RIN Data

Statement of Need: FSIS is planning to issue regulations under which meat and poultry carcasses and parts will not be permitted to retain water unless the establishment preparing the products demonstrates, with data collected under a protocol available for FSIS review, that the water retention is an avoidable consequence of such processing. In addition, the establishment will be required to state on the product label the maximum percentage of retained water in a product. The statement could appear contiguous to the product name or elsewhere conspicuously on the label. An establishment having data demonstrating that there is no retained water in its products can choose not to label the products with the retained-water statement or to make a no-retained-water claim on the product label. FSIS will accept data generated from an approved, appropriately designed protocol to support water retention levels for multiple establishments using similar post-evisceration processing techniques and equipment. FSIS is revising the poultry chilling regulations, including the regulation limiting moisture retention in ready-to-cook whole chickens and turkeys, which was set aside by Federal court order. The existing general requirement for establishments to minimize moisture absorption by raw poultry will remain, along with the requirement for them to furnish equipment necessary for moisture tests to be conducted on inspected product. The tables setting moisture absorption and retention limits for the various kinds and weight classes of poultry and the requirements for daily moisture testing by FSIS inspectors will be removed. FSIS is also revising or eliminating various "command-and-control" requirements governing poultry chilling, including the regulations on thawing procedures and water use and reconditioning, to improve consistency with the HACCP regulations and reflect current technological capabilities and good manufacturing practice. FSIS will give affected establishments the flexibility they need to choose the most appropriate means of carrying out their HACCP plans for protecting the safety of raw product while minimizing the potential for economic adulteration. FSIS will apply the same retained-moisture standard to both livestock and poultry carcasses and parts. Raw, single-ingredient meat and poultry products intended for use as human food will have to bear labeling indicating the amount of retained moisture they contain as a percentage of product weight. The regulations will require post-evisceration processing of livestock or poultry carcasses and parts, including washing, chilling, and draining practices, to minimize both the growth of pathogens on edible product and moisture absorption and retention by the product. Even if FSIS accepts the data supporting a moisture retention limit higher than zero and regulates accordingly, raw products that contain more than zero percent retained moisture will have to be labeled to reflect that fact. FSIS envisions that the final rule will require the statement "may contain up to _____ percent retained water" or some similar statement to appear in prominent letters contiguous to the product name or elsewhere conspicuously on the product label. The labeling statement would provide additional information to consumers of raw meat and poultry products to help them in their purchasing decisions. This rule has been prompted by longstanding industry petitions and by the Agency's need to reform its regulations to make them more consistent with its PR/HACCP regulations, in accordance with its regulatory reform agenda. A July 1997 Federal Court decision vacating the regulations in 9 CFR 381 that contain the water-retention tables for whole birds lent further impetus to this rulemaking project.

Summary of the Legal Basis: This action is authorized by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 USC 451 et seq.). Exercise of the Secretary of Agriculture's functions under these laws has been delegated to the Under Secretary for Food Safety (7 CFR 2.18) and by the Under Secretary to the Administrator of FSIS (7 CFR 2.53). This action also is being taken partly in response to a U.S. Court decision in the matter of Kenney v. Glickman.

Alternatives: This rule resulted from an analysis of six alternative regulatory approaches for addressing retained water in raw meat products and poultry products. The six alternatives include: (1) No limit on retained water but mandatory labeling that identifies the percentage of retained water in the product; (2) a requirement that all establishments meet a water limit based on best available technology, with mandatory labeling to indicate any retained water; (3) a moisture limit based on best performance with existing equipment, with mandatory labeling to show any retained water; (4) a standard of zero retained moisture; (5) a requirement that no retained water could be included in net weight; and (6) a requirement of zero retained water unless the water retention is unavoidable in processes necessary to meet food safety requirements, e.g., to reduce pathogens, with product labeling to indicate the presence of retained moisture, where applicable. For all alternatives where a limit on retained water is established, the analysis assumed that the limits would be established by the regulated industry associations or other groups. FSIS chose the last alternative. The selected option does not allow retained water in an affected product unless it is an inevitable consequence of the process or processes used to meet applicable food-safety requirements. By "inevitable consequence," the Agency means an unavoidable and irreducible side effect. Under this option, levels of unavoidable retained water must be established by inspected establishments, associations, or other groups, using acceptable protocols. Also, the maximum amount of retained water that can be present must be indicated on the product label. FSIS has found that this option provides more benefits and fewer cost than other options allowing retained water.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: In analyzing the impacts of this rule, FSIS has estimated a range of costs the industry will incur. If establishments are able to demonstrate that current levels of retained water are unavoidable in achieving applicable food safety standards, establishments would not incur costs for reducing retained water. These establishments would only incur costs for establishing limits and costs for labeling the product. The costs of establishing limits for the poultry industry are estimated to be $1.5 million. This estimate is based on each establishment?s conducting its own tests. The cost should be lower if associations or other groups establish limits for different types of chiller systems. Labeling costs are estimated to be $18.4 million if all raw, single-ingredient poultry continues to retain water. To the extent that establishments cannot demonstrate that current retained water levels are necessary for achieving applicable food safety standards, significant costs could be incurred as establishments modify processes to minimize retained water levels. Reducing retained water could entail a wide range of processing modifications, depending on the type of chilling equipment currently used and amount of retained water that would have to be removed. FSIS estimates that, if extensive modifications to chilling systems were needed throughout the industry, the fixed costs associated with removing a substantial portion of the existing retained water could run well over $100 million. However, if extensive modifications were not needed, the industry would only incur the costs of establishing retained water limits and meeting the labeling requirements of the final rule. The average retained water for chicken as a percentage of net weight is currently estimated to be in the 5.0 to 6.5 percent range. The corresponding level for turkey is 4.0 to 4.5 percent. The final rule should not have a significant impact on a large number of small businesses. Fifty to 60 poultry slaughter establishments process under a million birds annually. Many of these smaller operations do not use continuous immersion chillers. They use ice or slush to meet the existing chilling requirements. Few, if any, would have to reduce the current level of retained water. The establishments most affected by this final rule are the firms operating immersion chillers in a manner so as to target the maximum allowable retained water. The Agency's calculations show the benefits of reducing retained water to be about $72.4 million. Subtracting cost estimates ranging from $18.4 million to $44 million yields expected net benefits of from $28 million to $54 million. Indirect benefits of this rule could not be quantified. One of the indirect benefits of the rule is the value of consumer information associated with retained water labels. These labels help consumers make informed purchasing decisions and restore consumer sovereignty in retail purchasing. Another indirect benefit of the rule is the value of reduced cleaning of potential spillage of retained water by consumers. A concomitant effect of reducing spillage is the reduction in bacteria-contaminated water and the associated health hazards to consumers. An additional indirect benefit is the potential reduction in economic adulteration and misbranding associated with excessive retained water. Finally, the rule will also provide all affected establishments with the flexibility and market incentives to implement new procedures for meeting pathogen reduction performance standards. In addition, by replacing command-and-control requirements with HACCP-consistent performance standards, the final rule will eliminate some recordkeeping and reporting burdens, provide for increased flexibility, and reduce the costs of HACCP implementation.

Risks: FSIS has identified, as a potential indirect benefit of the rule, reduced spillage of retained water by consumers handling raw products. Reducing the amount of bacteria-contaminated water spilled in consumer households would reduce associated health hazards to consumers. FSIS has not attempted to quantify the reduction of such hazards or any associated foodborne illness.