Hubbry Logo
Mechanically separated meatMechanically separated meatMain
Open search
Mechanically separated meat
Community hub
Mechanically separated meat
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mechanically separated meat
Mechanically separated meat
Mechanically separated meat
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Mechanically separated meat: pasztet
Mechanically deboned meat: frozen chicken

Mechanically separated meat (MSM), mechanically recovered/reclaimed meat (MRM), or mechanically deboned meat (MDM) is a paste-like meat product produced by forcing pureed or ground beef, pork, mutton, turkey or chicken under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue. When poultry is used, it is sometimes called white slime as an analog to meat-additive pink slime and to meat extracted by advanced meat recovery systems, both of which are different processes. The process entails pureeing or grinding the carcass left after the manual removal of meat from the bones and then forcing the slurry through a sieve under pressure.

The resulting product is a blend primarily consisting of tissues not generally considered meat, along with a much smaller amount of actual meat (muscle tissue). In some countries such as the United States, these non-meat materials are processed separately for human and non-human uses and consumption.[1] The process is controversial; Forbes, for example, called it a "not-so-appetizing meat production process".[2]

Mechanically separated meat has been used in certain meat and meat products, such as hot dogs and bologna sausage,[2] since the late 1960s. However, not all such meat products are manufactured using an MSM process.

Safety and regulation

[edit]

United States

[edit]

In the United States, mechanically separated poultry has been used in poultry products since 1969, after the National Academy of Sciences found it safe. Questions about safety arose in the 1980s, leading to a 1982 report by the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) which concluded that mechanically separated meat is safe and established a standard of identity.[3] The standard of identity puts a cap on the concentration of calcium, which indicates the presence of bone.[4] It also limits the maximum size of bone particles, the maximum fat content (and its peroxidation value), and the minimum amount of protein and essential amino acids.[5] Mechanically separated meat can only be used in a limited number of products (hot dogs are allowed, but hamburgers are not), which may contain up to 20% MSM under the 1982 rule, and must be clearly labeled.[6]

In 1995, a U.S. Department of Agriculture-FSIS "final rule" (see 60 FR 55962, 60 FR 55982–3) established separate standards for mechanically separated poultry and other meat. Mechanically separated poultry still has calcium content and bone size limits, but no longer any limits on fat and protein levels. It is now considered safe to use without restriction on proportion, but still needs to be labeled clearly. The rule took effect in 1996.[7]

Significant restrictions were later placed on mechanically separated beef due to concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as "mad cow disease". Ultimately, products with mechanically separated beef have been prohibited for human consumption since 2004:

Due to FSIS regulations enacted in 2004 to protect consumers against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, mechanically separated beef is considered inedible and is prohibited for use as human food. It is not permitted in hot dogs or any other processed product.[8][9][10]

European Union/United Kingdom

[edit]

Concerns over BSE first arose in 1986 in the United Kingdom. Since mechanically separated beef often contained small amounts of spinal cord tissue, which can carry the BSE prion, consuming mechanically separated meat from bovine carcasses carried an increased risk of transmitting BSE to humans. The EU tightened restrictions multiple times starting in 1989, to decrease the risk of spinal cord tissue getting into mechanically separated bovine meat.[11] In the mid-1990s the UK banned mechanically separated meat from cattle backbone, which was expanded to include backbone from any ruminant in 1998 (under European Commission Decision 97/534/EC),[12] and any ruminant bone in 2001. In 2004, under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, MSM from all ruminants was banned for human consumption.[13]

As of 1997, the European Union regulates MSM by the source material, fat (and peroxidation value), protein, and calcium content, bone particle sizes, and by how it is produced and stored.[12] Since 2010, the European Union distinguishes between low-pressure MSM and high-pressure MSM.[14] "Low pressure" MSM is produced by advanced meat recovery (AMR) and is similar to mince meat in terms of appearance and the extent of muscle fiber damage.[15] In a conventional high-pressure process, the meat is pressed through a sieve and the result is the typical paste. High-pressure MSM comes with more risk of microbial growth. However, if European regulations are followed (high-pressure MSM must be immediately frozen and can only be used in cooked products), there is no additional risk compared to conventional meat products.[13] Low-pressure MSM corresponds to the class of AMR meat in US regulation, while high-pressure MSM corresponds to the class of MSM.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mechanically separated meat

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Mechanically separated meat (MSM), also known as mechanically deboned meat, is a finely comminuted, batter-like product derived from the mechanical separation of tissue attached to bones from or carcasses, with most bone particles removed through sieving under high pressure while preserving the fiber structure of the original muscle. This process recovers tissue that would otherwise be discarded after manual deboning, yielding a paste primarily used in products such as sausages, hot dogs, and pates. In the United States, regulations under the USDA distinguish MSM by species: mechanically separated beef is deemed inedible and prohibited for human consumption due to risks associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, whereas mechanically separated poultry must meet standards for bone content, fat, and protein, and is labeled accordingly except for turkey products. The product typically exhibits higher calcium levels from residual bone fragments, along with elevated fat and connective tissue content compared to hand-deboned meat, which can affect texture and nutritional profile but enhances mineral intake. Public health assessments indicate that microbiological and in MSM are comparable to those in non-separated when produced under proper controls, though the mechanical process can concentrate certain contaminants if bones from advanced-age animals are used without restrictions. Controversies stem from perceptions of inferior quality due to its mushy consistency and inclusion of ground , leading to labeling requirements and bans in some regions, yet empirical data affirm its safety for consumption within regulated limits, supporting efficient resource use in production.

Definition and Overview

Composition and Characteristics

Mechanically separated meat (MSM) consists of finely comminuted soft tissues, including skeletal muscle, connective tissue, blood vessels, skin, fat, and small bone particles, obtained by forcing bones with adhering edible meat through a sieve or similar device under high pressure. This process recovers residual meat that would otherwise be discarded, resulting in a product that includes up to 1% bone solids, with at least 98% of bone particles measuring 2 mm or less in diameter for poultry variants. Bone inclusions elevate mineral content, particularly calcium and phosphorus, distinguishing MSM from hand-deboned meat; for example, calcium levels in mechanically separated poultry from mature chickens or turkeys must not exceed 0.235%. The characteristic paste-like or batter-like texture of MSM arises from the mechanical shearing of muscle fibers into a uniform , lacking the intact structure of conventional cuts. This fine increases surface area, potentially accelerating microbial growth and oxidation compared to whole muscle . Composition varies by separation technique and source material: low-pressure methods produce a more meat-like product with reduced particles and lower calcium, while high-pressure separation yields higher content and mineral levels. In poultry MSM, typical proximate shows higher (e.g., 20-45% in some formulations) and content (around 1-2%) but comparable protein (14-33%) to hand-separated , with nutritional value akin to whole muscle despite elevated minerals from . For species like or , historical MSM formulations similarly featured elevated calcium (often used as a proxy for content, with limits around 0.15% prior to regulatory changes), though production has been largely discontinued since due to safety concerns over inclusion. Overall, MSM's uniform consistency and inclusion of non-muscle components make it suitable for further processing into emulsified products like sausages, where its binding properties enhance yield and texture.

Distinction from Similar Products

Mechanically separated meat (MSM) differs from primarily in its production method and resulting composition. is derived from whole muscle cuts or trimmings that undergo chopping or grinding, preserving larger muscle structures and typically containing minimal fragments. In contrast, MSM is a finely comminuted, paste-like product obtained by applying high pressure to s after manual deboning, forcing adherent , , , and small particles through a to recover residual tissue. This process results in MSM having higher levels of calcium (from particles, often exceeding 0.15% by weight), , and compared to , with extensive disruption of muscle fibers leading to a batter-like consistency unsuitable for standalone use without further . MSM is also distinct from products produced by advanced meat recovery (AMR) systems, which employ lower pressure to separate primarily skeletal muscle from bones without significant inclusion of bone marrow or particles. AMR yields a product resembling minced or ground meat in texture and appearance, with calcium levels typically below 150 mg per 100g, allowing it to be labeled simply as "ground" or "chopped" meat under U.S. regulations rather than requiring the "mechanically separated" disclosure mandated for MSM. This regulatory threshold reflects the minimal bone content in AMR, distinguishing it from the higher-pressure MSM process that intentionally incorporates more pulverized bone-derived components for yield efficiency. Unlike emulsified products such as sausages or pâtés, which may incorporate MSM as an ingredient but involve additional grinding, mixing with binders, and cooking to form a uniform matrix, MSM itself is an unprocessed raw slurry not intended for direct consumption. Sausages derive from coarser emulsions of whole or ground meats, often with distinct particle definition, whereas pâtés emphasize liver or organ meats blended into a smooth spread, without the bone-forced separation defining MSM. These end products obscure raw material distinctions through formulation, but U.S. labeling rules require explicit identification of MSM usage to inform consumers of its unique mechanical origin and potential for elevated mineral content from bone.

History

Early Development (Pre-1960s)

The mechanical deboning process, foundational to later mechanically separated meat production, originated in Japan during the late 1940s as a method to recover flesh from the bones of filleted fish. Developed amid post-World War II resource constraints, this technique utilized sieves or perforated surfaces to separate soft tissue from skeletal elements under pressure, minimizing waste from fish processing and enabling the production of a finely textured protein paste for foods like early surimi analogs. By the late 1950s, processing industries, particularly , began adapting similar mechanical principles to address inefficiencies in manual deboning of cut-up birds and carcass byproducts. This period saw initial experimentation with pressure-based separation to extract adhering from frames, necks, and backs, driven by rising demand for value-added products and efforts to boost yields from whole carcasses. Such developments marked a transition from labor-intensive hand-trimming, which recovered only about 50-60% of available muscle tissue, toward automated systems that could achieve higher efficiencies while grinding bones into fine particles. Applications to red meat remained limited pre-1960, confined largely to rudimentary manual scraping or methods to gelatinize and strain attached tissues, as mechanical equipment suitable for denser mammalian bones had not yet been refined. These early - and poultry-focused innovations established core engineering concepts—such as , sieving, and hydraulic pressing—that would underpin commercial mechanically separated meat systems.

Adoption and Expansion (1960s–1980s)

Mechanically separated poultry emerged as a viable commercial product during the late 1950s and early , driven by transformations in the industry toward marketing cut-up birds rather than whole carcasses, which intensified labor demands for manual deboning. This shift prompted the adoption of mechanical separation techniques to efficiently recover residual meat from bones, achieving yields of up to 90% compared to 60-70% via hand methods, thereby lowering production costs and enabling broader incorporation into processed foods like frankfurters and luncheon meats. By the late , such products were routinely used in poultry formulations following safety evaluations, marking the initial widespread adoption amid rising consumer demand for affordable protein sources. The technology expanded to red meats in the early , with processors applying mechanical deboning to and bones to salvage lean tissue fragments otherwise discarded, motivated by escalating meat prices and the need to maximize carcass utilization during periods of supply constraints. In 1978, the approved mechanically separated for human consumption as an ingredient in products such as sausages, provided it met standards for particle content and calcium levels to distinguish it from systems. This approval facilitated incremental integration into the food , though usage remained limited compared to due to higher content risks and sensory quality concerns, with applications confined primarily to emulsified or finely comminuted items. Throughout the and , expansion was propelled by economic efficiencies, including reduced labor requirements and higher overall recovery rates, which supported the growth of the sector amid global population increases and urbanization trends favoring convenience foods. In , similar developments occurred, with mechanical recovery dating to the and applications emerging in the , though regulatory frameworks emphasized compositional limits to ensure product safety and labeling transparency. By the , mechanically separated constituted a notable portion of input for low-cost protein products, reflecting industry adaptations to resource optimization without compromising basic nutritional profiles, despite ongoing debates over its textural uniformity and potential for elevated .

Regulatory Milestones (1990s–Present)

In the United States, the (FSIS) of the USDA issued a final rule on November 3, 1995, establishing standards for mechanically separated (MSP), affirming its safety for unrestricted use in products provided it meets compositional requirements such as a bone solids content not exceeding 1 percent and labeling as "mechanically separated" or equivalent. This distinguished MSP from mechanically separated meat (MSM), which remained subject to prior restrictions limiting its application to 20 percent in products like sausages due to concerns over particle content and texture differences from hand-deboned meat. In response to the (BSE) outbreak, the banned mechanically separated meat derived from cattle backbones in the mid-1990s, a measure extended across the to include backbones from all ruminants by 1998 as part of broader controls on specified risk materials to mitigate risks. These prohibitions reflected linking BSE prions to tissues, prompting exclusion of high-risk skeletal elements from mechanical separation processes despite no direct confirmed cases tied to MSM consumption. By December 2004, the USDA's FSIS revoked the specific standards and labeling requirements for MSM (beef and ), determining that advancements in mechanical separation technology—yielding products with reduced calcium levels below 150 mg per 100 grams and indistinguishable from finely chopped —rendered separate unnecessary, provided the output complies with general standards of identity. This shift prioritized process improvements over prescriptive limits, aligning with causal assessments that modern low-pressure systems minimize bone fragmentation while preserving protein integrity. In the , ongoing refinements to mechanically recovered (MRM) rules post-2000 emphasized bone content thresholds (e.g., calcium not exceeding 0.1 percent) and restricted MRM use to non-fresh products like sausages, excluding it from items presented as "" to address structural differences from intact muscle tissue. A 2013 investigation revealed a regulatory permitting low-pressure desinewed —classified separately from high-pressure MSM—to enter sausages, prompting tighter interpretations but no outright ban, as such products met EU hygiene and composition criteria without elevated risk. As of 2025, guidance reaffirms MSM safety under compliant production, with no substantive changes to or permitted red variants, though enforcement focuses on microbial controls amid stable incidence data.

Production Process

Mechanical Separation Techniques

Mechanical separation techniques for producing mechanically separated meat (MSM) involve applying mechanical force to bones with adhering tissue, detaching edible muscle, fat, and connective elements while retaining harder skeletal components such as shards and . These methods typically employ sieves, screens, or perforated surfaces with apertures ranging from 0.5 to 3 millimeters to filter the output, resulting in a paste-like or batter consistency due to shearing and emulsification effects. The processes are designed to maximize yield from residual carcass parts post-manual deboning, with efficiency depending on factors like input material preparation (e.g., pre-chopping frames) and machine configuration. High-pressure techniques dominate and some applications, where hydraulic or pneumatic systems exert forces often exceeding 1,000 psi to force the bone- mixture through fine sieves, pulverizing softer tissues into a homogeneous while bones are compressed and fragmented but largely retained. This method, common since the , disrupts muscle fiber integrity extensively, yielding a product with elevated calcium (up to 0.15-0.3% higher than hand-deboned ) from incidental and particles, and is suited for emulsified products like sausages. Equipment often features continuous screw augers feeding into cylindrical presses, achieving yields of 65-90% recovery from inputs like necks, backs, and frames. Low-pressure methods apply gentler forces, typically under 500 psi, to preserve more muscle fiber length and reduce bone particle incorporation, producing a coarser, less emulsified output with calcium levels closer to intact (e.g., below 200 mg/100g). These systems, increasingly used in regions with stricter labeling rules, minimize shearing via adjustable sieves and slower extrusion rates, distinguishing the product from finer high-pressure variants under regulatory thresholds like those in the . Scraping and abrading techniques utilize rotating drums or belts with abrasive linings or fine blades to shear meat from bone surfaces, often in batch or semi-continuous setups, resulting in higher ash and connective tissue content due to surface-level extraction. Pressing variants, including hydraulic batch presses, compress pre-ground material against screens in a piston-like action, suitable for denser bones but yielding variable texture based on pressure cycles. Rotary and belt-fed separators combine elements of these, with drums spinning at 500-1,000 rpm to abrade and press simultaneously, optimizing for frames while controlling temperature to prevent fat smearing (typically below 10°C operation). All techniques incorporate quality controls like inline sieving to limit bone content to regulatory limits (e.g., under 10 mg calcium/100g for non-MSM in some jurisdictions).

Quality Control and Processing Aids

Quality control for mechanically separated meat (MSM) emphasizes compositional standards to ensure product integrity and distinguish it from higher-quality trimmings. Under U.S. regulations, mechanically separated must exhibit a bone solids content not exceeding 1 percent, with at least 98 percent of bone particles measuring less than 1.5 mm in their greatest dimension and no particles larger than 2 mm. For mechanically separated species, bone particle size is similarly restricted to under 2 mm in largest dimension, while calcium content exceeding 0.15 percent serves as an indicator of elevated bone solids, requiring specific labeling as MSM rather than advanced meat recovery product. Both and MSM variants require a minimum protein content of 14 percent and a maximum content of 30 percent to qualify for use in formulated meat products. Microbial represents a critical focus, given MSM's finely textured form increases surface area and vulnerability to bacterial proliferation compared to intact muscle tissue. Producers conduct routine testing for pathogens such as and in MSM, with high-pressure separation processes necessitating stringent to mitigate risks from raw materials and equipment. Empirical data from assessments indicate that while MSM poses comparable chemical risks to manually separated , microbial hazards can elevate if falters, prompting mandatory end-product testing and in regulated jurisdictions. Processing aids in MSM production primarily involve interventions applied during carcass preparation and separation to reduce loads without persisting in the final product. Common aids include peroxyacetic acid, , or rinses, which inhibit microbial growth on bones prior to mechanical separation. These substances function as transient interventions, exempt from labeling requirements under U.S. guidelines, as they contribute no functional effect to the edible portion. No unique chemical aids are mandated for the mechanical separation step itself, which relies on physical sieving and pressure; however, temperature control below 40°F (4°C) during processing prevents spoilage and supports aid efficacy. Regulatory oversight ensures aids do not compromise nutritional profiles or introduce residues, with efficacy verified through reduction studies showing log reductions in Salmonella contamination.

Types and Variations

Mechanically Separated Poultry

Mechanically separated poultry (MSP), also known as mechanically deboned poultry, is a finely comminuted product derived from the mechanical separation and removal of most bone from attached skeletal muscle of poultry carcasses, parts, or comminuted poultry. This process utilizes high-pressure machinery to force poultry frames—remaining after manual removal of prime cuts—through a sieve or similar device, yielding a paste-like batter rich in muscle tissue, connective tissue, and minor bone fragments. Primarily produced from chicken or turkey, MSP serves as a low-cost protein source, with chicken variants typically lower in fat due to the species' natural composition compared to red meats. Under U.S. regulations governed by the USDA's (FSIS), MSP must adhere to strict compositional standards: solids content shall not exceed 1 percent, with at least 98 percent of particles smaller than 1/8 inch in to minimize grittiness and ensure edibility. Unlike mechanically separated meat from red species (e.g., or ), which faces limitations stemming from 1982 regulatory changes amid concerns, MSP was affirmed safe for unrestricted use in products via a 1995 FSIS final rule, eliminating prior fat and protein caps while retaining particle restrictions. This distinction arises from bones' softer, more cartilaginous structure, facilitating cleaner separation and lower calcium residue—typically 0.02-0.15% versus higher levels in mammalian MSM—reducing sensory defects and risks associated with excessive mineralization. Production emphasizes to mitigate microbial risks inherent in the high-pressure sieving, which can pulverize tissues and potentially distribute contaminants if raw materials are compromised. Empirical data from FSIS routine testing indicate MSP's nutritional profile aligns closely with whole-muscle , offering comparable protein (14-18%) and slightly elevated calcium from trace bones, with no evidence of unique toxicological hazards when processed under and Critical Control Points (HACCP) protocols. However, isolated outbreaks, such as a 2022 Salmonella Enteritidis incident linked to MSP in raw products, highlight higher baseline prevalence (up to 82.9% in some samples) versus ground , underscoring the need for rigorous reduction interventions like thermal processing or in end-use formulations. In industrial applications, MSP enhances yield from byproducts, recovering 20-30% additional edible tissue from frames otherwise discarded, though its finer texture limits standalone use, favoring incorporation into emulsified products like sausages, nuggets, or patties at levels up to 100% of the portion if declared. Labeling exemptions apply when MSP meets standards and is not the predominant ingredient, distinguishing it from counterparts requiring explicit "mechanically separated" disclosure. European assessments by EFSA affirm MSP's risks mirror those of diced meats under equivalent , with no elevated chemical or microbiological hazards beyond controls.

Mechanically Separated Red Meat

Mechanically separated refers to a finely comminuted, paste-like product derived from the mechanical separation and removal of most from attached and edible tissues of animal carcasses, such as those from , , or sheep. This process yields a batter-like material that retains higher levels of , , and potentially particles compared to hand-deboned , with at least 98% of particles limited to a maximum size of 0.5 millimeters. Unlike mechanically separated , which is widely used in products, variants face stricter limitations due to risks associated with transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, particularly in ruminants like . In the United States, mechanically separated beef is explicitly classified as inedible and prohibited for human consumption under (FSIS) regulations enacted in 2004 to mitigate (BSE) risks, directing such material primarily to rendering or applications. Mechanically separated , however, remains permissible if it adheres to compositional standards, including a calcium content not exceeding 0.15% (indicating low inclusion) to avoid mandatory labeling as "mechanically separated pork"; products surpassing this threshold must be so labeled and are restricted in use within certain formulations. Production involves high-pressure forcing of bone-in frames through sieves or cylinders to extrude while filtering out harder fragments, a method that recovers approximately 20-30% additional yield from carcasses post-manual deboning but results in a product with altered texture and potentially elevated microbial loads if not pasteurized. Compositional analysis of mechanically separated typically shows higher and iron content relative to equivalents, reflecting the denser connective tissues in animals, though empirical data indicate no inherent nutritional inferiority when content is controlled. Its limited adoption in human foods stems from sensory drawbacks—such as grittier from micro- particles—and regulatory scrutiny, with usage confined to blended products like sausages where it enhances yield without dominating formulation. In regions permitting it, such as for , quality controls emphasize rapid chilling post-separation to below 40°F and incorporation of antimicrobials to address elevated bacterial counts from exposure.

Regional and Species-Specific Differences

Mechanically separated meat (MSM) exhibits variations in production feasibility, yield, and regulatory treatment based on species anatomy and regional risk assessments. Poultry, chiefly chicken and turkey, permits separation from entire carcasses or frames, leveraging softer bones for higher meat recovery rates compared to manual deboning, though this yields a paste-like product with potential for elevated fat and connective tissue content. In the United States, mechanically separated poultry is authorized for human consumption without mandatory "mechanically separated" labeling provided calcium content from bone particles does not exceed 150 mg per 100 g, distinguishing it from ground poultry derived from whole muscle. Pork MSM, derived exclusively from flesh-bearing bones after initial manual removal, involves harder skeletal elements, resulting in lower yields and greater emphasis on minimizing bone fragments to avoid grittiness. Beef MSM, however, remains prohibited for human food in the US since 2004 regulations classified it as inedible due to BSE transmission risks via advanced meat recovery systems. In the and , species-specific sourcing aligns with EU Regulation 853/2004, allowing MSM from carcasses or bones and from post-boning residues, while prohibiting ruminants like , sheep, and goats since 2001 to mitigate transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. This framework categorizes MSM by pressure applied during separation: low-pressure variants (calcium ≤0.1%) suit non-heat-treated products like burgers, whereas high-pressure types (higher calcium) are confined to cooked items such as sausages, with mandatory species labeling under Regulation 1169/2011 irrespective of bone content. -derived MSM in these regions often incorporates more skin and fat due to carcass , contrasting 's leaner bone-sourced profile and influencing end-product texture and oxidation stability. Beyond major markets, authorizes MSM from bovine, porcine, and sources under standards requiring at least 12% protein, no more than 30% fat, and 1.5% calcium (dry basis), enabling bovine use in a context of controlled BSE incidence. and impose similar restrictions, excluding MSM from bovine skulls or spines in older animals, prioritizing empirical TSE data over uniform global yields. These divergences reflect causal factors like —poultry's yielding finer emulsions versus pork's coarser particles—and localized epidemiological evidence, with dominating North American output due to integrated processing efficiencies.

Culinary and Industrial Uses

Common Food Products

Mechanically separated poultry (MSP) constitutes a primary ingredient in various processed poultry products, including frankfurters, bologna, and ground poultry formulations, where it functions as a low-cost protein source derived from carcass remnants. In sausage production, MSP is finely chopped and incorporated into emulsions for large- and small-diameter sausages, enhancing yield without altering the final product's texture significantly when blended with whole muscle meat. Chicken nuggets and patties frequently utilize MSP as a base material, often comprising up to 50% of the meat content in budget formulations, allowing manufacturers to minimize waste from frames and necks. Hot dogs and similar emulsified meats commonly include MSP, particularly in multi-species blends, to achieve consistent composition and reduce production costs; for instance, U.S. regulations permit its use without specific labeling if calcium levels remain below 0.3% of the product weight. Canned soups, such as certain varieties of chicken noodle or spaghetti products, may list MSP explicitly due to its paste-like form, which integrates easily into liquid bases. In Canada, mechanically separated pork or poultry appears in meat pies, tourtières, and similar prepared foods, subject to standards requiring disclosure on labels. For red meats, usage is more restricted; mechanically separated pork finds limited application in sausages and pâtés in regions like the and , but U.S. prohibitions on mechanically separated for human consumption since 1982 confine such products primarily to or variants. Overall, MSP's prevalence in these items stems from its ability to recover 10-20% additional edible tissue from bones, supporting industrial-scale efficiency in high-volume manufacturing.

Advantages in Manufacturing

Mechanically separated meat enables higher overall yields from animal carcasses compared to manual deboning methods, recovering residual muscle tissue adhering to bones that would otherwise be discarded. This process typically achieves meat recovery rates of 55-80% from frames, surpassing the efficiency of hand-separation by utilizing advanced machinery to extract protein without excessive bone fragmentation. Such yield improvements contribute to sustainability in meat production by maximizing resource use from each animal. The low production cost of mechanically separated meat stems from reduced labor requirements and minimized waste, making it an economical protein source for processed foods like sausages and patties. By automating separation, manufacturers avoid the high manual labor costs associated with traditional deboning, while the uniform paste-like consistency facilitates scalable blending into formulations, enhancing manufacturing throughput. In industrial applications, the fine texture of mechanically separated meat provides binding properties that improve product uniformity and texture in emulsified meats, reducing variability from whole cuts. This consistency supports efficient formulation adjustments and extends when frozen, aiding logistics in large-scale food production. Overall, these attributes lower operational expenses and optimize protein utilization, positioning mechanically separated meat as a key ingredient in cost-sensitive sectors.

Nutritional and Health Aspects

Macronutrient Profile

Mechanically separated meat (MSM) exhibits a macronutrient profile dominated by protein and fat, with carbohydrates typically absent or negligible, reflecting its derivation from , connective tissues, and adhering . On a wet basis, protein content generally ranges from 12 to 20 grams per 100 grams, primarily comprising myofibrillar and collagenous proteins, though the latter may exhibit lower digestibility compared to intact muscle proteins. Fat content varies widely from 5 to 20 grams per 100 grams, influenced by the anatomical source of the raw material—such as fattier backs and necks yielding higher levels—and the efficiency of mechanical separation, which can incorporate lipid-rich marrow. For mechanically separated (MSP), (USDA) data for raw product from mature hens indicates approximately 14.6 grams of protein, 19.8 grams of fat, and 0 grams of carbohydrates per 100 grams, with moisture comprising about 59.5% and elevated from particles. In contrast, MSP from younger broilers or specific parts like backs without skin may show higher protein (up to 18-20 grams per 100 grams) and lower fat (around 5-10 grams per 100 grams), aligning closely with whole muscle poultry averages of 18-22 grams protein and 2-10 grams fat per 100 grams raw. Mechanically separated red meats, such as or , display similar patterns but often higher fat incorporation (10-25 grams per 100 grams) due to denser marrow in larger s, though regulatory limits on calcium content (e.g., under 0.15% for non-poultry MSM in some jurisdictions) constrain bone inclusion and thus ash-related minerals.
TypeProtein (g/100g)Fat (g/100g)Carbohydrates (g/100g)Source
MSP (mature hens, raw)14.619.80USDA via NutritionValue.org
MSP (broiler parts, approx.)18.45.60Peer-reviewed proximate analysis
Whole muscle chicken (raw breast)21.22.60USDA standard
MSM red meat (variable)12-1810-250Compositional studies
These compositions underscore MSM's role as a protein-dense , though its fatty acid profile may differ—often enriched in polyunsaturated fats from marrow—potentially offering nutritional advantages over some whole cuts in terms of omega-3 content, as evidenced by pet food formulation studies extrapolatable to human analogs. Variations arise from parameters, but empirical proximate analyses confirm macronutrients remain comparable to non-separated meats, supporting efficient recovery from carcass residues.

Safety Data and Empirical Evidence

Regulatory assessments by bodies such as the (EFSA) and the (USDA) have evaluated mechanically separated meat (MSM) for microbial, chemical, and physical hazards, concluding that risks are comparable to those of non-MSM produced under equivalent hygienic conditions. In its 2013 scientific opinion, EFSA found that microbiological hazards in MSM from and arise primarily from raw material contamination and processing hygiene, with no evidence of elevated risks attributable to mechanical separation itself. Similarly, chemical residues, such as veterinary drugs or environmental contaminants, mirror levels in hand-deboned meat, as separation does not introduce novel exposure pathways. Physical hazards from bone fragments in MSM are mitigated by process controls and standards; for instance, USDA regulations limit bone solids in mechanically separated poultry to under 1% by weight, with at least 98% of particles smaller than 2 mm and 70% smaller than 1 mm, rendering them unlikely to cause injury as they are typically softened and digestible. Empirical data on bone particle safety show no documented cases of gastrointestinal harm from regulated MSM consumption, though higher calcium content serves as a compositional marker rather than a health concern. Foodborne illness data indicate occasional outbreaks linked to MSM, such as the 2014 Heidelberg incident involving Tyson mechanically separated chicken, which sickened at least 7 people in a correctional facility due to contamination in production. However, surveillance by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) reveals no pattern of disproportionately higher outbreak rates for MSM compared to other raw or comminuted products, attributing incidents to lapses in pathogen reduction steps like chilling or sanitation rather than the separation method. Long-term empirical evidence on chronic health effects specific to MSM is limited, with no peer-reviewed cohort or case-control studies isolating mechanical separation as a causal factor in disease outcomes beyond general associations, such as risks from iron or cooking byproducts. Cross-sectional consumption surveys, including a 2024 Brazilian study of over 1,000 adults, report MSM intake but find no unique safety signals, reinforcing that regulatory oversight ensures equivalence in hazard profiles.

Regulations and Standards

United States Framework

In the , mechanically separated meat (MSM) falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (FSIS), which enforces standards under the for red meats and the Poultry Products Inspection Act for poultry products. These regulations distinguish MSM by , imposing composition limits on bone content, calcium levels, and to ensure safety and proper labeling, while prohibiting certain types due to risks of central nervous system tissue contamination. For mechanically separated poultry (MSP), such as or , FSIS permits its use in products without quantity restrictions, provided it meets defined standards established in a 1982 interim rule and confirmed safe in a 1995 final rule. MSP must have no more than 1% solids content, with at least 98% of bone particles measuring 1 micron or smaller, and calcium levels not exceeding 0.235% for products from mature chickens or turkeys (or 0.15% for younger birds). Products containing MSP require labeling as "mechanically separated " or "mechanically separated " in the ingredients statement to distinguish it from hand-deboned , preventing misrepresentation in standardized items. Mechanically separated beef (MSB) is explicitly classified as inedible and banned from human consumption under 9 CFR §319.5, a prohibition rooted in concerns over spinal cord and brain tissue inclusion, heightened by bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risks formalized in 2004 FSIS rules. This contrasts with mechanically separated pork, which is allowable if it adheres to general MSM standards: finely comminuted tissue with most bone removed, protein content of at least 14%, and fat not exceeding 30%. Pork MSM exceeding a 0.15% calcium threshold—indicating higher bone residue—must be labeled as "mechanically separated pork," while lower-calcium variants may be declared simply as "pork" in compliant products. Cross-species mixing is restricted, barring MSM from one species in single-species-required products. The U.S. (FDA) plays a supplementary role, primarily in reinforcing cattle-derived material restrictions under BSE interim rules since 2004, which align with FSIS bans by prohibiting MSM from specified risk materials in . FSIS inspections ensure compliance, with violations leading to product detention or recalls, emphasizing empirical safety data over unsubstantiated health claims.

European Union and United Kingdom

In the European Union, mechanically separated meat (MSM) is defined under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 as the product obtained by removing meat from flesh-bearing bones after boning or from poultry carcasses using mechanical means, where this process results in the loss or modification of the muscle fiber structure. Production of MSM is permitted from poultry and porcine bones but prohibited from bovine, ovine, caprine, and soliped bones to mitigate risks associated with higher bone particle content and potential contaminants like spinal cord material. MSM must meet strict hygiene standards, including limits on calcium content to control bone residue—typically not exceeding 0.15% for finely textured MSM from mammals or 0.3% for coarsely textured poultry MSM—and requires labeling as "mechanically separated meat" in products where it is used, excluding it from contributing to the overall meat content declaration. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has assessed public health risks, concluding that while MSM from allowed species poses no greater microbial risks than non-MSM when produced under approved conditions, the prohibition on ruminant MSM stems from concerns over bone marrow and connective tissue increasing exposure to certain pathogens if improperly processed. Desinewed meat (DWM), which removes sinews without altering muscle fiber integrity, is distinguished from MSM and permitted for red meats as it qualifies as standard meat rather than a separated product. In the , post-Brexit regulations assimilate EU-derived rules under Retained Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, maintaining the same definition and species restrictions for MSM. The (FSA) issued updated guidance in July 2025 clarifying compliance, emphasizing that MSM production must occur in approved facilities with validated mechanical processes to ensure fiber modification occurs, and distinguishing it from to prevent misclassification. Labeling and calcium limits mirror requirements, with MSM required to be declared explicitly and not counting toward lean meat percentages in formulations; enforcement focuses on preventing undeclared use in products like sausages or pâtés. continues to apply direct EU law, while adaptations include streamlined import certificates for MSM but retain prohibitions on sources.

Global Variations

In , mechanically separated meat (MSM) is permitted for use in products under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) standards, with mandatory labeling requirements specifying its inclusion and species if multiple types are used. Products containing MSM must declare it in the ingredients list, and for , it is deemed to include unless otherwise indicated on the . Composition standards require MSM to meet minimum protein levels, such as at least 14% for various , to ensure suitability for human consumption. Australia regulates MSM through Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), defining it as meat separated from bone via mechanical processes resulting in a comminuted form, with restrictions prohibiting its use in uncooked standardized foods like certain sausages. The Meat Food Safety Scheme allows MSM in processed products but subjects it to microbiological testing, with guidelines ensuring bone content and hygiene compliance during production. Exports must adhere to trade descriptions that differentiate MSM from intact muscle meat. In , a major exporter of MSM, domestic regulations under the Ministry of , and Supply (MAPA) limit bone particles to ensure 98% are no larger than 0.5 mm in size and 0.85 mm in width, facilitating its use in sausages and nuggets. Approximately 62% of 's poultry exports to certain markets consist of MSM, reflecting its economic role despite bans in some regions. China established a national standard for MSM (GB/T 40463-2021) effective March 1, 2022, governing production hygiene and quality for domestic use, though import protocols often prohibit MSM in , mutton, and shipments to mitigate risks like . certifications to require segregation from MSM-containing products. India's Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSAI) permits mechanically deboned or separated meat in processed products like sausages and patties, derived from meat animals or by-products, with standards emphasizing preparation from approved sources. Japan imposes strict import conditions excluding MSM from boneless beef and other certified meats to prevent specified risk materials, requiring products to be deboned without mechanical separation. Domestic production aligns with practices but prioritizes intact cuts over MSM in regulated exports. Internationally, the Commission (CXC 58-2005) provides guidelines defining MSM as meat removed mechanically from bones and recommending immediate cooling to a maximum temperature post-separation to control microbial growth, influencing harmonized standards without mandating bans. Variations stem from risk assessments, with developing economies like and favoring MSM for , while import-focused nations like and restrict it for and safety.

Controversies and Criticisms

Public Backlash and Media Influence

Public perception of mechanically separated meat, particularly lean finely textured beef (LFTB), shifted dramatically in early 2012 amid widespread media coverage dubbing it "pink slime," a term originating from a USDA employee's describing its appearance. ABC News aired a series of reports starting March 7, 2012, featuring former USDA scientist Gerald Zirnstein, who coined the phrase and expressed reservations about its safety and quality, portraying LFTB as an ammonia-treated comprising up to 15% of in products sold to consumers and institutions. This coverage, amplified by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver's viral demonstration of LFTB's production process on his Food Revolution show, emphasized visual and processing methods over empirical safety data, sparking immediate consumer aversion despite LFTB's USDA approval for human consumption since 2001. The backlash manifested in rapid behavioral changes, with a April 2012 Red Robin-commissioned survey finding 88% of U.S. adults aware of the issue, 25% ceasing ground beef purchases altogether, 37% opting for alternatives like grass-fed beef, and 70% demanding labeling. Major retailers and foodservice providers responded swiftly: McDonald's had already discontinued LFTB in 2011 following its own review, but chains like Burger King and Taco Bell followed suit in 2012, while grocers such as Safeway, Kroger, and Publix pledged to remove products containing it from shelves. Public petitions, including one on Facebook garnering over 240,000 signatures by mid-March 2012, pressured the USDA to halt LFTB purchases for the National School Lunch Program, affecting an estimated 6 million schoolchildren and leading to the agency's announcement on March 15, 2012, that it would no longer procure the product for federal programs. Media-driven narratives prioritizing sensory revulsion—such as LFTB's gel-like texture and use (at levels comparable to those in commercially produced cheese)—over regulatory endorsements fueled a demand collapse, with LFTB's in dropping from approximately 70% pre-controversy to near zero by mid-2012. Beef Products Inc., the primary LFTB producer, shuttered three plants, laid off 700 workers, and pursued defamation lawsuits against ABC News, settling for $177 million in 2017 after arguing the reports misrepresented the product as unsafe. Economic ripple effects included the of AFA Packing Co., a LFTB supplier, in April 2012, directly attributed to lost contracts amid the frenzy. Studies analyzing sales data confirmed media exposure causally reduced demand for products, illustrating how emotive framing can override on .

Scientific Debunking of Myths

One prevalent myth asserts that mechanically separated meat (MSM), often derisively termed "pink slime," is inherently contaminated with pathogens or due to its mechanical extraction process from bones and carcasses. Scientific assessments, including a 2013 (EFSA) evaluation, conclude that microbiological hazards in MSM from and are comparable to those in non-mechanically separated meats, provided standard and processing controls are applied, such as and pathogen reduction steps. (USDA) inspections mandate that MSM undergo equivalent safety protocols to whole muscle cuts, with no empirical data indicating elevated or prevalence beyond what is observed in hand-deboned . Myth: MSM is not "real" meat but a mushy byproduct laden with bone fragments that pose choking or digestive hazards. In reality, MSM consists primarily of tissue forcibly separated from connective tissues and minor residues, mirroring the composition of hand-separated under microscopic analysis, with regulations capping particle content—such as the EU's limit of under 10% calcium equivalent—to ensure edibility and safety. Peer-reviewed compositional studies confirm MSM's protein content (typically 15-20% higher in muscle yield than bone-in cuts) and nutrient profile align closely with conventional poultry , without evidence of increased fragmentation risks when cooked. Elevated calcium from incidental incorporation is bioavailable and nutritionally neutral or beneficial, not causative of gastrointestinal issues as claimed in unsubstantiated media narratives. Myth: Consumption of MSM leads to unique health risks, such as cancer or deficiencies, due to processing chemicals or denatured proteins. No causal links exist in longitudinal epidemiological data or controlled feeding trials; EFSA's risk analysis found (e.g., residues from equipment) in MSM equivalent to those in minced or ground meats, with no differential cancer associations attributable to MSM itself. Nutritional evaluations of mechanically separated demonstrate balanced macronutrients—approximately 14-18% protein, 10-15% fat—comparable to fillets, debunking claims of inferiority; any processing-induced protein denaturation is minimal and occurs similarly in emulsified products like sausages regardless of separation method. These misconceptions often stem from conflation with lean finely textured beef (a distinct ammonia-treated product), amplified by sensationalized reporting rather than empirical scrutiny, yet regulatory frameworks and hazard equivalence affirm MSM's safety parity with traditional meats when produced under verified standards.

Balanced Assessment of Risks vs. Benefits

Mechanically separated meat (MSM) serves as an efficient means of extracting edible protein from animal carcasses, yielding a product with protein content typically ranging from 14-18% and fat levels of 10-20%, comparable to derived from whole muscle trimmings, though variations depend on the input material such as frames. This process recovers tissues that would otherwise be discarded, minimizing waste and providing a low-cost protein source that contributes to affordability in processed foods like sausages and nuggets, where it can constitute up to 10% of average daily caloric intake in consuming populations without evidence of disproportionate health burdens. From a safety standpoint, empirical assessments show no elevated risks associated with properly produced MSM compared to minced or ground meats; microbiological hazards like or are controlled through standard slaughter and processing hygiene, while chemical risks from bone-derived calcium or remain below thresholds that could cause hypercalcemia or related issues, as bone particles are limited to fine, non-gritty levels by sieving. Regulatory frameworks, including U.S. Department of Agriculture standards for MSM that prohibit labeling as "meat" if bone content exceeds safe limits (e.g., calcium >0.15% in some contexts), further mitigate concerns, with no documented outbreaks or epidemiological data linking MSM consumption to higher incidences of or chronic conditions beyond general risks like associations observed across all comminuted products. Benefits predominate in resource utilization, as MSM extraction achieves up to 99% carcass yield versus 60-70% from hand-deboning, enhancing economic viability for producers and enabling broader access to nutrient-dense animal protein in diets, particularly in lower-income demographics, without compromising essential micronutrients like iron or present in similar quantities to intact muscle. Potential drawbacks, such as slightly higher content potentially affecting digestibility or sensory qualities, lack substantiation in clinical studies showing adverse effects, and any nutritional variances (e.g., marginally elevated minerals) may even confer minor advantages like improved markers in moderate consumers. Overall, when subject to rigorous standards, MSM's risks are negligible and empirically managed, while its benefits in efficiency and accessibility support its role in sustainable protein supply chains.

Economic and Environmental Impacts

Cost Efficiency for Producers

Mechanically separated meat (MSM) enables producers to recover substantial additional protein from carcass frames, necks, and other bony residues that remain after manual deboning, typically yielding 55-80% meat content depending on the parts processed and equipment settings. This process maximizes carcass utilization by extracting tissue that would otherwise be rendered for low-value by-products like or , thereby increasing the overall edible yield per animal and reducing raw material waste. In processing, where MSM is most prevalent, this recovery salvages protein that manual methods cannot economically capture, directly contributing to higher throughput without requiring additional . The mechanical separation technique lowers production costs compared to hand-deboned meat by minimizing labor requirements and enabling high-volume output for emulsified products such as sausages and nuggets, where the fine texture aligns with end-use needs. Industry analyses indicate MSM's cost-effectiveness stems from its role as a cheaper alternative to whole muscle cuts, with production expenses reduced through efficient bone-meat dissociation under rather than skilled manual labor. For instance, processors can achieve in processed foods, where MSM constitutes a significant portion of formulations, avoiding the premium pricing of intact fillets or . Furthermore, MSM facilitates by converting undervalued carcass components into marketable protein, generating additional revenue streams and supporting non-waste production models in the . This economic advantage is particularly pronounced in , where farming costs are inherently lower than for or , amplifying the profitability of mechanical deboning. Overall, these factors drive MSM's adoption, as evidenced by market projections showing steady growth fueled by its role in cost-optimized .

Resource Utilization and Sustainability

Mechanically separated meat (MSM) improves resource utilization by mechanically recovering edible muscle tissue, , and fat from bones and carcass frames that are difficult or uneconomical to debone manually, thereby increasing the overall yield of human-consumable protein from each . This typically achieves meat recovery rates of 65-90% from input materials such as frames or necks, surpassing manual deboning which often leaves residual attached to bones for rendering or disposal. By extracting this additional material, MSM minimizes carcass waste, with post-separation bones still usable for by-products like , broth, or , contributing to a more comprehensive valorization of outputs. In terms of , the higher yields from mechanical separation enhance production efficiency, as evidenced by a 22% improvement in processing efficiency reported through implementations monitored by the . This efficiency reduces the number of animals required to produce a given volume of , potentially lowering resource inputs such as feed, , and land associated with rearing per kilogram of output. For , MSM salvages otherwise underutilized portions of carcasses, aligning with non-waste production strategies that optimize edible recovery and support sustainable practices. While MSM production involves and equipment, the net environmental benefit stems from reduction rather than substituting for primary cuts; however, life-cycle analyses specific to MSM remain limited, with broader gains tied to utilization rather than inherent low-impact attributes compared to alternatives like plant-based proteins. Industry adoption of advanced deboning technologies further boosts yield and , reinforcing MSM's role in resource-efficient protein supply without necessitating expanded herd sizes.

References

  1. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-A/part-319/subpart-A/section-319.5
  2. https://meatscience.org/docs/default-source/publications-resources/fact-sheets/mechanically-seperated-poultry---singh-20159882e7711b766618a3fcff0000a508da.pdf?sfvrsn=7cf481b3_0
  3. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-A/part-381/subpart-P/section-381.173
  4. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3137
  5. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250351
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11164858/
  7. https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/What-is-Mechanically-Separated-Meat-MSM
  8. https://www.gcca.org/legacy-system/WFLO-Commodity-Storage-Manual-2018-Meats%2520~%2520Mechanically%2520Seperated.pdf
  9. https://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/distinguishing-mechanically-separated-meat-from-other-products
  10. https://meatscience.org/docs/default-source/publications-resources/fact-sheets/mechanically-seperated-poultry---singh-20159882e7711b766618a3fcff0000a508da.pdf
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Chemical-composition-wet-basis-of-the-mechanically-separated-meats-MSM-of-white-layer_tbl1_242376779
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286493154_Nutritional_value_of_mechanically_recovered_goose_and_chicken_meat
  13. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/319.5
  14. https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/Is-ground-poultry-the-same-as-mechanically-separated-poultry
  15. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-A/part-319
  16. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/01/12/04-626/meat-produced-by-advanced-meatbone-separation-machinery-and-meat-recovery-amr-systems
  17. https://earthwormexpress.com/2020/07/05/mdm-notes-on-composition-and-functionality/
  18. https://earthwormexpress.com/tag/mdm/
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329683260_Mechanical_separation_of_poultry_meat_and_its_use_in_products
  20. https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/826-1-1509_2012057R_FSA_MSM_Report_Final_v2.pdf
  21. https://www.earthwormexpress.com/meat-emulsions-a-roadmap-to-investigations/poultry-mdm-notes-on-composition-and-functionality/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3614052/
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1239466
  24. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1995-11-03/pdf/95-27305.pdf
  25. https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/biological-safety/food-borne-diseases-zoonoses/control-tses_en
  26. https://lwvma.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/A5_Food_Labeling_final.pdf
  27. https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/guidance-on-mechanically-separated-meat-msm-definition
  28. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21530861
  29. https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/guidance-on-mechanically-separated-meat-msm-annexes
  30. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130327a
  31. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/questions-answers-mechanically-separated-chicken-2/
  32. https://starmeat.pl/en/how-does-the-mechanical-separation-process-work/
  33. https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/article/16998/mechanically-separated-meat-and-meat-structure/
  34. https://distantreader.org/stacks/journals/afs/afs-72911.pdf
  35. https://www.provisur.com/en/applications/mechanically-separated-products/
  36. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3137
  37. https://www.food-safety.com/articles/5581-antimicrobial-use-in-poultry-processing
  38. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/questions-answers-about-antimicrobial-use-in-chicken-processing/
  39. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/381.173
  40. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/381.174
  41. https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/mmb/article/id/12294/
  42. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-A110-PURL-gpo27150/pdf/GOVPUB-A110-PURL-gpo27150.pdf
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7413012/
  44. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7128a4.htm
  45. https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/9662-mechanically-separated-meat-carries-some-risks
  46. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-A110-PURL-gpo112408/pdf/GOVPUB-A110-PURL-gpo112408.pdf
  47. https://meatscience.org/docs/default-source/publications-resources/rmc/1993/separation-of-residual-meat-attached-to-bones.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  48. https://www.food.gov.uk/node/26601?print=1
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4662185/
  50. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-64247-6
  51. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/250212-canada-beef-final-report.pdf
  52. https://inspection.canada.ca/en/importing-food-plants-animals/food-imports/food-specific-requirements/approved-countries/usa
  53. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mechanically-separated-poultry-real-world-5-hfaqe/
  54. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Campbells-list-mechanically-separated-chicken-among-the-ingredients-of-Spaghetti-Os-Why-not-just-call-it-chicken
  55. http://inspection.canada.ca/en/about-cfia/acts-and-regulations/list-acts-and-regulations/documents-incorporated-reference/canadian-standards-identity-volume-7
  56. http://inspection.canada.ca/en/food-labels/labelling/industry/meat-and-poultry-products
  57. https://food.au.dk/macsys/publications/press-release/mechanically-separated-meat-can-be-on-par-with-manually-separated-meat
  58. https://www.saspublishers.com/media/articles/SJAVS_48324-326.pdf
  59. https://www.marketreportanalytics.com/reports/mechanically-separated-meat-256952
  60. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mechanically-separated-poultry-market-poised-growth-meat-doiphode-ylovf
  61. https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/mechanically-separated-meat-market.html
  62. https://www.factmr.com/report/mechanically-separated-meat-market
  63. https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Poultry%252C_raw%252C_from_mature_hens%252C_mechanically_deboned_nutritional_value.html
  64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229807447_Moisture_fat_protein_and_mineral_content_of_mechanically_deboned_poultry_meat
  65. https://www.medindia.net/nutrition-data/poultry-mechanically-deboned-from-backs-and-necks-without-skin-raw.htm
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174099001254
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8061975/
  68. https://faculty.sites.iastate.edu/rtarte/files/inline-files/Miller%2520et%2520al.%2520%25282021%2529%2520-%2520Compositional%2520differences%2520among%2520types%2520of%2520MSC%2520and%2520their%2520influence%2520on%2520attributes%2520of%2520frankfurters.pdf
  69. https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/salmonella/heidelberg-01-14/index.html
  70. https://marlerclark.com/news_events/tyson-mechanically-separated-chicken-salmonella-outbreak
  71. https://www.sccmo.org/DocumentCenter/View/1667/Hot-Dogs-and-Food-Safety-PDF-
  72. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-A/part-319/subpart-A/section-319.6
  73. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/18/2016-06123/use-of-materials-derived-from-cattle-in-human-food-and-cosmetics
  74. https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/guidance-on-mechanically-separated-meat-msm-introduction
  75. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66a8efc20808eaf43b50d9e4/GBHC332_POU-MSM__v1.0_Jul-24.pdf
  76. https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/301/cfia-acia/2011-09-21/inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch4/4-2-7-3e.shtml
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0315546385719244
  78. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/sites/default/files/food-standards-code/proposals/Documents/P1025_CFS%2520Attach_%2520A1_Chapters%25201_5.pdf
  79. https://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/_Documents/scienceandtechnical/meat_food_safety_scheme_risk_assessment.pdf
  80. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/sitecollectiondocuments/guideline-trade-descriptions.pdf
  81. https://www.scielo.br/j/sa/a/rtgQByTvV7v539HV7hbtpGM/?lang=en
  82. https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/agriculture/061825-brazil-to-restart-poultry-exports-as-ministry-declares-country-avian-flu-free
  83. https://www.thinkchina.sg/society/lack-standards-challenge-chinas-food-safety
  84. https://www.foodgacc.com/gacc-registration-cifer-aqsiq-ccic-frozen-beef-from-Colombia-to-China
  85. http://inspection.canada.ca/en/exporting-food-plants-animals/food-exports/requirements-library/china-peoples-republic-meat-and-poultry-products
  86. https://www.fssai.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/6_%2520Chapter%25202_5%2520%28Meat%2520and%2520Meat%2520products%29.pdf
  87. https://www.maff.go.jp/aqs/hou/pdf/th_ex_beef_req.pdf
  88. https://www.maff.go.jp/aqs/hou/pdf/nz_ex_beef_req.pdf
  89. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/pl/?lnk=1&url=https%25253A%25252F%25252Fworkspace.fao.org%25252Fsites%25252Fcodex%25252FStandards%25252FCXC%252B58-2005%25252FCXC_058e.pdf
  90. https://www.fao.org/3/y5454e/y5454e.pdf
  91. https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/the-rise-to-fame-of-pink-slime/
  92. https://ir.redrobin.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/394/concerns-about-pink-slime-in-beef-impact-americans
  93. https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0402/Pink-slime-bankruptcy-After-the-backlash-what-s-next-for-beef
  94. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/06/17/322911060/pink-slime-is-making-a-comeback-do-you-have-a-beef-with-that
  95. https://thecounter.org/bpi-pink-slime-ground-beef-usda-reclassifed/
  96. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265855641_Does_media_influence_consumer_demand_The_case_of_lean_finely_textured_beef_in_the_United_States
  97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850722082978
  98. https://earthwormexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/an-evidence-based-review-msm-vs-dms.pdf
  99. https://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2764&context=veterinary
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174011002099
  101. https://www.openpr.com/news/3589174/mechanically-separated-poultry-market-is-projected-to
  102. https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/mechanically-separated-poultry-market.asp
  103. https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/mechanically-separated-meat-169313
  104. https://www.qualityfoodmachine.com/info/meat-deboning-machine-72001330.html
  105. https://datahorizzonresearch.com/mechanically-separated-meat-market-54615
  106. https://meatingplace.com/mechanically-separated-poultry-msp-is-sustainable-meat/
  107. https://www.meatjournal.ru/jour/article/download/265/315
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174021001844
  109. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/h1north-america-mechanically-separated-meat-market-size-xhtbe/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.