The application of carbon monoxide in meat packaging

The application of carbon monoxide in meat packaging needs to be re-evaluated within the EU: An overview Lauren Anne Van Rooyena, b, Paul Allena and David. I. O’Connorb* a Teagasc Food Research Centre, Food Quality and Sensory Department, Ashtown, Dublin 15, Ireland b Dublin Institute of Technology, School of Food Science and Environmental Health, Cathal Brugha Street, Dublin 1, Ireland

§ Address the issues associated with the use of CO in meat packaging

Current meat packaging issues Population (billion) § Meat packaging innovations can play a pivotal role in meeting the goal of a sustainable future and ensuring food security. 9. 9 8. 8 7. 7 6. 6 5. 5 4. 4 3. 3 2. 2 1. 1 0 9. 8 7. 4 2017 Year 2050 § More than 20% of the 263 million tonnes of meat produced globally is lost or wasted (FAO, 2016; Saucier, 2016). § Meat consumption is estimated to increase by 17. 5% to 356 million tonnes from 2013 to 2023 (OECD-FAO, 2014). § Minimising waste can contribute to an increase meat supply.

Introduction § Colour – reliance quality § Determines “perceived quality” § Safe and fresh to consume? ? Grass fed ?

Current packaging technologies Deoxymyoglobin DMb (Fe 2+) Reduced form –O 2 Oxygenation +O 2 MAP VSP Oxymyoglobin (OMb) (Fe 2+) Colour Tenderness VP

Benefits of CO in meat packaging §ü CO Enhanced is naturally colour synthesised stability within the human body caused by the haemoproteins. ü breakdown Prolonged of shelf-life - CO increases the lag phase and reduces the log § Aphase concentration of 1. 2% - 1. 5% carboxyhemoglobin for both pathogenic and spoilage bacteria. (Hb. CO) is endogenous in while in smokers it is 3 - 4 % (European Commission, 2001) ü non-smokers, Enhanced sensory attributes ü Antioxidant abilities - Reduced lipid and protein oxidation ü Reduced off-odour/ slime production ü Improved tenderness (0. 4% CO-MAP) compared to high-oxygen MAP ü Prevention of premature browning üHigher metmyoglobin reducing activity (MRA) in 0. 4% CO-MAP which is linked to increased colour stability, compared to high. O 2 MAP

Carbon monoxide packaging § Inconsistency worldwide in the regulation of its use within the meat industry and the use of CO is currently receiving attention § Differing regulations globally can be a non-tariff barrier to trade limiting the possibilities for exports between countries

CO Regulations § USA required labelling: • “use or freeze by” date of 35 days for intact steaks or roasts and 28 days for mincemeat (FDA, 2004). • Packages are required to state “colour is not an accurate indicator of freshness”(FDA, 2012). • Ensure consumer safety and to avoid misleading consumers. § New Zealand, Australia and Canada = processing aid or as a secondary packaging gas. § Norway about 20 years. Ended in 2004 due to the adoption of EU regulations to increase trade with the EU.

E. U. • In the EU packaging gases = additives and require an “E number” • EU legislation (Directive No 89/107/EEC and Directive No 95/2/EC), which applies to additives other than colours and sweeteners and refers specifically to “packaging gases” • “Packaging gases are gases other than air, introduced into a container before, during or after the placing of a foodstuff in that container”. • Modified atmosphere packaged (MAP) foods require labelling which states “Packaged in a protective atmosphere” and E numbers should be displayed on the label e. g. E 290 for CO 2 and E 948 for O 2 (European Parliament and Council Directive, 1995).

EU Legislation § For CO to be approved as an additive within the EU the following criteria must be met (Directive 89/107/EEC): – “there can be demonstrated a reasonable technological need and the purpose cannot be achieved by other means which are economically and technologically practicable, – they present no hazard to the heath of consumers at the level of use proposed, so far as can be judged on the scientific evidence available, – they do not mislead the consumer. ” § In 2004, the use of CO was prohibited in meat packaging. § European Scientific Committee stated: 0. 3% - 0. 5% CO mixed with carbon dioxide (CO 2) and nitrogen (N 2) used as a modified atmosphere gas for meat stored at 4˚ C presented no health threat (European Commission, 2001). § Low concentrations of CO to meat packaging systems were consumer friendly and no toxic effects.

A possible solution to current packaging issues? § Value-added technology. § Negative quality issues related to high O 2 MAP packaging can be avoided

Application of CO pretreatment in fresh meat § Results vary but all studies have reported enhanced colour stability. § Brewer et al. , (1994) 100% CO pretreatment prior to VP for 30 min ü Enhanced colour (redness) for up to 6 weeks storage. ü Reduced microbial load § Jayasingh et al. (2001) proposed using lower levels of CO (5%) for 24 h prior to VP beef steaks to enhance the colour for 21 days – ü Colour stability exceeded 5 weeks § Sagarnaga (2006) 100% CO pretreatment for 30 min prior to VP ü more tender and juicy compared to CO-MAP or MAP § Aspé et al. (2008) - 5% CO with 95% N 2 to beef chops for 24 h ü Colour shelf-life 11 weeks / shelf life of 7 weeks § Sakowska, et al. , 2016 – 0. 5% CO for 48 h beef steaks ü Prevents persistent pinking (carboxymyoglobin layer being retained after cooking) in beef striploin steaks (a quality and safety issue)

CO pretreatment continued. • Van Rooyen et al. , (2017) § The European Commission (2001) were concerned that raised temperatures • The optimum 5% CO pretreatment exposure h as this allowed mishandling or transportation; the presence of CO time may was mask 5 spoilage. discoloration after 28 days (2 °C) as to not mask spoilage. • This consumers have a reliable visual indication of freshness § Hunt et al. ensures (2004) 0. 4% CO-MAP • • CO-MAP did not mask meat Ensures consumers are not spoilage misled by an attractive colour being retained beyond the microbial shelf-life. § Van • No Rooyen et al. effect (2016), negative on CO-pretreatments microbiological safety, cooking loss, tenderness and • Mild abuse C) did not alter the conclusion that a 5% CO / 5 lipid temperature oxidation at the end(6° of storage. h did not mask spoilage as discolouration occurred by use-by-date, • The CO exposure time was greatly reduced compared to previous studies irrespective of display temperature. • Improving efficiency and reducing process time.

Consumer perception and acceptance of CO • Consumers’ preferences were not considered by the EC • Consumer acceptance of CO as a packaging technology needs to be considered and varies globally • Personal knowledge, sensitivity to information and media exposure of CO may negatively influence consumer acceptance of CO meat packaging and affect willingness to pay (WTP) (Grebitus et al. , 2013). • Concerns of CO being a potentially hazardous gas • Concerns for workers’ safety

EU consumer studies of CO Polish Studies - would consumers accept CO in meat packaging systems? (Sakowska, Guzek, Sun, & Wierzbicka, 2016; Sakowska, Guzek, & Wierzbicka, 2016) 1. CO-VP v. s. VP (Sakowska, Guzek, and Wierzbicka, 2016) § Consumer preferences for CO-pretreated (0. 1%, 0. 3% and 0. 5%) exposed for 48 h prior to VP vs to untreated VP beef steaks • Preference and increased desire to purchase steaks packaged CO pretreatments (0. 3% and 0. 5%) due to attractive cherry red colour. • Did not accept untreated VP - considered the least attractive. 2. CO-MAP (0. 5%) v. s CO pretreatments (0. 5 %) prior to VP (Sakowska, Guzek, Sun, & Wierzbicka, 2016) § The highest consumer acceptance, preference and likelihood to purchase for CO pretreatments (0. 5 %) compared to CO-MAP.

EU consumer studies of CO cont. • Comparison of US and German consumers - choice study – on beef mince meat packaged in MAP or CO-MAP (Grebitus et al. , 2013) • Evaluated consumer acceptance and WTP • Included labelling on the packages, • Information of improved meat quality attributes due to the packaging § US consumers preferred prolonged shelf-life and clear information about the packaging § German consumers preferred to have an option of CO-MAP as they were attracted to the enhanced meat colour. § WTP for CO-MAP decreased for US consumers when labelling information was included about the role of CO as a colour stabiliser but did not affect WTP of German consumers. • German- € 3. 75 more for a desirable cherry red appearance • USA would only pay an additional € 0. 69. v Consumers in both countries preferred an enhanced cherry red colour

Conclusions ü (Directive 89/107/EEC) have been satisfactorily addressed therefore a reconsideration by the EU Commission is justified. ü CO - colour enhancer = providing a technological need. ü Low concentration of CO presents no health threat, consumer friendly and no toxic effects. ü 5% CO pretreatment for 5 h prior to VP enhances colour, while allowing discoloration by use-by date so as to not mask spoilage ü This addresses consumer safety concerns as this does not mislead consumers ü European consumer acceptance studies from Germany and Poland, demonstrate promising future potential of the application of CO within the EU. • The information could guide the framing of future policies intended to: – Support consumer protection, safety, choice and interest.

Conclusions and future outlook § CO-pretreatments = value-added technology which improves meat quality through enhanced colour stability and allows ageing within the package. • Overcome some of the challenges the meat industry faces. § Reduce global meat waste due to discolouration § Assist in the goal of a sustainable future, ensuring food security. § Allowing CO for use in meat packaging would allow European processors to export CO pretreated meat to countries where CO is permitted, increasing profitability and exports. § The information provided may be used to make a case for the re-evaluation of CO as a permitted packaging gas within the EU.

Acknowledgements Dr. Paul Allen Dr. David I. O’Connor § Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine (DAFM) for their financial support through the Food Research Institutional Measure (FIRM). § Dublin Institute of Technology (D. I. T. ) § Teagasc Walsh Fellowship Programme

Thank you Any Questions? “Let’s beat discoloured meat!”