Ban Sought on Use of Carbon Monoxide to Fix Meat Color
http://www.supermarketguru.com/page.cfm/27354
Published on: February 21, 2006
Millions of Americans may be buying beef or seafood that has been treated with carbon monoxide as a "pigment fixative" – in other words, carbon monoxide has been used to keep the product's pink or rosy color in an effort to keep it looking fresh.
The problem is that sometimes the color may be fresh-looking, but the meat or seafood may actually be spoiled. And since consumers often depend on how a product looks when deciding whether to buy it or eat it, this means that consumers are actually being deceived by a practice that, according to numerous press reports, is both rampant and undisclosed on product labels.
The good news is that numerous media outlets have focused on this practice in recent days. The Washington Post reports that "the growing use of carbon monoxide as a 'pigment fixative' is alarming consumer advocates and others who say it deceives shoppers who depend on color to help them avoid spoiled meat. Those critics are challenging the Food and Drug Administration and the nation's powerful meat industry, saying the agency violated its own rules by allowing the practice without a formal evaluation of its impact on consumer safety."
The New York Times reports that "the carbon monoxide is itself harmless at the levels being used in the treated packaging. But opponents say that the process, which is also used to keep tuna rosy, allows stores to sell meat that is no longer fresh, and that consumers would not know until they opened the package at home and smelled it. Labels do not note whether meat has been laced with carbon monoxide."
And, the Post notes, "no one knows how much carbon-monoxide treated meat is being sold; the companies involved are privately held or keep that information secret."
The use of the word "secret" is particularly annoying in cases like these, because it reflects an unwillingness on the part of companies, and an acquiescence by government, to keep consumers in the dark about the products they buy and eat. It is time for complete and utter transparency by these companies, and for the government to insist that if "pigment fixative" technologies are used, they should be disclosed in bold, clear, unambiguous language on product labels.
Published on: February 21, 2006
Millions of Americans may be buying beef or seafood that has been treated with carbon monoxide as a "pigment fixative" – in other words, carbon monoxide has been used to keep the product's pink or rosy color in an effort to keep it looking fresh.
The problem is that sometimes the color may be fresh-looking, but the meat or seafood may actually be spoiled. And since consumers often depend on how a product looks when deciding whether to buy it or eat it, this means that consumers are actually being deceived by a practice that, according to numerous press reports, is both rampant and undisclosed on product labels.
The good news is that numerous media outlets have focused on this practice in recent days. The Washington Post reports that "the growing use of carbon monoxide as a 'pigment fixative' is alarming consumer advocates and others who say it deceives shoppers who depend on color to help them avoid spoiled meat. Those critics are challenging the Food and Drug Administration and the nation's powerful meat industry, saying the agency violated its own rules by allowing the practice without a formal evaluation of its impact on consumer safety."
The New York Times reports that "the carbon monoxide is itself harmless at the levels being used in the treated packaging. But opponents say that the process, which is also used to keep tuna rosy, allows stores to sell meat that is no longer fresh, and that consumers would not know until they opened the package at home and smelled it. Labels do not note whether meat has been laced with carbon monoxide."
And, the Post notes, "no one knows how much carbon-monoxide treated meat is being sold; the companies involved are privately held or keep that information secret."
The use of the word "secret" is particularly annoying in cases like these, because it reflects an unwillingness on the part of companies, and an acquiescence by government, to keep consumers in the dark about the products they buy and eat. It is time for complete and utter transparency by these companies, and for the government to insist that if "pigment fixative" technologies are used, they should be disclosed in bold, clear, unambiguous language on product labels.
posted by Tara at
3:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home