5.7 Meat Production Notes

[Bartolome Beacham]

Thebriefing note examines the ethical, social and policy challenges of meat production and how current research and scientific developments into meat alternatives may meet rising consumer demands. The note explores ethical challenges related to meat alternatives considering human health and well being, and how policies for these developments may be orientated sustainably to take account of the environment, animal welfare and impacts on the farming industry.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCOB) is a leading independent policy and research centre, and the foremost bioethics body in the UK. We identify, analyse and advise on ethical issues arising in biomedicine and health so that decisions made in these areas will benefit people and society. The NCOB was established by the Trustees of the Nuffield Foundation in 1991, and since 1994 it has been funded jointly by the Foundation, Wellcome and the Medical Research Council.

First, note that Bailey Norwood and I published a paper a few years ago comparing the costs of producing different meats to producing corn, soybeans, wheat, and peanuts (also note that there was a calculation error in the tables; the corrected tables are here). As we show there, it is generally less expensive to get calories or protein from corn or soybeans or wheat than it is from cattle or hogs. That's one reason we grow such much corn, wheat, and soy - they are incredibly efficient generators of calories and protein.

I will also note that there have been many attempt to calculate the retail cost of eating "healthy vs. unhealthy" food. Here, for example, is a paper by the USDA-ERS. Adam Drewnowski also has several papers on this subject. This work often shows that meat is relatively (relative to many fruits and vegetables) inexpensive on a per calorie or per gram of protein basis, although meat looks more expensive when placed on a per pound basis. If you want really inexpensive calories eat vegetable oil or crackers or sugar; if you want real expensive calories, eat zucchini or lettuce or tomatoes.

The reason I picked lettuce as an example is to make the point that people often do not reason consistently when they argue we should unduly focus on costs of calories. I have never once heard anyone say how "inefficient" production of lettuce or tomatoes or peppers are, and yet I have repeatedly heard this argument about meat.

Another important point is that efficiency or cost isn't everything. What do we get in return? Who cares if lettuce is really expensive on a $/kcal basis? A nice salad is tasty. And healthy. The trouble is that many of our most efficient producers of calories or protein (field corn, soybeans, wheat) are not that tasty by themselves. Given the choice to eat a raw soybean or a raw carrot, I'll take he latter any day despite the fact that the latter is "less efficient."

This discussion reveals another point that Bailey and I discussed in our paper. To get corn and soy and wheat into foods we like to eat requires processing, which takes energy and is costly. Thus, one needs to look at the costs of the foods as we eat them not as they're grown. And, there is generally much less cost wrapped up in the processing of meat and animal products than there is for grain-based products (based on the farm-to-retail price spreads reported by the USDA).

Finally, note that one of the ways we process corn and soybeans into something we like to eat is by feeding them to animals. Animals convert relatively untasty grains into tasty milk, eggs, and meat. And even if some energy is "lost" or "wasted" in that process, we're getting something in return. Here's what I previously had to say about that:

Almost no one looks at their iPad and asks, "how much more energy went into producing this than my old Apple II." The iPad is so much better than the Apple II. We'd be willing to accept more energy use to have a better computer. Likewise a nice T-bone is so much better than a head of broccoli. I'm willing to accept more energy use to have a T-bone than a head of broccoli.

International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF) is partnering with British multinational Unilever, and Dutch university Wageningen University & Research (WUR), to address the issue of off notes in plant-based products. Off notes, often described as an objectionable taste and/or odour, are a widespread problem in meat-free foods.

Off notes are caused by plant proteins, which can create a lingering after taste and bitterness in meat alternatives. Manufacturers often mask these unfavourable attributes with a combination of flavours, however this can in turn result in an undesirable aroma from the food.

The comprehensive four-year project will see researchers from IFF and Unilever working alongside scientists from WUR. Their primary focus will be to explore the ways in which flavours bind to protein molecules, with the goal of recommending novel flavouring strategies to improve the flavour of plant-based meat alternatives.

The project will target areas within flavour compositions, which the researchers believe hold the greatest chance of success. Using advanced analytical methods, WUR scientists will study the protein flavour interactions, while Unilever's will be able to guide them on consumer preferences, maintaining a consumer-centric approach throughout. googletag.cmd.push(function () googletag.display('text-ad1'); );

This sentiment is echoed by Hans-Gerd Janssen, part-time professor at the chair group Organic Chemistry of Wageningen University and scientist at Unilever, Unilever has a sound understanding of the consumer needs and has detailed knowledge on the consumer wishes and the areas where the consumers would welcome product improvements. For us at WUR that allows us to focus on specific off-flavours of plant-based meat alternatives. IFF has, largely based on trial-and-error experimenting, identified solutions to the problems indicated by consumers.

The site is secure.

The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

People have been using food additives for thousands of years. Today more than 3000 substances are used as food additives. Salt, sugar, and corn syrup are by far the most widely used additives in food in this country.

In prehistoric times, cavemen may have smoked meats to make them taste better. In coastal regions, early man probably soaked foods, including meat and poultry, in seawater for better flavor and for preservation. The spice trade between Asia, the Middle East, and Europe flourished because the public demanded the flavors that spices added to foods. Early explorers went in search of salt and spices, and wealthy Romans were kidnaped for ransom of salt and spices. Our ancestors discovered that large amounts of sugar helped preserve fruits.

Additives are used to maintain or improve safety, freshness, nutritional value taste, texture and appearance. The use of food additives has become more prominent in recent years due to the increased production of prepared, processed, and convenience foods.

Color additives are used in foods for many reasons: 1) to offset color loss due to exposure to light, air, temperature extremes, moisture, and storage conditions; 2) to correct natural variations in color; 3) to enhance colors that occur naturally; and 4) to provide color to colorless and "fun" foods. Without color additives, colas wouldn't be brown, margarine wouldn't be yellow, and mint ice cream wouldn't be green. Color additives are now recognized as an important part of practically all processed foods we eat.

Today, food and color additives are more strictly studied, regulated, and monitored than at any other time in history. FDA has the primary legal responsibility for determining their safe use. To market a new food or color additive (or before using an additive already approved for one use in another manner not yet approved), a manufacturer or other sponsor must first petition FDA for its approval. These petitions must provide evidence that the substance is safe for the ways in which it will be used. As a result of recent legislation, since 1999, indirect additives have been approved via a premarket notification process requiring the same data as was previously required by petition.

Before any substance can be added to food, its safety must be assessed in a stringent approval process. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) shares responsibility with FDA for the safety of food additives used in meat, poultry, and egg products. All additives are initially evaluated for safety by FDA.

When an additive is proposed for use in a meat, poultry, or egg product, its safety, technical function, and conditions of use must also be evaluated by the Risk, Innovations and Management Staff of FSIS, as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Egg Products Inspection Act, and related regulations.

Although FDA has overriding authority regarding additive safety, FSIS may apply even stricter standards that take into account the unique characteristics of meat, poultry, and egg products. Several years ago, for instance, permission was sought to use sorbic acid in meat salads. Although sorbic acid was an approved food additive, permission for use in meat salad was denied because such usage could mask spoilage caused by organisms that cause foodborne illness.

Additives are never given permanent approval. FDA and FSIS continually review the safety of approved additives, based on the best scientific knowledge, to determine if approvals should be modified or withdrawn.

During the early part of the first century in America, people lived off the land. They grew their own foods or bought them from someone they knew and trusted. There was no need for food safety laws. As the country grew and became more industrialized, the number of people who produced their own foods decreased drastically. Therefore, the nation depended on the newly emerging food industry to produce and distribute its food. Unfortunately, during the 1850's, there was much dishonesty concerning adding substances to foods.

3a8082e126