t,

en

aan

for

s, e teat t oSystems Stand t control towards systemhe tgrowing inuence of authorities and legislation besides an increase

in distribution requirements. The Nutrition and Health period has only just started. Global health problems related to food and

known in ancient times (Pederson, 1979). Such type of prod-

1.2. Classication

For the purpose of this paper meat products will be clas-sied into 4 categories:

Where spreadable liver pate is clearly classied as groundand Serrano ham as whole muscle, there are products inthe market, such as reconstructed cooked ham, which aresituated somewhere in between categories I and II. Forthe purpose of this paper we consider the mentioned prod-uct as whole muscle.

* Tel.: +32 9 370 02 11; fax: +32 9 372 50 00.E-mail address: Frank.vandendriessche@imperialmeatproducts.com

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

200ucts was found in old Greek, Roman and even Babylonicscripts. In Northern and Central Europe meat animalswere slaughtered before winter (November). Not all themeat, suddenly available, could be eaten at once. Theremaining part was processed to preserve the meat for laterconsumption. Processing meat to meat products is a way topreserve meat, like cheese is a way to preserve milk.

Most of the existing processed meat products t in oneof the four categories. The borderline between heat treatedand non heat treated can be xed on a core temperature ofaround 50 C and/or absence of any visual heat denatur-ation of the myobrillar meat proteins.

Above 50 C temperature starts to become lethal for(heat sensitive) microorganisms. The dierence betweenground and whole muscle is less clear to be dened.the (potential) answers of the meat industry are highlighted. For meat products the energy (fat) level, the sodium level and fat qualityin terms of fatty acid composition are the main priorities. 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Food safety; Nutrition and health; Quality; Meat processing

1. Introduction

1.1. History

Meat products or processed meats are the result of theneed to preserve meat in ancient times. The knowledge topreserve meat by making fermented sausages was already

Whole muscleproducts

Ground products

Heattreated

I = cooked ham II = luncheon meat

Non heattreated

III = dry cured ham(e.g. Iberico ham)

IV = fermentedsausage (e.g. Chorizo)Meat products in the pas

Frank Vand

Imperial Meat Products, Grote B

Received 12 February 2007; received in revised

Abstract

An illustrative overview is given of the history of meat productcomplementary periods can be dened in terms of realisations, thrago and was characterised by the introduction of the ISO Qualitycontrol for guaranteeing Food Safety and Quality was obvious. TPushed by Food Safety scandals this period is characterised by a

Meat Science 78 (0309-1740/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.10.003Food Safe

ards. A trend from producy Period started with the introduction of HACCP.mphasizings and opporhe present situation. Threeunities. The Quality peridierent consecutive andd started about 15 yearstoday and in the future

driessche *

200, 9920 Lovendegem, Belgium

m 10 October 2007; accepted 10 October 2007

www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

8) 104113

MEATSCIENCE

The technology of preservation by means of aw decrease

t Sccombined with a pH decrease, can be considered as the old-est technology. aw reduction may be obtained by saltingand/or drying. Historically, dried products were air-dried;aw decrease by salting was achieved by means of a brineimmersion or by rubbing the surface of the meat with coarsesalt crystals. If fermentation was involved, this was mainlydue to the meat borne microorganisms. Little was knownabout the processes of fermentation, brine immersion ordrying.Meat processing was considered being an art, a craft.

2.2. Meat products today

2.2.1. Areas of emphasesWe can consider 3 periods over the last 25 years with dif-

ferent emphases within a continuous growth of scienticknowledge of the Meat Processing Technology:

(a) Period of quality.(b) Period of quality and food safety.(c) Period of quality, food safety and nutrition/health.1.3. Preservation

The technology of preservation, for categories I and II,is heat treatment. Heat treatment to kill vegetative cells ofpathogens (pasteurization) (ref P = 1 equals 1 min at 70 Cbased on the lethal eect on Streptococcus faecalis) or tokill spores of pathogens (sterilization) (ref F = 1 equals1 min at 121 C based on the lethal eect on Clostridiumbotulinum spores).

Categories III and IV will obtain a longer shelf life (orshelf stability) due to a reduction of the aw value (drying,salting) or a combined eect of aw decrease and pHdecrease (fermented products).

In Central and Northern Europe, for fermented productspHdecrease (pH5.65.8 decrease to 4.64.9) contributes in amore signicant way to the preservation, whereas in Medi-terranean countries aw drop is the signicant parameter.

In ancient times smoking was an additional preservationtechnique, especially against surface spoilage (moulds).Today smoking involves only a avour contribution.

2. Evolution of meat products: yesterday, today and in thefuture

2.1. Meat products yesterday

Meat processing originates in the need to preserve meat.It is said that the success of the Roman army in conqueringnearly all the territories of the Old World was partly dueto the knowledge of preserving meat (dry cured ham andfermented sausage), which made the long distance supplyof the troops feasible.

F. Vandendriessche / MeaIt is clear that quality, food safety and nutrition/healthare interrelated. Grunert (2006) discussed lifestyle withregard to future trends in meat consumption from a mar-keting point of view and distinguished quality, shoppingand cooking aspects. Naes Riester (2006) discussed driversfor change in the meat industry. He considered political,economical and social aspects. Quality is linked to econom-ical aspects, food safety and nutrition/health are linked toeconomical, political and social aspects. Stability of aknown quality level was the main economical driver ofthe ISO9000 standards. Political aspects became importantafter major food safety incidents such as the dioxin andBSE crises. Social security costs increased due to foodrelated health issues such as obesity and cardiovascular dis-ease, which urged politics to evolve beside social aspects.

Requirements for quality are standardized in ISO9000standards. Requirements for quality and food safety aretranslated into private label standards such as BRC andIFS. Growing importance and power of modern distribu-tion increase the value of such standards.

2.2.2. Period of emphasis on quality

For the meat industry this period is to be situated in theeighties-nineties. The food processing industry in generaland the meat industry in particular were among the latestto implement Japanese based ISO9000 quality system stan-dards. This was fundamental to t the later requirements.Compliance with these standards was motivated in 2 dier-ent ways: commercial (customer requirements) and internal(quality awareness).

The former contributed to the devaluation of the stan-dard, as only the paper certication was of importance.The latter estimated such a standard as benecial.

Positive aspects for the meat industry were the organiza-tional structurization, the methodological standardization,a system based on quality assurances versus control basedand the standardization of the quality on a previously cho-sen level.

Negative aspects to be considered were the devaluationof the standards mainly due to commercially driven certif-icates, the devaluation of the certicates due to commercialcompetition of auditing bodies, the certication being inde-pendent of the chosen quality level and the ISO standardbeing generic with too many possibilities for interpretation.

During this period meat processing evolved from a crafttowards a science based technology. Examples are the gener-alization of the use of starter cultures for fermenting of sau-sages, initiated byNiinivaara (1955) andNiinivaara, Polyce,and Komulainen (1964); the standardization of raw materi-als (e.g. fat composition); the use of slaughter byproducts(e.g. plasma) and the introduction of company labs.

2.2.3. Period of emphasis on quality and food safety

Transition from one period to another went smoothly,with the introduction of Hazard Analysis of Critical Con-trol Points (HACCP) systems.

HACCP became a universally accepted (preventive)

ience 78 (2008) 104113 105method for food safety assurance. HACCP became manda-tory by EU regulation 94/93. Retailers incorporate the

t ScHACCP requirements in standards such as BRC andIFS.The EU objectives concerning food safety as discussedin emphasize the importance of HACCP. An example of apractical interpretation of HACCP is found in Vanden-driessche and De Smedt (1997).

Food safety became more and more actual due tochanging eating habits, changing of products, changingof the population and increased food infections.

Eating habits moved more and more from hours cook-ing to convenience, ready-to-eat products. This change inthe market initiated new products and product presenta-tion towards more risky products on the food safety level.The dierence between sliced on the spot at the butchersversus presliced prepacked (2 weeks ago) in the supermar-ket needs no discussion. Often products are made in oneEU country and sold weeks later 1000 miles away. Eco-nomically driven product development also resulted inproducts at higher food safety risk. Less drying or shorterproduction times resulted in higher aw values, sometimeschanging the product from initial shelf stable to a productto be kept under refrigeration (dry cured products). Ourpopulation is getting older, resulting in a decrease of e-ciency of the immunodefense system, making this groupof customers more vulnerable to food borne infectionsand/or intoxications. Retailers do not always comply withthe cold chain. This change entailed an increase of microbi-ological risks for meat products.

Campylobacter is the most common cause of bacterio-logical gastro-enteritis (Ghar, Francois, Cornelis, Jouret& Dumont et al., 2002a). This is linked to poultry and isless extended to pork and other meat. E. coli 0157 in foodsfrom animal origin is discussed by Chahed et al. (2002). Heconcludes that it is a risk for beef based products. Remem-ber the E. coli case in fermented sausages made from mut-ton in Norway last year. Listeria monocytogenes prevalencein foods from animal origin was estimated an importantfactor in transmission and epidemiology of Listeria infec-tans (Ghar, Cornelis, Jouret, Dierick & De Zutter et al.,2002b). For Salmonella, Ghar, Francois, Cornelis, Jouretand Dumont et al. (2002c) concluded pork and poultrybased products at risk. Wybo, Wildemauwe, Godard, andCollard (2002) reported laboratory-conrmed Salmonellaincidence in Belgium between 1987 and 1999 to be doubledto a value up to 160 of 100,000 inhabitants. Salmonella andCampylobacter infections in humans in England and Walesis discussed by Humphrey and Jrgensen (2006). Growingnumbers of reported cases were seen and linked to dierenttypes of meat. Reduction of prevalence of infection in farmanimals was suggested.

In this (food safety) period industry is faced with a mul-tiplication of standards: HACCP, ISO9001, ISO9000-2000,IFS, BRC, Danish HACCP criteria, Dutch HACCP crite-ria, Supermarket Food Safety (FMI) inspection list, theSafe Quality Food standards SQF1000 & SQF2000,EFSIS, etc. Most of them are private standards, used by

106 F. Vandendriessche / Mearetailers for their suppliers, and all of them pretend to guar-antee the same: a certain level of food safety.The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), an initiativeby the CIES in 2003 to harmonize the private food safetystandards, has not been successful. The used slogan Oncecertied, everywhere accepted remains a desire of the pro-cessors. Food safety used as a competitive issue by theretailers has made this initiative fail.

The nal check against the level of compliance with astandard is done by means of an audit. Auditors possessscientic knowledge of the technology used by the com-pany to be evaluated, sucient experience in the businessactivities of the company to be evaluated, lead assessoror equivalent training and language skills.

The more certicates were required, the more auditingbecame big, competitive business, and the more dicult itbecomes to get a suciently competent auditor. An inexpe-rienced British, English speaking auditor, performing anaudit in a French company with a German translator isnot a guarantee for an ecient, qualitative audit.

All the above mentioned resulted in a certain devalua-tion of the quality of audits and certications.

In conclusion, quality of meat products became morestandardized on a known level and growing knowledge ofthe meat processing technology resulted in an economicallydriven new product development towards products at ahigher food safety risk. Quality systems were consideredfoundations for food safety systems and too many stan-dards were introduced covering the same target. Compe-tent auditors are hard to nd and the competitionbetween auditing bodies causes devaluation of the dierentcerticates.

2.2.4. Meat processing today: period of emphasis on quality,

food safety and nutrition/health

The importance of the link between nutrition and healthbecomes more and more a hot topic. Aggett et al. (2005)reviewed the following nutrition and health links: dietrelated cardiovascular disease, bone health and osteoporo-sis, body weight regulation, insulin sensitivity and diabetes,food related cancer and physical performance and tness.

LDL cholesterol and blood pressure are well-establishedmarkers for risk assessment of cardiovascular disease.Sodium intake and the link to blood pressure is generallyaccepted. Higher blood pressure increases the risk of car-diovascular disease. LDL, HDL cholesterol and triacyl-glycerol levels in blood are directly linked to quantityand quality of fat in the diet. Meat products contributeto salt and fat intake in the diet. In China hypertensionhas tripled since 1958, cardiovascular disease has becomethe number 1 killer (2.6 million cases a year) (Xiaosong,2007).

The eect of osteoporosis on skeletal disorders at amature age is linked to the initial bone mineral density(BMD). Intake of Ca before adolescence and maintaininga sucient intake dose later in the diet is key. Meat andmeat products are not a signicant source for Ca.

ience 78 (2008) 104113Overweight and obesity are becoming more and morevisual in society.

Over the past 2 decades the prevalence of overweightand obesity in children has increased rapidly (Lisseauet al., 2004). Health care costs have increased dramaticallydue to an obesity epidemic. In the USA a more than three-fold increase was observed between 19791981 and 19971999 (Wang & Dietz, 2002). According to Xiaosong(2007) obesity aects more than 20% in the US, between10% and 20% in China and up to 10% in Europe. Table1 shows a comparison of selected nutrients in beef, lamband pork per 100 g according to food composition dat-abases from four countries (Chan, Brown, & Church,1995; Danish Institute for Food & Veterinary Research,2005; USDA, 2005). Overweight, metabolic syndromeand diabetes are correlated with the quality and energylevel of the diet.

Aggett et al. (2005) suggested that approximately onethird of all cancers are caused by inappropriate intakeand imbalance of food components. The epic study (Noratet al., 2005) suggests a relation between colon cancer andthe consumption of processed meat products. For the latternitrosamines as cancerogenic substance remain actual.

Our genetic heredity that resulted in our sensorial needfor food to cover our biological needs goes back to tenthousands years. In those times physical activity was

important to survive (e.g. hunting). Exponential changein lifestyle over the last decades, with a continuous decreaseof physical activity and consequently reduced biologicalneed for food without the change in our sensorial needfor food and the abundant availability of it, has movedthe nutrition/health balance in a negative direction.Although physical activity is not a nutrition issue, lack ofit has important consequences on the nutrition/health bal-ance. A more positive review with emphasis on the role ofred meat in our diet is given by Williamson, Foster, Stan-ner, and Buttriss (2005).

2.2.4.1. Possibilities and limitations of processed meat

products. Table 2 summarizes the positive and negativenutrition and health aspects of processed meat products.There exist dierent possibilities to correct the dierent cat-egories of processed meats. Fatty acid composition (Omega36, CLA) may be changed by directly adding to the prod-uct mix for ground products, or by changing the composi-

Table 1Comparison of selected nutrients in beef, lamb and pork (per 100 g)according to food composition databases from four countries

Denmark UK Australia USA

Beef, lean, raw

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113 107Energy (kJ) 470 571 520 531Protein (g) 22.3 22.5 23.0 22.3Fat (g) 2.5 5.1 3.6 3.5Niacin (mg) 10.1 5.0 3.0 6.5Vitamin B12 (lg) 1.4 2.0 1.1 0.9Iron (mg) 2.4 1.8 2.0 1.6Zinc (mg) 4.7 4.1 4.2 4.0Selenium (lg) 6.5 7.0 10.0 30.8

Lamb (leg), lean, rawEnergy (kJ) 545 651 501 561Protein (g) 20.2 20.2 20.4 20.5Fat (g) 5.5 8.3 4.2 5.1Niacin (mg) 7.5 5.4 5.6 6.3Vitamin B12 (lg) 1.2 2.0 0.9 2.8Iron (mg) 2.2 1.4 2.3 1.8Zinc (mg) 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.8Selenium (lg) 1.4 2.0 10.0 23.4

Pork, lean, rawEnergy (kJ) 445 519 N/A 502Protein (g) 21.6 21.8 N/A 20.9Fat (g) 2.1 4.0 N/A 3.4Niacin (mg) 7.3 6.9 N/A 4.4Vitamin B12 (lg) 0.7 1.0 N/A 0.8Iron (mg) 0.7 0.7 N/A 1.2Zinc (mg) 3.6 2.1 N/A 2.0Selenium (lg) 6.9 13.0 N/A 28.9

Sources: Chan et al. (1995); Red Meat and Health Expert AdvisoryCommittee (2001); Danish Institute for Food and Veterinary Research

(2005b); USDA (2005).N/A: data were not available.tion of the fatty acids in the animals by adapting the feed.Especially for ground products dierent additives with ahealthy perception can be added, such as phytosterols(cf. benecol), vitamin A, pro-vitamin A, lycopene, specialoils (olive oil, amaranth), wellness herbs, ginseng, yoghurt,bres and calcium. For fermented products the use of proand prebiotics is also an option. More signicant in themarket are fat reduction and salt (sodium) reduction. Thepresence of nitrosamines and poly-aromatic carbohydrates(PACs) in smoked products remains an issue.

As already mentioned overweight (25 < BMI < 30) andobesity (BMI > 30) are an increasing health issue. Standardfemale adults need 2000 kcal/day, males 2500. Continuousover-intake results in an increasing BMI, passing the valueof 25. Main energy contributors are fat (9 kcal/g) and sugar(4 kcal/g). Empty calories, such as to be found in sweetsoftdrinks, contribute signicantly to the overweight and

Table 2Positive and negative nutrition and health aspects of processed meatproducts

PRO

Rich in proteinsLow in sugarHigh-grade proteins (sulphurous amino acids)Pork fat = rich in unsaturated fatty acidsVitamin B6/B12 (thiamine, riboavin, cobalamine)Vitamin CRich in absorbable haem Fe (red meat only)Good source of ZnRich source of glutalthione

CONTRA

Too rich in energy (fat) (except cat. I, III)Too salt (raw products) (cat. III, IV)Low in breLow in CaBiogenic amines (fermented products) (cat. IV)

NitrosaminesPACs (smoked products)

obesity problems. As meat and processed meats are gener-ally low in sugar content (10

Poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 5.310.00.5 1.00.2 1.7

Table 6Omega 6/Omega 3 ratio

Product without corrected Omega 6/3ratio

Omega 3 test

n Mean SDa n Mean SD

Cooked ham 6 11.1 2.3 6 3.7 1.1Chicken ham 5 13.0 2.9 5 2.5 0.5Pate 2 7.8 2.0 3 2.8 0.3Meat loaf 2 6.1 0.5 2 3.1 0.5

Dry sausage 4 11.6 4.2 4 3.1 0.9Bacon 2 7.8 2.3 4 2.7 0.7

a

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Scquality and yield. If lowering sodium content goes togetherwith a reduced fat content, this could cause problems due tothe decreased ionic strength (replacement of the fat bywater). Due to the lower fat content in category I productsthey recommend an NaCl reduction for cooked ham prod-ucts up to 1.82.0% without use of phosphates and 1.7%with the use of phosphates. NaCl reduction in categoryIV (fermented sausage) products cannot be seen indepen-dently of pH. Min. 2.25% NaCl is needed with already neg-ative eects on rmness and avour as stated by Ruusunen,Vainionpaa, Lyli, Lakteenaki and Niemisto et al. (2003).Control of the microbiological factor is the most importantfactor, so salt reduction in fermented sausage will be limiteddue to food safety restriction rather than technologicalrestriction. As for category III (dry cured ham) the shelf sta-bility is only obtained by aw decrease due to NaCl additionand drying. Food safety will determine the level of saltdecrease rather than technological or avour issues. All saltreplacers with a similar eect on aw have a decreasing eecton avour in comparison to common salt. There are analyt-ical consequences for reduced salt products: important forhealth is Na+. Not all sodium in meat products originatesfrom NaCl. Table 7 shows an impression of NaCl and Nacontent of dierent products of dierent processed meatcategories. The common analytical method of salt detectionby Cl detection will underestimate the real Na+ content.Where reduced salt products are concerned, salt analysisby means of Na+ is recommended. NaCl contains 39.3%

SD = standard deviation.Na; 2.5 times Na concentration = NaCl concentration.The actual sodium intake exceeds the nutritional recom-

Table 7Impression of NaCl and Na content of dierent products of dierentcategories of processed meats

NaCl(from Cl)

Na+a NaCl(from Na+)

Cat. I Cooked ham 2.0 0.9 2.3Cat. II Cooked sausage,

Chicken (cooked)sausage

2.0 0.9 2.3

Meat loaf 2.0 1.1 2.8Cat. III Dry cured ham 5.8 2.2 5.5Cat. IV Fermented sausage 3.3 1.5 3.8

a From Nubel Belgische Voedingsmiddelentabel (1999).mendations (max. 6 g/person) in the western world. Themain source of Na+ is common salt (NaCl). In industrial-ized countries bread is an important source of Na+ intake,besides processed meat products and cheese. In public com-mon salt (NaCl) is discussed, however, Na is of concern tohealth. In meat processing other sodium sources are used,although in a less but still signicant amount: sodium ascor-bate, sodium lactate, sodium acetate, sodium citrate,sodium phosphate and sodium glutamate. Reducing Na+

in meat products can be done by replacing NaCl by othersalts, such as KCl and MgCl2. Replacing Na

+ by K+ orMg2+ is limited due to the introduction of a bitter taste. Bet-ter results are obtained with mixtures of dierent mineralsalts. The perception of salty taste is inuenced by custom-ary dietary levels, this means that after a certain time on alower Na diet people get used to the new and less salty taste.As sodium salt inuences texture characteristics it alsoinuences texture related avour characteristics. Perceivedsaltiness seems to be dependent on fat and lean meat con-tent: the more fat, the higher the perceived saltiness (Ruus-unen, Vainionpaa, Lyli, Lakteenaki & Niemisto et al.,2003). NaCl is also important for the decrease of water lossduring cooking, i.e. for monitoring an acceptable waterholding capacity (WHC). NaCl reduction may make theuse of phosphates necessary.

As far as adding nutrients is concerned, only categoriesII and IV products are considered, as, during processing,adding of auxiliaries and supplements is easy, such as Ca,ALA (improvement Omega 6/Omega 3), Fe, Se, FolicAcid or Glutathion. Only ALA is used in a certain way,Ca could be a possibility. The main problem is the com-munication to the customer. The probability exists thatthe consumer considers such a product as abnormal,chemical and pharmaceutical. Up to today no real com-mercial success has been noticed in adding nutrients tomeat products.

Adding microorganisms with known benecial eects tohealth could be a possibility for fermented products. Exam-ples can be found in the dairy industry: Active Bidus,Actimel and Yakult. The use of benecial microorgan-isms is theoretically possible, but marketing-wise not (yet)feasible.

Some internationally known companies specialized inspices and herbs, try to promote the addition of healthyspices/herbs, marketed as Wellness spices. All theseactivities only t niche market activities and are, actually,of no signicant importance in the meat processing industry.

As far as free additive processing is concerned, con-sumer perception is against additives, more explicitly E-number declaration. This perception is partially unjusti-able, as a number of additives is required for food safetyreasons. Some products appear on the market withoutadded additives, but in reality the auxiliaries are addedin an indirect, more natural, justiable way. In this contextfree additive processing under the actual market condi-

ience 78 (2008) 104113 109tions does not exist. Replacing the antioxidant Vitamin Eby rosemary extract is an example of this.

Other market trends not necessarily linked to nutritionand health are animal welfare and traceability. Althoughanimal welfare is not linked to nutrition and health, it isworth mentioning as an actual trend. Processing as suchis not involved, only animal production is concerned. Itis more and more promoted by modern distribution chan-nels, especially in Britain. As modern distribution tends tostate that they translate the consumers wishes, the futurewill prove if the consumer is willing to pay for the addi-tional cost. It is to be questioned if animal welfare is ratherused as a competitive issue. Traceability becomes the magicword after major crises, such as dioxin and BSE. In fact,traceability itself does not guarantee food safety or health,it is an economic issue, because it provides the possibility toreduce the economical impact in case of a crisis. In trace-

egory-specic criteria also exist as stated in Table 9. Otherproduct category-specic criteria for bread and meat prod-ucts are actually evaluated by an independent scienticcommittee. One can generally comment that the lack ofpure energy criteria is a pity. The risk to end up in toomany product category-specic criteria is real. The successof such a label will highly depend on the number and vari-ety of food processors who participate and on the use ofprivate label products in modern distribution. Another ini-tiative within the processing industry is the initiative of theFederation of Belgian Food Processors (Fevia, 2006) inwhich the following aspects of management are considered:the food processing industry supports a healthy lifestyleand produces a wide variety of foods that t an equili-brated diet. Also product development and innovation

ni

1

s fo. 3)

110 F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113ability three aspects are to be evaluated: reliability (hand-written registration is less reliable than using informaticssystems), completeness (are all raw materials and auxilia-ries involved, e.g. water for brine preparation) and accu-racy, which is determined by the company as aneconomic, justiable equilibrium between cost and risk.The greater the accuracy, the higher the cost and the lowerthe economical risk at recall. Individual identication andtracing of an Iberico ham represents the highest accuracy,whereas luncheon sausage composed of trimmings fromdierent debonding companies and dierent slaughter-houses represents a far less accuracy.

2.2.4.2. Actual initiatives. As stated before, nutrition andhealth becomes a public issue where processing industry,politics and distribution are involved. Consumer organiza-tions tend to lobby with the authorities. No consensus at allis reached at this time, as is illustrated by the exampleshereafter.

My choice (Toet, 2007) is a logo based on the Nutri-tion Enhancement Programme of Unilever. Their intentionis to make it accessible for the whole European food indus-try. The use of the logo is based on the criteria for satu-rated fat, trans fat, sodium and sugar. Table 8 illustratesthe generic benchmark criteria to use the logo. Product cat-

Table 8Generic benchmark criteria to use the My choice logo as presented by U

Nutrient Benchmark Category

Trans fatty acids Content 61Insignicant levela 33 % of total fat12 >2 g/100 g0.91.6 >1.6 mg/kcalb

50100 >100 mg/100 g1525 >25 % of energy37 >7 g/100 gLOGO NO LOGO

r foods.means the logo is or is not accepted for this nutrient. Note that for the

Table 9Product category-specic criteria to use the My choice logo

Nutrient Products Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Unit

Saturated fatty acids Cheese 610 1015 >15 g/100 gSodium Cheese 6450 450900 >900 mg/100 g

Soups 6200 200360 >360 mg/100 g3006004001.38OGO

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113 111authorities are making a choice for the consumer. The scor-ing for red, green and amber is based on total energy, sat-urated fat, sugar and salt (sodium). With a positive,conditional correction for the protein content, fruit, vege-table and nut level. According to The British Food Stan-dard Agency it is a simple scoring system, wherepoints are allocated on the basis of the nutritional contentof 100 g food or drink. There are three steps to work outthe overall score for a food product or drink. First step:work out the total A points according to Table 10. TotalA points = points for energy + points for saturatedfat + points for sugar + points for sodium. If a food prod-uct or drink scores 11 or more A points, it cannot scorepoints for proteins, unless it also scores 5 points for fruit,vegetables and nuts. Second step: work out the total Cpoints. A maximum of 5 C points can be awarded foreach nutrient/food component. Total C points = pointsfor fruit, vegetables and nuts + points for bre + pointsfor protein content (see Table 11). If the food product ordrink scores 5 points or more for fruit, vegetables and nuts,the A nutrient cut-o does not apply. Third step : workout the overall score. If a food or drink scores less than11 A points, then the overall score is calculated as follows:overall score = total A points minus total C points. If afood or drink scores 11 or more A points but scores 5points for fruit, vegetables & nuts, then the overall scoreis calculated as follows: overall score = total A pointsminus total C points. If a food scores 11 or more Apoints but also scores less than 5 points for fruit, vegetables& nuts, then the overall score is calculated as follows: over-

Meal sauces 6Dressings and table sauces 6Spreads (as underlayer) 6Meal replacement products 6

Sugars Edible ice, added sugars 6Lall score = total A points minus bre points + fruit, vege-tables & nuts points only (i.e. no points for protein). Afood product is classied as less healthy when it scores4 points or more. A drink is classied as less healthywhen it scores 1 point or more. The following exampleillustrates the consequences for meat products. Cooked

Table 10Trac Light Scoring: A points

Points 0 1 2 3 4

Energy (kJ) 6335 >335 >670 >1005 >1340Sat Fat (g) 61 >1 >2 >3 >4Total sugar (g) 64.5 >4.5 >9 >13.5 >18Sodium (mg) 690 >90 >180 >270 >360ham (category I) with the following composition is takeninto account: protein level 20%, salt level 1.9% (=0.75%sodium), fat level 2.0%, sugar level 0.5%, energy 100 kcal/100 g418 kJ/100 g. A points = energy (1) + sat. fat(1) + sugar (0) + sodium (8) = 10. C points = pro-tein = 5. Overall score = 105 = 5! amber. Conclusion:it has been demonstrated that within this Trac lightsystem 99% of the meat products will be amber and fromthis number the majority will be red. If in the chosenexample we add 1% saturated fat or 0.06% sodium(=0.15% salt) the colour turns red. What will be the mes-sage to the consumer if he walks into a supermarket andcan hardly nd a cheese or meat product that is green?What will be the message concerning a balanced diet? Whatabout green products with a sensorial quality whichdeviates signicantly from the standard?

An example of an initiative taken by modern distribu-tion is Sainsburys Wheel of Health Criteria (2005). Thistrac light front-of-pack labelling system tries to tell theconsumer whether the product is high, medium or low inamounts of fat, saturated fat, total sugars, salt and calories.The levels high, medium and low are expressed by the col-ours red, amber and green. For each parameter the valuesare expressed per serve or per 100 g in a segmented col-oured circle. Seven categories of food are involved: Cat.1A Complete meals (excl. breakfast cereals), Cat. 2A Com-plete meals (breakfast cereals), Cat. 1B Meal components(with the exception of bread, potato products and othercereals) this category contains meat and meat products,Cat. 2B Meal components (bread, potato products and

300540 >540 mg/100 g6001080 >1080 mg/100 g400720 >10801.32.4 >2.4 mg/kcal817 >17 g/100 gLOGO NO LOGOother cereals only), Cat. 3A Other foods (excluding drinks,fats and oils), Cat. 3B Other foods (drinks) and Cat. 3COther foods (fats and oils). The criteria of category 2A(including meat and meat products) are shown in Table12. The Wheel of Health Criteria is presented as a circlewith for each considered food component a dierent colour

5 6 7 8 9 10

>1675 >2010 >2345 >2680 >3015 >3350>5 >6 >7 >8 >9 >10>22.5 >27 >31 >36 >40 >45>450 >540 >630 >720 >810 >900

Social aspects will become more important, such as

t an

mb

er

5016

02.8

t Scdepending on the evaluation against the set criteria. Theuse of the colours green, amber and red is similar to theUK trac light system the colours inform the consumerabout good, moderate and bad food (components). To tthe salt requirements for the green category will be toughfor meat products. Fat requirements are easier to t forcategories I and II products than for categories III andIV meat products.

The given examples are chosen randomly and do notinvolve any preference of the author.

2.2.4.3. Concluding remarks. There are far too many dier-ent initiatives for the consumer. There is a risk to confusethe consumer, so that he will create his own (maybe wrong)perception. Judging criteria are not correct (cf. trac light,wheel of health) as the total lifestyle, including total dietand physical activity are also to be considered. In an equil-

Table 12Sainsburys Wheel of Health criteria: criteria of cat. 2 A (including mea

Nutrient GDA Green A

Per 100 g Per serve P

Calories 2000 kcal 6150 kcal 6200 kcal 1Fat 70 g 63 g fat 67.0 g 3Saturated fat 20 g 61.5 g sat. fat 62.3 gTotal sugars 90 g 610 g total sugars 615.3 g 1Salt 6 g 60.8 g salt 60.6 g 0

Table 11Trac Light Scoring: C points

Points 0 1

Fruit, vegetables & nuts (%) 640 >40NSP Fibre (g) 60.7 >0.7or AOAC Fibre (g) 60.9 >0.9Protein (g) 61.6 >1.6

112 F. Vandendriessche / Meaibrated diet there are no good or bad foods, but only goodor bad practices.

2.3. Meat products in the future

The ideal meat products in the future are those that tall the above mentioned requirements, which are summa-rized as follows:

As far as Food Safety is concerned no concession will beaccepted by the consumer. New technologies will be intro-duced, such as Pascalisation, use of protective bacteria anduse of specic phages.

On the level of Nutrition and Health, meat products willhave to nd their way in the actual context of malnutri-tion. If industry does not nd an answer for sodiumand fat in meat products, without major dierences in tasteand avour, substitutes will get a chance.

Quality will encounter a threat as growing power of pri-vate labels of the modern distribution and discounters willpress the prices. Although dierent standards, controlledby means of audits, will try to guarantee the quality level,animal welfare. This will initially lead to supply prob-lems. In this context traceability will be more visible tothe consumer.

Will there exist a product that ts all these criteria? Thisinvolves a product with a perfect shelife, without any foodsafety risk, with a perfect avour and taste, which is idealfor your health and without diet restrictions. Probablynot, but the product that is closest to this, will be thewinner.

3. General conclusion

Food Safety is important and will remain a must. Tooa decrease is probable. This will be compensated in other,more niche markets. Quality will be judged by the con-sumer as sensorial quality rst.

d meat products)

er Red

100 g Per serve Per 100 g Per serve

250 kcal 200400 kcal >250 kcal >400 kcalg fat 7.017.5 g >16 g fat >17.5 g

2.35.8 g >5.8 g0 g total sugars 15.322.5 g >20 g total sugars >22.5 g1.8 g salt 0.61.5 g >1.8 g salt >1.5 g2 3 4 5

>60 >80>1.4 >2.1 >2.8 >3.5>1.9 >2.8 >3.7 >4.7>3.2 >4.8 >6.4 >8.0

ience 78 (2008) 104113many standards and auditing is an unreasonable cost forthe industry. The devaluation of Quality and Food Safetycerticates is a threat. Nutrition and Health is an opportu-nity for the Meat Industry where sodium and fat are con-cerned. There is a need for a universal, simple way ofcommunication to the consumer for Nutrition and Healthissues. Quality, especially the sensorial quality, cannot besignicantly changed in the near future. More scienticknowledge and new technologies will be necessary to tthe growing requirements of the market.

References

Aggett, P. J. et al. (2005). Passclaim, process for the assessment of scienticsupport for claims on foods. European Journal of Nutrition, 4(1).

British Food Standard Agency, .Chahed, A., et al. (2002). Occurrence of E. coli 0157 in foods from animal

origin in Belgium since 1997. In 7th conference on food microbiology (p.133). Lie`ge, Belgium, (2021 June 2002).

Chan, W., Brown, J., & Church, S. (1995). Meat Poultry and Game,supplement to Mc Cance and Widdowsons The Composition of Foods,EMAFF London, referred to by Williamson et al. (2005).

Danish Institute for Food and Veterinary Research (2005). Foodcomposition data .

Doak, M. C., Visscher, T. L. S., Renders, C. H., & Seidell, J. C. (2006).The prevention of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents:A review of interventions and programs. Obesity Reviews, 7(1),111136.

Fevia (2006). Het nutritioneel beleid van de Belgische voedingsindustrie.Fevia, Kunstlaan 43, 1040 Brussels .

Ghar, Y., Francois, J. Y., Cornelis, M., Jouret, M., Dumont, J. M., &Dierick, K. (2002a). Exposure assessment of Campylobacter in animalfoods in Belgium. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on foodmicrobiology (p. 137). Lie`ge, Belgium, (2021 June 2002).

Ghar, Y., Cornelis, M., Jouret, M., Dierick, K., De Zutter, L., & Daube,G. (2002b). Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in foods from animalorigin in Belgium. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on foodmicrobiology (p. 132). Lie`ge, Belgium, (2021 June 2002).

Ghar, Y., Francois, J. Y., Cornelis, M., Jouret, M., Dumont, J. M., &Dierick, K. (2002c). Exposure assessment of Salmonella in animalfoods in Belgium. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on foodmicrobiology (p. 130). Lie`ge, Belgium, (2021 June 2002).

Grunert, K. G. (2006). Future trends and consumer lifestyle with regard tomeat consumption. Meat Science, 74(1), 149160.

Hoge Gezondheidsraad (2006). Voedingsaanbevelingen voor Belgie, HGRDoc. 7445-2 .

Humphrey, T., & Jrgensen, F. (2006). Pathogens on meat and infectionin animals. Meat Science, 74(1), 89.

Lisseau, I., Overspeck, M. D., Ruon, W. J., Due, P., Holstein, B. E., &Rediger, W. L. (2004). Body Mass Index and overweight in adolescentsin 13 European countries, Israel and the US. Archives of Pediatrics and

Niinivaara, F. P., Polyce, P. M., & Komulainen, S. E. (1964). Someaspects about using pure cultures in the manufacture of fermentedsausages. Food Technology, 18(2), 2531.

Norat, T. et al. (2005). Meat, sh and colorectal cancer risk. TheEuropean prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Journalof the National Cancer Institute, 97(12), 906916.

Nubel Belgische Voedingsmiddelentabel, (1999). 3de editie .

Pederson, C. S. (1979). Microbiology of food fermentations. Westport/Connecticut (USA): The Avi Publishing Company, Inc.

Ruusunen, M., & Puolanne, E. (2005). Review: Reducing sodium intakefrom meat products. Meat Science, 70(3), 531541.

Ruusunen, M., Vainionpaa, J., Lyli, M., Lakteenaki, L., Niemisto, M., &Puolanne, E. (2003). The eect of fat and meat contents on perceivedsaltiness in meat products. In Proceedings of the 49th ICoMST (pp.475476). Campinas, Brazil, (August 2003).

Toet, D. (2007). Building consumer condence through transparency. InProceedings of the CIES international food safety conference, 31 Jan02Feb 2007, Munich, Germany .

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), (2005) .

Vandendriessche, F., & De Smedt, A. (1997). HACCP in the meatindustry: A practical implementable interpretation. In Proceedings ofthe 43th ICoMST, Auckland, New Zealand.

Wang, G., & Dietz, W. H. (2002). Economic burden of obesity in youthsaged 6 to17 years: 19791999. Pediatrics, 109(5), e81, referred to inDoak, M.C. et al. (2006).

Williamson, C. S., Foster, R. K., Stanner, S. A., & Buttriss, J. L. (2005).

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113 113Adolescent Medicine, 158, 2733, referred to in Doak, Visscher,Renders, and Seidell (2006).

Naes Riester, H. (2006). In Proceedings of the EMCC Workshop Dublin,2425 October 2006.

Niinivaara, F.P. (1955). Uber den Einuss von Bakterienkulturen aufdie Reifung und Umrotung der Rohwurst. In Acta. Agral. Fennica,84 (1).Red meat in the diet, review British nutrition foundation. NutritionBulletin, 30(4), 323355.

Wybo, I., Wildemauwe, C., Godard, C., & Collard, J. M. (2002). Humansalmonellosis in Belgium. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on foodmicrobiology (p. 126). Lie`ge, Belgium, (2021 June 2002).

Xiaosong, H. (2007). The food industry and food safety in China. InProceedings of the CIES international food safety conference, 31January02 Feburary 2007, Munich, Germany.

Meat products in the past, today and in the futureIntroductionHistoryClassificationPreservation

Evolution of meat products: yesterday, today and in the futureMeat products yesterdayMeat products todayAreas of emphasesPeriod of emphasis on qualityPeriod of emphasis on quality and food safetyMeat processing today: period of emphasis on quality, food safety and nutrition/healthPossibilities and limitations of processed meat productsActual initiativesConcluding remarks

Meat products in the future

General conclusionReferences