U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–470 PDF 2009

HEARING TO REVIEW THE TECHNOLOGIES IN 

THE MEAT INDUSTRY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 30, 2007

Serial No. 110–34

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

APRIL SLAYTON, Communications Director 

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Baca, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from California, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 3

Boswell, Hon. Leonard L., a Representative in Congress from Iowa, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 3

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 2

Graves, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from Missouri, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2

Smith, Hon. Adrian, a Representative in Congress from Nebraska, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

WITNESSES

Minerich, Ph.D., Phillip L., Vice President, Research and Development, 

Hormel Foods Corporation, Medina, OH ............................................................ 5

Presentation ............................................................................................................. 7

Eilert, Ph.D., Scott, Vice President, Research and Development, Cargill Meat 

Solutions Corporation, Wichita, KS .................................................................... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25

Roop, Ph.D., Richard, Senior Vice President, Science and Regulatory Affairs, 

Tyson Foods, Inc., Washington, D.C. .................................................................. 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28

Sebranek, Ph.D., Joseph G., University Professor, Department of Animal 

Science and Department of Food Science, Iowa State University, Ames, 

IA ........................................................................................................................... 31

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

Almanza, Alfred V., Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.; accompanied by Philip S. 

Derfler, Assistant Administrator; and Daniel L. Englejohn, Ph.D., Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program and Employee Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .. 57

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Brown, Michael J., Senior Vice President, Legislative Affairs, American Meat 

Institute, submitted material .............................................................................. 75

Food & Water Watch, submitted Fact Sheet and chart ....................................... 72

Kaster, Collette Schultz, President; and Thomas Powell, Executive Director, 

American Meat Science Association, prepared statement ................................ 69

Roop, Ph.D., Richard, Senior Vice President, Science and Regulatory Affairs, 

Tyson Foods, Inc., response and supplemental material .................................. 106

Rosenbaum, Donna, Safe Tables Our Priority; Consumer Federation of America; and Food & Water Watch, Government Accountability Project, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 70

Sebranek, Ph.D., Joseph G., University Professor, Department of Animal 

Science and Department of Food Science, Iowa State University, Sebranek 

et al., published article on meat packaging technology .................................... 105

Articles maintained in Committee files. 

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW THE TECHNOLOGIES IN 

THE MEAT INDUSTRY 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:32 p.m., in Room 1300 

of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Collin C. Peterson 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Peterson, Etheridge, Boswell, 

Baca, Scott, Cuellar, Costa, Boyda, Gillibrand, Kagen, Pomeroy, 

Barrow, Goodlatte, Lucas, Moran, Rogers, Musgrave, Neugebauer, 

Walz, Conaway, Schmidt, and Smith. 

Staff present: Nathan Fretz, Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias, Chandler 

Goule, Tyler Jameson, Rob Larew, John Riley, April Slayton, Kristin Sosanie, Patricia Barr, John Goldberg, Alise Kowalski, Kevin 

Kramp, Pam Miller, Pete Thomson, and Jamie Weyer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. We have a vote in about 10 minutes, so I want 

to get started anyway and then we will probably have to take a 

short recess. Good afternoon and welcome to today’s hearing of the 

House Agriculture Committee. I want to thank the witnesses for 

being with us here today. And today’s hearing is an opportunity to 

hear from those who develop, use, and regulate technologies used 

in the meat industry from slaughter through packaging. I view this 

hearing today as an informative, educational hearing. This came 

about because of a presentation that was done for me and my district where I was given an overview of this technology in all different aspects. I learned a lot of things that I did not know. And 

I felt that it would be useful for the Members to have this overview 

to get a better understanding of what the issues are and what the 

different technologies are. So we are actually going to have some 

packaging here that is going to be passed around for you to take 

a look at. And I just thought it would be good, given all the focus 

there is on food safety, for us to have a better understanding. So 

I have asked the folks that use this, work with it, develop it, to 

come in and explain to us the pros and cons of the different technologies. And then also hear from the regulators and scientists that 

have looked at this and approved it and so forth through the rulemaking process. We could end up having more hearings on this 

where we would at that time bring in the advocacy groups, consumer groups, farm groups, other folks that have different viewVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Jun 22, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\DOCS\110-34\50470.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
2

points and axes to grind to come in and give their points of view 

later on. But what I am interested in today is really educational, 

informational and I hope everybody can view it that way. 

I would say that one of the people that have been involved in this 

issue, I believe their name is Kalsec®, was invited to come twice 

by this Committee. They have not seen fit to be here today and I 

wanted to make it clear that I am disappointed in that because I 

wanted to have everybody that has been involved in this issue. 

They are the company that actually petitioned the FDA to change 

the current system and so it is unfortunate that, for whatever reason, they didn’t want to be here. 

I also want to welcome today the FSIS Administrator Almanza, 

who will be testifying. This is his first opportunity to testify at the 

Agriculture Committee and he will be providing an overview of the 

agency’s activities to improve and encourage industry to implement 

new technologies that improve food safety. 

And I think that our interest in this Committee is that whatever 

we end up doing in this regard improves food safety, makes food 

safer for the American people and is based on sound science and 

developed in public view, so everybody can understand how we get 

where we are. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Good afternoon and welcome to today’s hearing of the House Agriculture Committee. Today’s hearing is an opportunity for the Committee to hear from those who 

develop, use and regulate technologies used in the meat industry from slaughter 

through packaging. 

Over the past several decades, technology has improved the quality and safety of 

meat products available to consumers. We have moved from an inspection system 

that relied on sight and smell to a system that uses microbiological testing for dangerous pathogens. Technology has increased the shelf life of meat products and reduced costs both for processors and consumers. 

I would like to welcome FSIS Administrator Al Almanza who will be testifying 

today. This is his first opportunity to testify at the Agriculture Committee, and he 

will be providing an overview of the agency’s activities to approve and encourage 

industry to implement new technologies that improve food safety. 

My purpose for holding this hearing is to educate the Committee and the public 

about the development, use and regulation of new technologies in the meat industry. 

I appreciate our witnesses for being here today and look forward to their testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. With that, again, I would welcome all the witnesses and I would be glad to recognize my good friend, the Ranking Member from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

your holding this informational hearing and I would like to extend 

my gratitude to those witnesses who have traveled to Washington 

to appear before the Committee. 

Today the Committee will be considering questions related to certain packaging technologies utilized in the meat and poultry industry. Specifically, we will be discussing modified atmosphere packaging using carbon monoxide. Over the last couple of years, several 

proposals have been introduced as amendments, stand-alone bills 

or as a part of a larger legislative initiative that would impose reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Jun 22, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-34\50470.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
3

strictions on the use of carbon monoxide packaging in meat, poultry and seafood. Other food uses of this technology would be unaffected by these proposals. 

While I recognize that there may be some legitimate questions 

regarding the applicability any new food technology has, I would 

underscore the fact that the Congress has established procedures 

wherein experts within the regulatory agencies, operating in many 

cases with the advice of the scientific community, conduct extensive 

evaluations of these technologies before rendering a decision on 

their safety. The Congress of the United States is not a scientific 

body. We have neither the expertise nor the resources to conduct 

safety evaluations on food technologies. Having established a transparent, science-based process, it is essential that we allow this 

process to operate. 

I do think it is important that the Members of the Committee be 

assured that that process is operating and that the people who are 

working in it are fully aware of what the important issues are that 

they are addressing and that is why I think it is very important 

that we hear from these witnesses today. 

So Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I would ask that all other Members submit their statements for 

the record. 

[The prepared statements of Messers. Boswell, Baca, Graves, and 

Smith follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD L. BOSWELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM IOWA

I would like to thank the Chairman, Mr. Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte 

for holding this important hearing today and would like to give a special thanks to 

our witnesses for offering their insight into the current technologies in the meat industry. I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

As Chairman of the Livestock, Dairy & Poultry Subcommittee oversight of the 

new technologies in the meat industry is of great interest to me. 

The witnesses today will give us an accurate picture of what the industry is doing 

today and hopefully where we can expect to go in the future. 

Today we will hear about high and low oxygen packaging, case ready, and Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP), amongst others. I am hopeful this hearing will 

not solely focus on MAP technologies but all the new technologies that the industry 

is currently doing and what we can expect to see as we look to the future in meat 

packing. 

I would specifically like to welcome Dr. Joe Sebranek from Iowa State University. 

As a leader in animal and meat science I look forward to the scientific background 

he will be able to offer here today. 

The United States is in a very unique position; we have the safest, most plentiful, 

and most affordable food supply in the world. If we wish to continue to pay the lowest percentage of disposable income of developed nations we must continue to strive 

to find the next new technology, the best innovation. 

Once again I would like to thank our witnesses and look forward to their testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

CALIFORNIA

Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss technology in the meat and meat packaging industries, and the best possible methods to ensure America’s consumers are 

eating only the safest products available. 

4

I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for convening this hearing and hope 

we will be able to gain insight into the different options available for the packaging 

of fresh meat—and the advantages and disadvantages of each. 

I also want to thank each of our witnesses for coming here today and taking time 

from their busy schedules to help us in Congress better understand this often complex issue. 

Everyone in this room is aware of the recent recalls of E. coli tainted beef from 

the Topps Beef Company in New Jersey. 

We are here today to explore the proper balance between innovations in food technology and the safety of America’s consumers. 

We are also here to ensure the economic security of America’s cattlemen and the 

meat packaging and cutting industries. 

This is an issue of the utmost importance. We must keep America’s beef supply 

safe. 

In recent months, we have had recalls of foreign products ranging from pet food, 

to toothpaste, to toys. The last thing we need is to become reliant on foreign countries for our meat and beef needs. 

Mr. Chairman, all the Members of this Committee know that perhaps the most 

important part of our job is to keep the American consumer safe. 

We must find a way to do this without reducing the quality of our products, and 

without endangering the livelihood of thousands of Americans who make their living 

on livestock and meat packaging operations. 

I look forward to hearing from all of you today and thank the Chairman and 

Ranking Member again for their leadership. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SAM GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

MISSOURI

Thank you, Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for holding this 

hearing. 

Oversight of the safety of the American food supply is one of the most important 

mission’s of this Committee, and I think it is a credit to the Chairman and Ranking 

Member of this Committee that we are holding this hearing today to focus on new 

technology in the meat industry, and what impact that technology has most importantly on safety, but also on marketability and consumer satisfaction. I look forward 

to hearing from Administrator Almanza as he testifies before this Committee for the 

first time, as well as from our distinguished witnesses from the meat industry and 

academic world. 

With regard to this issue, I believe it is paramount that the government evaluates 

all new technology with safety in mind first, and after ensuring that a fundamental 

level of safety exists for a technology, then allowing consumers to make the determination regarding which product they want to purchase at the grocery store. Consumers will be happier if they are provided with the most possible options that can 

be guaranteed as safe. 

Thank you again Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for holding 

the hearing. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ADRIAN SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM NEBRASKA

Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The meat industry is extremely important to Nebraska. Nebraska has 81 animal 

slaughter facilities (excluding poultry processing), more than any other state, except 

Texas, California, and Iowa. Nebraska leads the nation in value of meat product 

shipments, with almost $10.5 billion in receipts. Nebraska’s meat packing industry 

employs over 20,000 people, more than any other state, with an annual payroll of 

nearly $550 million. Clearly, the meat industry is important to Nebraska’s economy. 

I am pleased that we are holding this hearing today, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of our knowledgeable witnesses. I hope that what we learn today 

about the technologies of the meat industry will allow us to aggressively pursue new 

markets and breakdown barriers to trade, with the assurance that our products are 

the safest in the world. 

I want to thank our witnesses for coming here today to provide testimony for the 

Committee, and I look forward to hearing from you. 

I appreciate the Committee for holding this hearing as an important step to meeting our goals. 

5

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I thank you 

for your time.

The CHAIRMAN. We probably have 10 minutes before we have to 

leave to vote, I thank the gentleman. Now, we have Dr. Minerich. 

Dr. MINERICH. Minerich. 

The CHAIRMAN. Minerich. Okay, sorry. Vice President of Research and Development at Hormel. I think we have time for your 

testimony, then we have two votes, we are going to take a break 

and we will come back and get to the rest of the panel. So, Doctor, 

welcome to the Committee and are we going to pass around some 

of that stuff or how are we going to do that? 

Dr. MINERICH. Do it during the question and answer period. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will do that during question and answer, 

okay. Go ahead, Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF PHILLIP L. MINERICH, PH.D., VICE

PRESIDENT, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, HORMEL 

FOODS CORPORATION, MEDINA, OH 

Dr. MINERICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You should have a 

package like this in front of you and I will reference certain page 

numbers if you want some visual aids during my conversation. I 

am Dr. Phil Minerich, Vice President of Research and Development 

for Hormel Foods Corporation and I do thank you for this opportunity to talk about this important topic. 

I am here today to discuss advances in meat packaging technology, specifically the many benefits of low-oxygen packaging. On 

page 2, you will see that Hormel Foods is a 116 year old company 

with a long and proud history of innovations in the food packaging 

and food safety environment. This stretches back to products such 

as Spam® and Dinty Moore® that represented packaging breakthroughs in their day and have provided safe, flavorful and nutritious meals for several generations of Americans. 

On page 3, you will see one of those innovations that continues 

today with products such as our Natural Choice®, which uses a 

new, high-pressure processing technology that literally kills bacteria and allows us to remove chemical preservatives from processed foods. We are the leader in the nation in this technology and 

have invested a great deal in bringing it to the market. 

On page 7, you will see how important packaging technology is 

to the food industry, delivering food to consumers in a safe and 

convenient format is fundamental to our business. Oxygen deteriorates food. It causes oils to turn rancid, meat to turn brown, vegetables to discolor and cheese to spoil. And by removing oxygen from 

food packaging and replacing it with another gas, such as carbon 

dioxide or nitrogen, food producers can ensure their products remain fresh for consumers longer. This process is common throughout the food industry and has been used for decades. All of the 

packaging systems you see here use some form of modified atmosphere packaging. 

On page 10, I will briefly talk about some specific meat packaging technologies and how they have evolved, significantly 

evolved, becoming more controlled and thereby safer for the American public. Years ago, the bulk of our meat supply was packaged 

at the retail level, which created greater opportunity for contamiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Jun 22, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-34\50470.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
6

nation to be introduced into the system. Today, the bulk of our 

meat supply is packaged in facilities that are USDA inspected, follow good manufacturing practices and adhere to HAACP guidelines. Once packaged, the product is not touched again until it 

reaches the consumer’s home. 

On page 11, you will see meat producers who have enhanced convenience and safety by introducing numerous packaging formats 

over the years and these are just some of the examples that greet 

consumers at the retail level. Consumers, who once relied on their 

neighborhood butcher, have come to rely on these packages backed 

by strong national brands to deliver consistent quality and safety. 

Please note, a critical component of this packaging is the sell-by 

date. In a majority of the packages you see, color is not an accurate 

indicator of freshness either because the product is vacuum-sealed 

or because the product itself, whether it be chicken, pork or turkey, 

does not change color as it ages. In fact, color can be a very poor 

indicator of freshness. 

On page 14, I would like to briefly highlight one packaging system, high-oxygen packaging, which actually accelerates the rancidity of meat while maintaining its red color. And once out of the 

package, a product that is packaged in high oxygen can actually 

look cooked even though it is cooked below the recommended temperature for safety. 

Page 19, low-oxygen packaging has been reviewed and approved 

by a long list of safety experts and food scientists that are acclaimed throughout the world. These scientists have endorsed this 

technology for the same reasons we use it and for the same reasons 

the consumers have embraced it, it works. 

On page 23, you will see that low-oxygen packaging retards spoilage, delivers high-quality product that is consistent, clean and safe. 

In addition, the packaging eliminates opportunities for cross-contamination. It is tamper evident, it is leak proof and it is packaged 

and dated under a USDA inspection, which complies with the 9/11 

initiatives for food safety and enhanced consumer confidence and 

consumer safety. 

Critics of this technology have focused on the fact that the color 

of the product remains red whatever the condition of the product. 

But on page 25, you will see color is not the only or even the best 

indicator of freshness. Consumers also rely on sell-by dates, not 

only for meat products but other foods. Also for batteries, medications, film and all types of consumer products. 

Let me close on page 28 by stating the product has been in the 

market 4 years and it has been extremely well-received by retailers 

and our consumers. In fact, it is one of the highest acceptance rates 

of any product that we have ever introduced, over 120 million packages, more than 600 million servings. And during this time no documented cases of food-borne illness have been reported. As a matter of fact, our complaint ratio rivals the legendary Maytag repairman. Our consumers love the product because it delivers exceptional flavor and texture in a clean and safe package. Thank you 

very much. 

[The presentation by Dr. Minerich follows:]

7

PAGE 1

PAGE 2


11034001 11034002
8

PAGE 3

PAGE 4


11034003 11034004
9

PAGE 5

PAGE 6


11034005 11034006
10

PAGE 7

PAGE 8


11034007 11034008
11

PAGE 9

PAGE 10


11034009 11034010
12

PAGE 11

PAGE 12


11034011 11034012
13

PAGE 13

PAGE 14


11034013 11034014
14

PAGE 15

PAGE 16


11034015 11034016
15

PAGE 17

PAGE 18


11034017 11034018
16

PAGE 19

PAGE 20


11034019 11034020
17

PAGE 21

PAGE 22


11034021 11034022
18

PAGE 23

PAGE 24


11034023 11034024
19

PAGE 25

PAGE 26


11034025 11034026
20

PAGE 27

PAGE 28


11034027 11034028
21

PAGE 29


11034029
22

PAGE 30


11034030
23

PAGE 31

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. How much time do we 

have? Six minutes? I think we are going to have to recess the Committee. We just have two votes. We should be back in 10, 15 minutes, so we appreciate your patience and we will be back shortly. 

[Recess] 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come back to order. We next 

have Scott Eilert, the Vice President of Research and Development 

for Cargill Meat Solutions, Wichita, Kansas. I guess it is Dr. Eilert? 

Dr. EILERT. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome to the Committee and we would be 

happy to hear your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT EILERT, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT,

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS 

CORPORATION, WICHITA, KS 

Dr. EILERT. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Peterson and the Committee. We really appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today 

about innovations and advancements in food safety and quality. We 

also want to recognize this Committee for its contribution to ensuring a safe and wholesome food supply to our population. We really 

see you as effective partners in that goal and we thank you for all 

of your efforts. 

I am going to spend some time today talking to you about an innovation that we think has been pretty important in the last few 

years in moving to a safer and more wholesome and more fresh 

food supply, meat supply, and that is the adoption of modified atmosphere packaging. 


11034031
24

Through modified atmosphere packaging, we are able to deliver 

to the consumer a product that has less chances for cross-contamination at retail level and as well as at store level. It also has conveniences and safety assurances, such as a tamper-proof package 

and a leak-proof package inclusive also of a mandated user freezeby date. 

Now, there have been several Members of Congress over the last 

couple of years, as was pointed in the introductory comments, that 

have been very critical of this technology. They believe that we are 

deceiving consumers with the advancement of this technology. My 

remarks today are going to hopefully ensure to you that that is not 

our intent or purpose. Rather, our intent and purpose is to ensure 

a safe, high-quality, wholesome food supply to our consumers and 

that is our primary goal. 

Let us talk a little bit about how meat arrives at the retail store 

today. As Dr. Minerich has pointed out, there are a couple of avenues. In conventional systems, the meat may be vacuum packaged 

and sent to a retail store for processing and packaging at the retail 

store. In case-ready packaging, we actually cut and package and 

label that product in a centralized facility under USDA inspection. 

Now, as we think about the shelf life of those various formats, 

whether it be conventional packaging or case-ready, in beef, for instance, that goes to a retail store, the beef that goes to a retail 

store has roughly a shelf life of around 35 days in a vacuum package. The shelf life of case-ready products will vary depending on 

the technology that is used. In low-oxygen modified atmosphere 

packaging that we are speaking about today, the shelf life is roughly 35 days. Very similar to the vacuum package of beef that typically went to a retail store. The shelf life of high-oxygen, case-ready 

packaging, which is a competing technology, it is the technology 

that we are referencing today, is only about 14 to 15 days. A key 

point that we want to make to this Committee: With these advancements we are not extending shelf life of fresh meat today, we 

are protecting it. We are making sure that the shelf life potential 

of that product can be realized for the consumer and our customers. 

Additionally, protecting shelf life and protecting the quality of 

the product, these are critical precious commodities to us. Also 

what is a precious commodity is the flavor experience of that product. And as has been discussed previously by Dr. Minerich, oxygen 

is the enemy of meat flavor. And so we have seen several research 

studies by universities that have shown that at the end of shelf life 

in a high-oxygen package, the quality of that product is actually 

lower than at the end of shelf life in a low-oxygen package, even 

though the product was in that low-oxygen package for a longer period of time. There is a great maintenance of flavor and natural 

quality of the meat that comes with these packaging technologies. 

As we think about why we then use carbon monoxide, it is key 

to remember that as we remove oxygen from these packages, meat 

exists in its natural-colored state, a purplish kind of brown state 

that is the natural color of meat. As we expose meat to oxygen, it 

turns bright red. As we expose meat to low levels of carbon monoxide, it turns bright red. So what we are trying to do with these 

modified atmosphere packaging systems is deliver the product that 

25

works as well for the consumer as possible, that has the freshness 

and flavor of a low-oxygen package, has the shelf life maintenance 

of low-oxygen packaging formats and then with small levels of a 

gas like carbon monoxide, we deliver the color that the consumer 

prefers. 

This campaign of misinformation that has taken place against 

this technology is not advancing food safety and is not advancing 

food quality. It is impeding our ability to advance food safety and 

advance the quality of our products. 

We greatly appreciate the time and attention that this Committee is giving to this topic and we want to just further emphasize 

that this unfortunate campaign of misinformation is not moving 

the bar or raising the bar on food safety or quality. It is jeopardizing our ability to deliver a high-quality, wholesome product to our 

consumers. 

Thank you very much for your time and I’ll entertain questions 

at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Eilert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT EILERT, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT, CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, WICHITA, KS 

Thank you Chairman Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte. I appreciate the opportunity 

to speak before you today on innovations in food safety and quality. The House Agriculture Committee has for many years been deeply committed to the understanding 

of science and risk in protecting public health. For that we are grateful. 

My remarks address one of the most important food safety innovations in the harvest and manufacture of safe and wholesome meat products—the adoption of Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP). 

Through a MAP system, meat is packaged at processing plant and then delivered 

to the retail grocery store in a tray covered with a protective film. This helps eliminate the potential for cross contamination that can come from human handling both 

at the retail store and in the home. The package is both leak-proof and tamper 

proof, adding additional consumer protections. 

Several Members of Congress have recently raised questions with the concern 

that MAP packaging may allow meat to retain its characteristic red coloration for 

too long, potentially masking spoilage. I appreciate the opportunity to help ensure 

that this technology is more fully understood and that that we are deeply committed 

to consumer protection. 

Today beef is typically delivered to a grocery store in one of two ways—as boxed 

product sealed in a vacuum packaged bag, or as individual packages ready for display in the meat case for consumer purchase. Boxed, vacuum packaged product will 

be opened at the grocery store and cut into steaks or roasts and then wrapped for 

retail display. Case ready products come completely packaged and labeled, and will 

be simply taken from a lined box and placed in the retail display. 

Meat products in a vacuum bag have a shelf life of about 35 days. The shelf life 

of case ready products will vary depending on the use of the packaging technology 

used. 

There are two types of case ready MAP product offerings—those packaged in a 

high oxygen (high-ox) format and those in a low oxygen (low-ox) format. Both are 

good formats, but the low-ox format in many respects, has significantly better 

functionality, especially in the area of ensuring freshness and convenience for the 

consumer. 

Steaks and roasts that are packaged in a low-ox environment have a shelf life 

roughly equivalent to the 35 days of the vacuum bag. Steaks and roasts in highox packaging have a shorter shelf life of only 14 or 15 days. You can observe this 

shelf life concern not only in meat packaging but also in produce. As a point of reference, note that the spoilage of a head of lettuce accelerates rapidly after the packaging is removed. 

It is critical for the Committee to understand that our technology does not in any 

way extend shelf life—rather it protects the shelf life in a manner the performs 

equal to the vacuum package, yet in a much more consumer friendly, convenient format. 

26

It is a given that protecting freshness and shelf life is critical. Beyond preserving 

freshness, low-ox packaging also protects against flavor degradation. High levels of 

oxygen in a high-ox packaging will deteriorate the flavor of meat. Many university 

studies have shown that meat in a high ox package can look acceptable, but will 

have a significantly less acceptable flavor than low oxygen products. Low oxygen 

packaging helps to maintain the natural flavor of meat. 

There are numerous additional benefits of low-ox packaging. It greatly reduces 

product waste, helping keep costs down because retailers can make larger, more efficient purchasing decisions. It also gives consumers the flexibility to plan ahead for 

meals, rather than make more trips to the grocer. It ensures the ability of smaller 

retailers in both rural and very urban areas the opportunity to have a diverse product offering. As further protection against product failure, our packaging is 

tamperproof, and includes an imprinted use or freeze-by instruction that cannot be 

removed. 

Let me cover just a little bit about the science of our packaging technology. 

One of the challenges with low oxygen packaging is that the removal of oxygen 

has a visual impact on meat coloration. You’ve probably noticed that when you can 

see a blood vessel through your arm, it can appear bluish rather than red. This is 

because the blood is not exposed to oxygen. Once exposed to oxygen, blood becomes 

red. This principle also applies to MAP packaging. To provide the most consumer 

protection and to preserve freshness, we flush all the oxygen from the packaging. 

This process will affect the meat coloration, turning the product somewhat purple. 

As you might imagine, this doesn’t look very appealing to the customer. In contrast, 

the traditional grocery tray is more exposed to oxygen, and therefore it retains the 

red color. 

To gain the functional and appearance performance for low-ox packaging, we substitute the oxygen with other acceptable and safe gasses. One of these gasses we 

use involves a trace amount of carbon monoxide. This is fully approved by the FDA, 

based on volumes of scientific study. As with all MAP products, the packaging gas 

dissipates immediately once the package is opened. 

We want consumers to have all the benefits of MAP. But to do so, the package 

must be as attractive as competing products in the case. We believe it unfortunate 

that there has been misinformation about low oxygen MAP. We have seen some retail customers who have found this technology serves them and their customers 

best, find the need to back away from it because of pressure campaigns led by a 

competitor offering a different, similarly performing technology. This has led to 

greater waste, less efficiency, and ultimately higher prices for consumers. We are 

hopeful that this will abate. 

We recently had the opportunity to host investigators from the House Committee 

on Energy and Commerce at one of our case ready plants. We learned clearly that 

the most important issue concerning Committee Members was the potential that a 

consumer may not fully understand that color is not the only indicator of freshness. 

For this reason, we have decided to add new wording to our labeling. We will now 

include the statement, ‘‘Color is not an indicator of freshness. Please refer to use 

or freeze by dates.’’ We believe this effectively addresses the concerns of the Committee in protecting public health, while not undermining the adoption of the safety 

and convenience offered through case ready packaging. 

In summary, Cargill is deeply committed to serving the needs of our customers. 

Case ready packaging meets the needs of today’s consumers, and is a very effective 

way to deliver fresh and wholesome products to the retail store. The low ox technology that we have discussed today is an important evolution in packaging technology. The pressure campaigns against this technology are unfortunate. They are 

preventing us from using this technology to better ensure a safe and high quality 

meat supply to the consumer. 

Again, we thank this Committee for its commitment and leadership in the area 

food safety. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Eilert and we appreciate your 

being with us today. Dr. Roop, Senior Vice President of Science and 

Regulatory Affairs for Tyson Foods in Washington. Welcome to the 

Committee. 

27

STATEMENT OF RICHARD ROOP, PH.D., SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT, SCIENCE AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, TYSON 

FOODS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Dr. ROOP. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of this 

Committee. My name is Dr. Rick Roop and I manage food safety, 

quality assurance and laboratory services for Tyson Foods. And I 

thank you for inviting me here today to talk about our company’s 

efforts to lower the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 in beef. 

Controlling microbes is one of the many ways we keep our perishable products safe and ensure that they stay safe and fresh until 

they reach the consumer. FSIS data shows that the incidence rate 

of E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef has declined since 2000. For 

2007, however, FSIS has indicated that there is a slight increase 

in the incidence rate and also an increase in beef recalls due to 

O157:H7. It is noteworthy, however, that CDC reports that 

O157:H7-related illnesses in 2007 are at about the same level as 

they were in 2006. Overall, as the industry continues to find better 

technologies and product handling procedures, the decline in 

incidences is expected to continue. 

Tyson uses several best practice methods to prevent contamination and preserve beef safety. Among the key practices are hygienic 

hide and viscera removal, use of steam vacuums on key areas of 

the carcass, use of organic acid solutions on the surface of carcasses 

and parts, treating carcasses with a final thermal pasteurization, 

using antimicrobial carcass washes, quickly chilling all carcasses 

and parts, managing the cold chain from the start to finish and, 

finally, using extensive testing to verify that our process controls 

have worked. 

I would like to discuss three key food safety programs developed 

at Tyson to reduce pathogens in beef. Niche-BusterTM targets 

micro-organisms that could be harbored in niche environments. For 

example, seams and cracks of equipment in facilities. The program 

is employed in every beef slaughter and processing plant Tyson 

owns. A constant search and destroy effort is undertaken by our 

plant quality and sanitation experts to eliminate these harborage 

areas for bacteria. Originally for use in preventing Listeria contamination in ready-to-eat plants, Niche-BusterTM has proven to be 

extremely helpful in preventing O157:H7 cross-contamination in 

Tyson beef plants. 

The carcass thermal pasteurization technology blasts every beef 

carcass with sufficient heat to raise the surface temperature above 

160 degrees Fahrenheit, which is an immediate kill point for pathogens on the carcass surface. It is a validated critical control point 

in all of our beef slaughter HACCP plants. 

Tyson Total N60TM is a name for a Tyson-developed, extremely 

comprehensive and sensitive testing system to prevent O157:H7

from contaminating ground beef. Tyson tests all raw beef components destined for ground beef production. Tyson Total N60TM is 

among our most powerful food safety tools, as it augments the 

other anti-microbial programs. It is so powerful that it has been 

adopted by many other companies across the industry and recognized by the USDA. 

Tyson believes that programs such as Tyson Total N60TM that 

find and remove O157:H7 containing meat from the ground beef 

28

supply chain, have contributed to the significant decline in incidents in the U.S. over the last several years. 

Tyson Foods Safety and Quality Assurance, FSQA, consists of approximately 2,500 professionals. This team works side by side with 

production to ensure the safety and quality of every product. Our 

organizational structure is built to enhance independent, non-biased decisions for FSQA managers. All FSQA team members, including myself, report parallel to operating groups. Training is a 

key success factor for continuous improvement. Tyson Foods’ team 

members are provided ongoing food safety and quality assurance 

training. For example, in partnership with the University of Arkansas, Tyson Foods funded and helped develop a food safety training 

and education program available to Tyson team members and others throughout industry, government and the public. 

Tyson Foods also partners with Texas A&M University to offer 

one of the few industry-sponsored training programs approved by 

the International HACCP Alliance. 

In conclusion, we have made tremendous progress in learning 

how to improve meat safety over the past decade but we understand that we can’t rest. The world continues to change, including 

the microbial world. Tyson, in addition to our colleagues at other 

food companies, are doing everything we can to produce safe, quality products every day. Thank you for your time and attention. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Roop follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD ROOP, PH.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SCIENCE

AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, TYSON FOODS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee. My name is Dr. 

Rick Roop, and I manage food safety, quality assurance and laboratory services for 

Tyson Foods. Tyson is the world’s largest producer of meat and poultry, as well as 

the Nation’s second largest food company. We are highly committed to food safety 

innovations, and I thank you for inviting me here today to talk about our company’s 

efforts to lower the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 in beef. 

Preventing Pathogens in Beef 

As you can see from the chart below (which was constructed using data from 

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service), the incidence rate of E. coli O157:H7

in ground beef has declined since 2000. For 2007, FSIS has indicated there is a 

slight increase in the incidence rate, and also an increase in beef recalls due to E. 

coli O157:H7. It is noteworthy that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

reports E. coli related illnesses in 2007 at the same level as 2006. Overall, as the 

industry continues to find better technologies and product handling procedures; the 

decline in incidence is expected to continue.

29

Tyson operates nearly 100 food processing plants in 22 states and around the 

world. Our eight beef plants produce 1⁄4 of the beef in the U.S. With such a significant role in the market—not to mention the trust Tyson has earned from consumers 

and our brand name reputation—Tyson team members utilize state-of-the-art food 

safety technologies and techniques in our plants. We employ risk assessment, training, testing, special handling, anti-microbial treatments, refrigeration and sanitation 

to get the job done. 

When it comes to beef, we assume that every head of cattle entering our facility 

is contaminated with pathogens. Our goal is to prevent the potentially contaminated 

parts of the animal—the exterior of the animal and the interior of its digestive 

tract—from touching the uncontaminated parts: the meat. And we use many tools 

and technologies to further prevent contamination and preserve safety. 

Tyson Beef Safety Programs 

Several state-of-the-art methods to prevent contamination and preserve beef safety are used within Tyson fresh meat facilities. Among the key practices are: hygienic 

hide and viscera removal; use of steam vacuums on key areas on the carcass; use 

of organic acid solutions on the surface of carcasses and parts; treating carcasses 

with a final thermal pasteurization; using antimicrobial carcass washes; quickly 

chilling all carcasses and parts; managing the cold chain from start to finish and 

finally, using extensive testing to verify that our process controls work and the products are safe. 

Three key food safety programs developed at Tyson to reduce pathogens in beef 

include the ‘‘Niche-BusterTM,’’ ‘‘Carcass Thermal Pasteurization,’’ and ‘‘Tyson Total 

N60TM ’’ programs. These are all examples of effective and proactive food safety enhancements that were direct results of Tyson’s commitment to risk-assessment, innovation and continuous improvement. 

Niche-BusterTM targets microorganisms that could be harbored in niche environments, e.g. seams and cracks of the equipment or facilities. The program is employed in every Tyson beef slaughter and processing plant. A constant search and 

destroy effort is undertaken by our plant quality and sanitation experts to eliminate 

these harborage areas for bacteria. Originally for use in preventing Listeria contamination in ready-to-eat plants, Niche-BusterTM has proven to be extremely helpful in preventing E. coli O157:H7 cross-contamination in Tyson beef plants. 

The ‘‘Carcass Thermal Pasteurization’’ technology blasts every beef carcass with 

sufficient heat to raise the surface temperature above 160F, which is an immediate 

kill point for pathogens on the carcass surface. It is highly effective against all 

pathogens, and is a validated Critical Control Point (CCP) in all of our beef slaughter plants’ HACCP plans. 


11034032
30

‘‘Tyson Total N60TM ’’ is a nickname for a Tyson-developed, extremely comprehensive and sensitive testing system to prevent E. coli O157:H7 from contaminating 

ground beef. Tyson tests all raw beef components destined for ground beef production. The Tyson Total N60TM program provides a 95 percent or greater assurance 

of finding and eliminating E. coli O157:H7 from beef which is used for ground product. Tyson Total N60TM is among our most powerful food safety tools, as it augments the other antimicrobial programs. It is so powerful that it has been adopted 

across the industry and recognized by the USDA. Tyson believes that programs such 

as Tyson Total N60TM that find and remove O157:H7 containing meat from the 

ground beef supply chain, have contributed significantly to the significant decline 

in incidence the U.S. over the last several years. 

Tyson Foods’ dedication to safe, quality food is buttressed by the programs and 

controls we have to deliver on our promise of providing safe foods. From our laboratories, to our product and process monitoring programs, to our HACCP verification 

processes, we are focused on ‘‘feeding our families, the nation, and the world with 

trusted food products,’’ a phrase you will find in our company’s core values. 

Our Food Safety and Quality Assurance Team 

Tyson Foods Food Safety and Quality Assurance (FSQA) Team consists of approximately 2,500 professionals. This team works side by side with production to ensure 

the safety and quality of every product. FSQA Team Members execute and manage 

all phases of the Company’s food safety and quality assurance programs including:

• Food safety and sanitation,

• Policy adherence and regulatory compliance,

• Laboratory services and statistics support,

• Product and process performance,

• Good manufacturing practices, and

• Food safety and quality training.

Our organizational structure is built to enhance independent, nonbiased decisions 

for FSQA managers. All FSQA team members, including myself, report parallel to 

Operating groups.

The safety of our products is also closely monitored by a Food Safety Team located 

at each facility. These multi departmental teams systematically evaluate key aspects of our production processes to prevent potential food safety concerns. The Food 

Safety Team will then work with their facilities to develop, implement, and monitor 

controls and procedures to drive continuous improvement. 

Training is a key success factor for continuous improvement. Tyson Foods’ Team 

Members are provided on-going food safety and quality assurance training. For example, in partnership with the University of Arkansas, Tyson Foods helped developed the Food Safety Training and Education Initiative. 

Tyson Foods also partners with Texas A&M University to offer one of the few industry-sponsored training programs approved by the International HACCP Alliance. 

Food Safety Laboratories 

The Tyson Food Safety and Laboratory Services Network are recognized throughout the industry as research leaders in serological testing, food chemistry, microbiological testing, food safety research, and environmental water testing. Our accreditations include numerous Federal Government agencies.

• USDA–FSIS Food Chemistry,

• USDA–FSIS Pesticide Analysis,

• USDA/AMS Russian Export/Chemistry and Microbiological Testing,

• National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) for Testing Avian Influenza and 

Mycoplasma synoviae and Mycoplasma gallisepticum, and

• USDA–APHIS for Salmonella Analysis.

Tyson Food Safety and Laboratory Services Network includes 17 laboratories 

across the country. This includes a 25,000 square foot, state-of-the-art food testing 

and research laboratory at Tyson Foods’ World Headquarters in Arkansas. This laboratory is dual certified under the International Organization for Standardization 

(ISO) quality management system standard ISO 9001:2000 and the ISO/IEC 17025 

standard for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. In addition, 

seven other Tyson Foods regional and corporate laboratories are certified under the 

same ISO/IEC 17025 standard. 

Tyson Foods also has 61 plant-based Quality Assurance laboratories. All tests conducted in these laboratories are thoroughly detailed in the corporate Laboratory 

31

Manual. A 31⁄2 day microbiology and chemistry course is offered regularly for management personnel and laboratory technicians located in our processing and rendering plants. Audits of these laboratories underline Tyson Foods’ continuing commitment to quality. 

Food Defense 

Tyson Foods takes extraordinary measures for protection against deliberate acts 

of food product sabotage. We require each facility to take appropriate measures to 

ensure the security and protection of the food products they produce. Specifically, 

we require all facilities and co-packers to conduct vulnerability assessments. From 

this assessment, each facility then develops and maintains a facility food defense 

plan. This plan identifies the measures the facility will employ to avoid risk involving deliberate product tampering. Tyson Foods also requires each facility develop a 

response strategy in the event a threat to the food products they produce is made 

or detected. 

Internal and External Food Safety Audits and Inspections 

Tyson Foods’ facilities receive routine internal quality assurance and food safety 

assessments. These assessments are conducted by quality assurance managers. 

They focus on:

• Critical food safety elements,

• Sanitation performance,

• Company policy adherence, and

• Regulatory compliance.

Each facility is also audited in accordance with the Tyson Foods Comprehensive 

Food Safety Audit Program. These internal audits are composed of audit team members that are independent of the facility being audited. 

Tyson Foods’ facilities also receive periodic third party audits of their food safety 

systems and good manufacturing practices (GMP’s). These reviews, conducted by or 

on behalf of our customers, are performed by nationally recognized independent auditing firms. 

These independent audits serve as additional verification that each facility is producing safe and quality food products. They also verify our compliance with applicable regulations, company policies, and customer specification requirements. 

Tyson Foods’ commitment to food safety is premised on the basis that food safety 

is not a point of competition between manufacturers. We openly share food safety 

research and technologies with our peers and colleagues. With the support of our 

Laboratory Services Group, Tyson Foods’ partners with government, academia, 

trade associations, and other industry members to sponsor food safety research. We 

have made substantial contributions to research covering E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella, Avian Influenza, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), Listeria 

monocytogenes, Campylobacter, and other public health issues and initiatives aimed 

at improving food safety. 

Conclusion 

We have made tremendous progress in learning how to improve meat safety over 

the past decade. But we understand that we can’t rest—the world continues to 

change, including the microbial world. Tyson, in addition to our colleagues at other 

food companies, are doing everything we can to produce safe, quality products every 

day. Thank you for your time and attention.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Roop, for that testimony. And 

last on the panel is Dr. Joseph Sebranek, Professor with the Department of Animal Science at Iowa State University in Ames, 

Iowa. Welcome, Doctor, we are looking forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH G. SEBRANEK, PH.D., UNIVERSITY 

PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE AND

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SCIENCE, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY, 

AMES, IA 

Dr. SEBRANEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. 

One of my research areas at Iowa State University has been the 

use of low-oxygen packaging systems including carbon monoxide for 

32

fresh meat packaging. The technology has been criticized as deceptive and hazardous. This is an issue I want to address today because in my opinion, there is no scientific basis for these claims. 

When considering fresh meat packaging technology it is important to understand the options that are available for packaging 

fresh meat and the advantages and disadvantages of each. For example, vacuum packaging, which is one packaging option, is universally practiced for wholesale meat cuts because it results in several-fold longer refrigerated storage life without spoilage. It is important to note that vacuum packaging is effective because it eliminates oxygen. Eliminating oxygen prevents growth of primary 

spoilage bacteria and prevents oxidative off flavors from developing 

at the same time. Unfortunately, vacuum packaging is not a suitable option for retail because the color is not attractive to consumers. However, the advantage of eliminating oxygen from contact with fresh meat in terms of vastly improved storage stability 

is an important point to remember. 

The second option for packaging fresh meat is aerobic packaging. 

This approach uses a permeable film to allow oxygen from the air 

to contact the product surface. Oxygen is bound by the meat pigment to form the bright, cherry-red color. The color is clearly preferred by consumers but, unfortunately, the shelf life of fresh meat 

in aerobic packages is relatively short. 

The third option for fresh meat packaging is modified 

atmospheres where air is replaced with a mixture of gases that 

provides for better control of product properties. One approach to 

use modified atmosphere packaging is a high-oxygen concentration, 

as much as 80 percent. This results in a red color with longer color 

stability but keep in mind that contact with oxygen allows aerobic 

bacterial growth and development of potentially rancid flavors. 

A second approach to modified atmosphere packaging is to use 

0.4 of 1 percent carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide and nitrogen. 

This approach produces attractive red meat color because carbon 

monoxide binds to the meat pigment in the same way as oxygen, 

only with a stronger bond and produces a cherry red color that is 

visually identical to that produced by oxygen. The most immediately obvious advantage to this approach is a stable red color 

that can last for 28 to 35 days, depending on the cut and refrigerated storage. This has been the basis for much of the criticism 

of this packaging concept with claims that this is deceptive and 

hazardous. But science does not support these claims and numerous scientists have expressed concerns over unwarranted criticisms 

of this technology. 

Carbon monoxide is colorless and affects meat color in the same 

way as oxygen, that is by combining with the meat pigment. The 

color is derived from the pigment in both cases, not an external 

coloring agent. 

It has been suggested that that color will last too long resulting 

in a spoiled product that still looks good. However, remember that 

eliminating oxygen slows spoilage a great deal. Further, spoilage, 

when it does occur, manifests itself in several other ways, one of 

which is odor. Perhaps more importantly, very recent research by 

Dr. Michael Doyle at the University of Georgia has shown that 

modified atmosphere packaging with carbon monoxide repressed 

33

the growth of pathogenic E. coli on ground beef. Dr. Doyle concluded, ‘‘refrigerated or mildly temperature-abused modified atmosphere packaging with carbon monoxide for ground beef has better 

quality and microbial safety characteristics than over-wrapped beef 

under similar conditions.’’

Recent studies have also shown that meat cuts in high oxygen 

atmospheres were also less tender than those packaged without oxygen. 

Consequently, the use of carbon monoxide packaging and modified atmospheres for fresh meat offers numerous advantages including improved product appearances, potentially better flavor, 

greater tenderness and suppression of bacterial growth. The use of 

carbon monoxide provides all the advantages of a vacuum package 

for maximizing storage stability with the attractiveness of an aerobic package for retail display. This is neither deceptive nor hazardous. 

Seems to me it would have been most appropriate to let the marketplace decide the ultimate success or failure of this technology. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sebranek follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH G. SEBRANEK, PH.D., UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR,

DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE AND DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SCIENCE, IOWA

STATE UNIVERSITY, AMES, IA 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to visit with you today about some of the current 

issues associated with technologies in the meat industry. My name is Joe Sebranek. 

I am a University Professor in the Department of Animal Science and the Department of Food Science at Iowa State University where I have been responsible for 

research and teaching in Meat Science for the past 32 years. I received a joint Ph.D. 

in Meat and Animal Science from the University of Wisconsin—Madison prior to 

joining the faculty at Iowa State. I have conducted research and published several 

peer-reviewed scientific reports on meat packaging technology which I understand 

to be the focus of this hearing. In particular, I have researched the use of carbon 

monoxide in fresh meat packaging which has been criticized as a ‘‘deceptive and 

hazardous’’ technology. This is an issue that I would like to address today because, 

in my opinion, there is no scientific basis for these claims. 

When considering fresh meat packaging technology, it is important to understand 

the options available for packaging of fresh (refrigerated, unfrozen) meat and advantages and limitations of each. Meat is a highly perishable commodity and packaging 

plays a very critical role in protecting meat products from contamination and spoilage during distribution to consumers. For example, vacuum packaging of wholesale, 

primal cuts of meat, which is one packaging option, is universally practiced for 

wholesale packaging because it results in a several-fold longer refrigerated storage 

time without spoilage in comparison with products exposed to air. It is important 

to note that vacuum packaging, which consists of placing meat into a gas-impermeable bag or container and evacuating all of the air before sealing the package, 

is effective because it eliminates oxygen from contact with the meat. Eliminating 

oxygen prevents growth of aerobic bacteria which are the primary spoilage bacteria 

of fresh meat. Eliminating oxygen also prevents development of oxidative rancidity 

and associated off-flavors at the same time. Unfortunately, vacuum packaging is not 

a suitable option for retailing fresh meat because in vacuum, meat color reverts to 

a dark purple-red which is not attractive to consumers. There have been several attempts by the meat industry in the past to offer fresh meat to consumers in vacuum 

packages but these attempts have been unsuccessful because of the color issue. 

However, the advantage of eliminating oxygen from contact with fresh meat in 

terms of greatly improved storage stability is an important point to remember. 

The second option for packaging fresh meat is aerobic packaging. This approach 

uses a permeable, clear film which allows oxygen from the air to permeate the film 

and contact the product surface. The oxygen is bound by the meat pigment 

myoglobin and in doing so, forms oxymyoglobin which has a bright, cherry-red color. 

34

This is the color clearly preferred by consumers as documented by many, many 

studies on meat color. Unfortunately, oxygen contact allows rapidly-growing aerobic 

spoilage bacteria to proliferate and also initiates chemical oxidation reactions that 

eventually result in rancid flavors. Consequently, the ‘‘keepability’’ or shelf life of 

fresh meat in an aerobic package is relatively short, consisting of a few days to a 

week or two at most, depending on the meat cut and how it has been handled. 

The third option for fresh meat packaging that has developed more recently is use 

of a impermeable film similar to a vacuum package but includes first evacuating the 

air from the package and replacing the air with a specified mixture of gases that 

provides for better control of product properties. This is modified atmosphere packaging or MAP. The air in the atmosphere we live in is 75% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 

and less than 1% carbon dioxide with minute amounts of a few other gases, thus, 

changing the gas composition in a package from that of air is considered MAP. For 

fresh meat, two forms of MAP have been utilized. One approach is to use an oxygen 

concentration greater than air, as much as 80%, in MAP. This results in red color 

that may last as long as 10 to 14 days compared to about 5 days in a conventional 

oxygen-permeable package. Keep in mind that contact with oxygen allows many of 

the same effects as conventional aerobic packaging; that is, aerobic bacterial growth 

and development of rancid flavors over time. It has also been observed that high 

oxygen exposure can result in what is called ‘‘premature browning’’ when the meat 

is cooked. This means that meat turns brown at cooking temperatures lower than 

what is typical. Some scientists have expressed concern that consumers may not 

thoroughly cook products, particularly ground beef, to achieve bacterial safety in 

this case because the cooked color will look ‘‘well-done’’ when that is really not the 

case. This brings us to the use of carbon monoxide in MAP. This is an alternative MAP 

system that has been approved by the regulatory agencies and has been available 

for a little more than 4 years. This system uses 0.4% carbon monoxide (CO), 30% 

carbon dioxide (CO2) and 69.6% nitrogen (N2). This approach produces very attractive meat color because CO binds to meat pigment in the same way as oxygen, only 

with a stronger bond, and produces a cherry red color that is visually identical to 

that of oxymyoglobin. The most immediately obvious advantage of this approach is 

a stable red color that can last for 28 to 35 days in refrigerated storage. This has 

been the basis for much of the criticism of this packaging concept, with claims that 

this is ‘‘deceptive and hazardous’’. There is simply no scientific basis for these 

claims. Carbon monoxide is colorless and affects meat color the same way as oxygen, 

that is, by combining with myoglobin. The color is derived from the meat pigment 

in both cases, not an external coloring agent. 

It has been suggested that the color will last too long, resulting in a spoiled product that still looks good. I would like to point out that spoilage also manifests itself 

in other ways, the most obvious of which is odor. Thus, there are other very obvious 

warning signs of spoilage. Further, the MAP with CO packages include ‘‘use by’’ 

and/or ‘‘freeze by’’ dates to give consumers guidelines on the time by which the product should be used. It is also important to remember that elimination of oxygen prevents aerobic bacterial growth and dramatically slows spoilage compared with aerobic packaging. Perhaps more importantly, very recent research by Dr. Michael 

Doyle at the University of Georgia has shown that MAP with CO repressed the 

growth of pathogenic E. coli O157:H7 on ground beef compared to conventional aerobic packaging, thus there is an impact on this pathogen as well. Dr. Doyle concluded that ‘‘. . . refrigerated or mildly temperature-abused MAP–CO ground beef 

has better quality and microbial safety characteristics than over-wrapped beef 

stored under similar conditions.’’ Recent studies have also shown that meat cuts in 

high oxygen atmospheres were less tender than those packaged without oxygen 

probably due to the activity proteolytic, tenderizing enzymes that are known to be 

inhibited by oxidative conditions. 

A final issue raised by some critics of MAP–CO system is the human exposure 

to CO, a recognized environmental hazard. However, at 0.4% in a package, it would 

require over 200 packages to exceed what the Environmental Protection Agency considers a limit for exposure to CO. This issue has been addressed many times and 

it is widely accepted that CO exposure from meat packaging is negligible. 

Consequently, the use of MAP–CO for fresh meat offers numerous significant advantages including improved product appearance, better flavor, greater tenderness, 

and suppression of bacterial growth. The use of CO provides all the advantages of 

a vacuum package for storage stability with the attractiveness of an aerobic package 

for retail display. To quote one of my colleagues in Meat Science, Dr. Daren 

Cornforth of Utah State University, ‘‘What’s not to like about that?’’

There is one other point to be made. Carbon monoxide packaging can be combined 

with other antimicrobial treatments to dramatically improve fresh meat shelf life 

35

and safety while retaining attractive color. A good example is irradiation, which 

when applied to ground beef to reduce or eliminate bacteria, typically results in a 

color change to a purple-red resembling vacuum packaged meat. However, if ground 

beef is irradiated in MAP–CO, cherry red color is retained while bacteria are reduced to very low numbers. Commercial ground beef processed with this combination has been advertised with a 38 day refrigerated shelf life which is a dramatic 

improvement over the typical 5 days. I fully recognize that irradiation is itself a controversial process. However, this provides a good example, in my opinion, of the 

often-unrecognized potential to combine MAP–CO with other technologies to maximize food quality and safety. Packaging with CO should continue to be available as 

an option to allow for development of new and innovative combinations of packaging 

with other new technologies to maximize quality and safety of fresh meat. 

Finally, the MAP–CO technology has now been used commercially for almost 5 

years and there have been no complaints that I am aware of from consumers about 

unexpected or unusual spoilage. This technology is establishing a track record that 

has been free of problems and has not been an issue with consumers. It seems to 

me that it is most appropriate to let the marketplace decide the ultimate success 

or failure of this technology.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Sebranek. We appreciate the testimony. We appreciate all of the members of this panel being with 

us. Unfortunately, the way these hearings go and these time limits, 

we don’t always get the time we need to figure out what is going 

on here. Now, Dr. Minerich, you have some packaging here. I had 

an hour to be showing all of this and ask questions when I had 

this, which we don’t have here today. But have you got somebody 

with you that can hand these things around and just explain the 

different packaging and what the issues are with them? 

Dr. MINERICH. Yes, I would be happy to do that. Thank you. Just 

quickly, and as my slide showed, modified atmosphere packaging 

has been used on a number of different packaging systems 

throughout the food industry. And I think if you recall, the last 

time you have walked through the grocery store, you see these 

packages all the time. Consumers are very, very familiar with 

modified atmosphere packaging. 

As you heard from several of the other guests speaking today, 

you heard the conversation talking about vacuum-packaged meat. 

This is a good example of a vacuum-packaged primal. This packaged meat is dated at the production facility with the date it was 

put in the bag. And that could be 10, 20, 30, up to 60 days old, 

kept refrigerated and be totally wholesome. And when you open 

that package and then cut it and package it in the tray in the back 

room of the store, it would bloom bright red and still have 3 to 5 

days of shelf life on the retail shelf. That is what Dr. Eilert mentioned. That is the ideal packaging system and that delivers the 

longest shelf life in the most wholesome environment. 

What low-oxygen packaging does is the same. It removes the oxygen and yet with the 99.6 percent nitrogen or carbon dioxide gas 

and 0.4 percent carbon monoxide gives you all the benefits of vacuum packaging, as Dr. Sebranek mentioned, but also with the color, 

the visual color, we are looking for. 

When you compare that to the alternate package, high-oxygen, 

we were in this package back in 1991. And for the reasons you 

have heard by those people testifying, the experience that the consumers had and the eating quality of that product lead us to help 

develop alternate packaging technologies. 

As you see by all the packages in front of you, all of these technologies are advancements built on the benefits of the previous 

36

packaging system and on some of the challenges and downfalls. 

You talk about the 9/11 Commission’s interest in food safety and 

protecting package integrity. You look at eliminating cross-contamination issues that happen either in the back room or as consumers 

are handling the products and I think we can all think back to the 

times we have handled food products at the checkout counter and 

some of these juices have slipped over the line, maybe from the 

person in front of you, maybe as you have lifted this piece of meat 

up, your lettuce was in contact with that and now you have had 

a cross-contamination issue at this point. 

So that is what these intact packages offer. One other thing that 

has been mentioned as well is the code dating. In the GRAS approval status for the low-oxygen packaging system, we mandated 

that code dating be a part of that GRAS standard and it is very 

prominently displayed and you will see it on the packages going 

around. And this is nothing new. We talked about all the packages 

that are code dated including our friends at Tyson with chicken. 

Code dating in the meat industry is nothing new and consumers 

wholly understand that they use this chicken by November 3 or 

they do not buy it. And the store, the retailer, will stop selling it. 

So code dating is a very important attribute. 

Now, as you look at different systems, Hormel has been on the 

forefront of helping develop many of these packaging systems. And 

one of the alternatives, low-oxygen systems, is what we call the potato chip bag. We developed this back in the late 90’s. And this was 

the pre-cursor to the low-oxygen, what we call, tray pack bag. And 

the reason we advanced technology from this to this is because sustainability is an important issue to Hormel Foods. This is what 

gets displayed to the consumer, it will look just like this package. 

This gets thrown away. It is film. There is an oxygen-absorbing 

scavenger in here. And when we ship this in a truck, we can only 

ship half as much as what we can ship here. So knowing that 

means twice as many trucks on the road, then here. So when you 

talk about sustainability, this was a challenge to Hormel Foods on 

how do we take this technology to the next step. The other thing 

is this package is not leak-proof, so we did not achieve what the 

consumer wanted, a leak-proof package. This low-ox packaging system does achieve that. And this really is the epitome of what we 

are trying to accomplish with these cuts of meat that do rely on 

visual evidence of quality and intactness of the package and leakproof and code dating. 

The other thing we do to this package, we have our brand name 

on it, we have the code date prominently displayed, we also have 

the code date on the back and we have an 800 number displayed, 

so that we encourage consumer interaction concerning our products 

to see if there is some part of this packaging attribute that we are 

missing. And to date, as I stated in my presentation, this was one 

of the best products we have ever introduced in our 116 year history as far as having consumer compliments and a very, very low 

consumer complaint ratio. 

The CHAIRMAN. This package here, this is high-oxygen? 

Dr. MINERICH. Yes, it is. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the oxygen go through this membrane or 

not? 

37

Dr. MINERICH. No, Mr. Chairman, the oxygen stays. When we 

talk about modified atmosphere, the air we are breathing is about 

80 percent nitrogen and 20 percent oxygen. That package is about 

80 percent oxygen and 20 percent carbon dioxide. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why doesn’t this package have a date on it? 

Dr. MINERICH. It probably is on the label. That was probably 

dated on the front label where the price tag is. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t see it but——

Dr. MINERICH. Okay. Typically, they would label that at retail 

and that is another one of the challenges. That is why we put mandatory dating as part of our GRAS notice on our packaging system. 

The CHAIRMAN. But the difference between this and the low-oxygen is that the meat stays fresher with the low-oxygen. 

Dr. MINERICH. The meat in the high-oxygen package that you 

have will have a shelf life based on color of about 10 to 14 days. 

Now, when you open that package and you taste it, you cook it, it 

will have a rancid or an off-flavor to it. It is not a good eating experience. And then also recall, because of that high-oxygen technology, the meat will turn brown at a very low temperature. So 

when you cook it, if you wanted to have a medium rare or a rare 

steak, you are going to have a hard time achieving that because 

the meat will turn brown faster. And one of our concerns from a 

food safety perspective with ground beef, we are asking our consumers to cook ground beef to a minimum 165 degrees Fahrenheit. 

If you cook by color like many consumers do, that ground beef will 

be brown far below that temperature of 160 degrees. 

The CHAIRMAN. And how much of the ground beef is packaged 

like this? 

Dr. MINERICH. I don’t have that information. I don’t know. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that was one of the things I didn’t understand until I had this presentation, you wouldn’t be able to tell if 

it is still rare. 

Dr. MINERICH. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is brown. 

Dr. MINERICH. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not much of a cook but when I cook something I kind of break it open to see if it is cooked or not and with 

this you sometimes wouldn’t be able to tell. 

Dr. MINERICH. No. No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And why don’t people get concerned about that? 

Dr. MINERICH. That is a good question. Like I said, we were in 

that technology in 1991 and it took us a few years to work our way 

out of it. It was a great advancement in technology but there were 

better technologies that have come over the years. 

The CHAIRMAN. And on the low-oxygen, you actually increased 

the size of the freeze-by date, didn’t you? I mean, it is a pretty good 

size on the front of the package and the back. 

Dr. MINERICH. Yes, we did. We looked at Tyson and some other 

leaders in the industry that have used a code date, a very prominent code date right on the front. As I said, it is also code dated 

on the back but that is put on at our manufacturing facility. So 

that date is fixed and nobody can change that date. When it 

reaches the end of that date, the retailer disposes of that product. 

38

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I have gone over my time I think. You 

guys were generous. I have some more questions but I will save 

those. The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, gentlemen, let us 

touch on the issue about consumer awareness, the dating on the 

packages, and the effect of trying to maintain a wholesome product 

out there with the consumers. 

We saw recently where a company which had a difficulty with 

health issues, so to speak, and the ground beef industry went 

away. So the consumers tend to be very punishing in their decisions. If you make a mistake, they tend to respond with great intensity. 

Discuss with us a little bit, and I know you all are from the scientific perspective on this, about the issues involved in that concern of consumers being able to make an informed decision by looking at your product. Do you think the way the packaging is done, 

do you think that the consumers will be able to make the right decisions on these issues? Just anyone on the panel care to touch on 

that? 

Dr. EILERT. Congressman, at Cargill we were very focused and 

we paid particularly close attention to, in fact, we have been affected by recent recalls. We take this issue very seriously. And we 

do a risk assessment. As we develop new technologies, we assess 

the risk to make sure that we are not increasing additional risk. 

As we think about the fresh meat packaging system we think about 

any potential risk that may occur. One of the things that we are 

very comfortable with as we have studied this is that because we 

are able to control the life of that product, we are able to control 

the supply chain of that product, in a case-ready packaging format. 

We think we have greater ability to maintain the safety of that 

product throughout the chain. And so we do take these issues very 

seriously and, at the same time, we are very confident that because 

we are able to control the supply chain and the packaging of the 

product and minimize the opportunities for cross-contamination, 

case-ready packaging and modified atmosphere packaging is but 

another step to help maintain the safety of the product that has 

been engineered into it at the harvest-level facility. 

I hope I have answered your question. 

Dr. MINERICH. If I could add to that please? 

Mr. LUCAS. Please. 

Dr. MINERICH. There have been three independent studies that 

we are aware of that really support the additional safety of this 

low-ox and low amount of carbon monoxide packaging compared to 

the other packaging technologies. Dr. Michael Doyle, who is the Director for the Center of Food Safety at the University of Georgia, 

independently reports that this packaging technology retards the 

growth of E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef, even under temperatureabusive conditions. And he calls MAP-sealed treated meat a revolutionary technology providing greater protection against food-borne 

pathogens. Dr. Mindy Brashears at Texas Tech also supports that 

with her work. Excuse me, Mindy. And also an independent study 

by the European Commission, Scientific Committee on Food, back 

in 2001 studied this packaging format and concluded that there is 

no health concern associated with 0.3 to 0.5 carbon monoxide gas 

39

and a carbon dioxide and nitrogen modified atmosphere packaging. 

They also documented that this packaging system inhibits the 

growth of pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Yersinia 

enterocolitica and E. coli O157:H7. Those are very important food 

safety studies that help support this type of technology over and 

above the other packaging options. Which is why you see more 

than a dozen of the food safety experts around the world endorsing 

this technology and really have not endorsed the high-oxygen technology. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LUCAS. Anyone else? 

Dr. SEBRANEK. Well, I might add that one advantage of the carbon monoxide technology is that it allows incorporation of additional microbial control agents. For example, the elevated carbon 

dioxide, that is an anti-microbial treatment that can extend shelf 

life and control pathogens. The inclusion of carbon monoxide allows 

a higher than usual level of carbon dioxide to improve the stability 

and shelf life of the product. It, potentially, would also allow incorporation of other technologies. For example, there have been several demonstrations that combining carbon monoxide packaging 

with irradiation is a highly effective combination because irradiation, even though it is a very controversial process in itself, is completely effective against bacteria. So by using packaging technology 

for color preservation, irradiation for microbial control, you can 

vastly improve shelf life, even over those that we have been talking 

about. So my point is not to promote irradiation but to promote the 

option of combining this packaging technology with other technologies that might have a particularly good impact. 

Mr. LUCAS. Very good point, doctor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of 

our panelists for being here today and listening to your testimony. 

And I would associate myself with the gentleman from Oklahoma 

talking about how the market will be very punishing, especially the 

three sitting here, to your industries if you are not providing food 

safety. And this issue comes up, I guess I just have a couple of 

questions because it seems and, in full disclosure here, Dr. 

Minerich is a constituent of mine and Hormel is located in my district and Cargill is a Minnesota company. With that being the case 

though, I approach this more as a consumer as I look at this. The 

issue and as you have discussed on this is not so much a food safety issue but as the way the food looks, the consumers are looking 

at the sell-by dates and all of that. Who is opposed to the low-oxygen technology? Where is this coming up as an issue if we have the 

scientists and many of the studies reporting that this is a safe technology, it is not doing anything. We still have the sell-by dates and 

you have indicated, Dr. Minerich, there have been no cases of foodborne illness through this technology. Then who is talking about 

this or is this a solution looking for a problem? 

Dr. MINERICH. Thank you, Congressman Walz. I am not going to 

comment on the last question but on the first question, this whole 

issue arose from a spice manufacturer, who sells spices under control of several patents that help the high-oxygen technology stabilize that color longer. And that competing technology against ours 

40

now is at risk. And that all generated about 2 years ago. We had 

been in the market 2 years by that time already, so total market 

time is about 4 years for us. And the interest, it is almost unfortunate that they are alarming consumers with the food safety issue 

when leading scientists endorse this technology. There are some 

entities protecting their constituents along that line instead of allowing the marketplace to settle the difference. 

Mr. WALZ. This spice manufacturer is the one who did not show 

up today, is that correct? 

Dr. EILERT. That is correct, being invited twice. 

Mr. WALZ. What does their product do as a food additive that differs from low-oxygen? Their product keeps the product fresher or 

just keeps the color? 

Dr. MINERICH. It keeps the color. 

Mr. WALZ. So there is no difference? 

Dr. MINERICH. They use oxygen to stabilize the myoglobin pigment in a high-ox atmosphere but their ingredient helps stabilize 

that color longer, according to their patents. Whereas, when you go 

to a low-oxygen format, you don’t need that ingredient, so that ingredient is no longer necessary in these products. The color is stabilized by the small amount of carbon monoxide instead. So they 

are just competing technologies. When you said is this a solution 

trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, as I said consumers are 

investing a lot of money into these meat products. 

Mr. WALZ. Would I be naı ̈ve to think on this, I guess, from 

Tyson, Cargill and Hormel’s perspective on this, if this different 

technology, the spice additive or whatever, if it were cheaper and 

did the same thing, you would probably switch to that, is that correct, if it would save money? I am just checking on this as you go. 

Dr. MINERICH. No, we would not do it to save money. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. 

Dr. MINERICH. Like I said, we were in this in 1991 and the eating experience was not a happy thing for our consumers. 

Mr. WALZ. So you have been through this a long time of seeing 

what is best for the consumer, what is best for bottom line in terms 

of sales and what is going to, as you said, keep the food safe and 

not be an issue. 

Dr. MINERICH. Correct. And these food safety attributes that this 

package offers over high-oxygen provide a much better packaging 

system for the consumer. And from food safety, from cross-contamination, less hands touching the meat. 

Mr. WALZ. This is just in your opinion, this is a better technology. 

Dr. MINERICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALZ. That is why you are using it. 

Dr. EILERT. Congressman, we also—in Cargill, we offer a lot of 

different packaging solutions to our customers and the choice of 

which is dependent upon economics, consumer preference, supply 

chain needs. There are retailers in the United States that effectively can use a shorter shelf life product like these high-oxygen 

packaging systems can provide. They can manage the supply chain 

and it is an effective solution for them. There are some retailers 

without as sophisticated a distribution system that this is not as 

good of a solution as a shelf life that is more near the natural shelf 

41

life potential of the products. And that is one of the key things that 

I want to make sure that the Committee understands, is that we 

are not talking about creating shelf life out of thin air. We are talking about protecting the natural shelf life of this product and using 

that protection to benefit our customers and the consumers. Will 

we still sell meat if we have only a high-oxygen format? I suppose 

we will but it won’t be as high a quality as what we can achieve 

with this advancement and this technology. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. Well, I thank you and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 

Kansas, could I follow up just for a second? 

Mr. MORAN. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. This company, do they have a patent on this 

other process? 

Dr. EILERT. Yes, they do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do they then charge people and make money off 

that patent, I assume? 

Dr. EILERT. The specifics, we can’t comment to their exact commercialization. 

The CHAIRMAN. But there is some kind of charge for that patent. 

Dr. EILERT. Certainly, certainly. And the speculation might be 

that the license might be inherent with the use of the technology. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the same situation with this low-oxygen? 

Is there some patent on that? 

Dr. EILERT. Currently today there are no patents. There are patents in this area but there are no patents granted on the packaging 

technologies today. 

The CHAIRMAN. So there is a difference there then? 

Dr. EILERT. Yes, there is. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. The gentleman from Kansas, 

Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. The phrase 

‘‘shelf life’’ has been used throughout your testimony and my first 

question is, what is the definition of ‘‘shelf life’’? Is it agreed upon 

within the industry? First answer those questions and then I will 

see, I may have a third. 

Dr. EILERT. Congressman, ‘‘shelf life’’ is in essence that period of 

time in which product is maintained in an acceptable quality level. 

It is the period of time in which spoilage is not evidenced at a noticeable level. Is there a standard shelf life for every single product 

on this table and the answer is no. 

Mr. MORAN. Would each of the companies represented here today 

reach a different shelf life? 

Dr. EILERT. They could very well. Now, what tends to happen is 

that with companies like represented here and some of our colleagues in the rest of the industry, there is a certain level. I talk 

a lot about shelf life potential. And when we take a piece of fresh 

beef, if we process that in a hygienic fashion and we store and distribute those products and managing the cold chain as best we can, 

then most of the companies are going to achieve the shelf life potential or very near the shelf life potential of the products. And so 

it is going to vary somewhat processor to processor. At the end of 

the day, any company, the ones represented here at the table, as 

42

well as our colleagues in the industry, any company that puts their 

name, their brand, their inspection legend on those products, is obligated to protect and maintain that any shelf life that they put on 

those products is going to deliver for the consumers. 

Mr. MORAN. Is shelf life related to food safety or related to customer satisfaction? 

Dr. EILERT. Shelf life is related to customer satisfaction, it is not 

related to food safety. 

Mr. MORAN. So who makes the determination that after a certain 

date the product has been on the shelf it is no longer safe for consumption by the consumer? 

Dr. EILERT. Those are generally made by the—well, first——

Mr. MORAN. Safe? 

Dr. EILERT. Okay. Again, from a safety standpoint, shelf life, we 

want to draw a distinction between safety and shelf life. When we 

talk about raw meat products today the primary control of the 

pathogens that can occur on those products takes place at the harvest facility. Those pathogens, and in the case of beef, let us talk 

specifically on beef, the E. coli O157 organism is on the exterior of 

the animal, as well as in its digestive tract. The meat itself is sterile. It is perfectly safe for consumption. So the job of Tyson, the job 

of Cargill, the job of Hormel, is first and foremost to prevent the 

contamination from the outside of the carcass or from the interior 

of the animal to the meat product. That is the first line of defense 

that takes place. Now, everything else that takes place beyond the 

harvest process is making sure that temperatures are maintained, 

cross-contamination is minimized. And so when we talk about that, 

the occurrence of the pathogen at the harvest level has very little 

to do with the ultimate shelf life of the product. I hope I was able 

to draw that distinction. 

Mr. MORAN. But those other factors, temperature, they do have 

an effect upon not shelf life but upon the safety of the product? 

Dr. EILERT. If the pathogen is there, if the pathogen is present 

and if temperature abuse does occur. 

Mr. MORAN. Maybe this is the point you are making with me, the 

pathogen, if it is going to be there, it is there from the slaughter. 

Dr. EILERT. The harvest facility. 

Mr. MORAN. Right. 

Dr. EILERT. That is correct, Congressman. Yes. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. 

Dr. EILERT. And so we have to maintain—I mean, our——

Mr. MORAN. If you do your job in the beginning——

Dr. EILERT. If we do our job in the beginning and then we control 

the cold chain throughout and that is from harvest, that is from 

processing, that is from case-ready packaging that is even distribution into the retail store, we will maximize the shelf life of the 

product and the quality and the eating experience. And additionally, if by some chance that organism was there to occur, we will 

minimize the potential for growth. 

Mr. MORAN. When I read on a package that it says use by or 

sometimes it says use-by, sometimes it says sell-by, is there a distinction that is made by your company in what that means? 

Dr. EILERT. You want to take that? 

43

Dr. MINERICH. No, there is no difference. There is use-by, sellby, freeze-by, best-by. There are a number of words used to describe an estimated end of shelf life. 

Mr. MORAN. And really that is a marketing phrase——

Dr. MINERICH. It is the——

Mr. MORAN.—because it is consumer satisfaction. 

Dr. MINERICH. Correct. You know, there have been a number of 

studies as to what makes the most sense to consumers. Use or 

freeze-by is the date most often used by manufacturers because 

that is a date that is very familiar to consumers. But it is placed 

by the manufacturer, determined by the manufacturer because the 

quality attributes of these products are measured in different ways. 

Some could be a color change. Some could be texture. Some could 

be flavor. Some could be loss of vitamins. Or on medications, a loss 

of an active bioactive ingredient. So a use or sell-by date really is 

a manufactured date. We could put 10 days, 20 days, 30 days. But 

it is up to us, as Dr. Eilert mentioned, to be sure that we deliver 

to our consumer a product that gives them an enjoyable eating experience, otherwise they won’t come back and buy from us. So we 

are usually very conservative on sell-by dates or use-by dates. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kagen. Now, we have our own doctor who I know 

knows more about this than I do but Dr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Well, you probably want comparison by how much 

we eat. I want to thank you, first of all, for your testimony and also 

for your industry for bringing forward a wide array of food products 

that have been safe and very nutritious. And I grew up on Hormel 

and now that I am no longer a practicing physician but a politician, 

tell you, without chicken, we wouldn’t be having very many fundraising events because that is all they seem to serve. But I won’t 

get into the appearance of that meat or the tastiness or its rubber 

quality. 

Dr. Sebranek, you went to one of the finest universities in this 

land, University of Wisconsin, as did I, and I want to thank you. 

I assume you don’t represent any commercial interest here at Iowa 

State University and you don’t receive any funding from corporations, is that true? 

Dr. SEBRANEK. No, my research emphasis, my research supports 

comes only from the USDA. My packaging work has not been funded by the industry. 

Mr. KAGEN. Well, let me address most of my few minutes of 

questioning towards you because in your written testimony, you indicated that carbon monoxide has some benefits. Has benefits for 

the appearance, the product, the flavor and the tenderness. I am 

going to have to take your word for it because I haven’t studied it. 

And you also mentioned that Dr. Doyle from the University of 

Georgia has studied the potential anti-microbial activity of carbon 

monoxide. Am I correct that he compared the use of carbon monoxide in the packaging versus the aerobic packaging? 

Dr. SEBRANEK. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. KAGEN. And he didn’t study the anaerobic. Because as you 

and I know as scientists, if you take the oxygen away, you get 

much less bacterial growth. 

44

Dr. SEBRANEK. That is correct. 

Mr. KAGEN. So he didn’t study the anaerobic packaging of the 

meat, he studied it against aerobic open-air packaging, basically? 

Dr. SEBRANEK. Correct. But it is important to keep in mind, the 

absence of oxygen is the major advantage in all these systems, 

whatever they are. 

Mr. KAGEN. Right. You also indicated, hinted in somewhat strong 

fashion, that irradiation might actually be better as an anti-microbial protection of meat products than carbon monoxide, is that 

true? 

Dr. SEBRANEK. From the microbial standpoint, that is correct. It 

can be very, very effective. 

Mr. KAGEN. Okay. And the other question I have, with regard to 

these studies that you mentioned and also your counterparts, were 

these studies on the ability of carbon monoxide to protect the meat, 

to prevent it from spoiling, were they done before or after it was 

put into the field and into practice? 

Dr. SEBRANEK. The studies that——

Mr. KAGEN. Yes. 

Dr. SEBRANEK.—we talked about? 

Mr. KAGEN. The studies themselves, were they performed after 

it started to be used in the public? 

Dr. SEBRANEK. Well, I guess from the standpoint of scientific 

studies they have accrued in both situations. There were studies 

prior to the commercial introduction, if I am understanding your 

question correctly. 

Mr. KAGEN. So if I looked at the——

Dr. SEBRANEK. And after as well. 

Mr. KAGEN. So if I looked at the date of Dr. Doyle’s publication, 

it would be before the use of carbon monoxide was approved by any 

government organization? 

Dr. SEBRANEK. Yes, right. 

Mr. KAGEN. Okay. Very interesting. Now, the other thing I am 

learning here, because I really don’t know all the rules of the 

USDA, but in the field in which I practiced for 30 years, allergy 

immunology, we had expiration dates on our allergy vaccines and 

every prescription drug that is licensed by the FDA has expiration 

dates that have some scientific merit and some scientific determination. Am I correct if I interpret what all of you have said that 

freeze or sell-by dates are sort of made up as you go along? 

Dr. ROOP. I would like to comment on that. 

Mr. KAGEN. Sure. 

Dr. ROOP. They are not made up. They are scientifically determined by R&D staffs at our companies. 

Mr. KAGEN. Okay. 

Dr. ROOP. So it is not a random date. 

Mr. KAGEN. So every product that your company makes releases 

to chain stores has the same date? 

Dr. ROOP. No. All like products are evaluated based on how they 

are packaged and how they are handled through the process and 

then a sell-by date is determined. 

Mr. KAGEN. So you determine the sell date by some objective 

means? 

Dr. ROOP. That is correct. 

45

Mr. KAGEN. Is it the initial bacterial load in the product as it 

goes out your door or how do you determine that? 

Dr. ROOP. It is done by actually taking packaging prior to introduction and putting it in storage and observing the organoleptic 

properties and measuring the bacterial load as it increases over 

time. 

Mr. KAGEN. So each product that you send out the door isn’t 

studied for its potential degradative rate? 

Dr. ROOP. Is or isn’t? 

Mr. KAGEN. Is not. 

Dr. ROOP. All like products that have a sell-by date are. 

Mr. KAGEN. Okay. So do you sample each product that comes off 

the line? Do you take a sample as we do in the dairy industry? We 

take samples from our milk producers, we take samples into the 

laboratory and do colony counts and bacterial counts. Do you do 

that with the meat product as well? 

Dr. ROOP. All products are verified on a regular basis, not every 

product. 

Mr. KAGEN. But in the production line, like let us say October 

19, we could look at some bacterial data that you have? I see somebody nodding their head in the background. Either they are falling 

asleep or they are agreeing. 

Dr. ROOP. There will be verification checks, yes, sir. 

Mr. KAGEN. Okay. All right. Well, I thank you very much for 

your time and for your attention. I look forward to asking you more 

questions in written form. I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Virginia, the Ranking Member, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the 

gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves, has asked that this statement be made part of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, all Member statements will be made part 

of the record for today’s hearing. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Let me just ask all the panelists, 

there has been some testimony referencing the role of modified atmosphere packaging in reducing the prevalence of pathogens such 

as E. coli and since we are having a subcommittee hearing next 

week to discuss recent recalls for that pathogen, I wonder if you 

might take a moment to expand on this particular quality of the 

technology. Some of those who are advocating certain labeling requirements and so on seem to be suggesting that the technology is 

primarily used for the appearance of the product. I am hearing you 

reassure us that it is primarily for the safety of the product. I wonder if you might address that particular concern with regard to E. 

coli or modified atmosphere packaging that utilized to address 

that? 

Dr. MINERICH. Congressman, you are correct on your earlier 

statement. The primary development goal for this technology was 

to advance previous technologies in delivering a quality product to 

our consumer. Some of the follow-up studies that were asked about 

by a previous Congressman were done following market introduction but I refer back to the study done by the European commission 

in 2001, which was done prior to the introduction of this low-ox lid 

stock technology. So there were follow-up studies and what the sciVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Jun 22, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-34\50470.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
46

entific community tends to do as it is trying to validate technologies is explore all possibilities. You never do explore every possibility but you certainly want to be looking for opportunities that 

maybe this technology might actually encourage growth of 

O157:H7, which would be negative. We don’t want to do that. So 

we were pleasantly surprised to see in these follow-up studies that 

actually this packaging environment suppressed the growth of that 

pathogen. That was an unexpected evaluation of the technology but 

it was something that we certainly embraced. The packaging technologies were created to extend the shelf life of the product or, as 

Dr. Eilert says, preserve the shelf life of the product that existed 

prior to being placed in the tray and give our consumers a good 

eating experience while maintaining integrity of the package, preventing cross-contamination and putting on the code date and the 

manufacturing facility. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But are you saying it also appears to have some 

other benefits? 

Dr. MINERICH. Yes, it does. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Is that the answer to my question? 

Dr. MINERICH. And that is the data on three separate studies. 

Dr. EILERT. Congressman, if I may expand on that? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Sure, please. 

Dr. EILERT. One of the comments that you made is the ability of 

this packaging format, this modified atmosphere packaging format, 

to prevent the prevalence of a O157:H7. Let me go back to the conversations from Dr. Rubin, Tyson, and then some of the earlier 

points. We are controlling the prevalence of the pathogen at the 

harvest facility. Now, at the point of packaging and in the supply 

chain in our packaging, the goal is to minimize the opportunity for 

growth if that pathogen did occur. Now, when our companies, 

Cargill and Hormel were a part of the joint venture precept, when 

we first looked at this technology, the first place we looked, as Dr. 

Minerich pointed out, was to make sure that the environment that 

we were putting the meat in was not going to contribute to increased risk. And the studies done in Norway and other studies 

done in the United States, we were confident that there had been 

enough scientific evidence that we weren’t increasing risk with this 

format. Now, because of the high levels of CO2 that Dr. Sebranek 

talked about that are in this product, high levels of carbon dioxide, 

not carbon monoxide, we are able and we have proven now under 

abusive conditions, it will actually inhibit the growth under temperature-abuse conditions. That is not why we did it, it is an added 

benefit. But let me just assure the Committee that we went into 

this fully knowing, from the scientific evidence, years of scientific 

evidence around carbon monoxide, that we were not going to increase risk. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, let me follow-up on that. Consumer groups 

have raised concerns related to the fact that modified atmosphere 

packaged meat retains it color well beyond its shelf life. Are you 

working on any new technologies to address that concern? 

Dr. MINERICH. Yes, we are always looking to advance technologies. So as we have been made aware how sensitive that issue 

is to some consumer groups, we continue to look forward to advances in this technology. I don’t think you will ever see any of 

47

these three companies stop in our tracks on trying to advance food 

technology and food packaging technology that advances consumer 

acceptance and food safety. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Anybody want to add anything to that? 

Dr. EILERT. I think I would agree with Dr. Minerich. I mean, this 

is not the end. This is not the pinnacle of our work. Any good scientist, any good progressive research group within one of these 

large companies, once the first technology is introduced, then they 

should start working upon what the replacement or what the advancement of that next technology is. And I think all of the companies represented here, amongst some of our other colleagues, are 

committed to that whether that pertains to freshness or whether 

that pertains to safety. And so we are going to continue to advance 

this area. In the meantime, this technology represents one of those 

said advancements. And we think it is incredibly unfortunate that 

we are being inhibited to advance the technology because of a campaign of pressure from a competing technology. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Is there any concern and have you heard from 

any consumers when the carbon monoxide is not used and you 

have a problem with a meat turning brown with the consumer not 

knowing whether or not that has been cooked before they start utilizing it? 

Dr. EILERT. We have heard some of those comments and we have 

been aware of this evidence that meat can prematurely brown in 

high-oxygen packaging. That worries us. It is not where we want 

to be. At the same time, however, this has been a packaging format 

that has worked very well for a number of years for a variety of 

customers in supply chains. We recognize that that is an opportunity that we want to work on. So we think that as the technology 

evolved to high-oxygen packaging, that was a good thing. That allowed us to minimize that cross-contamination that we spoke 

about. That allowed us to maintain the integrity of the supply 

chain in these products. Did we want to improve? Absolutely. We 

want to improve for a lot of the reasons that you heard today. And 

so we recognize that there were limitations to that technology, one 

of which was the flavor development issue, one of which was this 

concept of premature browning. We want to move past that. We 

want the technology to evolve. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And let me just ask you to satisfy all the consumers out there, do each of you feel comfortable serving meat that 

has been packaged in modified atmosphere packaging using carbon 

monoxide to your family and your friends? 

Dr. EILERT. I have two daughters. One is 12, one is 10. I am 

thankful to report that they are as carnivorous as the day is long. 

And I proudly and assuredly serve that product to my children on 

a regular basis. 

Mr. KAGEN. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KAGEN. Would either of you object to the presence on a label 

of one of your products that carbon monoxide is being used? 

Dr. EILERT. Yes, we would. 

Dr. MINERICH. Yes. 

Dr. EILERT. Now, one of the comments that I forgot to mention 

verbally but it is in my written text, because of the concerns that 

48

have been emphasized, we are willing to add additional language 

on our labels. And that additional language would read something 

to the effect of color is not an adequate indicator of freshness, 

please refer to use or freeze-by dates. We see that, Congressman, 

as being an instructive statement. If we were to put a statement, 

such as this product is packaged in carbon monoxide, we see that 

as a declarative statement. What the consumer doesn’t necessarily—the consumer can’t use that information. It would be the 

same as if we declared what the particular plastic resins are in the 

material. It doesn’t provide the consumer with a lot of benefit. 

However, a statement that says—and we probably should have 

done this earlier. A statement that says color is not an adequate 

indicator of freshness, please refer to use or freeze-by dates. We are 

highly supportive of that and we are willing to implement that as 

soon as we can work with the USDA upon approval of that statement. 

Mr. KAGEN. But if carbon monoxide is a good thing because it decreases the bacterial load in the product, wouldn’t you want the 

consumers to know about the good things you are doing for them? 

Dr. MINERICH. Packaging gases have never been labeled—if you 

were to label the packaging gas on this packaging system, on the 

cheese or on the sliced meats or on the bag of potato chips, if that 

is a level playing field we want to be in, we are all for it. If everybody labels their packaging ingredients but, as Dr. Eilert mentioned, we don’t know what value that brings. Do you want to know 

that this is packaged in a high-nitrogen atmosphere? Does that 

change your purchase decision? Do you want to know that this is 

a combination of gases to maintain freshness of bagged lettuce? 

What you really want is a good eating experience. That is what you 

want. And a use and freeze-by date is an important attribute to 

that. 

Mr. KAGEN. I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for that question. I 

would say that information that is useful to the consumer is that 

they know what to do with it is more valuable than information 

that simply says something that may raise questions that are not 

answered on that same label. 

Dr. EILERT. We agree. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 

North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Minerich, the 

bulk of your testimony is pretty much directed toward packaged 

meats as I read it and mainly beef. And my question is, North 

Carolina is probably number two in pork and we have a lot of poultry. We have very little slaughtering of beef. To your knowledge, 

is there any operation that uses carbon monoxide or low-oxygen 

packaging that is utilized in the pork packaging? 

Dr. MINERICH. Well, modified atmosphere packaging is used in 

pork but, to my knowledge, not carbon monoxide. 

Dr. EILERT. That would be incorrect, we do. Both Cargill and 

Hormel, in the joint venture, we produce and package beef and 

pork in the modified atmospheres containing carbon monoxide. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Okay, thank you. Let me ask this, direct this 

question at each of you. Hopefully, we will have time to get an anVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Jun 22, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-34\50470.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
49

swer. The opponents of the modified atmosphere packaging charges 

that this practice deceives people in purchasing, what they call, 

spoiled meats. And assuming, and I know you don’t want to assume this, correct, but just let us for a moment assume that to be 

correct. Seems to me that we would be seeing two results. One, an 

increase in the number of food poisoning from eating spoiled meats 

and, consequently, an increase in litigation against your companies 

and others or the supermarkets for selling it. So, generally, how 

often has your company been subject to litigation of this type since 

this technology has been utilized? Have your companies seen an increase in either the packaging processes litigation or can any of you 

explain to me why a company would engage in a practice if their 

opponents were correct, that would subject it to greater litigation? 

Dr. MINERICH. We have not seen any litigation at all on this 

packaging technology. As I said, this has been one of the highest 

consumer acceptances of a product introduction in our company’s 

history. So we have the 800 number boldly posted on there. We 

also stand alone in the food industry as having a money-back guarantee on this meat product. So we are encouraging consumers not 

only to call us if there is a problem, but we will give them their 

money back if there is a problem. And I understand the concern 

that people are buying spoiled meat. That is not happening. It goes 

back to the consumer acceptance level. They are not buying spoiled 

meat. But if they did buy spoiled meat, how did they know it was 

spoiled? It smelled or it looked funny for some reason or the package was bulging. There was some indicator that that was spoiled. 

Very similar to how do you know when milk is spoiled? You pour 

some on your cereal and you take the first bite and it is sour or 

it gurgles out. It is the same thing with orange juice. We have all 

consumed product that, I am not going to say has gone past its 

code date because it may have spoiled before its code date, depending on how it was handled, and still looked good, still looked wholesome. But you knew, through your experience of eating food your 

entire life, that that was going to give you a poor eating experience. 

It did not, however, increase your risk of food safety. It spoiled. It 

did not increase your risk of food safety. And that is a very difficult 

concept to understand but I will give you some very simple examples that will help you maybe, no pun intended, digest that. Yogurt. This used to be milk. It is curdled. By definition it is spoiled. 

And, as a matter of fact, you are eating this product because of how 

many bacteria are in this product. But it spoiled in a way that you 

enjoy it. You get a good eating experience out of this. You can spoil 

yogurt and if you leave it in the sun and different bacteria will 

grow in there, it will spoil and give you a poor eating experience 

but it will not jeopardize your health. This is not a food safety 

issue, it is a spoilage issue and that relates back to the shelf life: 

same thing with dry sausage; same thing with sauerkraut; same 

thing with cheese. Those are all products that have been selectively 

changed by the use of bacteria to, in one sense of the term, spoil 

it in a way that gives you a good eating experience. And the other 

spoilage organisms that cause the meat to sour or get milky or turn 

color or form gas, those will give you a poor eating experience. And 

you will smell it, you will see it, there will be an obvious reason 

as to why that spoiled and you will dispose of the product. And our 

50

1–800 number and our money-back guarantee on this product line 

certainly encourages people to communicate with us. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. 

Dr. EILERT. Congressman, to directly answer your question, we 

have not entered into any litigation due to complaints from this 

packaging format. The rate of complaint, we are not going to say 

that we are perfect every time, sometimes we do not deliver because of one reason or another. The shelf life from these products 

can be highly variable. And so when our shelf life is not as good 

as it should be, we receive that feedback and react upon it. And 

if we don’t, we won’t be in business. 

Dr. ROOP. Well, my answer has to be a little bit different because 

we are not into this type of packaging to the same degree as my 

colleagues. However, we do not oppose that type of packaging. I am 

unaware of any litigation to it. Thank you. 

Dr. SEBRANEK. Well, the separation of spoilage and pathogens is 

a critical one. People have commented that spoiled food has never 

caused food poisoning because it prohibits consumption. And that 

is actually, as we teach in some of our elementary courses in meat 

science, a protective mechanism. So it is very important in this situation to separate spoilage and pathogens. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the panel. This has 

been quite educational and so I appreciate that. I know that 

through research and development everyone here on the panel devotes a great deal of effort into answering the concerns of the marketplace. I mean, I hear you saying that the marketplace is what 

speaks loud and clear and I would assume that a food safety issue 

will cost you far more than any savings on packaging. So I appreciate that. Are there any numbers that you would point to specifically that would lead us to support that last statement? 

Dr. MINERICH. Can you repeat the last statement? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, maybe job losses as to loss in consumer confidence after a particular food safety issue was reported or what 

have you. 

Dr. MINERICH. Well, as Dr. Eilert mentioned, we work very hard 

in the industry to avoid that situation. I am aware that one recent 

food safety incident has caused the closing of a major food processing company in the East here and that is the type of concern 

that we have as we bring any product or any technology to market 

is that our brand, specifically, is not put at risk. So the science that 

is done before we go to market, the science that continues after we 

are in the market, continues to be strong to protect our brand and 

protect the product, protect the consumer. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 

Iowa, Chairman of the Livestock Subcommittee, Mr. Boswell. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you 

for your participation today and I hope America is listening. Just 

to emphasize some things that some of you have said, I apologize 

to have you repeat it but I wanted to make it clearer. Dr. 

51

Sebranek, you mentioned that some critics say that MAP is deceptive and hazardous. Again, for the record, in your opinion, are either of these assertions true? Deceptive? 

Dr. SEBRANEK. I am sorry, would you repeat the question for me 

please? 

Mr. BOSWELL. You mentioned that critics say that the modification is deceptive and hazardous. In your expert opinion, are either 

of these assertions true? 

Dr. SEBRANEK. I am sorry, I having a little trouble picking up 

your question. I would like to ask to have it repeated for me. Yes, 

that is correct. The reason I say that is because the color is identical to what we have with the aerobic packaging and we have had 

many comments——

Mr. BOSWELL. I think perhaps we are not understanding you but 

I think what you are saying is, it is not true, it is not hazardous 

and it is not deceptive. 

Dr. SEBRANEK. That is correct. It is not hazardous nor deceptive. 

Mr. BOSWELL. All right. I am sorry for—I have a little laryngitis, 

so I hope you will forgive me for that. Perception is sometimes like 

fact in some people’s mind, but maybe give us a better way or another way that you could elaborate on how using carbon monoxide, 

which can be deadly to humans, you know—an old airplane I fly, 

I keep a little monitor in there. I don’t want to go to sleep at the 

switch, so to speak. And so we have that perception as bad, which 

it is if it is over-abundance, but how can we point out that it is not 

detrimental in the packaging you use? Because of the minimal 

amount? 

Dr. EILERT. Yes, that is correct. There is an adage, Congressman, 

that the dose makes the poison. A good portion of these products 

today contain ingredients that can be lethal if applied at too high 

of a level. Sodium nitrite, carbon dioxide, a host of others. And so 

there was a lot of work. I mean, in addition to the basic product 

safety work, there was also a human exposure element and a toxicology element to our review that we conducted when we presented 

this technology to FDA. And ourselves and predecessors in the industry showed that the levels of exposure to carbon monoxide in 

this packaging format are far below those levels that would be even 

close to being hazardous to humans. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I appreciate that. This is not what you expected 

today to have a question about but where I come from we have a 

lot of people that do home butchering and home freezing. And so 

constituents ask me, ‘‘We have all these experts, what is the shelf 

life of frozen meat in the home freezer in a self-defrosting freezer?’’

Dr. MINERICH. Well, that depends on the meats species and how 

it is packaged. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Well, let us say beef. 

Dr. MINERICH. If beef is packaged well, you are going to talk 

about a shelf life that is 3 to 6 months for good eating quality. It 

will be safe for the entire period but what you risk in a freezer is 

dehydration. So if you have a packaging system that allows for gas 

transmission, like you bought some meat that was packaged at the 

local butcher, that has a high gas-transmission rate, you throw 

that in the freezer. 

52

Mr. BOSWELL. I think this constituent had something that they 

took to their local locker, had packaged at their request, they 

brought home to the farm and stuck in the freezer. 

Dr. MINERICH. Yes. 

Mr. BOSWELL. So for how long is it safe? 

Dr. MINERICH. How long is it safe is a different question. If it 

was contaminated at the local butcher, it is not safe from day one. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay, I understand that. 

Dr. MINERICH. But you are talking about shelf life and eating 

quality and if you froze it in the white-wrapped butcher paper, it 

is probably going to have a good eating quality for maybe a month 

but it will dry out very fast. So I am sorry to say, as a scientific 

answer, it usually depends. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Usually depends. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think the gentleman was wondering whether 

the pheasants and goose that he shot this weekend are going to 

last for——

Mr. BOSWELL. No, I haven’t got around to that yet. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Kansas, Mrs. Boyda. 

Mrs. BOYDA. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I just had some 

questions, somewhat out of curiosity and learning about this. I certainly appreciate what you are saying about competing technologies 

and maybe there is some lack of truthfulness that is going on here. 

But I have a couple of questions. When we are talking about—in 

the other packaging that you were referring to, does anything else 

use carbon monoxide in their modified environments? 

Dr. MINERICH. Not that I am aware of. 

Dr. EILERT. We are aware that carbon monoxide is approved for 

some produce applications but we are not knowledgeable to know 

whether or not it is being applied. 

Mrs. BOYDA. My question here coming up is more one of curiosity. 

Dr. EILERT. Okay. 

Mrs. BOYDA. When you are talking about carbon monoxide, that 

it actually is binding and that what it is doing, is it binding with 

the hemoglobin in there to keep the bright red color. So, in fact, 

it is not an inert gas that is just sitting on top of everything, it is 

actually something that is now part of the product and it is really 

now part of a preservative. 

Dr. EILERT. The carbon monoxide does bind but it is not an irreversible bond. And so as the package is opened, then that carbon 

monoxide dissipates. Additionally, if there is carbon monoxide that 

is bound to the myoglobin molecule, during the heating process it 

also gases off in the heating process. And perhaps Dr. Sebranek 

could explain that even a little better than I have. 

Dr. SEBRANEK. Yes, that is correct. Even though it is a stronger 

bond than in the case of oxygen, it is lost from the pigment over 

a period of time or in exposure to heat. So you do get browning of 

the product during cooking, for example. The preservative, the 

anti-microbial effect is primarily due to carbon dioxide. 

Mrs. BOYDA. Correct. 

Dr. SEBRANEK.—in that atmosphere. 

Mrs. BOYDA. And I got that one too. Because that is what I was 

wondering. What happens to the carbon monoxide? If it is driven 

53

off, then we have the same problem of brown is brown and how do 

you know if it is pink? I cook towards pink and, quite honestly, I 

like my steak very pink, forget that, I like it red. But it has just 

got to be, and just logically it has got to be kind of one or the other. 

The high-oxygen environment has the problem with turning it 

brown so you can’t tell if it is cooked. So either the CO is hanging 

on and it is staying pink or it is gone and it is going brown. I am 

just trying to figure out where that is coming in. 

Dr. SEBRANEK. Well, you do in some cases get a longer retention 

of pinkness sometimes in the center of cuts with carbon monoxide 

to retain pink for a longer period of time during cooking. But that 

is not necessarily a bad thing——

Mrs. BOYDA. No. 

Dr. SEBRANEK.—from the cooking standpoint. 

Mrs. BOYDA. What I am curious about is who helps you with 

your labels? Does USDA have label requirements or is it FDA? 

Dr. EILERT. Yes. The Standards of Labeling Division of the 

USDA. 

Mrs. BOYDA. I am just curious again. This is interesting. The 

competing technology that you had and I don’t even know what it 

is, was it required to be on the label? 

Dr. EILERT. Yes, it was. It was an ingredient. 

Mrs. BOYDA. You know where I am going with this. I don’t understand why the carbon monoxide—it is not like it—the rest of the 

packaging environments that you are talking about are inert environments meant——

Dr. SEBRANEK. No. 

Mrs. BOYDA.—to be pretty much inert. 

Dr. EILERT. But they are not inert. Even the oxygen that is in 

a high-oxygen package is not inert. It has a——

Mrs. BOYDA. Well, obviously, because that is what——

Dr. EILERT. Right. 

Mrs. BOYDA. Right. 

Dr. EILERT. Right. The carbon dioxide that we have in these 

packages, as well as in a lot of perishable items, even, for instance, 

produce, cheese, and a lot of perishable items, non-shelf stable 

items, will use carbon dioxide. That carbon dioxide reacts with the 

moisture in the food to form carbonic acid in the food and that has 

an inhibitory effect against micro-organisms. Now, as the product 

is consumed, as it is removed from that environment and it is prepared, that dissipates. And so, again, I think as you think about 

gases, you almost have to think about gases in terms of they are 

almost like packaging materials and less like ingredients. Because 

at the end of the day as I consume the meat, as my daughters consume the meat that is in that carbon monoxide packaging, the intake of carbon monoxide is negligible. 

Mrs. BOYDA. Yes. 

Dr. EILERT. However, if I add——

Mrs. BOYDA. That I don’t disagree with you about. 

Dr. EILERT. Okay. But if I add an ingredient—if I add what is 

being referenced as a natural flavoring, which is the competing 

technology. It is referred to as a natural flavoring but it has a functional effect, it is there in the meat that my family consumes. And 

so I think, as I look at packaging gases, as we look at packaging 

54

gases, and I believe this is how the Labeling Division has also 

looked at packaging gases, since they no longer have a lasting effect or a residual content in the product that is consumed, then it 

is not an ingredient. 

Mrs. BOYDA. Then can I cook a steak and keep it red? 

Dr. MINERICH. In our package, yes. 

Dr. EILERT. Can you cook a steak——

Mrs. BOYDA. Can I grill a steak and keep it red? 

Dr. EILERT. As long as you don’t cook it to too high. 

Mrs. BOYDA. But if I cook my steak to medium rare or to 

rare——

Dr. EILERT. Right. 

Mrs. BOYDA.—then it is going to be red? 

Dr. EILERT. Correct. 

Dr. MINERICH. In the low-ox packaging system. 

Dr. EILERT. Right. 

Dr. MINERICH. Yes. 

Dr. EILERT. Right. 

Dr. MINERICH. But you will have a very difficult time doing that 

in a high-ox packaging system. 

Mrs. BOYDA. Yes. 

Dr. MINERICH. Especially at the end of the code date. 

Mrs. BOYDA. I appreciate the update. This is a learning experience for me. 

Dr. EILERT. We appreciate the questions. 

Mrs. BOYDA. I come from a background with the FDA, so the 

whole thing of binding—it seems to be, even though it must be an 

incredibly small amount of ingestion, I just don’t understand how 

it is not part of the label. I can understand why you wouldn’t want 

it to be part of a label. I am just kind of wondering how it doesn’t 

seem to be part of a label. 

Dr. EILERT. And to me it still comes down to the base fact 

that——

Mrs. BOYDA. Sure. You are talking about absolutely negligible 

amounts. 

Dr. EILERT. Negligible amounts——

Mrs. BOYDA. Extremely negligible amounts. 

Dr. EILERT.—and compositional quantities. So, I mean, the meat 

that we eat is made up of moisture, fat——

Mrs. BOYDA. Yes. 

Dr. EILERT.—protein, minerals, vitamins. We can analyze for 

those things. Those things are there. We can analyze for the carbon 

dioxide or the carbon monoxide and we would hardly be able to find 

them. 

Mrs. BOYDA. No, I wouldn’t disagree with that. 

Dr. EILERT. Okay. 

Mrs. BOYDA. All right. Thank you so much. 

Dr. EILERT. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady and I think in light of this 

last discussion, it again points out how disappointing it is to me 

that the other company that is involved in this chose not to be here 

today. I think this has been a very educational process. I have 

learned some more today. I think a lot of the Members did and that 

was the purpose of what I was trying to do here. Had that other 

55

company been here, I think we could have gotten a little bit more 

understanding of exactly what is going on here but there may be 

another day for that. We have a vote in 15 minutes. Unless any 

other Members, Mr. Costa, do you have questions? The gentleman 

from California. 

Mr. COSTA. Sorry, gentlemen. This will only be 5 minutes and 

relatively tame I hope. I am not sure who is the best to address 

this question but you might look around since you folks feel comfortable with one another. Is there, in your view, any changes that 

we ought to be considering as it relates to the law with the FDA, 

the Food and Drug Administration, on how we deal with food packaging in its entirety in this country? I mean, the whole issue of 

food safety, of course, is on people’s minds these days, not only in 

terms of issues like E. coli and importation of various food products. You were talking earlier about state of the art and always 

moving science forward, I am trying to remember which gentleman 

indicated that. What else could we be doing? 

Dr. MINERICH. I would encourage innovation. One thing we 

haven’t talked about in the form of packaging is active packaging. 

I don’t see it in here right offhand but many of these types of packages have an oxygen-absorbing scavenger in it and that is an actual element, just like this, that is placed in the package to absorb 

oxygen. And as you look at these advances in packaging technologies, different films, different papers, different trays, they are 

all designed to protect the food from the point of manufacture to 

the consumer. And so anything that can be done to encourage innovation would be appreciated. 

Mr. COSTA. So those are other processes that control microbial 

activity outside of the packaging? What about those? 

Dr. MINERICH. As Dr. Eilert mentioned, carbon dioxide has been 

used now for a number of years because it does react with the 

moisture in the package, creates carbonic acid, which actually acts 

to inhibit microbial growth in packaging systems. As Dr. Sebranek 

mentioned, irradiation is a great combination technology with some 

other packaging atmospheres that helps, as a synergistic effect, it 

will help boost the lethality of that system. 

Dr. SEBRANEK. I might add that in the research arena, there are 

people looking at ways of incorporating a variety of anti-microbial 

protective agents into packaging films. They would interact with 

the product in such a way to prevent that oxidative change or microbial changes and so forth. That is a very active area of research 

right now. I think we might see incorporation of various kinds of 

protective agents into packaging films in the future. 

Mr. COSTA. It seems to me that all of you folks, both working on 

the academic side and the scientific community and those representing various leading companies in this country, have been at 

the cutting edge. I think all of you probably agree that sound 

science is the best methodology in terms of the pursuit of health 

and safety goals. Is that not correct? 

Dr. EILERT. Correct. 

Dr. MINERICH. Correct. 

Mr. COSTA. I want to make note on that point, recently an industry from my district received the Richard L. Knowlton Innovation 

Award, which I think is sponsored by Hormel and others. Dave 

56

Wood and the Harris Ranch operation won for their innovation and 

their technology. They always are focusing on, and I have toured 

their facility a number of times on, Best Sound Science. I want to 

know, do any of you believe whether or not science indicates that 

there are any current health risks associated with the various 

packaging on food safety? I know we talked about the different 

methodologies that are preferred or used today. Is there any preferred methodology in terms of the science? 

Dr. EILERT. I think that it is important to remember and as we 

have discussed in this forum, as it pertains to fresh red meat or 

fresh meat and poultry, the primary point of control of the occurrence of pathogen is at the harvest level. As long as packaging systems do not increase the potential for rate of growth or do not increase the overall risk if that pathogen should happen to occur, 

then I think a lot of these packaging formats can be as safe as each 

other. The importance of using packaging is to prevent the opportunity for risk like cross-contamination. 

Mr. COSTA. But based on risk assessment versus risk management, there has been no comparative analysis on the various methodologies that we have discussed here today? 

Dr. EILERT. I don’t think there has been a comprehensive risk 

analysis, as well as risk prevention, comparison of each of the technologies. 

Mr. COSTA. From nitrogen to carbon monoxide to high——

Dr. EILERT. Well, in that respect, there are gases that—the primary gases we use in food packaging that has an anti-bacterial effect, at the levels that we would normally use, is carbon dioxide. 

Oxygen has really no inhibitory effect on pathogen growth. 

Mr. COSTA. Nitrogen? 

Dr. EILERT. Nitrogen does not have an inhibitory effect on pathogen growth. And at the levels that we are using, carbon monoxide——

Mr. COSTA. And irradiation. 

Dr. EILERT. Irradiation does, irradiation is a kill step. It is not 

an inhibitor, it is a kill step. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the 

members of the panel for your very thoughtful testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman and hearing no further 

questions, we will dismiss this panel. We still have Mr. Almanza, 

the new Administrator for FSIS with us. So, gentlemen, thank you 

very much. It has been very informative and we appreciate your 

being with us here today. 

Dr. EILERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Mr. Almanza, we will call you to the witness 

stand and welcome your testimony and get your take on what all 

these guys have said here. Mr. Almanza, am I saying that right, 

Almanza. 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome to the Committee. I understand this is 

the first time you have been before the Agriculture Committee. We 

welcome you here today. 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are accompanied by Mr. Phil Derfler, is that 

correct? Am I saying that right? 

57

Mr. DERFLER. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Dr. Engeljohn? 

Dr. ENGELJOHN. Yes, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. So we are going to have a vote here 

in a little bit but I think we have enough time to get through your 

testimony. I have some questions and I don’t know what your timing is but we may have to run over and vote and come back, are 

you okay with that? 

Mr. ALMANZA. I am here for as long as you need me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Well, welcome to the Committee and 

we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ALFRED V. ALMANZA, ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD 

SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY

PHILIP S. DERFLER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR; AND

DANIEL L. ENGLEJOHN, PH.D., DEPUTY ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF POLICY, PROGRAM AND

EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT, FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. ALMANZA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today 

to discuss technologies in the meat industry and the processes that 

the United States Department of Agriculture and the Food Safety 

and Inspection Service use to review new technologies to protect 

public health. 

Before I begin, as this is my first time appearing before this 

Committee, let me take a moment to introduce myself. I am Al 

Almanza, Administrator of USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection 

Service. I have been with FSIS for almost 30 years and have held 

numerous positions beginning on the slaughter line in Dalhart in 

the Texas Panhandle. Prior to becoming Administrator at FSIS, I 

was the Dallas District Manager. I believe my field experience at 

the front lines of the agency helps my work a great deal as the Administrator. As the District Manager and now as Administrator, I 

know that there are things that can be done at the agency that 

would benefit all, consumer groups, industry and employees. One 

such thing is encouraging the use of beneficial new technologies in 

the meat industry. 

The development of new technologies is largely initiated by industry itself as it responds to consumer demands. There are two 

different types of technologies that are subject to review, processing 

technologies and ingredient technologies. Processing technologies 

are those technologies developed to aid in the production of meat, 

poultry and egg products. Examples of processing technologies that 

have been reviewed include carcass washes, steam vacuum and 

steam pasteurization. Ingredient technologies are those technologies that involve the addition of an ingredient to a product or 

the use of packaging to ensure safety, increase shelf life or provide 

other consumer benefits. Examples of this kind of technology include carbon monoxide packaging and irradiation. 

For my oral testimony I will focus on ingredient technologies. A 

second aspect of new technology involves the use of new food ingredients in meat food products. Prior to the year 2000, the review 

58

process for new ingredients was lengthy and cumbersome. FDA 

was responsible for the initial safety review. This was then followed by a review by FSIS to determine the acceptability or suitability of the technology. That is to determine whether the ingredients serve the purpose for which it was intended. 

In the year 2000, FSIS and FDA entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding allowing simultaneous review of new technologies 

to increase the speed with which useful new food ingredients could 

be used. FDA determines the safety of the use of a food ingredient 

and its safe levels of use. At the same time, FSIS evaluates whether the ingredient is effective for its intended use. For example, as 

a flavoring agent. What this means is that FDA evaluates the 

available evidence to see if there is a reasonable certainty that no 

harm will result from the use of the substance. FDA looks at a 

range of evidence in making this determination, from published 

studies to data from studies performed by the sponsor to establish 

the safety of the use of the substance. As for FSIS, we evaluate 

data on whether the substance will have its claimed effect. In addition, we look to ensure that the substance will not mislead consumers by making it appear fresher or more appealing than it actually is. Because FSIS and FDA perform their functions at the 

same time, rather than sequentially, a food ingredient spends less 

time in review than it did before the agencies started working in 

this way. 

One form of technology used by the meat industry that has received a great deal of attention in recent months is carbon monoxide in packaging. Carbon monoxide is used to stabilize the color 

pigment of meat. When it is red and, therefore, most appealing to 

consumers, use of carbon monoxide in packaging does not impart 

a color to the meat, it simply maintains its naturally-occurring 

color. 

In 2002, carbon monoxide, for use as a component of modified atmosphere packaging, was accepted by FDA as being Generally Recognized As Safe or GRAS. Carbon monoxide does not become a part 

of the product and dissipates as soon as the package is opened. 

This is unlike other ingredients used to stabilize the red color of 

meat, such as citric acid, sodium ascorbate and rosemary extract, 

all of which actually do become a part of the product. However, to 

be sure consumers are not misled, FSIS has required a use-by, 

freeze-by date to be included on meat products that use carbon 

monoxide packaging. This is to ensure that the shelf life of the 

product ends before spoilage occurs. 

As Members of the Committee are no doubt aware, FDA has received a petition asking it to withdraw its decision that carbon 

monoxide in meat packaging is Generally Recognized As Safe. FSIS 

will continue to make its labeling decisions and its suitability reviews on the basis of FDA’s safety conclusions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look 

forward to addressing any questions you may have and I also 

brought along Dr. Englejohn and Mr. Phil Derfler to assist me with 

the technical questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Almanza follows:]

59

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALFRED V. ALMANZA, ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD SAFETY AND

INSPECTION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss technologies in the meat industry and the processes 

that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food Safety and Inspection System (FSIS) use to review new technologies and to protect public health. 

Before I begin, as this is the first time I am appearing before this Committee, let 

me take a moment to introduce myself. I am Al Almanza, Administrator of USDA’s 

Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). I’ve been with FSIS for almost 30 years 

and held numerous positions, beginning on the slaughter line in Dalhart, in the 

Texas panhandle. Prior to becoming Administrator at FSIS, I was the Dallas District Manager. I believe my field experience at the front lines of the agency helps 

my work a great deal as Administrator. As a District Manager, and now as Administrator, I know that there are things that can be done at the agency that would 

benefit all—consumer groups, industry, and employees. One such thing is encouraging the use of beneficial new technologies in the meat industry. 

FSIS’ New Technology Staff 

Application of new technologies may help protect consumers from physical, chemical, or biological hazards; reduce or eliminate such hazards in the product itself; 

and improve product quality. Conversely, the use of an inappropriate technology 

could result in a product that could endanger public health. 

At FSIS, we recognize the value that new technologies can offer for public health. 

Many new technologies have resulted in significant improvements in the safety of 

meat and poultry products. For this reason alone, FSIS would like to see new technological advances continue, provided those advances are deemed safe and appropriate. 

Because the development of new technologies often requires large amounts of capital and extensive infrastructure, many establishments—especially small and very 

small establishments—have difficulty taking advantage of new technologies. This is 

one of the reasons why FSIS set up a New Technology Staff (NTS). NTS, working 

with our training, outreach, and education employees, provides assistance and disseminates information on new technologies. 

Evaluating New Technologies 

The development of new technologies is largely initiated by industry itself, as it 

responds to consumer demands. There are two different types of technologies that 

are subject to review: processing technologies and ingredient technologies. Processing technologies are those technologies developed to aid in the production of 

meat, poultry, and egg products. Examples of processing technologies that have been 

reviewed include carcass washes, the steam vacuum, and steam pasteurization. 

Ingredient technologies are those technologies that involve the addition of an ingredient to a product or the use of packaging to ensure safety, increase shelf life, 

or provide other consumer benefits. Examples of this kind of technology include carbon monoxide packaging and irradiation. 

Processing Technologies 

There are four basic questions FSIS asks when evaluating a new processing technology:

• Will this technology affect product safety?

• Will this technology affect inspection program personnel safety?

• Will this technology interfere with inspection?

• Will this technology be consistent with existing regulations?

Establishments planning to use a new technology are responsible for ensuring the 

continued safety of their workers, their products, and the environment, inside and 

outside the establishment, as well as responsible for providing the information necessary for FSIS to examine the impact of the new technology on inspection procedures and inspection program personnel safety. We encourage facilities wishing to 

employ new technologies to notify to FSIS before they implement them. That way, 

the agency can assess the technology in light of the four questions I listed. The 

agency convenes an ad hoc group of experts from all relevant parts of the agency 

to perform this assessment. FSIS attempts to complete its assessment of the technology within 60 days. Once the assessment is complete, the agency lets the company know if it has a concern in any of the four areas. If the agency does, the company has an opportunity to do a study to address that concern. 

60

If the agency finds no basis for objection to the use of the technology, it posts a 

brief description of the technology on the FSIS website in order to inform all interested parties. 

Ingredient Technologies 

A second aspect of new technology involves the use of new food ingredients in 

meat food products. Prior to 2000, the review process for new ingredients was 

lengthy and cumbersome. FDA was responsible for the initial safety review. This 

was then followed by a review by FSIS to determine the acceptability or suitability 

of the technology; that is, to determine whether the ingredient served the purpose 

for which it was intended. In 2000, FSIS and FDA entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding allowing simultaneous review of new technologies to increase the 

speed with which useful new food ingredients could be used. 

FDA now determines the safety of a food ingredient and its safe levels of use, 

while simultaneously FSIS evaluates whether the ingredient has its intended technical effect. Allowing these evaluations to occur at the same time effectively decreases the time any food ingredient spends in review. 

Carbon Monoxide in Meat Packaging 

One form of technology used by the meat industry that has received a great deal 

of attention in recent months is carbon monoxide in packaging. Carbon monoxide 

is used to stabilize the color pigment of meat, when it is red and, therefore, most 

appealing to consumers. Use of carbon monoxide in packaging does not impart a 

color to the meat; it simply maintains its naturally occurring color. 

In 2002, carbon monoxide, for use as a component of modified atmosphere packaging, was accepted by FDA as being ‘‘Generally Recognized as Safe,’’ or GRAS. Carbon monoxide does not become a part of the product and dissipates as soon as the 

package is opened. This is unlike other ingredients used to stabilize the red color 

of meat, such as citric acid, sodium ascorbate, and rosemary extract, all of which 

actually do become a part of the product. However, to be sure consumers are not 

misled, FSIS has established a use-by/sell-by date to be included on meat products 

that use carbon monoxide packaging. This is to ensure that the shelf life of the product ends before spoilage occurs. 

As Members of the Committee are no doubt aware, FDA has received a petition 

asking it to withdraw its decision that carbon monoxide in meat packaging is Generally Recognized as Safe. FSIS will continue to make its labeling decisions and its 

suitability reviews on the basis of FDA’s safety conclusions. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look forward to addressing any questions you might have.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much Administrator and thank 

you for being patient. I purposely put you after the first panel so 

we could educate the Committee a little bit about what the issues 

are. I thought it might help people focus on some of the questions 

that would be raised, although I think the other panel did a pretty 

good job. Can you explain, I think you did a little bit, but what the 

difference between an ingredient, which is regulated by FDA, and 

a process, which is regulated by you guys, exactly how all that 

works? I guess that is part of why we are in this situation we are 

in right now where we have the Energy and Commerce Committee 

over here doing one thing. So, just explain that process a little bit 

for me. 

Mr. ALMANZA. Well, as I said, we focus on the ingredient technologies or the addition of an ingredient to a product or the use of 

the packaging to ensure the safety. And the processing technologies 

are the intervention steps or other processes along the way of the 

process of producing the meat or poultry product. 

The CHAIRMAN. So the carbon monoxide decision was made by 

you guys but FDA had proclaimed it to be safe, is that correct? 

61

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. The FDA determines the safety of a food 

ingredient and its safe level of use and FSIS evaluates the suitability of its use. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you both did that on this product back, 

what, 2002 or 2003 or something like that? 

Mr. ALMANZA. 2002. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Now, this rosemary stuff that this other 

company is using that wasn’t here today. That has not been approved by you? That is approved by FDA, is that right, or how does 

that all work? 

Mr. ALMANZA. FDA determines the technology or approves the 

use of it, yes, sir. And then we were the ones that evaluate the 

suitability of it. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you have a role in that as well? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that was approved by FDA and by you? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. When? 

Mr. ALMANZA. We would have to check but we could certainly get 

back to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. So probably some time prior to 2002? 

Mr. ALMANZA. It would be speculative on my part but I can certainly get back to you on that, and provide you that information. 

The CHAIRMAN. So in this approval process, in this area, it is just 

you and FDA that have a role, there is nobody else involved in 

this? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. It is just us and the FDA. I think Mr. 

Derfler had something to add. 

Mr. DERFLER. From rosemary extract, if it is Generally Recognized As Safe, it can go on to the market actually without prior approval. 

Mr. ALMANZA. It is exempt from the food additive provisions and, 

therefore, can enter the market. So we are not exactly sure when 

it went on. 

The CHAIRMAN. So why is it exempt? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Under the definition of a food additive in the Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t understand. So certain things are exempt 

because they have their, what, minimal or something? 

Mr. ALMANZA. If there is a general recognition of safety among 

scientists, it doesn’t meet the definition of a food additive and so 

then there is no pre-market clearance required. 

The CHAIRMAN. Required. 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. So they didn’t have to get approval to do this? 

Mr. ALMANZA. I am not sure of the exact status of rosemary. I 

just wanted to make that clear to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. And explain to me how this works. It turns the 

meat or keeps the meat pink like carbon monoxide does, is that 

what it does? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. So why aren’t the consumer groups complaining 

about this? I mean, if they think the problem is that carbon monVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Jun 22, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-34\50470.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
62

oxide keeps meat pink, why aren’t they concerned about this other 

process? 

Mr. ALMANZA. I really can’t answer that, sir. I don’t know why. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do any of you know? 

Mr. DERFLER. No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, hopefully we will be able to talk to them 

at some point. What do you do at FSIS to encourage the industry 

to adopt new technologies? Do you have any kind of ongoing process where you work with the industry to encourage them to improve their technologies or with research universities? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Well, we have a staff that handles all these new 

technologies that are submitted to the agency and certainly anything that is beneficial to the consumers and is in the best interest 

of the consumers. We have a lot of requests from the industry to 

evaluate new technologies. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you don’t actually go out and find new technologies or have anybody within your agency that is working on 

this? 

Mr. ALMANZA. No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. You just sit back and wait to look at whatever 

people bring you? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much, Administrator, for being here today. We had a few moments 

to chat beforehand and I appreciate how you got into the business 

of food safety and USDA. I understand your father served at USDA 

for many years. 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KAGEN. Well, I congratulate you in following in his footsteps. 

One of the things that concerns me is the fact that if we are going 

to have progress in new technologies that is really industry-dependent instead of being generated, perhaps, by your department. 

Has the FSIS ever been interested in developing new technologies? 

And I will give you just a couple of examples. Some concerns that 

everybody in America has today about the safety about imported 

food, not just from China but from anywhere in the Caribbean or 

elsewhere. Would your Administration be interested in developing 

a new technique or technology to assay and test and determine 

very rapidly and cost effectively if an imported food substance was 

contaminated with E. coli or other pathogens? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Well, sir, and that is a very good question because 

as a regulatory agency, we don’t fund research per se. I think that 

those are great ideas but I don’t know how we would reach that 

level to do that. 

Mr. KAGEN. Well, let me get to a basic question. Who is inspecting our imported food stuff? I understand that 0.1 percent of imported foods, be it meat or vegetables or fish, is being inspected. 

Who is doing that? 

Mr. ALMANZA. We have import inspectors, yes, sir. 

Mr. KAGEN. So that is under your purview? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. 

63

Mr. KAGEN. And when they inspect this imported food stuff, what 

is it that they do? Do they use a magnifying glass? What is the extent of their inspection? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Actually, 100 percent is visually inspected, meat 

and poultry products, before they come into the country or as they 

are coming into the country. But again, it is only meat, poultry and 

egg products. And also, we also do a 10 percent more-intense inspection of some of those imported products, such as we make sure 

that the containers are still intact, we make sure that the product 

is as it is labeled and things of that nature. So we do some residue——

Mr. KAGEN. So that the containers—

Mr. ALMANZA.—testing. 

Mr. KAGEN. Correct. So the can isn’t punctured or dented or the 

cellophane is not perforated. 

Mr. ALMANZA. Exactly. 

Mr. KAGEN. I understand. Well, are any other countries, other 

than the United States, using carbon monoxide and if they are, are 

they putting carbon monoxide on the label? And the reason I get 

at this question is because if you are visually inspecting imported 

meat products from any country, other than the United States, if 

it looks good, it must be good. Is that what they are doing, they 

are visually inspecting? You wouldn’t know if it wasn’t on the label 

if CO or any other stabilizer of the myoglobin or hemoglobin was 

present. 

Mr. DERFLER. Actually, in addition to them doing the visual inspection, we, and other countries that export this to the United 

States, have to have inspection systems that are equivalent to ours. 

And so in the course of that, we make sure that their systems do 

provide the same level of safety protection. 

Mr. KAGEN. So part of your inspection process is to trust that a 

foreign nation is doing their job and living up to our standards or 

whatever standards are in the trade agreement, is that right? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Well, we go over and verify on an annual basis. 

Mr. KAGEN. I see. So you actually go to other countries to inspect 

their food processing facilities? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KAGEN. Excellent. Have you ever found any other facilities 

elsewhere, offshore facilities, that did not meet our standards? No 

pun intended. 

Mr. ALMANZA. We have found countries that were not equivalent. 

Mr. KAGEN. What did you do to remediate that situation? 

Mr. DERFLER. We de-list the individual. We work with the foreign country to de-list the individual plants and ultimately we may 

take more action. 

Mr. KAGEN. And is that list generally available? I mean, if 

Hormel or Tyson had any such problem, our national media would 

be all over it. Do you present that to the public in any form or fashion? Is there any way that my constituents in Wisconsin would understand which companies or which nations had fallen to arrears

with this regard? 

Mr. DERFLER. We list the nations that are equal to in the Code 

of Federal Regulations and we do a rule-making process before we 

list them. 

64

Mr. KAGEN. Okay, all right. So maybe off camera, maybe you can 

provide my office with a list of companies or food processors elsewhere offshore that have not met up to our standards so I could 

at least take a sampling of what the inspection process really is all 

about. Finally, you are aware of the studies done on irradiated 

food. Is irradiation a safer technique for eliminating bacterial contamination than use of carbon monoxide? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Is it safer? I would say that the product is, for the 

experience that we have, the product is safe. I really can’t comment 

on it being safer. 

Dr. ENGELJOHN. If I could Congressman? We do agree that irradiation is an effective technology. It has been found to be safe. And 

it is, as was mentioned earlier in the testimony, a kill step in that 

it does eliminate pathogens as opposed to just prevent them from 

growing. 

Mr. KAGEN. Is it something that you then recommend to industry 

that they pursue such studies or such use? 

Dr. ENGELJOHN. The issue of irradiation, much like what we are 

discussing with carbon monoxide, also relates to FDA approving 

the technology, in this case, as a food additive. FSIS, in this particular case for irradiation and its use on meat and poultry products, petitioned our sister agency to allow its specific use on meat 

and poultry as well because we did find that it would be an effective elimination of pathogens on the products that we regulate. 

Mr. KAGEN. What is the current status of that solicitation? 

Dr. ENGELJOHN. Irradiation is approved for use on certain meat 

and poultry products and, much like all food additives, once it is 

determined to be safe and effective and suitable for its use, we let 

the marketplace determine whether or not its use is going to be 

available to consumers. 

Mr. KAGEN. And my final question would be, do you have an 

opinion from your Administration as to whether or not there should 

be any labeling of meat or other products with regard to the use 

of carbon monoxide? 

Mr. ALMANZA. No, we would certainly evaluate it when we got 

the request. The other thing I would answer to your earlier question. We have ARS, the Agriculture Research Service, and C-R-EE-S, that both do research and we let them know of our needs, so 

that is the research question. 

Mr. KAGEN. Very good. Thank you very much for your time. I 

yield back. 

Mr. ALMANZA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman—just one moment—we 

sent you a letter, Administrator, on September 17 regarding a public health alert that you issued on August 30. We are having a 

hearing next week in Mr. Boswell’s Subcommittee. We have not received a response yet. Will we have a response before that hearing? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator 

Almanza, welcome. Welcome all of you. I would like to follow up 

on some of the questions I asked the first panel. Legislation has 

been introduced that would require a safety notice be included on 

65

meat and poultry labels warning consumers that carbon monoxide 

was used and that they should not rely on the use-by, freeze-by labels. USDA mandated the use-by, freeze-by label and I wonder if 

you would support legislation that suggests that this label is insufficient? 

Mr. ALMANZA. We would look at the request, as we do with any 

other request, Congressman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you have any feeling about how the current 

system is working? 

Mr. ALMANZA. We are confident with the system and how it currently functions with FDA and FSIS doing it simultaneously. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And on the previous panel, Dr. Sebranek stated 

in his testimony that carbon monoxide technology has been used 

commercially for almost 5 years and there have been no complaints 

that he was aware of from consumers about unexpected or unusual 

spoilage. The technology is establishing a track record that has 

been free of problems and has not been an issue with consumers. 

Now, that is his statement. In your experience, are you aware of 

consumer complaints regarding spoilage or do you agree with Dr. 

Sebranek’s finding that there hasn’t been an issue over this with 

consumers? 

Mr. ALMANZA. I am not aware of any consumer complaints with 

carbon monoxide packaging. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I wonder if either of your deputies could indicate whether they are aware of the agency receiving complaints 

about problems with purchase of meat that appeared to be fresh 

because of the use of carbon monoxide technology but proved to be 

spoiled? 

Mr. DERFLER. I am not aware of any such complaints. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Very good. 

Dr. ENGELJOHN. I am not aware either although we do have a 

consumer complaint monitoring system by which we do receive consumer complaints and that would be one place where we would go 

to look to see if there have been any registered there. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But you are not aware of any registered there 

as of this point? 

Dr. ENGELJOHN. I am not. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOSWELL [presiding.] Thank you. I just have one question 

and then I will defer to you, Mr. Walz. Earlier you heard a quote 

from Dr. Rubin at Iowa State that critics that say MAP is deceptive 

and hazardous are incorrect. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. ALMANZA. I am sorry, I didn’t——

Mr. BOSWELL. Critics have said that using modified procedures, 

MAP, is deceptive and hazardous. And we asked one of our previous witnesses if he thought that was so and he said no. Do you 

agree? 

Mr. ALMANZA. I would say that the FDA determines the safety 

of that process and all we do is evaluate it for its suitability. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Do you think it is deceptive and hazardous, yes or 

no? 

Mr. ALMANZA. No. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you. Mr. Walz please. 

66

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our panel. 

I am sorry I didn’t get to get in all of your testimony but I have 

read it. We are here today because FDA received a petition to withdraw the Generally Recognized As Safe designation, is that correct? 

Mr. ALMANZA. That is correct. 

Mr. WALZ. All right. As you know of and I guess the FDA might 

be the best but I will ask the USDA people here, have they ever 

received a consumer complaint on low-oxygen packaging? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. Is there any scientific data that shows lox-oxygen environment has hurt anyone in this country? 

Mr. ALMANZA. No. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. Irradiation, as a way to kill pathogens, will not 

alleviate the need for packaging to move that from the point of production through the whole food chain, is that correct? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes. 

Mr. WALZ. So the point that had been made by our previous witnesses is, if the point of the production at the initial stage, if it is 

done correctly under proper conditions of safety, the pathogens will 

not be there. Meat can spoil and still not have E. coli, correct? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Correct. 

Mr. WALZ. So the issue of this is that we have a procedure that 

appears by all accounts to move food through the safety system, 

does not have an adverse affect on consumers and its only, I guess, 

one take on this is that people say they are being misled because 

the meat is red longer or something? But we have also heard that 

the same thing could be said for high-oxygen environments where 

a person could cook it, it would turn brown, it wouldn’t be cooked 

to 165 degrees, is that correct as you understand it? 

Mr. ALMANZA. As I understand it. 

Mr. WALZ. So how will USDA respond? You will wait for FDA to 

make a determination on the Generally Recognized As Safe and 

then you will proceed accordingly on that? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALZ. Will you have any ability, sir, to go back and say, 

‘‘Why are we going through all of this when, again, we have had 

no complaints, no sickness and the only thing we have is a petition 

from a competing technology? Does that seem like the right way to 

do business for our consumers and consumer safety is?’’ I guess, 

what I am asking is, where are you at in this process? 

Mr. ALMANZA. Well, I would say that we would get together with 

FDA and go through the process of determining the safety of the 

ingredient and just work through it as we did the first time. 

Mr. WALZ. I am trying to figure out as to the jurisdictional part 

that you have here—we have directors here, Food Safety and Inspection Service and things like that. Do you gentlemen have the 

ability to weigh in on this, I mean, as independent voices on this? 

Mr. DERFLER. We consult with FDA but FDA makes the safety 

determination. 

Mr. WALZ. So they will make the final decision? 

Mr. DERFLER. With respect to the safety. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. And as they come down on that, then the procedure would be back through FDA if we believe that is not correct. 

But USDA is the administering authority, if you would, as opposed 

67

to the authority that is going to authorize what is safe and what 

is not. 

Mr. DERFLER. Yes. 

Mr. WALZ. But they do consult with you? 

Mr. DERFLER. Yes. 

Mr. WALZ. They do let you know. Okay. I have no further questions. I yield back. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Well thank you very much. I think that brings us 

to closure on our questions and Mr. Moran has indicated he has no 

questions. I want to, on behalf of the Chairman and all of us, on 

the Committee, thank you very much for your time to come up here 

and meet with us today and we will come back to you as we have 

further questions. So we want to extend our appreciation to this 

panel, the previous panel, and we look forward to continued work 

with you. Thank you very much. That brings us to closure. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

68

69

SUBMITTED MATERIAL


11034033
70


11034157
71


11034158
72


11034159
73


11034160
74


11034161
75


11034034
76


11034035
77


11034036
78


11034037
79


11034038
80


11034039
81


11034040
82


11034041
83


11034042
84


11034043
85


11034044
86


11034045
87


11034046
88


11034047
89


11034048
90


11034049
91


11034050
92

STATS Articles 

Trevor Butterworth, October 26, 2007

A SCANDAL OVER MEAT SAFETY? 

Michigan Democrats raise fears over ‘‘revolutionary’’ meat packaging process that 

reduces risk of E. coli, keeps meat fresh longer. Food safety experts say politicians 

misleading public on science. Is a massive Washington lobbying effort by rival 

Michigan-based company behind smear campaign? 

On September 13, Michael Doyle, a world-leading expert in food safety addressed 

the Canadian Meat Council symposium on ‘‘Advances in Antimicrobial Interventions 

for Quality Control.’’ Doyle, who is Regents Professor and Director of the Center for 

Food Safety at the University of Georgia, discussed a study that he and his colleague Dr. Li Ma had undertaken which showed that a popular wrapping system 

that vacuumed out air and added a tiny amount of carbon monoxide, nitrogen and 

carbon dioxide (known as MAP–CO) could not only keep meat fresher for longer 

than conventionally wrapping, but could significantly retard the growth of the E. 

coli O157:H7 bacterium in ground beef when the meat was stored above the recommended temperature. 

‘‘MAP–CO-treated meat is a revolutionary technology providing greater protection 

against foodborne pathogens and extended shelf life to fresh beef,’’ Doyle told the 

symposium. 

And yet, despite E. coli O157:H7 being one of the leading causes of food-borne illnesses in the United States, with an estimated 73,000 cases of infection and 61 

deaths each year, and despite the potential reduction in wastage from meat staying 

fresher for significantly longer, MAP–CO meat is being pulled from the shelves 

largely due to a campaign by two Michigan Congressmen and various environmental 

groups claiming that the public is being deceived. 

On June 25th, U.S. Rep John Dingell (D–MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep Bart Stupak (D–MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations, sent letters to Safeway Stores, Inc., Tyson Foods, Inc., 

Pactiv Corporation and Precept Foods LLC (Hormel Foods Corporation/Cargill Incorporated), which, as their press release noted, ‘‘questioned the companies’ practice of 

packing fresh meat in carbon monoxide, which artificially colors the product and disguises spoilage.’’ 

In less than a month, Safeway dropped MAP–CO packaged meat; and Reps Dingell and Stupak released another statement praising the company’s decision:

‘‘ ‘Americans place a great deal of trust in the hands of grocers and retailers to 

sell them safe and healthy products,’ said Dingell. ‘The practice of exposing meat 

to carbon monoxide deceives consumers and is a potential health hazard. I commend Safeway for its decision to stop selling these meats and I hope other grocers and meat packers will follow suit.’ ’’

But according to food safety experts and microbiologists at leading academic food 

safety programs there is simply no science to support the charges made Reps Dingell and Stupak against MAP–CO. It also turns out that Kalsec, a Michigan company with a rival but less effective method of preserving meat freshness, has spent 

around $850,000 to lobby Congress on food safety issues, with some of that money 

going specifically to lobby Reps Dingell and Stupak on MAP–CO. 

Is carbon monoxide (CO) a colorant? 

In contrast to Rep’s Dingell and Stupak description of MAP–CO (the acronym 

stands for ‘‘modified atmosphere packaging with carbon monoxide’’), scientists say 

the process is not an artificial way of coloring meat. 

‘‘Meat is muscle tissue,’’ explains Susan Brewer, Professor of Food Science at the 

University of Illinois, ‘‘and in an oxygen-deprived environment—inside an animal—

it’s purple. For it to be red, it has to be exposed to air, and that’s the color consumers identify as fresh.’’ 

But here’s the problem: exposure to air will turn refrigerated meat brown within 

a few days, and even though it may be perfectly safe to eat, consumers, typically, 

see the meat as spoiled. Unfortunately consumers are not ready to buy purple-colored oxygen-free vacuum-packed meat either (which is the way meat is packed for 

the wholesale industry). 

‘‘The red color has been shown many, many times to be critical to consumer selection and purchase at retail. So, for fresh meat in retail, oxygen exposure, either 

using oxygen permeable films or a high-oxygen package atmosphere has always 

been necessary,’’ says Joseph Sebranek, University Professor in the department of 

93

Animal Science, Food Science and Human Nutrition at Iowa State University (via 

e-mail). 

Modified atmosphere packaging has been around for years, but the key to implementing in wrapping meat for retail was to find a way of achieving the bright red 

color that consumers understood as signaling freshness. The solution was to add a 

miniscule quantity of carbon monoxide (CO) into a package that contains no oxygen. 

‘‘The monoxide bonds to the exact site as the oxygen molecule,’’ says Brewer, ‘‘but 

the bond is much tighter—it’s stuck—and it keeps the meat a bright red color. It’s 

not a colorant per se.’’ The Food and Drug Administration an the Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture have permitted 

MAP–CO packaging of meat since February, 2002. 

None of the experts interviewed by STATS saw it as an artificial coloring process. 

‘‘The color is still derived from the meat pigment, not an external coloring agent, 

and the color is the same as that from oxygen. Therefore, this is not deceiving consumers,’’ says Sebranek. 

‘‘MAP with a small amount of carbon monoxide does not add a new color to meat,’’ 

says Alden Booren, Professor of Food Science and Nutrition at Michigan State University, (via e-mail). ‘‘It reacts with the naturally occurring pigment in meat 

(myoglobin) to produce a form of the pigment that is more stable and is not readily 

distinguishable from the normal (oxygenated) form of the pigment. Thus it is not 

a ‘coloring’ but rather the natural pigment in a slightly different form.’’ 

MAP with CO does not disguise spoilage—it slows it down 

Rep’s Dingell and Stupak’s contention that MAP–CO ‘‘disguises spoilage’’ is also 

dismissed by food safety experts and scientists. The MAP–CO system eliminates oxygen, and without oxygen the key bacterium that generates spoilage is suppressed. 

‘‘Pseudomonas, which in not pathogenic, is capable of spoiling fresh beef stored in 

air at refrigeration temperatures within a few days,’’ says P. Michael Davidson, Professor of Food Microbiology at the University of Tennessee’s Institute for Agriculture 

(via e-mail). ‘‘If we package the product with low or no oxygen MAP, this microorganism is incapable of growth.’’

‘‘One of the benefits of the CO system is elimination of oxygen. That alone provides for a longer product shelf life because both chemical oxidation (and resulting 

off-flavors) and aerobic spoilage bacteria (the fastest growing group of bacteria on 

fresh meat) are suppressed,’’ says Sebranek. ‘‘What so many players in this game 

have missed is that CO permits the use of additional antimicrobial treatments that 

provide for greater control of bacterial growth. For example, it is well-recognized 

that carbon dioxide will slow the growth of many bacteria. However, more than 

about 30% or so carbon dioxide in a modified atmosphere package with oxygen will 

cause meat browning. With carbon monoxide, the amount of carbon dioxide that can 

be used in the package is much greater because there is no discoloration, thus bacterial control is improved.’’ 

The result, as Doyle explains via e-mail, is that ‘‘The shelf life of refrigerated (<40 

F) MAP–CO ground beef is 2 to 3 weeks compared to about 3 to 5 days for typical 

over-wrapped ground beef.’’ 

But the most recent finding about MAP is that the CO component also represses 

the growth of harmful bacteria when ground beef is stored above recommended refrigeration temperatures. ‘‘After 4 days at 50 F, E. coli O157 cell numbers in overwrapped ground beef increase by 100 fold or more compared to MAP–CO product,’’ 

says Doyle. ‘‘Hence, refrigerated or mildly temperature abused MAP–CO ground 

beef has better quality and microbial safety characteristics than over-wrapped beef 

stored under similar conditions.’’

When MAP–CO meat spoils 

Much of the controversy over MAP–CO is due to the assumption that the color 

of meat indicates whether it’s safe or not—and that if you make the red color more 

resilient, you can disguise spoilage and pass old meat onto the consumer. But MAP–

CO meat will spoil after 3 weeks, and, as Brewer notes, the key indicator of spoilage 

is not color but odor. ‘‘If the meat was spoiled, you would know it,’’ she says. 

‘‘The COMb (the red pigment form of CO compared to that formed in air, 

Oxymyoglobin = OMb) does NOT mask spoilage,’’ says Melvin Hunt, Professor of 

Animal Sciences and Industry at Kansas State University’s Food Science Institute 

(via e-mail). ‘‘Most of the opponents of the use of CO in MAP do not understand 

the dynamics of meat color (a delicate balance between being purple-red, bright red, 

and tan/brown).’’

‘‘The use of MAP containing carbon monoxide shifts the consumer’s ability to detect spoilage from looking at the meat, and deciding it is unacceptable based on 

color, to examining the sell-by dates or looking for gas production or a bulged packVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:42 Jun 22, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-34\50470.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
94

age,’’ says Davidson. ‘‘While it does put more responsibility on the consumer to read 

the package, using color to determine acceptability is not foolproof either. Just because the meat doesn’t look particularly bad is not a sign that it is not spoiled or 

close to spoilage and the reverse is also true. Actually, most consumers probably use 

their noses to make a final determination as to whether a product is acceptable to 

cook and that wont change with MAP.’’ 

Davidson notes that MAP puts an onus on processors and retailers to set realistic 

sell-by dates. 

‘‘The bottom line here, says Hunt, is that consumers must do their part and smell 

the product before cooking and consumption—not a new or alarming fact.’’

Is a rival industry behind the misinformation campaign? 

Professor Booren wrote to Rep Dingell a year ago to explain why describing MAP 

with CO as a colorant was misleading, and why, after reviewing all the peer-reviewed literature on the technology, he concluded that ‘‘the safety of the food supply 

has not been compromised.’’ None of the scientists interviewed saw any reason for 

supermarkets to drop MAP–CO meat or for consumers to be alarmed. 

‘‘My opinion,’’ says Doyle, ‘‘is that MAP–CO treatment of ground beef provides a 

better quality product for an extended period of time than over-wrapped ground 

beef. This reduces wastage and gives consumers more flexibility in time to use refrigerated ground beef.’’

But such expert testimony appears to have had no impact on the political campaign against MAP. ‘‘The Safeway story is just the tip of the ice berg,’’ e-mails Hunt. 

‘‘The good Congressmen from Michigan who seem to be championing the charge 

against CO are just doing their job for a Michigan company (Kalsec®). Kalsec® was 

going to loose tons of business if the meat industry lead by Wal-Mart switched from 

the High-oxygen MAP system to the Carbon monoxide MAP system. So they 

poisoned the pot with a lot of WRONG science, which isn’t very hard to do since 

CO is not the most user-friendly compound.’’

Kalsec has also ‘‘petitioned the FDA to reconsider the approval of CO packaging 

and that has been generating numerous media releases that are strongly worded 

criticisms of the concept,’’ says Sebranek. ‘‘Kalsec is a supplier of antioxidants used 

in high oxygen packaging systems, products that are not needed in the CO package. 

Their motivation, in my opinion, is economic.’’

Lobbying reports show that Kalsec paid $840,000 to the Washington, D.C. law 

firm Covington and Burling to lobby Congress and other Federal agencies on food 

safety issues, over the past year, as well as making two sub-$10,000 payments to 

Prism Public Affairs to lobby specific Congressmen, including Reps Dingell and Stupak on MAP–CO issues. 

And media coverage of the issue has tended to play up fears about the process. 

‘‘Unsafe food and related public health consequences makes a much better story 

than does safe food,’’ says Brewer. Don Berdahl, Kalsec’s Vice President was extensively cited in a Washington Post story on the controversy, which also featured advocacy groups voicing their concerns about safety. No independent food safety experts 

were quoted in the story; instead, the Post turned to FDA and industry sources. 

A similar story by USA Today featured Berdahl and Kalsec® prominently, but 

also failed to quote any independent food safety experts. 

The result is a sense of alarm among academics that an enormously useful technology—one that might save an enormous amount of meat from being wasted—

could be doomed. 

On September 17, the American Meat Science Association wrote to the House Agriculture Committee to warn about the misinformation that has characterized recent 

discussion of MAP–CO and to announce the commission of a white paper by top scientists in meat color chemistry and safety. 

‘‘Like any other approved technology,’’ the letter concludes, ‘‘the use of CO in 

modified atmosphere packaging applications deserves a chance to succeed or fail on 

its scientific merits, and not on misinformation.’’

95


11034051
96


11034052
97


11034053 11034054
98


11034055
99


11034057
100


11034058
101


11034059
102


11034094
103


11034060
104


11034061
105


11034056
106


11034062
107


11034063
108


11034064
109


11034065
110


11034066
111


11034067
112


11034068
113


11034069
114


11034070
115


11034071
116


11034072
117


11034073
118


11034074
119


11034075
120


11034076
121


11034077
122


11034078
123


11034079
124


11034080
125


11034081
126


11034082
127


11034083
128


11034084
129


11034085
130


11034086
131


11034087
132


11034088
133


11034089
134


11034090
135


11034091
136


11034092
137


11034093
138


11034097
139


11034098
140


11034099
141


11034100
142


11034101
143


11034102
144


11034103
145


11034104
146


11034105
147


11034106
148


11034107
149


11034108
150


11034109
151


11034110
152


11034111
153


11034112
154


11034113
155


11034114
156


11034115
157


11034116
158


11034117
159


11034118
160


11034119
161


11034120
162


11034121
163


11034122
164


11034123
165


11034124
166


11034125
167


11034126
168


11034127
169


11034128
170


11034129
171


11034130
172


11034131
173


11034132
174


11034133
175


11034134
176


11034135
177


11034136
178


11034137
179


11034138
180


11034139
181


11034140
182


11034141
183


11034142
184


11034143
185


11034144
186


11034145
187


11034146
188


11034147
189


11034148
190


11034149
191


11034150
192


11034151
193


11034152
194


11034153
195


11034154
196


11034155
197

Æ


11034156