Search results

The purpose of this paper was to determine the nutritional quality of the surimi and kamaboko obtained from mechanically separated chicken meat and evaluate the bioavailability of essential amino acids found in these products.

The mechanically separated chicken meat (MSCM) was characterized by the proximate composition, and the surimi and kamaboko were characterized by in vitro digestibility, determination of chemical score of amino acids and apparent bioavailability.

The MSCM contains 68.1 ± 0.5, 12.9 ± 0.24, 18.5 ± 0.28 and 0.6 ± 0.06 per cent moisture, protein, lipids and ash, respectively. The moisture of the MSCM (surimi) was 80.45 ± 0.15 per cent, and the protein was 10.04 ± 0.21 per cent. The highest digestibility was found for the kamaboko (92.27 per cent) which was heat-treated and the lowest was for surimi (90.82 per cent). Histidine is a limiting amino acid. In this study, the surimi showed 84.69 per cent and the kamaboko presented 81.31 per cent of the minimum requirement for adults. In relation to the apparent bioavailability, there was a decrease of surimi to kamaboko of 2.52 per cent of the limiting amino acid histidine. The surimi and the kamaboko presented 76.94 and 75 per cent of the minimum requirement for adults, respectively.

The application of the surimi technology in the production of a surimi-like material from mechanically deboned chicken meat provides a new approach toward increasing its value and utilization, e.g. for the development of meat-based products and analogs, as alternative protein sources, the surimi and the kamaboko exhibited a high content of essential amino acids, indicating that the protein has a relatively high nutritional quality.

The lengthy review of the Food Standards Committee of this, agreed by all public analysts and enforcement officers, as the most complicated and difficult of food groups subject to detailed legislative control, is at last complete and the Committee's findings set out in their Report. When in 1975 they were requested to investigate the workings of the legislation, the problems of control were already apparent and getting worse. The triology of Regulations of 1967 seemed comprehensive at the time, perhaps as we ventured to suggest a little too comprehensive for a rational system of control for arguments on meat contents of different products, descriptions and interpretation generally quickly appeared. The system, for all its detail, provided too many loopholes through which manufacturers drove the proverbial “carriage and pair”. As meat products have increased in range and the constantly rising price of meat, the “major ingredient”, the number of samples taken for analysis has risen and now usually constitutes about one‐quarter of the total for the year, with sausages, prepared meats (pies, pasties), and most recently, minced meat predominating. Just as serial sampling and analysis of sausages before the 1967 Regulations were pleaded in courts to establish usage in the matter of meat content, so with minced meat the same methods are being used to establish a maximum fat content usage. What concerns food law enforcement agencies is that despite the years that the standards imposed by the 1967 Regulations have been in force, the number of infringements show no sign of reduction. This should not really surprise us; there are even longer periods of failures to comply; eg., in the use of preservatives which have been controlled since 1925! What a number of public analysts have christened the “beefburger saga” took its rise post‐1967 and shows every indication of continuing into the distant future. Manufacturers appear to be trying numerous ploys to reduce the content below the Regulation 80% mainly by giving their products new names. Each year, public analysts report a flux of new names and ingenious defences; eg, “caterburgers” and similar concocted nomenclature, and the defence that because the name does not incorporate a meat, it is outside the statutory standard.

This Food Standards Committee Report has been with us long enough to have received careful appraisal at the hand of the most interested parties — food law enforcement agencies and the meat trade. The purposes of the review was to consider the need for specific controls over the composition and descriptive labelling of minced meat products, but the main factor was the fat content, particularly the maximum suggested by the Associaton of Public Analysts, viz., a one‐quarter (25%) of the total product. For some years now, the courts have been asked to accept 25% fat as the maximum, based on a series of national surveys; above that level, the product was to be considered as not of the substance or quality demanded by the purchaser; a contention which has been upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Food Hygiene (General) Regulations, 1970, when they first appeared, seem to have attracted more notice in the daily press than in the specialist journals, although, while re‐enacting much that was in the 1960 regulations, which they repeal, the new measures break new and important ground, as well as introducing a number of amending provisions, which experience has shown were needed. We tend to associate hygiene needs of food and drink with the thronging streets of the city and town, the hidden backrooms of restaurants, the bustling market and the mobile food van, which, in this motorized age, has ousted the bawling backstreet hucksterer.

The long controversy that has waxed furiously around the implementation of the EEC Directives on the inspection of poultry meat and hygiene standards to be observed in poultry slaughterhouses, cutting‐up premises, &c, appears to be resolved at last. (The Prayer lodged against the Regulations when they were formally laid before Parliament just before the summer recess, which meant they would have to be debated when the House reassembled, could have resulted in some delay to the early operative dates, but little chance of the main proposals being changed.) The controversy began as soon as the EEC draft directive was published and has continued from the Directive of 1971 with 1975 amendments. There has been long and painstaking study of problems by the Ministry with all interested parties; enforcement was not the least of these. The expansion and growth of the poultry meat industry in the past decade has been tremendous and the constitution of what is virtually a new service, within the framework of general food inspection, was inevitable. None will question the need for efficient inspection or improved and higher standards of hygiene, but the extent of the organization in the first and the enormous cost of structural and other alterations to premises in the second, were seen as formidable tasks, and costly. The execution and enforcement of the new Regulations is assigned to local authorities (District, Metropolitan and London Borough Councils), who are empowered to make charges for inspection, licences, etc., to recoup the full costs of administration. The Government had previously promised that the cost of this new service, which when fully operative, will be significant, would not fall upon the already over‐burdened economies of local authorities. The figure of a penny per bird is given; in those areas with very large poultry processing plants, with annual outputs counted in millions of birds, this levy should adequately cover costs of enforcing the Regulations, but there are many areas with only one of a few small concerns with annual killings of perhaps no more than 200,000 birds—this much we know from perusing annual health reports received at the offices of this Journal—and the returns from charges will certainly be inadequate to cover the cost of extra staff. The Regulations require the appointment of “official veterinary surgeons” and “poultry meat inspectors”, both new to local government.

From earliest times the land and all it produced to feed and sustain those who dwelt on it was mankind's greatest asset. From the Biblical “land of milk and honey”, down through history to the “country of farmers” visualised by the American colonists when they severed the links with the mother country, those who had all their needs met by the land were blessed — they still are! The inevitable change brought about by the fast‐growing populations caused them to turn to industry; Britain introduced the “machine age” to the world; the USA the concept of mass production — and the troubles and problems of man increased to the present chaos of to‐day. There remained areas which depended on an agri‐economy — the granary countries, as the vast open spaces of pre‐War Russia; now the great plains of North America, to supply grain for the bread of the peoples of the dense industrial conurbations, which no longer produced anything like enough to feed themselves.

The case, briefly reported in the last issue of BFJ, an appeal to a Milk and Dairies Tribunal arising out of a local authority's refusal to grant a licence to a milk distributor because he failed to comply with a requirement that he should provide protective curtains to his milk floats, was a rare and in many ways, an interesting event. The Tribunal in this case was set up under reg. 16(2) (f), Milk (Special Designation) Regulations, 1963, constituted in accordance with Part I, clause 2 (2), Schedule 4 of the Regulations. Part II outlines procedure for such tribunals. The Tribunal is similar to that authorized by S.30, Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which deals with the registration of dairymen, dairy farms and farmers, and the Milk and Dairies (General) Regulations, 1959. Part II, Schedule 2 of the Act provided for reference to a tribunal of appeals against refusal or cancellation of registration by the Ministry, but of producers only. A local authority's power to refuse to register or cancellation contained in Part I, Schedule 2 provided for no such reference and related to instances where “public health is or is likely to be endangered by any act or default” of such a person, who was given the right of appeal against refusal to register, etc., to a magistrates' court. No such limitation exists in respect of the revoking, suspending, refusal to renew a licence under the Milk (Special Designation) Regulations, 1963; an appeal against same lies to the Minister, who must refer the matter to a tribunal, if the person so requests. This occurred in the case under discussion.

At the commencement of this decade, leaving behind the “striking seventies”, we christened it the “anxious eighties”, for there was a profound disquiet and uncertainty among most of the population, a fear that things were going to get worse, but they could have hardly expected the catastrophic events of the year 1981. The criteria of quality of life are its richness, grace, elegance; by the promise it contains; inspiration and purpose, hope, determination (to survive, to make certain that the evildoer is not permitted to succeed), love of one's country — pro patria, of other days.

At the Royal Society of Health annual conference, no less a person than the editor of the B.M.A.'s “Family Doctor” publications, speaking of the failure of the anti‐smoking campaign, said we “had to accept that health education did not work”; viewing the difficulties in food hygiene, there are many enthusiasts in public health who must be thinking the same thing. Dr Trevor Weston said people read and believed what the health educationists propounded, but this did not make them change their behaviour. In the early days of its conception, too much was undoubtedly expected from health education. It was one of those plans and schemes, part of the bright, new world which emerged in the heady period which followed the carnage of the Great War; perhaps one form of expressing relief that at long last it was all over. It was a time for rebuilding—housing, nutritional and living standards; as the politicians of the day were saying, you cannot build democracy—hadn't the world just been made “safe for democracy?”—on an empty belly and life in a hovel. People knew little or nothing about health or how to safeguard it; health education seemed right and proper at this time. There were few such conceptions in France which had suffered appalling losses; the poilu who had survived wanted only to return to his fields and womenfolk, satisfied that Marianne would take revenge and exact massive retribution from the Boche!

Language may be a treasured heritage of small comunities, all that is left to bind them together. It is often a matter of national or regional pride, keeping alive a tongue dead centuries past everywhere else; in an area of the Grisons forty thousand Swiss speak the Latin Romansch, the tongue spoken by the citizens of ancient Rome, and nowhere else in the world is it heard. There are so‐called official languages; in the councils of Europe, it has always been French, which is the official language of the European Economic Community; this means, of course, that all EEC Directives and in due course, judgments of its courts, will be first delivered in French.