November 14, 2007
Some Seeing Red Over Carbon Monoxide in Meat
There are some who see using carbon monoxide to keep meat red longer as deceptive at best and potentially dangerous at worst.
Conversely, proponents of using the gas in meat packaging will point out that it reduces waste (people buy on appearance and often won’t purchase safe product with brown in it) and helps to stop the spread of dangerous bacteria. The case-ready packaging requires less handling than meat wrapped in stores.
The issue came before a hearing of the House’s Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations yesterday, according to a Reuters report.
Rep. Bart Stupak, Michigan Democrat and chairman of the subcommittee, is among those who oppose the use of carbon monoxide even though none of the recent recalls of meat have been for product sold in that type of packaging.
Congressional scrutiny and opposition from some consumer groups has led chains operated by Safeway and Ahold to discontinue sales of meat with the packaging. Tyson has also chosen not to use the packaging as part of its meat processing business.
Yesterday, Target asked the U.S. Agriculture Department for permission to label meats that have been treated with carbon monoxide. The company is looking to urge consumers to make purchasing decisions based on “use by” dates rather than the color of the meat.
The USDA is believed likely to approve Target’s request (meat processors Hormel and Cargill are also likely to go along) as long as the claims made on labels are not deemed to be misleading in any way.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, defended packaging with carbon monoxide.
“There is no need for the federal government to implement overzealous regulations that would likely take a step backward and away from safe and efficient meat packaging,” she said.
Discussion Questions: Do you believe that consumers are somehow more at risk with meat in packages containing carbon monoxide? Is there a need for special labeling such as that requested by Target? Will the label be enough to alleviate the concerns some have with this type of packaging? Is there a possibility the label could backfire and impede sales of meat?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Shoppers want to know about food ingredients. It doesn’t matter what food processors want, what elected officials want, or what grocers want. It doesn’t matter what “experts,” even RetailWire “experts” think about carbon monoxide packaged meats. “Just give the lady what she wants”: John Wanamaker.
Education to the consumer is key in this type of question. Is the #1 choice of consumers when they purchase their meat that it is a “fake red” color driven by a toxic gas found in the packaging of the product, or is it that they want “natural meat,” which has a range of color which is safe, and does not include toxic gas? Leave it up to the consumer, but educate them to know the difference, so they can make their own choices.
If you want to buy meat that looks this bad, then buy it. You certainly don’t need a label to tell you there’s something different about meat packaged in this manner. Unless of course, you’ve never purchased meat before. If you can get beyond the look, I suppose you don’t really care. So why bother with a mandated label?
I think the arguments on both sides of this issue are not quite as obvious as we might assume. It’s certainly a fact that CO gas is dangerous when we breathe it. However, based on the few facts I know so far, it’s less clear to me whether CO-treated packaging poses similar danger. Somebody–step up with clear science on this point, please.
Beyond this risk of trace-level poisoning, there is apparently the concern that appearance-preserved meat could still harbor dangerous bacteria deep within, but that this would be masked by the fresh appearance of the product. Call this the “time-bomb” problem.
To understand this risk, I suppose we’d have to understand whether CO-treated packaging affects surface color only, or has an actual preservative effect. Also, can shoppers rely on their senses–color, appearance, odor–in selecting meat that is safe to eat? And wouldn’t the time-bomb problem apply equally to meat whose safety is assured by a date label, rather then red color?
CO packaging is another food production technology that sounds scary–like “irradiation” of strawberries. It may be a bad idea, but so far the arguments I’ve heard seem to revolve around fear, not fact. Grocers who cut out the practice may be doing do because of public opinion–a valid enough reason, but in this instance one wonders whether clear consumer education and forthright dialog would calm the controversy and let shoppers make choices they are comfortable with.
If there’s nothing wrong with treating the meat then there should be nothing wrong with telling consumers that it’s been treated and letting them make up their own minds. I agree completely with those who have said shoppers need to know more about the process and why it is meant to be good and safe but, even with that (or especially because of that), labels should tell them that it has happened so that they can decide whether or not we are happy to buy it. Informed decisions yet again. Give people the opportunity and the respect they deserve and demand.
Is it possible that the real question here is “who is driving this legislation?” Kalsec, of Kalamazoo, has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban carbon-monoxide-packaged meats, or at least require them to be labeled as such, is the same company who has a patented process to add rosemary extract to achieve the same results as adding carbon-monoxide. Any reason to think this has anything to do with their petition?
And any wonder that the Representatives that have helped initiate the petition are John Dingell and Bart Stupak, both Democrats from Michigan? Is this just another case of government intervention on the behalf of local interests, to help one taxpayer/campaign contributor gain an advantage over another?
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Shoppers want to know about food ingredients. It doesn’t matter what food processors want, what elected officials want, or what grocers want. It doesn’t matter what “experts,” even RetailWire “experts” think about carbon monoxide packaged meats. “Just give the lady what she wants”: John Wanamaker.
Education to the consumer is key in this type of question. Is the #1 choice of consumers when they purchase their meat that it is a “fake red” color driven by a toxic gas found in the packaging of the product, or is it that they want “natural meat,” which has a range of color which is safe, and does not include toxic gas? Leave it up to the consumer, but educate them to know the difference, so they can make their own choices.
If you want to buy meat that looks this bad, then buy it. You certainly don’t need a label to tell you there’s something different about meat packaged in this manner. Unless of course, you’ve never purchased meat before. If you can get beyond the look, I suppose you don’t really care. So why bother with a mandated label?
I think the arguments on both sides of this issue are not quite as obvious as we might assume. It’s certainly a fact that CO gas is dangerous when we breathe it. However, based on the few facts I know so far, it’s less clear to me whether CO-treated packaging poses similar danger. Somebody–step up with clear science on this point, please.
Beyond this risk of trace-level poisoning, there is apparently the concern that appearance-preserved meat could still harbor dangerous bacteria deep within, but that this would be masked by the fresh appearance of the product. Call this the “time-bomb” problem.
To understand this risk, I suppose we’d have to understand whether CO-treated packaging affects surface color only, or has an actual preservative effect. Also, can shoppers rely on their senses–color, appearance, odor–in selecting meat that is safe to eat? And wouldn’t the time-bomb problem apply equally to meat whose safety is assured by a date label, rather then red color?
CO packaging is another food production technology that sounds scary–like “irradiation” of strawberries. It may be a bad idea, but so far the arguments I’ve heard seem to revolve around fear, not fact. Grocers who cut out the practice may be doing do because of public opinion–a valid enough reason, but in this instance one wonders whether clear consumer education and forthright dialog would calm the controversy and let shoppers make choices they are comfortable with.
If there’s nothing wrong with treating the meat then there should be nothing wrong with telling consumers that it’s been treated and letting them make up their own minds. I agree completely with those who have said shoppers need to know more about the process and why it is meant to be good and safe but, even with that (or especially because of that), labels should tell them that it has happened so that they can decide whether or not we are happy to buy it. Informed decisions yet again. Give people the opportunity and the respect they deserve and demand.
Is it possible that the real question here is “who is driving this legislation?” Kalsec, of Kalamazoo, has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban carbon-monoxide-packaged meats, or at least require them to be labeled as such, is the same company who has a patented process to add rosemary extract to achieve the same results as adding carbon-monoxide. Any reason to think this has anything to do with their petition?
And any wonder that the Representatives that have helped initiate the petition are John Dingell and Bart Stupak, both Democrats from Michigan? Is this just another case of government intervention on the behalf of local interests, to help one taxpayer/campaign contributor gain an advantage over another?