The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) announced on November 18, 2025, in the Federal Register a call for public comments on whether to revise the United States Standards for Rough Rice, Brown Rice for Processing, and Milled Rice. This notice, documented as AMS-FGIS-25-0155, marks the first such review since 2015 and responds to potential changes in rice production, quality evaluation techniques, and market demands. By seeking stakeholder input, AMS aims to ensure these standards continue to promote uniformity in commercial practices, as mandated by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The comment period ends on January 20, 2026, and could pave the way for updates that enhance marketing efficiency for this key agricultural commodity.
Background on U.S. Rice Standards
The standards for rice, codified in 7 CFR Sections 868.201 through 868.316, originated in 1927 to classify rice into uniform groups based on quality, condition, and other factors. These voluntary standards support fee-for-service grading programs that provide objective assessments for buyers and sellers. As AMS Associate Administrator Melissa Bailey noted in the notice, the standards 'facilitate the marketing of agricultural commodities' by encouraging consistency.
Significant revisions have occurred periodically. The most recent update in 2009 adjusted how mixed rice information appears on inspection certificates, moving details from the grade line to the results section (74 FR 55441). Before that, changes in 2002 introduced a 'hard milled' degree and removed references to 'lightly milled' (67 FR 61249 and 67 FR 62313). These adjustments reflected evolving milling technologies and market needs. The current review follows a decade without substantial changes, during which rice varieties, processing methods, and consumer preferences—such as demand for aromatic types—may have shifted.
AMS operates under the authority of Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622(c)), which directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and improve standards for agricultural products. This framework has influenced similar standards for other commodities, emphasizing market facilitation over mandatory regulation.
Key Elements of the Request for Comments
AMS is specifically inviting input on four targeted questions, drawing from the Rice Inspection Handbook, which details grading procedures. These questions address potential inconsistencies or outdated elements in the standards.
First, the notice questions whether rice with an 'aromatic' odor should be classified as having a commercially objectionable foreign odor (COFO). Traditional rice varieties lack this aroma, which is prominent in types like basmati or jasmine. The handbook references sections 3.3, 4.3, 5.3 for special grades, 3.15, 4.15, 5.15 for odor, and 3.35, 4.36, 5.39 for aromatic milled rice. Reclassifying aromatic odors as COFO could affect grading for specialty rices, potentially impacting their market value.
Second, AMS seeks views on the Sample Grade moisture limits: 14.5 percent for brown rice and 15.0 percent for milled rice, as outlined in handbook sections 4.2, 5.2, 4.12, and 5.12. These thresholds determine when rice is downgraded due to excessive moisture, which can lead to spoilage. Stakeholders might argue for adjustments based on modern drying technologies or climate-related production changes.
Third, the notice proposes considering the removal of grading criteria for broken kernels separated by specific tools—a 5 plate, 6 plate, and 6 sieve—from Table 5.1 in the handbook, which covers grades for long, medium, short, and mixed milled rice. Section 5.30 details these separations. Eliminating these could simplify grading but might reduce precision in assessing breakage, a key quality indicator.
Fourth, for brown rice for processing, AMS asks if paddy kernels—unhulled grains—should be inspected solely by count, percentage, or remain as currently described in handbook sections 4.2, 4.22, 5.2, 5.23, and 5.24. Paddy kernels affect processing efficiency, and changing inspection methods could align standards with automated sorting advancements.
Comments can be submitted via regulations.gov or mail to Jacob Thein at AMS, with all input posted publicly.
Key Players and Political Context
AMS, part of USDA, leads this initiative, with input from rice industry stakeholders including producers, millers, exporters, and consumer groups. The Rice Inspection Handbook, referenced extensively, is maintained by AMS's Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS). Politically, this review occurs amid broader agricultural policy discussions, such as those in the Farm Bill cycles, where commodity standards influence trade and subsidies. For instance, U.S. rice exports, valued at over $2 billion annually according to USDA data, rely on consistent grading to compete globally.
Relevant precedents include past AMS reviews for other grains, like wheat standards updated in 2020 to incorporate protein content variations. No direct judicial precedents apply here, but challenges to USDA standards have arisen in cases like those under the Administrative Procedure Act, emphasizing the need for evidence-based revisions.
Implications and Perspectives
Short-term, this comment period could lead to a proposed rule if AMS identifies sufficient need for changes, potentially published in the Federal Register for further input. Long-term, updated standards might better accommodate innovative rice varieties, improving market access for U.S. producers amid global competition from Asia.
Perspectives vary: Industry groups, such as the USA Rice Federation, may advocate for modernization to reflect aromatic rice popularity, viewing current COFO rules as outdated. Consumer advocates might prioritize moisture limits to ensure food safety. Exporters could support simplified broken kernel criteria to streamline certifications. Conversely, traditional producers might resist changes that devalue established varieties. AMS's approach balances these views without endorsing any, focusing on data-driven uniformity.
In conclusion, this AMS notice represents a proactive step to align rice standards with contemporary realities, potentially enhancing marketing efficiency. Next steps include analyzing comments by January 2026, followed by possible rulemaking. Ongoing debates may center on balancing innovation with tradition, while challenges like climate impacts on rice quality could shape future revisions. Stakeholders should monitor regulations.gov for developments.