In a much-anticipated move, the US Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) released its updated Guideline on Substantiating Animal-Raising or Environment-Related Labeling Claims in late August. Last revised in 2019, this important publication consists of a set of guidelines instructing meat and poultry producers how to use label claims such as “free range” and “humanely raised” in a manner that is not—as the law prohibits—“false or misleading in any particular.” This year’s update came in response to questions and concerns raised by members of the public and a wide variety of industry and advocacy organizations, including AWI and its members.

Though the modified guidelines contain some small improvements, they remain grossly insufficient to ensure labels displaying animal-raising claims do not deceive consumers. For some claims, for instance, the guidelines do not require companies to include enough information on the product packaging to adequately inform consumers about the living conditions of the animals. They do not, for example, require poultry product labels displaying the phrases “free range” or “pasture raised” to include definitions of those terms, leaving shoppers in the dark about what the claims mean or whether they are different.
Even when the guidelines indicate that a particular label claim should be accompanied by a definition, the definition is often unhelpful or misleading. For instance, the guidelines state that claims such as “humanely raised” and “raised with care” must be defined on the label—but companies can essentially define these terms however they want. The guidelines offer, as a compliant example, a chicken breast product label with the claim “humanely raised” defined to mean “fed all vegetarian diet with no animal by-products.” This definition tells consumers nothing about key aspects of the animal’s care, such as housing conditions, health management, or whether the bird was subjected to painful procedures such as beak trimming.
Another serious problem involves the documentation a company must submit to substantiate certain claims. For example, a company making a “free range” claim on poultry packaging must submit documentation demonstrating “continuous, free access to the outside throughout their normal growing cycle.” But this doesn’t necessarily mean easy access to verdant pasture. Quite the opposite, it could mean a barren patch of concrete accessed through a small exit from a crowded indoor space. Such a low threshold for what constitutes “free access to the outside” renders the “free range” claim all but useless and contributes to consumer confusion.
The provisions governing the use of “pasture raised” also fall short. In response to a petition submitted by Purdue Farms and supported by AWI, the updated guidelines establish a new definition of “pasture raised”: (1) the majority of each animal’s life was spent on pasture, and (2) “pasture” means land where “the majority is rooted in vegetative cover with grass or other plants.” This is an improvement over the 2019 definition. Inexplicably, however, companies seeking to use the claim are only “strongly encouraged”—not required—to submit documentation verifying that these two factors were met. Thus, meat and poultry products featuring the claim “pasture raised” may or may not meet the guidelines’ definition of the term.
Another severely disappointing aspect is the lack of documentation required to substantiate negative antibiotic claims, such as “raised without antibiotics” and “no antibiotics ever.” As the FSIS explained in its press release announcing the updated guidelines, recent sampling conducted by the agency indicated an alarmingly high presence of antibiotics in supposedly antibiotic-free products:
In light of concerns about negative antibiotic claims, FSIS announced last year that the agency would be conducting a study in partnership with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to assess the veracity of these claims. FSIS collected liver and kidney samples from 196 eligible cattle at 84 slaughter establishments in 34 states, and ARS analyzed the samples using a method that targeted more than 180 veterinary drugs including various major classes of antibiotics. The study found antibiotic residues in approximately 20% of samples tested from the “Raised Without Antibiotics” market.
Despite these findings, and despite acknowledging “the need for more rigorous substantiation” of negative antibiotic claims, the FSIS indicated it would not be conducting additional testing or random sampling for now, nor would it require companies promoting such claims to do so. Instead, the FSIS—once again—“strongly encourages” companies to institute their own sampling programs.
Similarly, the agency “strongly encourages,” rather than requires, the use of third parties to verify animal-raising claims. Independent, third-party certifiers play a valuable role in confirming the truthfulness of claims, because they visit farms and conduct on-site inspections—unlike the FSIS, which claims it lacks the legal authority to do so.
Finally, the revised guidelines make no mention of steps the FSIS might take to correct a major deficiency revealed by the 2022 AWI report Deceptive Consumer Labels. As indicated in the report, AWI asked the FSIS to provide label approval files for 97 meat and poultry animal-raising claims so we could review the adequacy of the documentation producers provided to substantiate those claims. Astonishingly, the agency was unable to provide records for nearly half (48) of the claims. This means either the FSIS had lost the files, or the producers had not submitted the relevant applications for the use of the claims. Either would be unacceptable; yet the issue remains unaddressed.
In sum, the pervasive flaw of the guidelines is that they fail to compel meat and poultry companies to provide meaningful proof that the claims on their packaging are truthful. If the FSIS is unwilling to include such a requirement in its guidelines, then it should do so through rulemaking—a step the agency has previously indicated a willingness to consider. In the meantime, buyers should carefully scrutinize the claims on meat and poultry packaging, and avoid products adorned with claims that are ill-defined and unverified by independent third parties.