Link and logo to the Food Safety and Inspection Service Home Page United States Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Office of Policy and Program Development
Washington, DC  20250-3700

REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIVES DEVELOPMENT


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

NUTRITION LABELING / SAFE HANDLING INFORMATION STUDY

 

OCTOBER 1999

 

 

RAW MEAT AND POULTRY

 

 

CONTRACT # 53-3A94-99-09

 

 

 

 

Retail Diagnostics, Inc.
Oradell, New Jersey
Final Report
January 2000

" "

 

REPORT ON PARTICIPATION BY FOOD RETAILERS IN PROVIDING NUTRITION LABELING / SAFE HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS INFORMATION

FOR RAW MEAT/POULTRY

 

OCTOBER 1999

 

" "

 


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

PART 1

BACKGROUND

3

PART II

METHODOLOGY

4 - 7

PART III

RESULTS

8 - 10

PART IV

SAFE HANDLING RESULTS

11 - 12

PART V

APPENDICES

13 - 44

 

NOTE:   Tables 3, 4, 8, 11, 14, 19, and 21, are not included in this HTML document.  These tables are, however, available in the Docket Clerkís Office: Room 102 Cotton Annex Building, 300 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC.  A link to the remaining Tables is provided below for your viewing convenience:

Table 1

Table 2

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7 Table 9 Table 10 Table 12
Table 13 Table 14 Table 16 Table 17
Table 18 Table 19 Table 21 Table 23
Table 24 Table 25

 

 

Report on participation by Food Retailers in providing nutrition labeling/safe handling instruction/information for raw meat/poultry

 

OCTOBER 1999

 

I.  BACKGROUND

The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has responsibility for the appropriate labeling of raw meat/poultry products as mandated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products Inspection Act.

Regulations published in January 1993 established a voluntary nutrition labeling program for single ingredient raw meat and poultry products, and allowed quantitative nutrition information to be supplied by means of point-of-purchase materials. Every two years, FSIS must survey retailers to determine if there is significant participation in the Voluntary Nutrition Program. A total of 45 major cuts of meat and poultry have been identified to measure voluntary nutrition labeling participation. (See pp. 40 for a listing of the 45 items and for an example of "new" format vehicle.)

Regulations published in 1994 made safe handling instructions mandatory on all raw meat and poultry product labeling. The scope and design of the nutrition labeling survey includes data which estimates the prevalence of stores that are providing safe handling instructions for raw meat and poultry items packaged at the retail level.

A nationally projectable survey was conducted in June 1995 to measure compliance with labeling requirements. On the nutrition labeling portion of the study, participation by retailers was determined to be significant. At that time, survey criteria encompassed both "new" and "old" formats for nutrition information at the point-of-purchase. As in the 1996 survey, the current survey considers only "new" materials at the point-of-purchase as the basis for compliance. Presence of "old" format materials, however, was recorded for the current survey.

With regard to safe handling, both the 1995 and 1996 studies reported less than the mandatory 100% compliance.

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

II. METHODOLOGY

A. Sampling of Retail Food Stores

The store sample for this survey was designed to be representative of the retail population consisting of all supermarkets with annual dollar volume of $2,000,000 or more and smaller grocery stores with annual dollar volume over $500,000 but under $2,000,000. (Convenience stores were excluded from the retail population.)

The United States Department of Agriculture/Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) determined that a scientifically drawn, nationally representative sample of approximately 2,000 retail food stores should be selected to obtain the information necessary to properly assess compliance with the guidelines for the voluntary nutrition labeling of raw meat and poultry. A sample of that size provides a relatively narrow margin of sampling error (the extent to which sample estimates are likely to deviate from the "true" parameters). Conservatively, the margin of error based on 2,000 stores is approximately +/- 4%. For example, for a sample estimate of compliance of 50%, the researcher could be reasonably sure (95% Confidence Level) that the "true" parameter ranged between 46% and 54%. For estimates of compliance in the 60% magnitude, the "true" parameter could be expected to range from the estimate by no more than +/- 3.5%, an even narrower margin of sampling error.

While sample size determines the overall precision of survey estimates, a sample design that addresses relevant store population characteristics helps produce a sample which is highly representative of the store population. In order to assure the representative nature of the sample and to help minimize biases, USDA/FSIS included four characteristics to be used in sample selection. These are:

  • Store Size

  • Large Food Stores ($2 million or more annual sales)

  • Small Food Stores (annual sales between $500,000 and $2 million)

  • Store Type

  • Chain (four or more stores under common ownership)

  • Independent (three or less stores under common ownership and single unit stores)

  • County Size

  • A Counties - All counties belonging to the 25 largest Consolidated Statistical Metropolitan Areas (CSMAs) or Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)

  • B Counties - All counties not included in A that are either over 150,000 population or in CMSAs or MSAs with population of at least 150,000

  • C Counties - All counties not included in A or B that are either over 40,000 population or in MSAs with over 40,000 population

  • D Counties - All other counties

  • State - each of the 48 continental states

The 2,000-store sample is allocated to the Store Size segments such that the probability of selecting a Large Store (sales volume of $2,000,000 or over) is twice the probability of selecting a small store. This is done since larger stores are deemed more significant than small stores in reaching customers with Nutrition/Safe Handling information.

Within each Store Size segment, sample stores were further allocated to Store Type segments (Chains versus Independents), States, and County Size. All allocations are made proportional to the relative size of each store population segment. Allocating in this manner assures that all significant segments of the population will be fairly represented in the sample, including major cities, urban and suburban areas, and rural segments of the country.

Because over 75% of the more than 3,000 counties are rural (C and D counties), budgetary considerations mandate that a 2-Stage Cluster Sample design be utilized for this survey. Within each state a first stage sample of C and D counties was selected. The likelihood of selecting a particular county is proportional to its size (number of stores in the population). The number of C and D counties selected in each state is a function of the number of such counties in the state as well as the number of sample stores that have been allocated to them. Although Cluster Samples may be less efficient than other sampling processes, the loss in efficiency in this survey is minimal since the incidence of Nutrition/Safe Handling compliance has been historically consistent with respect to geographic considerations.

Individual sample stores were selected objectively using a variety or sources including RDIís own listing of supermarkets, as well as Select Phone ProCD telephone listings. Additional data sources such as Progressive Grocer Marketing Guidebook, Progressive Grocer MarketScope, Chain Store Guide Directory of Supermarkets & Convenience Store Chains, and the latest US Economic Census were also applied.

In order to develop volume weighted estimates of compliance, sample store weights are determined separately based on aggregate sales volume for each outlet type/size and county size within each state.

B. Data Collection

Data collection for the assessment of the prevalence of nutrition labeling information compliance was completed by Retail Diagnostics, Inc., an independent market research contracting firm located in Oradell, New Jersey.

RDI conducts a monthly syndicated observation service in a sample of food stores. The retail food store listings used by RDI are comprehensive and subject to a continual updating process reflecting store openings, closings, take-overs, and other developments.

For the purpose of this survey, RDIís syndicated sample was sub-sampled as needed. Additional sample stores were selected for store population segments not ordinarily covered by RDIís monthly syndicated survey. By combining sample stores drawn from RDIís monthly sample with additional stores sampled, a scientifically drawn, nationally representative sample of grocery stores (each with annual sales of at least $500,000) results. (See Table 1 and Table 2 for a breakdown of the sample stores by outlet type, size and county size. In addition, a breakdown of the sample by state and county size can be found at pp. 35.)

After receiving training in the contract requirements and data collection, RDIís field representatives were asked to visit each of the 2,000 sample grocery stores. Data were collect during a two-week period beginning in mid October 1999. Field representatives inspected raw meat and raw poultry departments to determine the on-site status of nutrition labeling information. Vehicles displaying information (e.g., signs, posters, brochures, notebooks, pamphlets, etc.) were studied and relevant data were recorded on a field form that was custom designed by RDI for use in this survey.

Data were reviewed for accuracy and completeness, input to a data processor, tabulated, summarized and delivered to USDA/FSIS.

C. Basis of Reporting

Data descriptive of compliance are reported on two bases: Store Count and Store Volume Weighted. Estimates of compliance based on store count reflect the actual number of sampled stores complying. Volume weighted estimates represent compliance in terms of exposure in the marketplace. That is, since larger stores receive more weight than smaller stores because they have greater sales volumes and therefore more shoppers, the volume weighted estimate reflects the proportion of shoppers exposed to nutrition information.

To illustrate, a store count compliance estimate of 60% is interpreted as "nutrition information is available in 60% of stores visited". Those stores, however, may account for 70% of the sales volume. The volume weighted compliance estimate of 70% is interpreted to mean that "nutrition information is available to 70% of shoppers since 70% of grocery sales are accounted for by these stores".

While USDA/FSIS determined that substantial compliance would be met if at least 60% of the stores sampled provided nutrition labeling information for at least 90% of the foods they sell, the agency strongly believes the volume weighted results provide valuable information and should also be reported.

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

III. RESULTS

The resulting compliance estimates made on previous Nutrition Labeling Information Surveys were as follow:


Survey Year


Store Count Basis

Volume
Weighted Basis

1996

57.7 %

60.9 %

1995

66.5 %

72.2 %

At the time of the 1995 survey, "new" format nutrition information vehicles had just been made available to retailers. It was felt that not enough time had been given to retailers to install them. Fair credit, therefore, was given to retailers if they were found to have either the "new" or the "old" nutrition vehicles. In 1996 however, only the presence of "new" vehicles contributed to a compliance designation since the "new" versions had been distributed well in advance of the survey.

In the current survey, only the presence of the "new" nutrition vehicles was used as the basis for compliance. However, the presence of "old" format vehicles was also recorded.

A summary of the survey results follows:

Nutrition Labeling Compliance

In order for a store to be deemed compliant, at least 90% of the up to 45 major cuts of raw meat and poultry stocked within the store had to somehow be covered by "new" format nutrition labeling information. Such information could be supplied by (1) Food Marketing Institute nutrition posters, brochures, pamphlets, etc., (2) generic nutrition posters, brochures, pamphlets, etc. (prepared by the stores themselves or other organizations), or (3) on-pack Nutrition Facts labels.

If a store had the Food Marketing Institute "new" format nutrition vehicles, then all of the up to 45 major meat and poultry items stocked would be deemed to comply and the store would be counted as compliant. The same can be said if the store had a generic vehicle, with the following exceptions:

  1. The generic vehicle failed to include all 45 major meat/poultry items,

  2. The generic vehicle (poster) was in three or more parts consisting of a separate poster for each meat type (a situation which occurred in numerous instances). In these cases, it is conceivable that a store could have an acceptable nutrition poster for a particular meat type(s) but the store not be compliant because no vehicle(s) were present for other meat types.

Table 5: Summary of Compliance: Results By Store Type/Size

The results for the current survey show that 1,095 of the 2,000 stores sampled (54.8%) were compliant with respect to Nutrition Labeling Information. This compares unfavorably with the 1996 results when 57.7% of the stores were compliant.

With respect to the volume weighted estimates, the current results show compliance to be at 62.8%, while in 1996, volume weighted compliance was 60.9%.

When viewed by outlet type, there is a wide differential in voluntary compliance rates. Chain stores show a 65.5% rate (compared with 64.2% in the 1996 survey), while Large Independents currently reflect 46.5% compliance. Medium/Small stores show an incidence rate of only 26.3%. Comparing these with the 1996 survey results, a sharp decline is in evidence, especially in the Medium/Small store segment (39.7% in 1996).

Table 6: Summary of Compliance: Results By County Size

The results for the current survey show A/B counties outperforming C/D counties slightly (55.4% versus 53.4%). This relationship is similar to the 1996 study results when A/B counties slightly outpaced C/D counties, 57.9% to 57.1%.

A similar result occurred for the volume weighted estimates.

Table 7: Compliance Range: Results By Store Type/Size and Results By County Size

This table shows compliance percentage ranges. Of the 2,000 stores surveyed, 761 (38%) had no appropriate nutrition information labeling of any kind (although some had "old" format materials). In the 1996 survey, 32.3% of stores failed to provide appropriated nutrition information labeling.

Table 9: Compliance By Meat Category

Compliance by meat category is determined by applying the 90% criterion to each category. The results show a range in compliance incidence when viewed by meat category. Beef/Veal showed the highest compliance rate (58.3%). Pork/Lamb and Chicken/Turkey followed with 58% and 57.2% respectively. All rates were down from the 1996 survey by considerable amounts. The worst comparison is the Chicken/Turkey category which reflected 63.1% compliance in the last survey.

Table 10: Compliance By Type of Meat

Compliance by meat type is determined by applying the 90% criterion to each type. Ground Beef showed the highest compliance rate at slightly over 60%. Chicken reflected the lowest compliance rate at 57.6%. In addition, Chicken showed the greatest relative decrease in compliance rate (from 64.2% in 1996 to 57.6% in the current survey). All other compliance rates were lower than in the 1996 survey.

Tables 12 & 13: Summary of Vehicle Type: By Store Type/Size, By County Size

Nutrition posters were the most common vehicle used to display nutrition information. In stores that had any "new" format vehicles, posters were present in 94.4% of stores while pamphlets, brochures, notebooks, etc. were found in 8.1% of stores. (Both vehicle types were found in 30 stores.)

Pamphlets, brochures, notebooks were most popular in the larger stores and least popular in the medium/small stores.

Tables 14: Summary of New and Old Vehicle Type: By Store Type/Size & By County Size

"Old" format nutrition information was found in a number of stores: "Old" posters were in 10.4% of sampled stores; "old" format brochures, pamphlets, notebooks were found in 0.9% of sampled stores. A few stores (23 stores) had both "new" and "old" format vehicles. For the most part, the basis for this condition was due to a "new" generic poster applicable to a particular meat category while an "old" format vehicle was also present but applicable to another meat category.

Tables 15, 16, 17 & 18: Number of Meat Items Stocked: By Outlet Type/Size, By County Size: All Meat Items Combined, Beef/Veal Items, Pork/Lamb Items, Chicken/Turkey Items

This table reports the number of items of the 45 major items (19 Beef/Veal, 16 Pork/Lamb, and 10 Chicken/Turkey).

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

IV. Safe Handling Instructions Compliance

The measure for compliance for Safe Handling Instruction labeling required that the store have appropriate labels affixed to each and every item made available for sale within the meat/poultry category. This applied to all meat/poultry items and was not restricted to the 45 major items covered elsewhere in the survey.

Tables 20: Summary of Safe Handling Compliance By Meat Category: All Stores Combined

At the aggregate level, the current survey found 93.2% of store complying with proper Safe Handling Instructions labeling. In 1996, the survey found 93.3% complying.

By meat category, compliance ranged from a low of 94.5% (Ground Beef) to 99.5% (Other Poultry). Comparing with the 1996 survey, slight improvements was seen for Veal, Lamb, Other Meat and Other Poultry. Ground Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Turkey showed slight decreases in compliance. Other Beef remained unchanged.

Tables 22: Summary of Safe Handling Compliance By Meat Category: Chain Stores

Compliance rates for meat categories were all over 94.3%, and ranged to a high of 99.5% for Other Poultry.

Aggregate compliance was slightly improved for chain stores from the 1996 survey (96.1% to 96.7%). Improvements were seen for the following categories: Veal, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Other Meat, and Other Poultry. Ground Beef and Other Beef showed slight declines in compliance. Turkey items reflected a sharp decline from 98.5% to 94.3%.

Tables 23: Summary of Safe Handling Compliance By Meat Category: Large Independents

Compliance rates ranged from 92.1% (Ground Beef) to 100.0% (Other Meat).

Aggregate compliance decreased from 91.1% to 90.5%. Decreases were noted for Ground Beef, Veal, Pork, Chicken, and Turkey. Other Beef, Lamb, Other Meat, and Other Poultry improved their compliance rates. (Other Meat was at 100.0% in the current survey.)

Tables 24: Summary of Safe Handling Compliance By Meat Category: Medium/Small Independents

Aggregate compliance dropped from 85.1% in 1996 to 84.1% in the current survey.

Five of the nine categories showed improvement from the 1996 survey. These were: Other Beef, Veal, Lamb, Other Meat, and Other Poultry. Sharp decreases were seen for Ground Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Turkey.

  [Back to Table of Contents]


IV.  APPENDICES

Table 1

 

NUMBER OF STORES SAMPLED BY
STORE SALES VOLUME AND STORE TYPE
 

 

Chain Stores

 

Independents

 

Total
(Volume Class)

Large Stores
($2 Million or More Annual Sales)


1262


368


1630

Small Stores
(Between $500,000 & $2 Million in Annual Sales)


---


370


370


Total (Store Type)


1262


738


2000

[Back to Table of Contents]

Table 2

 

NUMBER OF STORES SAMPLED
BY COUNTY SIZE

 

County Size

 

Number of Stores Sampled

 

A

 

764

 

B

 

579

 

C

 

335

 

D

 

322

 

Total

 

2000

[Back to Table of Contents]

Table 5

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

 

NUTRITION LABELING INFORMATION
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE
RESULTS BY STORE TYPE/SIZE

 

 

Total Stores Sampled
 

Chains

Independents

Total

Large

1262

368

1630

Medium/Small

---

370

370

Total

1262

738

2000


 

Total Qualifying Stores
 

Chains

Independents

Total

Large

1262

368

1630

Medium/Small

---

370

370

Total

1262

738

2000


 

Total Complying Stores
 

Chains

Independents

Total

Large

826

171

997

Medium/Small

---

98

98

Total

826

269

1095


 

Complying Stores Percent of Qualifying Stores - By Cell
 

Chains

Independents

Total

Large

65.5%

46.5%

61.2%

Medium/Small

---

26.3%

26.3%

Total

65.5%

36.0%

54.8%


 

Complying Stores Percent Volume of Qualifying Stores - By Cell
 

Chains

Independents

Total

Large

66.5%

46.9%

64.4%

Medium/Small

---

25.8%

25.8%

Total

66.5%

41.0%

62.8%

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

 

Table 6

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

 

NUTRITION LABELING INFORMATION
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE
RESULTS BY COUNTY SIZE


Total Stores Sampled
 

Total

A/B Counties

1343

C/D Counties

657

Total

2000

 

Total Qualifying Stores
 

Total

A/B Counties

1343

C/D Counties

657

Total

2000

 

Total Complying Stores
 

Total

A/B Counties

744

C/D Counties

351

Total

1067


Complying Stores Percent of Qualifying Stores - By Cell
 

Total

A/B Counties

55.4%

C/D Counties

53.4%

Total

54.8%


Complying Stores Percent Volume of Qualifying Stores - By Cell
 

Total

A/B Counties

63.7%

C/D Counties

60.3%

Total

62.8%

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

Table 7

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

 

NUTRITION LABELING INFORMATION COMPLIANCE
COMPLIANCE RANGE DETAIL

 

 

BY STORE TYPE/SIZE - STORE COUNT -NEW VEHICLES


Percent 
Range

 

Large Chain


Large Independents


Medium/Small Independents


Total Stores

 

%

90% or more

826

171

98

1095

54.8

80%  - 89.9%

10

3

--

13

0.6

70%  - 79.9%

12

1

1

14

0.7

60% - 69.9%

17

7

2

26

1.3

50% - 59.9%

16

--

1

17

0.9

under 50%

53

10

11

74

3.7

None

328

176

257

761

38.0

Total

1262

368

370

2000

100.0


 

COMPLIANCE RANGE DETAIL
BY COUNTY SIZE - STORE COUNT -NEW VEHICLES


Percent Range

A/B 
Counties

C/D
Counties


Total Stores


%

90% or more

744

351

1095

54.8

80%  - 89.9%

8

5

13

0.6

70%  - 79.9%

11

3

14

0.7

60%  - 69.9%

17

9

26

1.3

50%  - 59.9%

12

5

17

0.9

under 50%

55

19

74

3.7

None

496

265

761

38.0

Total

1343

657

2000

100.0

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

 

Table 9

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

NUTRITION LABELING INFORMATION

 

SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE BY MEAT CATEGORY

Meat Category

Total Stores Carrying

# Stores Complying

%
Compliance


All Meat Items


2000


1095


54.8


Beef / Veal


1993


1161


58.3


Pork/Lamb


1898


1100


58.0


Chicken/Turkey


1627


931


57.2

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

Table 10

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

NUTRITION LABELING INFORMATION


SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE BY TYPE OF MEAT

Type of Meat

Stores Carrying

Stores Complying

% Compliance

Ground Beef

1941

1171

60.3

Other Beef

1981

1159

58.5

Veal

938

617

65.8

     Beef/Veal

1993

1161

58.3

 

Pork

1880

1089

57.9

Lamb

1084

712

65.7

     Pork/Lamb

1898

1100

58.0

 

Chicken

1563

900

57.6

Turkey

921

573

62.2

     Chicken/Turkey

1627

931

57.2

 

All Raw Meat & Poultry

2000

1095

54.8

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

Table 12

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

NUTRITION LABELING INFORMATION

SUMMARY OF VEHICLE TYPE - RESULTS BY STORE TYPE/SIZE

STORE COUNT

 

Vehicle Type

 

Large Chain

Large Independents

Medium/Small Independents

 

Total


Posters


843


180


98


1121


Pamphlets,
  Brochures,
    Notebooks

 



82



11



3



96


Net


899


187


101


1187

 

 

 

% OF STORES

Vehicle Type


Large Chain

Large Independents

Medium/Small Independents


Total


Posters


71.0


15.2


8.2


94.4


Pamphlets,
  Brochures,
    Notebooks

 

 

6.9

 

0.9

 

0.3

 

8.1


Net


75.7


15.8


8.5


100.0

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

Table 13

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

NUTRITION LABELING INFORMATION

SUMMARY OF VEHICLE TYPE - RESULTS BY COUNTY SIZE

 

STORE COUNT


Vehicle Type

A/B 
Counties

C/D Counties


Total


Posters


62


359


1121


Pamphlets,
  Brochures,
    Notebooks

 

 

67

 

29

 

96


Net


810


377


1187



% OF STORES


Vehicle Type

A/B 
Counties

C/D Counties


Total


Posters


64.2


30.2


94.4


Pamphlets,
  Brochures,
    Notebooks

 

 

5.7

 

2.4

 

8.1


Net

 


68.2


31.8


100.0

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

 

Table 14

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

NUTRITION LABELING INFORMATION


SUMMARY OF NEW AND OLD VEHICLE TYPE
RESULTS BY STORE TYPE & COUNTY SIZE
PERCENT OF QUALIFYING STORES

OUTLET TYPE

   
 

INDEPENDENTS

COUNTY SIZE

CHAINS

LARGE

MEDIUM

A & B

C & D

TOTAL

BASE:
QUALIFYING STORES


1262

 
368


370


1343


657


2000


Poster / Panel FORMAT


NEW FORMAT

 
66.8


48.9


26.5


56.7


54.6


56.1


OLD FORMAT

 
10.5


11.4

 
8.9

 
 9.5


12.3


10.4


EITHER FORMAT

 
76.2


59.5


34.3


65.2


65.8


65.4


BROCHURE/ PAMPHLET, ETC.


NEW FORMAT

  
6.5

 
3.0

 
0.8


 5.0

 
4.4

 
4.8


OLD FORMAT

  
1.0

 
0.3

 
1.1

 
1.1

 
0.3

 
0.9


EITHER FORMAT

 
7.3

 
3.3

 
1.9

 
6.0

 
4.6

 
5.6

[Back to Table of Contents]

 


Table 16

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

NUTRITION LABELING INFORMATION

 

 

NUMBER OF MEAT ITEMS STOCKED - RESULTS BY STORE TYPE/SIZE

Number
of Items


Large Chains

Large Independents

Medium/Small Independents

Total Stores
# %

1 - 5

4

9

39

52

2.6

6 - 10

54

22

58

134

6.7

11 - 15

132

68

83

283

14.2

16 - 20

227

87

70

384

19.2

21 - 25

290

86

55

431

21.5

26 - 30

255

50

38

343

17.2

31 - 35

167

25

17

209

10.4

36 - 40

71

12

3

86

4.3

41 - 45

62

9

7

78

3.9

Total

1262

368

370

2000

100.0

 

 

NUMBER OF MEAT ITEMS STOCKED - RESULTS BY COUNTY SIZE

Number
of Items


A/B Counties


C/D Counties

Total Stores
# %

1 - 5

31

31

52

2.6

6 - 10

86

48

134

6.7

11 - 15

161

122

283

14.2

16 - 20

221

163

384

19.2

21 - 25

294

137

431

21.5

26 - 30

136

107

343

17.2

31 - 35

169

40

209

10.4

36 - 40

73

13

86

4.3

41 - 45

72

6

78

3.9

Total

1343

657

2000

100.0

[Back to Table of Contents]

 


Table 17

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

BEEF & VEAL CATEGORY

 

NUMBER OF ITEMS STOCKED - RESULTS BY STORE TYPE/SIZE

Number of Items

Large Chains

Large Independents

Medium/Small Independents

Total Stores
# %

1 - 5

42

42

115

199

10.0

6 - 10

402

172

172

746

37.4

11 - 15

649

132

66

847

42.5

16 - 19

169

22

10

201

10.1

Total

1262

368

363

1993

100.0

 

 

NUMBER OF ITEMS STOCKED - RESULTS BY COUNTY SIZE

Number
of Items

A/B Counties

C/D Counties

Total Stores
# %

1 - 5

114

85

199

10.0

6 - 10

453

293

746

37.4

11 - 15

602

245

847

42.5

16 - 19

168

33

201

10.1

Total

1337

656

1993

100.0

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

Table 18

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

PORK & LAMB CATEGORY

 

NUMBER OF ITEMS STOCKED - RESULTS BY STORE TYPE/SIZE

Number
of Items

Large Chains

Large Independents

Medium/Small Independents

Total Stores
# %

1 - 5

238

125

172

535

28.2

6 - 10

617

182

118

917

48.3

11 - 16

362

47

37

446

23.5

Total

1217

354

327

1898

100.0


NUMBER OF ITEMS STOCKED - RESULTS BY COUNTY SIZE

Number
of Items

A/B Counties

C/D Counties

Total Stores
# %

1 - 5

310

225

535

28.2

6 - 10

610

307

917

48.3

11 - 16

355

91

446

23.5

Total

1275

623

1898

100.0

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

Table 19

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999


CHICKEN & TURKEY CATEGORY

 

 

NUMBER OF ITEMS STOCKED - RESULTS BY STORE TYPE/SIZE

Number
of Items

Large Chains

Large Independents

Medium/Small Independents

Total Stores
# %

1 - 5

554

208

226

988

60.7

6 - 10

442

111

86

639

39.3

Total

996

319

312

1627

100.0


NUMBER OF ITEMS STOCKED - RESULTS BY COUNTY SIZE

Number
of Items

A/B Counties

C/D Counties

Total Stores
# %

1 - 5

631

357

988

60.7

6 - 10

485

154

639

39.3

Total

1116

511

1847

100.0

[Back to Table of Contents]

 


Table 21

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999


SUMMARY OF SAFE HANDLING LABELING COMPLIANCE
BY MEAT CATEGORY

 

ALL STORES


Meat Category

# Stores Carrying

# Stores Complying

%
Compliance


Ground Beef


1941


1839


94.7


Other Beef


1981


1894


95.6


Veal


938


917


97.8


Pork

 


1880


1798


95.6


Lamb


1084


1062


98.0


Chicken


1563


1478


94.6


Turkey


921


895


97.2


Other Meat


826


815


98.7

 

Other Poultry

 

553

 

550

 

99.5


Aggregate


2000


1864


93.2

[Back to Table of Contents]


Table 23

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

SUMMARY OF SAFE HANDLING LABELING COMPLIANCE
BY MEAT CATEGORY

 

LARGE CHAIN


Meat Category

# Stores Carrying

# Stores Complying

%
Compliance


Ground Beef

 


1241


1216


98.0


Other Beef


1260


1233


97.9


Veal

 


722


713


98.8


Pork


1200


1180


98.3


Lamb


834


829


99.4


Chicken


952


934


98.1


Turkey


633


597


94.3


Other Meat


589


581


98.6


Other Poultry


382


380


99.5


Aggregate


1262


1220


96.7

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

Table 24

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

SUMMARY OF SAFE HANDLING LABELING COMPLIANCE
BY MEAT CATEGORY

LARGE INDEPENDENT


Meat Category

# Stores Carrying

# Stores Complying

%
Compliance


Ground Beef


356


328


92.1


Other Beef

 


366


343


93.7


Veal


115


109


94.8


Pork


354


332


93.8


Lamb


146


136


93.2


Chicken


302


283


93.7


Turkey


167


159


97.4


Other Meat


157


157


100.0



Other Poultry

 

 

104

 

103

 

99.0


Aggregate

 


368


333


90.5

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

Table 25

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999


SUMMARY OF SAFE HANDLING LABELING COMPLIANCE
BY MEAT CATEGORY


MEDIUM/SMALL INDEPENDENT


Meat Category

# Stores Carrying

# Stores Complying

%
Compliance


Ground Beef


344


295


85.8


Other Beef


355


318


89.6


Veal


101


95


94.1


Pork


326


286


87.7


Lamb


104


97


93.3


Chicken


309


261


84.5


Turkey


121


106


87.6


Other Meat


80


77


96.3


Other Poultry


67


67


100.0


Aggregate


370


311


84.1

 

 

" "

 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

" "

 

USDA NUTRITION LABELING/SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY COUNTY SIZE WITHIN STATE

SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY COUNTY SIZE WITHIN STATE

P E R C E N T O F  S T A T E  S A M P L E


STATE


           A

           B

            C

            D

               
     
TOTAL

    SAMPLE
        SIZE

ALL STATES

38.2

29.0

16.7  16.1

100.0

      2000

 
ALABAMA

.

 54.5

27.3 18.2

100.0

           33

ARKANSAS

              .

29.2

16.7 54.2 100.0

  24

ARIZONA 51.5 18.2 21.2 9.1 100.0

           33

CALIFORNIA 73.7 18.2 7.1 1.0 100.0

 198

COLORADO 40.0 8.0 16.0 36.0 100.0

  25

 
CONNECTICUT 25.0 62.5 12.5 . 100.0

  24

DC 100.0 . . . 100.0

   4

DELAWARE 57.1 . 42.9 . 100.0

   7

FLORIDA 43.90 40.8 11.2 4.1 100.0

  98

GEORGIA    46.4 16.1 14.3 23.2 100.0

  56

 
IOWA . 28.0 24.0 48.0 100.0

  25

IDAHO . 23.1 30.8 46.2 100.0

  13

ILLINOIS 52.8 11.2 20.2 15.7 100.0

  89

INDIANA 4.4 51.1 22.2 22.2 100.0

  45

KANSAS 37.5 18.8 25.0 18.8 100.0

  16

 
KENTUCKY 7.9 31.6 21.1 39.5 100.0

  38

LOUISIANA . 64.9 18.9 16.2 100.0

  37

MASSACHUSETTS 64.1 17.9 10.3 7.7 100.0

  39

MARYLAND 82.4 . 8.8 8.8 100.0

  34

MAINE . 25.0 50.0 25.0 100.0

  12

 
MICHIGAN 40.3 29.9 14.9 14.9 100.0

  67

MINNESOTA 44.8 10.3 10.3 34.5 100.0

  29

MISSOURI 46.4 5.4 10.7 37.5 100.0

  56

MISSISSIPPI . 33.3 22.2 44.4 100.0

  27

MONTANA . . 50.0 50.0 100.0

   8

 
NORTH CAROLINA . 53.4 32.9 13.7 100.0   73
NORTH DAKOTA . 57.1 42.9   100.0    7
NEBRASKA . 27.3 27.3 45.5 100.0   11
NEW HAMPSHIRE 50.0 . 25.0 25.0 100.0   12
NEW JERSEY 94.3 . 5.7 . 100.0   53
 
NEW MEXICO 28.6 21.4 28.6 21.4 100.0   14
NEVADA . 53.8 23.1 23.1 100.0   13
NEW YORK 69.4 19.4 9.0 2.2 100.0  134
OHIO 38.8 35.0 18.8 7.5 100.0   80
OKLAHOMA . 50.0 20.0 30.0 100.0   30
 
OREGON . 65.6 25.0 9.4 100.0   32
PENNSYLVANIA 50.5 27.4 17.9 4.2 100.0   95
RHODE ISLAND . 57.1 42.9 . 100.0    7
SOUTH CAROLINA . 59.0 25.6 15.4 100.0   39
SOUTH DAKOTA . . 42.9 57.1 100.0    7
 
TENNESSEE . 55.3 17.0 27.7 100.0   47
TEXAS 45.2 28.2 8.9 17.7 100.0  124
UTAH . 57.1 21.4 21.4 100.0   14
VIRGINIA 18.9 47.2 7.5 26.4 100.0   53
VERMONT . . 57.1 42.9 100.0    7
 
WASHINGTON 47.7 29.5 13.6 9.1 100.0   44
WISCONSIN 28.6 23.8 26.2 21.4 100.0   42
WEST VIRGINIA . 38.9 27.8 33.3 100.0   18
WYOMING . . 42.9 57.1 100.0    7



USDA NUTRITION LABELING / SAFE HANDLING
INFORMATION STUDY OCTOBER 1999

45 Major Meat/Poultry Items


The following meat/poultry items were used as the basis for determining if a store was in compliance with Nutrition Information Labeling

Beef & Veal

Beef Items
Ground Beef (81% or more Lean)
Ground Beef (70% - 77% Lean)
Brisket, Whole
Chuck, Arm Pot Roast
Chuck, Blade Roast
Rib Roast, Large End
Rib Steak, Small End
Top Loin, Steak
Loin, Tenderloin Steak
Loin, Sirloin Steak
Eye Round, Roast
Bottom Round Steak
Round, Tip Roast
Top Round, Steak

Veal Items

Shoulder, Arm Steak
Shoulder, Blade Steak
Rib Roast
Loin Chops
Cutlets

Pork & Lamb

Pork Items
Ground Pork
Shoulder, Blade Steak
Loin, Country Style Ribs
Loin, Rib Chop
Center Chop, Loin
Top Loin, Roast
Loin, Tenderloin Roast
Loin, Sirloin Roast
Spareribs

Lamb Items

Shoulder, Arm Chop
Shoulder, Blade Chop
Shank
Rib Roast
Loin Chop
Leg, Whole

Chicken & Turkey
Chicken Items
Whole
Breast
Wing
Drumstick
Thigh

Turkey Items

Whole
Breast
Wing
Drumstick
Thigh

[Back to Table of Contents]

 

 

For Further Information Contact:
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Regulations and Directives Development Staff
Telephone:  202-720-5627
Fax:  202-690-0486
E-mail:
  FSIS.Regulations@fsis.usda.gov

FSIS is in the process of developing a mechanism for electronic submittal of comments via e-mail -- stay posted.

 

Send mail to webmaster  with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: November 25, 2002