Meat May Get Nutrition Labels : Guidelines: USDA proposal would require processors to disclose dietary ingredients of beef, pork and chicken.

By DANIEL P. PUZO

Jan. 31, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

Mandatory nutrition labeling may soon appear on raw meat and poultry packages, according to a recent announcement by federal regulatory officials.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has jurisdiction over beef, chicken and pork commodities, will outline a proposal requiring processors to disclose important dietary ingredients--such as salt, cholesterol and saturated fat--on raw and processed meats--later this year.

Government observers say that the delay in the USDA action, which comes long after sweeping labeling revisions for all other foods, was due partly to USDA’s reluctance to mandate such labeling in the face of industry opposition.

However, nutrition information on meat products became inevitable after Congress ordered label revisions for all others foods (processed items, produce and seafoods). The changes meant to better reflect contemporary health concerns, were last updated 18 years ago.

“We believe consumers deserve more nutrition information on the labels of all foods,” said Jo Ann R. Smith, USDA assistant secretary. “We are committed to determining the best way to implement mandatory nutrition labeling of meat and poultry.”

Industry reaction to the USDA announcement was muted and there was particular concern about mandatory nutrition labeling for raw meats.

“(Nutrition labeling) would be very difficult on raw products,” said Rosemary Mucklow, executive director of the Western States Meat Assn. in Oakland. “I don’t think it is time for mandatory labeling. The USDA should encourage new labels . . . but not require them.”

Even so, USDA has been under fire from consumer groups for dragging its heels on nutrition labeling.

“Meat and poultry have never been subject to mandatory nutrition labeling,” said Ellen Haas, executive director for Public Voice for Food and Health Policy in Washington. “(Consumers) need the full picture on nutrition in order to make responsible and accurate decisions concerning their diets.”

Haas is also critical of the government’s failure to define such widely used terms as “lite,” “lean,” and “low fat.” A senior USDA official acknowledged that there could be confusion about such phrases under the present system. “We need to reevaluate current policies to ensure these descriptors are as uniform and informative as possible,” said Margaret Glavin, a deputy administrator at USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.

USDA faces several difficulties in formulating labeling regulations for meat. These include:

* Should labeling on raw products reflect the nutritional content of the food as purchased or after it is cooked?

* How are odd-size meat cuts to be labeled?

* Should supermarkets be forced to label those meat products packaged at the store level--such as luncheon meats or take-out foods?

* Should the labels for meats and all other foods be uniform?

Mucklow said generic nutritional information could be provided with free booklets at meat counters rather than on the individual packages. That is the program currently offered by the National Live Stock and Meat Board, which has provided pamphlets called “Meat Nutri-Facts” since 1985.

“There are unique qualities about fresh meat, such as the retailer’s fat trim on various cuts, the particular genetics of an animal and the size randomness of the actual cut, that would prevent you from saying exactly what the nutritional content is,” said Eric Hentges, the Meat Board’s director of nutrition research. “There would be problems. . . . There is just no way that anyone can guarantee what the product is under these variables.”