At 09:07 AM 1/26/01 -0500, David wrote:
>I am not commercially involved in tuna.
>But I am involved with smokers of salmon.
>I've heard about this "Carbon monoxide tuna", and I've seen it in
>supermarkets, and some buyers have told me they're afraid of it, and
>others find it OK, since no one has told them that there's anything wrong,
>and, most importantly, it sells.
>What's the deal?
>Should it, or should it not, be allowed for commercial sale in the US?
>If there's a problem or risk associated with the process, don't the
>seafood techies have an obligation to advise the industry and/or the
>public about their concern(s)?
The problems with the use of CO to artificially color tuna to make it
appear like a more expensive fish are twofold:
1. It's the economic "adulteration" issue of artificial coloring. At a
minimum, the CO is an additive which is added to change the color and
appearance, so should be listed on the package as "artificially colored"
and in the list of ingredients. Otherwise the food is misbranded.
2. The reasons against CO in fish, which spoils rapidly, is the same reason
that CO is not allowed in ground beef, which would benefit as much or more
from the treatment. The maintenance of a "fresh" color well after normal
loss of color would occur deludes the consumer into keeping the food beyond
its normal shelf-life, reducing the safety of the food.
================================================================
Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS e-mail: ral@lcfltd.com
Least Cost Formulations, Ltd. URL: http://lcfltd.com/
824 Timberlake Drive Tel: 757-467-0954
Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3239 Fax: 757-467-2947
"Vere scire est per causas scire"
================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 26 2001 - 11:49:33 PST