USA TODAY US Edition

No need for labeling

- By Russell Cross Russell Cross heads the Department of Animal Science at Texas A&M University. He is a former administra­tor of USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, writing at the request of Beef Products, Inc.

The American public has a right and a responsibi­lity to be concerned about the safety, nutrition and quality of our nation’s food. It is only natural that we look to the news media and our network of friends and family to help inform our choices. Unfortunat­ely, the debate over lean, finely textured beef (LFTB) has been grossly distorted by careless and deliberate misinforma­tion, which has spread like wildfire. The news media’s use of the term “pink slime” has been inflammato­ry and entirely inaccurate — and has done the public a disservice.

As one who has dedicated my career to food safety, I want to take the opportunit­y to inform the American public that LFTB is 100% beef, plain and simple.

Although there are some who call for labeling this safe and nutritious food product, the fact is, the U.S. Department of Agricultur­e (USDA) recognizes that this product is what it is: 100% beef. There is no need for labeling LFTB — because nothing is being added that is not beef.

Some have also raised questions about the use of ammonium hydroxide as a safety precaution, and whether its use should be included on food packaging labels.

Following an E. coli outbreak in 1993, the U.S. beef industry has devoted hundreds of millions of dollars to developing processes that produce safe food. This included the addition of pathogen reduction interventi­ons such as hot water, lactic acid and others. The use of ammonia is another example of a pathogen interventi­on.

Neither the Food and Drug Administra­tion (FDA) nor USDA thinks it should be labeled because it is what they call a “processing aid.” I agree. The residual level is very low, but has a very positive effect on food safety.

What the public needs to know is that because of this situation, about 13 pounds of quality beef per animal now will be wasted. We’d need to raise an additional 1.5 million cattle each year to make up for this loss. The price of the raw material for ground beef has increased more than 15% in the past few weeks. Guess who will get to pay for the increase? The consumer.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States