The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has stood firm despite criticism of its mechanically separated meat (MSM) advice.
FSA asked for views on a proposed guidance document regarding mechanically separated meat.
New guidelines for companies have been developed following a series of court rulings on the definition of MSM. Court rulings focused on what MSM is, how food companies should interpret the definition and how they should apply it to their products.
Sixty responses were received from companies, individual consumers, trade associations and municipalities. Respondents included companies such as Zwanenberg Food Group and 2 Sisters Food Group and trade organizations such as the British Poultry Council and British Meat Processors Association.
Industry feedback
Several parties pointed out disagreements with the legislation or with the FSA’s view of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The FSA said it stands by its interpretation of the judgment.
Some industry respondents said the guidelines were “fundamentally flawed” because the FSA misinterpreted that the High Court judgment applies to poultry wishbone meat. They added that the guide would result in meat from poultry limbs being classified as MSM, rather than the current classification as meat preparation. Wishbone meat counts towards the meat content of foods, while MSM does not. Such meat is used in the manufacture of breaded chicken products.
The FSA said it did not agree that the judgment was limited to certain types of meat.
MSM is produced when three criteria are met, including the chosen process to separate meat from the bone. The use of cattle, sheep and goat bones, or pieces of bone, as a raw material for MSM has been banned since 2001 due to public health concerns.
In comments objecting to the guidelines, 2 Sisters said it would increase costs for consumers, lead to an increase in imports and increase production costs. The British Poultry Council said the move would contribute to food waste, with up to 10,000 tonnes of meat thrown away.
Consumer concerns
There were three main issues raised by consumers. One of these related to labelling, where respondents emphasized the need for transparent and clear information so that people are not misled. The second was the need for clearer information about MSM for the public and the third was an objection to the use of MSM as an ingredient in food.
MSM should be labeled on products so that consumers can make an informed choice. The court’s decision clarified the definition of MSM and the labeling requirements are codified in law.
FSA said that MSM produced in accordance with hygiene regulations is a safe product that can be used as an ingredient in a variety of foods.
Concerns have been raised about the cost implications for businesses due to loss of value resulting from the reclassification of products as MSM; higher raw material costs, for example for companies that have to replace everything classified as mechanically separated meat with alternative meat preparations; and costs of changes in the production process.
An assessment of the impact of companies changing processes will be made and published later in the process.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)