United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Office of Policy and Program Development Washington, DC  20250-3700

REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIVES DEVELOPMENT

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.

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 RDI’s 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, RDI’s syndicated sample was sub-sampled as needed. Additional sample stores were selected for store population segments not ordinarily covered by RDI’s monthly syndicated survey. By combining sample stores drawn from RDI’s 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, RDI’s 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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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

[Back to Table of Contents]

Table 2

[Back to Table of Contents]

Table 6

Table 7

Table 9

[Back to Table of Contents]

Table 10

[Back to Table of Contents]

Table 12

[Back to Table of Contents]

Table 13

[Back to Table of Contents]

Table 14

[Back to Table of Contents]

Table 16

[Back to Table of Contents]

Table 17

[Back to Table of Contents]

Table 18

Table 19

[Back to Table of Contents]

Table 21

Table 23

Table 24

Table 25

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