What’s Wrong With Pink Slime?

It’s high in protein.
It’s low in fat.
It’s been treated to kill Salmonella and E. coli.
It’s lab-tested before it is shipped.

So what’s all the fuss about?

Gerald Zirnstein, a former microbiologist with USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, calls the product “pink slime” and doesn’t “consider the stuff to be ground beef,” according to a report carried yesterday evening on ABC National News.

The meat industry, including producers such as Beef Products Inc. and HRR Enterprises, Inc. call it Lean Finely Textured Beef, or LFTB – a far less catchy, but more accurate name.

Where does Lean Finely Textured Beef come from?

Producers of LFTB start with beef trim. This is the “waste” meat and fat that results from trimming higher quality beef cuts (such as steaks) to customer specifications, and is usually used to make ground beef.

The LFTB process begins by separating most of the fat from the beef. This is done by warming the trim and “spinning out” the fat in centrifuges. The result is a very lean beef: approximately 94-97% lean, according to Beef Products Inc. This lean beef can be mixed with higher-fat beef in order to produce low-fat ground beef and processed meat products.

But beef trim is notorious for carrying pathogenic bacteria – especially, E. coli O157:H7 and its close cousins, the non-O157 STEC bacteria. So Beef Products Inc. developed an ammonia gas treatment step to kill the microbes.

What’s the deal with ammonia? Is it legal? Is it safe?

Ammonia is formed naturally in the body as a result of protein digestion by bacteria that live in the intestines. The ammonia is carried in the blood (as ammonium hydroxide) to the liver; there it is converted to urea, which exits the body in the urine. It is normal and usual to find a certain amount of ammonium hydroxide in meat.

Ammonium hydroxide has been used as an antimicrobial agent in meat for more than 40 years. Its safety was reviewed in 1974 by the US Food and Drug Administration’s Select Committee on GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) Substances, who had this to say:

“Ammonia and the ammonium ion are integral components of normal metabolic processes and play an essential role in the physiology of man. Although there have been no significant feeding studies specifically designed to ascertain the safety threshold of ammonium compounds as food ingredients, numerous metabolic studies have been reported in the scientific literature. Extrapolation of these findings to the concentrations of ammonium compounds normally present in foods does not suggest that there would be untoward effects at such levels. In the light of the foregoing, the Select Committee concludes that: There is no evidence in the available information on ammonium bicarbonate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium chloride, ammonium hydroxide, mono and dibasic ammonium phosphate, and ammonium sulfate that demonstrates, or suggests reasonable grounds to suspect, a hazard to the public when they are used at levels that are now current or that might reasonably be expected in future.”

Ammonium hydroxide also is included in the USDA’s list of Safe and Suitable Ingredients Used in the Production of Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products (FSIS Directive 7120.1, Revision 2; last revised 4/12/10). It is used as a pH control agent in brine solutions for meat products, and as an antimicrobial agent for beef carcasses (in hot boxes and holding coolers) and boneless beef trimmings. Ammonia gas (anhydrous ammonia) is also used as an antimicrobial agent for lean finely textured beef.

Ammonia and ammonium hydroxide are among several antimicrobial agents that may be used on beef and poultry without labeling disclosure. Organic acid blends, calcium hypochlorite, chlorine gas, citric acid, lactic acid, and trisodium phosphate are other examples. All of these agents are considered by FDA and USDA to be processing aids rather than ingredients, when they meet one of the following criteria:

(a) substances that are added during the processing of a food but are removed in some manner from the food before it is packaged in its finished form;

(b) substances that are added to a food during processing, are converted into constituents normally present in the food, and do not significantly increase the amount of the constituents naturally found in the food; or

(c) substances that are added to a food for their technical or functional effect in the processing but are present in the finished food at insignificant levels and do not have any technical or functional effect in that food.

Do we need to worry about E. coli and Salmonella in LFTB from Beef Products Inc.?

Beef Products Inc. has adopted ammonium hydroxide treatment of its LFTB products in order to kill the pathogenic bacteria that may otherwise be present in the meat. And they’ve gone beyond USDA’s current pathogen testing requirements for these harmful bacteria. In July 2011, the company announced that it had initiated a “test and hold” policy in addition to its various preventative sanitation and food safety programs.

Every box of LFTB is sampled, and the samples sent to independent third-party labs for analysis. Every box of LFTB is held at the plant until the labs confirm that all specifications – including the absence of Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7 and other STEC bacteria – have been met. Only once the satisfactory results have been confirmed does the company allow its product to leave the premises.

What do the experts say about LFTB?

I asked Dr. James Marsden (Regent’s Distinguished Professor of Food Safety and Security at Kansas State University) for his opinion.

“There are,” he said in an emailed reply, “all kinds of ingredients in food products that can be falsely characterized as unappetizing when viewed out of context. When lay persons see the processes of cheese manufacturing, wine making and the production of the most high quality gourmet processed meats, some of the stages in the process are less than appetizing.”

“I think the criticism of BPI’s products are based on quality perceptions, not food safety,” Dr. Marsden added. “It should, however, be recognized that BPI made great strides in improving the safety of ground beef through their unique food safety processes. On the one hand, consumers demand safe foods and are right to do so; they also need to recognize that the production of safe foods requires processing interventions.”

In other words, it might have an image problem, but Lean Finely Textured Beef – aka ‘pink slime’ – is safe to eat.

Raw Milk Consumption A Risky Proposition – CDC

“Consumption of nonpasteurized dairy products cannot be considered safe under any circumstances.”

– US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Less than 1% of dairy products consumed in the USA is unpasteurized. Yet consumption of unpasteurized dairy products – mainly milk and cheese – accounted for 60% of dairy-associated disease outbreaks between 1993 and 2006, according to a report released today by the CDC.

The risk of illness linked specifically to drinking raw milk was even more glaring; 80% of fluid milk-related disease outbreaks were associated with unpasteurized milk.

Disease outbreaks traced to unpasteurized dairy products also were more likely to result in hospitalization (13% of victims hospitalized) versus those associated with pasteurized dairy products (1% hospitalization rate).

Campylobacter, one of the two most common causes of bacterial foodborne disease, was responsible for more than 54% of the outbreaks involving unpasteurized milk and cheese. Only 13% of the outbreaks associated with pasteurized dairy products involved Campylobacter.

Of the 4,413 confirmed dairy-product associated illnesses reported during the 1993-2006 period, 1,571 (~36%) were linked to unpasteurized milk and cheese consumption, even though less than 1% of milk drinkers who responded to a 2005-2006 survey reported that they usually consumed raw milk.

And legalizing the sale or distribution of raw milk is not the answer to improving its safety. States in which the sale and distribution of raw milk was permitted experienced higher rates of unpasteurized dairy product-associated disease than states where its distribution was illegal.

The risk of illness that is assumed – often unwittingly – by those who choose to drink unpasteurized milk is underscored by the recent 4-state outbreak of Campylobacter illnesses that were traced unequivocally to raw milk produced and supplied by The Family Cow dairy farm in Pennsylvania. Seventy-seven people were sickened in that outbreak at last report.

The final paragraph of the CDC report says it all:

“Our analysis shows that legal intrastate sale of nonpasteurized dairy products is associated with a higher risk for dairy-related outbreaks and implies that restricting sale of nonpasteurized dairy products reduces the risk for dairy-related outbreaks within that state. Pasteurization is the most reliable and feasible way to render dairy products safe for consumption. Although warning labels and signs or government-issued permits are prudent where the sale of nonpasteurized dairy products is legal, they have not been shown to be effective and, given the results of this analysis, do not seem to reduce the incidence of outbreaks involving nonpasteurized dairy products to the degree that pasteurization does. Whether certain types of warnings or more explicit health advisories might be more effective than others is unknown. Public health officials at all levels should continue to develop innovative methods to educate consumers and caregivers about the dangers associated with nonpasteurized dairy products. State officials should consider further restricting or prohibiting the sale or distribution of nonpasteurized dairy products within their states. Federal and state regulators should continue to enforce existing regulations to prevent distribution of nonpasteurized dairy products to consumers. Consumption of nonpasteurized dairy products cannot be considered safe under any circumstances.”

FDA and Stealth Recalls

Stealth – the act or characteristic of moving with extreme care and quietness, especially so as to avoid detection

About 10 days ago, I complained about an unpublicized Class I recall, which was described in FDA’s Weekly Enforcement Report dated February 8, 2012. The recall involved 114 tons of cut leaf “curly” spinach from Tiro Tres Farms, Eagle Pass, TX. The offending spinach was recalled by the manufacturer after the product was found to be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

I received some comments – and some flak – about my article, so I decided to see whether this was a one-time incident or whether there have been other Class I recalls about which we consumers were never informed. The following recalls were gleaned from FDA Weekly Enforcement Reports dated on or after November 2, 2011.

Nicho Produce Co., Inc. (Edinburg, TX): A CUT ABOVE produce items. Thirty-three (33) different items, including shredded, cut, sliced, diced or cubed salad greens, vegetables and fruits, most of them packed in 5-lb bags. Products were recalled due to potential contamination with Listeria monocytogenes. This was an FDA-initiated Class I recall, announced by letters dated December 9th and 19th, 2011, and involved 9,829.5 “pieces” distributed in Texas.
River Ranch Fresh Foods LLC, (Salinas, CA): River Ranch and Hy-Vee bagged salads and coleslaw with Best if Used by date of 4 NOV 2011. Product was recalled after FDA found two environmental sub samples positive for Listeria monocytogenes. This was an FDA-initiated Class I recall that was subsequent to an earlier public recall of Farmers Market and Hy-Vee brands of bagged salads, also produced by River Ranch. This stealth recall involved 588 cases of bagged salads, which were distributed to Indiana, Iowa and Canada.
Rio Queen Citrus, Inc. (Mission, TX): TexRio Tomatoes, packed in 20-lb bulk boxes, imported from Mexico. Notification of the company-initiated Class I recall was by telephone on November 25, 2011. Two hundred forty-three (243) boxes were recalled because the tomatoes were potentially contaminated with Salmonella. Distributed to Texas and Missouri.
Four Seasons Produce, Inc. (Ephrata, PA): Farm Wey labeled cantaloupes, Lot #32773301 & 32773302, manufactured by Farm-Wey Produce, Inc. (Lakeland, FL). Four Seasons recalled 1,064 cases (15/case) on November 19th by email, telephone and fax after being informed by New York State that the melons were potentially contaminated with Salmonella. The recalled cantaloupes were distributed to New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico and Bermuda.
Combs Produce, LP (Dallas, TX): Natures Harvest Grape Tomatoes, recalled by email on November 25, 2011 due to potential contamination with Salmonella. Approximately 400 cases were distributed to Oklahoma and Texas.
Supreme Protein (Manasquan, NJ): Supreme Protein Chocolate Caramel Cookie Crunch (0.71 oz/20g bars; Lot B11272A October 2012), manufactured by Belmont Confections Inc. (Youngstown, OH). The firm initiated a recall by email, letter and telephone on October 11, 2012 of 473 bars, because the product was potentially contaminated with Salmonella. The recalled bars were distributed nationwide.

These are just a few examples from less than 4 months’ worth of FDA Enforcement Reports. For brevity and simplicity, I limited myself to Class I microbiological hazards, and did not include undeclared allergens, foreign material contamination (i.e., metal, glass, etc) or undeclared/unapproved additives.

I was taken to task for my February 9th stealth recall ‘rant’ by Jim Prevor of the Perishable Pundit in his February 15th item “Food Safety, Recalls And Why Consumers Don’t Always Need Notification.” What were his gripes, and how do they stack up in light of what I have found?

Prevor theorized that the E. coli O157:H7-contaminated spinach was not destined for direct retail sale; therefore, he concluded, there was “…no need to notify consumers.”

But, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service routinely publicizes recalls of products that are destined strictly for the institutional market. Why should FDA not do likewise?

Prevor also suggests that the recall was not publicized to avoid worrying or confusing consumers, who would not differentiate between the recalled (curly) spinach from Texas and the unaffected (flat leaf) baby spinach from California and Arizona. He concludes that avoiding a public announcement was the responsible path, to prevent crushing “countless farmers and processors”.

Sorry, Jim, but how does that justification extrapolate to the “Branded” products I’ve cited above – especially those that were sold in retail-sized packaging bearing lot number identification and/or expiration dates?

Finally, Prevor ends his article with the following statement:

One suspects that the decision to not announce recalls when the announcement would not enhance public health is motivated by the desire to protect another value: Maintaining viable farms, industries, jobs, etc.

Interesting. I always thought that the primary responsibility of FDA was to protect public health.

FDA relies on consumers and consumer advocates to help it carry out its broad mandate. The agency has no choice – it cannot afford to inspect more than a tiny fraction of food producers and processors in the USA. But, like it or not, the flip side of this dependency is the need to keep consumers informed. Naive consumers, or those who are ignorant of existing recalls, are more likely to become casualties than collaborators.

When President Obama took office, he promised “transparency” in his administration. I grant that the workings of FDA, USDA and other US agencies are more open than those in many – perhaps most – other countries. Nevertheless, the President’s promise raised the bar for FDA. At the very least, there should be a consistent – and transparent – policy guiding the agency’s decisions on when and how to release information about recalls. This is especially true for FDA-initiated recalls.

Speaking as a consumer, and as a food safety microbiologist with more than 30 years of experience – several of them with Canada’s food safety regulatory agency – I strongly believe that all Class I recalls should be posted promptly on the government’s food safety website.

Consumers deserve – and should demand – no less.