In that context, not all parts of a bovine are considered “beef.” For example, the USDA FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book states in part the following regarding “ground beef ”:
Cheek meat is permitted up to 25 percent and must be declared in the ingredients statement. For more than 25 percent, show as—“Ground Beef and Cheek Meat”, all the same size. 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.27
The presence of LFTB was revealed to the public by the news media, which dubbed LFTB, “pink slime.”28 The term was quickly picked up by the public, and sales of LFTB plummeted. BPI, the major manufacturer of LFTB, lost 80 percent of its sales in twenty‐eight days and closed three of its four manufacturing plants.29 Since then LFTB has slowly returned to the marketplace.30
NOTES AND QUESTIONS
1 3.5 What brought down LFTB? What can industry do to avoid being at the mercy of the next consumer scare?
2 3.6 Transparency. If the LFTB had been listed in the ingredient statement from the start, what would the effect have been on the consumer backlash? Would there have been a difference in the media?
3 3.7 Compare and contrast. What parallels can you see between the Federation of Homemakers v. Butz case and the pink slime situation? What differences?
4 3.8 Food libel laws (also known as food disparagement laws). A number of states have passed laws making it easier to sue for libel in cases where someone makes disparaging comments about a food. In 1996, Oprah Winfrey’s guest on her show, Howard Lyman, discussed a possible link between “mad cow disease” in cattle and a fatal degenerative brain disease in humans. Oprah Winfrey said that it had just stopped her “cold from eating another burger.” Ten people had just died in Britain. Members of the studio audience gasped when Lyman explained how rendered beef tissue was fed back to cattle in their feed. Winfrey and Lyman were sued under the Texas food disparagement law (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 96.002) and common law business disparagement in Texas Beef Group, et al. v. Oprah Winfrey, et al., 11 F. Supp. 2d 858 (N.D. Tex. 1998). On announcement of a verdict in her favor, Oprah Winfrey said, “Free speech rocks!”
Artificially Flavored
When artificial flavorings are used that simulate, resemble, or reinforce the characterizing flavor of the food, the product name must be accompanied by the phrase “artificially flavored” or “artificial” in type not less than one‐half the size of the name of the food; for example, “Artificial Orange Flavored Punch” or “Artificially Flavored Strawberry Cheesecake”.31
Imitation
A food that is an imitation of another food must be labeled, in type of uniform size and prominence, with the word “imitation” immediately followed by the name of the food imitated. Any product that resembles and substitutes for a traditional food and contains less nutritional value than the traditional food is considered an imitation.32 For example, a new food that resembles a traditional food and is a substitute for the traditional food must be labeled as an imitation if the new food contains less protein or a lesser amount of any essential vitamin or mineral.
Beverages Containing Juice
Beverages that purport to contain juice must declare the total percentage of juice on the information panel. In addition, FDA regulations set detailed criteria for naming juice beverages. For example, when the label of a multi‐juice beverage states one or more—but not all—of the juices present, and the predominantly named juice is present in minor amounts, the product’s name must (1) state that the beverage is flavored with that juice, or (2) declare the amount of the juice in a 5 percent range—for example, “raspberry‐flavored juice blend” or “juice blend, 2–7 percent raspberry juice.”33
* * * * *
When Is Peach Juice Apple Juice?
Marian Segal, FDA Consumer, Special Issue, Focus On Food Labeling (May 1993).
When it comes to juice labeling, there are those who would disagree with Shakespeare’s sentiment that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” If the label implies that it’s peach juice, they contend, it shouldn’t consist mostly of apple and white grape juice—especially without saying so on the label….
The rule‐making process on declaration of percentages of juice goes back many years, beginning with debates over standards of identity for diluted juice beverages. In 1974, FDA proposed a regulation to establish common or usual names for juice drinks instead of developing standards.
After many objections, tie‐ups, and reworkings—including a final regulation in 1980 that never had an effective date, and two more proposals in 1984 and 1987—the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act came along in 1990 requiring that “a food that purports to be a beverage containing juice must declare the percent of total juice on the information panel.”
But this alone would not solve the problem of misleading labels. Many manufacturers today use bland juices, like apple or white grape, as diluents instead of water, and call the product a 100 percent juice blend.
“Some of these labels are just not informative,” Campbell says.34 “The label says 100 percent juice blend or 100 percent natural juices, but only the expensive juices—the raspberry or strawberry, which are in smaller amounts—appear prominently on the principal display panel. You have to look for the grape and the apple in the fine print.”
To correct this, the FDA elaborated on the 1990 law, proposing that manufacturers be required to declare not only the total percent of juice, but the percent of each juice named or pictured on the label of a multi‐juice beverage.
In responding to the proposal, however, manufacturers protested that this requirement would be impractical and difficult to comply with. They explained that juice, as an agricultural product, varies in strength, flavor, solids, and color. If they were required to state a percentage, they wouldn’t have the flexibility necessary to adjust the amount of juice—using a little bit less or a little bit more or a little sweetening—to get the desired flavor. Nor would they be able to vary their formulas as driven by fluctuations in cost or availability of individual juices.
In addition, they said the amount of juice they use in their formulations is proprietary information, and requiring them to reveal this information in 1 percent increments would force them to divulge their secret formulas.
The final rule allowing a statement that the beverage is flavored, or declaring the amount of juice named in a 5 percent range, addresses manufacturers’ concerns, while providing more accurate information
