Food Additives in the Meat Industry - Literature review Example

240181 Food Additives in the Meat Industry Summary Food additives are a controversy issue in an age when people are concerned about the environment, artificial ingredients, and any manner of other manmade products that alter the genetic or natural makeup of our food or environment. In the past, when science did not have the capacity to adequately understand the implications of manmade products, or, if they did, corporations pursued those products with regard for the risk, opting for profit over the health and welfare of their consumers. As the public became educated about those manufactured chemicals in food, clothing, and other facets of living, then there grew the effort not just to ban those harmful ingredients, but also to scrutinize any manmade products that altered the natural composition of things, especially food products. This has lead to the food industry, and especially the meat industry, which is already coming under fire from vegetarians and naturalists, to consider alternatives to food additives whenever possible. It is not, however, always possible to eliminate entirely food additives, because, first, they are necessary, and, secondly, they are not necessarily harmful to human consumption. Still, the controversy goes on. Introduction Food additives, including those added to meat products, and are used for the purpose of preserving the food or meat product in order that it might retain its flavor while being transported to destinations, which are often long distances from the point of production (Goldstein Chandler, Myrna and Goldstein, Mark A., M.D., 2002, 1). In the United States, since 1958, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must approve all food additives (Goldstein and Goldstein, 2). There is a list of five reasons that the Center for Food and Safety and Applied Nutrition lists as justifying the of meat additives (Goldstein and Goldstein, 2). 1. “To maintain product consistency. Emulsifiers give products a consistent texture and prevent them from separating. Stabilizers and thickeners give smooth uniform texture. Anti-caking agents help substances such as salt to flow freely. 2. To improve or maintain nutritional value. Vitamins and minerals are added to many common foods, such as milk, flour, cereal and margarine to make up for those likely to be lacking in a person’s diet or lost in processing. Such fortification and enrichment has helped reduce malnutrition among the U.S. population. All products containing added nutrients must be appropriately labeled. 3. To maintain palatability and wholesomeness. Preservatives retard product spoilage caused by mold, air, bacteria, fungi or yeast. Bacterial contamination can cause food-borne illness, including life-threatening botulism. Antioxidants are preservatives that prevent fats and oils in baked goods and other foods from becoming rancid or developing an off-flavor. They also prevent cut fresh fruits such as apples from turning brown when exposed to air. 4. To prevent leavening or control acidity/alkalinity. Leavening agents that release acids when heated can react with baking soda to help cakes, biscuits and other baked goods to rise during baking. Other additives help modify the acidity and alkalinity of foods for proper flavor, taste and color. 5. To enhance flavor or impart desired color. Many spices and natural synthetic flavors enhance the taste of foods. Colors, likewise, enhance the appearance of certain foods to meet consumer expectations. (Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Web site) (Goldstein and Goldstein, 2)” There were, however, exceptions to the 1958 legislation that required FDA approval of food additives (Goldstein and Goldstein, 2-3). The legislation that was passed in America in 1958 did require those additives that were exempt from the legislation, because they were in use prior to the laws being passed, to undergo further testing to establish that they were in fact safe for human consumption (Goldstein and Goldstein, 2). Yet it becomes obvious as to the concerns of Americans and others around the world, where government regulations were not as circumspect as those in the United States. People became wary of food additives and preservatives, especially in meat. Consumers demanded more information about those additives and preservatives. Food Additives in Meat There are probably many people who do not know what kinds of additives are used in meat. The typical food and meat additives are: salt, corn sweeteners, sugar, pepper, vegetable colors, yeast, and baking soda (Roberts, 6). The USA authorizes the use of additives in meat and poultry (Roberts, 6). While every effort is made by the government to keep meat products safe, history has taught us that we need to pay attention to the products, especially those created in the laboratory, that are added to our meat and food products. Cynthia Roberts (2001) explains that food and meat additives as preservatives are, in many cases, necessary (Roberts, 6). Food additives, Roberts says, are derived from naturally occurring and synthetic materials (Roberts, 6). Today, science is able to recreate most naturally occurring additives, and it allows foods to be produced, preserved, enhances the flavor, and negates the seasonal restrictions that might otherwise make some meat products more scarce were it not for the preservative nature of additives (Roberts, 6). Meat is particularly prone to a short life for preparation and serving before it becomes dangerous for consumption (Roberts, 6). Additives increase the storage, and help keep the meats fresher and consumable even after cooking (Roberts, 6). Without additives, meat products would quickly develop dangerous bacteria that would cause severe sickness in people who consumed the products. The range of bacteria and the illnesses that they cause are serious, and without additives, consumer reliability in the meat products that they consume could not be as comfortable a level as exists today. Six percent of children and two percent of adults develop food allergens, says Roberts (Roberts, 6). These food allergens are normally as a triggered by a protein, which causes the body’s immune system to misinterpret information and to react in defense of the protein (Roberts, 6). Roberts explains it this way: “The immune system misinterprets a chemical component of a food as harmful and releases histamines and other chemicals to combat it, which results in hives, swelling, itching, vomiting, diarrhea, cramps, or difficulty breathing. Severe reactions may cause anaphylaxis, which can result in death. Eight foods—egg, wheat, peanuts, milk, soy, tree nuts (such as walnuts and almonds), fish, and shellfish—cause 90 percent of all food allergies. The only way to prevent an allergic reaction is to avoid that food entirely (Roberts, 6).” While food allergens often originate with the food substance, and not the additive, many people are fearful, and distrust meat additives. The fear arises out of reports of poor conditions when animals are slaughtered for meat and poultry, and also because of the injections to prevent disease that the live animals are given (Roberts, 79, 97). Additionally, beef stock were injected with growth hormones to produce a more robust animal, and these hormones have of late become a concern to the public (Roberts, 79). However, there is no information that shows that the hormones are bad for human health (Roberts, 79). These concerns, however, have given rise to a cottage industry of “organic” meat and poultry products. The “organic” term refers to the natural conditions where the animals are not treated inhumanely and rotate range and whole grains without chemicals or hormones. There is information on other additives, such as carrageenan, which, in 1982, was found to cause colonic ulcers and gastrointestinal neoplasms in animal models (Tobacman, Joanne K., 2001, 983). Evidence suggested, too, that the degraded carrageenan in animals posed a health risk, specifically cancer, to humans. Carrageenan is an additive that is given to animals to cause thickening, and it is used as a stabilizer and texturizer (Tobacman, 983). Even though evidence suggests that it could be harmful to humans who consume meat products in which the additive was present, it continues to be legal and used in the meat industry today (Tobacman, 983). Joanne K. Tobacman, with the College of Medicine, University of Iowa, examined the data associated with carrageenan. Her findings are explained, in part, as follows: “Review of these data demonstrated that exposure to undegraded as well as to degraded carrageenan was associated with the occurrence of intestinal ulcerations and neoplasms. This association may be attributed to contamination of undegraded carrageenan by components of low molecular weight, spontaneous metabolism of undegraded carrageenan by acid hydrolysis under conditions of normal digestion, or the interactions with intestinal bacteria. Although in 1972, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considered restricting dietary carrageenan to an average molecular weight > 100,000, this resolution did not prevail, and no subsequent regulation has restricted use. Because of the acknowledged carcinogenic properties of degraded in animal models and the cancer-promoting effects of undegraded in experimental models, the widespread use of carrageenan in the Western diet should be reconsidered. Key words: carcinogenesis, carrageenan, carrageenase, diet, furcelleran (furcellaran), hydrolysis, inflammatory bowel disease, nutrition, poligeenan, promoter, sulfated polysaccharide (Tobacman, 983).” Tobacman’s findings and recommendations, which have received very little attention from industry or government officials, is in large part the reason why consumers have a distrust of meat products. The treatment of meat products with “unnatural” chemicals, hormones, pesticides from fodder, and other potentially harmful synthesized additives, and poor conditions that give rise to other animal diseases that could transfer to humans through consumption, are the precipitating factors for people who choose not to include meat in their diets (Fiddes, Nick, 1992, 190). Dr. Nick Fiddes (1992) says that he advises his patients to reduce, or eliminate their intake of red meat products, and says he observes positive health changes when they do that (Fiddes, 191). Considering the history of mankind as a meat eater, it quickly becomes a reasonable thought that perhaps the health problems attributed to humans eating red meat is not entirely one of the red meat, but of the additives in the meat. While the government claims that inspections and laws and rules govern the meat industry, history has demonstrated that corporations concerned about their profit lines do not always adhere to the rules, nor do they always focus on what is best for the consumer in lieu of their profits. The bottom line is that unnatural additives are cause natural red meat to cease to be natural; and, given that, consumption should proceed with caution. People should take every precaution in understanding what is in the meat products they are consuming. Conclusion Researchers Amy R. Sapkota, Lisa Y. Lefferts, Shawn McKenzie, and Polly Walker (2007) undertook research to understand what food animals are being fed today. They “reviewed published veterinary and human-health literature regarding animal feeding practices, etiologic agents present in feed, and human health effects along with proceedings from animal feed workshops (Sapkota, Lefferts, McKenzie and Walker, 663).” They found that there is inconclusive or not enough data to link what is known as “mad cow” disease with incidents of transfer to humans in the United States (Sapkota, Lefferts, McKenzie and Walker, 663). However, other of their findings involved a laundry list of harmful chemicals and potential animal disease or contamination to human transfer from studying animal feed (Sapkota, Lefferts, McKenzie and Walker, 663). In the best case, their findings suggest that it is important for people to pay close attention to the meat products they consume. In the worst case scenario, their findings show that even with the laws, regulations and knowledge of the harmful side affects to humans, meat producers are still putting tainted and risky products on the market for human consumption. In 1962, Lewis Herber wrote a book called Our Synthetic Environment. Herber reminded the public, even then, more forty years ago, that the discovery of harmful additives in the meat and food we consume today, will leave traces in our bodies for decades, and can even be found in our children (Herber, 95). The movement towards healthier eating, and the emphasis on reducing the amount of meat in people’s diet, has caused the government to require labeling of meat products so that consumers are aware of the additives used in the product (Riaz, Mian, N., and Chaudry, Muhammad, M., 2004, 290). But even labeling meat products does not provide the comfort level the public needs to fully trust and have confidence in the animal food industry. More study is needed in the area of the impact of meat additives in animals, and how that transfers, or does not transfer to humans. Even with more research, however, much damage has been done to the consumer’s level of confidence, and it is predictable that the industry will continue to decline as more and more people reduce and eliminate meat from their diets in lieu of healthier life choices. Works Cited Fiddes, Nick. Meat, a Natural Symbol. New York: Routledge, 1992. Questia. 8 Sept. 2008 . Goldstein, Myrna Chandler, and Mark A. Goldstein. Controversies in Food and Nutrition. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. Questia. 8 Sept. 2008 . Herber, Lewis. Our Synthetic Environment. 1st ed. New York: Knopf, 1962. Questia. 8 Sept. 2008 . Riaz, Mian N., and Muhammad M. Chaudry. Halal Food Production. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004. Questia. 8 Sept. 2008 . Roberts, Cynthia A. The Food Safety Information Handbook. Westport, CT: Oryx Press, 2001. Questia. 8 Sept. 2008 . Sapkota, Amy R., Lisa Y. Lefferts, Shawn Mckenzie, and Polly Walker. "What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health." Environmental Health Perspectives 115.5 (2007): 663+. Questia. 8 Sept. 2008 . Tobacman, Joanne K. "Review of Harmful Gastrointestinal Effects of Carrageenan in Animal Experiments." Environmental Health Perspectives 109.10 (2001): 983+. Questia. 8 Sept. 2008 . Read More