British Food Journal Volume 46 Issue 10 1944

Abstract

1. The Committee was informed that the manufacture of shredded suet from imported premier jus is subject to control by licence and that it is a condition of the licences that the product shall contain not less than 83 per cent. of fat. This figure was adopted in 1931 by the Council of the Society of Public Analysts and Other Analytical Chemists pending the establishment of a legal standard. 2. In the manufacture of shredded suet premier jus the fat is forced into shreds or granules and a cereal or amylaceous filler is added so as to form a coating over the particles of fat, thus preventing them from adhering together and at the same time retarding the development of rancidity. 3. The amount of filler taken up by the shredded fat depends primarily on its stickiness, which in turn depends on the temperature at which the manufacturing process is conducted. Manufacturers must give special attention to the problem of securing uniformity of distribution, otherwise part of a batch will take up more than its share of the amount of filler allowed by the manufacturing formula. In spite of all practicable care, complete uniformity cannot be ensured and some tolerance is therefore necessary to allow for unavoidable variations. 4. The proportion of filler used in the past by different manufacturers has varied considerably. A purchaser of shredded suet is primarily purchasing fat and it is desirable that the fat content shall be the maximum that can be included whilst still retaining good keeping properties. The Committee is of the opinion that shredded suet, to be of satisfactory quality, should not contain substantially less than 85 percent. of fat, and that a product approximating to this standard will have the necessary keeping properties. The Committee is satisfied that the allowance of 2 per cent. for uneven distribution on and among the shreds, which was adopted by the Council of the Society of Public Analysts in 1931, is reasonable, and understands that it is considered adequate by the manufacturers of shredded suet. 5. A small amount of suet (i.e., natural unrendered fat), received by butchers as part of their meat allocation, is chopped or minced, and in the latter case mixed with cereal filler and sold under the description “shredded suet.” By whichever method it is prepared it differs from the shredded suet made from premier jus by reason of the presence of membrane and moisture. If made by chopping it will contain more fat than the product made from premier jus, but if made by mincing and admixture with a filler it is likely to contain less owing to the membrane and moisture in the raw material and the impracticability of analytical control. 6. It was suggested to the Committee that the use of the description shredded suet for the products made by butchers was misleading and that the name should be restricted to the product made from premier jus. The Committee is, however, of the opinion that the general public would be equally satisfied whether the product supplied in response to a demand for shredded suet had been prepared with premier jus or suet. Further, it is considered that a purchaser of shredded suet is not prejudiced if he receives a product containing membrane and moisture provided he also receives the appropriate amount of fat. It therefore does not appear to the Committee that there is any necessity, from the viewpoint of protecting the public in regard to quality, for recommending the imposition of this restriction. 7. The Committee noted that the statement issued by the Council of the Society of Public Analysts included an expression of opinion that “the nature of any admixture to suet should be declared.” This recommendation is, however, outside the terms of reference of the Committee and no comment is therefore made thereon. 8. The Committee accordingly recommends that shredded suet should be required to contain not less than 83 per cent. of fat.

Citation

(1944), "British Food Journal Volume 46 Issue 10 1944", British Food Journal, Vol. 46 No. 10, pp. 91-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb011393