USDA QUAUTY GRADES FOR BEEW

HERBERT C . ABRAHAM C W - -USDA

I have been asked t o discuss how beef i s now graded f o r qual i ty by USDA. There has been, and--1 am sure-- w i l l continue t o be, considerable discussion about the factors t h a t should be used i n grading. Carpenter i s planning t o discuss some of t he recommendations fo r changes i n the grade standards which have been made by various groups.

D r .

A s you know, there a re eight qual i ty grades f o r beef: Choice, Good, Standard, Commercial, U t i l i t y , Cutter and Canner. The Prime, Choice, Good and Standard grades a re r e s t r i c t ed t o beef from young c a t t l e , and are the grades of in t e re s t t o most people. t he standards must apply t o a l l of the beef t h a t i s produced. This being the case, beef produced frm older animals cannot be ignored.

Prime,

However,

There a re two primary fac tors which determine the qual i ty grade of (1) the qual i ty of i t s lean, and (2 ) i t s conformation. a beef carcass:

The term "quality" i s used t o r e fe r t o the pa l a t ab i l i t y indicating charac te r i s t ics of the lean and is the primary fac tor affect ing the qua l i ty grade. Conformation i s included as a fac tor i n determining the qual i ty grade because we were not successful i n get t ing it eliminated i n the "dual grading" proposal of 1962. proposed t o eliminate conformation as a qual i ty grade factor , but the proposal f a i l e d t o receive su f f i c i en t support f o r adoption. There i s no f ac tua l information which indicates t h a t var ia t ions i n conformation a re d i r e c t l y or ind i rec t ly re la ted t o pa la tab i l i ty , but we s t i l l f e e l t h a t conformation--as it re l a t e s t o muscling--is an important f ac to r a f fec t ing carcass merit. much b e t t e r included i n our yield grades ra ther than as a factor in determining the qual i ty grades.

A s you how, in t h a t proposal we

We are convinced, however, t h a t i t s e f f ec t i s

Qual i ty of the lean i s evaluated by considering i t s marbling and firmness a s observed i n a cut surface i n r e l a t ion t o the apparent maturity of the animal from which the carcass was produced. The maturity of the carcass is determined by evaluating the s ize , shape, and oss i f ica t ion of t he bones and carti lages--especially the s p l i t chine bones--and the color and texture of the lean f lesh . I n the s p l i t chine bones, oss i f ica t ion changes occur a t an e a r l i e r stage of maturity i n the poster ior portion of the ver tebral column ( sac ra l vertebrae) and a t progressively l a t e r stages of maturity i n the lumbar

* Presented a t the 27th Annual Reciprocal Meat Conference of the American Meat Science Association, 1974

144

USM QUALITY GRfU)ES FOR BEEF

PRIME *

CHOICE

GOOD

STANDARD

~ R C I A L

UTILITY

CUTER

CANNER

* Cow CARCASSES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PRIME,

14 5

k l U R I

LING QUALITY CONFORMATION

FI MESS

QUALITY GRADE

146

and thoraic vertebrae. car t i lages on the ends of the s p l i t thoraic vertebrae are especial ly useful Fn evaluating maturity. a l so a re i m p r t a n t considerations i n evaluating differences i n maturity. The color and texture of t he lean flesh also undergo progressive changes w i t h advancing maturity. In progressively more mature carcasses, the texture of the lean w i l l become progressively coarser and the color of the lean w i l l become progressively darker red. maturity score s l i g h t l y more emphasis i s placed on t h e ske le t a l charac- t e r i s t i c s than on the lean.

The oss i f ica t ion changes t h a t occw i n the

The s i ze and shape of the r i b bones

In a r r iv ing a t the f i n a l

It is generally acknowledged t h a t fa tness i s posi t ively associated w i t h pa l a t ab i l i t y . And, since it i s obvious t h a t the amount of external o r intermuscular f a t , as such, can have no d i r ec t e f f ec t on pa la t ab i l i t y , t he amounts of these are given no consideration in grading. consideration of fatness i n grading is l imited t o marbling--fat w i t h i n the muscle.

Our

Since marbling and maturity have opposite e f fec ts on pa la tab i l i ty , f o r s implici ty i n applying the standards, w e have elected t o describe t h e qual i ty aspects of t he grades i n terms of degrees of marbling f o r d i f fe ren t leve ls of maturity. And t o f a c i l i t a t e the combination of these two factors , w e have established f ive maturity groups, designated as A, B, C, D and E, i n order of increasing maturity and nine degrees of marbling. i l l u s t r a t e d on t h i s s l i d e . The other marbling score i s prac t ica l ly devoid.

The lower limits of 8 of these 9 marbling scores a re

The relat ionship between marbling, maturity, and qua l i ty i s shown on sLide 4. By p lo t t ing the marbling and maturity of a carcass on this chart you can see that i ts qua l i ty can be readi ly determined. example, a carcass with A maturity and modest marbling would f a U in to the middle of the Choice grade.

For

I would a l so lLke t o point out that these relat ionships a re pre- sumed t o be s t ra i&t- l ine--not stair-step--relationships . Graders e s sen t i a l ly accomplish t h i s by evaluating marbling and maturity in percentages. To a r r ive a t the f inal qua l i ty grade of a carcass, i t s qual i ty , as determined from t h e chart , is then conibined w i t h i t s conformation.

The c o n f o m t i o n requirements f o r the various grades a re described i n terms of (1) thickness of muscling, or (2 ) an overa l l degree of fu l lness and thiclmess of t h e carcass. grade if it meets e i the r of these requirements. have both. w a s incorporated i n t o the standards when they were revised i n 1965. “his approach permits some well-muscled carcasses with r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e external f a t t o qual i fy f o r a higher conformation grade than formerly w a s t he case.

A carcass may qual i fy f o r a It is not required t o

Permitting conformation t o be evaluated on muscling alone

14 7

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE LOWER LIMITS OF CERTAIN DEGREES OF TYPICAL MARBLING REFERRED TO

FOR GRADES OF CARCASS BEEF I N THE OFFICIAL UNITED STATES STANDARDS

Illustratioiis adapted from negatives furnished by N e w York State College of Agriculture, Cornell University

1-Very abundant 4-Slightly abundant 7-Small 2-Abundant 5-Mod era te E-Slight 3-Moderately abundant 6-Modest 9-Traces

(Practically devoid not shown)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONSUMER A N D M A R K E T I N G S E R V I C E

LIVESTOCK D 1V I S ION

\ 1 2 3

4 5 6

7

NEG. NO. DN-1594

8 9

148

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARBLING, MATURITY, AND QUALITY DEGREES OF

ABUNDANT - ABUNDANT -

MODERATELY A B U N DAN T

SLIGHTLY ABUNDANT

,.s-.'*"" -

MODERATE - - MODEST MODEST - - SMALL SMALL - - SLIGHT SLIGHT -

-111 -.,,... 2 epresents midpolnt of Pr ime and Comrnerclal grades.

Figure 1

Sl ide 5 i l l u s t r a t e s differences i n conformation. Carcass A has average Choice conformation. Carcass B has average standard conformation. Notice the differences i n muscling evident i n the two carcasses. The carcass with Choice conformation is moderately plump and th ick , while the other carcass is t h i n l y muscled and somewhat angular.

The f i n a l qua l i t y grade of a carcass i s based on a composite evaluation of i t s conformation and quality--expressed Fn terms of grade. conformation and q u a u t y , the standards a l so indicate , fo r each grade, the extent t o which these are compensatory. The pr inc ip les governing these compensations a r e as follows: I n each of t h e grades a superior development (grade) of qua l i ty i s permitted t o compensate f o r a def ic ien t development (grade) of conformation,> without l i m i t , through the upper lhit of qua l i ty recognized i n t he standards. compensation i n a l l grades i s on an equal basis--a given degree of superior qua l i t y compensates f o r the same degree of def ic ien t conformation. The reverse type of compensation--a superior d e v e l o p n t of conformation f o r an i n f e r i o r developnent of qual i ty-- is not permitted i n t he Prime, Choice, and Comercial grades. However, i n a l l other grades, t h i s type of compensation i s permitted but only t o t h e extent of one-third of a grade of def ic ien t qua l i ty . The r a t e of t h i s compensation i s a l s o on an equal basis--a given degree of superior conformation compensates f o r t h e sane degree of def ic ien t qua l i t y .

Since r e l a t i v e l y few carcasses have an iden t i ca l development of

The r a t e of this type of

If t h e qua l i ty l e v e l i s minimum Good grade or higher or i n t he Comerc ia l grade, t he f inal grade cannot be higher than the qua l i t y l e v e l even though the conformation grade i s considerably higher. This r u l e i s a l s o applicable t o U t i l i t y i n the C, D and E m t u r i t y groups. I n Standazd, young U t i l i t y , Cutter and Canner, t he f i n a l grade m y be ra i sed 1/3 of a grade above the qua l i ty based on a superior development of conformation. r e l a t i v e l y l e s s wel l developed than the qual i ty , t h e f i n a l grade i s a simple average of t h e qua l i t y and conformation grades.

In a l l grades, when the conformation of a carcass is

Examples of how conformation and qua l i ty are ccsnbined i n t o t h e qua l i t y grade a re shown on s l i d e 6.

As you can see, marbling, maturity, and conformation a r e the primary f ac to r s influencing t h e qua l i t y grade of a beef carcass. Conformation usual ly a f f e c t s the grade only when it i s lower than the qua l i ty . I n our fed beef, t h i s happens r e l a t i v e l y infrequent ly . Also most of our fed beef supply falls within a r e l a t i v e l y narrow range of maturity. Therefore, var ia t ions i n marbling have the grea tes t e f fec t on qua l i t y grade of any of the f ac to r s .

QUALITY

CHt

G-tt

STDt

GD-

STD

QUALITY GRADE

CHt

CH

GD-

GD-

STD

Question: Zerle, i n your opinion, what would be t h e e f f e c t of including the upper one-third of the God grade i n the U.S. Chsice Grade?

Z . L. Carpenter: A s I ' ve reviewed the research l i t e r a t u r e during the las t year, I think we can include the upper one-third of the Good grade i n t he Choice grade and not make a detectable difference i n the eat ing qual i ty Df the end product. I a l so think you can f l a t t e n out t he l i nes from A minus t o A plus maturity and a s nearly as I can t e l l based on Dr. Bradford Berry's work and others, w e w i l l not a f f e c t t he eating qua l i t y .

Roger West, Florida: Why a r e the packers and western s t a t e s people opposed t o the new grade proposal?

Z . L . Carpenter: They f e l t t h a t the "new" grade would be unworkable, Roger. It was f e l t t h a t it would j u s t put another factor i n our system and r e a l l y questioned t h a t they could make t h i s grade work. a r e strong feel ings a b m t not reducing the l i n e i n the Choice grade, I f e l t t h a t t h e "new" grade concept was worth a t r y . I couldn't see how we'd lose anything by it since we would s t i l l have choice where it was. I ' m ce r t a in it would be d i f f i c u l t . f m it i n the packing industry.

Since there

But, generally I d i d n ' t f ind enthusiasm

Verlin Johnson, N x t h Dakota: Why did the AMI or NIMPA packers f e e l t h e i r proposal was any d i f fe ren t kind of problem?

Z . L. Carpenter: I guess I would answer it t h i s way. We've had about three meetings t h i s year with the packers and they said r e a l l y what they needed was more Choice carcasses. I v i s i t e d with some of our economists about t h i s and they t e l l me p r e t t y much t h a t our beef prices a r e based upon the supply and demand f o r t he various grades and t h a t we're going t o e a t a l l of it a t some p r i ce . holds the packers a t ten t ion and a l s o r e a l l y a concern of mine i s the grea t demand f o r Choice beef by the r e t a i l t rade t o supply t o the consumer t o the extent t h a t w e have almost gone t o a one-grade system. I'm not sure t h a t ' s what the consumer r e a l l y wants universal ly . whatever t he case, Choice i s t h e demand grade. Right now we have a very serious market s t ruc tu re on Choice v s . Good, $6-$7 a hundred weight a l i v e i n some markets t h i s week.

O f course, the thing t h a t

But

Question: What has been the experience of those using ''no-roll" beef? I s n ' t it a s desirable t o the consumer a s those on a "Choice" beef program?

Z . L. Carpenter: I think that's possible and we don't know r e a l l y the kind of grade width with which these markets are working. We see others using upper half of Choice fo r some reason. Some retailers using "no r o l l " c a t t l e report t h a t they seldom ever have a complaint, t h a t t h e i r meat volume i s what it w a s projected t o be from t h e i r s to re s and that t h e i r meat v s . other goods i n t h e s to re s are a t t he projected levels so you know they make t h e p i tch 'Well, i t ' s r e a l l y as good. i f not b e t t e r ' plus they ge t 546 more cutout on t h a t beef.

Bob Kauffman, FJisconsin: Zerle, s ince you have been studying the standards during the l a s t year do you have a suggestion on how idea l ly carcasses should be graded? Do we have the information which w i l l allow us t 3 reach an unbiased, non-pol i t ical posit ion?

Z . L. Carpenter: F i r s t , Bob, I a m convinced t h a t we have an imperfect system. But befme cast ing stones, we need some f r u i t f u l suggestions. I hope i f nothing e l se , we m i g h t , th rmgh our reciprocation here, st imulate some ideas. I am concerned and I believe somewhere, somehow, we w i l l f ind more desirable c r i t e r i a than we a r e present ly using i n our qua l i ty system. of c a t t l e , t h a t maturity and marbling a re supe r f i c i a l measures t o indicate ea t ing quali ty--1 have no b e t t e r ones t o o f f e r now, Bob. I th ink i t ' s r e a l l y a r e f l ec t ion on those i n the group assembled here t h a t we r e a l l y don't have something b e t t e r . You j u s t said t h a t we're a s c i e n t i f i c grmp--can ' t we come up w i t h something t o i den t i fy beef qua l i t y b e t t e r than the present system. A l o t of people a r e p re t ty c r i t i c a l of USDA. I r e a l l y th ink i t ' s important t h a t the group of us here commit our e f f o r t s t o development of improved methods f o r imple- mentation in to the grading system. We're hoping t h a t there a re some people t h a t w i l l contribute t o t h i s important phase of ag r i cu l tu re . What kind of grading system would we have today i f we d idn ' t have our previous his tory? what kind of system we'd have. I f e e l t h a t our yield grading system accomodates conformation i n terms of muscling and that conformation i s not r e a l l y precise enough o r accurate enough in measuring value and so could be deleted from our system without losing a value segment.

I am convinced, within our normal supply

But

I f we s t a r t e d anew it would be in t e re s t ing t o see Conformation? It might be the same.

Dale Anderson, USDA: b b t have consumer groups sa id about changes i n t h e qua l i ty grades?

Z . L. Carpenter: The recent Nader Report general ly supports the AMI proposal but f o r t he wrong reasons. This organization supports the AMI proposal from the standpoint of reducing the f a t content of meat. If we r e a l l y wanted t o s a t i s f y t h i s concern,the grading system should probably be revised. kind of uninformed support f o r the grade changes.

So, I ' m not sure that w e r e a l l y need t h a t

David Skroud: One of t h e thoughts from t h e so-called Consumer advocate groups i s the fee l ing t h a t greedy cattlemen a r e put t ing cheap feed i n the form of fa t and s e l l i n g it t o the consumer a t a high p r i ce .

Z . L. Carpenter: Well, we had a b r i e f session with a consumer group i n San Francisco. i s t ry ing t o do is lower the qua l i t y of the meat and s e l l it a t a higher p r i ce . How do you combat t h i s kind of opinion? Well, i n rqy O p i n i a J the bes t way is i f yau have a sound basis t o approach standards and good research documentation, we then have a bas is f o r an educational program t o them. You must approach it on a bas i s that a group such as ours and other informed groups can support t he system w i t h indisputable evidence.

I n t h e i r minds, the primary thing our industry

153

"Choice" word i n merchandising beef? both "Good" and "Choice'' i n t h e i r s tores?

Barbara Green, Georgia: What i s being done about misuse of the Why aren ' t r e t a i l e r s providing

Z . L. Carpenter: This i s what I was re fer r ing t o a moment ago. Many r e t a i l organizations only s e l l a s ingle grade because of the apparent d i f f i c u l t i e s i n qua l i ty and inventory control . I n response t o your other question, I th ink t h a t i f they say "U.S. Choice" it must be U .S . Choice. If not, they can be prosecuted through the Jus t ice Department. A number of cases indicate t h a t prosecution i n such instances hes resul ted i n indictments.

John Secrest: We haven't been a t odds with t h e USDA f o r a long time, but the armed services don ' t buy w h a t they want t o buy; they buy what they ' re t o l d t o buy. They're t o l d t o buy Choice because t h a t ' s t he way t o buy it. way t o buy it because somebody to ld them t h a t ' s the way t:, buy it. That's ngt because Choice is b e t t e r than Good. mi l i ta ry was on Choice grade beef, and l o and behold, i n 1966 the USDA made a grade change which took us down about a ha l f a grade t o Good grade. d i d n ' t l i k e it very much a t a l l . They came t o Natick Laboratories, which I represent, the R . and D . Development Area f o r t h e mil i tary, and they sa id ' Jus t i fy the f a c t that we can go back t o Good grade. So, we made a study of t he new Good grede vs . t h e new Choice grade in 1966, and we found a s much a n i m a l t o animal var ia t ion i n the Choice grade as w e found i n t h e Good grade or as we found between Choice and Good grade. So, as much as we l i k e t o help the mi l i t a ry services out, t he re ' s no way we can j u s t i f y t h e d e c i s i m t o go back t o t h e Choice grade because the Good grade was j u s t a s good as Choice a s far as we were concerned. t h a t was t r u e of the upper ha l f of the old Standard grades. So, we went on f o r qui te a few years and t h e mi l i ta ry in t h e i r voluntary service had t o j u s t i f y t o the mi l i t a ry men t h a t they ' re giving the same qual i ty product taday t o t h e i r mi l i ta ry men as t h e i r mothers would buy them on the commercial market before they went i n to service, which is Choice grade. NQW, do they need the Choice grade? They need the Choice grade because t h a t ' s what t h e i r mothers were buying them, before they came in to the service, s o t h e mi l i t a ry says, 'Ok, w e ' l l b u y you Choice grade. We a lso pay about 3 o r 4 cents a pmnd f o r Choice grade, which when one considers t h a t over 2 b i l l i o n s pounds of beef a year t h i s amounts t o a l o t of mney, f o r something we don't how i f they r e a l l y need. We need t o measure physical appearance, color, odor, f lavor and tex ture . Now, we're not t oo sure r igh t now t h a t t h e Good grade vs . t he Choice grade makes t h a t much difference as far a s texture is concerned. We can use a mechanical tenderizer on a bottom round roas t and make a "top round roas t" out of it i n three t i m e s passing through the tenderizer . ness doesn't make much difference t o us because we can make it tender . So, we end up with one thing, and t h a t ' s f l avor . We challenge USDA t o say "Where a re we on flavor? I t

What w e would l i k e t o have from USDA i s a d i f f e ren t evaluation of grade acceptance, not p o l i t i c a l l y oriented, but honestly oriented t o the

And they buy it because they bel ieve t h a t ' s the

Back i n 1965, the

Anyway, t he mi l i t a ry l o s t about ha l f a grade on t h a t and they

And

Tender-

Does marbling make a difference on flavor?

consumer's benef i t . We spend a l o t of money f o r buying Choice beef over Good grade beef . t o , because you see it costs t he taxpayers everytime we pay another do l l a r f o r beef . Do we need t o have the Prime, Choice, Good and Standard? Do we need tha t ? not acceptable? I j u s t wanted t o give you my opinions on the way t h e mi l i t a ry f e e l s about t h i s thing. ge t down t o brass tacks and ge t it down t o a r e a l evaluation. got through w i t h a study i n which a Warner Bra tz le r type device was compared with consumer acceptance f o r tenderness. And one of t h e things I wanted t o of fe r t o the USDA i s t h a t we have j u s t completed a study wi th t h e Instron Instrument using a spec ia l adapter f o r the instrument and we came up w i t h about .98 c o r r e l a t i m between tenderness by t h e Instron Instrument and tenderness a s evaluated by t h e consumer acceptance.

We don't want t o pay any more money than we have

We don't want t o pay anymore money than we have t o .

O r do we need something l i k e two grades of beef--acceptable and

A s t o what we do about grading, l e t ' s We j u s t

Question: Is t h a t on raw meat, John?

John Secrest: That's on raw meat. On consumer acceptance. So,

And that 's why I say j u s t worry about f lavor because why don ' t we do something l i k e tha t? f o r tenderness. we have i ts worth on tenderness. take tenderness vs . consumer acceptance.

And buy it on something l i k e tha t

W e can take a biopsy on an animal and

Z . L. Carpenter: I th ink you ' l l be swamped w i t h people a f t e r t h i s session t o ask about your adaptation of the Instron, John.

Dale, Huffman, a r e you i n t h e room? Rather than m e quoting your recent work, what w a s the difference i n unacceptabili ty i n your recent paper within the Good grade a s compared t o Choice? (Slides of Huffman work were shown).

The point of the paper i s t o show t h a t there i s qu i t e a b i t of v a r i a b i l i t y within each grade. f i v e w a s an acceptable t a s t e panel tenderness score. c a t t l e were acceptable in tenderness regardless of marbling scores. This indicates t h a t the grading system, as it present ly is consti tuted, doesn't r e a l l y divide the c a t t l e i n t o acceptable and unacceptable groups. I'd l i ke t o make one coment t h a t t h i s kind of session is what made the Reciprocal Meat Conference important and I ' d l i k e t o see more of t h i s kind of session, and fewer of t he 1 person down here and 300 up there. I th ink this is g rea t .

What we did was t o a r b i t r a r i l y say t h a t The bulk of our

Thank you, Dale.

Vernon Cahi l l , Ohio S ta te : If we changed Choice t o t h e word Good, and had Choice on the present Good which do you think, based on your thes i s , pick up more of t h e sa les , Choice t h a t ' s labeled Good or Good t h a t ' s labeled Choice?

Answer, from Audience: The new group, t h a t is labeled Choice. They mrchandise t h e word r a the r than the product.

Question: What i s t he feel ing on making the y ie ld grade a dual grade on a l l c a t t l e graded?

Z . L. Carpenter: A s I ' ve mentioned e a r l i e r , I th ink the primary reluctance from the standpoint of t he packing industry i s t h a t of having another l a b e l on the products and take away some f l e x i b i l i t y they might have on Choice yield 4 and 5 c a t t l e . increase i n t h e use of yield grade and especial ly i n t h e las t 6 months because of t he excessively fa t c a t t l e .

We've seen a tremendous

J . D . Kemp: of t he industry?

Would the yield grade be of benefi t t o d i f fe ren t levels

Z. L. Carpenter: I n my opinion, the yield grade system i d e n t i f i e s our product i n t o l i k e segments t h rougha t t he marketing system. For value associated with c u t a b i l i t y t o be t rans la ted t o the producer leve l , t he grade must be i d e n t i f i e d f o r these value d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n order t o ge t values t ranslated t o various segments.

Question: If w e get a new grade, a lower grade, a r e we going t o get paid f o r it. What happens i f we j u s t include more i n t he Choice grade?

Z . L. Carpenter: I don ' t know. Some of our economists t e l l me t h a t we a r e dependent on t h e dol lars avai lable for food and the desire for meat a t t h e time. If t h e r e ' s a t o t a l number of do l l a r s going t o be spent on meat, we may just red is t r ibu te t h a t f o r various carcasses. Some have suggested t h a t t h i s o f f e r s opportunity though, f o r greater eff ic iency i n producing the product. It can bes t be defended on t h e poten t ia l savings i n production r a t h e r t h a n higher pr ices fo r our product. reciproci ty which I think has been real s ign i f i can t . I'll t u r n t h e program over t o Jim Chris t ian.

I ' v e thoroughly enjoyed t h e discussion t h i s evening and the A t t h i s point

Jim Chr i s t i an : Zerle, we want t o thank you and Herbert f o r t he presentation. I ' m sure t h a t a good many of you who have been asking questions and some others have some good ideas. l e t t e r t o Zerle Carpenter. I ' m sure t h a t he would appreciate them and pass these comments on t o t h e appropriate people who a r e studying the grade s i tua t ion . With t h a t , t h i s evening update session is adjourned.

J o t them down i n a

(Note: Due t o d i f f i c u l t i e s with recording equipment, a portion of t h i s discussion could not be transcribed f o r the proceedings).

* * *

Jim Christian: Thank you, Thane, and good mmning, ladies and

We have a f u l l day's gentlemen. glad t o see most of you made it t h i s morning. program coming up, and w e w i l l discuss tha t a l i t t l e l a t e r .

IJe had a program change announcement, but I a m cer ta in ly

We a re privileged t h i s morning, and it gives me a g rea t dea l of pleasure t o introduce t h e f i r s t speaker, Mrs. Nancy Garvey Steor t s . Mrs. S teor t s was appointed t h i s pas t Ju ly by the Secretary of Agriculture, D r . E a r l Butz, as a Special A s s i s t a n t f o r Consumer Affairs, and she serves i n a l o t of capaci t ies with he r new posi t ion. She represents t he consumers as they relate t o a l l t he USDA programs, and t h i s is a large assignment. act ions which have a bearing on the consumers, and t h i s happens t o be a l l of t h e i r issues and act ions i n most cases, because the work t h a t USDA does and the programs they represent have a d i r e c t bearing on the consumer. She serves a s a consumer's spec ia l representat ive t o the USDA. Mrs. Steor t s i s very qua l i f ied . She received her Bachelor's Degree i n Merchandising a t t he College of Human Development a t Syracuse University, and she was awarded the Syl ic Pr ize as t h e most outstanding graduate i n her c l a s s . This i s indeed a very high honor. Since graduation, she has worked with the public i n public re la t ions a c t i v i t i e s with a large department s to re i n Washington, D.C. She was a home economist w i t h t h e Washingtan Gaslight Company. She served as a USDA Survey Spec ia l i s t on food evaluation projects . She has served as National Chairman f o r t h e Arnerican Association of University Women's nat ional convention i n Washington,D .C . on the Montgomery County ( t h i s i s i n Maryland) Manpower Commission. She i s a representat ive of the In te rna t iona l Federation of University Women's Conference. She is a p r t i c i p a n t i n the White House Conference on ChFldren. America, and I c m l d go on and on and l i s t many more of her honors and awards. She i s very qua l i f ied i n t h e posi t ion. She, I understand, i s an excel lent speaker. Mrs . Steor t s t o discuss the subject of nu t r i t i ve label ing of food from the regulatory viewpoint.

She advises the agency administration on issues and

She serves present ly

She was chosen among the Outstanding Young Women of

So it gives me a g rea t dea l of pleasure t o ask

Mrs . Steor t s .