Growers and Grocers

In 2004, the Food and Drug Administration approved a form of “modified atmosphere packaging” that keeps meat looking fresher for an extended period of time by maintaining a bright red color, even after the meat deteriorates and spoils. The process involves extracting most of the gas from the package, and replacing it with a mixture that includes small amounts of carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide reacts with chemical compounds in the meat, creating red pigments.Since the approval, stories about the process have been appearing now and then. On February 21, the New York Times’ Marian Burros wrote about the carbon monoxide treatment and included a report on an experiment she conducted:

In a firsthand look at the treated meat, a package of a conventionally wrapped rib steak and one with the carbon monoxide were both red when bought on Feb. 3 near Washington. They were then kept refrigerated. By Feb. 16, when they were photographed for the pictures that appear with this article, the conventional meat was brown, but the treated meat was still rosy. And as of yesterday, other treated meat bought at the same time was still red despite having been left unrefrigerated on a kitchen counter since Feb. 14.

Consumer Reports also wrote about the practice, and described their own experiment:

Consumer Reports decided to do limited testing to check whether carbon-monoxide-packaged meat can stay red even when spoiled. Since there’s no requirement that the process be listed on meat labels, we called manufacturers to verify that the brands purchased were packed with carbon monoxide. We tested 10 samples of locally purchased ground beef and steaks from three companies. We found that the meat appeared red even if it was spoiled or had bacterial counts that were close to indicating spoilage.

The Consumer Federation of America commissioned a survey in September of over 1000 adults that found that a vast majority of the respondents considered carbon monoxide treatment to be deceptive and something that warrants a label (Press release (PDF) and Survey Results (PDF)).

In mid-November, Kalsec, a Kalamazoo, Michigan-based producer of natural extracts for food, beverage and pharmaceutical applications, sent another request to the USDA and FDA (their fourth in just over a year) urging that the agencies withdraw their approval of the carbon monoxide process. They have three main arguments:

1. Incorporating an additive into a food product without labeling violates current laws and regulations, such as those related to ingredient disclosure.
2. The packaging technique prevents consumers from making their own judgment about the freshness of the meat.
3. An extended shelf life poses a health risk to consumers.

Kalsec’s press release describes their complaint in detail.

Kalsec is a for-profit company, and therefore probably has a financial interest in overturning the FDA’s approval. Whatever it might be, though, I hope their petition is successful — or at least forces the FDA and USDA to clearly label meats that have been treated with carbon monoxide.

To me, this is another example of a complicated “solution” to an unnecessary problem. It is another example of the food industry withholding information from the public. And it is another example of industry asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking “How can we allow meat to sit on the shelves for 28 or 35 days before purchase?” or “How can we make the consumer think the meat is fresher than it is?”, perhaps they should ask “How can we align our supply with consumer demand?” or “How can we provide stores with the optimal amount of meat so that spoilage is minimized?” The auto industry and other industrial manufacturers have perfected “just in time” techniques to significantly reduce how long parts sit in a warehouse before hitting the factory floor. Wal-Mart has made tremendous innovations in keeping their stores optimally supplied. So I’m sure that there are plenty of smart people out there who could apply their knowledge to the meat and grocery business.