[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW THE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 30, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-34
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-470 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Ranking
Vice Chairman Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia JO BONNER, Alabama
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
Dakota STEVE KING, Iowa
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
JIM COSTA, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana Louisiana
NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas JOHN R. ``RANDY'' KUHL, Jr., New
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
JOHN BARROW, Georgia TIM WALBERG, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
TIM MAHONEY, Florida
______
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel
April Slayton, Communications Director
William E. O'Conner, Jr., Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Baca, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from California,
prepared statement............................................. 3
Boswell, Hon. Leonard L., a Representative in Congress from Iowa,
prepared statement............................................. 3
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia,
opening statement.............................................. 2
Graves, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from Missouri,
prepared statement............................................. 4
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Smith, Hon. Adrian, a Representative in Congress from Nebraska,
prepared statement............................................. 4
Witnesses
Minerich, Ph.D., Phillip L., Vice President, Research and
Development, Hormel Foods Corporation, Medina, OH.............. 5
Presentation..................................................... 7
Eilert, Ph.D., Scott, Vice President, Research and Development,
Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, Wichita, KS................ 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Roop, Ph.D., Richard, Senior Vice President, Science and
Regulatory Affairs, Tyson Foods, Inc., Washington, D.C......... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Sebranek, Ph.D., Joseph G., University Professor, Department of
Animal Science and Department of Food Science, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA........................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Almanza, Alfred V., Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.;
accompanied by Philip S. Derfler, Assistant Administrator; and
Daniel L. Englejohn, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Office of Policy, Program and Employee Development, Food Safety
and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture......... 57
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Submitted Material
Brown, Michael J., Senior Vice President, Legislative Affairs,
American Meat Institute, submitted material.................... 75
Food & Water Watch, submitted Fact Sheet and chart............... 72
Kaster, Collette Schultz, President; and Thomas Powell, Executive
Director, American Meat Science Association, prepared statement 69
Roop, Ph.D., Richard, Senior Vice President, Science and
Regulatory Affairs, Tyson Foods, Inc., response and
supplemental material.......................................... 106
Rosenbaum, Donna, Safe Tables Our Priority; Consumer Federation
of America; and Food & Water Watch, Government Accountability
Project, prepared statement.................................... 70
Sebranek, Ph.D., Joseph G., University Professor, Department of
Animal Science and Department of Food Science, Iowa State
University, Sebranek et al., published article on meat
packaging technology........................................... 105
Articles maintained in Committee files.
HEARING TO REVIEW THE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:32 p.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Collin C.
Peterson [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Peterson, Etheridge,
Boswell, Baca, Scott, Cuellar, Costa, Boyda, Gillibrand, Kagen,
Pomeroy, Barrow, Goodlatte, Lucas, Moran, Rogers, Musgrave,
Neugebauer, Walz, Conaway, Schmidt, and Smith.
Staff present: Nathan Fretz, Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias,
Chandler Goule, Tyler Jameson, Rob Larew, John Riley, April
Slayton, Kristin Sosanie, Patricia Barr, John Goldberg, Alise
Kowalski, Kevin Kramp, Pam Miller, Pete Thomson, and Jamie
Weyer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
The Chairman. We have a vote in about 10 minutes, so I want
to get started anyway and then we will probably have to take a
short recess. Good afternoon and welcome to today's hearing of
the House Agriculture Committee. I want to thank the witnesses
for being with us here today. And today's hearing is an
opportunity to hear from those who develop, use, and regulate
technologies used in the meat industry from slaughter through
packaging. I view this hearing today as an informative,
educational hearing. This came about because of a presentation
that was done for me and my district where I was given an
overview of this technology in all different aspects. I learned
a lot of things that I did not know. And I felt that it would
be useful for the Members to have this overview to get a better
understanding of what the issues are and what the different
technologies are. So we are actually going to have some
packaging here that is going to be passed around for you to
take a look at. And I just thought it would be good, given all
the focus there is on food safety, for us to have a better
understanding. So I have asked the folks that use this, work
with it, develop it, to come in and explain to us the pros and
cons of the different technologies. And then also hear from the
regulators and scientists that have looked at this and approved
it and so forth through the rule-making process. We could end
up having more hearings on this where we would at that time
bring in the advocacy groups, consumer groups, farm groups,
other folks that have different viewpoints and axes to grind to
come in and give their points of view later on. But what I am
interested in today is really educational, informational and I
hope everybody can view it that way.
I would say that one of the people that have been involved
in this issue, I believe their name is Kalsec', was
invited to come twice by this Committee. They have not seen fit
to be here today and I wanted to make it clear that I am
disappointed in that because I wanted to have everybody that
has been involved in this issue. They are the company that
actually petitioned the FDA to change the current system and so
it is unfortunate that, for whatever reason, they didn't want
to be here.
I also want to welcome today the FSIS Administrator
Almanza, who will be testifying. This is his first opportunity
to testify at the Agriculture Committee and he will be
providing an overview of the agency's activities to improve and
encourage industry to implement new technologies that improve
food safety.
And I think that our interest in this Committee is that
whatever we end up doing in this regard improves food safety,
makes food safer for the American people and is based on sound
science and developed in public view, so everybody can
understand how we get where we are.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress From Minnesota
Good afternoon and welcome to today's hearing of the House
Agriculture Committee. Today's hearing is an opportunity for the
Committee to hear from those who develop, use and regulate technologies
used in the meat industry from slaughter through packaging.
Over the past several decades, technology has improved the quality
and safety of meat products available to consumers. We have moved from
an inspection system that relied on sight and smell to a system that
uses microbiological testing for dangerous pathogens. Technology has
increased the shelf life of meat products and reduced costs both for
processors and consumers.
I would like to welcome FSIS Administrator Al Almanza who will be
testifying today. This is his first opportunity to testify at the
Agriculture Committee, and he will be providing an overview of the
agency's activities to approve and encourage industry to implement new
technologies that improve food safety.
My purpose for holding this hearing is to educate the Committee and
the public about the development, use and regulation of new
technologies in the meat industry. I appreciate our witnesses for being
here today and look forward to their testimony.
The Chairman. With that, again, I would welcome all the
witnesses and I would be glad to recognize my good friend, the
Ranking Member from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
your holding this informational hearing and I would like to
extend my gratitude to those witnesses who have traveled to
Washington to appear before the Committee.
Today the Committee will be considering questions related
to certain packaging technologies utilized in the meat and
poultry industry. Specifically, we will be discussing modified
atmosphere packaging using carbon monoxide. Over the last
couple of years, several proposals have been introduced as
amendments, stand-alone bills or as a part of a larger
legislative initiative that would impose restrictions on the
use of carbon monoxide packaging in meat, poultry and seafood.
Other food uses of this technology would be unaffected by these
proposals.
While I recognize that there may be some legitimate
questions regarding the applicability any new food technology
has, I would underscore the fact that the Congress has
established procedures wherein experts within the regulatory
agencies, operating in many cases with the advice of the
scientific community, conduct extensive evaluations of these
technologies before rendering a decision on their safety. The
Congress of the United States is not a scientific body. We have
neither the expertise nor the resources to conduct safety
evaluations on food technologies. Having established a
transparent, science-based process, it is essential that we
allow this process to operate.
I do think it is important that the Members of the
Committee be assured that that process is operating and that
the people who are working in it are fully aware of what the
important issues are that they are addressing and that is why I
think it is very important that we hear from these witnesses
today.
So Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I would ask that all other Members submit their statements
for the record.
[The prepared statements of Messers. Boswell, Baca, Graves,
and Smith follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Leonard L. Boswell, a Representative in
Congress From Iowa
I would like to thank the Chairman, Mr. Peterson and Ranking Member
Goodlatte for holding this important hearing today and would like to
give a special thanks to our witnesses for offering their insight into
the current technologies in the meat industry. I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
As Chairman of the Livestock, Dairy & Poultry Subcommittee
oversight of the new technologies in the meat industry is of great
interest to me.
The witnesses today will give us an accurate picture of what the
industry is doing today and hopefully where we can expect to go in the
future.
Today we will hear about high and low oxygen packaging, case ready,
and Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP), amongst others. I am hopeful
this hearing will not solely focus on MAP technologies but all the new
technologies that the industry is currently doing and what we can
expect to see as we look to the future in meat packing.
I would specifically like to welcome Dr. Joe Sebranek from Iowa
State University. As a leader in animal and meat science I look forward
to the scientific background he will be able to offer here today.
The United States is in a very unique position; we have the safest,
most plentiful, and most affordable food supply in the world. If we
wish to continue to pay the lowest percentage of disposable income of
developed nations we must continue to strive to find the next new
technology, the best innovation.
Once again I would like to thank our witnesses and look forward to
their testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Baca, a Representative in Congress From
California
Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss technology in the meat and
meat packaging industries, and the best possible methods to ensure
America's consumers are eating only the safest products available.
I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for convening this hearing
and hope we will be able to gain insight into the different options
available for the packaging of fresh meat--and the advantages and
disadvantages of each.
I also want to thank each of our witnesses for coming here today
and taking time from their busy schedules to help us in Congress better
understand this often complex issue.
Everyone in this room is aware of the recent recalls of E. coli
tainted beef from the Topps Beef Company in New Jersey.
We are here today to explore the proper balance between innovations
in food technology and the safety of America's consumers.
We are also here to ensure the economic security of America's
cattlemen and the meat packaging and cutting industries.
This is an issue of the utmost importance. We must keep America's
beef supply safe.
In recent months, we have had recalls of foreign products ranging
from pet food, to toothpaste, to toys. The last thing we need is to
become reliant on foreign countries for our meat and beef needs.
Mr. Chairman, all the Members of this Committee know that perhaps
the most important part of our job is to keep the American consumer
safe.
We must find a way to do this without reducing the quality of our
products, and without endangering the livelihood of thousands of
Americans who make their living on livestock and meat packaging
operations.
I look forward to hearing from all of you today and thank the
Chairman and Ranking Member again for their leadership.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
From Missouri
Thank you, Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for
holding this hearing.
Oversight of the safety of the American food supply is one of the
most important mission's of this Committee, and I think it is a credit
to the Chairman and Ranking Member of this Committee that we are
holding this hearing today to focus on new technology in the meat
industry, and what impact that technology has most importantly on
safety, but also on marketability and consumer satisfaction. I look
forward to hearing from Administrator Almanza as he testifies before
this Committee for the first time, as well as from our distinguished
witnesses from the meat industry and academic world.
With regard to this issue, I believe it is paramount that the
government evaluates all new technology with safety in mind first, and
after ensuring that a fundamental level of safety exists for a
technology, then allowing consumers to make the determination regarding
which product they want to purchase at the grocery store. Consumers
will be happier if they are provided with the most possible options
that can be guaranteed as safe.
Thank you again Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for
holding the hearing.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress
From Nebraska
Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The meat industry is extremely important to Nebraska. Nebraska has
81 animal slaughter facilities (excluding poultry processing), more
than any other state, except Texas, California, and Iowa. Nebraska
leads the nation in value of meat product shipments, with almost $10.5
billion in receipts. Nebraska's meat packing industry employs over
20,000 people, more than any other state, with an annual payroll of
nearly $550 million. Clearly, the meat industry is important to
Nebraska's economy.
I am pleased that we are holding this hearing today, and I look
forward to hearing the testimony of our knowledgeable witnesses. I hope
that what we learn today about the technologies of the meat industry
will allow us to aggressively pursue new markets and breakdown barriers
to trade, with the assurance that our products are the safest in the
world.
I want to thank our witnesses for coming here today to provide
testimony for the Committee, and I look forward to hearing from you.
I appreciate the Committee for holding this hearing as an important
step to meeting our goals.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I
thank you for your time.
The Chairman. We probably have 10 minutes before we have to
leave to vote, I thank the gentleman. Now, we have Dr.
Minerich.
Dr. Minerich. Minerich.
The Chairman. Minerich. Okay, sorry. Vice President of
Research and Development at Hormel. I think we have time for
your testimony, then we have two votes, we are going to take a
break and we will come back and get to the rest of the panel.
So, Doctor, welcome to the Committee and are we going to pass
around some of that stuff or how are we going to do that?
Dr. Minerich. Do it during the question and answer period.
The Chairman. We will do that during question and answer,
okay. Go ahead, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF PHILLIP L. MINERICH, Ph.D., VICE
PRESIDENT, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION,
MEDINA, OH
Dr. Minerich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You should have a
package like this in front of you and I will reference certain
page numbers if you want some visual aids during my
conversation. I am Dr. Phil Minerich, Vice President of
Research and Development for Hormel Foods Corporation and I do
thank you for this opportunity to talk about this important
topic.
I am here today to discuss advances in meat packaging
technology, specifically the many benefits of low-oxygen
packaging. On page 2, you will see that Hormel Foods is a 116
year old company with a long and proud history of innovations
in the food packaging and food safety environment. This
stretches back to products such as Spam' and Dinty
Moore' that represented packaging breakthroughs in
their day and have provided safe, flavorful and nutritious
meals for several generations of Americans.
On page 3, you will see one of those innovations that
continues today with products such as our Natural
Choice', which uses a new, high-pressure processing
technology that literally kills bacteria and allows us to
remove chemical preservatives from processed foods. We are the
leader in the nation in this technology and have invested a
great deal in bringing it to the market.
On page 7, you will see how important packaging technology
is to the food industry, delivering food to consumers in a safe
and convenient format is fundamental to our business. Oxygen
deteriorates food. It causes oils to turn rancid, meat to turn
brown, vegetables to discolor and cheese to spoil. And by
removing oxygen from food packaging and replacing it with
another gas, such as carbon dioxide or nitrogen, food producers
can ensure their products remain fresh for consumers longer.
This process is common throughout the food industry and has
been used for decades. All of the packaging systems you see
here use some form of modified atmosphere packaging.
On page 10, I will briefly talk about some specific meat
packaging technologies and how they have evolved, significantly
evolved, becoming more controlled and thereby safer for the
American public. Years ago, the bulk of our meat supply was
packaged at the retail level, which created greater opportunity
for contamination to be introduced into the system. Today, the
bulk of our meat supply is packaged in facilities that are USDA
inspected, follow good manufacturing practices and adhere to
HAACP guidelines. Once packaged, the product is not touched
again until it reaches the consumer's home.
On page 11, you will see meat producers who have enhanced
convenience and safety by introducing numerous packaging
formats over the years and these are just some of the examples
that greet consumers at the retail level. Consumers, who once
relied on their neighborhood butcher, have come to rely on
these packages backed by strong national brands to deliver
consistent quality and safety. Please note, a critical
component of this packaging is the sell-by date. In a majority
of the packages you see, color is not an accurate indicator of
freshness either because the product is vacuum-sealed or
because the product itself, whether it be chicken, pork or
turkey, does not change color as it ages. In fact, color can be
a very poor indicator of freshness.
On page 14, I would like to briefly highlight one packaging
system, high-oxygen packaging, which actually accelerates the
rancidity of meat while maintaining its red color. And once out
of the package, a product that is packaged in high oxygen can
actually look cooked even though it is cooked below the
recommended temperature for safety.
Page 19, low-oxygen packaging has been reviewed and
approved by a long list of safety experts and food scientists
that are acclaimed throughout the world. These scientists have
endorsed this technology for the same reasons we use it and for
the same reasons the consumers have embraced it, it works.
On page 23, you will see that low-oxygen packaging retards
spoilage, delivers high-quality product that is consistent,
clean and safe. In addition, the packaging eliminates
opportunities for cross-contamination. It is tamper evident, it
is leak proof and it is packaged and dated under a USDA
inspection, which complies with the 9/11 initiatives for food
safety and enhanced consumer confidence and consumer safety.
Critics of this technology have focused on the fact that
the color of the product remains red whatever the condition of
the product. But on page 25, you will see color is not the only
or even the best indicator of freshness. Consumers also rely on
sell-by dates, not only for meat products but other foods. Also
for batteries, medications, film and all types of consumer
products.
Let me close on page 28 by stating the product has been in
the market 4 years and it has been extremely well-received by
retailers and our consumers. In fact, it is one of the highest
acceptance rates of any product that we have ever introduced,
over 120 million packages, more than 600 million servings. And
during this time no documented cases of food-borne illness have
been reported. As a matter of fact, our complaint ratio rivals
the legendary Maytag repairman. Our consumers love the product
because it delivers exceptional flavor and texture in a clean
and safe package. Thank you very much.
[The presentation by Dr. Minerich follows:]
Page 1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. How much time do we
have? Six minutes? I think we are going to have to recess the
Committee. We just have two votes. We should be back in 10, 15
minutes, so we appreciate your patience and we will be back
shortly.
[Recess]
The Chairman. The Committee will come back to order. We
next have Scott Eilert, the Vice President of Research and
Development for Cargill Meat Solutions, Wichita, Kansas. I
guess it is Dr. Eilert?
Dr. Eilert. Yes.
The Chairman. Welcome to the Committee and we would be
happy to hear your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT EILERT, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT,
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,
WICHITA, KS
Dr. Eilert. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Peterson and the
Committee. We really appreciate the opportunity to visit with
you today about innovations and advancements in food safety and
quality. We also want to recognize this Committee for its
contribution to ensuring a safe and wholesome food supply to
our population. We really see you as effective partners in that
goal and we thank you for all of your efforts.
I am going to spend some time today talking to you about an
innovation that we think has been pretty important in the last
few years in moving to a safer and more wholesome and more
fresh food supply, meat supply, and that is the adoption of
modified atmosphere packaging.
Through modified atmosphere packaging, we are able to
deliver to the consumer a product that has less chances for
cross-contamination at retail level and as well as at store
level. It also has conveniences and safety assurances, such as
a tamper-proof package and a leak-proof package inclusive also
of a mandated user freeze-by date.
Now, there have been several Members of Congress over the
last couple of years, as was pointed in the introductory
comments, that have been very critical of this technology. They
believe that we are deceiving consumers with the advancement of
this technology. My remarks today are going to hopefully ensure
to you that that is not our intent or purpose. Rather, our
intent and purpose is to ensure a safe, high-quality, wholesome
food supply to our consumers and that is our primary goal.
Let us talk a little bit about how meat arrives at the
retail store today. As Dr. Minerich has pointed out, there are
a couple of avenues. In conventional systems, the meat may be
vacuum packaged and sent to a retail store for processing and
packaging at the retail store. In case-ready packaging, we
actually cut and package and label that product in a
centralized facility under USDA inspection. Now, as we think
about the shelf life of those various formats, whether it be
conventional packaging or case-ready, in beef, for instance,
that goes to a retail store, the beef that goes to a retail
store has roughly a shelf life of around 35 days in a vacuum
package. The shelf life of case-ready products will vary
depending on the technology that is used. In low-oxygen
modified atmosphere packaging that we are speaking about today,
the shelf life is roughly 35 days. Very similar to the vacuum
package of beef that typically went to a retail store. The
shelf life of high-oxygen, case-ready packaging, which is a
competing technology, it is the technology that we are
referencing today, is only about 14 to 15 days. A key point
that we want to make to this Committee: With these advancements
we are not extending shelf life of fresh meat today, we are
protecting it. We are making sure that the shelf life potential
of that product can be realized for the consumer and our
customers.
Additionally, protecting shelf life and protecting the
quality of the product, these are critical precious commodities
to us. Also what is a precious commodity is the flavor
experience of that product. And as has been discussed
previously by Dr. Minerich, oxygen is the enemy of meat flavor.
And so we have seen several research studies by universities
that have shown that at the end of shelf life in a high-oxygen
package, the quality of that product is actually lower than at
the end of shelf life in a low-oxygen package, even though the
product was in that low-oxygen package for a longer period of
time. There is a great maintenance of flavor and natural
quality of the meat that comes with these packaging
technologies.
As we think about why we then use carbon monoxide, it is
key to remember that as we remove oxygen from these packages,
meat exists in its natural-colored state, a purplish kind of
brown state that is the natural color of meat. As we expose
meat to oxygen, it turns bright red. As we expose meat to low
levels of carbon monoxide, it turns bright red. So what we are
trying to do with these modified atmosphere packaging systems
is deliver the product that works as well for the consumer as
possible, that has the freshness and flavor of a low-oxygen
package, has the shelf life maintenance of low-oxygen packaging
formats and then with small levels of a gas like carbon
monoxide, we deliver the color that the consumer prefers.
This campaign of misinformation that has taken place
against this technology is not advancing food safety and is not
advancing food quality. It is impeding our ability to advance
food safety and advance the quality of our products.
We greatly appreciate the time and attention that this
Committee is giving to this topic and we want to just further
emphasize that this unfortunate campaign of misinformation is
not moving the bar or raising the bar on food safety or
quality. It is jeopardizing our ability to deliver a high-
quality, wholesome product to our consumers.
Thank you very much for your time and I'll entertain
questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Eilert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Eilert, Ph.D., Vice President, Research and
Development, Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, Wichita, KS
Thank you Chairman Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak before you today on innovations in food safety and
quality. The House Agriculture Committee has for many years been deeply
committed to the understanding of science and risk in protecting public
health. For that we are grateful.
My remarks address one of the most important food safety
innovations in the harvest and manufacture of safe and wholesome meat
products--the adoption of Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP).
Through a MAP system, meat is packaged at processing plant and then
delivered to the retail grocery store in a tray covered with a
protective film. This helps eliminate the potential for cross
contamination that can come from human handling both at the retail
store and in the home. The package is both leak-proof and tamper proof,
adding additional consumer protections.
Several Members of Congress have recently raised questions with the
concern that MAP packaging may allow meat to retain its characteristic
red coloration for too long, potentially masking spoilage. I appreciate
the opportunity to help ensure that this technology is more fully
understood and that that we are deeply committed to consumer
protection.
Today beef is typically delivered to a grocery store in one of two
ways--as boxed product sealed in a vacuum packaged bag, or as
individual packages ready for display in the meat case for consumer
purchase. Boxed, vacuum packaged product will be opened at the grocery
store and cut into steaks or roasts and then wrapped for retail
display. Case ready products come completely packaged and labeled, and
will be simply taken from a lined box and placed in the retail display.
Meat products in a vacuum bag have a shelf life of about 35 days.
The shelf life of case ready products will vary depending on the use of
the packaging technology used.
There are two types of case ready MAP product offerings--those
packaged in a high oxygen (high-ox) format and those in a low oxygen
(low-ox) format. Both are good formats, but the low-ox format in many
respects, has significantly better functionality, especially in the
area of ensuring freshness and convenience for the consumer.
Steaks and roasts that are packaged in a low-ox environment have a
shelf life roughly equivalent to the 35 days of the vacuum bag. Steaks
and roasts in high-ox packaging have a shorter shelf life of only 14 or
15 days. You can observe this shelf life concern not only in meat
packaging but also in produce. As a point of reference, note that the
spoilage of a head of lettuce accelerates rapidly after the packaging
is removed.
It is critical for the Committee to understand that our technology
does not in any way extend shelf life--rather it protects the shelf
life in a manner the performs equal to the vacuum package, yet in a
much more consumer friendly, convenient format.
It is a given that protecting freshness and shelf life is critical.
Beyond preserving freshness, low-ox packaging also protects against
flavor degradation. High levels of oxygen in a high-ox packaging will
deteriorate the flavor of meat. Many university studies have shown that
meat in a high ox package can look acceptable, but will have a
significantly less acceptable flavor than low oxygen products. Low
oxygen packaging helps to maintain the natural flavor of meat.
There are numerous additional benefits of low-ox packaging. It
greatly reduces product waste, helping keep costs down because
retailers can make larger, more efficient purchasing decisions. It also
gives consumers the flexibility to plan ahead for meals, rather than
make more trips to the grocer. It ensures the ability of smaller
retailers in both rural and very urban areas the opportunity to have a
diverse product offering. As further protection against product
failure, our packaging is tamperproof, and includes an imprinted use or
freeze-by instruction that cannot be removed.
Let me cover just a little bit about the science of our packaging
technology.
One of the challenges with low oxygen packaging is that the removal
of oxygen has a visual impact on meat coloration. You've probably
noticed that when you can see a blood vessel through your arm, it can
appear bluish rather than red. This is because the blood is not exposed
to oxygen. Once exposed to oxygen, blood becomes red. This principle
also applies to MAP packaging. To provide the most consumer protection
and to preserve freshness, we flush all the oxygen from the packaging.
This process will affect the meat coloration, turning the product
somewhat purple. As you might imagine, this doesn't look very appealing
to the customer. In contrast, the traditional grocery tray is more
exposed to oxygen, and therefore it retains the red color.
To gain the functional and appearance performance for low-ox
packaging, we substitute the oxygen with other acceptable and safe
gasses. One of these gasses we use involves a trace amount of carbon
monoxide. This is fully approved by the FDA, based on volumes of
scientific study. As with all MAP products, the packaging gas
dissipates immediately once the package is opened.
We want consumers to have all the benefits of MAP. But to do so,
the package must be as attractive as competing products in the case. We
believe it unfortunate that there has been misinformation about low
oxygen MAP. We have seen some retail customers who have found this
technology serves them and their customers best, find the need to back
away from it because of pressure campaigns led by a competitor offering
a different, similarly performing technology. This has led to greater
waste, less efficiency, and ultimately higher prices for consumers. We
are hopeful that this will abate.
We recently had the opportunity to host investigators from the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce at one of our case ready plants.
We learned clearly that the most important issue concerning Committee
Members was the potential that a consumer may not fully understand that
color is not the only indicator of freshness. For this reason, we have
decided to add new wording to our labeling. We will now include the
statement, ``Color is not an indicator of freshness. Please refer to
use or freeze by dates.'' We believe this effectively addresses the
concerns of the Committee in protecting public health, while not
undermining the adoption of the safety and convenience offered through
case ready packaging.
In summary, Cargill is deeply committed to serving the needs of our
customers. Case ready packaging meets the needs of today's consumers,
and is a very effective way to deliver fresh and wholesome products to
the retail store. The low ox technology that we have discussed today is
an important evolution in packaging technology. The pressure campaigns
against this technology are unfortunate. They are preventing us from
using this technology to better ensure a safe and high quality meat
supply to the consumer.
Again, we thank this Committee for its commitment and leadership in
the area food safety. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Eilert and we appreciate your
being with us today. Dr. Roop, Senior Vice President of Science
and Regulatory Affairs for Tyson Foods in Washington. Welcome
to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD ROOP, Ph.D., SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, SCIENCE AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, TYSON FOODS, INC.,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. Roop. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of this
Committee. My name is Dr. Rick Roop and I manage food safety,
quality assurance and laboratory services for Tyson Foods. And
I thank you for inviting me here today to talk about our
company's efforts to lower the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 in
beef.
Controlling microbes is one of the many ways we keep our
perishable products safe and ensure that they stay safe and
fresh until they reach the consumer. FSIS data shows that the
incidence rate of E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef has declined
since 2000. For 2007, however, FSIS has indicated that there is
a slight increase in the incidence rate and also an increase in
beef recalls due to O157:H7. It is noteworthy, however, that
CDC reports that O157:H7-related illnesses in 2007 are at about
the same level as they were in 2006. Overall, as the industry
continues to find better technologies and product handling
procedures, the decline in incidences is expected to continue.
Tyson uses several best practice methods to prevent
contamination and preserve beef safety. Among the key practices
are hygienic hide and viscera removal, use of steam vacuums on
key areas of the carcass, use of organic acid solutions on the
surface of carcasses and parts, treating carcasses with a final
thermal pasteurization, using antimicrobial carcass washes,
quickly chilling all carcasses and parts, managing the cold
chain from the start to finish and, finally, using extensive
testing to verify that our process controls have worked.
I would like to discuss three key food safety programs
developed at Tyson to reduce pathogens in beef. Niche-
BusterTM targets micro-organisms that could be
harbored in niche environments. For example, seams and cracks
of equipment in facilities. The program is employed in every
beef slaughter and processing plant Tyson owns. A constant
search and destroy effort is undertaken by our plant quality
and sanitation experts to eliminate these harborage areas for
bacteria. Originally for use in preventing Listeria
contamination in ready-to-eat plants, Niche-BusterTM
has proven to be extremely helpful in preventing O157:H7 cross-
contamination in Tyson beef plants.
The carcass thermal pasteurization technology blasts every
beef carcass with sufficient heat to raise the surface
temperature above 160 degrees Fahrenheit, which is an immediate
kill point for pathogens on the carcass surface. It is a
validated critical control point in all of our beef slaughter
HACCP plants.
Tyson Total N60TM is a name for a Tyson-
developed, extremely comprehensive and sensitive testing system
to prevent O157:H7 from contaminating ground beef. Tyson tests
all raw beef components destined for ground beef production.
Tyson Total N60TM is among our most powerful food
safety tools, as it augments the other anti-microbial programs.
It is so powerful that it has been adopted by many other
companies across the industry and recognized by the USDA.
Tyson believes that programs such as Tyson Total
N60TM that find and remove O157:H7 containing meat
from the ground beef supply chain, have contributed to the
significant decline in incidents in the U.S. over the last
several years.
Tyson Foods Safety and Quality Assurance, FSQA, consists of
approximately 2,500 professionals. This team works side by side
with production to ensure the safety and quality of every
product. Our organizational structure is built to enhance
independent, non-biased decisions for FSQA managers. All FSQA
team members, including myself, report parallel to operating
groups. Training is a key success factor for continuous
improvement. Tyson Foods' team members are provided ongoing
food safety and quality assurance training. For example, in
partnership with the University of Arkansas, Tyson Foods funded
and helped develop a food safety training and education program
available to Tyson team members and others throughout industry,
government and the public.
Tyson Foods also partners with Texas A&M University to
offer one of the few industry-sponsored training programs
approved by the International HACCP Alliance.
In conclusion, we have made tremendous progress in learning
how to improve meat safety over the past decade but we
understand that we can't rest. The world continues to change,
including the microbial world. Tyson, in addition to our
colleagues at other food companies, are doing everything we can
to produce safe, quality products every day. Thank you for your
time and attention.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Roop follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Roop, Ph.D., Senior Vice President,
Science and Regulatory Affairs, Tyson Foods, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee. My name
is Dr. Rick Roop, and I manage food safety, quality assurance and
laboratory services for Tyson Foods. Tyson is the world's largest
producer of meat and poultry, as well as the Nation's second largest
food company. We are highly committed to food safety innovations, and I
thank you for inviting me here today to talk about our company's
efforts to lower the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 in beef.
Preventing Pathogens in Beef
As you can see from the chart below (which was constructed using
data from USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service), the incidence
rate of E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef has declined since 2000. For
2007, FSIS has indicated there is a slight increase in the incidence
rate, and also an increase in beef recalls due to E. coli O157:H7. It
is noteworthy that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
reports E. coli related illnesses in 2007 at the same level as 2006.
Overall, as the industry continues to find better technologies and
product handling procedures; the decline in incidence is expected to
continue.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tyson operates nearly 100 food processing plants in 22 states and
around the world. Our eight beef plants produce \1/4\ of the beef in
the U.S. With such a significant role in the market--not to mention the
trust Tyson has earned from consumers and our brand name reputation--
Tyson team members utilize state-of-the-art food safety technologies
and techniques in our plants. We employ risk assessment, training,
testing, special handling, anti-microbial treatments, refrigeration and
sanitation to get the job done.
When it comes to beef, we assume that every head of cattle entering
our facility is contaminated with pathogens. Our goal is to prevent the
potentially contaminated parts of the animal--the exterior of the
animal and the interior of its digestive tract--from touching the
uncontaminated parts: the meat. And we use many tools and technologies
to further prevent contamination and preserve safety.
Tyson Beef Safety Programs
Several state-of-the-art methods to prevent contamination and
preserve beef safety are used within Tyson fresh meat facilities. Among
the key practices are: hygienic hide and viscera removal; use of steam
vacuums on key areas on the carcass; use of organic acid solutions on
the surface of carcasses and parts; treating carcasses with a final
thermal pasteurization; using antimicrobial carcass washes; quickly
chilling all carcasses and parts; managing the cold chain from start to
finish and finally, using extensive testing to verify that our process
controls work and the products are safe.
Three key food safety programs developed at Tyson to reduce
pathogens in beef include the ``Niche-BusterTM,'' ``Carcass
Thermal Pasteurization,'' and ``Tyson Total N60TM ''
programs. These are all examples of effective and proactive food safety
enhancements that were direct results of Tyson's commitment to risk-
assessment, innovation and continuous improvement.
Niche-BusterTM targets microorganisms that could be
harbored in niche environments, e.g. seams and cracks of the equipment
or facilities. The program is employed in every Tyson beef slaughter
and processing plant. A constant search and destroy effort is
undertaken by our plant quality and sanitation experts to eliminate
these harborage areas for bacteria. Originally for use in preventing
Listeria contamination in ready-to-eat plants, Niche-
BusterTM has proven to be extremely helpful in preventing E.
coli O157:H7 cross-contamination in Tyson beef plants.
The ``Carcass Thermal Pasteurization'' technology blasts every beef
carcass with sufficient heat to raise the surface temperature above
160F, which is an immediate kill point for pathogens on the carcass
surface. It is highly effective against all pathogens, and is a
validated Critical Control Point (CCP) in all of our beef slaughter
plants' HACCP plans.
``Tyson Total N60TM '' is a nickname for a Tyson-
developed, extremely comprehensive and sensitive testing system to
prevent E. coli O157:H7 from contaminating ground beef. Tyson tests all
raw beef components destined for ground beef production. The Tyson
Total N60TM program provides a 95 percent or greater
assurance of finding and eliminating E. coli O157:H7 from beef which is
used for ground product. Tyson Total N60TM is among our most
powerful food safety tools, as it augments the other antimicrobial
programs. It is so powerful that it has been adopted across the
industry and recognized by the USDA. Tyson believes that programs such
as Tyson Total N60TM that find and remove O157:H7 containing
meat from the ground beef supply chain, have contributed significantly
to the significant decline in incidence the U.S. over the last several
years.
Tyson Foods' dedication to safe, quality food is buttressed by the
programs and controls we have to deliver on our promise of providing
safe foods. From our laboratories, to our product and process
monitoring programs, to our HACCP verification processes, we are
focused on ``feeding our families, the nation, and the world with
trusted food products,'' a phrase you will find in our company's core
values.
Our Food Safety and Quality Assurance Team
Tyson Foods Food Safety and Quality Assurance (FSQA) Team consists
of approximately 2,500 professionals. This team works side by side with
production to ensure the safety and quality of every product. FSQA Team
Members execute and manage all phases of the Company's food safety and
quality assurance programs including:
Food safety and sanitation,
Policy adherence and regulatory compliance,
Laboratory services and statistics support,
Product and process performance,
Good manufacturing practices, and
Food safety and quality training.
Our organizational structure is built to enhance independent, nonbiased
decisions for FSQA managers. All FSQA team members, including myself,
report parallel to Operating groups.
The safety of our products is also closely monitored by a Food
Safety Team located at each facility. These multi departmental teams
systematically evaluate key aspects of our production processes to
prevent potential food safety concerns. The Food Safety Team will then
work with their facilities to develop, implement, and monitor controls
and procedures to drive continuous improvement.
Training is a key success factor for continuous improvement. Tyson
Foods' Team Members are provided on-going food safety and quality
assurance training. For example, in partnership with the University of
Arkansas, Tyson Foods helped developed the Food Safety Training and
Education Initiative.
Tyson Foods also partners with Texas A&M University to offer one of
the few industry-sponsored training programs approved by the
International HACCP Alliance.
Food Safety Laboratories
The Tyson Food Safety and Laboratory Services Network are
recognized throughout the industry as research leaders in serological
testing, food chemistry, microbiological testing, food safety research,
and environmental water testing. Our accreditations include numerous
Federal Government agencies.
USDA-FSIS Food Chemistry,
USDA-FSIS Pesticide Analysis,
USDA/AMS Russian Export/Chemistry and Microbiological
Testing,
National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) for Testing Avian
Influenza and Mycoplasma synoviae and Mycoplasma gallisepticum,
and
USDA-APHIS for Salmonella Analysis.
Tyson Food Safety and Laboratory Services Network includes 17
laboratories across the country. This includes a 25,000 square foot,
state-of-the-art food testing and research laboratory at Tyson Foods'
World Headquarters in Arkansas. This laboratory is dual certified under
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) quality
management system standard ISO 9001:2000 and the ISO/IEC 17025 standard
for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. In
addition, seven other Tyson Foods regional and corporate laboratories
are certified under the same ISO/IEC 17025 standard.
Tyson Foods also has 61 plant-based Quality Assurance laboratories.
All tests conducted in these laboratories are thoroughly detailed in
the corporate Laboratory Manual. A 3\1/2\ day microbiology and
chemistry course is offered regularly for management personnel and
laboratory technicians located in our processing and rendering plants.
Audits of these laboratories underline Tyson Foods' continuing
commitment to quality.
Food Defense
Tyson Foods takes extraordinary measures for protection against
deliberate acts of food product sabotage. We require each facility to
take appropriate measures to ensure the security and protection of the
food products they produce. Specifically, we require all facilities and
co-packers to conduct vulnerability assessments. From this assessment,
each facility then develops and maintains a facility food defense plan.
This plan identifies the measures the facility will employ to avoid
risk involving deliberate product tampering. Tyson Foods also requires
each facility develop a response strategy in the event a threat to the
food products they produce is made or detected.
Internal and External Food Safety Audits and Inspections
Tyson Foods' facilities receive routine internal quality assurance
and food safety assessments. These assessments are conducted by quality
assurance managers. They focus on:
Critical food safety elements,
Sanitation performance,
Company policy adherence, and
Regulatory compliance.
Each facility is also audited in accordance with the Tyson Foods
Comprehensive Food Safety Audit Program. These internal audits are
composed of audit team members that are independent of the facility
being audited.
Tyson Foods' facilities also receive periodic third party audits of
their food safety systems and good manufacturing practices (GMP's).
These reviews, conducted by or on behalf of our customers, are
performed by nationally recognized independent auditing firms.
These independent audits serve as additional verification that each
facility is producing safe and quality food products. They also verify
our compliance with applicable regulations, company policies, and
customer specification requirements.
Tyson Foods' commitment to food safety is premised on the basis
that food safety is not a point of competition between manufacturers.
We openly share food safety research and technologies with our peers
and colleagues. With the support of our Laboratory Services Group,
Tyson Foods' partners with government, academia, trade associations,
and other industry members to sponsor food safety research. We have
made substantial contributions to research covering E. coli O157:H7,
Salmonella, Avian Influenza, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE),
Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter, and other public health issues
and initiatives aimed at improving food safety.
Conclusion
We have made tremendous progress in learning how to improve meat
safety over the past decade. But we understand that we can't rest--the
world continues to change, including the microbial world. Tyson, in
addition to our colleagues at other food companies, are doing
everything we can to produce safe, quality products every day. Thank
you for your time and attention.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Roop, for that testimony. And
last on the panel is Dr. Joseph Sebranek, Professor with the
Department of Animal Science at Iowa State University in Ames,
Iowa. Welcome, Doctor, we are looking forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH G. SEBRANEK, Ph.D., UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE AND
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SCIENCE, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY, AMES, IA
Dr. Sebranek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee.
One of my research areas at Iowa State University has been
the use of low-oxygen packaging systems including carbon
monoxide for fresh meat packaging. The technology has been
criticized as deceptive and hazardous. This is an issue I want
to address today because in my opinion, there is no scientific
basis for these claims.
When considering fresh meat packaging technology it is
important to understand the options that are available for
packaging fresh meat and the advantages and disadvantages of
each. For example, vacuum packaging, which is one packaging
option, is universally practiced for wholesale meat cuts
because it results in several-fold longer refrigerated storage
life without spoilage. It is important to note that vacuum
packaging is effective because it eliminates oxygen.
Eliminating oxygen prevents growth of primary spoilage bacteria
and prevents oxidative off flavors from developing at the same
time. Unfortunately, vacuum packaging is not a suitable option
for retail because the color is not attractive to consumers.
However, the advantage of eliminating oxygen from contact with
fresh meat in terms of vastly improved storage stability is an
important point to remember.
The second option for packaging fresh meat is aerobic
packaging. This approach uses a permeable film to allow oxygen
from the air to contact the product surface. Oxygen is bound by
the meat pigment to form the bright, cherry-red color. The
color is clearly preferred by consumers but, unfortunately, the
shelf life of fresh meat in aerobic packages is relatively
short.
The third option for fresh meat packaging is modified
atmospheres where air is replaced with a mixture of gases that
provides for better control of product properties. One approach
to use modified atmosphere packaging is a high-oxygen
concentration, as much as 80 percent. This results in a red
color with longer color stability but keep in mind that contact
with oxygen allows aerobic bacterial growth and development of
potentially rancid flavors.
A second approach to modified atmosphere packaging is to
use 0.4 of 1 percent carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide and
nitrogen. This approach produces attractive red meat color
because carbon monoxide binds to the meat pigment in the same
way as oxygen, only with a stronger bond and produces a cherry
red color that is visually identical to that produced by
oxygen. The most immediately obvious advantage to this approach
is a stable red color that can last for 28 to 35 days,
depending on the cut and refrigerated storage. This has been
the basis for much of the criticism of this packaging concept
with claims that this is deceptive and hazardous. But science
does not support these claims and numerous scientists have
expressed concerns over unwarranted criticisms of this
technology.
Carbon monoxide is colorless and affects meat color in the
same way as oxygen, that is by combining with the meat pigment.
The color is derived from the pigment in both cases, not an
external coloring agent.
It has been suggested that that color will last too long
resulting in a spoiled product that still looks good. However,
remember that eliminating oxygen slows spoilage a great deal.
Further, spoilage, when it does occur, manifests itself in
several other ways, one of which is odor. Perhaps more
importantly, very recent research by Dr. Michael Doyle at the
University of Georgia has shown that modified atmosphere
packaging with carbon monoxide repressed the growth of
pathogenic E. coli on ground beef. Dr. Doyle concluded,
``refrigerated or mildly temperature-abused modified atmosphere
packaging with carbon monoxide for ground beef has better
quality and microbial safety characteristics than over-wrapped
beef under similar conditions.''
Recent studies have also shown that meat cuts in high
oxygen atmospheres were also less tender than those packaged
without oxygen.
Consequently, the use of carbon monoxide packaging and
modified atmospheres for fresh meat offers numerous advantages
including improved product appearances, potentially better
flavor, greater tenderness and suppression of bacterial growth.
The use of carbon monoxide provides all the advantages of a
vacuum package for maximizing storage stability with the
attractiveness of an aerobic package for retail display. This
is neither deceptive nor hazardous.
Seems to me it would have been most appropriate to let the
marketplace decide the ultimate success or failure of this
technology.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sebranek follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph G. Sebranek, Ph.D., University Professor,
Department of Animal Science and Department of Food Science, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to visit with you today about some of
the current issues associated with technologies in the meat industry.
My name is Joe Sebranek. I am a University Professor in the Department
of Animal Science and the Department of Food Science at Iowa State
University where I have been responsible for research and teaching in
Meat Science for the past 32 years. I received a joint Ph.D. in Meat
and Animal Science from the University of Wisconsin--Madison prior to
joining the faculty at Iowa State. I have conducted research and
published several peer-reviewed scientific reports on meat packaging
technology which I understand to be the focus of this hearing. In
particular, I have researched the use of carbon monoxide in fresh meat
packaging which has been criticized as a ``deceptive and hazardous''
technology. This is an issue that I would like to address today
because, in my opinion, there is no scientific basis for these claims.
When considering fresh meat packaging technology, it is important
to understand the options available for packaging of fresh
(refrigerated, unfrozen) meat and advantages and limitations of each.
Meat is a highly perishable commodity and packaging plays a very
critical role in protecting meat products from contamination and
spoilage during distribution to consumers. For example, vacuum
packaging of wholesale, primal cuts of meat, which is one packaging
option, is universally practiced for wholesale packaging because it
results in a several-fold longer refrigerated storage time without
spoilage in comparison with products exposed to air. It is important to
note that vacuum packaging, which consists of placing meat into a gas-
impermeable bag or container and evacuating all of the air before
sealing the package, is effective because it eliminates oxygen from
contact with the meat. Eliminating oxygen prevents growth of aerobic
bacteria which are the primary spoilage bacteria of fresh meat.
Eliminating oxygen also prevents development of oxidative rancidity and
associated off-flavors at the same time. Unfortunately, vacuum
packaging is not a suitable option for retailing fresh meat because in
vacuum, meat color reverts to a dark purple-red which is not attractive
to consumers. There have been several attempts by the meat industry in
the past to offer fresh meat to consumers in vacuum packages but these
attempts have been unsuccessful because of the color issue. However,
the advantage of eliminating oxygen from contact with fresh meat in
terms of greatly improved storage stability is an important point to
remember.
The second option for packaging fresh meat is aerobic packaging.
This approach uses a permeable, clear film which allows oxygen from the
air to permeate the film and contact the product surface. The oxygen is
bound by the meat pigment myoglobin and in doing so, forms oxymyoglobin
which has a bright, cherry-red color. This is the color clearly
preferred by consumers as documented by many, many studies on meat
color. Unfortunately, oxygen contact allows rapidly-growing aerobic
spoilage bacteria to proliferate and also initiates chemical oxidation
reactions that eventually result in rancid flavors. Consequently, the
``keepability'' or shelf life of fresh meat in an aerobic package is
relatively short, consisting of a few days to a week or two at most,
depending on the meat cut and how it has been handled.
The third option for fresh meat packaging that has developed more
recently is use of a impermeable film similar to a vacuum package but
includes first evacuating the air from the package and replacing the
air with a specified mixture of gases that provides for better control
of product properties. This is modified atmosphere packaging or MAP.
The air in the atmosphere we live in is 75% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and
less than 1% carbon dioxide with minute amounts of a few other gases,
thus, changing the gas composition in a package from that of air is
considered MAP. For fresh meat, two forms of MAP have been utilized.
One approach is to use an oxygen concentration greater than air, as
much as 80%, in MAP. This results in red color that may last as long as
10 to 14 days compared to about 5 days in a conventional oxygen-
permeable package. Keep in mind that contact with oxygen allows many of
the same effects as conventional aerobic packaging; that is, aerobic
bacterial growth and development of rancid flavors over time. It has
also been observed that high oxygen exposure can result in what is
called ``premature browning'' when the meat is cooked. This means that
meat turns brown at cooking temperatures lower than what is typical.
Some scientists have expressed concern that consumers may not
thoroughly cook products, particularly ground beef, to achieve
bacterial safety in this case because the cooked color will look
``well-done'' when that is really not the case.
This brings us to the use of carbon monoxide in MAP. This is an
alternative MAP system that has been approved by the regulatory
agencies and has been available for a little more than 4 years. This
system uses 0.4% carbon monoxide (CO), 30% carbon dioxide
(CO2) and 69.6% nitrogen (N2). This approach
produces very attractive meat color because CO binds to meat pigment in
the same way as oxygen, only with a stronger bond, and produces a
cherry red color that is visually identical to that of oxymyoglobin.
The most immediately obvious advantage of this approach is a stable red
color that can last for 28 to 35 days in refrigerated storage. This has
been the basis for much of the criticism of this packaging concept,
with claims that this is ``deceptive and hazardous''. There is simply
no scientific basis for these claims. Carbon monoxide is colorless and
affects meat color the same way as oxygen, that is, by combining with
myoglobin. The color is derived from the meat pigment in both cases,
not an external coloring agent.
It has been suggested that the color will last too long, resulting
in a spoiled product that still looks good. I would like to point out
that spoilage also manifests itself in other ways, the most obvious of
which is odor. Thus, there are other very obvious warning signs of
spoilage. Further, the MAP with CO packages include ``use by'' and/or
``freeze by'' dates to give consumers guidelines on the time by which
the product should be used. It is also important to remember that
elimination of oxygen prevents aerobic bacterial growth and
dramatically slows spoilage compared with aerobic packaging. Perhaps
more importantly, very recent research by Dr. Michael Doyle at the
University of Georgia has shown that MAP with CO repressed the growth
of pathogenic E. coli O157:H7 on ground beef compared to conventional
aerobic packaging, thus there is an impact on this pathogen as well.
Dr. Doyle concluded that ``. . . refrigerated or mildly temperature-
abused MAP-CO ground beef has better quality and microbial safety
characteristics than over-wrapped beef stored under similar
conditions.'' Recent studies have also shown that meat cuts in high
oxygen atmospheres were less tender than those packaged without oxygen
probably due to the activity proteolytic, tenderizing enzymes that are
known to be inhibited by oxidative conditions.
A final issue raised by some critics of MAP-CO system is the human
exposure to CO, a recognized environmental hazard. However, at 0.4% in
a package, it would require over 200 packages to exceed what the
Environmental Protection Agency considers a limit for exposure to CO.
This issue has been addressed many times and it is widely accepted that
CO exposure from meat packaging is negligible.
Consequently, the use of MAP-CO for fresh meat offers numerous
significant advantages including improved product appearance, better
flavor, greater tenderness, and suppression of bacterial growth. The
use of CO provides all the advantages of a vacuum package for storage
stability with the attractiveness of an aerobic package for retail
display. To quote one of my colleagues in Meat Science, Dr. Daren
Cornforth of Utah State University, ``What's not to like about that?''
There is one other point to be made. Carbon monoxide packaging can
be combined with other antimicrobial treatments to dramatically improve
fresh meat shelf life and safety while retaining attractive color. A
good example is irradiation, which when applied to ground beef to
reduce or eliminate bacteria, typically results in a color change to a
purple-red resembling vacuum packaged meat. However, if ground beef is
irradiated in MAP-CO, cherry red color is retained while bacteria are
reduced to very low numbers. Commercial ground beef processed with this
combination has been advertised with a 38 day refrigerated shelf life
which is a dramatic improvement over the typical 5 days. I fully
recognize that irradiation is itself a controversial process. However,
this provides a good example, in my opinion, of the often-unrecognized
potential to combine MAP-CO with other technologies to maximize food
quality and safety. Packaging with CO should continue to be available
as an option to allow for development of new and innovative
combinations of packaging with other new technologies to maximize
quality and safety of fresh meat.
Finally, the MAP-CO technology has now been used commercially for
almost 5 years and there have been no complaints that I am aware of
from consumers about unexpected or unusual spoilage. This technology is
establishing a track record that has been free of problems and has not
been an issue with consumers. It seems to me that it is most
appropriate to let the marketplace decide the ultimate success or
failure of this technology.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Sebranek. We appreciate the
testimony. We appreciate all of the members of this panel being
with us. Unfortunately, the way these hearings go and these
time limits, we don't always get the time we need to figure out
what is going on here. Now, Dr. Minerich, you have some
packaging here. I had an hour to be showing all of this and ask
questions when I had this, which we don't have here today. But
have you got somebody with you that can hand these things
around and just explain the different packaging and what the
issues are with them?
Dr. Minerich. Yes, I would be happy to do that. Thank you.
Just quickly, and as my slide showed, modified atmosphere
packaging has been used on a number of different packaging
systems throughout the food industry. And I think if you
recall, the last time you have walked through the grocery
store, you see these packages all the time. Consumers are very,
very familiar with modified atmosphere packaging.
As you heard from several of the other guests speaking
today, you heard the conversation talking about vacuum-packaged
meat. This is a good example of a vacuum-packaged primal. This
packaged meat is dated at the production facility with the date
it was put in the bag. And that could be 10, 20, 30, up to 60
days old, kept refrigerated and be totally wholesome. And when
you open that package and then cut it and package it in the
tray in the back room of the store, it would bloom bright red
and still have 3 to 5 days of shelf life on the retail shelf.
That is what Dr. Eilert mentioned. That is the ideal packaging
system and that delivers the longest shelf life in the most
wholesome environment.
What low-oxygen packaging does is the same. It removes the
oxygen and yet with the 99.6 percent nitrogen or carbon dioxide
gas and 0.4 percent carbon monoxide gives you all the benefits
of vacuum packaging, as Dr. Sebranek mentioned, but also with
the color, the visual color, we are looking for.
When you compare that to the alternate package, high-
oxygen, we were in this package back in 1991. And for the
reasons you have heard by those people testifying, the
experience that the consumers had and the eating quality of
that product lead us to help develop alternate packaging
technologies.
As you see by all the packages in front of you, all of
these technologies are advancements built on the benefits of
the previous packaging system and on some of the challenges and
downfalls. You talk about the 9/11 Commission's interest in
food safety and protecting package integrity. You look at
eliminating cross-contamination issues that happen either in
the back room or as consumers are handling the products and I
think we can all think back to the times we have handled food
products at the checkout counter and some of these juices have
slipped over the line, maybe from the person in front of you,
maybe as you have lifted this piece of meat up, your lettuce
was in contact with that and now you have had a cross-
contamination issue at this point.
So that is what these intact packages offer. One other
thing that has been mentioned as well is the code dating. In
the GRAS approval status for the low-oxygen packaging system,
we mandated that code dating be a part of that GRAS standard
and it is very prominently displayed and you will see it on the
packages going around. And this is nothing new. We talked about
all the packages that are code dated including our friends at
Tyson with chicken. Code dating in the meat industry is nothing
new and consumers wholly understand that they use this chicken
by November 3 or they do not buy it. And the store, the
retailer, will stop selling it. So code dating is a very
important attribute.
Now, as you look at different systems, Hormel has been on
the forefront of helping develop many of these packaging
systems. And one of the alternatives, low-oxygen systems, is
what we call the potato chip bag. We developed this back in the
late 90's. And this was the pre-cursor to the low-oxygen, what
we call, tray pack bag. And the reason we advanced technology
from this to this is because sustainability is an important
issue to Hormel Foods. This is what gets displayed to the
consumer, it will look just like this package. This gets thrown
away. It is film. There is an oxygen-absorbing scavenger in
here. And when we ship this in a truck, we can only ship half
as much as what we can ship here. So knowing that means twice
as many trucks on the road, then here. So when you talk about
sustainability, this was a challenge to Hormel Foods on how do
we take this technology to the next step. The other thing is
this package is not leak-proof, so we did not achieve what the
consumer wanted, a leak-proof package. This low-ox packaging
system does achieve that. And this really is the epitome of
what we are trying to accomplish with these cuts of meat that
do rely on visual evidence of quality and intactness of the
package and leak-proof and code dating.
The other thing we do to this package, we have our brand
name on it, we have the code date prominently displayed, we
also have the code date on the back and we have an 800 number
displayed, so that we encourage consumer interaction concerning
our products to see if there is some part of this packaging
attribute that we are missing. And to date, as I stated in my
presentation, this was one of the best products we have ever
introduced in our 116 year history as far as having consumer
compliments and a very, very low consumer complaint ratio.
The Chairman. This package here, this is high-oxygen?
Dr. Minerich. Yes, it is.
The Chairman. Does the oxygen go through this membrane or
not?
Dr. Minerich. No, Mr. Chairman, the oxygen stays. When we
talk about modified atmosphere, the air we are breathing is
about 80 percent nitrogen and 20 percent oxygen. That package
is about 80 percent oxygen and 20 percent carbon dioxide.
The Chairman. Why doesn't this package have a date on it?
Dr. Minerich. It probably is on the label. That was
probably dated on the front label where the price tag is.
The Chairman. I don't see it but----
Dr. Minerich. Okay. Typically, they would label that at
retail and that is another one of the challenges. That is why
we put mandatory dating as part of our GRAS notice on our
packaging system.
The Chairman. But the difference between this and the low-
oxygen is that the meat stays fresher with the low-oxygen.
Dr. Minerich. The meat in the high-oxygen package that you
have will have a shelf life based on color of about 10 to 14
days. Now, when you open that package and you taste it, you
cook it, it will have a rancid or an off-flavor to it. It is
not a good eating experience. And then also recall, because of
that high-oxygen technology, the meat will turn brown at a very
low temperature. So when you cook it, if you wanted to have a
medium rare or a rare steak, you are going to have a hard time
achieving that because the meat will turn brown faster. And one
of our concerns from a food safety perspective with ground
beef, we are asking our consumers to cook ground beef to a
minimum 165 degrees Fahrenheit. If you cook by color like many
consumers do, that ground beef will be brown far below that
temperature of 160 degrees.
The Chairman. And how much of the ground beef is packaged
like this?
Dr. Minerich. I don't have that information. I don't know.
The Chairman. But that was one of the things I didn't
understand until I had this presentation, you wouldn't be able
to tell if it is still rare.
Dr. Minerich. Correct.
The Chairman. It is brown.
Dr. Minerich. Correct.
The Chairman. I am not much of a cook but when I cook
something I kind of break it open to see if it is cooked or not
and with this you sometimes wouldn't be able to tell.
Dr. Minerich. No. No, sir.
The Chairman. And why don't people get concerned about
that?
Dr. Minerich. That is a good question. Like I said, we were
in that technology in 1991 and it took us a few years to work
our way out of it. It was a great advancement in technology but
there were better technologies that have come over the years.
The Chairman. And on the low-oxygen, you actually increased
the size of the freeze-by date, didn't you? I mean, it is a
pretty good size on the front of the package and the back.
Dr. Minerich. Yes, we did. We looked at Tyson and some
other leaders in the industry that have used a code date, a
very prominent code date right on the front. As I said, it is
also code dated on the back but that is put on at our
manufacturing facility. So that date is fixed and nobody can
change that date. When it reaches the end of that date, the
retailer disposes of that product.
The Chairman. All right. I have gone over my time I think.
You guys were generous. I have some more questions but I will
save those. The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, gentlemen, let us
touch on the issue about consumer awareness, the dating on the
packages, and the effect of trying to maintain a wholesome
product out there with the consumers.
We saw recently where a company which had a difficulty with
health issues, so to speak, and the ground beef industry went
away. So the consumers tend to be very punishing in their
decisions. If you make a mistake, they tend to respond with
great intensity.
Discuss with us a little bit, and I know you all are from
the scientific perspective on this, about the issues involved
in that concern of consumers being able to make an informed
decision by looking at your product. Do you think the way the
packaging is done, do you think that the consumers will be able
to make the right decisions on these issues? Just anyone on the
panel care to touch on that?
Dr. Eilert. Congressman, at Cargill we were very focused
and we paid particularly close attention to, in fact, we have
been affected by recent recalls. We take this issue very
seriously. And we do a risk assessment. As we develop new
technologies, we assess the risk to make sure that we are not
increasing additional risk. As we think about the fresh meat
packaging system we think about any potential risk that may
occur. One of the things that we are very comfortable with as
we have studied this is that because we are able to control the
life of that product, we are able to control the supply chain
of that product, in a case-ready packaging format. We think we
have greater ability to maintain the safety of that product
throughout the chain. And so we do take these issues very
seriously and, at the same time, we are very confident that
because we are able to control the supply chain and the
packaging of the product and minimize the opportunities for
cross-contamination, case-ready packaging and modified
atmosphere packaging is but another step to help maintain the
safety of the product that has been engineered into it at the
harvest-level facility.
I hope I have answered your question.
Dr. Minerich. If I could add to that please?
Mr. Lucas. Please.
Dr. Minerich. There have been three independent studies
that we are aware of that really support the additional safety
of this low-ox and low amount of carbon monoxide packaging
compared to the other packaging technologies. Dr. Michael
Doyle, who is the Director for the Center of Food Safety at the
University of Georgia, independently reports that this
packaging technology retards the growth of E. coli O157:H7 in
ground beef, even under temperature-abusive conditions. And he
calls MAP-sealed treated meat a revolutionary technology
providing greater protection against food-borne pathogens. Dr.
Mindy Brashears at Texas Tech also supports that with her work.
Excuse me, Mindy. And also an independent study by the European
Commission, Scientific Committee on Food, back in 2001 studied
this packaging format and concluded that there is no health
concern associated with 0.3 to 0.5 carbon monoxide gas and a
carbon dioxide and nitrogen modified atmosphere packaging. They
also documented that this packaging system inhibits the growth
of pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Yersinia
enterocolitica and E. coli O157:H7. Those are very important
food safety studies that help support this type of technology
over and above the other packaging options. Which is why you
see more than a dozen of the food safety experts around the
world endorsing this technology and really have not endorsed
the high-oxygen technology. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lucas. Anyone else?
Dr. Sebranek. Well, I might add that one advantage of the
carbon monoxide technology is that it allows incorporation of
additional microbial control agents. For example, the elevated
carbon dioxide, that is an anti-microbial treatment that can
extend shelf life and control pathogens. The inclusion of
carbon monoxide allows a higher than usual level of carbon
dioxide to improve the stability and shelf life of the product.
It, potentially, would also allow incorporation of other
technologies. For example, there have been several
demonstrations that combining carbon monoxide packaging with
irradiation is a highly effective combination because
irradiation, even though it is a very controversial process in
itself, is completely effective against bacteria. So by using
packaging technology for color preservation, irradiation for
microbial control, you can vastly improve shelf life, even over
those that we have been talking about. So my point is not to
promote irradiation but to promote the option of combining this
packaging technology with other technologies that might have a
particularly good impact.
Mr. Lucas. Very good point, doctor. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all
of our panelists for being here today and listening to your
testimony. And I would associate myself with the gentleman from
Oklahoma talking about how the market will be very punishing,
especially the three sitting here, to your industries if you
are not providing food safety. And this issue comes up, I guess
I just have a couple of questions because it seems and, in full
disclosure here, Dr. Minerich is a constituent of mine and
Hormel is located in my district and Cargill is a Minnesota
company. With that being the case though, I approach this more
as a consumer as I look at this. The issue and as you have
discussed on this is not so much a food safety issue but as the
way the food looks, the consumers are looking at the sell-by
dates and all of that. Who is opposed to the low-oxygen
technology? Where is this coming up as an issue if we have the
scientists and many of the studies reporting that this is a
safe technology, it is not doing anything. We still have the
sell-by dates and you have indicated, Dr. Minerich, there have
been no cases of food-borne illness through this technology.
Then who is talking about this or is this a solution looking
for a problem?
Dr. Minerich. Thank you, Congressman Walz. I am not going
to comment on the last question but on the first question, this
whole issue arose from a spice manufacturer, who sells spices
under control of several patents that help the high-oxygen
technology stabilize that color longer. And that competing
technology against ours now is at risk. And that all generated
about 2 years ago. We had been in the market 2 years by that
time already, so total market time is about 4 years for us. And
the interest, it is almost unfortunate that they are alarming
consumers with the food safety issue when leading scientists
endorse this technology. There are some entities protecting
their constituents along that line instead of allowing the
marketplace to settle the difference.
Mr. Walz. This spice manufacturer is the one who did not
show up today, is that correct?
Dr. Eilert. That is correct, being invited twice.
Mr. Walz. What does their product do as a food additive
that differs from low-oxygen? Their product keeps the product
fresher or just keeps the color?
Dr. Minerich. It keeps the color.
Mr. Walz. So there is no difference?
Dr. Minerich. They use oxygen to stabilize the myoglobin
pigment in a high-ox atmosphere but their ingredient helps
stabilize that color longer, according to their patents.
Whereas, when you go to a low-oxygen format, you don't need
that ingredient, so that ingredient is no longer necessary in
these products. The color is stabilized by the small amount of
carbon monoxide instead. So they are just competing
technologies. When you said is this a solution trying to solve
a problem that doesn't exist, as I said consumers are investing
a lot of money into these meat products.
Mr. Walz. Would I be naive to think on this, I guess, from
Tyson, Cargill and Hormel's perspective on this, if this
different technology, the spice additive or whatever, if it
were cheaper and did the same thing, you would probably switch
to that, is that correct, if it would save money? I am just
checking on this as you go.
Dr. Minerich. No, we would not do it to save money.
Mr. Walz. Okay.
Dr. Minerich. Like I said, we were in this in 1991 and the
eating experience was not a happy thing for our consumers.
Mr. Walz. So you have been through this a long time of
seeing what is best for the consumer, what is best for bottom
line in terms of sales and what is going to, as you said, keep
the food safe and not be an issue.
Dr. Minerich. Correct. And these food safety attributes
that this package offers over high-oxygen provide a much better
packaging system for the consumer. And from food safety, from
cross-contamination, less hands touching the meat.
Mr. Walz. This is just in your opinion, this is a better
technology.
Dr. Minerich. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walz. That is why you are using it.
Dr. Eilert. Congressman, we also--in Cargill, we offer a
lot of different packaging solutions to our customers and the
choice of which is dependent upon economics, consumer
preference, supply chain needs. There are retailers in the
United States that effectively can use a shorter shelf life
product like these high-oxygen packaging systems can provide.
They can manage the supply chain and it is an effective
solution for them. There are some retailers without as
sophisticated a distribution system that this is not as good of
a solution as a shelf life that is more near the natural shelf
life potential of the products. And that is one of the key
things that I want to make sure that the Committee understands,
is that we are not talking about creating shelf life out of
thin air. We are talking about protecting the natural shelf
life of this product and using that protection to benefit our
customers and the consumers. Will we still sell meat if we have
only a high-oxygen format? I suppose we will but it won't be as
high a quality as what we can achieve with this advancement and
this technology.
Mr. Walz. Okay. Well, I thank you and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Kansas, could I follow up just for a second?
Mr. Moran. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. This company, do they have a patent on this
other process?
Dr. Eilert. Yes, they do.
The Chairman. Do they then charge people and make money off
that patent, I assume?
Dr. Eilert. The specifics, we can't comment to their exact
commercialization.
The Chairman. But there is some kind of charge for that
patent.
Dr. Eilert. Certainly, certainly. And the speculation might
be that the license might be inherent with the use of the
technology.
The Chairman. Is that the same situation with this low-
oxygen? Is there some patent on that?
Dr. Eilert. Currently today there are no patents. There are
patents in this area but there are no patents granted on the
packaging technologies today.
The Chairman. So there is a difference there then?
Dr. Eilert. Yes, there is.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. The gentleman from Kansas,
Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. The phrase
``shelf life'' has been used throughout your testimony and my
first question is, what is the definition of ``shelf life''? Is
it agreed upon within the industry? First answer those
questions and then I will see, I may have a third.
Dr. Eilert. Congressman, ``shelf life'' is in essence that
period of time in which product is maintained in an acceptable
quality level. It is the period of time in which spoilage is
not evidenced at a noticeable level. Is there a standard shelf
life for every single product on this table and the answer is
no.
Mr. Moran. Would each of the companies represented here
today reach a different shelf life?
Dr. Eilert. They could very well. Now, what tends to happen
is that with companies like represented here and some of our
colleagues in the rest of the industry, there is a certain
level. I talk a lot about shelf life potential. And when we
take a piece of fresh beef, if we process that in a hygienic
fashion and we store and distribute those products and managing
the cold chain as best we can, then most of the companies are
going to achieve the shelf life potential or very near the
shelf life potential of the products. And so it is going to
vary somewhat processor to processor. At the end of the day,
any company, the ones represented here at the table, as well as
our colleagues in the industry, any company that puts their
name, their brand, their inspection legend on those products,
is obligated to protect and maintain that any shelf life that
they put on those products is going to deliver for the
consumers.
Mr. Moran. Is shelf life related to food safety or related
to customer satisfaction?
Dr. Eilert. Shelf life is related to customer satisfaction,
it is not related to food safety.
Mr. Moran. So who makes the determination that after a
certain date the product has been on the shelf it is no longer
safe for consumption by the consumer?
Dr. Eilert. Those are generally made by the--well, first--
--
Mr. Moran. Safe?
Dr. Eilert. Okay. Again, from a safety standpoint, shelf
life, we want to draw a distinction between safety and shelf
life. When we talk about raw meat products today the primary
control of the pathogens that can occur on those products takes
place at the harvest facility. Those pathogens, and in the case
of beef, let us talk specifically on beef, the E. coli O157
organism is on the exterior of the animal, as well as in its
digestive tract. The meat itself is sterile. It is perfectly
safe for consumption. So the job of Tyson, the job of Cargill,
the job of Hormel, is first and foremost to prevent the
contamination from the outside of the carcass or from the
interior of the animal to the meat product. That is the first
line of defense that takes place. Now, everything else that
takes place beyond the harvest process is making sure that
temperatures are maintained, cross-contamination is minimized.
And so when we talk about that, the occurrence of the pathogen
at the harvest level has very little to do with the ultimate
shelf life of the product. I hope I was able to draw that
distinction.
Mr. Moran. But those other factors, temperature, they do
have an effect upon not shelf life but upon the safety of the
product?
Dr. Eilert. If the pathogen is there, if the pathogen is
present and if temperature abuse does occur.
Mr. Moran. Maybe this is the point you are making with me,
the pathogen, if it is going to be there, it is there from the
slaughter.
Dr. Eilert. The harvest facility.
Mr. Moran. Right.
Dr. Eilert. That is correct, Congressman. Yes.
Mr. Moran. Okay.
Dr. Eilert. And so we have to maintain--I mean, our----
Mr. Moran. If you do your job in the beginning----
Dr. Eilert. If we do our job in the beginning and then we
control the cold chain throughout and that is from harvest,
that is from processing, that is from case-ready packaging that
is even distribution into the retail store, we will maximize
the shelf life of the product and the quality and the eating
experience. And additionally, if by some chance that organism
was there to occur, we will minimize the potential for growth.
Mr. Moran. When I read on a package that it says use by or
sometimes it says use-by, sometimes it says sell-by, is there a
distinction that is made by your company in what that means?
Dr. Eilert. You want to take that?
Dr. Minerich. No, there is no difference. There is use-by,
sell-by, freeze-by, best-by. There are a number of words used
to describe an estimated end of shelf life.
Mr. Moran. And really that is a marketing phrase----
Dr. Minerich. It is the----
Mr. Moran.--because it is consumer satisfaction.
Dr. Minerich. Correct. You know, there have been a number
of studies as to what makes the most sense to consumers. Use or
freeze-by is the date most often used by manufacturers because
that is a date that is very familiar to consumers. But it is
placed by the manufacturer, determined by the manufacturer
because the quality attributes of these products are measured
in different ways. Some could be a color change. Some could be
texture. Some could be flavor. Some could be loss of vitamins.
Or on medications, a loss of an active bioactive ingredient. So
a use or sell-by date really is a manufactured date. We could
put 10 days, 20 days, 30 days. But it is up to us, as Dr.
Eilert mentioned, to be sure that we deliver to our consumer a
product that gives them an enjoyable eating experience,
otherwise they won't come back and buy from us. So we are
usually very conservative on sell-by dates or use-by dates.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Kagen. Now, we have our own doctor who I know
knows more about this than I do but Dr. Kagen.
Mr. Kagen. Well, you probably want comparison by how much
we eat. I want to thank you, first of all, for your testimony
and also for your industry for bringing forward a wide array of
food products that have been safe and very nutritious. And I
grew up on Hormel and now that I am no longer a practicing
physician but a politician, tell you, without chicken, we
wouldn't be having very many fund-raising events because that
is all they seem to serve. But I won't get into the appearance
of that meat or the tastiness or its rubber quality.
Dr. Sebranek, you went to one of the finest universities in
this land, University of Wisconsin, as did I, and I want to
thank you. I assume you don't represent any commercial interest
here at Iowa State University and you don't receive any funding
from corporations, is that true?
Dr. Sebranek. No, my research emphasis, my research
supports comes only from the USDA. My packaging work has not
been funded by the industry.
Mr. Kagen. Well, let me address most of my few minutes of
questioning towards you because in your written testimony, you
indicated that carbon monoxide has some benefits. Has benefits
for the appearance, the product, the flavor and the tenderness.
I am going to have to take your word for it because I haven't
studied it. And you also mentioned that Dr. Doyle from the
University of Georgia has studied the potential anti-microbial
activity of carbon monoxide. Am I correct that he compared the
use of carbon monoxide in the packaging versus the aerobic
packaging?
Dr. Sebranek. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Kagen. And he didn't study the anaerobic. Because as
you and I know as scientists, if you take the oxygen away, you
get much less bacterial growth.
Dr. Sebranek. That is correct.
Mr. Kagen. So he didn't study the anaerobic packaging of
the meat, he studied it against aerobic open-air packaging,
basically?
Dr. Sebranek. Correct. But it is important to keep in mind,
the absence of oxygen is the major advantage in all these
systems, whatever they are.
Mr. Kagen. Right. You also indicated, hinted in somewhat
strong fashion, that irradiation might actually be better as an
anti-microbial protection of meat products than carbon
monoxide, is that true?
Dr. Sebranek. From the microbial standpoint, that is
correct. It can be very, very effective.
Mr. Kagen. Okay. And the other question I have, with regard
to these studies that you mentioned and also your counterparts,
were these studies on the ability of carbon monoxide to protect
the meat, to prevent it from spoiling, were they done before or
after it was put into the field and into practice?
Dr. Sebranek. The studies that----
Mr. Kagen. Yes.
Dr. Sebranek.--we talked about?
Mr. Kagen. The studies themselves, were they performed
after it started to be used in the public?
Dr. Sebranek. Well, I guess from the standpoint of
scientific studies they have accrued in both situations. There
were studies prior to the commercial introduction, if I am
understanding your question correctly.
Mr. Kagen. So if I looked at the----
Dr. Sebranek. And after as well.
Mr. Kagen. So if I looked at the date of Dr. Doyle's
publication, it would be before the use of carbon monoxide was
approved by any government organization?
Dr. Sebranek. Yes, right.
Mr. Kagen. Okay. Very interesting. Now, the other thing I
am learning here, because I really don't know all the rules of
the USDA, but in the field in which I practiced for 30 years,
allergy immunology, we had expiration dates on our allergy
vaccines and every prescription drug that is licensed by the
FDA has expiration dates that have some scientific merit and
some scientific determination. Am I correct if I interpret what
all of you have said that freeze or sell-by dates are sort of
made up as you go along?
Dr. Roop. I would like to comment on that.
Mr. Kagen. Sure.
Dr. Roop. They are not made up. They are scientifically
determined by R&D staffs at our companies.
Mr. Kagen. Okay.
Dr. Roop. So it is not a random date.
Mr. Kagen. So every product that your company makes
releases to chain stores has the same date?
Dr. Roop. No. All like products are evaluated based on how
they are packaged and how they are handled through the process
and then a sell-by date is determined.
Mr. Kagen. So you determine the sell date by some objective
means?
Dr. Roop. That is correct.
Mr. Kagen. Is it the initial bacterial load in the product
as it goes out your door or how do you determine that?
Dr. Roop. It is done by actually taking packaging prior to
introduction and putting it in storage and observing the
organoleptic properties and measuring the bacterial load as it
increases over time.
Mr. Kagen. So each product that you send out the door isn't
studied for its potential degradative rate?
Dr. Roop. Is or isn't?
Mr. Kagen. Is not.
Dr. Roop. All like products that have a sell-by date are.
Mr. Kagen. Okay. So do you sample each product that comes
off the line? Do you take a sample as we do in the dairy
industry? We take samples from our milk producers, we take
samples into the laboratory and do colony counts and bacterial
counts. Do you do that with the meat product as well?
Dr. Roop. All products are verified on a regular basis, not
every product.
Mr. Kagen. But in the production line, like let us say
October 19, we could look at some bacterial data that you have?
I see somebody nodding their head in the background. Either
they are falling asleep or they are agreeing.
Dr. Roop. There will be verification checks, yes, sir.
Mr. Kagen. Okay. All right. Well, I thank you very much for
your time and for your attention. I look forward to asking you
more questions in written form. I yield back my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Virginia, the Ranking Member, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves, has asked that this
statement be made part of the record.
The Chairman. Well, all Member statements will be made part
of the record for today's hearing.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. Let me just ask all the
panelists, there has been some testimony referencing the role
of modified atmosphere packaging in reducing the prevalence of
pathogens such as E. coli and since we are having a
subcommittee hearing next week to discuss recent recalls for
that pathogen, I wonder if you might take a moment to expand on
this particular quality of the technology. Some of those who
are advocating certain labeling requirements and so on seem to
be suggesting that the technology is primarily used for the
appearance of the product. I am hearing you reassure us that it
is primarily for the safety of the product. I wonder if you
might address that particular concern with regard to E. coli or
modified atmosphere packaging that utilized to address that?
Dr. Minerich. Congressman, you are correct on your earlier
statement. The primary development goal for this technology was
to advance previous technologies in delivering a quality
product to our consumer. Some of the follow-up studies that
were asked about by a previous Congressman were done following
market introduction but I refer back to the study done by the
European commission in 2001, which was done prior to the
introduction of this low-ox lid stock technology. So there were
follow-up studies and what the scientific community tends to do
as it is trying to validate technologies is explore all
possibilities. You never do explore every possibility but you
certainly want to be looking for opportunities that maybe this
technology might actually encourage growth of O157:H7, which
would be negative. We don't want to do that. So we were
pleasantly surprised to see in these follow-up studies that
actually this packaging environment suppressed the growth of
that pathogen. That was an unexpected evaluation of the
technology but it was something that we certainly embraced. The
packaging technologies were created to extend the shelf life of
the product or, as Dr. Eilert says, preserve the shelf life of
the product that existed prior to being placed in the tray and
give our consumers a good eating experience while maintaining
integrity of the package, preventing cross-contamination and
putting on the code date and the manufacturing facility.
Mr. Goodlatte. But are you saying it also appears to have
some other benefits?
Dr. Minerich. Yes, it does.
Mr. Goodlatte. Is that the answer to my question?
Dr. Minerich. And that is the data on three separate
studies.
Dr. Eilert. Congressman, if I may expand on that?
Mr. Goodlatte. Sure, please.
Dr. Eilert. One of the comments that you made is the
ability of this packaging format, this modified atmosphere
packaging format, to prevent the prevalence of a O157:H7. Let
me go back to the conversations from Dr. Rubin, Tyson, and then
some of the earlier points. We are controlling the prevalence
of the pathogen at the harvest facility. Now, at the point of
packaging and in the supply chain in our packaging, the goal is
to minimize the opportunity for growth if that pathogen did
occur. Now, when our companies, Cargill and Hormel were a part
of the joint venture precept, when we first looked at this
technology, the first place we looked, as Dr. Minerich pointed
out, was to make sure that the environment that we were putting
the meat in was not going to contribute to increased risk. And
the studies done in Norway and other studies done in the United
States, we were confident that there had been enough scientific
evidence that we weren't increasing risk with this format. Now,
because of the high levels of CO2 that Dr. Sebranek
talked about that are in this product, high levels of carbon
dioxide, not carbon monoxide, we are able and we have proven
now under abusive conditions, it will actually inhibit the
growth under temperature-abuse conditions. That is not why we
did it, it is an added benefit. But let me just assure the
Committee that we went into this fully knowing, from the
scientific evidence, years of scientific evidence around carbon
monoxide, that we were not going to increase risk.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, let me follow-up on that. Consumer
groups have raised concerns related to the fact that modified
atmosphere packaged meat retains it color well beyond its shelf
life. Are you working on any new technologies to address that
concern?
Dr. Minerich. Yes, we are always looking to advance
technologies. So as we have been made aware how sensitive that
issue is to some consumer groups, we continue to look forward
to advances in this technology. I don't think you will ever see
any of these three companies stop in our tracks on trying to
advance food technology and food packaging technology that
advances consumer acceptance and food safety.
Mr. Goodlatte. Anybody want to add anything to that?
Dr. Eilert. I think I would agree with Dr. Minerich. I
mean, this is not the end. This is not the pinnacle of our
work. Any good scientist, any good progressive research group
within one of these large companies, once the first technology
is introduced, then they should start working upon what the
replacement or what the advancement of that next technology is.
And I think all of the companies represented here, amongst some
of our other colleagues, are committed to that whether that
pertains to freshness or whether that pertains to safety. And
so we are going to continue to advance this area. In the
meantime, this technology represents one of those said
advancements. And we think it is incredibly unfortunate that we
are being inhibited to advance the technology because of a
campaign of pressure from a competing technology.
Mr. Goodlatte. Is there any concern and have you heard from
any consumers when the carbon monoxide is not used and you have
a problem with a meat turning brown with the consumer not
knowing whether or not that has been cooked before they start
utilizing it?
Dr. Eilert. We have heard some of those comments and we
have been aware of this evidence that meat can prematurely
brown in high-oxygen packaging. That worries us. It is not
where we want to be. At the same time, however, this has been a
packaging format that has worked very well for a number of
years for a variety of customers in supply chains. We recognize
that that is an opportunity that we want to work on. So we
think that as the technology evolved to high-oxygen packaging,
that was a good thing. That allowed us to minimize that cross-
contamination that we spoke about. That allowed us to maintain
the integrity of the supply chain in these products. Did we
want to improve? Absolutely. We want to improve for a lot of
the reasons that you heard today. And so we recognize that
there were limitations to that technology, one of which was the
flavor development issue, one of which was this concept of
premature browning. We want to move past that. We want the
technology to evolve.
Mr. Goodlatte. And let me just ask you to satisfy all the
consumers out there, do each of you feel comfortable serving
meat that has been packaged in modified atmosphere packaging
using carbon monoxide to your family and your friends?
Dr. Eilert. I have two daughters. One is 12, one is 10. I
am thankful to report that they are as carnivorous as the day
is long. And I proudly and assuredly serve that product to my
children on a regular basis.
Mr. Kagen. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. Goodlatte. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kagen. Would either of you object to the presence on a
label of one of your products that carbon monoxide is being
used?
Dr. Eilert. Yes, we would.
Dr. Minerich. Yes.
Dr. Eilert. Now, one of the comments that I forgot to
mention verbally but it is in my written text, because of the
concerns that have been emphasized, we are willing to add
additional language on our labels. And that additional language
would read something to the effect of color is not an adequate
indicator of freshness, please refer to use or freeze-by dates.
We see that, Congressman, as being an instructive statement. If
we were to put a statement, such as this product is packaged in
carbon monoxide, we see that as a declarative statement. What
the consumer doesn't necessarily--the consumer can't use that
information. It would be the same as if we declared what the
particular plastic resins are in the material. It doesn't
provide the consumer with a lot of benefit. However, a
statement that says--and we probably should have done this
earlier. A statement that says color is not an adequate
indicator of freshness, please refer to use or freeze-by dates.
We are highly supportive of that and we are willing to
implement that as soon as we can work with the USDA upon
approval of that statement.
Mr. Kagen. But if carbon monoxide is a good thing because
it decreases the bacterial load in the product, wouldn't you
want the consumers to know about the good things you are doing
for them?
Dr. Minerich. Packaging gases have never been labeled--if
you were to label the packaging gas on this packaging system,
on the cheese or on the sliced meats or on the bag of potato
chips, if that is a level playing field we want to be in, we
are all for it. If everybody labels their packaging ingredients
but, as Dr. Eilert mentioned, we don't know what value that
brings. Do you want to know that this is packaged in a high-
nitrogen atmosphere? Does that change your purchase decision?
Do you want to know that this is a combination of gases to
maintain freshness of bagged lettuce? What you really want is a
good eating experience. That is what you want. And a use and
freeze-by date is an important attribute to that.
Mr. Kagen. I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman for that question. I
would say that information that is useful to the consumer is
that they know what to do with it is more valuable than
information that simply says something that may raise questions
that are not answered on that same label.
Dr. Eilert. We agree.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Minerich, the
bulk of your testimony is pretty much directed toward packaged
meats as I read it and mainly beef. And my question is, North
Carolina is probably number two in pork and we have a lot of
poultry. We have very little slaughtering of beef. To your
knowledge, is there any operation that uses carbon monoxide or
low-oxygen packaging that is utilized in the pork packaging?
Dr. Minerich. Well, modified atmosphere packaging is used
in pork but, to my knowledge, not carbon monoxide.
Dr. Eilert. That would be incorrect, we do. Both Cargill
and Hormel, in the joint venture, we produce and package beef
and pork in the modified atmospheres containing carbon
monoxide.
Mr. Etheridge. Okay, thank you. Let me ask this, direct
this question at each of you. Hopefully, we will have time to
get an answer. The opponents of the modified atmosphere
packaging charges that this practice deceives people in
purchasing, what they call, spoiled meats. And assuming, and I
know you don't want to assume this, correct, but just let us
for a moment assume that to be correct. Seems to me that we
would be seeing two results. One, an increase in the number of
food poisoning from eating spoiled meats and, consequently, an
increase in litigation against your companies and others or the
supermarkets for selling it. So, generally, how often has your
company been subject to litigation of this type since this
technology has been utilized? Have your companies seen an
increase in either the packaging processes litigation or can
any of you explain to me why a company would engage in a
practice if their opponents were correct, that would subject it
to greater litigation?
Dr. Minerich. We have not seen any litigation at all on
this packaging technology. As I said, this has been one of the
highest consumer acceptances of a product introduction in our
company's history. So we have the 800 number boldly posted on
there. We also stand alone in the food industry as having a
money-back guarantee on this meat product. So we are
encouraging consumers not only to call us if there is a
problem, but we will give them their money back if there is a
problem. And I understand the concern that people are buying
spoiled meat. That is not happening. It goes back to the
consumer acceptance level. They are not buying spoiled meat.
But if they did buy spoiled meat, how did they know it was
spoiled? It smelled or it looked funny for some reason or the
package was bulging. There was some indicator that that was
spoiled. Very similar to how do you know when milk is spoiled?
You pour some on your cereal and you take the first bite and it
is sour or it gurgles out. It is the same thing with orange
juice. We have all consumed product that, I am not going to say
has gone past its code date because it may have spoiled before
its code date, depending on how it was handled, and still
looked good, still looked wholesome. But you knew, through your
experience of eating food your entire life, that that was going
to give you a poor eating experience. It did not, however,
increase your risk of food safety. It spoiled. It did not
increase your risk of food safety. And that is a very difficult
concept to understand but I will give you some very simple
examples that will help you maybe, no pun intended, digest
that. Yogurt. This used to be milk. It is curdled. By
definition it is spoiled. And, as a matter of fact, you are
eating this product because of how many bacteria are in this
product. But it spoiled in a way that you enjoy it. You get a
good eating experience out of this. You can spoil yogurt and if
you leave it in the sun and different bacteria will grow in
there, it will spoil and give you a poor eating experience but
it will not jeopardize your health. This is not a food safety
issue, it is a spoilage issue and that relates back to the
shelf life: same thing with dry sausage; same thing with
sauerkraut; same thing with cheese. Those are all products that
have been selectively changed by the use of bacteria to, in one
sense of the term, spoil it in a way that gives you a good
eating experience. And the other spoilage organisms that cause
the meat to sour or get milky or turn color or form gas, those
will give you a poor eating experience. And you will smell it,
you will see it, there will be an obvious reason as to why that
spoiled and you will dispose of the product. And our 1-800
number and our money-back guarantee on this product line
certainly encourages people to communicate with us.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you.
Dr. Eilert. Congressman, to directly answer your question,
we have not entered into any litigation due to complaints from
this packaging format. The rate of complaint, we are not going
to say that we are perfect every time, sometimes we do not
deliver because of one reason or another. The shelf life from
these products can be highly variable. And so when our shelf
life is not as good as it should be, we receive that feedback
and react upon it. And if we don't, we won't be in business.
Dr. Roop. Well, my answer has to be a little bit different
because we are not into this type of packaging to the same
degree as my colleagues. However, we do not oppose that type of
packaging. I am unaware of any litigation to it. Thank you.
Dr. Sebranek. Well, the separation of spoilage and
pathogens is a critical one. People have commented that spoiled
food has never caused food poisoning because it prohibits
consumption. And that is actually, as we teach in some of our
elementary courses in meat science, a protective mechanism. So
it is very important in this situation to separate spoilage and
pathogens.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the panel. This has
been quite educational and so I appreciate that. I know that
through research and development everyone here on the panel
devotes a great deal of effort into answering the concerns of
the marketplace. I mean, I hear you saying that the marketplace
is what speaks loud and clear and I would assume that a food
safety issue will cost you far more than any savings on
packaging. So I appreciate that. Are there any numbers that you
would point to specifically that would lead us to support that
last statement?
Dr. Minerich. Can you repeat the last statement?
Mr. Smith. Well, maybe job losses as to loss in consumer
confidence after a particular food safety issue was reported or
what have you.
Dr. Minerich. Well, as Dr. Eilert mentioned, we work very
hard in the industry to avoid that situation. I am aware that
one recent food safety incident has caused the closing of a
major food processing company in the East here and that is the
type of concern that we have as we bring any product or any
technology to market is that our brand, specifically, is not
put at risk. So the science that is done before we go to
market, the science that continues after we are in the market,
continues to be strong to protect our brand and protect the
product, protect the consumer.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Iowa, Chairman of the Livestock Subcommittee, Mr. Boswell.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for your participation today and I hope America is listening.
Just to emphasize some things that some of you have said, I
apologize to have you repeat it but I wanted to make it
clearer. Dr. Sebranek, you mentioned that some critics say that
MAP is deceptive and hazardous. Again, for the record, in your
opinion, are either of these assertions true? Deceptive?
Dr. Sebranek. I am sorry, would you repeat the question for
me please?
Mr. Boswell. You mentioned that critics say that the
modification is deceptive and hazardous. In your expert
opinion, are either of these assertions true?
Dr. Sebranek. I am sorry, I having a little trouble picking
up your question. I would like to ask to have it repeated for
me. Yes, that is correct. The reason I say that is because the
color is identical to what we have with the aerobic packaging
and we have had many comments----
Mr. Boswell. I think perhaps we are not understanding you
but I think what you are saying is, it is not true, it is not
hazardous and it is not deceptive.
Dr. Sebranek. That is correct. It is not hazardous nor
deceptive.
Mr. Boswell. All right. I am sorry for--I have a little
laryngitis, so I hope you will forgive me for that. Perception
is sometimes like fact in some people's mind, but maybe give us
a better way or another way that you could elaborate on how
using carbon monoxide, which can be deadly to humans, you
know--an old airplane I fly, I keep a little monitor in there.
I don't want to go to sleep at the switch, so to speak. And so
we have that perception as bad, which it is if it is over-
abundance, but how can we point out that it is not detrimental
in the packaging you use? Because of the minimal amount?
Dr. Eilert. Yes, that is correct. There is an adage,
Congressman, that the dose makes the poison. A good portion of
these products today contain ingredients that can be lethal if
applied at too high of a level. Sodium nitrite, carbon dioxide,
a host of others. And so there was a lot of work. I mean, in
addition to the basic product safety work, there was also a
human exposure element and a toxicology element to our review
that we conducted when we presented this technology to FDA. And
ourselves and predecessors in the industry showed that the
levels of exposure to carbon monoxide in this packaging format
are far below those levels that would be even close to being
hazardous to humans.
Mr. Boswell. I appreciate that. This is not what you
expected today to have a question about but where I come from
we have a lot of people that do home butchering and home
freezing. And so constituents ask me, ``We have all these
experts, what is the shelf life of frozen meat in the home
freezer in a self-defrosting freezer?''
Dr. Minerich. Well, that depends on the meats species and
how it is packaged.
Mr. Boswell. Well, let us say beef.
Dr. Minerich. If beef is packaged well, you are going to
talk about a shelf life that is 3 to 6 months for good eating
quality. It will be safe for the entire period but what you
risk in a freezer is dehydration. So if you have a packaging
system that allows for gas transmission, like you bought some
meat that was packaged at the local butcher, that has a high
gas-transmission rate, you throw that in the freezer.
Mr. Boswell. I think this constituent had something that
they took to their local locker, had packaged at their request,
they brought home to the farm and stuck in the freezer.
Dr. Minerich. Yes.
Mr. Boswell. So for how long is it safe?
Dr. Minerich. How long is it safe is a different question.
If it was contaminated at the local butcher, it is not safe
from day one.
Mr. Boswell. Okay, I understand that.
Dr. Minerich. But you are talking about shelf life and
eating quality and if you froze it in the white-wrapped butcher
paper, it is probably going to have a good eating quality for
maybe a month but it will dry out very fast. So I am sorry to
say, as a scientific answer, it usually depends.
Mr. Boswell. Usually depends. I yield back.
The Chairman. I think the gentleman was wondering whether
the pheasants and goose that he shot this weekend are going to
last for----
Mr. Boswell. No, I haven't got around to that yet.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Kansas, Mrs. Boyda.
Mrs. Boyda. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I just had
some questions, somewhat out of curiosity and learning about
this. I certainly appreciate what you are saying about
competing technologies and maybe there is some lack of
truthfulness that is going on here. But I have a couple of
questions. When we are talking about--in the other packaging
that you were referring to, does anything else use carbon
monoxide in their modified environments?
Dr. Minerich. Not that I am aware of.
Dr. Eilert. We are aware that carbon monoxide is approved
for some produce applications but we are not knowledgeable to
know whether or not it is being applied.
Mrs. Boyda. My question here coming up is more one of
curiosity.
Dr. Eilert. Okay.
Mrs. Boyda. When you are talking about carbon monoxide,
that it actually is binding and that what it is doing, is it
binding with the hemoglobin in there to keep the bright red
color. So, in fact, it is not an inert gas that is just sitting
on top of everything, it is actually something that is now part
of the product and it is really now part of a preservative.
Dr. Eilert. The carbon monoxide does bind but it is not an
irreversible bond. And so as the package is opened, then that
carbon monoxide dissipates. Additionally, if there is carbon
monoxide that is bound to the myoglobin molecule, during the
heating process it also gases off in the heating process. And
perhaps Dr. Sebranek could explain that even a little better
than I have.
Dr. Sebranek. Yes, that is correct. Even though it is a
stronger bond than in the case of oxygen, it is lost from the
pigment over a period of time or in exposure to heat. So you do
get browning of the product during cooking, for example. The
preservative, the anti-microbial effect is primarily due to
carbon dioxide.
Mrs. Boyda. Correct.
Dr. Sebranek.--in that atmosphere.
Mrs. Boyda. And I got that one too. Because that is what I
was wondering. What happens to the carbon monoxide? If it is
driven off, then we have the same problem of brown is brown and
how do you know if it is pink? I cook towards pink and, quite
honestly, I like my steak very pink, forget that, I like it
red. But it has just got to be, and just logically it has got
to be kind of one or the other. The high-oxygen environment has
the problem with turning it brown so you can't tell if it is
cooked. So either the CO is hanging on and it is staying pink
or it is gone and it is going brown. I am just trying to figure
out where that is coming in.
Dr. Sebranek. Well, you do in some cases get a longer
retention of pinkness sometimes in the center of cuts with
carbon monoxide to retain pink for a longer period of time
during cooking. But that is not necessarily a bad thing----
Mrs. Boyda. No.
Dr. Sebranek.--from the cooking standpoint.
Mrs. Boyda. What I am curious about is who helps you with
your labels? Does USDA have label requirements or is it FDA?
Dr. Eilert. Yes. The Standards of Labeling Division of the
USDA.
Mrs. Boyda. I am just curious again. This is interesting.
The competing technology that you had and I don't even know
what it is, was it required to be on the label?
Dr. Eilert. Yes, it was. It was an ingredient.
Mrs. Boyda. You know where I am going with this. I don't
understand why the carbon monoxide--it is not like it--the rest
of the packaging environments that you are talking about are
inert environments meant----
Dr. Sebranek. No.
Mrs. Boyda.--to be pretty much inert.
Dr. Eilert. But they are not inert. Even the oxygen that is
in a high-oxygen package is not inert. It has a----
Mrs. Boyda. Well, obviously, because that is what----
Dr. Eilert. Right.
Mrs. Boyda. Right.
Dr. Eilert. Right. The carbon dioxide that we have in these
packages, as well as in a lot of perishable items, even, for
instance, produce, cheese, and a lot of perishable items, non-
shelf stable items, will use carbon dioxide. That carbon
dioxide reacts with the moisture in the food to form carbonic
acid in the food and that has an inhibitory effect against
micro-organisms. Now, as the product is consumed, as it is
removed from that environment and it is prepared, that
dissipates. And so, again, I think as you think about gases,
you almost have to think about gases in terms of they are
almost like packaging materials and less like ingredients.
Because at the end of the day as I consume the meat, as my
daughters consume the meat that is in that carbon monoxide
packaging, the intake of carbon monoxide is negligible.
Mrs. Boyda. Yes.
Dr. Eilert. However, if I add----
Mrs. Boyda. That I don't disagree with you about.
Dr. Eilert. Okay. But if I add an ingredient--if I add what
is being referenced as a natural flavoring, which is the
competing technology. It is referred to as a natural flavoring
but it has a functional effect, it is there in the meat that my
family consumes. And so I think, as I look at packaging gases,
as we look at packaging gases, and I believe this is how the
Labeling Division has also looked at packaging gases, since
they no longer have a lasting effect or a residual content in
the product that is consumed, then it is not an ingredient.
Mrs. Boyda. Then can I cook a steak and keep it red?
Dr. Minerich. In our package, yes.
Dr. Eilert. Can you cook a steak----
Mrs. Boyda. Can I grill a steak and keep it red?
Dr. Eilert. As long as you don't cook it to too high.
Mrs. Boyda. But if I cook my steak to medium rare or to
rare----
Dr. Eilert. Right.
Mrs. Boyda.--then it is going to be red?
Dr. Eilert. Correct.
Dr. Minerich. In the low-ox packaging system.
Dr. Eilert. Right.
Dr. Minerich. Yes.
Dr. Eilert. Right.
Dr. Minerich. But you will have a very difficult time doing
that in a high-ox packaging system.
Mrs. Boyda. Yes.
Dr. Minerich. Especially at the end of the code date.
Mrs. Boyda. I appreciate the update. This is a learning
experience for me.
Dr. Eilert. We appreciate the questions.
Mrs. Boyda. I come from a background with the FDA, so the
whole thing of binding--it seems to be, even though it must be
an incredibly small amount of ingestion, I just don't
understand how it is not part of the label. I can understand
why you wouldn't want it to be part of a label. I am just kind
of wondering how it doesn't seem to be part of a label.
Dr. Eilert. And to me it still comes down to the base fact
that----
Mrs. Boyda. Sure. You are talking about absolutely
negligible amounts.
Dr. Eilert. Negligible amounts----
Mrs. Boyda. Extremely negligible amounts.
Dr. Eilert.--and compositional quantities. So, I mean, the
meat that we eat is made up of moisture, fat----
Mrs. Boyda. Yes.
Dr. Eilert.--protein, minerals, vitamins. We can analyze
for those things. Those things are there. We can analyze for
the carbon dioxide or the carbon monoxide and we would hardly
be able to find them.
Mrs. Boyda. No, I wouldn't disagree with that.
Dr. Eilert. Okay.
Mrs. Boyda. All right. Thank you so much.
Dr. Eilert. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady and I think in light
of this last discussion, it again points out how disappointing
it is to me that the other company that is involved in this
chose not to be here today. I think this has been a very
educational process. I have learned some more today. I think a
lot of the Members did and that was the purpose of what I was
trying to do here. Had that other company been here, I think we
could have gotten a little bit more understanding of exactly
what is going on here but there may be another day for that. We
have a vote in 15 minutes. Unless any other Members, Mr. Costa,
do you have questions? The gentleman from California.
Mr. Costa. Sorry, gentlemen. This will only be 5 minutes
and relatively tame I hope. I am not sure who is the best to
address this question but you might look around since you folks
feel comfortable with one another. Is there, in your view, any
changes that we ought to be considering as it relates to the
law with the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, on how we
deal with food packaging in its entirety in this country? I
mean, the whole issue of food safety, of course, is on people's
minds these days, not only in terms of issues like E. coli and
importation of various food products. You were talking earlier
about state of the art and always moving science forward, I am
trying to remember which gentleman indicated that. What else
could we be doing?
Dr. Minerich. I would encourage innovation. One thing we
haven't talked about in the form of packaging is active
packaging. I don't see it in here right offhand but many of
these types of packages have an oxygen-absorbing scavenger in
it and that is an actual element, just like this, that is
placed in the package to absorb oxygen. And as you look at
these advances in packaging technologies, different films,
different papers, different trays, they are all designed to
protect the food from the point of manufacture to the consumer.
And so anything that can be done to encourage innovation would
be appreciated.
Mr. Costa. So those are other processes that control
microbial activity outside of the packaging? What about those?
Dr. Minerich. As Dr. Eilert mentioned, carbon dioxide has
been used now for a number of years because it does react with
the moisture in the package, creates carbonic acid, which
actually acts to inhibit microbial growth in packaging systems.
As Dr. Sebranek mentioned, irradiation is a great combination
technology with some other packaging atmospheres that helps, as
a synergistic effect, it will help boost the lethality of that
system.
Dr. Sebranek. I might add that in the research arena, there
are people looking at ways of incorporating a variety of anti-
microbial protective agents into packaging films. They would
interact with the product in such a way to prevent that
oxidative change or microbial changes and so forth. That is a
very active area of research right now. I think we might see
incorporation of various kinds of protective agents into
packaging films in the future.
Mr. Costa. It seems to me that all of you folks, both
working on the academic side and the scientific community and
those representing various leading companies in this country,
have been at the cutting edge. I think all of you probably
agree that sound science is the best methodology in terms of
the pursuit of health and safety goals. Is that not correct?
Dr. Eilert. Correct.
Dr. Minerich. Correct.
Mr. Costa. I want to make note on that point, recently an
industry from my district received the Richard L. Knowlton
Innovation Award, which I think is sponsored by Hormel and
others. Dave Wood and the Harris Ranch operation won for their
innovation and their technology. They always are focusing on,
and I have toured their facility a number of times on, Best
Sound Science. I want to know, do any of you believe whether or
not science indicates that there are any current health risks
associated with the various packaging on food safety? I know we
talked about the different methodologies that are preferred or
used today. Is there any preferred methodology in terms of the
science?
Dr. Eilert. I think that it is important to remember and as
we have discussed in this forum, as it pertains to fresh red
meat or fresh meat and poultry, the primary point of control of
the occurrence of pathogen is at the harvest level. As long as
packaging systems do not increase the potential for rate of
growth or do not increase the overall risk if that pathogen
should happen to occur, then I think a lot of these packaging
formats can be as safe as each other. The importance of using
packaging is to prevent the opportunity for risk like cross-
contamination.
Mr. Costa. But based on risk assessment versus risk
management, there has been no comparative analysis on the
various methodologies that we have discussed here today?
Dr. Eilert. I don't think there has been a comprehensive
risk analysis, as well as risk prevention, comparison of each
of the technologies.
Mr. Costa. From nitrogen to carbon monoxide to high----
Dr. Eilert. Well, in that respect, there are gases that--
the primary gases we use in food packaging that has an anti-
bacterial effect, at the levels that we would normally use, is
carbon dioxide. Oxygen has really no inhibitory effect on
pathogen growth.
Mr. Costa. Nitrogen?
Dr. Eilert. Nitrogen does not have an inhibitory effect on
pathogen growth. And at the levels that we are using, carbon
monoxide----
Mr. Costa. And irradiation.
Dr. Eilert. Irradiation does, irradiation is a kill step.
It is not an inhibitor, it is a kill step.
Mr. Costa. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank
the members of the panel for your very thoughtful testimony.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and hearing no further
questions, we will dismiss this panel. We still have Mr.
Almanza, the new Administrator for FSIS with us. So, gentlemen,
thank you very much. It has been very informative and we
appreciate your being with us here today.
Dr. Eilert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And Mr. Almanza, we will call you to the
witness stand and welcome your testimony and get your take on
what all these guys have said here. Mr. Almanza, am I saying
that right, Almanza.
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Welcome to the Committee. I understand this
is the first time you have been before the Agriculture
Committee. We welcome you here today.
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You are accompanied by Mr. Phil Derfler, is
that correct? Am I saying that right?
Mr. Derfler. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And Dr. Engeljohn?
Dr. Engeljohn. Yes, thank you.
The Chairman. All right. So we are going to have a vote
here in a little bit but I think we have enough time to get
through your testimony. I have some questions and I don't know
what your timing is but we may have to run over and vote and
come back, are you okay with that?
Mr. Almanza. I am here for as long as you need me.
The Chairman. Very good. Well, welcome to the Committee and
we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ALFRED V. ALMANZA, ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD SAFETY AND
INSPECTION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY
PHILIP S. DERFLER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR; AND
DANIEL L. ENGLEJOHN, Ph.D., DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF POLICY, PROGRAM AND
EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT, FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Almanza. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today
to discuss technologies in the meat industry and the processes
that the United States Department of Agriculture and the Food
Safety and Inspection Service use to review new technologies to
protect public health.
Before I begin, as this is my first time appearing before
this Committee, let me take a moment to introduce myself. I am
Al Almanza, Administrator of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service. I have been with FSIS for almost 30 years and have
held numerous positions beginning on the slaughter line in
Dalhart in the Texas Panhandle. Prior to becoming Administrator
at FSIS, I was the Dallas District Manager. I believe my field
experience at the front lines of the agency helps my work a
great deal as the Administrator. As the District Manager and
now as Administrator, I know that there are things that can be
done at the agency that would benefit all, consumer groups,
industry and employees. One such thing is encouraging the use
of beneficial new technologies in the meat industry.
The development of new technologies is largely initiated by
industry itself as it responds to consumer demands. There are
two different types of technologies that are subject to review,
processing technologies and ingredient technologies. Processing
technologies are those technologies developed to aid in the
production of meat, poultry and egg products. Examples of
processing technologies that have been reviewed include carcass
washes, steam vacuum and steam pasteurization. Ingredient
technologies are those technologies that involve the addition
of an ingredient to a product or the use of packaging to ensure
safety, increase shelf life or provide other consumer benefits.
Examples of this kind of technology include carbon monoxide
packaging and irradiation.
For my oral testimony I will focus on ingredient
technologies. A second aspect of new technology involves the
use of new food ingredients in meat food products. Prior to the
year 2000, the review process for new ingredients was lengthy
and cumbersome. FDA was responsible for the initial safety
review. This was then followed by a review by FSIS to determine
the acceptability or suitability of the technology. That is to
determine whether the ingredients serve the purpose for which
it was intended.
In the year 2000, FSIS and FDA entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding allowing simultaneous review of new technologies
to increase the speed with which useful new food ingredients
could be used. FDA determines the safety of the use of a food
ingredient and its safe levels of use. At the same time, FSIS
evaluates whether the ingredient is effective for its intended
use. For example, as a flavoring agent. What this means is that
FDA evaluates the available evidence to see if there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the use of
the substance. FDA looks at a range of evidence in making this
determination, from published studies to data from studies
performed by the sponsor to establish the safety of the use of
the substance. As for FSIS, we evaluate data on whether the
substance will have its claimed effect. In addition, we look to
ensure that the substance will not mislead consumers by making
it appear fresher or more appealing than it actually is.
Because FSIS and FDA perform their functions at the same time,
rather than sequentially, a food ingredient spends less time in
review than it did before the agencies started working in this
way.
One form of technology used by the meat industry that has
received a great deal of attention in recent months is carbon
monoxide in packaging. Carbon monoxide is used to stabilize the
color pigment of meat. When it is red and, therefore, most
appealing to consumers, use of carbon monoxide in packaging
does not impart a color to the meat, it simply maintains its
naturally-occurring color.
In 2002, carbon monoxide, for use as a component of
modified atmosphere packaging, was accepted by FDA as being
Generally Recognized As Safe or GRAS. Carbon monoxide does not
become a part of the product and dissipates as soon as the
package is opened. This is unlike other ingredients used to
stabilize the red color of meat, such as citric acid, sodium
ascorbate and rosemary extract, all of which actually do become
a part of the product. However, to be sure consumers are not
misled, FSIS has required a use-by, freeze-by date to be
included on meat products that use carbon monoxide packaging.
This is to ensure that the shelf life of the product ends
before spoilage occurs.
As Members of the Committee are no doubt aware, FDA has
received a petition asking it to withdraw its decision that
carbon monoxide in meat packaging is Generally Recognized As
Safe. FSIS will continue to make its labeling decisions and its
suitability reviews on the basis of FDA's safety conclusions.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I look forward to addressing any questions you may have and I
also brought along Dr. Englejohn and Mr. Phil Derfler to assist
me with the technical questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Almanza follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alfred V. Almanza, Administrator, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to appear before you today to discuss technologies in the meat
industry and the processes that the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and the Food Safety and Inspection System (FSIS) use to review
new technologies and to protect public health.
Before I begin, as this is the first time I am appearing before
this Committee, let me take a moment to introduce myself. I am Al
Almanza, Administrator of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS). I've been with FSIS for almost 30 years and held numerous
positions, beginning on the slaughter line in Dalhart, in the Texas
panhandle. Prior to becoming Administrator at FSIS, I was the Dallas
District Manager. I believe my field experience at the front lines of
the agency helps my work a great deal as Administrator. As a District
Manager, and now as Administrator, I know that there are things that
can be done at the agency that would benefit all--consumer groups,
industry, and employees. One such thing is encouraging the use of
beneficial new technologies in the meat industry.
FSIS' New Technology Staff
Application of new technologies may help protect consumers from
physical, chemical, or biological hazards; reduce or eliminate such
hazards in the product itself; and improve product quality. Conversely,
the use of an inappropriate technology could result in a product that
could endanger public health.
At FSIS, we recognize the value that new technologies can offer for
public health. Many new technologies have resulted in significant
improvements in the safety of meat and poultry products. For this
reason alone, FSIS would like to see new technological advances
continue, provided those advances are deemed safe and appropriate.
Because the development of new technologies often requires large
amounts of capital and extensive infrastructure, many establishments--
especially small and very small establishments--have difficulty taking
advantage of new technologies. This is one of the reasons why FSIS set
up a New Technology Staff (NTS). NTS, working with our training,
outreach, and education employees, provides assistance and disseminates
information on new technologies.
Evaluating New Technologies
The development of new technologies is largely initiated by
industry itself, as it responds to consumer demands. There are two
different types of technologies that are subject to review: processing
technologies and ingredient technologies. Processing technologies are
those technologies developed to aid in the production of meat, poultry,
and egg products. Examples of processing technologies that have been
reviewed include carcass washes, the steam vacuum, and steam
pasteurization.
Ingredient technologies are those technologies that involve the
addition of an ingredient to a product or the use of packaging to
ensure safety, increase shelf life, or provide other consumer benefits.
Examples of this kind of technology include carbon monoxide packaging
and irradiation.
Processing Technologies
There are four basic questions FSIS asks when evaluating a new
processing technology:
Will this technology affect product safety?
Will this technology affect inspection program personnel
safety?
Will this technology interfere with inspection?
Will this technology be consistent with existing
regulations?
Establishments planning to use a new technology are responsible for
ensuring the continued safety of their workers, their products, and the
environment, inside and outside the establishment, as well as
responsible for providing the information necessary for FSIS to examine
the impact of the new technology on inspection procedures and
inspection program personnel safety. We encourage facilities wishing to
employ new technologies to notify to FSIS before they implement them.
That way, the agency can assess the technology in light of the four
questions I listed. The agency convenes an ad hoc group of experts from
all relevant parts of the agency to perform this assessment. FSIS
attempts to complete its assessment of the technology within 60 days.
Once the assessment is complete, the agency lets the company know if it
has a concern in any of the four areas. If the agency does, the company
has an opportunity to do a study to address that concern.
If the agency finds no basis for objection to the use of the
technology, it posts a brief description of the technology on the FSIS
website in order to inform all interested parties.
Ingredient Technologies
A second aspect of new technology involves the use of new food
ingredients in meat food products. Prior to 2000, the review process
for new ingredients was lengthy and cumbersome. FDA was responsible for
the initial safety review. This was then followed by a review by FSIS
to determine the acceptability or suitability of the technology; that
is, to determine whether the ingredient served the purpose for which it
was intended. In 2000, FSIS and FDA entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding allowing simultaneous review of new technologies to
increase the speed with which useful new food ingredients could be
used.
FDA now determines the safety of a food ingredient and its safe
levels of use, while simultaneously FSIS evaluates whether the
ingredient has its intended technical effect. Allowing these
evaluations to occur at the same time effectively decreases the time
any food ingredient spends in review.
Carbon Monoxide in Meat Packaging
One form of technology used by the meat industry that has received
a great deal of attention in recent months is carbon monoxide in
packaging. Carbon monoxide is used to stabilize the color pigment of
meat, when it is red and, therefore, most appealing to consumers. Use
of carbon monoxide in packaging does not impart a color to the meat; it
simply maintains its naturally occurring color.
In 2002, carbon monoxide, for use as a component of modified
atmosphere packaging, was accepted by FDA as being ``Generally
Recognized as Safe,'' or GRAS. Carbon monoxide does not become a part
of the product and dissipates as soon as the package is opened. This is
unlike other ingredients used to stabilize the red color of meat, such
as citric acid, sodium ascorbate, and rosemary extract, all of which
actually do become a part of the product. However, to be sure consumers
are not misled, FSIS has established a use-by/sell-by date to be
included on meat products that use carbon monoxide packaging. This is
to ensure that the shelf life of the product ends before spoilage
occurs.
As Members of the Committee are no doubt aware, FDA has received a
petition asking it to withdraw its decision that carbon monoxide in
meat packaging is Generally Recognized as Safe. FSIS will continue to
make its labeling decisions and its suitability reviews on the basis of
FDA's safety conclusions.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look
forward to addressing any questions you might have.
The Chairman. I thank you very much Administrator and thank
you for being patient. I purposely put you after the first
panel so we could educate the Committee a little bit about what
the issues are. I thought it might help people focus on some of
the questions that would be raised, although I think the other
panel did a pretty good job. Can you explain, I think you did a
little bit, but what the difference between an ingredient,
which is regulated by FDA, and a process, which is regulated by
you guys, exactly how all that works? I guess that is part of
why we are in this situation we are in right now where we have
the Energy and Commerce Committee over here doing one thing.
So, just explain that process a little bit for me.
Mr. Almanza. Well, as I said, we focus on the ingredient
technologies or the addition of an ingredient to a product or
the use of the packaging to ensure the safety. And the
processing technologies are the intervention steps or other
processes along the way of the process of producing the meat or
poultry product.
The Chairman. So the carbon monoxide decision was made by
you guys but FDA had proclaimed it to be safe, is that correct?
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir. The FDA determines the safety of a
food ingredient and its safe level of use and FSIS evaluates
the suitability of its use.
The Chairman. And you both did that on this product back,
what, 2002 or 2003 or something like that?
Mr. Almanza. 2002.
The Chairman. Yes. Now, this rosemary stuff that this other
company is using that wasn't here today. That has not been
approved by you? That is approved by FDA, is that right, or how
does that all work?
Mr. Almanza. FDA determines the technology or approves the
use of it, yes, sir. And then we were the ones that evaluate
the suitability of it.
The Chairman. So you have a role in that as well?
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And that was approved by FDA and by you?
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. When?
Mr. Almanza. We would have to check but we could certainly
get back to you.
The Chairman. So probably some time prior to 2002?
Mr. Almanza. It would be speculative on my part but I can
certainly get back to you on that, and provide you that
information.
The Chairman. So in this approval process, in this area, it
is just you and FDA that have a role, there is nobody else
involved in this?
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir. It is just us and the FDA. I think
Mr. Derfler had something to add.
Mr. Derfler. From rosemary extract, if it is Generally
Recognized As Safe, it can go on to the market actually without
prior approval.
Mr. Almanza. It is exempt from the food additive provisions
and, therefore, can enter the market. So we are not exactly
sure when it went on.
The Chairman. So why is it exempt?
Mr. Almanza. Under the definition of a food additive in the
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The Chairman. I don't understand. So certain things are
exempt because they have their, what, minimal or something?
Mr. Almanza. If there is a general recognition of safety
among scientists, it doesn't meet the definition of a food
additive and so then there is no pre-market clearance required.
The Chairman. Required.
Mr. Almanza. Yes.
The Chairman. So they didn't have to get approval to do
this?
Mr. Almanza. I am not sure of the exact status of rosemary.
I just wanted to make that clear to you.
The Chairman. And explain to me how this works. It turns
the meat or keeps the meat pink like carbon monoxide does, is
that what it does?
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So why aren't the consumer groups complaining
about this? I mean, if they think the problem is that carbon
monoxide keeps meat pink, why aren't they concerned about this
other process?
Mr. Almanza. I really can't answer that, sir. I don't know
why.
The Chairman. Do any of you know?
Mr. Derfler. No, sir.
The Chairman. Well, hopefully we will be able to talk to
them at some point. What do you do at FSIS to encourage the
industry to adopt new technologies? Do you have any kind of
ongoing process where you work with the industry to encourage
them to improve their technologies or with research
universities?
Mr. Almanza. Well, we have a staff that handles all these
new technologies that are submitted to the agency and certainly
anything that is beneficial to the consumers and is in the best
interest of the consumers. We have a lot of requests from the
industry to evaluate new technologies.
The Chairman. But you don't actually go out and find new
technologies or have anybody within your agency that is working
on this?
Mr. Almanza. No, sir.
The Chairman. You just sit back and wait to look at
whatever people bring you?
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much, Administrator, for being here today. We had a few moments
to chat beforehand and I appreciate how you got into the
business of food safety and USDA. I understand your father
served at USDA for many years.
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kagen. Well, I congratulate you in following in his
footsteps. One of the things that concerns me is the fact that
if we are going to have progress in new technologies that is
really industry-dependent instead of being generated, perhaps,
by your department. Has the FSIS ever been interested in
developing new technologies? And I will give you just a couple
of examples. Some concerns that everybody in America has today
about the safety about imported food, not just from China but
from anywhere in the Caribbean or elsewhere. Would your
Administration be interested in developing a new technique or
technology to assay and test and determine very rapidly and
cost effectively if an imported food substance was contaminated
with E. coli or other pathogens?
Mr. Almanza. Well, sir, and that is a very good question
because as a regulatory agency, we don't fund research per se.
I think that those are great ideas but I don't know how we
would reach that level to do that.
Mr. Kagen. Well, let me get to a basic question. Who is
inspecting our imported food stuff? I understand that 0.1
percent of imported foods, be it meat or vegetables or fish, is
being inspected. Who is doing that?
Mr. Almanza. We have import inspectors, yes, sir.
Mr. Kagen. So that is under your purview?
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kagen. And when they inspect this imported food stuff,
what is it that they do? Do they use a magnifying glass? What
is the extent of their inspection?
Mr. Almanza. Actually, 100 percent is visually inspected,
meat and poultry products, before they come into the country or
as they are coming into the country. But again, it is only
meat, poultry and egg products. And also, we also do a 10
percent more-intense inspection of some of those imported
products, such as we make sure that the containers are still
intact, we make sure that the product is as it is labeled and
things of that nature. So we do some residue----
Mr. Kagen. So that the containers--
Mr. Almanza.--testing.
Mr. Kagen. Correct. So the can isn't punctured or dented or
the cellophane is not perforated.
Mr. Almanza. Exactly.
Mr. Kagen. I understand. Well, are any other countries,
other than the United States, using carbon monoxide and if they
are, are they putting carbon monoxide on the label? And the
reason I get at this question is because if you are visually
inspecting imported meat products from any country, other than
the United States, if it looks good, it must be good. Is that
what they are doing, they are visually inspecting? You wouldn't
know if it wasn't on the label if CO or any other stabilizer of
the myoglobin or hemoglobin was present.
Mr. Derfler. Actually, in addition to them doing the visual
inspection, we, and other countries that export this to the
United States, have to have inspection systems that are
equivalent to ours. And so in the course of that, we make sure
that their systems do provide the same level of safety
protection.
Mr. Kagen. So part of your inspection process is to trust
that a foreign nation is doing their job and living up to our
standards or whatever standards are in the trade agreement, is
that right?
Mr. Almanza. Well, we go over and verify on an annual
basis.
Mr. Kagen. I see. So you actually go to other countries to
inspect their food processing facilities?
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kagen. Excellent. Have you ever found any other
facilities elsewhere, offshore facilities, that did not meet
our standards? No pun intended.
Mr. Almanza. We have found countries that were not
equivalent.
Mr. Kagen. What did you do to remediate that situation?
Mr. Derfler. We de-list the individual. We work with the
foreign country to de-list the individual plants and ultimately
we may take more action.
Mr. Kagen. And is that list generally available? I mean, if
Hormel or Tyson had any such problem, our national media would
be all over it. Do you present that to the public in any form
or fashion? Is there any way that my constituents in Wisconsin
would understand which companies or which nations had fallen to
arrears with this regard?
Mr. Derfler. We list the nations that are equal to in the
Code of Federal Regulations and we do a rule-making process
before we list them.
Mr. Kagen. Okay, all right. So maybe off camera, maybe you
can provide my office with a list of companies or food
processors elsewhere offshore that have not met up to our
standards so I could at least take a sampling of what the
inspection process really is all about. Finally, you are aware
of the studies done on irradiated food. Is irradiation a safer
technique for eliminating bacterial contamination than use of
carbon monoxide?
Mr. Almanza. Is it safer? I would say that the product is,
for the experience that we have, the product is safe. I really
can't comment on it being safer.
Dr. Engeljohn. If I could Congressman? We do agree that
irradiation is an effective technology. It has been found to be
safe. And it is, as was mentioned earlier in the testimony, a
kill step in that it does eliminate pathogens as opposed to
just prevent them from growing.
Mr. Kagen. Is it something that you then recommend to
industry that they pursue such studies or such use?
Dr. Engeljohn. The issue of irradiation, much like what we
are discussing with carbon monoxide, also relates to FDA
approving the technology, in this case, as a food additive.
FSIS, in this particular case for irradiation and its use on
meat and poultry products, petitioned our sister agency to
allow its specific use on meat and poultry as well because we
did find that it would be an effective elimination of pathogens
on the products that we regulate.
Mr. Kagen. What is the current status of that solicitation?
Dr. Engeljohn. Irradiation is approved for use on certain
meat and poultry products and, much like all food additives,
once it is determined to be safe and effective and suitable for
its use, we let the marketplace determine whether or not its
use is going to be available to consumers.
Mr. Kagen. And my final question would be, do you have an
opinion from your Administration as to whether or not there
should be any labeling of meat or other products with regard to
the use of carbon monoxide?
Mr. Almanza. No, we would certainly evaluate it when we got
the request. The other thing I would answer to your earlier
question. We have ARS, the Agriculture Research Service, and C-
R-E-E-S, that both do research and we let them know of our
needs, so that is the research question.
Mr. Kagen. Very good. Thank you very much for your time. I
yield back.
Mr. Almanza. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman--just one moment--we
sent you a letter, Administrator, on September 17 regarding a
public health alert that you issued on August 30. We are having
a hearing next week in Mr. Boswell's Subcommittee. We have not
received a response yet. Will we have a response before that
hearing?
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Very good. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator
Almanza, welcome. Welcome all of you. I would like to follow up
on some of the questions I asked the first panel. Legislation
has been introduced that would require a safety notice be
included on meat and poultry labels warning consumers that
carbon monoxide was used and that they should not rely on the
use-by, freeze-by labels. USDA mandated the use-by, freeze-by
label and I wonder if you would support legislation that
suggests that this label is insufficient?
Mr. Almanza. We would look at the request, as we do with
any other request, Congressman.
Mr. Goodlatte. Do you have any feeling about how the
current system is working?
Mr. Almanza. We are confident with the system and how it
currently functions with FDA and FSIS doing it simultaneously.
Mr. Goodlatte. And on the previous panel, Dr. Sebranek
stated in his testimony that carbon monoxide technology has
been used commercially for almost 5 years and there have been
no complaints that he was aware of from consumers about
unexpected or unusual spoilage. The technology is establishing
a track record that has been free of problems and has not been
an issue with consumers. Now, that is his statement. In your
experience, are you aware of consumer complaints regarding
spoilage or do you agree with Dr. Sebranek's finding that there
hasn't been an issue over this with consumers?
Mr. Almanza. I am not aware of any consumer complaints with
carbon monoxide packaging.
Mr. Goodlatte. I wonder if either of your deputies could
indicate whether they are aware of the agency receiving
complaints about problems with purchase of meat that appeared
to be fresh because of the use of carbon monoxide technology
but proved to be spoiled?
Mr. Derfler. I am not aware of any such complaints.
Mr. Goodlatte. Very good.
Dr. Engeljohn. I am not aware either although we do have a
consumer complaint monitoring system by which we do receive
consumer complaints and that would be one place where we would
go to look to see if there have been any registered there.
Mr. Goodlatte. But you are not aware of any registered
there as of this point?
Dr. Engeljohn. I am not.
Mr. Goodlatte. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boswell [presiding.] Thank you. I just have one
question and then I will defer to you, Mr. Walz. Earlier you
heard a quote from Dr. Rubin at Iowa State that critics that
say MAP is deceptive and hazardous are incorrect. Do you agree
with that?
Mr. Almanza. I am sorry, I didn't----
Mr. Boswell. Critics have said that using modified
procedures, MAP, is deceptive and hazardous. And we asked one
of our previous witnesses if he thought that was so and he said
no. Do you agree?
Mr. Almanza. I would say that the FDA determines the safety
of that process and all we do is evaluate it for its
suitability.
Mr. Boswell. Do you think it is deceptive and hazardous,
yes or no?
Mr. Almanza. No.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. Mr. Walz please.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our panel.
I am sorry I didn't get to get in all of your testimony but I
have read it. We are here today because FDA received a petition
to withdraw the Generally Recognized As Safe designation, is
that correct?
Mr. Almanza. That is correct.
Mr. Walz. All right. As you know of and I guess the FDA
might be the best but I will ask the USDA people here, have
they ever received a consumer complaint on low-oxygen
packaging?
Mr. Almanza. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Walz. Okay. Is there any scientific data that shows
lox-oxygen environment has hurt anyone in this country?
Mr. Almanza. No.
Mr. Walz. Okay. Irradiation, as a way to kill pathogens,
will not alleviate the need for packaging to move that from the
point of production through the whole food chain, is that
correct?
Mr. Almanza. Yes.
Mr. Walz. So the point that had been made by our previous
witnesses is, if the point of the production at the initial
stage, if it is done correctly under proper conditions of
safety, the pathogens will not be there. Meat can spoil and
still not have E. coli, correct?
Mr. Almanza. Correct.
Mr. Walz. So the issue of this is that we have a procedure
that appears by all accounts to move food through the safety
system, does not have an adverse affect on consumers and its
only, I guess, one take on this is that people say they are
being misled because the meat is red longer or something? But
we have also heard that the same thing could be said for high-
oxygen environments where a person could cook it, it would turn
brown, it wouldn't be cooked to 165 degrees, is that correct as
you understand it?
Mr. Almanza. As I understand it.
Mr. Walz. So how will USDA respond? You will wait for FDA
to make a determination on the Generally Recognized As Safe and
then you will proceed accordingly on that?
Mr. Almanza. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walz. Will you have any ability, sir, to go back and
say, ``Why are we going through all of this when, again, we
have had no complaints, no sickness and the only thing we have
is a petition from a competing technology? Does that seem like
the right way to do business for our consumers and consumer
safety is?'' I guess, what I am asking is, where are you at in
this process?
Mr. Almanza. Well, I would say that we would get together
with FDA and go through the process of determining the safety
of the ingredient and just work through it as we did the first
time.
Mr. Walz. I am trying to figure out as to the
jurisdictional part that you have here--we have directors here,
Food Safety and Inspection Service and things like that. Do you
gentlemen have the ability to weigh in on this, I mean, as
independent voices on this?
Mr. Derfler. We consult with FDA but FDA makes the safety
determination.
Mr. Walz. So they will make the final decision?
Mr. Derfler. With respect to the safety.
Mr. Walz. Okay. And as they come down on that, then the
procedure would be back through FDA if we believe that is not
correct. But USDA is the administering authority, if you would,
as opposed to the authority that is going to authorize what is
safe and what is not.
Mr. Derfler. Yes.
Mr. Walz. But they do consult with you?
Mr. Derfler. Yes.
Mr. Walz. They do let you know. Okay. I have no further
questions. I yield back.
Mr. Boswell. Well thank you very much. I think that brings
us to closure on our questions and Mr. Moran has indicated he
has no questions. I want to, on behalf of the Chairman and all
of us, on the Committee, thank you very much for your time to
come up here and meet with us today and we will come back to
you as we have further questions. So we want to extend our
appreciation to this panel, the previous panel, and we look
forward to continued work with you. Thank you very much. That
brings us to closure.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Material
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATS Articles
Trevor Butterworth, October 26, 2007
A Scandal Over Meat Safety?
Michigan Democrats raise fears over ``revolutionary'' meat
packaging process that reduces risk of E. coli, keeps meat fresh
longer. Food safety experts say politicians misleading public on
science. Is a massive Washington lobbying effort by rival Michigan-
based company behind smear campaign?
On September 13, Michael Doyle, a world-leading expert in food
safety addressed the Canadian Meat Council symposium on ``Advances in
Antimicrobial Interventions for Quality Control.'' Doyle, who is
Regents Professor and Director of the Center for Food Safety at the
University of Georgia, discussed a study that he and his colleague Dr.
Li Ma had undertaken which showed that a popular wrapping system that
vacuumed out air and added a tiny amount of carbon monoxide, nitrogen
and carbon dioxide (known as MAP-CO) could not only keep meat fresher
for longer than conventionally wrapping, but could significantly retard
the growth of the E. coli O157:H7 bacterium in ground beef when the
meat was stored above the recommended temperature.
``MAP-CO-treated meat is a revolutionary technology providing
greater protection against foodborne pathogens and extended shelf life
to fresh beef,'' Doyle told the symposium.
And yet, despite E. coli O157:H7 being one of the leading causes of
food-borne illnesses in the United States, with an estimated 73,000
cases of infection and 61 deaths each year, and despite the potential
reduction in wastage from meat staying fresher for significantly
longer, MAP-CO meat is being pulled from the shelves largely due to a
campaign by two Michigan Congressmen and various environmental groups
claiming that the public is being deceived.
On June 25th, U.S. Rep John Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, sent letters to
Safeway Stores, Inc., Tyson Foods, Inc., Pactiv Corporation and Precept
Foods LLC (Hormel Foods Corporation/Cargill Incorporated), which, as
their press release noted, ``questioned the companies' practice of
packing fresh meat in carbon monoxide, which artificially colors the
product and disguises spoilage.''
In less than a month, Safeway dropped MAP-CO packaged meat; and
Reps Dingell and Stupak released another statement praising the
company's decision:
`` `Americans place a great deal of trust in the hands of
grocers and retailers to sell them safe and healthy products,'
said Dingell. `The practice of exposing meat to carbon monoxide
deceives consumers and is a potential health hazard. I commend
Safeway for its decision to stop selling these meats and I hope
other grocers and meat packers will follow suit.' ''
But according to food safety experts and microbiologists at leading
academic food safety programs there is simply no science to support the
charges made Reps Dingell and Stupak against MAP-CO. It also turns out
that Kalsec, a Michigan company with a rival but less effective method
of preserving meat freshness, has spent around $850,000 to lobby
Congress on food safety issues, with some of that money going
specifically to lobby Reps Dingell and Stupak on MAP-CO.
Is carbon monoxide (CO) a colorant?
In contrast to Rep's Dingell and Stupak description of MAP-CO (the
acronym stands for ``modified atmosphere packaging with carbon
monoxide''), scientists say the process is not an artificial way of
coloring meat.
``Meat is muscle tissue,'' explains Susan Brewer, Professor of Food
Science at the University of Illinois, ``and in an oxygen-deprived
environment--inside an animal--it's purple. For it to be red, it has to
be exposed to air, and that's the color consumers identify as fresh.''
But here's the problem: exposure to air will turn refrigerated meat
brown within a few days, and even though it may be perfectly safe to
eat, consumers, typically, see the meat as spoiled. Unfortunately
consumers are not ready to buy purple-colored oxygen-free vacuum-packed
meat either (which is the way meat is packed for the wholesale
industry).
``The red color has been shown many, many times to be critical to
consumer selection and purchase at retail. So, for fresh meat in
retail, oxygen exposure, either using oxygen permeable films or a high-
oxygen package atmosphere has always been necessary,'' says Joseph
Sebranek, University Professor in the department of Animal Science,
Food Science and Human Nutrition at Iowa State University (via e-mail).
Modified atmosphere packaging has been around for years, but the
key to implementing in wrapping meat for retail was to find a way of
achieving the bright red color that consumers understood as signaling
freshness. The solution was to add a miniscule quantity of carbon
monoxide (CO) into a package that contains no oxygen. ``The monoxide
bonds to the exact site as the oxygen molecule,'' says Brewer, ``but
the bond is much tighter--it's stuck--and it keeps the meat a bright
red color. It's not a colorant per se.'' The Food and Drug
Administration an the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture have permitted MAP-CO packaging of meat
since February, 2002.
None of the experts interviewed by STATS saw it as an artificial
coloring process. ``The color is still derived from the meat pigment,
not an external coloring agent, and the color is the same as that from
oxygen. Therefore, this is not deceiving consumers,'' says Sebranek.
``MAP with a small amount of carbon monoxide does not add a new
color to meat,'' says Alden Booren, Professor of Food Science and
Nutrition at Michigan State University, (via e-mail). ``It reacts with
the naturally occurring pigment in meat (myoglobin) to produce a form
of the pigment that is more stable and is not readily distinguishable
from the normal (oxygenated) form of the pigment. Thus it is not a
`coloring' but rather the natural pigment in a slightly different
form.''
MAP with CO does not disguise spoilage--it slows it down
Rep's Dingell and Stupak's contention that MAP-CO ``disguises
spoilage'' is also dismissed by food safety experts and scientists. The
MAP-CO system eliminates oxygen, and without oxygen the key bacterium
that generates spoilage is suppressed. ``Pseudomonas, which in not
pathogenic, is capable of spoiling fresh beef stored in air at
refrigeration temperatures within a few days,'' says P. Michael
Davidson, Professor of Food Microbiology at the University of
Tennessee's Institute for Agriculture (via e-mail). ``If we package the
product with low or no oxygen MAP, this microorganism is incapable of
growth.''
``One of the benefits of the CO system is elimination of oxygen.
That alone provides for a longer product shelf life because both
chemical oxidation (and resulting off-flavors) and aerobic spoilage
bacteria (the fastest growing group of bacteria on fresh meat) are
suppressed,'' says Sebranek. ``What so many players in this game have
missed is that CO permits the use of additional antimicrobial
treatments that provide for greater control of bacterial growth. For
example, it is well-recognized that carbon dioxide will slow the growth
of many bacteria. However, more than about 30% or so carbon dioxide in
a modified atmosphere package with oxygen will cause meat browning.
With carbon monoxide, the amount of carbon dioxide that can be used in
the package is much greater because there is no discoloration, thus
bacterial control is improved.''
The result, as Doyle explains via e-mail, is that ``The shelf life
of refrigerated (<40 F) MAP-CO ground beef is 2 to 3 weeks compared to
about 3 to 5 days for typical over-wrapped ground beef.''
But the most recent finding about MAP is that the CO component also
represses the growth of harmful bacteria when ground beef is stored
above recommended refrigeration temperatures. ``After 4 days at 50 F,
E. coli O157 cell numbers in over-wrapped ground beef increase by 100
fold or more compared to MAP-CO product,'' says Doyle. ``Hence,
refrigerated or mildly temperature abused MAP-CO ground beef has better
quality and microbial safety characteristics than over-wrapped beef
stored under similar conditions.''
When MAP-CO meat spoils
Much of the controversy over MAP-CO is due to the assumption that
the color of meat indicates whether it's safe or not--and that if you
make the red color more resilient, you can disguise spoilage and pass
old meat onto the consumer. But MAP-CO meat will spoil after 3 weeks,
and, as Brewer notes, the key indicator of spoilage is not color but
odor. ``If the meat was spoiled, you would know it,'' she says.
``The COMb (the red pigment form of CO compared to that formed in
air, Oxymyoglobin = OMb) does NOT mask spoilage,'' says Melvin Hunt,
Professor of Animal Sciences and Industry at Kansas State University's
Food Science Institute (via e-mail). ``Most of the opponents of the use
of CO in MAP do not understand the dynamics of meat color (a delicate
balance between being purple-red, bright red, and tan/brown).''
``The use of MAP containing carbon monoxide shifts the consumer's
ability to detect spoilage from looking at the meat, and deciding it is
unacceptable based on color, to examining the sell-by dates or looking
for gas production or a bulged package,'' says Davidson. ``While it
does put more responsibility on the consumer to read the package, using
color to determine acceptability is not foolproof either. Just because
the meat doesn't look particularly bad is not a sign that it is not
spoiled or close to spoilage and the reverse is also true. Actually,
most consumers probably use their noses to make a final determination
as to whether a product is acceptable to cook and that wont change with
MAP.''
Davidson notes that MAP puts an onus on processors and retailers to
set realistic sell-by dates.
``The bottom line here, says Hunt, is that consumers must do their
part and smell the product before cooking and consumption--not a new or
alarming fact.''
Is a rival industry behind the misinformation campaign?
Professor Booren wrote to Rep Dingell a year ago to explain why
describing MAP with CO as a colorant was misleading, and why, after
reviewing all the peer-reviewed literature on the technology, he
concluded that ``the safety of the food supply has not been
compromised.'' None of the scientists interviewed saw any reason for
supermarkets to drop MAP-CO meat or for consumers to be alarmed.
``My opinion,'' says Doyle, ``is that MAP-CO treatment of ground
beef provides a better quality product for an extended period of time
than over-wrapped ground beef. This reduces wastage and gives consumers
more flexibility in time to use refrigerated ground beef.''
But such expert testimony appears to have had no impact on the
political campaign against MAP. ``The Safeway story is just the tip of
the ice berg,'' e-mails Hunt. ``The good Congressmen from Michigan who
seem to be championing the charge against CO are just doing their job
for a Michigan company (Kalsec'). Kalsec' was
going to loose tons of business if the meat industry lead by Wal-Mart
switched from the High-oxygen MAP system to the Carbon monoxide MAP
system. So they poisoned the pot with a lot of WRONG science, which
isn't very hard to do since CO is not the most user-friendly
compound.''
Kalsec has also ``petitioned the FDA to reconsider the approval of
CO packaging and that has been generating numerous media releases that
are strongly worded criticisms of the concept,'' says Sebranek.
``Kalsec is a supplier of antioxidants used in high oxygen packaging
systems, products that are not needed in the CO package. Their
motivation, in my opinion, is economic.''
Lobbying reports show that Kalsec paid $840,000 to the Washington,
D.C. law firm Covington and Burling to lobby Congress and other Federal
agencies on food safety issues, over the past year, as well as making
two sub-$10,000 payments to Prism Public Affairs to lobby specific
Congressmen, including Reps Dingell and Stupak on MAP-CO issues.
And media coverage of the issue has tended to play up fears about
the process. ``Unsafe food and related public health consequences makes
a much better story than does safe food,'' says Brewer. Don Berdahl,
Kalsec's Vice President was extensively cited in a Washington Post
story on the controversy, which also featured advocacy groups voicing
their concerns about safety. No independent food safety experts were
quoted in the story; instead, the Post turned to FDA and industry
sources.
A similar story by USA Today featured Berdahl and
Kalsec' prominently, but also failed to quote any
independent food safety experts.
The result is a sense of alarm among academics that an enormously
useful technology--one that might save an enormous amount of meat from
being wasted--could be doomed.
On September 17, the American Meat Science Association wrote to the
House Agriculture Committee to warn about the misinformation that has
characterized recent discussion of MAP-CO and to announce the
commission of a white paper by top scientists in meat color chemistry
and safety.
``Like any other approved technology,'' the letter concludes, ``the
use of CO in modified atmosphere packaging applications deserves a
chance to succeed or fail on its scientific merits, and not on
misinformation.''
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]