Shoppers who judge the freshness of meat by its color may be deceived by a relatively new industry practice of treating meat with carbon monoxide, critics say.
The meat industry defends the use of carbon monoxide to help meat retain its pink hue, saying large sums of money are wasted when sellers throw away meat that is still safe to eat but is not as attractive because it is slightly brown.
Carbon monoxide-treated meat could be left on the kitchen counter for five days and would still look bright red and fresh. Carbon monoxide “also suppresses bad odors and the presence of slime, other telltale signs that meat is spoiled…”
Since 2002, the FDA has allowed three meat producing or packaging firms to use carbon monoxide under a process known as “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS. Under GRAS notifications, the FDA conducts no research on its own, instead relying on the notifier’s documents confirming the safety of the product.
If you’re new to questioning the Establishment, read Upton Sinclair’s original tale of meat-packing horrors, “The Jungle”. This novel brought worldwide recognition to the United States for investigative journalism.
I remember reading a story like this a few years ago though. But it was with salmon and other fish. Don’t remember them saying anything about red meat like beef.
Hunting….the ethical, fresh, carbon monoxide free alternative…
I go by the expiration date when purchasing. As soon as we get home though, most goes into the freezer.
I imagine it might take a few cases of E. coli 157 poisonings to wake this administration up to the fact that regulations are there to help the unknowing consumer. I still believe that if more CEOs were charged with a crime for allowing faulty products on the market then there would soon be a lot fewer instances. Like the Libertarians say, its called “Taking Responsibility for Your Own Actions”.
Steve
That is such an uncouth way of saying the meat packers get more for human consumption then they do for dog food.
(You’re right though)
Pat:
The libertarian answer is not just to put CEO’s in jail for releasing faulty products. Hiding the difference via a cosmetic treatment and not telling consumers about it is WRONG, and should only be allowed after FORMAL, LONG TERM, THIRD PARTY verification.
The libertarian answer is INFORMATION, telling the consumer when the meat was “created”, how it was processed, etc, and very possibly charging various prices for the differences.
Concerned about pestisides? Buy organic, but pay more, because at least for now, it costs more to produce it (so to speak). Same should go with the Carbon Monoxide treatement.
EVERYTHING has risk, and the best we can do is to figure out what they are, inform people, and let them make decisions.
And most importantly, in cases like this (food preservation), there are many people in the world who would be much better off with treated (CO, irradiation, etc) food than none at all.
Instead of smoking that ham this weekend maybe I’ll just strap it to the end of the tailpipe..
Lou
Great points. I disagree about letting everyone “know” or “informing” though. There is a limit to what any brain can hold. If I was told about all the dangers that are in everything I purchase or MIGHT purchase I would surely misinterpret or forget much of it. Many experts spend a lifetime in their field and still don’t know it all.
I am not expert enough to predict that the seatbelt will not hold in a frontal crash. Nor could I predict that the tires will blow if driven at highway speed with a full load in 90 deg. weather. I couldn’t tell you if that dish detergent will cause dermatitis in 1/3 of people by just looking. And I have no idea if those children’s pajamas are fire retarded and if so, will it cause a rash in some children.
In the Industrial Safety world we work on the opposite principle. There can be no excuse for an unsafe condition. Telling someone to be careful is NOT safety and leaves the employer in violation. If an unsafe condition exists, then fix it!
Consumer products must be made so the unsophisticated consumer is not injured because of the advantage of the manufacturers superior knowledge.