More E. coli testing, labels for tenderized beef, but questions remain in Canadian food safety plans

Canada is strengthening its E. coli testing in summer months and will mandate labeling of mechanically or needle tenderized beef, but some omissions are notable.

• The changes only apply to meat produced at federal plants inspected by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. How do consumers know which is which?

• The labeling requirements only apply to cuts that are tenderized at a CFIA-regulated slaughterhouse. What about cuts that are treated further down the supply system? Health Canada says it’s working on it.

• Most notable, the expanded testing for E. coli only applies to the O157:H7/NM serotype (details of the changes are at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch4/annexoe.shtml). There is no mention of testing for other shiga-toxin producing E. coli (STECs) such as the big six (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121 and O145) which were declared adulterants by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I’m fairly sure that those slaughterhouses that want to continue exporting to the U.S. will have to meet U.S. testing requirements. As a consumer I’d like to know which meat has been produced under such a system of testing.

The changes follow an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 last fall that sickened 18 people. Contaminated product was produced at XL Foods of Alberta and led to the largest meat recall in Canadian history. Several of those sickened were tenderizingPage-282x300thought to have consumed needle-tenderized product (with this technique, outside becomes inside, like hamburger, so should be cooked to 165F for safety reasons; I don’t know anyone that spends on the expense of a roast and then cooks to 165F).

Ritz said, “Canada has a world-class food safety system and our Government is committed to taking real steps to make it even stronger.”

Uh-huh.

Ritz said of labeling of mechanical tenderization beef, “It’s common sense, but it needs to be out there.”

Uh-huh.

Can we guarantee there’ll never be anymore (outbreaks)? No. Anybody that tells you you can is lying to you. It wouldn’t matter how much money, how many people you have on the lines, there’s too many moving parts to Chicago_meat_inspection_swift_co_1906-268x300guarantee an absolute. But at the end of the day, we want to take every precaution we can.”

Uh-huh.

A table of non- E. coli O157 STEC outbreaks is available at http://bites.ksu.edu/nonO157outbreaks

Supermarkets cash in on unfounded fears about food and health

Earthbound Farm senior vice president Will Daniels told the Baltimore Food Safety Summit that food safety should not be a competitive advantage, and to prove that, Earthbound Farm plans to open its wash line and facilities to competitors.

But that does nothing for consumers, the schleps who go buy bagged lettuce at the supermarket.

Food safety should be marketed at retail; it’s the only way consumers can lettuce.skull.norosupport those producers who pay more attention to food safety than the others.

Instead, what dominates at retail is negative marketing.

The Guardian asks, Do I choose the product that is “free from artificial sweetener” or has “no MSG”? What about the one that “contains no GM” or is “paraben-free”?

But these are false choices: supermarkets are misinforming their customers about health risks. There is no scientific evidence to support rumors about adverse health effects from the flavor enhancer monosodium glutamate (MSG), or from foods containing material from plants that were genetically modified, or from the sweetener aspartame, or from parabens, which are used to preserve toiletries.

By marketing products as “free from” supermarkets are playing on people’s fears, which are based on the rumors that have circulated about these substances.

Frustrated by this cynical marketing, a group of junior researchers that I coordinate (the Voice of Young Science network) wrote an open letter calling on supermarkets to stop misleading customers and review their negative claim policies.

Good for them.

Negative marketing by supermarkets based on unsubstantiated concerns exploits people’s attempts to choose healthy products, even pushing them towards alternatives that may not be good for them. It undermines our efforts to help people make sense of stories about food. Products and policies based on evidence are vital to give customers a real, informed choice. Supermarkets need to promote evidence not unfounded fears.

And for all the food safety types racking up frequent flyer miles and talking at endless meetings, do something substantive: market microbial food safety at retail.

food.safe.culture.market

Poop label? Market food safety at retail, not fear

Food labels can be used to shock or shame, illuminate or inform, right-to-know versus hucksterism.

It’s mainly hucksterism. And sometimes fraud.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced today that a federal judge has approved a consent decree of permanent injunction against Butterfly Bakery Inc., a bakery based in Clifton, New Jersey, and its Chicken_labelpresident, Brenda Isaac, for unlawfully distributing misbranded food products, such as muffins and snack cakes.     

Samples tested by both FDA and state officials over several years show that Butterfly Bakery’s product labeling was false and misleading.  For example, laboratory analysis showed that foods labeled as “sugar free” contained sugar, and that certain products contained as much as three times the amount of labeled/declared sugar, two times the amount of labeled/declared fat, and two times the amount of labeled/declared saturated fat.

In the UK, still reeling from food fraud involving horse meat, The Telegraph reports shoppers are seeking more validation about where their food comes from. However, many are bewildered by the variety of claims made by food packaging. The little red tractor that is plastered on many food products, together with claims such as “Freedom Food” and “free range” can be comforting when food supply chain safety is in doubt. But what do these logos really mean, and are you sometimes paying for more than just a misplaced sense of peace of mind? Products bearing these labels and claims often cost more, so it is worth checking whether you think it is worth it before adding to the total cost of your weekly shopping. Here is an explanation of some of the most common labels.

Lion Mark

The Lion Mark on eggs has become common since it was launched in 1998 by the British Egg Industry Council, and the administrators of the mark claim that it means that “eggs have been produced to the highest standards of food safety”. Most significantly, the hens have been vaccinated for salmonella. The eggs produced under the mark are independently audited and have a best-before date stamped on shell and pack.

However, the mark does not guarantee that hens are free range or have high welfare conditions, merely that the eggs are produced to minimum legal requirements. Standard eggs are from hens kept indoors in cages. The Compassion in World Farming report scored the minimum Lion code standards “very poorly” and said they generally ensured compliance only with minimum standards.

Red Tractor

The Red Tractor mark is stamped on a huge variety of farmed goods and claims to be run by “UK farmers, food producers and retailers working together”. Those who use it must pay royalties to the organisation in order to display its jaunty signage. Although people think that the tractor symbol guarantees that your food is British, this is not the case. If you are concerned Food-Labels-Organic-and-Naturalabout the geographical origin of your meat, you must look for a red tractor in conjunction with a Union Flag to guarantee it is from the UK. Other flags indicate that the food is from abroad.

Free range

Most free-range laying chickens are housed in barns and have access to outside land through “popholes”.

There is no legal definition of free-range pork, but it generally means pigs that have access to pasture and are born outside without stalls or crates.

Supermarket own standards

Some supermarkets have higher-than-minimum standards for their own meat. For example, Waitrose and M & S have welfare standards somewhat higher than the bare minimum, so their own-brand products will keep to these standards and may carry a logo to say so.

Labels that mean nothing at all

While all of the above labels have minimum standards attached, there are plenty of claims that supermarket labels use others purely for the feel-good factor, which mean nothing at all. “Natural”, “Country style”, “Farm fresh” and “Garden fresh” are some of these.

In the U.S., vegan advocacy group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine wants stronger regulation of feces in chicken and poop labels.

For me, information is good for those who want it and should be layered in recognition that different people want different levels of information. I want to know what a farmer or processor does to reduce or eliminate levels of dangerous microorganisms, the kind that make people barf. Market food safety at retail.

 

I’ll have snapper, scallops, bay bugs and tuna; stories about mislabeled fish make me want authentic

As Europeans and others try to decide if that burger or frozen lasagna is made with horsemeat, rampant food fraud has once again been snapper.feb.13confirmed in U.S. seafood.

So I had to have fish for dinner.

A two-year investigation of seafood by the world’s largest ocean conservation group, Oceana, found a fillet red snapper could be cheap tilapia; a pricey wild-caught salmon steak from Alaska could be farmed Atlantic salmon from Chile; sushi in a restaurant could be anything.

Elizabeth Weise of USA Today reports Oceana’s volunteers collected fish samples at 674 supermarkets, restaurants and sushi counters in 21 states and found several examples of fish fraud. For instance, 87% of the snapper samples were not snapper. White tuna was mislabeled 59% of the time. Between one-third and one-fifth of the halibut, grouper, cod and Chilean sea bass tested were mislabeled.

“Honestly, it was a surprise,” says Beth Lowell, who coordinated the survey for Oceana. “Everywhere we looked for seafood fraud, we found tuna.feb.13,jpgit. It’s consistent around the country.”

At sushi restaurants, 74% had at least one sample come back mislabeled. At restaurants, 38% had at least one problem sample; in grocery stores, 18% did.

Oceana wasn’t able to determine whether the mislabeling occurred at the supplier, distributor or retailer. Seafood goes through many hands, so it’s easy for someone to substitute it, partly because 84% of the seafood eaten in the United States is imported, according to Gavin Gibbons of the National Fisheries Institute, a seafood industry trade group.

The good news for consumers is that Oceana found mislabeling only in the highest-priced seafood. The five most commonly eaten seafood types in the United States are shrimp, canned tuna, salmon, pollock (used in fish sticks) and tilapia, Gibbons says. All are low-cost and not often substituted.

Oceana’s Lowell offers this advice for consumers:

– Ask questions at the restaurant or market about where the fish comes from.

– When possible, buy a whole fish. Fish look different even when their fillets look similar. ​

Ocenana’s Lowell told the N.Y. Times, “Even a relatively educated consumer couldn’t look at a whole fish and say, ‘I’m sure that’s a red snapper and not lane snapper.’ ”

Reading about all this fish made me hunger for the real thing, or at least some form of verification, so off we went off to our local fish monger.

For lunch we had a chunk of Sashimi grade Yellowfin Tuna. How did I know it was what it proclaimed to be? Fishmonger showed me the rest fish.bbq.feb.13of the fish out back.

For dinner we had some kind of snapper fished off New Zealand, along with scallops and bay bugs (and a pizza for Sorenne).

We’re fortunate to live close to such great seafood, but as fishmonger told me, mislabeling is rampant in Australia as well.

I’m a landlubber and wouldn’t know the difference, but DNA testing is becoming increasingly available and simple. Those retailers that are selling the real deal – and there’s a premium involved – should be able to collect valid data and use that to market their wares. Trust and faith ain’t worth much. Data is.

Market food safety and production techniques or faith the wrath of conspiracy theorists

What is the most effective way to provide information about how food was grown and prepared?

I’ve been touting the same approach to food safety information for 20 years: figure out the best and most meaningful way to provide open access; and no one wants to be the politician who tells constituents, no, you don’t deserve to know.

Restaurant inspection results should be disclosed as local communities are discovering around the world; but what’s the best way? We do stainerresearch on that.

People say they want to know if something is genetically modified; I prefer genetic engineering, because all food is genetically modified in some manner, and sold sweet corn as GE 12 years ago.

No biggie.

Technology seems to have caught up with my democratic dreams and food information is about to flood the mainstream.

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) has agreed with the food industry to publish the results of industry testing of meat products, to provide a clearer picture of standards in the food chain. The results will also be made publicly available.

UK Nestle is preparing to give people instant access to information about the nutritional profile and environmental and social impacts of its products. Anyone who buys a multi-pack of two-finger Kit Kat chocolate bars in the U.K. and Ireland will be able to find out more about what they are made of, how they fit into a balanced diet and lifestyle, and how they were produced, just by scanning the packaging with a smartphone.

Jim Marsden says producers that use high pressure processing (HPP) to control Listeria in deli meats should be allowed to advertise the product as pasteurized.

And Food Quality News reports that bakery manufacturers who want to differentiate themselves in a competitive market should consider communicating safety and quality efforts to consumers.

We do research on that too.

The best farmers, processors, retailers and restaurants should brag about their superior food safety and whatever technology they use to make safe, wholesome food.

Brag about it; embrace it, make it your own.

Kansas focus on problem beef

The Kansas City Star published a couple of highly critical articles about U.S. beef and safety over the weekend.d

A key component was the issue of needle-tenderized beef and I agree, the lack of information about whether meat is needle-tenderized is frustrating, even for those with a PhD in food science.

Many times over the years, I’ve asked industry and retail food safety leaders, what proportion of the beef you sell is needle-tenderized, only to be met with silence or a conversational diversion.

Some leadership.

Excerpts below; the full stories are worth a read.

Three years ago, at age 87, Margaret Lamkin was, according to the Star, forced to wear a colostomy bag for the rest of her life after a virulent meat-borne pathogen destroyed her colon and nearly killed her.

What made her so sick? A medium-rare steak she ate nine days earlier at an Applebee’s restaurant.

Lamkin, like most consumers today, didn’t know she had ordered a steak that had been run through a mechanical tenderizer. In a lawsuit, Lamkin said her steak came from National Steak Processors Inc., which claimed it got the contaminated meat from a U.S. plant run by Brazilian-based JBS — the biggest beef packer in the world.

“You trust people, trust that nothing is going to happen,” Lamkin said, “but they (beef companies) are mass-producing this and shoveling it into us.”

The Kansas City Star investigated what the industry calls “bladed” or “needled” beef, and found the process exposes Americans to a higher risk of E. coli poisoning than cuts of meat that have not been tenderized.

The process has been around for decades, but while exact figures are difficult to come by, a 2008 USDA survey showed that more than 90 percent of beef producers are using it on some cuts.

Mechanically tenderized meat — which usually isn’t labeled — is increasingly found in grocery stores, and a vast amount is sold to family-style restaurants, hotels and group homes. In many cases, grocery stores don’t even know the meat has been tenderized.

The American Meat Institute, an industry lobbying group, has defended the product as safe, but institute officials recently said they can’t comment further until they see the results of a pending risk assessment by the meat safety division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Although blading and injecting marinades into meat add value for the beef industry, that also can drive pathogens — including the E. coli O157:H7 that destroyed Lamkin’s colon — deeper into the meat.

If it isn’t cooked sufficiently, people can get sick. Or die.

There have been several USDA recalls of the product since at least 2000, and a Canadian recall in October included mechanically tenderized steaks imported into the United States.

In a 2010 letter to the USDA, the American Meat Institute noted eight recalls between 2000 and 2009 that identified mechanically tenderized and marinated steaks as the culprit. Those recalls sickened at least 100 people.

The Star examined the largest beef packers including the big four— Tyson Foods of Arkansas, Cargill Meat Solutions of Wichita, National Beef of Kansas City and JBS USA Beef of Greeley, Colo. — as well as the network of feedlots, processing plants, animal drug companies and lobbyists who make up the behemoth known as Big Beef.

What The Star found is an increasingly concentrated industry that mass-produces beef at high speeds in mega-factories that dot the Midwest, where Kansas City serves as the “buckle” of the beef belt. It’s a factory food process churning out cheaper and some say tougher cuts of meat that can cause health problems. The Star’s other key findings:

•  Large beef plants, based on volume alone, contribute disproportionately to the incidence of meat-borne pathogens.

•  Big Beef and other processors are co-mingling ground beef from many different cattle, some from outside the United States, adding to the difficulty for health officials to track contaminated products to their source. The industry also has resisted labeling some products, including mechanically tenderized meat, to warn consumers and restaurants to cook it thoroughly.

•  Big Beef is injecting millions of dollars of growth hormones and antibiotics into cattle, partly to fatten them quickly for market. But many experts believe that years of overuse and misuse of such drugs contributes to antibiotic-resistant pathogens in humans, meaning illnesses once treated with a regimen of antibiotics are much harder to control.

•  Big Beef is using its political pull, public relations campaigns and the supportive science it sponsors to influence federal dietary guidelines and recast steaks and burgers as health foods people can eat every day. It even persuaded the American Heart Association to certify beef as “heart healthy.”

Big Beef, industry critics contend, has grown too big for Big Government to lasso.

Indeed, the U.S. beef industry is twice as concentrated as it was when President Teddy Roosevelt took on and beat the old Armour, Swift, Cudahy and Morris beef trust in the early 1900s. The big four packers today slaughter 87 percent of all heifers and steers.

“Roosevelt,” remarked Montana rancher Dan Teigen, “would be spinning in his saddle.”

Thanks in large part to the Midwest’s grassy plains and ample row crops, the United States produces 26 billion pounds of beef a year from 34 million cattle — more than any other country.

Four of the seven largest beef slaughterhouses — each capable of killing 6,000 head a day — are in Kansas, which leads the nation in meat processing.

The big slaughterhouses are among the last vestiges of old-line American manufacturing, except that they take things apart instead of putting them together. Meat slaughter and processing employs 260,000 people, and Big Beef’s highly efficient plants supply a large share of those jobs in the Midwest.

As a result, despite recent price hikes, beef costs less in the United States than anywhere in the world. It has become America’s crude oil — in high demand worldwide, including faraway lands where a newly-minted middle class is acquiring a taste for more expensive protein.

James Marsden, a food safety professor at Kansas State University, agreed that the industry is improving, but said it could do a better job with mechanically tenderized steaks.

“E. coli is impossible to eradicate from beef cattle,” he said. But a key to eliminating it in mechanically tenderized steaks is to use “interventions” such as spraying lactic acid on the meat to reduce or eliminate surface contamination. Some companies do that, he said, but the USDA does not require it.

For years, the USDA has urged the industry to voluntarily label such products, but found in 2008 that few beef plants were doing so. Costco is among stores that do label such products as being bladed. Those labels advise consumers that “for your safety USDA recommends cooking to a minimum temperature of 160 degrees.”

Not labeling mechanically tenderized beef jeopardizes consumers and puts health officials at a disadvantage if there’s an outbreak, experts said.

American Meat Institute President J. Patrick Boyle responded to the Star articles by stating:

“Nine months ago, we were asked to participate in an in-depth story for the Kansas City Star about the beef industry. We were told that the paper would examine the industry through the eyes of four beef packers. The industry has recognized the need to communicate and to be more transparent. That’s exactly what we all did.

By our count, reporter Mike McGraw benefitted from visits to two large packing plants, at least one feedlot and a processing plant. He was allowed to bring cameras. This was truly unprecedented access to the industry and its operations. Industry executives provided countless interviews. AMI did its best to answer any question posed and even plotted charts when asked for additional data presented in ways that we didn’t have readily available. Our colleagues at other associations responded similarly.

We believed that by cooperating, he would see what we saw: a beef industry that provides the safest and most affordable beef supply in the world. We know that we cannot rest on the progress achieved and must always strive to do better, but we find it impossible to reconcile the conclusions reached by the Star with data from data from CDC, FSIS, OSHA and other agencies. 

The end result was a huge disappointment. Perhaps the most telling aspect in the series is his pejorative use of the term Big Beef (capitalized) throughout the pieces and his references to Big Government (also capitalized). “

Safest food supply in the world isn’t going to convince anybody.

Fail: Cargill recommends washing turkey

Cargill, the owners of the Honeysuckle White brand of turkey, may want to update its turkey prep instructions; and maybe before Christmas.

A barfblog.com reader sent in this label; I enlarged it but my aging eyes still couldn’t make out what it said.

According to the Honeysuckle White website,

“Leave the turkey in its original wrapping and place it on a tray in your refrigerator. Allow five hours of defrosting time per pound. For example, a 14-19 lb. turkey will need 3-4 days to thoroughly defrost. If your turkey hasn’t completely thawed by the time you’re ready to cook it, place it under cold, running water to accelerate the thawing process.”

This will spread Salmonella, Campylobacter and others throughout your kitchen, at home or in a restaurant.

Cargill also recommends, “Rinse the turkey both inside and out with cool water and pat it dry with paper towels.”

Guess Cargill’s not up on the science: don’t wash that bird (unless you killed it in your backyard with a bow and arrow in Kansas, sure, wash it to help get the feathers out; but I thought Cargill had sorta figured that out).

Canadians ‘need to know’ about mechanically tenderized meat

As XL Foods prepares to open next week, it’s still not clear if XL used meat tenderization in its processing, yet Alberta Health Services has previously suggested that tenderization of steaks at Costco stores in Alberta may have factored in the E. coli illnesses.

Shouldn’t it be easy to ask?

Mechanical meat tenderizers use needles and blades to penetrate steak and roasts. Health Canada says the process of mechanically tenderizing meat is a “very common practice” that is used by suppliers, retailers and restaurants “to improve the tenderness and flavour of cooked beef.”

The process can also drive E. coli on the surface of the meat into the centre, making it harder to kill during cooking, CBC’s Marketplace found during a recent test.

Marketplace worked with Rick Holley, a food scientist and microbiologist at the University of Manitoba, to see how the mechanical tenderization process works and what potential risks might exist.

Holley said up to two per cent of meat cuts, steaks in particular, can carry the organism on the surface.

In a test, Holley spread E. coli O157:H7 that he grew in a lab on a piece of beef. The meat was then run through the machines to see what happened to the bacteria on the surface.

In that instance, Holley found that 10 per cent of the bacteria from the surface was forced into the centre of the meat.

An earlier test using a gel visible under ultraviolet light also found that the material on the surface of the meat doesn’t only contaminate the meat – it can also spread to the needles or blades on a tenderizing machine. Holley said it can be “almost impossible” to properly clean the machines, which can then spread E. coli to other pieces of meat that are tenderized.

It’s not clear exactly how much meat processed in Canada goes through mechanical tenderization, but the Public Health Agency of Canada says in a study it could be between 20 to 50 per cent.

It’s difficult to tell which meat products have been tenderized, because after the meat has been treated the tiny holes seal up and disappear.

Holley said that the recent E. coli outbreak is just another symptom of a continuing problem. “Clearly, what we are seeing represents a failure, again, in the system,” he said. “And if things don’t change, we can expect to see this in the future.”

Canada’s agriculture minister, Gerry Ritz, said Friday federal officials are looking at issues surrounding mechanically tenderized meat, stating, such a label would warn people “that if you’re buying this tenderized product at a lesser price, because it’s a lesser cut of meat that’s been tenderized, that it should be labelled to warn you to cook it beyond the temperature that’s required.”

A Canadian Thanksgiving in Australia

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday because it’s largely non-denominational and celebrates the harvest.

I like that. So does Amy. She even feathered her hair 1978-Farrah-style for the occasion.

We also clean the house and have leftovers for a week. I make a great turkey stock.

Canadian Thanksgiving is this weekend, and I’ve hosted meals from Thurs to the Monday holiday over the years. We decided to bring our tradition to Australia, where the biggest challenge wasn’t explaining what Thanksgiving was, but sourcing and then biking home with a 21-pound turkey in my knapsack.

It also cost four times what a Canadian bird would have cost.

This particular bird came from New South Wales, and has some unique instructions on the label.

Washing the bird has long been disregarded because of the food safety risk of cross-contamination; do not wash that bird, you’ll spread bacteria everywhere.

And who puts foil in a microwave? I have no idea how a 600W microwave could cook a 21-pound turkey at home. But the key is, however you do it, use a tip-sensitive digital thermometer to verify safety.

Thanks to all our new Australian friends who made this our best Thanksgiving yet.

Consumer groups urge labeling of mechanically tenderized meat products

On Christmas Eve, 2009, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced some 248,000 pounds of tenderized beef were being recalled and was eventually linked to 21 E. coli O157:H7 infections in 16 states.

Needle or blade tenderized beef is typically used on tougher cuts of beef or pork to break down muscle fibers or to inject marinade into meat. About 50 million pounds of needle- or blade-tenderized meat is produced in the U.S. each month, according to a federal study, but it’s not required to be labeled.

All hamburger should be cooked to a thermometer-verified 160F because it’s all ground up – the outside, which can be laden with poop, is on the inside. With steaks, the thought has been that searing on the outside will take care of any poop bugs like E. coli and the inside is clean. But what if needles pushed the E. coli on the outside of the steak to the inside?

Luchansky et al. wrote in the July 2009 Journal of Food Protection that based on inoculation studies, cooking on a commercial gas grill is effective at eliminating relatively low levels of the pathogen that may be distributed throughout a blade-tenderized steak. But others recommend such meat be labeled because it may require a higher cooking temperature.

Today, members of the Safe Food Coalition wrote today to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack urging him to immediately approve a proposal to label mechanically tenderized beef products. The proposal must be approved by the Secretary before it is sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

Without labeling to identify these products as mechanically tenderized and non-intact products, and information on how to properly cook these products, consumers may be unknowingly at risk for foodborne illness. Labeling of mechanically tenderized products would allow consumers to identify these products in the supermarket.

Based on estimates from the Food Safety and Inspection Service’s 2007 Beef Checklist, approximately 18% of all beef steaks and roasts sold in the U.S. are mechanically tenderized. This means that approximately 50 tons of mechanically tenderized products are produced each month.

USDA has known about this potential threat for many years. As early as 1999, USDA/FSIS publicly stated that mechanically tenderized meat products were considered non-intact products because the product had been pierced and surface pathogens could have been translocated to the interior of the product.

USDA/FSIS further stated, “As a result, customary cooking of these products may not be adequate to kill the pathogens.” At that time, USDA/FSIS said that they would not require a label for these products but strongly encouraged industry to label all non-intact, mechanically tenderized meat products with safe food handling guidance. To date, industry labeling of these products is rare.

In June 2010, the Conference for Food Protection petitioned FSIS to put forward regulations that would require mechanically tenderized products to be labeled.

The letter to Secretary Vilsack is available at http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/Comments.SFC.Vilsack.Mech.Tenderized.Meat8.23.12.pdf