Carbon Monoxide In Fresh Meat Packaging
The huge meat processing and packaging companies, Hormel and Cargill, went before Congress in Washington, D.C. this week to defend the practice of adding carbon monoxide to the meat packaging process. The process retards the discoloration that can occur as packaged red meat sits in the meat case, unsold.
The idea of adding gases to meat packaging is not new. There are numerous U.S. patents, some many years old for various methods of doing this. The different methods use different gases to accomplish the same thing, keep meat looking pink and fresh, no matter how old it might be. The following quote is from a registered patent that is several years old.
"A process for preserving the color of red meat, which entails contacting the meat with an effective amount of an atmosphere selected from the group consisting of a noble gas, a mixture of noble gases and a mixture containing at least one noble gas and a carrier gas, the noble gas in the mixture with the carrier gas being selected from the group consisting of argon, neon, xenon and krypton and being present in said mixture in an amount of greater than about 10% by volume."
There is very little debate about the reasons the meat companies want to use gases to preserve meat color. The meat industry spends a lot of money re-wrapping fresh meat to preserve its appearance for consumers. The industry also loses a considerable sum every year because of discolored meat that must be discounted in order to sell or sometimes discarded. There is also almost no scientific debate about the safety of adding carbon monoxide or other gases to meat packaging. The process is generally accepted as safe for the consumer. Many scientists and food safety officials claim that meat appearance has never been an accurate indicator of whether red meat is good or not. They say consumers need to watch the dates on the meat packages and use that in their buying decisions. The consumer advocates that are being vocal on the issue seem to have the same concerns that they have about irradiated meat, namely that the meat should be labeled if it is treated by carbon monoxide. The meat companies are strongly opposed to the labeling idea. They feel that consumers will choose not to purchase meat treated with a gas commonly associated with the exhaust system of their cars, even if there is no health risk involved.
Interestingly, a search of the Hormel web site turns up no references to carbon monoxide. A search of the Cargill site does find 2 PDF’s and a web page that mention carbon dioxide, but none of these have anything to do with the packaging of meat. Rather they are related to emissions from their meat packing plants.
The discussion about whether the procedure should be allowed really appears to be falling into two categories. The first, as with most things in Congress, is political. The second involves the perceived deception of consumers.
The political debate is interesting, even though it is cloaked in the idea of food safety. The argument in Congress is between Hormel and Cargill who wants to use the carbon monoxide process and Kalsec Foods, a competitor that wants to use its own patented rosemary extract that colors red meat, making it appear to keep its pink color in the grocery store meat department. Each side has "employed" their state’s congressional representatives to fight for their cause. Re-election campaign contributions galore to the winning congressional representatives!
The deception debate is also heated. One congressman sat at a table piled with year old red meat that still had its "fresh" pink color intact. He stated that "the sole purpose" of the carbon monoxide packaging process is to deceive consumers, making them think that the red meat they are considering purchasing is fresher than it truly is. I think he even used the words "old" and "decayed". The problem with his argument is two-fold. He is a representative from the district that is home to the company wanting to use their own rosemary extract method. Also, in order for meat sellers to sell "old", "decaying", meat, they would have to falsify the dates on the packages of meat. As long as the date labeling system is kept intact as it is, using gas to preserve color should not result in "bad" meat being sold.
Except, perhaps, when you dine out, you can avoid this whole debate by purchasing meat more purposefully in the first place. Buy local if possible. Organic Beef is becoming more available, so consider that alternative. These options are often more expensive, but as more of us reduce our consumption of meat, our average budget for meat purchasing should not really increase.
There are meat preservation processes that might not require congressional hearings that I am more concerned about. Some companies are funding research to determine if injecting chemicals into meat can preserve its shelf life. One group of researchers are trying to determine if protection against pathogens that grow in aging meat might be achieved by packaging meat injected with potassium lactate and sodium diacetate. This is not a method to "preserve" meat in the traditional sense. It is a method that would be used solely to extend the shelf life of "fresh" meat.
With issues like this in the meat industry, I think we have limited choices. One choice is to reduce your meat consumption overall. Another is to buy only organically grown meat. I just bought an organic Thanksgiving turkey. It was 50% more expensive than the conventionally produced birds, but it was humanely raised in a "free range" environment and not injected with hormones or antibiotics. Please consider doing the same for your Thanksgiving dinner.
 |
Choose from box
