The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has stood firm amid criticism on its mechanically separated meat (MSM) consultation.
FSA asked for views on a proposed guidance document regarding mechanically separated meat.
New guidance was developed for businesses following a series of court judgments on the definition of MSM. Decisions by the court covered what MSM is, how food businesses should interpret the definition, and how they should apply it to their products.
Sixty responses were received from businesses, individual consumers, trade associations, and local authorities. Respondents included companies such as Zwanenberg Food Group and 2 Sisters Food Group and trade organizations like the British Poultry Council and British Meat Processors Association.
Industry feedback
Several parties highlighted disagreements with the legislation or the FSA’s view of the Supreme Court Judgment. The FSA said it stands by its understanding of the judgment.
Some industry respondents said the guidance was “fundamentally flawed” because FSA has misinterpreted that the Supreme Court Judgment applies to poultry wishbone meat. They added that the guide would result in meat from poultry wishbones being classified as MSM, instead of its current classification as a meat preparation. Wishbone meat counts towards the meat content of food products 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 where three criteria are met, including the process chosen to separate meat from the bone. The use of cattle, sheep, and goat bones, or bone-in cuts, as raw material for MSM is prohibited and has been since 2001 due to public health concerns.
In comments objecting to the guidance, 2 Sisters said it would increase costs for the consumer, lead to an increase in imports, and increase production costs. The British Poultry Council said the action would add to food waste with disposal of up to 10,000 tons of meat.
Consumer concerns
There were three main issues raised by consumers. One was in relation to labeling, with respondents highlighting the need for transparent and clear information so people are not misled. The second was the need for more straightforward information on MSM for the public and the third was an objection to the use of MSM as an ingredient in food.
MSM must be labeled on products to allow consumers to make an informed choice. The court judgment clarified the definition of MSM and labeling requirements are set out in law.
FSA said MSM produced in compliance with hygiene regulations is a safe product that can be used as an ingredient in a variety of foods.
Concerns were raised in relation to cost implications for companies due to loss of value associated with products being reclassified as MSM; increased raw material costs e.g., for businesses having to replace anything reclassified as MSM with alternative meat preparations; and costs of production process changes.
An assessment on the impacts of businesses adapting processes will be undertaken and published later in the process.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
