FSIS Again Tries to Placate All Sides In Mechanical Separation Controversy
by Gary Jay Kushner
Since at least the 1970s, regulation of the composition and labeling of meat and poultry derived from mechanical-separation has been a subject of debate.
The debate has included how much mechanically-separated product (either meat or poultry) may be used in a finished product, what the ingredients should be called, and how and if the ingredients should be declared on the label of a finished product.
Disagreements about these issues has led to litigation. Most recently, two lawsuits were filed by manufacturers of whole hog sausage alleging inequitable treatment of the two products.
Perhaps the final chapter of this saga is being played out. FSIS has published a proposed rule to establish a definition and standard of identity and composition for mechanically-separated poultry products, and a final rule amending the regulation defining meat to include products produced with advanced meat-bone separation machinery.
Separated by rules
The meat rule amends the definition of "meat" to include products derived from specific types of machinery and meeting specified compositional parameters, processing criteria and nutritional characteristics.
Specifically, the rule provides that products derived from mechanical separation using machinery that does not crush, grind or pulverize the bones, and does not yield a product with more than 0.15 percent calcium, may be called "meat" and not "mechanically-separated meat."
But the rule does not cover products made from separation machinery yielding the paste-like product traditionally known as mechanically-separated meat. These products will continue to be identified, for example, as "mechanically separated beef," and will continue to be subjected to use limitations.
The poultry proposal would establish requirements for mechanically-separated products, including limits on bone solid content and bone particle size, and would specify when the use of mechanically-separated poultry is prohibited.
In addition, the presence of "mechanically-separated chicken" or "mechanically-separated turkey" would have to be declared in the ingredients statement of a finished product. Historically, FSIS has permitted mechanically-separated chicken to be labeled simply as "chicken."
FSIS' now believes the method of deriving poultry products by mechanical separation differs from the separation of other boneless poultry products by traditional deboning techniques, according to the proposed regulation.
The agency also states that although mechanically-separated poultry is produced by essentially the same technology and has characteristics similar to mechanically-separated meat, the current regulations for the two products are different.
These differences, according to FSIS, raised two major policy issues: Whether current regulations are adequately protecting consumers and whether different regulatory treatments for two similar products are justified.
A number of products that use mechanically-separated poultry are marketed using trade names identifying an ingredient only by name. For example: chicken nuggets.
The proposal would make mechanically-separated poultry a standardized product to be designated in the ingredients statement. For example: "mechanically-separated chicken."
According to FSIS, however, products such as chicken nuggets would continue to be marketed using their long-standing and well-known names as long as "mechanically-separated chicken" is declared in their ingredients statements.
Poultry derived by mechanical deboning has been used in many products at relatively-high levels without special labeling and without consumer objection for about 30 years.
The proposed rule, even with its requirement that the mechanically-separated product be declared in the ingredients statement, likely will not adversely affect the use of products that are wholesome, nutritious and widely used.
Will it make a difference?
Meat products produced by mechanical separation have been the subject of numerous regulatory initiatives and changes throughout the product's controversial history. Although the regulatory requirements have been made more flexible, there is little mechanically-separated meat in use.
The perception has been that declaring the presence of mechanically separated meat makes a product unacceptable to consumers. The new rule defining meat to include product derived from a particular type of machinery will not likely do much to change that image.
The meat rule went into effect on Jan. 5; the comment period for the poultry proposal closed on Feb. 6.
Assuming FSIS promulgates a final poultry rule that is similar to its proposed rule, only time will tell whether all of the litigation and administrative activities that USDA and the meat and poultry industries have gone through will make any real difference.
What traditionally has been known as mechanically-separated meat will continue to be labeled as such and mechanically-separated poultry will continue to be used extensively in a number of products.