The news that two more cases of beef carcasses containing parts which should have been removed under the BSE precautionary measures broke just as Consumer News went to press.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) reported on February 2nd that it was investigating two consignments of beef, one in Northern Ireland and another in Eastbourne, in unrelated breaches of BSE controls. The Northern Ireland beef came from the Republic of Ireland while the beef at a meat cutting plant in Eastbourne came from Bakum in Germany, via Dover. In this case just one of a consignment of 217 hind quarters, marked as fit for human consumption, was found to still have spinal cord attached. Accompanying documentation stated that the beef was from animals under 30 months old, to comply with the UK's domestic Over Thirty Month rule, introduced in 1996, which applies to imported beef as well as home-produced beef. It means that meat from cattle over the age of 30 months is prohibited from entering the human food chain
Remarkably, it was at this same plant, earlier in the week, where another hindquarter containing two inches of spinal cord was discovered. These two consignments were from different sources in Germany. It was following this first incident that the FSA put into practice 100% inspection of all beef carcasses imported from Germany. However the FSA says that the decision to inspect all imported German beef carcasses is a temporary, risk-based measure which applies only to German imports.
In January two other cases of beef carcasses containing specified risk material were found in Newry, County Down. The beef came from two different German sources.
When the news of the latest incidents was broadcast the fear was expressed that the meat exporters knew that our inspection system was very strict and they did not therefore concern themselves too much about inspections at their slaughterhouses. Were they confident that any failures to remove spinal cord or other risky parts would be picked up here? If so, they were right, it was!
Now one wonders whether their slackness is just over meat for export to Britain, or is eating beef in Germany or the Irish Republic a risky business? Certainly in Germany a programme of cattle slaughtering is starting and one hears mention that the sale of beef has fallen considerably.
There was something of a 'shock, horror!' reaction to these cases so it is as well to point out that they were discovered by our rigorous checking systems. What is more worrying is that it seems virtually impossible to know if a 30 month rule has been enforced or to have traceability for imported meat products such as Salami, sausages or other made-up products. The meat may be from several sources. Labelling of carcasses is satisfactory and Local Authority checks have shown that this is so.
A Food Standards Agency (FSA) survey has revealed that shoppers could be losing out when buying fresh or frozen chickens or chicken parts and products because of unclear labelling and conflicting views on the best way to monitor added water.
The survey was carried out as part of the Agency's ongoing food surveillance programme. It showed that, when using one of the methods laid down in legislation, on average nearly a third (30%) of frozen whole chickens analysed contained more than the EC limit of added water (7%).
A certain percentage of added water is permitted by ELT legislation because it is an unavoidable consequence of the chilling process. These limits vary from two to seven percent, depending on the chilling method used. There are three methods which result in different levels of legally accepted unavoidable added water.
There are also two permitted methods to measure the amount of added water, a drip test and a chemical test, and these do not appear to correlate. The Agency used the chemical test because it could be used for all samples. The drip test can only be used for frozen whole chickens.
The Agency now intends to look further at the methods of water level measurement and push for better and more transparent labelling so that consumers have a dearer idea of what they are paying for.
Food Standards Agency Deputy Chairman (and NfCG Individual Member), Suzi Leather, said:
"The bottom line is that, in too many cases, consumers are paying for water When they should be paying for chicken. Some of the levels of water found in chickens and chicken pieces are completely unacceptable".
"The main problem seems to be with whole frozen chickens, frozen chicken breasts and some chicken products. There are no food safety issues here, but this goes right to the heart of consumer choice and value for money".
"But the main problem is that the legislation in this field appears to . be incomplete and inconsistent. We will be pushing for changes in EU procedures as a matter of urgency. As an Agency we want to see this issue dealt with quickly and efficiently so that consumers can be confident' about the choices they make."
The survey found that 17% of chicken parts analysed had water levels from 2% to 37% (!). Of approximately 160 chicken parts with added water, about 135 were breast portions and about 25 were thigh portions. Most of the chicken parts (about 105) were frozen. In 17 cases, the added water was neither declared nor listed anywhere on the product packaging.
In the case of non pre-packaged samples, many obtained from butchers shops, some had added water of more than 30%. But they are only regulated generally by the Food Safety Act and Food Labelling Regulations and may not be breaking any current legislation.
In some of the non-pre-packaged samples, the bulk batches were correctly labelled by the wholesaler but the relevant information was not then displayed or made available to the consumer in the individual shops at the point of retail sale.
Even when labelled correctly, the survey has shown that chicken products with declarations about added water can be confusing because different wording is required depending on which regulation applies. Also, not all types of chicken products are covered by legislation which requires a declaration of added water or meat content.
The survey was carried out in response to consumer concerns raised with the Food Standards Agency Working Party on Food Authenticity. All the suppliers involved in the survey, in whose products added water was found, have been informed of the results. Some have already taken action to investigate the situation further.
The Agency informed Trading Standards Officers as soon as the results were known, so that any cases of deliberate misdescription could be followed up.
The survey coincided with a report that water levels as high as 40% had been found in imported chicken meat. The purpose of the survey was to find out the levels of added water in chicken and inform consumers.
back to menu
Click Logo to Return to
Main Magazine Index