Source: Lisa M. Keefe, MEATINGPLACE, 12/16/15

The USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) published a critique of the agency’s various processed-verified programs, noting several areas where the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) could clarify and tighten up the parameters of the programs.

According to the audit report, the OIG’s objective was to evaluate the approval and proper use of the “processed-verified program” shield and that the claims approved by the agencies were truthful.

The Process Verified Program (PVP) was created to facilitate the marketing of agricultural products. Companies with AMS-approved PVP programs are able to make marketing claims associated with their products, such as age, source, feeding practices or processing claims.

OIG sampled eight of the 54 companies that represented 78 of the 189 “processed-verified program” process points verified by AMS, such as “cage-free” and “tenderness guaranteed” for chickens and “never fed animal protein” for livestock.

OIG found that AMS used a segmented process and did not clearly define which companies’ claims may use the USDA name and PVP shield in marketing their products.

For example, AMS issued a PVP certificate for the “tenderness guaranteed” claim even though the AMS staff did not review the claim. AMS also issued a PVP certificate for the “cage-free” claim – used by two poultry companies – even though it did not meet agency policy since it is a common industry practice to allow broiler chickens to grow without cages.

OIG also found AMS developed the Never Ever 3 claim, which is important in the marketing of cattle, without sufficient evidence to ensure that feed did not include animal protein. Finally, the audit found that AMS did not maintain documentation to support the decisions it made to approve approximately 189 PVP process points in addition to an unknown number of denied PVP applications.

OIG recommended that:
• AMS implement a single agency policy that documents the standards for the types of claims allowed to carry the “processed-verified program” shield;
• Provide a clear definition for the Never Ever 3 program;
• Implement the procedures necessary to ensure a well-defined approval and denial process for “processed-verified program” process points and claims;
• Review AMS’ official listing of approved “processed-verified program” certificates to ensure all process points and claims posted on its website are accurate. 

AMS generally agreed with the findings and accepted management decision on all 10 recommendations, OIG reported.

For more stories, go to www.meatingplace.com.