DOCSLIB.ORG

Properties and Utilization of Pork from an Advanced Meat Recovery System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Properties and Utilization of Pork from an Advanced Meat Recovery System JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE ENGINEERING/PROCESSING Properties and Utilization of Pork from an Advanced Meat Recovery System C. M. Calhoun, T. D. Schnell, and R. W. Mandigo ABSTRACT may be an economical and highly functional ingredient in ground Pork trim from an advanced meat recovery system, referred pork formulations. to as pork trim-finely textured (PTFT), was characterized and In this study, meat from AMR, referred to as pork trim-finely compared to 80% lean ground pork (GP) and knife trimmed textured (PTFT), was analyzed for inherent properties and compared lean (KT). PTFT (0, 5, 10, 15%) was incorporated into 10% and to ground pork and to lean removed from bone by knife trimming. In 20% fat ground pork patties. PTFT had higher total pigment, a second part of the study, PTFT was incorporated into ground pork cholesterol, iron and calcium and lower collagen than GP or patties to determine an acceptable level of incorporation based on final KT. Fat content of PTFT was similar to GP and KT. PTFT in- product attributes. creased redness and juiciness and decreased hardness, chewiness and cohesiveness of ground pork patties. Addi- MATERIALS & METHODS tion of up to 15% PTFT caused differences which were per- ceived as improvements in quality. PTFT can be a replace- Properties of PTFT ment for pork trim in ground pork products. Sample collection. Untrimmed pork bones from market weight Key Words: meat recovery, pork, PTFT, mechanically re- hog carcasses were processed by a Protecon TL60 (Stork Protecon, covered meat Inc., Gainesville, GA) followed by a Baader 605 Lean Separator (Baader North America Corp., New Bedford, MA) at a commercial meat plant to remove PTFT. The temperature of the bones before recovery was maintained between 2 and 78C. The machine applied INTRODUCTION 160-180 bar pressure to the bones for a dwell time of 2s. The yield of ADVANCED MEAT RECOVERY (AMR) SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN INTRO- meat recovered from bone was 35% of the original bone weight. Meat duced to aid in recovery of meat from trimmed bones, while at the same from the bones exited the compaction chamber through concentric time, reducing the incidence of repetitive motion syndrome to meat rings that created slots 4 mm wide by 72 mm long. The meat passed packing employees. The AMR system were utilized (Protecon TL60/ through 1.3 mm diameter holes on the screen of the Baader 605. The Baader 605 Lean Separator) recovered lean tissue using a hydraulic bones included backbone (lumbar and thoracic vertebrae), neckbone piston in a chamber which compacted bones with meat attached against (cervical vertebrae, two thoracic vertebrae, two ribs), aitch bone, hip a slotted or perforated surface. At the pressures in the machines (~180 bone (one lumbar vertebrae and 4 sacral vertebrae attached), and scap- bar), meat began to flow first, followed by fat and some connective ula. Bones with lean attached were collected before the process to be tissue which left heavy connective tissue and compacted bones within manually knife trimmed. Bones and PTFT were collected 3 times during the chamber (Willemsen, 1994) of recovery. The meat was passed a production shift to serve as 3 replications then shipped within 24h of through a desinewing machine as a final phase. No published data are collection. Upon product arrival, lean was trimmed from the bones available concerning meat from this recovery system. Older versions of using knives. The resulting product was labeled knife trim (KT) and mechanical systems to remove meat from bone involve grinding the was ground twice through a 0.635 cm plate. Fresh, ground (0.635 bone, then forcing the meat through small apertures. Field (1988) and cm), 80% lean pork was manufactured and designated as GP. The Willemsen (1994) noted that composition of meat from mechanical PTFT, KT and GP were randomly sampled, powdered in liquid nitro- recovery could vary based on type of machine, anatomical location of gen and stored 3 mo in double plastic bags at 2808C until analyses. bones, species, temperature and amounts of lean. Proximate, cholesterol, and nonheme iron analyses. Proxi- Meat from mechanical recovery systems has been commonly re- mate analysis was conducted on the KT, PTFT and HT by the fol- ported to have elevated total iron, total pigment, lipid, pH, calcium and lowing AOAC (1990) methods: Moisture (oven-drying), fat (ether cholesterol compared to hand-trimmed meat (Field et al., 1976; Cro- extraction), protein (Kjeldahl), and ash (muffle furnace). Cholester- sland et al., 1995; Demos and Mandigo, 1995). Incorporation of re- ol samples were prepared according to USFDA (1992) procedures covered meat into ground products has reportedly been under 20% of and quantitated by gas chromatography at a commercial laboratory. the formulation to avoid textural and sensory concerns (Miller et al., Nonheme iron was determined according to the method of Rhee and 1986; Demos and Mandigo, 1996a). Ziprin (1987). The USDA (1994) final rule regarding mechanically recovered Total iron and calcium. Analysis for calcium and total iron was meat stated that product derived from AMR could be identified by performed using inductively coupled argon plasma atomic emission species name if bones were not crushed, ground or pulverized and spectrophotometry (ICAP-AES) with an ultrasonic nebulizer (Bra- calcium requirements were met (,150 mg/100g). Labeling the pro- zelton et al., 1981). Samples (1g) were digested in 5 mL concentrat- duct by species name would provide a marketing advantage for the ed nitric acid with heat, cooled to room temperature and diluted to raw material. The final product from AMR has special attributes and appropriate volumes. Quantification was performed against aqueous acid standards. pH. Duplicate samples (5g) of powdered meat were weighed into Author Calhoun is with Bil Mar Foods, Zeeland, MI. Authors Schnell and beakers with 50 mL of distilled deionized water. After homogenizing Mandigo are with the Dept. of Animal Science, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln. for 10s at 10,800 rpm with a Polytron (Brinkman Instruments, New Address inquiries to: A213 Animal Science, Univ. of Nebraska, P.O. Box 830908, Lincoln, NE 68583. York), pH was measured with a general purpose electrode (Corning Glass Works, Corning, NY). 76 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Volume 64, No. 1, 1999 © 1999 Institute of Food Technologists Oxidation-reduction potential. Duplicate samples (5g) of meat were hydroxyproline to total collagen. Collagen values were reported as mg weighed into a Waring Blendor cup with 7.5 mL of 0.1M phosphate collagen/g total sample. buffer (pH 6.0). The blendor cup lid had a hole cut with an attached vacuum hose to minimize oxygen incorporation during the 15s homo- Statistical analysis genation. Sample was transferred to a beaker and measured using a The experimental design was a completely random design with redox combination electrode (Corning Glass Works, Corning, NY) three replications. Data were subjected to analysis of variance utilizing attached to a pH meter. A 2 min equilibration was allowed before the General Linear Models (Proc GLM) procedure of SAS (1990) to reading absolute mV. allowed for stabilization of the value. determine the effect of meat type (PTFT, GP, KT). When a significant Total pigment determination. Total pigment concentration was F-ratio (P,0.05) was observed for an effect, means were separated measured by a modified method of Karlsson and Lundstrom (1991). using Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Difference (Steel and Tor- A 5g powdered sample was homogenized with 50 mL of 0.5M phos- rie, 1980). phate buffer adjusted to pH 7.4 and stored overnight at 48C in the dark. Samples were stirred and filtered through Whatman No. 42 paper. The Incorporation into ground pork filtrate (4 mL), 0.4 mL of 10% Triton X-100 detergent solution and Formulation and processing. Lean pork trimmings (93% lean) 0.25 mL of 5M NaOH were mixed. A standard curve of hematin were obtained from pork picnic cushions, previously frozen 3 mo, chloride was prepared and absorbance of all solutions were read at trimmed of all exterior fat and 50% fat pork trimmings from bellies 575 and 700 nm (Gilford Response spectrophotometer, Gilford In- previously frozen 4 mo. Meat was ground (1.27 cm) and randomly struments Laboratories, Oberlin, OH). An equation to regress hematin sampled for fat analysis. The PTFT was obtained from a commercial 2 2 8 concentration on A575 A700 was calculated. The equation was: processor as described, shipped frozen and held at 35 C (~3 mo) until used. PTFT was randomly sampled for fat analysis before for- 3 2 1 Hematin (ppm)=*dilution factor [slope × (A575 A700) intercept] mulation. *dilution factor 5 50 mL/5g 5 10 Batches of ground pork (11.4 kg) were formulated to contain 10% or 20% fat and 0, 5, 10, or 15% PTFT. Appropriate amounts of raw Hematin (ppm) were converted to mg meat pigment/g tissue (wet wt) materials were mixed 5 min (Model 100DA Food Mixer, Leland with the 0.026 conversion factor of Franke and Solberg (1971). Detroit Mfg. Co., Detroit, MI) then ground through a 0.48 cm plate. Expressible moisture. Expressible moisture was measured in du- Patties weighing 113.4g (11.9 cm dia 3 0.95 cm thick) were formed plicate on the meat samples according to a modified method of Jau- using a Hollymatic 580 Patty Machine (Hollymatic Corp., Park For- regui et al. (1981). Two pieces of Whatman #3 filter paper were folded est, IL) with double-wax interleaving paper. Patties (21) were trans- around one piece of VWR Grade 410 filter paper to form a thimble. ferred to plastic foam trays, over-wrapped with polyvinyl chloride The weight of the filter-paper thimble was recorded, 1.560.3g of (PVC) film and stored at 48C under 1184 lux of continuous warm fresh (never frozen) meat sample was added and the thimble placed white fluorescent light for 6 days.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Meat and Muscle Biology™ Introduction
    Published June 7, 2018 Meat and Muscle Biology™ Meat Science Lexicon* Dennis L. Seman1, Dustin D. Boler2, C. Chad Carr3, Michael E. Dikeman4, Casey M. Owens5, Jimmy T. Keeton6, T. Dean Pringle7, Jeffrey J. Sindelar1, Dale R. Woerner8, Amilton S. de Mello9 and Thomas H. Powell10 1University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA 2University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA 3University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA 4Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA 5University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA 6Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA 7University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA 8Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA 9University of Nevada, Reno, NV, 89557, USA 10American Meat Science Association, Champaign, IL 61820, USA *Inquiries should be sent to: [email protected] Abstract: The American Meat Science Association (AMSA) became aware of the need to develop a Meat Science Lexi- con for the standardization of various terms used in meat sciences that have been adopted by researchers in allied fields, culinary arts, journalists, health professionals, nutritionists, regulatory authorities, and consumers. Two primary catego- ries of terms were considered. The first regarding definitions of meat including related terms, e.g., “red” and “white” meat. The second regarding terms describing the processing of meat. In general, meat is defined as skeletal muscle and associated tissues derived from mammals as well as avian and aquatic species. The associated terms, especially “red” and “white” meat have been a continual source of confusion to classify meats for dietary recommendations, communicate nutrition policy, and provide medical advice, but were originally not intended for those purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meat We Eat1 Erica L
    Archival copy: for current recommendations see http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu or your local extension office. AN283 Food Processing: The Meat We Eat1 Erica L. Bub, Keith Schneider, Chad Carr, and Matt Hersom2 Recently, the media has focused on certain meat products, Meat Processing giving them names such as “pink slime” and “meat glue.” All of the meat we eat is butchered, packaged, and prepared The names of these products might have many people in some form or another. This processing occurs at meat wondering what we are eating and how the meat we eat is processing facilities under microbiologically sanitary condi- produced. Part of being a good consumer is learning about tions (USDA-FSIS 2012a). Some meat products (e.g., hot what you eat, from how the food is made to whether the dogs and chicken nuggets) are more processed than others food is safe. This publication discusses the facts about meat (e.g., steaks and roasts). The methods used to produce processing so you can make knowledgeable decisions about these further-processed products are designed to improve the meat you eat. efficiency and product yield for processors and to improve the eating quality, value, and convenience of products for consumers. The United States government has inspection standards for all meat and poultry products to ensure the safety, wholesomeness, and accurate labeling of these products. The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates meat and poultry inspection (USDA-FSIS 2012a). FSIS ensures humane handling and slaughter of animals, inspects all animal carcasses, and sets and verifies food safety standards in meat and poultry processing facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Pink Slime” Production Has Been Halted in All Plants in the U.S
    From: (b) (6) To: (b) (6) - FSIS Subject: RE: Emailing: Meatingplace.com - Daily News Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:04:40 AM I heard this morning on the TODAY show that “pink slime” production has been halted in all plants in the U.S. except one in So. Dakota. From: (b) (6) - FSIS [mailto:(b) (6) @fsis.usda.gov] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 8:53 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Emailing: Meatingplace.com - Daily News As the Meat Turns! This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately. From: (b) (6) - FSIS To: (b) (6) - FSIS Subject: RE: complaints today? Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:13:30 PM I’ve had 3. I hung up on the last caller because he was yelling at me for 5 minutes. ______ _________________________ From: (b) (6) - FSIS Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:59 PM To: (b) (6) - FSIS; (b) (6) - FSIS; (b) (6) - FSIS; (b) (6) - Commissioned Corps - FSIS; (b) (6) - FSIS Subject: FW: complaints today? No CCMS ones from me.. (b) (6) Folks, I would like to know if you all had any “pink slime” calls today – if so, how many, please? Thank you (b) (6) From: (b) (6) - Commissioned Corps - FSIS To: (b) (6) - FSIS Subject: RE: complaints today? Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:17:27 PM Rien (none) (b) (6) _____________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Hot Dogs and Food Safety
    United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Food Safety Information USDA Photo PhotoDisc Hot Dogs and Food Safety hether you call it a frankfurter, hot dog, wiener, or bologna, it’s a cooked sausage and a year-round Wfavorite. They can be made from beef, pork, turkey, chicken, or a combination — the label must state which. And there are Federal standards of identity for their content. Definitions Frankfurters (a.k.a., hot dogs, wieners, or bologna) are cooked and/or smoked sausages according to the Federal standards of identity. Federal standards of identity describe the requirements for processors to follow in formulating and marketing meat, poultry, and egg products produced in the United States for sale in this country and in foreign commerce. The standard also requires that they be comminuted (reduced to minute particles), semisolid products made from one or more kinds of raw skeletal muscle from livestock (like beef or pork), and may contain poultry meat. Smoking and curing ingredients contribute to flavor, color, and preservation of the product. They are link-shaped and come in all sizes — short, long, thin, and chubby. The most popular of all categories, the skinless varieties, have been stripped of their casings after cooking. Water or ice, or both, may be used to facilitate chopping or mixing or to dissolve curing ingredients. The finished products may not contain more than 30% fat or no more than 10% water, or a combination of 40% fat and added water. Up to 3.5% non-meat binders and extenders (such as nonfat dry milk, cereal, or dried whole milk) or 2% isolated soy protein may be used, but must be shown in the ingredients statement on the product’s label by its common name.
    [Show full text]
  • Imported Meat Passed for Entry in the U.S. by Country
    Imported Meat Passed for Entry In the U.S. by Country Agricultural Marketing Service Livestock, Poultry and Grain Market News Friday, September 24, 2021 For Reporting Period: 09/12/2021 to 09/18/2021 Metric Tons Week Number 38 Country Totals 2021 2020 Percent Current Week Year-to-Date Year-to-Date Change Argentina 416 11,101 13,107 -15% Australia 4,582 174,445 247,472 -30% Austria 4 30 11 167% Brazil 2,373 68,675 41,997 64% Canada 18,312 570,133 504,551 13% Chile 1,102 45,417 44,954 1% Costa Rica 61 5,650 8,581 -34% Croatia 92 78 18% Denmark 698 24,512 20,139 22% Finland 147 321 -54% France 30 146 57 157% Germany 98 1,848 1,956 -6% Honduras 22 1,572 -99% Hungary 214 7,284 2,750 165% Iceland 16 18 -8% Ireland 229 9,294 9,446 -2% Israel 11 1,056 1,006 5% Italy 374 10,796 6,501 66% Japan 28 795 292 172% Lithuania 13 121 184 -34% Mexico 6,775 227,659 234,483 -3% Netherlands 196 4,885 5,663 -14% New Zealand 3,308 160,912 163,892 -2% Nicaragua 1,401 45,999 49,680 -7% North Ireland 45 459 281 64% Poland 897 26,306 22,397 17% San Marino 87 743 -88% South Korea 639 15 4138% Spain 194 3,526 2,542 39% United Kingdom 117 4,936 4,323 14% Uruguay 1,002 33,132 36,654 -10% Total 45,141 1,440,120 1,425,667 1% Fresh Beef AMR/ Beef Patty Prod/ Boneless Cheek/Heart Edible Formed Head Non-Intact Other Other Non- Primals & Weekly 2021 2020 Percent Carcasses Ground Beef Trimmings Meat Cuts Offals Steaks Meat Cuts/Trim Intact Intact Cuts/Prod Subprimals Total Year-to-Date Year-to-Date Change Argentina 77 116 223 416 11,099 13,107 -15% Australia 1,104 32 383
    [Show full text]
  • Crisis Management: Fact Vs
    Crisis Management: Fact vs. Fiction Susan Borra, RD Eric Mittenthal Senior Vice President, Vice President, Public Affairs Communications American Meat Institute Food Marketing Institute AMI/FMI Meat Marketing Conference Nashville, TN February 25, 2013 American Meat Institute • Oldest and largest meat packing and processing industry trade association • Our members slaughter and process more than – 95% of the nation's beef, pork, lamb, veal – 70% of the turkey produced in the United States • American Meat Institute Foundation (AMIF) is a non-profit research, education and information foundation established by AMI Food Marketing Institute (FMI) 26,000 retail food stores & 15,000+ pharmacies in the U.S. • Combined annual sales volume of $680 billion • Three-quarters of all retail food store sales in the U.S. • Large multi-store chains, regional firms and independent supermarkets International membership = 200 companies, 50+ countries Associate membership = supplier partners of retail and wholesale members 3 Today’s Supermarket • Consumers visit a food retail outlet 2.2 times each week • Supermarkets carry over 38,000 items • Profit Margin of 1-2% • Differentiation from competition is key to retailer success 4 Source: FMI Trends 2012, FMI Speaks 2011 Top Reasons Consumers Select their Primary Supermarket • 81% Clean, Neat Store • 75% Low Prices • 71% High quality Produce • 64% High quality Meats 5 Source: FMI Trends 2012 Consumers on food selection. • What are the benefits to me and my family: Taste Health Safety Price Convenience Trust and
    [Show full text]
  • Imported Meat Passed for Entry in the U.S. by Country
    Imported Meat Passed for Entry in the U.S. by Country Agriculture Marketing Service Livestock, Poultry and Grain Market News Friday, January 25, 2019 For Reporting Period: 01/13/2019 to 01/19/2019 Metric Tons Week Number 3 Country Totals 2019 2018 Percent Current Week Year-to-Date Year-to-Date Change Argentina 0 0 N/A Australia 6,835 16,844 18,296 -8% Austria 0 0 N/A Brazil 1,081 2,912 2,045 42% Canada 13,283 36,529 37,529 -3% Chile 1,055 2,999 3,231 -7% Costa Rica 131 444 414 7% Croatia 10 15 19 -24% Denmark 767 1,999 1,652 21% Finland 23 25 -8% France 5 9 2 258% Germany 10 136 58 134% Honduras 154 114 35% Hungary 0 0 N/A Iceland 18 2 839% Ireland 247 723 328 121% Israel 23 51 99 -49% Italy 262 638 478 34% Japan 34 52 92 -44% Lithuania 17 24 20 19% Mexico 4,968 12,364 10,847 14% Netherlands 105 395 501 -21% New Zealand 3,926 9,853 13,295 -26% Nicaragua 1,013 3,655 2,660 37% North Ireland 173 310 193 61% Poland 2,154 5,414 4,551 19% San Marino 14 44 30 48% South Korea 1 2 -42% Spain 133 621 424 47% United Kingdom 119 458 276 66% Uruguay 939 2,811 1,712 64% Total 41,497 99,494 98,895 1% Fresh Beef AMR/ Beef Patty Prod/ Boneless Cheek/Heart Edible Formed Head Non-Intact Other Other Non- Primals & Weekly 2019 2018 Percent Carcasses Ground Beef Trimmings Meat Cuts Offals Steaks Meat Cuts/Trim Intact Intact Cuts/Prod Subprimals Total Year-to-Date Year-to-Date Change Argentina 0 0 N/A Australia 2,067 668 128 73 1,566 4,501 10,921 12,685 -14% Brazil 0 0 N/A Canada 9 1,971 110 2 334 40 70 1 2,764 5,301 15,826 12,809 24% Chile 0 0 N/A Costa Rica
    [Show full text]
  • Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues
    Order Code IB10082 CRS Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues Updated August 3, 2004 Jean M. Rawson and Geoffrey S. Becker Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress CONTENTS SUMMARY MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Special Section: Meat Safety and BSE Current Standard Inspection and HACCP Systems Authorities State Inspection Import Inspection Basic Features of Inspection Systems Coverage Plant Sanitation Slaughter Inspection Processing Inspection Pathogen Testing Enforcement Authority HACCP-Related Legal Action Funding Issues Other Legislative and Administrative Action Humane Slaughter Equine Slaughter Meat Traceability Pathogen Performance Standards E. coli O157:H7 Listeria monocytogenes Recall and Civil Penalty Proposals FSIS Bioterrorism Preparedness LEGISLATION IB10082 08-03-04 Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues SUMMARY The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s In December 2003, USDA announced the (USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection Service first confirmed case in the United States of (FSIS) is responsible for inspecting most bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). meat, poultry, and processed egg products for On January 12, 2004, FSIS published interim safety, wholesomeness, and proper labeling. rules, effective immediately, banning high The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is BSE-risk, non-ambulatory (“downer”) cattle responsible for ensuring the safety of all other from slaughtering facilities; imposing new foods, including seafood. disposal requirements for certain potentially hazardous animal parts and organs; prohibit- In the early 1990s, food safety officials ing the labeling as “meat” of mechanically recognized that most foodborne illness cases removed muscle tissue; and banning a form of traced to meat and poultry products were pre-slaughter stunning that can potentially being caused by naturally occurring microbio- spread infective brain and nervous system logical contamination that was no longer tissue into the meat.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meat We Eat1 Erica L
    AN283 Food Processing: The Meat We Eat1 Erica L. Bub, Keith Schneider, Chad Carr, and Matt Hersom2 Recently, the media has focused on certain meat products, Meat Processing giving them names such as “pink slime” and “meat glue.” All of the meat we eat is butchered, packaged, and prepared The names of these products might have many people in some form or another. This processing occurs at meat wondering what we are eating and how the meat we eat is processing facilities under microbiologically sanitary condi- produced. Part of being a good consumer is learning about tions (USDA-FSIS 2012a). Some meat products (e.g., hot what you eat, from how the food is made to whether the dogs and chicken nuggets) are more processed than others food is safe. This publication discusses the facts about meat (e.g., steaks and roasts). The methods used to produce processing so you can make knowledgeable decisions about these further-processed products are designed to improve the meat you eat. efficiency and product yield for processors and to improve the eating quality, value, and convenience of products for consumers. The United States government has inspection standards for all meat and poultry products to ensure the safety, wholesomeness, and accurate labeling of these products. The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates meat and poultry inspection (USDA-FSIS 2012a). FSIS ensures humane handling and slaughter of animals, inspects all animal carcasses, and sets and verifies food safety standards in meat and poultry processing facilities. Only meat from animals slaughtered under USDA-FSIS inspection may be sold as food in the United States (USDA- FSIS 2012a).
    [Show full text]
  • Preference Evaluation of Ground Beef by Untrained Subjects with Three Levels of Finely Textured Beef
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Preference evaluation of ground beef by untrained subjects with three levels of finely textured beef Sandra Molly Depue1³, Morgan Marie Neilson2³, Jayson L. Lusk1☯³, Gretchen Mafi2☯³, F. Bailey Norwood1☯³*, Ranjith Ramanathan2☯³, Deborah VanOverbeke2☯³ 1 Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, United States of America, 2 Department of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, United States of America a1111111111 a1111111111 ☯ These authors contributed equally to this work. a1111111111 ³ SMD and MMN are senior joint authors and share equal authorship and JLL, GM, FBN, RR and DV are a1111111111 junior authors. a1111111111 * [email protected] Abstract OPEN ACCESS After receiving bad publicity in 2012 and being removed from many ground beef products, Citation: Depue SM, Neilson MM, Lusk JL, Mafi G, finely textured beef (referred to as `pink slime' by some) is making a comeback. Some of its Norwood FB, Ramanathan R, et al. (2018) proponents argue that consumers prefer ground beef containing finely textured beef, but no Preference evaluation of ground beef by untrained objective scientific party has tested this claimÐthat is the purpose of the present study. subjects with three levels of finely textured beef. PLoS ONE 13(1): e0190680. https://doi.org/ Over 200 untrained subjects participated in a sensory analysis in which they tasted one 10.1371/journal.pone.0190680 ground beef sample with no finely textured beef, another with 15% finely textured beef (by Editor: Peter J. Hansen, University of Florida, weight), and another with more than 15%. Beef with 15% finely textured beef has an UNITED STATES improved juiciness (p < 0.01) and tenderness (p < 0.01) quality.
    [Show full text]
  • A Detailed Letter to the USDA
    U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Attention: Mr. Paul Kiecker, Administrator 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-3700 June 9, 2020 Dear Administrator Kiecker, The Harvard Law School Animal Law & Policy Clinic writes to respectfully urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to adopt a labeling approach for cell-based meat and poultry products that does not overly restrict speech and that respects the First Amendment. The Animal Law & Policy Clinic (“ALPC”) undertakes work in the area of animal law and policy, domestically and internationally, and focuses on high-impact opportunities to improve the treatment of animals through litigation, policy analysis, and applied academic research. As part of this work, ALPC closely monitors technological developments within the food sector that have the potential to affect animals. Cell-based meat and poultry products (hereinafter referred to collectively as “cell-based meat,”1 also known as “cultured” or “cultivated” meat) are such innovations in food, with tremendous potential to positively impact animals, human health, and environmental sustainability. As U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Secretary Perdue envisions, cell- based meat could even offer a way to meet the tremendous protein needs of the growing global population.2 1 This letter will use the term “cell-based meat” to encompass cell-based meat, poultry, and fish products derived from any USDA-amenable species, including catfish. 2 See Remarks by USDA Secretary Perdue, USDA and FDA Joint Public Meeting on the Use of Cell Culture Technology to Develop Products Derived from Livestock and Poultry, Day 1 Morning Session Transcript (Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Meat and Poultry Labeling Terms
    United States Department of Agriculture Food SafetyFood While Safety and Hiking, Inspection Camping Service & Boating Food Safety Information USDA Photo Meat and Poultry Labeling Terms “What does `mechanically separated meat or poultry’ mean?” “If chicken is labeled ‘fresh,’ how can it be so rock hard?” “Does ‘natural’ mean ‘raised without hormones’?” These are just some of the questions consumers have asked USDA’s Meat and Poultry Hotline about words which may be descriptive of meat and poultry. Can they be legally used on labels and, if so, what are their definitions? Here from USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is a glossary of meat and poultry labeling terms. FSIS is the agency responsible for ensuring the truthfulness and accuracy in labeling of meat and poultry products. Knowing the meaning of labeling terms can make purchasing of meat and poultry products less confusing. Basted or Self Basted Bone-in poultry products that are injected or marinated with a solution containing butter or other edible fat, broth, stock or water plus spices, flavor enhancers and other approved substances must be labeled as basted or self basted. The maximum added weight of approximately 3% solution before processing is included in the net weight on the label. Label must include a statement identifying the total quantity and common or usual name of all ingredients in the solution, e.g., “Injected with approximately 3% of a solution of ____________ (list of ingredients).” Use of the terms “basted” or “self-basted” on boneless poultry products is limited to 8% of the weight of the raw poultry before processing.
    [Show full text]