Consumers visiting meat counters lately will have noticed new labels. Since Aug. 21, Canadian consumers have been able to read clearly whether meat products have been mechanically tenderized.
Two years after the XL Foods recall in 2012, the largest in Canadian history, the public is now being apprised of the use of industrial needles and blades to break down collagens. It will be interesting to see how consumers react to this new piece of information in the months to come. However, new risk-mitigating regulation falls way short of responding to a much larger food safety threat: pathogen contamination.
A process widely used in the food industry, the mechanical tenderization of meats allows for some varieties of cuts to be more palatable for consumers. But back in 2012, mechanical tenderizers at XL Foods were not properly maintained. As a result, millions of kilos of beef were contaminated and many consumers ended up in the hospital.
Tenderizers literally push pathogens deep into meats which make it more difficult for consumers to reduce risks when cooking steaks or roasts at home. Soon after the recall, an independent report suggested special labels ought to be put on packages. And so here we are.
In some ways, this new labelling rule makes sense. It will clearly better support the business to business arena, particularly institutional buyers and restaurant owners. More shared information between businesses will likely reduce the risks of larger-scale outbreaks.
The benefits of the new regulation are less than obvious, however, when we look at the new legislation from a consumer perspective. With these new labels, some observers believe consumers will take a stand and ban mechanically tenderized meats, the practice eventually being phased out altogether. Consequently, many wonder why regulators have not forbidden the practice in the first place.
There are obviously socioeconomic reasons for this. Mechanical tenderization does allow affordable animal protein sources to taste better than they would otherwise and, in light of recent price hikes of meat products, many consumers would likely agree that a complete prohibition would be extreme.
Labelling, though, does not reduce risks or compel industry to apply more rigour to quality-assurance practices. It is simply a risk-communication measure. Essentially, risks will remain, but they are now more explicitly shared with the public.
Nonetheless, labels can be powerful. In 2005, the practice of labelling the presence of trans fats without banning their use almost completely eradicated them. Consumers became aware that although trans fats can increase product shelf-life and make food taste better, they also increase the risk of coronary heart diseases. Since then, we have seen many novel, healthier products being introduced, free of trans fats.
Even so, food irradiation — the process of exposing food to a controlled amount of energy to prevent food poisoning and spoilage — remains the most effective method to reduce the number pathogens in meats. We already irradiate spices, wheat, flour, onions, potatoes and other goods in Canada, but not meats.
For better food safety, this is a process Canadian food regulators should permit. Other countries have.
Labelling mechanically tenderized products is essentially a Band-Aid solution (albeit one that promises some therapeutic benefit) for a broader dilemma. Risk-communication measures ought to be coupled with risk-reduction practices — always. Enticing consumers to be more concerned only upon purchasing a product is short-sighted and, frankly, perilous.
A comprehensive solution would allow meats to be irradiated and consumers to be aware of what happens to their product before it finds its way to meat counters. Both facets are equally imperative.
Sylvain Charlebois is a professor of food distribution and policy at the University of Guelph in Ontario.
