Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

MEAT
SCIENCE
Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113
www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Meat products in the past, today and in the future

Frank Vandendriessche

Imperial Meat Products, Grote Baan 200, 9920 Lovendegem, Belgium

Received 12 February 2007; received in revised form 10 October 2007; accepted 10 October 2007

Abstract
An illustrative overview is given of the history of meat products, emphasizing the present situation. Three dierent consecutive and
complementary periods can be dened in terms of realisations, threats and opportunities. The Quality period started about 15 years
ago and was characterised by the introduction of the ISO Quality Systems Standards. A trend from product control towards system
control for guaranteeing Food Safety and Quality was obvious. The Food Safety Period started with the introduction of HACCP.
Pushed by Food Safety scandals this period is characterised by a growing inuence of authorities and legislation besides an increase
in distribution requirements. The Nutrition and Health period has only just started. Global health problems related to food and
the (potential) answers of the meat industry are highlighted. For meat products the energy (fat) level, the sodium level and fat quality
in terms of fatty acid composition are the main priorities.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Food safety; Nutrition and health; Quality; Meat processing

1. Introduction
1.1. History
Meat products or processed meats are the result of the
need to preserve meat in ancient times. The knowledge to
preserve meat by making fermented sausages was already
known in ancient times (Pederson, 1979). Such type of products was found in old Greek, Roman and even Babylonic
scripts. In Northern and Central Europe meat animals
were slaughtered before winter (November). Not all the
meat, suddenly available, could be eaten at once. The
remaining part was processed to preserve the meat for later
consumption. Processing meat to meat products is a way to
preserve meat, like cheese is a way to preserve milk.
1.2. Classication
For the purpose of this paper meat products will be classied into 4 categories:
*

Tel.: +32 9 370 02 11; fax: +32 9 372 50 00.

E-mail address: Frank.vandendriessche@imperialmeatproducts.com

0309-1740/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.10.003

Heat
treated
Non heat
treated

Whole muscle
products

Ground products

I = cooked ham

II = luncheon meat

III = dry cured ham

(e.g. Iberico ham)

IV = fermented
sausage (e.g. Chorizo)

Most of the existing processed meat products t in one

of the four categories. The borderline between heat treated
and non heat treated can be xed on a core temperature of
around 50 C and/or absence of any visual heat denaturation of the myobrillar meat proteins.
Above 50 C temperature starts to become lethal for
(heat sensitive) microorganisms. The dierence between
ground and whole muscle is less clear to be dened.
Where spreadable liver pate is clearly classied as ground
and Serrano ham as whole muscle, there are products in
the market, such as reconstructed cooked ham, which are
situated somewhere in between categories I and II. For
the purpose of this paper we consider the mentioned product as whole muscle.

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113

1.3. Preservation
The technology of preservation, for categories I and II,
is heat treatment. Heat treatment to kill vegetative cells of
pathogens (pasteurization) (ref P = 1 equals 1 min at 70 C
based on the lethal eect on Streptococcus faecalis) or to
kill spores of pathogens (sterilization) (ref F = 1 equals
1 min at 121 C based on the lethal eect on Clostridium
botulinum spores).
Categories III and IV will obtain a longer shelf life (or
shelf stability) due to a reduction of the aw value (drying,
salting) or a combined eect of aw decrease and pH
decrease (fermented products).
In Central and Northern Europe, for fermented products
pH decrease (pH 5.65.8 decrease to 4.64.9) contributes in a
more signicant way to the preservation, whereas in Mediterranean countries aw drop is the signicant parameter.
In ancient times smoking was an additional preservation
technique, especially against surface spoilage (moulds).
Today smoking involves only a avour contribution.

2. Evolution of meat products: yesterday, today and in the

future
2.1. Meat products yesterday
Meat processing originates in the need to preserve meat.
It is said that the success of the Roman army in conquering
nearly all the territories of the Old World was partly due
to the knowledge of preserving meat (dry cured ham and
fermented sausage), which made the long distance supply
of the troops feasible.
The technology of preservation by means of aw decrease
combined with a pH decrease, can be considered as the oldest technology. aw reduction may be obtained by salting
and/or drying. Historically, dried products were air-dried;
aw decrease by salting was achieved by means of a brine
immersion or by rubbing the surface of the meat with coarse
salt crystals. If fermentation was involved, this was mainly
due to the meat borne microorganisms. Little was known
about the processes of fermentation, brine immersion or
drying. Meat processing was considered being an art, a craft.
2.2. Meat products today
2.2.1. Areas of emphases
We can consider 3 periods over the last 25 years with different emphases within a continuous growth of scientic
knowledge of the Meat Processing Technology:
(a) Period of quality.
(b) Period of quality and food safety.
(c) Period of quality, food safety and nutrition/health.
It is clear that quality, food safety and nutrition/health
are interrelated. Grunert (2006) discussed lifestyle with

105

regard to future trends in meat consumption from a marketing point of view and distinguished quality, shopping
and cooking aspects. Naes Riester (2006) discussed drivers
for change in the meat industry. He considered political,
economical and social aspects. Quality is linked to economical aspects, food safety and nutrition/health are linked to
economical, political and social aspects. Stability of a
known quality level was the main economical driver of
the ISO9000 standards. Political aspects became important
after major food safety incidents such as the dioxin and
BSE crises. Social security costs increased due to food
related health issues such as obesity and cardiovascular disease, which urged politics to evolve beside social aspects.
Requirements for quality are standardized in ISO9000
standards. Requirements for quality and food safety are
translated into private label standards such as BRC and
IFS. Growing importance and power of modern distribution increase the value of such standards.
2.2.2. Period of emphasis on quality
For the meat industry this period is to be situated in the
eighties-nineties. The food processing industry in general
and the meat industry in particular were among the latest
to implement Japanese based ISO9000 quality system standards. This was fundamental to t the later requirements.
Compliance with these standards was motivated in 2 dierent ways: commercial (customer requirements) and internal
(quality awareness).
The former contributed to the devaluation of the standard, as only the paper certication was of importance.
The latter estimated such a standard as benecial.
Positive aspects for the meat industry were the organizational structurization, the methodological standardization,
a system based on quality assurances versus control based
and the standardization of the quality on a previously chosen level.
Negative aspects to be considered were the devaluation
of the standards mainly due to commercially driven certificates, the devaluation of the certicates due to commercial
competition of auditing bodies, the certication being independent of the chosen quality level and the ISO standard
being generic with too many possibilities for interpretation.
During this period meat processing evolved from a craft
towards a science based technology. Examples are the generalization of the use of starter cultures for fermenting of sausages, initiated by Niinivaara (1955) and Niinivaara, Polyce,
and Komulainen (1964); the standardization of raw materials (e.g. fat composition); the use of slaughter byproducts
(e.g. plasma) and the introduction of company labs.
2.2.3. Period of emphasis on quality and food safety
Transition from one period to another went smoothly,
with the introduction of Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems.
HACCP became a universally accepted (preventive)
method for food safety assurance. HACCP became mandatory by EU regulation 94/93. Retailers incorporate the

106

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113

HACCP requirements in standards such as BRC and

IFS.The EU objectives concerning food safety as discussed
in emphasize the importance of HACCP. An example of a
practical interpretation of HACCP is found in Vandendriessche and De Smedt (1997).
Food safety became more and more actual due to
changing eating habits, changing of products, changing
of the population and increased food infections.
Eating habits moved more and more from hours cooking to convenience, ready-to-eat products. This change in
the market initiated new products and product presentation towards more risky products on the food safety level.
The dierence between sliced on the spot at the butchers
versus presliced prepacked (2 weeks ago) in the supermarket needs no discussion. Often products are made in one
EU country and sold weeks later 1000 miles away. Economically driven product development also resulted in
products at higher food safety risk. Less drying or shorter
production times resulted in higher aw values, sometimes
changing the product from initial shelf stable to a product
to be kept under refrigeration (dry cured products). Our
population is getting older, resulting in a decrease of eciency of the immunodefense system, making this group
of customers more vulnerable to food borne infections
and/or intoxications. Retailers do not always comply with
the cold chain. This change entailed an increase of microbiological risks for meat products.
Campylobacter is the most common cause of bacteriological gastro-enteritis (Ghar, Francois, Cornelis, Jouret
& Dumont et al., 2002a). This is linked to poultry and is
less extended to pork and other meat. E. coli 0157 in foods
from animal origin is discussed by Chahed et al. (2002). He
concludes that it is a risk for beef based products. Remember the E. coli case in fermented sausages made from mutton in Norway last year. Listeria monocytogenes prevalence
in foods from animal origin was estimated an important
factor in transmission and epidemiology of Listeria infectans (Ghar, Cornelis, Jouret, Dierick & De Zutter et al.,
2002b). For Salmonella, Ghar, Francois, Cornelis, Jouret
and Dumont et al. (2002c) concluded pork and poultry
based products at risk. Wybo, Wildemauwe, Godard, and
Collard (2002) reported laboratory-conrmed Salmonella
incidence in Belgium between 1987 and 1999 to be doubled
to a value up to 160 of 100,000 inhabitants. Salmonella and
Campylobacter infections in humans in England and Wales
is discussed by Humphrey and Jrgensen (2006). Growing
numbers of reported cases were seen and linked to dierent
types of meat. Reduction of prevalence of infection in farm
animals was suggested.
In this (food safety) period industry is faced with a multiplication of standards: HACCP, ISO9001, ISO9000-2000,
IFS, BRC, Danish HACCP criteria, Dutch HACCP criteria, Supermarket Food Safety (FMI) inspection list, the
Safe Quality Food standards SQF1000 & SQF2000,
EFSIS, etc. Most of them are private standards, used by
retailers for their suppliers, and all of them pretend to guarantee the same: a certain level of food safety.

The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), an initiative

by the CIES in 2003 to harmonize the private food safety
standards, has not been successful. The used slogan Once
certied, everywhere accepted remains a desire of the processors. Food safety used as a competitive issue by the
retailers has made this initiative fail.
The nal check against the level of compliance with a
standard is done by means of an audit. Auditors possess
scientic knowledge of the technology used by the company to be evaluated, sucient experience in the business
activities of the company to be evaluated, lead assessor
or equivalent training and language skills.
The more certicates were required, the more auditing
became big, competitive business, and the more dicult it
becomes to get a suciently competent auditor. An inexperienced British, English speaking auditor, performing an
audit in a French company with a German translator is
not a guarantee for an ecient, qualitative audit.
All the above mentioned resulted in a certain devaluation of the quality of audits and certications.
In conclusion, quality of meat products became more
standardized on a known level and growing knowledge of
the meat processing technology resulted in an economically
driven new product development towards products at a
higher food safety risk. Quality systems were considered
foundations for food safety systems and too many standards were introduced covering the same target. Competent auditors are hard to nd and the competition
between auditing bodies causes devaluation of the dierent
certicates.
2.2.4. Meat processing today: period of emphasis on quality,
food safety and nutrition/health
The importance of the link between nutrition and health
becomes more and more a hot topic. Aggett et al. (2005)
reviewed the following nutrition and health links: diet
related cardiovascular disease, bone health and osteoporosis, body weight regulation, insulin sensitivity and diabetes,
food related cancer and physical performance and tness.
LDL cholesterol and blood pressure are well-established
markers for risk assessment of cardiovascular disease.
Sodium intake and the link to blood pressure is generally
accepted. Higher blood pressure increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. LDL, HDL cholesterol and triacylglycerol levels in blood are directly linked to quantity
and quality of fat in the diet. Meat products contribute
to salt and fat intake in the diet. In China hypertension
has tripled since 1958, cardiovascular disease has become
the number 1 killer (2.6 million cases a year) (Xiaosong,
2007).
The eect of osteoporosis on skeletal disorders at a
mature age is linked to the initial bone mineral density
(BMD). Intake of Ca before adolescence and maintaining
a sucient intake dose later in the diet is key. Meat and
meat products are not a signicant source for Ca.
Overweight and obesity are becoming more and more
visual in society.

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113

Over the past 2 decades the prevalence of overweight

and obesity in children has increased rapidly (Lisseau
et al., 2004). Health care costs have increased dramatically
due to an obesity epidemic. In the USA a more than threefold increase was observed between 19791981 and 1997
1999 (Wang & Dietz, 2002). According to Xiaosong
(2007) obesity aects more than 20% in the US, between
10% and 20% in China and up to 10% in Europe. Table
1 shows a comparison of selected nutrients in beef, lamb
and pork per 100 g according to food composition databases from four countries (Chan, Brown, & Church,
1995; Danish Institute for Food & Veterinary Research,
2005; USDA, 2005). Overweight, metabolic syndrome
and diabetes are correlated with the quality and energy
level of the diet.
Aggett et al. (2005) suggested that approximately one
third of all cancers are caused by inappropriate intake
and imbalance of food components. The epic study (Norat
et al., 2005) suggests a relation between colon cancer and
the consumption of processed meat products. For the latter
nitrosamines as cancerogenic substance remain actual.
Our genetic heredity that resulted in our sensorial need
for food to cover our biological needs goes back to ten
thousands years. In those times physical activity was

Table 1
Comparison of selected nutrients in beef, lamb and pork (per 100 g)
according to food composition databases from four countries
Denmark

UK

470
22.3
2.5
10.1
1.4
2.4
4.7
6.5

571
22.5
5.1
5.0
2.0
1.8
4.1
7.0

520
23.0
3.6
3.0
1.1
2.0
4.2
10.0

531
22.3
3.5
6.5
0.9
1.6
4.0
30.8

Lamb (leg), lean, raw

Energy (kJ)
545
Protein (g)
20.2
Fat (g)
5.5
Niacin (mg)
7.5
Vitamin B12 (lg)
1.2
Iron (mg)
2.2
Zinc (mg)
3.3
Selenium (lg)
1.4

651
20.2
8.3
5.4
2.0
1.4
3.3
2.0

501
20.4
4.2
5.6
0.9
2.3
3.4
10.0

561
20.5
5.1
6.3
2.8
1.8
3.8
23.4

Pork, lean, raw

Energy (kJ)
Protein (g)
Fat (g)
Niacin (mg)
Vitamin B12 (lg)
Iron (mg)
Zinc (mg)
Selenium (lg)

519
21.8
4.0
6.9
1.0
0.7
2.1
13.0

Beef, lean, raw

Energy (kJ)
Protein (g)
Fat (g)
Niacin (mg)
Vitamin B12 (lg)
Iron (mg)
Zinc (mg)
Selenium (lg)

445
21.6
2.1
7.3
0.7
0.7
3.6
6.9

Australia

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

USA

502
20.9
3.4
4.4
0.8
1.2
2.0
28.9

Sources: Chan et al. (1995); Red Meat and Health Expert Advisory
Committee (2001); Danish Institute for Food and Veterinary Research
(2005b); USDA (2005).
N/A: data were not available.

107

important to survive (e.g. hunting). Exponential change

in lifestyle over the last decades, with a continuous decrease
of physical activity and consequently reduced biological
need for food without the change in our sensorial need
for food and the abundant availability of it, has moved
the nutrition/health balance in a negative direction.
Although physical activity is not a nutrition issue, lack of
it has important consequences on the nutrition/health balance. A more positive review with emphasis on the role of
red meat in our diet is given by Williamson, Foster, Stanner, and Buttriss (2005).
2.2.4.1. Possibilities and limitations of processed meat
products. Table 2 summarizes the positive and negative
nutrition and health aspects of processed meat products.
There exist dierent possibilities to correct the dierent categories of processed meats. Fatty acid composition (Omega
36, CLA) may be changed by directly adding to the product mix for ground products, or by changing the composition of the fatty acids in the animals by adapting the feed.
Especially for ground products dierent additives with a
healthy perception can be added, such as phytosterols
(cf. benecol), vitamin A, pro-vitamin A, lycopene, special
oils (olive oil, amaranth), wellness herbs, ginseng, yoghurt,
bres and calcium. For fermented products the use of pro
and prebiotics is also an option. More signicant in the
market are fat reduction and salt (sodium) reduction. The
presence of nitrosamines and poly-aromatic carbohydrates
(PACs) in smoked products remains an issue.
As already mentioned overweight (25 < BMI < 30) and
obesity (BMI > 30) are an increasing health issue. Standard
female adults need 2000 kcal/day, males 2500. Continuous
over-intake results in an increasing BMI, passing the value
of 25. Main energy contributors are fat (9 kcal/g) and sugar
(4 kcal/g). Empty calories, such as to be found in sweet
softdrinks, contribute signicantly to the overweight and

Table 2
Positive and negative nutrition and health aspects of processed meat
products
PRO
Rich in proteins
Low in sugar
High-grade proteins (sulphurous amino acids)
Pork fat = rich in unsaturated fatty acids
Vitamin B6/B12 (thiamine, riboavin, cobalamine)
Vitamin C
Rich in absorbable haem Fe (red meat only)
Good source of Zn
Rich source of glutalthione
CONTRA
Too rich in energy (fat) (except cat. I, III)
Too salt (raw products) (cat. III, IV)
Low in bre
Low in Ca
Biogenic amines (fermented products) (cat. IV)
Nitrosamines
PACs (smoked products)

108

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113

obesity problems. As meat and processed meats are generally low in sugar content (<1%) this will not be discussed
further. The mean fat content of dierent processed meat
product categories is shown in Table 3. As fat is the main
contributor to the overall energy level of processed meat
products, this has to be reduced to contribute to a healthier
diet. Whole muscle products will not be considered (see
Table 3). Fat content in those products is generally low
and most of it is visual fat, easy to be removed at the
moment of consumption. Bacon (pork belly) is also considered whole muscle although fat reduction is only possible if
the fat content of the living animal is reduced. Visual fat
reduction and leaner carcasses have been targets during
the last decades for those who are active in animal production. Fat in categories II and IV products is important as a
avour carrier and for structure and mouthfeel. It is known
that most of the avour (volatile) compounds are liposoluble. Reducing fat content involves reducing typical avour
intensity. In meat technology, fat can only be replaced by
structured water. Water can be structured in dierent
ways: by increasing the meat content (meat with 75% water
content is considered structured water for this purpose), by
using karageenans (to structure the added water), alginates
(mainly in low sodium products), dierent starches (to
structure the supplement of water) or short-chain polyfructose (inulin). All these techniques make the product more
hydrophilic (decrease in avour) and the dierent ways of
water structurization make the product deviate from the
mouthfeel of the full fat product. Dierent fat reduced
products are available in the market and it seems that the
customer wants to make a choice for healthier products,
but is not willing to accept signicant avour/taste reducTable 3
Mean fat content of dierent processed meat product categories in
Belgium

Heat treated whole muscle

Heat treated comminuted
Raw whole muscle
Raw fermented comminuted

Category

Fat (%)

I
II
III
IV

0.55
2030
2.510
3040

tion. Table 4 shows the composition of poultry fat, beef

fat and pork fat. Pork fat is richer in MUFA than in fat
of ruminants. In the rumen most fats are hydrogenated,
whereas for monogastric animals the type of fat in the feed
will inuence the composition of the fat deposit in the
body. Some meat products are rich in fat, mostly pork
fat. Recommendations for daily fat intake for adults (Hoge
Gezondheidsraad, 2006) are illustrated in Table 5. It is
well-known that the ratio of omega 6/omega 3 fatty acids
in normal western diet can be as high as 20. Ideally this
ratio would be 1. Changing fat composition in animal
feed could reduce this ratio in the deposit (monogastric animals). Processed meat products made with such raw material can obtain an omega 6/omega 3 ratio in the fat of 65.
This is illustrated in Table 6. The most important omega 6
fatty acids are eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and a-linolenic acid (ALA). ALA can
also be introduced in processed meats by changing the fat
to ALA rich vegetable oils (colza oil). EPA and DHA are
more dicult to add directly to the recipe. Although fat
composition change in processed meat products is technologically feasible, introduction in the market is dicult due
to communication/informative problems.
NaCl aects avour, texture and aw (shelf life) of processed meat products. Besides the salty taste NaCl also
introduces the characteristic taste of meat products (=avour enhancer). Solubilization of myobrillar proteins by
NaCl is important for texture, gel formation, water and
fat binding capacity. Ruusunen and Puolanne (2005) concluded a NaCl reduction up to 1.5% without phosphate
and up to 1.4% with phosphate feasible for cooked sausage
(category II) without signicant decrease in technological
Table 5
Recommendations for daily fat intake for adults (Hoge Gezondheidsraad,
2006) (as % of total required energy level)
Total fat
Saturated fatty acids
Mono-unsaturated fatty acids
(MUFA)
Poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA)

max. 3035
max. 10 not necessary in the diet
>10
5.310.0

Table 4
Composition of poultry fat, beef fat and pork fat (Food Composition and Nutrition tables 1986/1987 Souci et Al.)
Poultry fat (%)

Beef fat (%)

Sum

Saturated fatty acids

C12:0
C14:0
C16:0
C18:0

Mono-unsaturated fatty acids

Poly-unsaturated fatty acids

(lauric acid)
(myristic acid)
(palmitic acid)
(stearic acid)

Pork fat (%)

Sum

Sum

0.5
19.0
7.5

27.0

0.1
2.9
24.8
18.6

46.4

0.9
22.9
13.3

37.1

C16:1 (palmitoleic acid)

C18:1 (oleic acid)
C14:1

3.0
47.0

50.0

3.3
38.2
0.5

42.0

3.8
41.1

44.9

C18:2 (linoleic acid)

C18:3 (linolenic acid)
C20:4 (arachidonic acid)

21.5
1.5

23.0

4.3
0.5
0.2

4.8

8.6
1.0
1.7

11.3

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113

Table 6
Omega 6/Omega 3 ratio
Product without corrected Omega 6/3
ratio

Omega 3 test

Mean

SDa

Mean

SD

Cooked ham
Chicken ham
Pate
Meat loaf

6
5
2
2

11.1
13.0
7.8
6.1

2.3
2.9
2.0
0.5

6
5
3
2

3.7
2.5
2.8
3.1

1.1
0.5
0.3
0.5

Dry sausage
Bacon

4
2

11.6
7.8

4.2
2.3

4
4

3.1
2.7

0.9
0.7

SD = standard deviation.

quality and yield. If lowering sodium content goes together

with a reduced fat content, this could cause problems due to
the decreased ionic strength (replacement of the fat by
water). Due to the lower fat content in category I products
they recommend an NaCl reduction for cooked ham products up to 1.82.0% without use of phosphates and 1.7%
with the use of phosphates. NaCl reduction in category
IV (fermented sausage) products cannot be seen independently of pH. Min. 2.25% NaCl is needed with already negative eects on rmness and avour as stated by Ruusunen,
Vainionpaa, Lyli, Lakteenaki and Niemisto et al. (2003).
Control of the microbiological factor is the most important
factor, so salt reduction in fermented sausage will be limited
due to food safety restriction rather than technological
restriction. As for category III (dry cured ham) the shelf stability is only obtained by aw decrease due to NaCl addition
and drying. Food safety will determine the level of salt
decrease rather than technological or avour issues. All salt
replacers with a similar eect on aw have a decreasing eect
on avour in comparison to common salt. There are analytical consequences for reduced salt products: important for
health is Na+. Not all sodium in meat products originates
from NaCl. Table 7 shows an impression of NaCl and Na
content of dierent products of dierent processed meat
categories. The common analytical method of salt detection
by Cl detection will underestimate the real Na+ content.
Where reduced salt products are concerned, salt analysis
by means of Na+ is recommended. NaCl contains 39.3%
Na; 2.5 times Na concentration = NaCl concentration.
The actual sodium intake exceeds the nutritional recomTable 7
Impression of NaCl and Na content of dierent products of dierent
categories of processed meats

Cat. I
Cat. II

Cat. III
Cat. IV
a

Cooked ham
Cooked sausage,
Chicken (cooked)
sausage
Meat loaf
Dry cured ham
Fermented sausage

NaCl
(from Cl)

Na+a

NaCl
(from Na+)

2.0
2.0

0.9
0.9

2.3
2.3

2.0
5.8
3.3

1.1
2.2
1.5

2.8
5.5
3.8

From Nubel Belgische Voedingsmiddelentabel (1999).

109

mendations (max. 6 g/person) in the western world. The

main source of Na+ is common salt (NaCl). In industrialized countries bread is an important source of Na+ intake,
besides processed meat products and cheese. In public common salt (NaCl) is discussed, however, Na is of concern to
health. In meat processing other sodium sources are used,
although in a less but still signicant amount: sodium ascorbate, sodium lactate, sodium acetate, sodium citrate,
sodium phosphate and sodium glutamate. Reducing Na+
in meat products can be done by replacing NaCl by other
salts, such as KCl and MgCl2. Replacing Na+ by K+ or
Mg2+ is limited due to the introduction of a bitter taste. Better results are obtained with mixtures of dierent mineral
salts. The perception of salty taste is inuenced by customary dietary levels, this means that after a certain time on a
lower Na diet people get used to the new and less salty taste.
As sodium salt inuences texture characteristics it also
inuences texture related avour characteristics. Perceived
saltiness seems to be dependent on fat and lean meat content: the more fat, the higher the perceived saltiness (Ruusunen, Vainionpaa, Lyli, Lakteenaki & Niemisto et al.,
2003). NaCl is also important for the decrease of water loss
during cooking, i.e. for monitoring an acceptable water
holding capacity (WHC). NaCl reduction may make the
use of phosphates necessary.
As far as adding nutrients is concerned, only categories
II and IV products are considered, as, during processing,
adding of auxiliaries and supplements is easy, such as Ca,
ALA (improvement Omega 6/Omega 3), Fe, Se, Folic
Acid or Glutathion. Only ALA is used in a certain way,
Ca could be a possibility. The main problem is the communication to the customer. The probability exists that
the consumer considers such a product as abnormal,
chemical and pharmaceutical. Up to today no real commercial success has been noticed in adding nutrients to
meat products.
Adding microorganisms with known benecial eects to
health could be a possibility for fermented products. Examples can be found in the dairy industry: Active Bidus,
Actimel and Yakult. The use of benecial microorganisms is theoretically possible, but marketing-wise not (yet)
feasible.
Some internationally known companies specialized in
spices and herbs, try to promote the addition of healthy
spices/herbs, marketed as Wellness spices. All these
activities only t niche market activities and are, actually,
of no signicant importance in the meat processing industry.
As far as free additive processing is concerned, consumer perception is against additives, more explicitly Enumber declaration. This perception is partially unjustiable, as a number of additives is required for food safety
reasons. Some products appear on the market without
added additives, but in reality the auxiliaries are added
in an indirect, more natural, justiable way. In this context
free additive processing under the actual market conditions does not exist. Replacing the antioxidant Vitamin E
by rosemary extract is an example of this.

110

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113

Other market trends not necessarily linked to nutrition

and health are animal welfare and traceability. Although
animal welfare is not linked to nutrition and health, it is
worth mentioning as an actual trend. Processing as such
is not involved, only animal production is concerned. It
is more and more promoted by modern distribution channels, especially in Britain. As modern distribution tends to
state that they translate the consumers wishes, the future
will prove if the consumer is willing to pay for the additional cost. It is to be questioned if animal welfare is rather
used as a competitive issue. Traceability becomes the magic
word after major crises, such as dioxin and BSE. In fact,
traceability itself does not guarantee food safety or health,
it is an economic issue, because it provides the possibility to
reduce the economical impact in case of a crisis. In traceability three aspects are to be evaluated: reliability (handwritten registration is less reliable than using informatics
systems), completeness (are all raw materials and auxiliaries involved, e.g. water for brine preparation) and accuracy, which is determined by the company as an
economic, justiable equilibrium between cost and risk.
The greater the accuracy, the higher the cost and the lower
the economical risk at recall. Individual identication and
tracing of an Iberico ham represents the highest accuracy,
whereas luncheon sausage composed of trimmings from
dierent debonding companies and dierent slaughterhouses represents a far less accuracy.
2.2.4.2. Actual initiatives. As stated before, nutrition and
health becomes a public issue where processing industry,
politics and distribution are involved. Consumer organizations tend to lobby with the authorities. No consensus at all
is reached at this time, as is illustrated by the examples
hereafter.
My choice (Toet, 2007) is a logo based on the Nutrition Enhancement Programme of Unilever. Their intention
is to make it accessible for the whole European food industry. The use of the logo is based on the criteria for saturated fat, trans fat, sodium and sugar. Table 8 illustrates
the generic benchmark criteria to use the logo. Product cat-

egory-specic criteria also exist as stated in Table 9. Other

product category-specic criteria for bread and meat products are actually evaluated by an independent scientic
committee. One can generally comment that the lack of
pure energy criteria is a pity. The risk to end up in too
many product category-specic criteria is real. The success
of such a label will highly depend on the number and variety of food processors who participate and on the use of
private label products in modern distribution. Another initiative within the processing industry is the initiative of the
Federation of Belgian Food Processors (Fevia, 2006) in
which the following aspects of management are considered:
the food processing industry supports a healthy lifestyle
and produces a wide variety of foods that t an equilibrated diet. Also product development and innovation
are considered, as well as product composition: Macronutrients (fat, carbohydrates and proteins) and Micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, pre-probiotics and
avonoids). Attention is paid to information to the consumer, publicity (self-regulating code of practice), the problems of overweight and obesity and the collaboration and
involvement of the stakeholders (authorities, medical-paramedical world, education, academic world, media, catering,
retailers and consumer organizations).
Examples of authority initiatives are introduced by the
Minister of Public Health of the Belgian Authorities
(www.health.fgov.be) and the Trac Light system of
the UK. In the general guidelines of the National Nutrition
and Health Plan there are recommendations for intake of
energy (moderate, depending on physical activities), fruit
& vegetables (400 g/day), fat (less, but better), carbohydrates & bres (more bres; no empty calories), salt and
sodium (less salt) and water (1.5 l/day).
The Trac Light system of The British Food standard Agency (www.food.gov.uk) proposes a labelling system based on colours: red, green and amber. The
perception of the consumer will be that of a judgement:
red = bad, green = good, amber = intermediate. Although
there does not exist really bad food, but bad eating habits
(disequilibration of the quantity of food intake), the

Table 8
Generic benchmark criteria to use the My choice logo as presented by Unilever
Nutrient

Benchmark

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Unit

Trans fatty acids

Content
Insignicant levela
Content
Quality
Insignicant levela
Content
Insignicant levela
Total sugars
Added sugars

61
<0.1
610
<25
<1
60.9
<50
615
63
LOGO

12
0.10.2
1015
2533
12
0.91.6
50100
1525
37
LOGO

>2
>0.2
>15
>33
>2
>1.6
>100
>25
>7
NO LOGO

% of energy
g/100 g
% of energy
% of total fat
g/100 g
mg/kcalb
mg/100 g
% of energy
g/100 g

Saturated fatty acids

Sodium
Sugars

Calorie-based translation from dietary guidelines to nutritional benchmarks for foods.

a
Insignicant level: compliance (Cat. 1 and 2) or non compliance (Cat. 3) means the logo is or is not accepted for this nutrient. Note that for the
insignicant level the expressed unit is not energy based.
b
Assuming daily energy intake of 2250 kcal.

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113

111

Table 9
Product category-specic criteria to use the My choice logo
Nutrient

Products

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Unit

Saturated fatty acids

Sodium

Cheese
Cheese
Soups
Meal sauces
Dressings and table sauces
Spreads (as underlayer)
Meal replacement products
Edible ice, added sugars

610
6450
6200
6300
6600
6400
61.3
68
LOGO

1015
450900
200360
300540
6001080
400720
1.32.4
817
LOGO

>15
>900
>360
>540
>1080
>1080
>2.4
>17
NO LOGO

g/100 g
mg/100 g
mg/100 g
mg/100 g
mg/100 g

Sugars

authorities are making a choice for the consumer. The scoring for red, green and amber is based on total energy, saturated fat, sugar and salt (sodium). With a positive,
conditional correction for the protein content, fruit, vegetable and nut level. According to The British Food Standard Agency it is a simple scoring system, where
points are allocated on the basis of the nutritional content
of 100 g food or drink. There are three steps to work out
the overall score for a food product or drink. First step:
work out the total A points according to Table 10. Total
A points = points for energy + points for saturated
fat + points for sugar + points for sodium. If a food product or drink scores 11 or more A points, it cannot score
points for proteins, unless it also scores 5 points for fruit,
vegetables and nuts. Second step: work out the total C
points. A maximum of 5 C points can be awarded for
each nutrient/food component. Total C points = points
for fruit, vegetables and nuts + points for bre + points
for protein content (see Table 11). If the food product or
drink scores 5 points or more for fruit, vegetables and nuts,
the A nutrient cut-o does not apply. Third step : work
out the overall score. If a food or drink scores less than
11 A points, then the overall score is calculated as follows:
overall score = total A points minus total C points. If a
food or drink scores 11 or more A points but scores 5
points for fruit, vegetables & nuts, then the overall score
is calculated as follows: overall score = total A points
minus total C points. If a food scores 11 or more A
points but also scores less than 5 points for fruit, vegetables
& nuts, then the overall score is calculated as follows: overall score = total A points minus bre points + fruit, vegetables & nuts points only (i.e. no points for protein). A
food product is classied as less healthy when it scores
4 points or more. A drink is classied as less healthy
when it scores 1 point or more. The following example
illustrates the consequences for meat products. Cooked

mg/kcal
g/100 g

ham (category I) with the following composition is taken

into account: protein level 20%, salt level 1.9% (=0.75%
sodium), fat level 2.0%, sugar level 0.5%, energy 100 kcal/
100 g418 kJ/100 g. A points = energy (1) + sat. fat
(1) + sugar (0) + sodium (8) = 10. C points = protein = 5. Overall score = 105 = 5 ! amber. Conclusion:
it has been demonstrated that within this Trac light
system 99% of the meat products will be amber and from
this number the majority will be red. If in the chosen
example we add 1% saturated fat or 0.06% sodium
(=0.15% salt) the colour turns red. What will be the message to the consumer if he walks into a supermarket and
can hardly nd a cheese or meat product that is green?
What will be the message concerning a balanced diet? What
about green products with a sensorial quality which
deviates signicantly from the standard?
An example of an initiative taken by modern distribution is Sainsburys Wheel of Health Criteria (2005). This
trac light front-of-pack labelling system tries to tell the
consumer whether the product is high, medium or low in
amounts of fat, saturated fat, total sugars, salt and calories.
The levels high, medium and low are expressed by the colours red, amber and green. For each parameter the values
are expressed per serve or per 100 g in a segmented coloured circle. Seven categories of food are involved: Cat.
1A Complete meals (excl. breakfast cereals), Cat. 2A Complete meals (breakfast cereals), Cat. 1B Meal components
(with the exception of bread, potato products and other
cereals) this category contains meat and meat products,
Cat. 2B Meal components (bread, potato products and
other cereals only), Cat. 3A Other foods (excluding drinks,
fats and oils), Cat. 3B Other foods (drinks) and Cat. 3C
Other foods (fats and oils). The criteria of category 2A
(including meat and meat products) are shown in Table
12. The Wheel of Health Criteria is presented as a circle
with for each considered food component a dierent colour

Table 10
Trac Light Scoring: A points
Points

10

Energy (kJ)
Sat Fat (g)
Total sugar (g)
Sodium (mg)

6335
61
64.5
690

>335
>1
>4.5
>90

>670
>2
>9
>180

>1005
>3
>13.5
>270

>1340
>4
>18
>360

>1675
>5
>22.5
>450

>2010
>6
>27
>540

>2345
>7
>31
>630

>2680
>8
>36
>720

>3015
>9
>40
>810

>3350
>10
>45
>900

112

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113

Table 11
Trac Light Scoring: C points
Points

Fruit, vegetables & nuts (%)

NSP Fibre (g)
or AOAC Fibre (g)
Protein (g)

640
60.7
60.9
61.6

>40
>0.7
>0.9
>1.6

>60
>1.4
>1.9
>3.2

>2.1
>2.8
>4.8

>2.8
>3.7
>6.4

>80
>3.5
>4.7
>8.0

Table 12
Sainsburys Wheel of Health criteria: criteria of cat. 2 A (including meat and meat products)
Nutrient

Calories
Fat
Saturated fat
Total sugars
Salt

GDA

2000 kcal
70 g
20 g
90 g
6g

Green

Amber

Red

Per 100 g

Per serve

Per 100 g

Per serve

Per 100 g

Per serve

6150 kcal
63 g fat
61.5 g sat. fat
610 g total sugars
60.8 g salt

6200 kcal
67.0 g
62.3 g
615.3 g
60.6 g

150250 kcal
316 g fat

200400 kcal
7.017.5 g
2.35.8 g
15.322.5 g
0.61.5 g

>250 kcal
>16 g fat

>400 kcal
>17.5 g
>5.8 g
>22.5 g
>1.5 g

depending on the evaluation against the set criteria. The

use of the colours green, amber and red is similar to the
UK trac light system the colours inform the consumer
about good, moderate and bad food (components). To t
the salt requirements for the green category will be tough
for meat products. Fat requirements are easier to t for
categories I and II products than for categories III and
IV meat products.
The given examples are chosen randomly and do not
involve any preference of the author.
2.2.4.3. Concluding remarks. There are far too many dierent initiatives for the consumer. There is a risk to confuse
the consumer, so that he will create his own (maybe wrong)
perception. Judging criteria are not correct (cf. trac light,
wheel of health) as the total lifestyle, including total diet
and physical activity are also to be considered. In an equilibrated diet there are no good or bad foods, but only good
or bad practices.
2.3. Meat products in the future
The ideal meat products in the future are those that t
all the above mentioned requirements, which are summarized as follows:
As far as Food Safety is concerned no concession will be
accepted by the consumer. New technologies will be introduced, such as Pascalisation, use of protective bacteria and
use of specic phages.
On the level of Nutrition and Health, meat products will
have to nd their way in the actual context of malnutrition. If industry does not nd an answer for sodium
and fat in meat products, without major dierences in taste
and avour, substitutes will get a chance.
Quality will encounter a threat as growing power of private labels of the modern distribution and discounters will
press the prices. Although dierent standards, controlled
by means of audits, will try to guarantee the quality level,

1020 g total sugars

0.81.8 g salt

>20 g total sugars

>1.8 g salt

a decrease is probable. This will be compensated in other,

more niche markets. Quality will be judged by the consumer as sensorial quality rst.
Social aspects will become more important, such as
animal welfare. This will initially lead to supply problems. In this context traceability will be more visible to
the consumer.
Will there exist a product that ts all these criteria? This
involves a product with a perfect shelife, without any food
safety risk, with a perfect avour and taste, which is ideal
for your health and without diet restrictions. Probably
not, but the product that is closest to this, will be the
winner.
3. General conclusion
Food Safety is important and will remain a must. Too
many standards and auditing is an unreasonable cost for
the industry. The devaluation of Quality and Food Safety
certicates is a threat. Nutrition and Health is an opportunity for the Meat Industry where sodium and fat are concerned. There is a need for a universal, simple way of
communication to the consumer for Nutrition and Health
issues. Quality, especially the sensorial quality, cannot be
signicantly changed in the near future. More scientic
knowledge and new technologies will be necessary to t
the growing requirements of the market.
References
Aggett, P. J. et al. (2005). Passclaim, process for the assessment of scientic
support for claims on foods. European Journal of Nutrition, 4(1).
British Food Standard Agency, <www.food.gov.uk>.
Chahed, A., et al. (2002). Occurrence of E. coli 0157 in foods from animal
origin in Belgium since 1997. In 7th conference on food microbiology (p.
133). Lie`ge, Belgium, (2021 June 2002).
Chan, W., Brown, J., & Church, S. (1995). Meat Poultry and Game,
supplement to Mc Cance and Widdowsons The Composition of Foods,
EMAFF London, referred to by Williamson et al. (2005).

F. Vandendriessche / Meat Science 78 (2008) 104113

Danish Institute for Food and Veterinary Research (2005). Food
composition data <www.foodcomp.dk>.
Doak, M. C., Visscher, T. L. S., Renders, C. H., & Seidell, J. C. (2006).
The prevention of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents:
A review of interventions and programs. Obesity Reviews, 7(1),
111136.
Fevia (2006). Het nutritioneel beleid van de Belgische voedingsindustrie.
Fevia, Kunstlaan 43, 1040 Brussels <www.fevia.be>.
Ghar, Y., Francois, J. Y., Cornelis, M., Jouret, M., Dumont, J. M., &
Dierick, K. (2002a). Exposure assessment of Campylobacter in animal
foods in Belgium. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on food
microbiology (p. 137). Lie`ge, Belgium, (2021 June 2002).
Ghar, Y., Cornelis, M., Jouret, M., Dierick, K., De Zutter, L., & Daube,
G. (2002b). Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in foods from animal
origin in Belgium. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on food
microbiology (p. 132). Lie`ge, Belgium, (2021 June 2002).
Ghar, Y., Francois, J. Y., Cornelis, M., Jouret, M., Dumont, J. M., &
Dierick, K. (2002c). Exposure assessment of Salmonella in animal
foods in Belgium. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on food
microbiology (p. 130). Lie`ge, Belgium, (2021 June 2002).
Grunert, K. G. (2006). Future trends and consumer lifestyle with regard to
meat consumption. Meat Science, 74(1), 149160.
Hoge Gezondheidsraad (2006). Voedingsaanbevelingen voor Belgie, HGR
Doc. 7445-2 <www.health.fgov.be>.
Humphrey, T., & Jrgensen, F. (2006). Pathogens on meat and infection
in animals. Meat Science, 74(1), 89.
Lisseau, I., Overspeck, M. D., Ruon, W. J., Due, P., Holstein, B. E., &
Rediger, W. L. (2004). Body Mass Index and overweight in adolescents
in 13 European countries, Israel and the US. Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine, 158, 2733, referred to in Doak, Visscher,
Renders, and Seidell (2006).
Naes Riester, H. (2006). In Proceedings of the EMCC Workshop Dublin,
2425 October 2006.
Niinivaara, F.P. (1955). Uber den Einuss von Bakterienkulturen auf
die Reifung und Umrotung der Rohwurst. In Acta. Agral. Fennica,
84 (1).

113

Niinivaara, F. P., Polyce, P. M., & Komulainen, S. E. (1964). Some

aspects about using pure cultures in the manufacture of fermented
sausages. Food Technology, 18(2), 2531.
Norat, T. et al. (2005). Meat, sh and colorectal cancer risk. The
European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Journal
of the National Cancer Institute, 97(12), 906916.
Nubel Belgische Voedingsmiddelentabel, (1999). 3de editie <www.nubel.
com>.
Pederson, C. S. (1979). Microbiology of food fermentations. Westport/
Connecticut (USA): The Avi Publishing Company, Inc.
Ruusunen, M., & Puolanne, E. (2005). Review: Reducing sodium intake
from meat products. Meat Science, 70(3), 531541.
Ruusunen, M., Vainionpaa, J., Lyli, M., Lakteenaki, L., Niemisto, M., &
Puolanne, E. (2003). The eect of fat and meat contents on perceived
saltiness in meat products. In Proceedings of the 49th ICoMST (pp.
475476). Campinas, Brazil, (August 2003).
Toet, D. (2007). Building consumer condence through transparency. In
Proceedings of the CIES international food safety conference, 31 Jan02
Feb 2007, Munich, Germany <www.ciesnet.com>.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), (2005) <www.nal.
usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp>.
Vandendriessche, F., & De Smedt, A. (1997). HACCP in the meat
industry: A practical implementable interpretation. In Proceedings of
the 43th ICoMST, Auckland, New Zealand.
Wang, G., & Dietz, W. H. (2002). Economic burden of obesity in youths
aged 6 to17 years: 19791999. Pediatrics, 109(5), e81, referred to in
Doak, M.C. et al. (2006).
Williamson, C. S., Foster, R. K., Stanner, S. A., & Buttriss, J. L. (2005).
Red meat in the diet, review British nutrition foundation. Nutrition
Bulletin, 30(4), 323355.
Wybo, I., Wildemauwe, C., Godard, C., & Collard, J. M. (2002). Human
salmonellosis in Belgium. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on food
microbiology (p. 126). Lie`ge, Belgium, (2021 June 2002).
Xiaosong, H. (2007). The food industry and food safety in China. In
Proceedings of the CIES international food safety conference, 31
January02 Feburary 2007, Munich, Germany.