by Bryan Salvage, editor
In May, I wrote an editorial on "leveling the playing field" between products containing mechanically separated meat and mechanically deboned poultry.
This article primarily focused on the differences between the two in terms of definition and labeling requirements. While attending a meeting at the National Live Stock & Meat Board headquarters at the end of May, a National Live Stock & Meat Board executive said that although he liked the editorial-there were other key differences, other economic inequities-that exist between poultry and meat inspection systems, in general.
He gave me a published report to support his claim entitled "Key Findings and Executive Summary of Competitive Analysis of Meat and Poultry Inspection Systems," which was conducted by the Meat Board research staff. Although released more than two years ago (July 14, 1992), he added the results of this report still stand true today.
In addition, a separate report comparing USDA meat and poultry regulations by the Research Triangle Institute states that although most regulatory differences between meat and poultry are minor or of no real consequence to either industry, a small number of differences could be viewed as "potentially significant" in terms of cost advantage to one industry or another-or to FSIS in terms of relative costs of administering the two regulatory programs.
Money talks
Nothing captures the attention of meat executives faster than dollars-and-cents comparisons-particularly when the results are detrimental to the meat industry. The purpose of the Meat Board's report was to review and confirm an earlier AMI report that stated an economic inequity of $43 a head for beef and $16 a head for pork caused by the differences in poultry and meat inspection systems. Just in case you missed this report in 1992, here are the key findings:
-- Current government regulations do not permit water weight gains of meat carcasses. However, poultry carcasses are permitted moisture gains of 8 percent. In practical terms, most tray-packed poultry processors today are limited to 5 percent moisture absorption to minimize excess fluid in the package. Meat carcasses subjected to spray chilling generally incur an average moisture loss of 0.3 to 1.0 percent. The resulting competitive advantages for poultry are therefore in the range of 4 to 6 percent on an average weight basis.
-- The poultry industry is permitted to use unlimited quantities of mechanically separated poultry in food products and label it as chicken or turkey, while mechanically separated meat products must meet prescribed compositional standards to be used in limited quantities in certain products, and ingredient statement and calcium content labels are required.
"The poultry industry has a significant advantage over the meat industry with mechanically separated meat because it has been difficult for the red meat industry to stay within the regulations for bone/calcium content," states the report.
-- There are several other differences in regulations regarding cooking temperatures, sanitation and processing, which have lesser economic impact.
Meat Board findings
The Meat Board's findings supported AMI's estimates. It found that more than half of the economic disparity caused by different inspection regulations for poultry and meat are in the areas of moisture weight gains and mechanically separated products. Meat Board analysis of the data shows poultry to have an economic advantage of $45 a head for beef and $11 to $15.50 a head for pork. So, what actions are needed to level the playing field? The Meat Board suggests:
-- Change from a carcass-to-carcass basis for regulating water weight gain in meat to "lot" basis like poultry.
-- Seek approval of the "Protocon/Baader" process, which squeezes meat away from neck and bones.
-- Change reprocessing regulations to more equitable standards and equalize water temperature and other clean-up regulations.
Listed as potential action with less probability for success were:
-- Equalize moisture weight gains permitted for poultry and meat.
-- Equalize meat and poultry's regulations for mechanically separated product, which is not included in the Protocon/Baader process.
Although FSIS started the ball rolling last March toward leveling the playing field, it will be interesting to see what the final results will be-and just exactly how long it will take to eliminate these economic inequities between poultry and meat.
Editor's Note: I'm pleased to announce that Barret Klein, plant manager at the Vernon, Texas, Wright Brand Foods' facility, is the winner of a rare and collectible MM&T Swiss Army Knife.
His name was drawn from the many MM&T readers who responded to a readership survey we recently conducted. I want to thank all who responded.
We will be conducting similar surveys in the future, and we ask that should you receive a questionnaire -please take a moment to complete and return it. Your comments are extremely important to us, and you, too, could win a fine knife.