• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

CO Packaging

OldDog/NewTricks

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
3,443
Location
The Dam End of Silicon Valley
Processing Technology
Optimizing CO packaging to extend fresh meat shelf life

By Joseph Sebranek Ph.D on 5/1/2010

In this article:
Using CO for MAP applications
Other applications for CO packaging
Related articles
Comments and insights


The use of carbon monoxide (CO) for modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) of fresh meat is a relatively recent option for the meat industry. Approval of CO for packaging of fresh meat for distribution was first approved by USDA-FSIS in 2002. This was followed in 2004 with approval of CO for retail packaging applications.

This gas is extremely effective as part of a MAP system for fresh meat because CO binds firmly to meat pigment to produce a cherry red color that is visually identical to the red color that results when fresh meat is exposed to air. Fresh meat color "bloom" in air is the result of oxygen binding to the meat pigment, but this is a relatively fragile color even at high oxygen concentrations.

The retail shelf life of fresh meat is often limited by the color loss that typically occurs within a few days of retail display. MAP systems with high oxygen concentrations improve color life over that of a permeable overwrapped package, but the high-oxygen environment is prone to oxidized off-flavors and other oxidation-induced changes. CO-based meat color, on the other hand, is much more stable and will last for weeks instead of days under controlled temperature conditions. Further, the CO atmosphere is typically devoid of oxygen, which achieves a significant shelf-life extension over package atmospheres that include oxygen.

Use of CO for packaging of fresh meat has been the source of considerable controversy, with numerous critics in the news media and elsewhere raising claims of likely product spoilage while color remains attractive. The controversy was initiated by a petition to FDA in 2005 requesting elimination of the use of CO for meat packaging. FDA chose not to act on the petition, and CO as a component of MAP has since established a stellar track record of success for those who have chosen to continue use of this packaging technology.



Using CO for MAP applications
Use of CO as part of MAP is typically done with a gas mixture of 0.4 percent CO, 30 percent carbon dioxide (CO2) and 69.6 percent nitrogen (N2). This mixture offers the advantage of a stable fresh meat color for at least 28 days for ground beef and at least 35 days for steaks and roasts with no oxidized off-flavors or other oxidative changes. The use of CO2 introduces a bacteriostatic agent to the MAP system that slows growth of spoilage and pathogenic bacteria to contribute to the shelf-life extension. At the same time, it is possible for bacterial numbers to reach a high level while the color remains attractive if the product is held for an extended period of time. This is why, in 2008, a statement was added to product labels that reminds consumers, "Color is not an accurate indicator of freshness. Refer to use- or freeze-by date."

While CO in MAP with CO2 is well established as a highly effective means of improving fresh meat color stability and extending shelf life, questions have remained about the most effective use of package headspace to optimize a CO packaging system. Because the concentration of CO is constant at 0.4 percent in commercial applications, changes in headspace volume mean that a differential amount of CO will be available to penetrate the meat surface, depending on the total headspace volume available.

Recent research has suggested that typical meat product packages with MAP have a headspace of about 1.5 liters (L). This study evaluated a variety of headspace volumes and CO concentrations and determined that increased CO concentration in a reduced headspace volume had a greater effect on meat color than the total available quantity of CO in the headspace. The authors of this study concluded that reducing package headspace to 0.4 L with 0.8 percent CO in MAP would result in more color development with less total CO released to the environment when the package is opened, compared with conventional-sized packages with 0.4 percent CO. If the 0.8 percent CO could be used, this would offer additional advantages of smaller packages, less packaging materials used and improved efficiency in packing and shipping.


Other applications for CO packaging
One of the unique advantages of CO in MAP packaging is that the color stability of fresh meat achieved by CO offers the opportunity to combine CO packaging with other technologies that inhibit or destroy bacteria but may have a negative effect on meat color. For example, increasing the concentration of CO2 in MAP will increase the antimicrobial effect of this gas but also may begin to cause discoloration of the product in aerobic atmospheres. Use of CO will provide attractive color with high concentration of CO2. Research on fresh pork sausage reported that a high CO2 atmosphere with CO resulted in about 10 days more shelf life in terms of bacterial spoilage.

However, it is important to remember that CO2 is highly soluble in meat, and a high concentration in the package atmosphere initially can result in package collapse when the gas is absorbed. Most MAP systems limit CO2 to about 30 percent and add N2, which is not soluble in meat, to the gas mixture to avoid package collapse.

Another example of combining technologies, and one that has been commercialized, is the use of CO packaging for pasteurization of fresh meat by irradiation. Irradiation of fresh beef, for example, typically results in a color change if aerobic or vacuum packaging is used, but if CO packaging is used, the bright red color expected of fresh beef is retained. Because irradiation pasteurization greatly reduces the bacteria present in or on the product, shelf life is dramatically improved. Commercially available refrigerated ground beef produced with this combination of technologies had an advertised guaranteed retail shelf life of 38 days. Unfortunately, this product was not a commercial success, probably because of negative consumer perceptions of irradiation processing.
 
Food (Safety) Fight
By: Richard Raymond
Send a Tip
Irradiated or not: who can tell?

(The views and opinions expressed in this blog are strictly those of the author.)

In a response to my last Food (Safety) Fight blog, Doug Craven described a recent dining experience he and his wife Janice had. They had hamburgers at a "top rated fast food chain" that Mr. Craven described as having "mushy meat" and the "mouth appeal was way off". It was Doug's idea that maybe they had unknowingly consumed irradiated ground beef, and that perhaps there had been some cleaving of the DNA molecules that allowed "leakage".

His response raises a few questions and concerns about irradiated beef. First of all there is the difference between the high dose, penetrating irradiation used with the intention of making the ground beef sterile and the low dose, non-penetrating, whole carcass irradiation intended to make all beef products safer, but not sterile. There are critical differences between the two methods that need to be kept in mind as any discussion of these food safety tools are discussed.

Secondly, and I do not know the answer to this question, can a restaurant serve ground beef that has been irradiated for sterility and not disclose that fact to the consumer? I seriously doubt it, and I also doubt a restaurant would pay the higher price for irradiated ground beef that would cut into its profit margin without advertising their product as the safest burgers in town.

Thirdly is the question of the quality of the meat after irradiation. Lactic Acid rinses do not change the texture or the quality of beef, nor would low dose, non-penetrating, whole carcass irradiation. But what about the high dose, penetrating radiation of ground beef? Does it create s difference in quality and texture as Doug maintains it might? Does it "cleave" DNA molecules allowing them to "leak"?

There are many anecdotal reports of serious changes in taste, quality and texture as a result of irradiation. There are also many reports that consumers could not differentiate irradiated foods from non-irradiated foods in controlled study settings.

I am going to take the liberty to add my own anecdotal experience here.

Before I went to work in the food safety arena, I knew nothing about carcass cooling methods for poultry, or what brands of ground beef were irradiated. What my wife and I did know was that there was one brand of chicken we preferred to eat because of taste and texture, and there was one brand of ground beef that we preferred not to eat because of taste and texture issues.

It was only after I learned who did what to ground beef and chicken that I learned that it was the taste of air-chilled chicken that we preferred, and that it was irradiated ground beef that we avoided. But the irradiated ground beef was certainly not "mushy" as Doug described in his response.

So I have to wonder what else might have been going on in his hamburger. Any ideas?
 
i have worked for a major global meat processing company,,and have witnessed the operations of the CO machines.the pork is injected with alot of water and other solutions then frozen.when the shelf life is up,,it then can be a canned meat that will last for years.
other meats can be treated for a longer shelf life.

i prefer to raise my own meat and veggies. :wink:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top