by Bryan Salvage, editor
In March, FSIS published a proposal and an advance notice of proposed rule-making in the Federal Register that attempts to get the ball rolling toward a solution to an issue that has been gnawing away at some meat processors for years: establishing a level playing field between products containing mechanically separated meat and mechanically deboned poultry.
The proposal looks to reduce restrictions on the use and labeling of mechanically separated meat. But the rule-making notice on poultry seeks comments on the effects comparable requirements would have on the use of mechanically deboned poultry.
At present, federal meat inspection regulations have a definition and standard of identity for "mechanically separated species" (beef or pork), as well as regulations that define "meat." Because of the mechanism of the machinery used to manufacture mechanically separated species, bone and bone particles (including bone marrow) are incorporated into the finished product. Back in 1982, FSIS' final rule making on mechanically separated species [47 FR 28214] indicated that material differences in the consistency and the composition of mechanically separated species place it outside the scope of products traditionally defined as "meat."
Thus, whenever a mechanically separated species meat food product is used as an ingredient in meat food products, it must be separately listed in the ingredient statement by its standardized name-"mechanically separated beef or pork."
Although the meat and poultry industries have referred to poultry products produced by mechanical deboning as "mechanically deboned poultry" and "comminuted poultry," the labels on products containing mechanically separated poultry as ingredients simply declare these ingredients as poultry or poultry meat.
This inequity has riled meat processors for years. Several red meat sausage manufacturers claim that without a regulatory definition and standard for poultry products produced by mechanical deboning, a disparate situation exists between labeling poultry products produced by mechanical deboning and mechanically separated species-which poses an unfair advantage for the manufacturers of poultry products.
FSIS is proposing to amend the federal meat inspection regulations by amending the definition of "meat." This new definition of meat would include meat product derived from the advances made because of the modification of traditional mechanical means (meat/bone separation machinery and recovery systems) of separating meat from the bones of livestock that do not involve grinding, crushing or pulverizing bones to remove the adhering skeletal tissue. FSIS calls meat products derived from these advances comparable to "meat" as traditionally defined in 9 CFR 301.2 (rr).
"The advances in meat/bone separation have led to recovery systems that separate meat from bone without crushing, grinding or pulverizing bones such that the meat is removed by shaving, pressing or scraping the muscle tissue from the bone surface similar to the action of the hand-held, high-speed knives," according to the proposal.
The proposal would also establish protein quality and calcium content criteria for meat derived from advanced meat/bone separation machinery and meat recovery systems.
FSIS is also considering issues in regard to the lack of a regulatory definition and standard for certain poultry products produced by mechanical deboning-products deemed to be similar to mechanically separated species. One Washington insider says although moving in the right direction, the proposal and the advanced notice of proposed rule-making still do not establish a level playing field between mechanically separated species and mechanically deboned poultry because there will be differences in definitions for each regarding bone breakage content.
As the insider points out, why not regulate both equally on the basis of the finished product composition? Make MSS equitable to the 1 percent bone solids allowed for MDP, which has been practiced safely for 30 years.