need for a Partial Quality Control (PQC) program is consistent with the Department’s policy regarding 

percentage labeling. 

This policy memo provides further guidance for compliance with Section 317.2(b). 

Policy Memo 121B does not apply to breakfast sausage, cooked sausage, or fermented sausages which are 

addressed in PM123. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 122

 Food Labeling Division 

 Product Assessment Division August 11, 1992 

From: Ashland L. Clemons, Director 

Food Labeling Division 

 Regulatory Programs 

Subject: Meat Content Requirements for Meat Soups 

ISSUE: What are the meat content requirements for meat soups? 

POLICY: This Policy Memo reflects a change to the current policy (outlined in the Standards and Labeling 

Policy Book) for condensed and ready-to-eat soups containing unsmoked meat. This policy has been changed 

to require a minimum of 4 percent cooked meat in condensed meat soups and 2 percent cooked meat in readyto-eat meat soups. The policy outlined in the Standards and Labeling Policy Book regarding soups containing 

smoked meats remains the same, viz., condensed and ready-to-eat meat soups containing smoked meats must 

contain a minimum of 4 percent and 2 percent smoked meat, respectively. Also, the policy regarding meat 

soups containing cooked sausage remains 

unchanged; soups made with cooked sausage shall contain at least 4 percent cooked sausage. 

RATIONALE: The policy on meat soups is being revised to require a minimum of 4 percent cooked meat for 

condensed meat soups and 2 percent cooked meat for ready-to-eat meat soups. This change is consistent with 

requirements for soups containing smoked meat soups. 

The change is supported by consumer research findings that consumers could not differentiate between a meat 

soup with a proposed 4 percent cooked beef content and the one meeting the current minimum beef content 

requirement. Also, results of consumer research indicate that consumers would consider condensed meat soups 

formulated with 4 percent cooked meat as being meat soups. Therefore, the Agency concludes that consumers 

would not be confused nor misled if meat soups, as they are currently labeled, were formulated with minimum 

meat contents to mirror the current minimum requirements for poultry meat soups (9 CFR 381.167). 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 123

 January 20, 1995 

From: Cheryl Wade, Director 

Food Labeling Division, RP 

Subject: Modified Breakfast Sausage, Cooked Sausage, and Fermented Sausage Products Identified by a 

Nutrient Content Claim and a Standardized or Traditional Name 

ISSUE: Modified breakfast sausage, cooked sausage, and fermented sausage products are substitute versions 

of the standardized or traditional products that have been formulated and processed to reduce the fat contents to 

qualify for use of nutrient content claims, but do not comply with the standard of identity or composition as 

described in the meat and poultry regulations or the Standards and Labeling Policy Book (Policy Book) because 

of the use of ingredients used for fat replacement which are precluded or restricted by these standards. The 

deviation from the standard or the traditional, i.e., "regular product," is conveyed by associating an expressed 

nutrient content claim for the appropriate reduction in fat content and the standardized or traditional product 

name, e.g., "Reduced Fat Frankfurter" or "Low Fat Pepperoni." The nutrient content claims that may be used 

are those related to a reduction in fat contents that are identified in the regulations for meat products in 9 CFR 

Part 317 and for poultry products in 9 CFR Part 381. 

Maintaining Product Integrity: The following guidelines must be applied to assure that the modified versions of 

the subject meat and poultry sausage products do not violate the integrity of the standardized or traditional 

product for which they purport to be substitutes: (1) the product must be similar in shape, flavor, consistency, 

and general appearance to the product as prepared according to the regulatory or traditional standard, (2) the 

meat or poultry used to formulate the modified product must come from the same anatomical location when the 

standardized term is related to an anatomical region on an animal, e.g., "ham" is expected to be from the hind 

leg of the hog and cured; thus, "lean smoked ham sausage" would be comprised of meat from the hind leg of a 

hog that has been smoked and cured, (3) the modified sausage product must result from the same processing 

procedures as those specified for the subject sausage products described by regulatory or Policy Book 

standards, (4) there must not be deviations from product safety criteria (e.g., salt content, curing agents, pH, 

water activity and/or moisture/protein ratio) that are provided in the regulatory or Policy Book standards for 

sausages, and (5) the modified product must achieve the appropriate reduction in fat content to be eligible to use 

a nutrient content claim in conjunction with the standardized or traditional product name. 

Performance Characteristics: In producing modified, substitute versions of sausages, the deviations from 

ingredient provisions of the regulatory and Policy Book standards should be the minimum necessary to qualify 

for the nutrient content claim while maintaining the performance characteristics similar to the standardized or 

traditional product, i.e., similar preparation, cooking, and handling characteristics. If a modified version of the 

standardized or traditional sausage does not perform in substantially the same way as the standardized or 

traditional item, the label must include a prominent statement informing the consumer of such differences. For 

example, a "low fat frankfurter" that essentially has all of the characteristics of a frankfurter, but cannot be 

grilled, would indicate "not recommended for grilling." A "reduced fat pepperoni" that displays essentially all 

the characteristics of pepperoni, but cannot be cooked, would, for example, indicate "not recommended for 

cooking" or "do not cook." 
Safe and Suitable Ingredients: A modified, substitute sausage product must be formulated with approved safe 

and suitable ingredients, e.g., those identified in 9 CFR 318.7(c)(4) and 381.147(f)(4), and those determined to 

be safe and suitable by the Food Standards and Ingredients Branch, Product Assessment Division. Such 

ingredients are to be used at the lowest level necessary to achieve the intended effect of reducing fat as 

compared to the standardized or traditional product. Safe and suitable ingredients are those used to replace fat, 

improve texture, and prevent syneresis. 

An ingredient or component of an ingredient that is specifically required by the regulatory or Policy Book 

standard for characterizing purposes, e.g., cheese in a cheesefurter, fresh livers in liver sausage, cured ham in a 

ham sausage, and fennel or anise in an Italian sausage, shall be present in the required amount, if applicable, or 

otherwise in a significant amount to provide a characterizing identity to the product. Moreover, an ingredient or 

component of an ingredient that is not permitted by regulations for use in any meat or poultry sausage product, 

e.g., sodium benzoate, shall not be added to a modified, substitute product. 

Product Identity: The name of the modified version of the standardized or traditional product that complies 

with all parts of the policy prescribed herein is the appropriate expressed nutrient content claim for the meat 

and/or poultry product with a reduction in fat content and the applicable standardized or traditional term, e.g., 

"Lean Sausage," "97% Fat-Free (or "Low Fat") Kielbasa," "Low-Fat Frankfurter Made with Beef, Pork and 

Turkey," "Reduced Fat Pepperoni," "Extra Lean Turkey Italian Sausage," and "Lite Genoa Salami." The size 

and style of type must conform to the nutrition labeling regulations. 

Ingredients Statement: To assist the consumer in differentiating between the standardized or traditional sausage 

product and the modified, substitute version, ingredients that are not provided for by regulatory or Policy Book 

standards, or used in excess of the allowable levels specified, must be appropriately identified with an asterisk 

in the ingredients statement. The statement(s) defining the asterisk(s), e.g., "*Ingredient(s) not in regular " 

(fill in name of the standardized or traditional product), or "*Ingredients(s) in excess of amount permitted in 

regular " (fill in name of the standardized or traditional product), or both as appropriate, must be legible and 

conspicuous, and shall immediately follow the ingredients statement in the same size and style of type. 

RATIONALE: Nutrition labeling regulations that became effective on August 8, 1994, require mandatory 

nutrition labeling of most processed meat and poultry products, and allow for expressed nutrient content claims, 

among them, claims for meat and poultry products with a reduction in fat contents. The policy outlined herein 

provides for the use of the nutrient content claims associated with reductions in fat contents to be used in 

conjunction with standardized or traditional terms for breakfast sausage, cooked sausage, and fermented 

sausage products provided that the consumer is informed of deviations from the standard or traditional product 

in the ingredients statement. The policy is in harmony with FDA regulation, viz., 21 CFR 130.10, effective 

May 8, 1994, which provides for linking nutrient content claims and standardized names for FDA-regulated 

foods. This policy will safeguard the integrity of standardized and traditional foods that have served the market 

well while providing for substitute products that are labeled in a non-pejorative manner which will inform 

consumers about the differences between the standardized or traditional product and the modified, substitute 

product. The policy identifies conditions which must be met for the labeling of the modified versions of the 

subject sausage products, thereby allowing manufacturers the flexibility to develop and market sausage 

products with a reduction in fat contents. The policy also provides for labeling that informs the consumer of the 

performance characteristics of the products when they are different from those of the standardized of traditional 

product. 
Today’s consumers are demanding improved nutritional profiles of familiar foods. Because of advances in 

ingredient and processing technologies, processors are now able to formulate new foods that are acceptable 

substitutes for traditional products. 

The policy described herein is intended to serve as interim policy while the appropriate regulatory actions 

related to standards modernization are developed. In this regard, the conditions and requirements described in 

this issuance may change as a result of the rulemaking process. 

This policy reflects the Agency’s commitment to modernizing meat and poultry standards. The Food Standards 

and Ingredients Branch, Product Assessment Division, has initiated steps toward this goal through the 

development of policy outlined in this issuance. The policy allows the use of approved safe and suitable 

ingredients to replace fat in standardized and traditional foods which should facilitate the development of lower 

fat, modified versions of standardized and traditional meat and poultry products. These modified products are 

intended to assist consumers in meeting the nutritional goal of reducing fat in their diets and are, therefore, not 

regarded as nutritionally inferior. 

This policy memo does not address modified, substitute versions of fresh (species) sausage, ground beef, or 

hamburger product containing added ingredients used to replace fat that qualify for use of certain nutrient 

content claims used in conjunction with descriptive labeling, e.g., “Lean Ground Beef With a X% solution of 

...,” “Low Fat Pork Sausage, Water and Carrageenan Product” which are addressed in PM121B. Also, this 

policy memo is not intended to replace Policy memo 069, “Labeling for Substitute Products,” which allows for 

less than the required amounts of meat and/or poultry contents provided that information is conspicuously 

identified as part of the product name. 
To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 124

 January 17, 1995 

From: Cheryl Wade, Director 

Food Labeling Division, RP 

Subject: Declaration of Net Quantity of Contents on Combination Packages Containing Liquid and Solid 

Products 

ISSUE: What are the Net Contents Labeling Requirements for Combination Packages which Contain Both 

Liquid and Solid Products? 

Definition: Combination Package - A combination package is a package intended for retail sale, containing 

two or more individual packages or units of dissimilar commodities (for example, a lunch pack that contains a 

fruit drink, meat, cheese, crackers and cookies). 

POLICY: The guidelines for stating the net quantity of contents on combination packages containing both 

liquid and solid products are as follows: 

1. The declaration of net quantity of contents for a combination package shall be expressed in terms of fluid 

measure for individual products that are liquid and in terms of avoirdupois weight for individual products that 

are solid, semisolid, or viscous, provided the quantity statements for identical packages or units are combined. 

For example, the fruit drink would be expressed in fluid measure and the meat, cheese, crackers, and cookies 

would be expressed in the combined avoirdupois weight. 

2. The declaration of quantity shall be preceded by one of the following terms, as appropriate: "Net Weight," 

"Net Wt.," or "Net Contents." 

- The net quantity of contents declaration may appear in more than one line. Therefore, both stacked and sideby-side declarations would be considered appropriate. 

- Descriptive terms may be used to identify the liquid and solid components of the package, e.g., entree, meal, 

or drink; however, such terms shall not include brand names. 

- Connecting words such as "and" or "plus" are permitted to be used as part of the declaration of contents. 

Examples of acceptable net content declarations are as follows: 

(1) Entree Net Wt. 8 oz, Drink 4 fl oz (120ml) 

(2) Net Contents: lunch 8 oz plus fruit drink 4 fl oz 

(3) Net Wt. 8 oz Drink 4 fl oz (120ml) 

(4) Net Weight 8 oz. and 4 fl oz. 
Federally inspected meat and poultry products are exempt from the requirements of the Fair Packaging and 

Labeling Act (FPLA), including the mandatory metric labeling provisions that went into effect February 14, 

1994. However, if metric labeling is included voluntarily, such labeling should comply with the FPLA. 

The guidelines contained in this policy memo will be subject to the provisions prescribed in 9 CFR 317.2(h) 

and 381.121 of the Federal regulations. 

RATIONALE: As prescribed by the regulations in 9 CFR 317.2(h) and 381.121, the declaration of net quantity 

of contents shall be expressed in terms of fluid measure for products that are liquid, or in terms of weight for 

products that are solid, semisolid viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid. However, the Federal Meat and 

Poultry Inspection Regulations do not address the declaration of net quantity of contents for combination 

products. 

Traditionally, FSIS has permitted companies to declare the net quantity of contents for combination packages 

which contained both liquid and solid products to be expressed only in terms of avoirdupois weight without 

declaring the fluid measure separately. 

Recently, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) informed FSIS that our practices were not 

consistent with the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation prescribed in the NIST Handbook 130, which 

requires the declaration of both fluid and weight measures on packages containing liquid and solid products. 

NIST contended that such requirements are necessary to provide more accurate and adequate labeling 

information as to the identity and quantity of contents to facilitate price and quantity comparisons by 

consumers. 

Also, it was reported that some federally inspected products were retained by State officials because they 

believed that the products were mislabeled since the net content declarations did not comply with the provisions 

stated in the NIST Handbook 130. As a result of these occurrences, industry requested that FSIS provide 

regulatory guidance for the declaration of net quantity of contents for combination products. 

FSIS determined that the petition had merit and should be addressed through rulemaking. The policy described 

herein is intended to serve as interim policy while regulatory actions are being developed and is consistent with 

the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation. Consequently, the guidelines described in this issuance may 

change as a result of the rulemaking process.