1.Handbook of Meat,Poultry and SeafoodQuality

2. Handbook of Meat,Poultry and SeafoodQualityEditorLeo M. L. NolletAssociate EditorsTerri BoylstonFeng ChenPatti C. CogginsMaria Beatriz GloriaGrethe HyldigChris R. KerthLisa H. McKeeY. H. HuiBlackwellPublishing 3. Editor, Leo M. L. Nollett, PhD, is Professor ofBiotechnology at Hogeschool Gent, Ghent, Belgium.He is the author and coauthor of numerous articles,abstracts, and presentations, and books. His researchinterests include food analysis techniques, HPLC, andenvironmental analysis techniques. Dr. Nollet hadedited and/or authored six books on analyticalmethodologies for food, drinking water, and environ-mental chemicals.Associate Editors include: Terri Boylston, PhD, IowaState University; Feng Chen, PhD, ClemsonUniversity; Patti C. Coggins, PhD, Mississippi StateUniversity; Maria Beatriz Gloria, PhD, UniversidadeFederal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil;Grethe Hyldig, PhD, Denmark Ministry of Food,Agriculture & Fisheries, Lyngby, Denmark; Chris R.Kerth, PhD,Auburn University; Lisa H. McKee, PhD,New Mexico State University; and Y. H. Hui, PhD,Food Industry Consultant,West Sacramento, CA.02007 Blackwell PublishingAll rights reservedBlackwell Publishing Professional2121 StateAvenue,Ames, Iowa 50014, USAOrders: 1-800-862-6657Office: 1-515-292-0140Web site: www.blackwellprofessional.comBlackwell Publishing Ltd9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKTel.: +44 (0)1865 776868Blackwell PublishingAsia550 Swanston Street, Carlton,Victoria 3053,AustraliaTel.: +61 (0)3 8359 1011Authorization to photocopy items for internal or per-Fax: 1-515-292-3348sonal use, or the internal or personal use of specificclients, is granted by Blackwell Publishing, providedthat the base fee is paid directly to the CopyrightClearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers,MA 01923. For those organizations that have beengranted a photocopy license by CCC, a separate sys-tem of payments has been arranged. The fee codes forusers of the Transactional Reporting Service areISBN-13: 978-0-8138-2446-8/2007.First edition, 2007Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataHandbook of meat, poultry and seafood quality / LeoM. L. Nollet, editor ;associate editors, Terri Boylston. . . [et al.].p. cm.Includes index.ISBN-13: 978-0-8138-2446-8 (alk. paper)ISBN-10: 0-8138-2446-X (alk. paper)1.Meat-Quality-Handbooks, manuals, etc.2. Poultry-Quality-Handbooks, manuals, etc.3. Seafood-Quality-Handbooks, manuals, etc.I. Nollet, Leo M. L., 1948- 11. Boylston, Terri.TX556.M4H36 2007363.1929-dc222006022988The last digit is the print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1iv 4. ContentsList of Contributors, ixPreface, xvPart I. General Food Quality Factors1. Factors Affecting Food Quality: A Primer 32.YH. HuiHazard Analysis and Critical Control Pointsand Muscle Food Safety in the United StatesYH. Hui7Part 11. Sensory Attributes of Muscle Foods3.4.5.6.7.8.History, Background, and Objectives of Sensory Evaluationin Muscle Foods 15M. W SchillingChemical and Biochemical Aspects of Color in Muscle FoodsJ. A.Pkrez-Alvarezand J. Fernhndez-LbpezSensory: Human Biology and PhysiologyM.A.Da Silva and F CendesSensory Methodology of Muscle FoodsI? C. CogginsObjective Methods of Sensory AnalysisJ. L. MontgomeryAttributes of Muscle Foods: Color, Texture, FlavorI? C. Coggins2545617189Part 111. Flavors9. Sensory Characterization 101K. Bett-Garber10. Chemical Characterization 111N. C. Da Costa and S. Eri11. Chemistry, Technology, and Safety of Synthetic FlavorsR. K. Singh and E. Singh12. Process Flavors 151H. H. Baek13. Savory Flavors 163C. Cerny127V 5. Contentsvi14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.Natural Flavors 183H. KumagaiWood Smoke Flavor 201K. R. CadwalladerBlended Flavors 211S.X Ma, Z. B.Xiao, andl? ChenOff Flavors and Rancidity in FoodsR. B. Pegg andl? ShahidiLand Animal Products 2297: BoylstonMarine Animal and Plant ProductsN. Narain and M. L. NunesMaillard Reaction in Flavor Generation 259M. J? Romero and C. HoTraditional Laboratory Methods 275E. MehinagicRecent Developments in Flavor MeasurementsJ-L. Le Qu6r6217243293Part IV. Beef Quality23. Sensory Evaluation of Beef Flavor 31124. Beef Quality and Tainting 32725. Microbiological and Sensory Properties of Beef 33326. Quality Measurements in Beef 34127. Shelf Life of Meats 35728.R. K. MillerJ. M. MartinJ. ThomasR. S. ChamulR. S. ChamulPackaging and Freezing of Beef as Related to SensoryProperties 369R. WRogersPart V. Pork Quality29. Fresh and Frozen Pork Color 37730.D. H. KropfMicrobiological and Sensory Properties of Fresh and Frozen PorkProducts 395L. McKee31. PorkTaint 405WB. Mike132. Shelf Life of Fresh and Frozen Pork 417M.A. CarrPart VI. Poultry Quality33. General Attributes of Fresh and Frozen Poultry Meat 42934. Poultry Meat Flavor 439L. McKeeI? L. Dawson and N. Spineli 6. Contents vii35. Color of Fresh and Frozen Poultry 45536. Shelf Life of Fresh and Frozen Poultry 46737. Packaging of Fresh and Frozen Poultry 47538.A. Totosaus,M. L. Pkrez-Chabela, and I. GuerreroM. L. Pkrez-ChabelaA. Totosausand J? KuriMicrobiological and Sensory Properties of Freshand Frozen Poultry 487L. McKeePart VII. Seafood Quality39.40.41.42.43.44.Fish and SensoryAnalysis in the Fish ChainG. Hyldig, E. Larsen, and D. Green-PetersenSensory Profiling of Fish, Fish Product, and ShellfishG. HyldigQuality Index Methods 529G. Hyldig,A.Bremnec E. Martinsddttic and R. SchelvisTexture of Fish, Fish Products, and ShellfishG. Hyldig and D. NielsenPerception of Sensory Quality of Wild and Farmed Fish by Experts,Consumers, and Chefs or Cooks in the Restaurant SectorG. B. Olsson, M. Carlehog, M. Heide, andJ. LutenQuality of Frozen Fish 577J. Nielsen and F Jessen499511549563Appendix. Standards for Meat, Poultry and Seafoodin the United States 589YH. HuiIndex, 695 7. List of ContributorsJosCAngel PCrez-Alvarez(4)Universidad Miguel HernandezEscuela PolitCcnica Superior de OrihuelaDepartamento de TecnologiaAgroalimentariaCamino a Beniel s/n. (03313)Desamparados,Orihuela (Alicante) EspaiiaEmail:ja.perez@umh.esHyung Hee Baek (12)Associate ProfessorDepartment of Food EngineeringDankook UniversitySan 29Anseo-dong, Cheonan 330-714, KoreaEmail: baek@dankook.ac.krKaren L. Bett-Garber (9)Research Food TechnologistSouthern Regional Research CenterAgricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture1100 Robert E. Lee BoulevardNew Orleans, LA 70124 USAPhone: 504-286-4459Fax: 504-286-4419Email: kbett@srrc.ars.usda.govTerri Boylston (Associate Editor, 18)Associate ProfessorDepartment of Food Science and Human NutritionIowa State University2547 Food Sciences BuildingAmes, IA 50011USAPhone: 515-294-0077Fax: 515-294-8181Email: tboylsto@iastate.eduAllan Bremner (41)ProfessorAllan Bremner and Associates21Carrock CountMount CoolumQueensland 4573,AustraliaE-mail: bremquall @optusnet.com.auKeith R. Cadwallader (15)Department of Food Science and Human NutritionUniversity of Illinois1302W. PennsylvaniaAve.Urbana, IL 61801 USAPhone: 217-333-5803Fax: 217-333-1875Email: cadwlldr@uiuc.eduMats Carlehog (43)Head of Sensory LaboratoryEngineerNorwegian Institute of Fisheries and AquacultureResearchMuninbakken 9-13, Breivika, Box 6122, NO-9291Tromsn, NorwayPhone: 4777629043Fax: 4777629100E-mail: mats.carlehog@fiskeriforskning.noMandy A. Carr (32)Assistant ProfessorAngelo StateUniversityASU Station #lo888SanAngelo, Texas 76909 USAPhone: 325-942-2027Fax: 325-942-2183Email: mandy.carr@angelo.eduix 8. XFernando Cendes (5)Department of NeurologyCampinas State University (UNICAMP)Cidade UniversitiriaCampinas, SP, Brazil 13083-970Email: fcendes@unicamp.brChristoph Cerny (13)Firmenich SARue de la Bergbre 7P.O. Box 148CH-1217Meyrin 2Geneva, SwitzerlandPhone: 41227802705Fax: 41227802734Email: christoph.cerny@fimenich.comRoberto S. Chamul(26,27)California State University5151 State University Dr.Los Angeles, CA 90032 USAEmail: rchamul@exchange.calstatela.eduFeng Chen (Associate Editor, 16)Assistant ProfessorContributorsDepartment of Food Science and Human NutritionClemson UniversityClemson, South Carolina 29634 USAPhone: 864-656-5702Fax: 864-656-0331Email: fchen@clemson.eduPatti C. Coggins (Associate Editor, 6, 8)Assistant Research ProfessorDepartment of Food Science and TechnologyDirector, Garrison Sensory Evaluation LaboratoryMississippi State UniversityMail Stop 9805Stone Boulevard, Herzer BuildingMississippi State, MS 39762 USAPhone: 662-325-4002Fax: 662-325-8728Email: pcoggins@ra.msstate.eduNeil Da Costa (10)International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.1515 State Highway 36Union Beach, NJ 07735 USAPhone: 732-335-2110Fax: 732-335-2350Email: neil.dacosta@iff.comMaria Aparecida A.P. Da Silva (5)Food and Nutrition DepartmentCampinas State University (UNICAMP)P.O. Box 6121Campinas, SP, Brazil 13083-862Phone: 551937884074Fax: 551937884060Email: mariasi@fea.unicamp.brPaul L. Dawson (34)Professor of Food Science and Human NutritionFood Science and Human Nutrition DepartmentClemson UniversityClemson, SC 29634-0316USAPhone: 864-656-1138Fax: 864-656-0331Email: pdawson@clemson.eduSanja Eri (10)Mastertaste546 US Route 46Teterboro,NJ 07608 USAPhone: 201-641-8200Maria Beatriz Abreu G16ria (Associate Editor)Departamento de AlimentosLaboratbrio 2091 Bloco 3Faculdade de FarmiciaUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisAv.Antonio Carlos 6627Belo Horizonte, MG, 31270-901Phone: 031-3499-6911Fax: 031-3499-6989Email: beatriz@farmacia.ufmg.brDitte Green-Petersen (39)Research AssistantDanish Institute for Fisheries ResearchDepartment of Seafood ResearchTechnicalUniversity of DenmarkSdtofts Plads, Building 221DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, DenmarkPhone: 4545254905Fax: 4545884774Email: Dgr@difres.dkIsabel Guerrero (35)Departamento de BiotecnologiaUniversidad Autonoma Metropolitana - IztapalapaApartado Postal 55-535, C.P. 09340, Mexico D.F.,Mexico 9. Contributors xiPhone: 5257244717 or 5257244726Fax: 5257244712Email: meat@xanum.uam.mxMorten Heide (43)ScientistNorwegian Institute of Fisheries and AquacultureResearchMuninbakken 9-13, Breivika, Box 6122, NO-9291Tromsn, NorwayPhone: 4777629097Fax: 4777629100Email: morten.heide@fiskeriforskning.noChi-Tang Ho (20)Department of Food Science, Cook CollegeRutgers, The State University of New Jersey65 Dudley RoadNew Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520USAPhone: 7329329611Fax: 7329326776Email: ho@aesop.rutgers.eduY. H. Hui (Associate Editor, 1, 2, Appendix)Senior ScientistScience Technology SystemP.O. Box 1374West Sacramento, CA 95691USAPhone: 916-372-2655Fax: 916-372-2690Email:YHHUI@AOL.COMGrethe Hyldig (Associate Editor, 39, 40,41,42)Senior Research ScientistDanish Institute for Fisheries ResearchDepartment of Seafood ResearchTechnical University of DenmarkSdtofts Plads, Building 221DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, DenmarkPhone: 4545252545Fax: 4545884774Email: ghy@difres.dkFlemming Jessen (44)Senior Research ScientistDanish Institute for Fisheries ResearchDepartment of Seafood ResearchTechnical University of DenmarkSdtofts Plads, Building 221DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, DenmarkPhone: 4545252549Fax: 4545884774Email: flj@difres.dkChris R. Kerth (Associate Editor)Auburn UniversityAnimal Sciences Department209 Upchurch HallAuburn,AL 36849 USAPhone: 334-844-1503Fax: 334-844-1519Email: ckeerth@acesag.auburn.eduDonald H. Kropf (29)Kansas StateUniversityProfessor,Animal Sciences & Industry247 Weber Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506Phone: 785-532-1235Fax: 785-532-7059Email: dkropf@ksu.eduHitomi Kumagai (14)Associate ProfessorDepartment ofAgricultural and BiologicalChemistryCollege of Bioresource SciencesNihon University1866 KameinoFujisawa-shi 252-8510,JapanPhone: 81 466 84 3946Fax: 81 466 84 3946Email: kumagai@brs.nihon-u.ac.jpV. Kuri (37)Food and Nutrition, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth,Devon PL4 8AA, United KingdomPhone: 4401752232900Phone (direct): 4401752238315Fax: 441752232970Email: v.kuri@plymouth.ac.ukErling Larsen (39)ChiefAdvisory ScientistDanish Institute for Fisheries ResearchDepartment of Seafood ResearchTechnical University of DenmarkSdtofts Plads, Building 221DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, DenmarkPhone: 4545252546Fax: 4545884774Email: epl@difres.dk 10. xii ContributorsJean-Luc Le QuCrC (22)Institut National de la RechercheAgronomique(INRA) Phone: 3545308600Unit6 Mixte de Recherche sur lesAr6mes (UMRA)Icelandic Fisheries LaboratoriesSkulagata 4 IS-101 ReykjavikFax: 354530860117,rue SullyF-21065 Dijon, FranceEmail: lequere@dijon.inra.frJuana Fernindez-Lbpez (4)Universidad Miguel HernandezEscuela PolitCcnica Superior de OrihuelaDepartamento de TecnologiaAgroalimentariaCamino a Beniel s/n. (03313)Desamparados,Orihuela (Alicante) EspaiiaPhone: 3466749656Fax: 3466749609 or 3466749619Email:j .fernandez@umh.es orjuana.fernandezaaccesosis.esJoop Luten (43)EU Business DeveloperNorwegian Institute of Fisheries and AquacultureResearchMuninbakken 9-13Breivika, Box 6122, NO-9291Tromsn, NorwayPhone: 4777629078Fax: 4777629100Email:joop.luten@fiskeriforskning.noSheng X. Ma (16)International Flavors & Fragrances (China) Ltd.Shanghai, ChinaManager of Flavor Technology (Greater China)Phone: 862162898802Fax: 862162485730Email: steve.ma@iff.comJames M. Martin (24)Assistant Professor, Department of Animal andDairy Sciences and Food Science,Nutrition andHealth PromotionMississippi State UniversityBox 9815Mississippi State, MS 39762 USAPhone: 662-325-2959Fax: 662-325-8873Email:jmartin@ads.msstate.eduEmilia Martinsdbttir (41)Head of DepartmentR&D DivisiodConsumer and Food SafetyEmail: emilia@rf.isLisa McKee (Associate Editor, 30, 33, 38)Professor, Human Nutrition and Food ScienceDepartment of Family and Consumer SciencesNew Mexico State UniversityP.O. Box 3003, MSC 3470Las Cruces, NM 88003 USAPhone: 505-646-1182Fax: 505-646-1889Email: lmckee@nmsu.eduEmira Mehinagic (21)Laboratory GRAPPE, ESAAngers & Laboratory of Biochemistry,ENITIAANantes, FrancePhone: 33 2 41 23 55 55Email: emehinagic@lyc0s.comWilliam Benjy Mike1 (31)Professor and HeadFood Science,Nutrition, and Health PromotionDirector, Food Science InstituteMississippi State UniversityP.O. Box 9805Mississippi State, MS 39762 USAPhone: 662-325-5508Fax: 662-325-8728Email: wmikel@fsnhp.msstate.eduRhonda K. Miller (23)ProfessorMeat Science SectionDepartment ofAnimal ScienceTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX 77843-2471 USAPhone: 979-845-3901Fax: 979-862-3475Email: rmiller@tamu.eduJayden L. Montgomery (7)Intervet, Inc.P.O. Box 1883Millsboro, DE 19966USAPhone: 302-933-4032Fax: 302-934-4209Email:jayden.montgomery@intervet.com 11. Contributors...XlllNarendra Narain (19)Departamento de Engenharia QuimicaCentro de CiCnciasExatas e TecnologiaUniversidade Federal do Sergipe, CidadeUniversitiria, Jardim Rosa Elze49100-000, SZo CristbvZo, SE, BrazilEmail: narain@funape.ufpb.br ornarendra,narain@gmail.comDurita Nielsen (42)Research ScientistNorth Carolina State UniversityCenter for Marine Sciences and TechnologySeafood Laboratory303 College CircleMorehead City, NC 28557 USAPhone: 12522226301Fax: 12522226334Email: dnielse@ncsu.eduJette Nielsen (44)Research CoordinatorDanish Institute for Fisheries ResearchDepartment of Seafood ResearchTechnical University of DenmarkSdtofts Plads, Building 221DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, DenmarkPhone: 4545252550Fax: 4545884774Email:jn@difres.dkLeo M. L. Nollet (Editor)Hogeschool GentDepartment of Engineering SciencesSchoonmeersstraat 52B9000 Gent, BelgiumPhone: 003292424242Fax: 003292438777Email: leo.nollet@hogent.beMaria L6cia Nunes (19)FundaqZoNficleo de Tecnologia Industrial do CeariRua Prof. R8mulo Proenqa, S/NPARTEC, NUTEC, Campus do PIC160451970, Fortaleza, CE, BrazilEmail:mlnunes@accvia.com.brGunn Berit Olsson (43)Senior ScientistNorwegian Institute of Fisheries andAquacultureResearchMuninbakken 9-13, BreivikaBox 6122, NO-9291Tromsn, NorwayPhone: 4777629071Fax: 4777629100Email: gunn-berit.olsson@fiskeriforskning.noRonald B. Pegg (17)Department of Food Science and TechnologyThe University of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7610 USAPhone: 706-542-1099Fax: 706-542-1050Email: rpegg@uga.eduMaria de Lourdes PCrez-Chabela (35, 36)Biotechnology DepartmentUniversidad Autonoma Metropolitana IztapalapaAv San Rafael Atlixo #186Col. Vicentina, Distrito FederalMexico City 09270, MCxicoPhone: (55) 58 04 47 17,58 04 47 26Fax: (55) 58 04 47 12Email: lpch@xanum.uam.mxRobert W. Rogers (28)Director, Food Science InstituteMississippi State UniversityBox 9804Mississippi State, MS 39762 USAPhone: 662-325-2802Fax: 662-325-8873Email: RROGERS@ADS.MSSTATE.EDUMarissa Villafuerte Romero (20)Department of Food Science, Cook CollegeRutgers, The State University of New Jersey65 Dudley RoadNew Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520 USARian Schelvis (41)Netherlands Institute for Fisheries ResearchP.O. Box 68NL-1970 AB IJmuiden, The NetherlandsPhone: 310255564604Fax: 310255564644Email: Rian.Schelvis@WUR.nlM. W. Schilling (3)Mississippi State UniversityBox 9805Food Science and Technology DepartmentMississippi State, MS 39762 USAEmail: schilling@foodscience.msstate.edu 12. xiv ContributorsFereidoon Shahidi (17)Department of BiochemistryMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. Johns, NLAlB 3x9Phone: 7097378552Fax: 7097374000Email: fshahidi@mun.caEpal Singh (11)Department of Food Science & TechnologyThe University of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602 USAPhone: 7065422286Fax: 7065421050Rakesh K. Singh (11)Department of Food Science & TechnologyThe University of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602 USAPhone: 7065422286Fax: 7065421050Email:nsinghauga.eduNick Spineli (34)Chief Executive ChefKraft Foods, Chicago, IL USAJack Thomas (25)Microbiology of Fresh and Frozen BeefDepartment ofAnimal and Range SciencesP.O. Box 30003, MSC 31New Mexico State UniversityLas Cruces, NM 88003-8003 USAPhone: 505-646-1943Fax: 505-646-5441Email:jthomas@nmsu.eduAlfonso Totosaus (35, 37)Food Science Lab, Tecnolbgico de EstudiosSuperiores de Ecatepec, Av. Tecnolbgico sln,Ecatepec 55210, Estado de MCxico,MCxicoPhone: +52 (55) 5710 4560Fax: +52 (55)Email: totosaus@att.net.mxZuo Bin Xiao (16)ProfessorDepartment of Food Technology and BiologicalScienceShanghai Institute ofApplied TechnologyShanghai, China 200233 13. PrefaceThe quality of a food is defined from two perspec-tives-scientific status and consumer preferences.Scientific factors affecting the quality of a foodinclude: composition, spoilage, colorants, additives,nutrients, flavorants, functional ingredients (affect-ing health), contamination, general safety, etc.Consumer preferences are linked directly to thehuman senses-sight, touch, smell, taste, andmouthfeel. Visual factors refer to color, moisture,overall appearance, etc. Tactile factors refer to slim-iness, elasticity, softness, hardness, etc. Factorsresponsible for taste and smell cover many specificchemicals. Mouthfeel refers to texture, softness, ten-derness, chewy sensation, and so on. In the last 10years or so, food quality has been defined by mostprofessionals to include health and safety. Thenutrition and safety of foods has always been impor-tant, especially since the seventies. The wordhealth now includes manipulating certain chemi-cal components in food to increase foods positiveimpact on our health. Safety now refers to a wholespectrum of new legal or recommended require-ments for both fresh and processed foods. Theserequirements are designed to exclude or preventundesirable agents (biological, chemical, physical,environmental, and extraneous) in our foods.For ease of reference, we can consider that thequality of a food is the composite picture of manyfactors. In the last five to ten years, many profes-sional reference books have become available thatexplore the relationship between such factors andfood quality. This book discusses the quality factorsof muscle foods (meat, poultry, and seafood). Eachprofessional reference treatise has its characteristicsand the users determine which one best suits theirpurpose. From that perspective, we will describe themajor features of our book.This book provides an initial discussion of basicscientific factors responsible for the quality of mus-cle foods, with a specific emphasis on sensory attrib-utes and flavors. The remaining sections discuss fac-tors affecting the quality of beef, pork, poultry, andseafood. Under each muscle food, some or all of thefollowing factors affecting the quality will be dis-cussed-additives, aroma, color, contaminants, fla-vors, microbiology, moisture, mouthfeel, nutrition,packaging, safety, sensory attributes, shelf-life, sta-bility,tainting, texture, and water-activity.Each mus-cle food discussedmay be fresh, frozen, or processed.This work is the result of the combined efforts ofmore than 60 professionals from industry, govern-ment, and academia worldwide. They representmore than 16 countries with diverse expertise andbackground in the quality of muscle foods. An inter-national editorial team of 9 members from fourcountries led these experts. Each contributor or edi-tor was responsible for researching and reviewingsubjects of immense depth, breadth, and complexity.Care and attention were paramount to ensure techni-cal accuracy for each topic. It is our sincere hopeand expectation that it will serve as an essential ref-erence on the quality of muscle foods for all profes-sionals in government, industry, and academia.The editorial team wishes to thank all the contrib-utors for sharing their expertise throughout ourjour-ney. We also thank the reviewers for giving theirvaluable comments on how to improve the contentsof each chapter. All these professionals are the oneswho made this book possible. We trust that you willbenefit from the fruits of their labor.xv 14. xvi PrefaceThis book is relevant to many professionals inindustry, government, and academia and will bemost appreciated by the following users:We know firsthand how hard it is to develop the con-tent of a book. However, we believe that the produc-tion of a professional book of this nature is evenAll libraries.Research units in government, industry, andacademia specializing in one or more foodquality factors (color, flavor, microbiology,packaging, sensory attributes, and so on).Academic institutions: food science, foodtechnology, food engineering, animal science,poultry science, cereal science, marine science,etc.Food industries of commodities covered.Individuals with expertise in any of the foodquality factors discussed in the book.more difficult.We thank the editorial and productionteam at Blackwell, Inc. for their time, effort, advice,and expertise. You are the best judge of the qualityof this book.L. M. L. NolletT. BoylstonF. ChenP. C. CogginsM. B. GloriaG. HyldigC. R. KerthL. McKeeY. H. Hui 15. Handbook of Meat,Poultry and SeafoodQuality 16. Part IGeneral Food Quality FactorsHandbook of Meat, Poultry and Seafood QualityEdited by Leo M. L. NolletCopyright 2007 by Blackwell Publishing 17. 1Factors Affecting Food Quality:A PrimerYH. HuiIntroductionBiology and GeneticsNutritionFlavors and AromaColorMicrobiology and SafetyProcessingSensory Attributes and the ConsumerGovernment Standards and SpecificationsSummaryINTRODUCTIONThe quality of a food is defined from two perspec-tives: scientific status and consumer preferences.Scientific factors affecting the quality of a food in-clude composition, spoilage, colorants, additives,nutrients, flavorants, functional ingredients (affect-ing health), contamination, general safety, etc.Consumer preferences are linked directly to the hu-man senses such as sight, touch, smell, taste, andmouthfeel. Visual factors include color, moisture,overall appearance, etc. Tactile factors include slim-iness, elasticity, softness, hardness, etc. Factors re-sponsible for taste and smell cover many specificchemicals. Mouthfeel refers to texture, softness, ten-derness, chewy sensation, and so on. In the last 10years or so, food quality has been defined by mostprofessionals to include healthand safety. Thenutrition and safety of foods have always been im-portant, especially so since the 1970s. The wordhealthnow includes manipulating certain chemi-cal components in food to increase the positive im-pact of food on our health. Safetynow refers to awhole spectrum of new legal or recommended re-quirements for both fresh and processed foods.These requirements are designed to exclude or pre-vent undesirable agents (biological, chemical, phys-ical, environmental, and extraneous) in our foods.For ease of reference, we can consider that the qual-ity of muscle foods (meat, poultry, and seafood) isthe composite picture of many factors, and thischapter provides a brief mention of some of them.BIOLOGY AND GENETICSObviously, the quality of any muscle food dependsfirst and foremost on the genetics and biology of theanimal. The beef from a young animal is more ten-der than that from an old animal. Due primarily tobiological reasons, muscle from some parts of beefcattle is tastier and more tender than those from an-other part. Chickens are more tender than turkey.White meat is biologically different from dark meat.Of course, the preference of a consumer varies withregard to the two different kinds of meat. Saltwaterfish is different from freshwater fish. Some fish havemore bones than others. Western consumers preferfish with fewer bones while most often the oppositeis true for Asians.NUTRITIONRecently, the nutrition of food has reached an all-time high as far as its impact on our health is con-cerned. There is no doubt the majority of Americans3Handbook of Meat, Poultry and Seafood QualityEdited by Leo M. L. NolletCopyright 2007 by Blackwell Publishing 18. 4 Part I: General Food Quality Factorsconsider a quality food as one with high nutritionalvalue. Some salient points follow:cleotides (purine derivatives), organic acids (lacticacid), and inorganic salts (Na, K, Cl).1.2.3.FIMeat and poultry are nutritious because of theirhigh source of protein, vitamins, and minerals.The high content of fat and cholesterol in landmuscle foods is undesirable. Thus, leanis in.Fish and shellfish are an important part of ahealthy diet. Fish and shellfish contain high-quality protein and other essential nutrients, arelow in saturated fat, and contain omega-3 fattyacids. A well-balanced diet that includes a vari-ety of fish and shellfish can contribute to hearthealth and childrens proper growth and devel-opment.>AVORSAND AROMAOne major reason, among many, that we like to eatis because food tastes good, which equates to flavorand aroma. Extensive research over the past 25 to 30years has identified more than 1,000 flavor com-pounds in meats. However, a single compound orgroup of compounds responsible for meaty flavorhas not and perhaps never will be identified due tothe overall complexity of meat flavor. Meat flavor isdependent on the pool of flavor precursors in themeat tissue and the chemical reactions that occurduring processing. Processing and subsequent stor-age contribute to the development of the characteris-tic flavors of meats. Because the precise flavor pre-cursors vary between and within species,beef, pork,lamb, and poultry each have distinctive flavor char-acteristics. The quality of meat and poultry is to alarge extent defined by its flavor and aroma.In general, fresh saltwater fish are almost odorlessbecause they contain a small quantity of volatileswhile freshwater fish give off pyrrolidine and otherearthy-odor compounds.The compounds responsible for the developmentof flavor during seafood cooking can be classified intwo groups. One, which represents the pleasant cu-cumbedgreen, almondnutty,and potato aroma notes,consists of highly volatile, low molecular weightcompounds belonging to various chemical classessuch as aldehydes, ketones, alcohols, esters, nitrogen,Biogenic amines are nitrogen-containing com-pounds, which are present at very low levels in freshfish. However, during storage and deterioration, bio-genic amines can be produced by amino acid decar-boxylation from bacterial enzymes. Among biogenicamines formed, putrescine and cadaverine have a pu-trid flavor while histamine and phenylethylaminehave a pungent and fishy flavor, respectively. Bio-genic amines are thermally stable and, therefore, havebeen used as indices to determine fish freshness.Volatile amines such as trimethylamine (TMA) or di-methylamine (DMA) are formed from trimethyl-amine oxide (TMAO), and these compounds alsoserve as a quality index for marine fish.COLORThe first impression that a consumer receives con-cerning a food product is established visually, andamong the properties observed are color, form, andsurface characteristics.Color is the main aspect that defines a foodsquality, and a product may be rejected simply be-cause of its color, even before other properties, suchas aroma,texture, and taste, can be evaluated. This iswhy the appearance (optical properties, physicalform, and presentation) of meat and poultry prod-ucts at the point of sale is of such importance for theindustry. Regarding the specific characteristics thatcontribute to the physical appearance of meat andpoultry, color is the quality that most influences con-sumer choice.Food technologists have a special interest in thecolor of food for several reasons. First, because ofthe need to maintain a uniform color throughoutprocessing; second,to prevent any external or inter-nal agent from acting on the product during proces-sing, storage, and display; third, to improve or opti-mize a products color and appearance; and, last, toattempt to bring the products color into line withwhat the consumer expects.Put simply, the color of meat is determined by thepigments present. These can be classified into thefollowing four types:phenols, and sulfur-containing compounds. The sec-ond is due to water soluble, low molecular weightfree amino acids (taurine,glutamic acid, glycine),nu-Biological (carotenes and haemopigments),which are accumulated or synthesized in theorganism antemortem 19. 1 FactorsAffecting Food Quality 5Pigments produced as a result of damage duringmanipulation or inadequate processingconditionsPigments produced postmortem (throughenzymatic or nonenzymatic reactions)Those resulting from the addition of natural orartificial colorantsAs a quality parameter, color has been widelystudied in fresh-meat and cooked products. Dry-cured meat products have received less attention be-cause in this type of product, color formation takesplace during the different processing stages.Recently, new haempigment has been identified inthis type of product.From a practical point of view, color plays a fun-damental role in the animal production sector, espe-cially in meat production (primarily beef and poul-try,) since in many countries of the European Union,paleness receives a wholesale premium.MICROBIOLOGY AND SAFETYAll foods contain microorganisms, some beneficialto and some with potential harm for mankind. Withmuscle foods, the beneficial ones are responsible forfermented meat and fish. Those potential pathogensare of concern. In the last 25 years, governmentrecords show that pathogenic organisms in meat,poultry, and seafood have been responsible for manydeaths and injuries. Also, marine toxins pose bigthreats to our well-being considering that most of usenjoy eating fish and shellfish. It is not surprisingthat a quality muscle food must also be a safe one.In view of potential hazards from the consump-tion of muscle foods,state and federal agencies havedeveloped and implemented stringent safety re-quirements in the processing of meat, poultry, andseafood.PROCESSINGThe quality of any muscle food is obviously affectedby the way it is processed.Why do we want to process food? At present,there are many modern reasons why foods are pro-cessed, e.g., adding value to a food, improving thevisual appeal, convenience. However, traditionally,the single most important reason that we wish tospoiling. Probably the oldest methods of achievingthis goal are the salting of meat and fish, fermentingof milk, and pickling of vegetables.Foods are made from natural materials, and likeany living matter, will deteriorate in time. The dete-rioration of food, or food spoilage, is the natural wayof recycling, restoring carbon, phosphorus, and ni-trogenous matters to the good earth. However, putre-faction (spoilage) will modify the quality of foodsresulting in poor appearance (discoloration), offen-sive smell, and inferior taste. Food spoilage can becaused by a number of factors, chiefly by biologicalfactors, but also by chemical and physical factors.Consumption of spoiled foods can cause sicknessand even death. There is no doubt none of us con-sider spoiled foods as having quality.Selected examples will illustrate how food pro-cessing can affect the quality of a food product:Heat application. All of us know that over-heating tender meat and chicken usually meanstoughness. The same is especially true forseafood.Heat removal or cold preservation. Freezing is agood example. Most of us are familiar withfreezer-burn of meat, chicken, fish, shellfish, orother products left in the freezer over extendedperiods of time.Evaporation and dehydration. Food drying hasbeen popular since the beginning of time.Destruction of nutrients, especially vitamins, isone drawback to this method of preservation.Fermentation. In general, of meat, poultry, andfish products, fermented meat such as sausages ismost popular. The quality of a sausage is to alarge extent determined by the consumer, e.g.,dry, sweet,salty, and pickled. Each methodaffects the quality in terms of nutrients, hardness,tenderness, and flavor.New technology. There are numerous newtechnologies in food processing such asirradiation, microwaving, and ohmic heating.Each method affects the quality of a food invarious ways.The finished product requires packaging. The ob-vious reason for packaging a food product, musclefoods or other, is to protect the food so it will not beexposed to the elements until it is ready to be pre-Dared and consumed. The aualitv and shelf life of aprocess food is to make them last longer without I I d 20. 6 Part I: General Food Quality Factorsfood, especially a muscle food, depends very muchon the way it is packaged.SENSORY ATTRIBUTESAND THE CONSUMERThe sensory attributes of muscle foods are related tothe senses of taste, smell, sight, feel, and sound. Ofall the foods consumed, muscle foods have the low-est tolerance for complete sensorial acceptability. Amuscle food is either acceptable or unacceptablewith little in between. Predominately, the consumervisually assesses the color and surface texture of themuscle. The preparation technique of consumerchoice is utilized, thereby altering the sensory attrib-utes (usually completely). The consumer cooks orprepares the muscle food as they prefer, changingthe surface color, appearance, and texture. The inter-nal altering of texture and flavor is a result of thepreparation or cooking process as well. This willvary depending on the many methods applied. Forinstance, the muscle may be grilled, baked, broiled,or otherwise prepared, all with different fluctuatingend results. Consumption of muscle foods is one ofthe most pleasurable eating experiences. The satietyvalue applied by the consumption of a muscle foodis great when comparing the satisfying effect offoods in general. This is why the sensorial propertiesof muscle foods can be viewed as often more impor-tant than that of other foods.GOVERNMENT STANDARDSAND SPECIFICATIONSThe technical information in this book is applicableto food scientists and technologists worldwide.However, users from the United States will be veryinterested in the current government standards andspecifications for muscle foods (meat, poultry, andseafood) since such documents usually include qual-ity factors. Since many countries use the UnitedStates as an example in formulating their standardsand specifications for muscle foods, scientists, tech-nologists, and engineers from the international com-munity may also benefit from information includedin the appendix.SUMMARYThis chapter provides a short introduction to the fac-tors affecting the quality of foods, especially musclefoods. More details on most of the factors will beprovided throughout the book. 21. 2Hazard Analysis and CriticalControl Points and Muscle FoodSafety in the United StatesYH. HuiIntroductionCurrent Good Manufacturing Practice RegulationsHazard Analysis Critical Control Points Regulations orProgramsWhat is HACCP?The Need for HACCPAdvantages and PlansHazard AnalysisThe HACCP PlanThe Contents of the HACCP PlanSigning and Dating the HACCP PlanSanitationImplementationReferencesINTRODUCTIONNearly 25 years ago, the United States Food andDrug Administration (FDA) started the approach ofusing umbrella regulations to help the food indus-tries to produce wholesome food as required by theFederal Food, Drug, Cosmetic Act (The Act). In1986, the FDA promulgated the first umbrella regu-lations under the title of Good ManufacturingPractice Regulations (GMPR). Since then, many as-pects of the regulations have been revised.Traditionally, industry and regulators have de-pended on spot-checks of manufacturing conditionsand random sampling of final products to ensuresafe food. The Current Good ManufacturingPractice Regulations (CGMPR) form the basis onwhich the FDA will inform a food manufacturerabout deficiencies in its operations. This approach,however, tends to be reactive, rather than preventive,and can definitely be improved.For more than 35 years, FDA has been regulatingthe low-acid canned food (LACF) industries with aspecial set of regulations, many of which are preven-tive in nature. This action aims at preventing botu-lism. In the last 35years, threats from other biologicalpathogens have increased tremendously. Between1980 and 1995, the FDA studied the approach of us-ing Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points(HACCP)programs.For this approach, FDA uses the LACF regula-tions as a partial guide. Since 1995, the FDA has is-sued HACCP regulations (HACCPR) for the manu-facture or production of seafood, among others.In the last two decades, increasing death and in-juries associated with contaminated meat and poul-try have prompted new safety measures for thesetwo muscle foods. Currently, the Food Safety andInspection Service (FSIS) of the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) have issued reg-ulations implementing HACCP for the processing ofmeat and poultry.CURRENT GOODMANUFACTURING PRACTICEREGULATIONSThe Current Good Manufacturing Practice Regula-tions (CGMPR) cover the topics listed in Table 2.1.7Handbook of Meat, Poultry and Seafood QualityEdited by Leo M. L. NolletCopyright 2007 by Blackwell Publishing 22. 8 Part I: General Foods Quality FactorsThese regulations cover essential practices to preventfood from being contaminated with biological,chemical and physical hazards, and foreign objects,such as the following:Personnel: Use a hair net.Plants and grounds: Use proper containers andlocations for garbage.Sanitation operations: Keep processed ingredi-ents away from raw ingredients.Sanitary facilities and controls: Maintain restrooms and remove water that collects on thefloor of processing areas.Equipment and utensils: Clean vats daily.Warehouse and distribution: Reduce the pres-ence of rodents; do not transport food ingre-dients in a truck that has not been sanitizedafter transporting pesticides.It is obvious that a careful food processor will be-come familiar with these regulations to make surethat their products are safe for public consumption.With this understanding, this chapter will not pro-vide more details on this topic. Rather, our discus-sion will concentrate on HACCP because one of itsobjectives is to make sure that food processors im-plement CGMPR.HAZARD ANALYSIS CRITICALCONTROL POINTSREGULATIONS OR PROGRAMSIn 1997,the FDA adopted a food safety program thatwas developed nearly 30 years ago for astronauts andis now applying it to seafood, and fruit and vegetablejuices. The agency intends to eventually use it formuch of the U.S. food supply. The program for theastronauts focuses on preventing hazards that couldcause food-borne illnesses by applying science-based controls, from raw material to finished prod-ucts. The FDAs new system will do the same.Many principles of this new system now called(HACCP) are already in place in the FDA-regulatedLACF industry. Since 1997, the FDA has mandatedHACCP for the processing of seafood, among oth-ers. The FDA has also incorporated HACCP into itsFood Code, a document that gives guidance to andserves as model legislation for state and territorialagencies that license and inspect food service estab-lishments, retail food stores,and food vending oper-ations in the United States.Table 2.1. Current good manufacturing prac-tices regulations as stated in 21 CFR 110(Title 21, United States Code of FederalRegulations, Part 110).21 CFR 110.321 CFR 110.521 CFR 110.1021 CFR 110.1921 CFR 110.2021 CFR 110.3521 CFR 110.3721 CFR 110.4021 CFR 110.8021 CFR 110.93Definitions.Current good manufacturingpractice.Personnel.Exclusions.Plant and grounds.Sanitary operations.Sanitary facilities and controls.Equipment and utensils.Processes and controls.Warehousing and distribution.The USDA has developed HACCP programs formeat, poultry, and other land muscle foods. It is im-portant to realize that the underlying principles arethe same, no matter what the manufacturing process.The same principles apply to the processing of meat,poultry, and seafood. The details vary. The discus-sion in this chapter will concentrate on the princi-ples, citing specific examples for meat, poultry, andseafood.Please note that the word shall in a legal docu-ment means mandatoryand is used routinely in USDAFDA regulations published in the U.S. In this chapter,the words shouldand mustare used to make forsmoother reading. However,this in no way diminishesthe legal impact of the original regulations.WHATIS HACCP?HACCP involves the following seven principles:Analyze hazards. Potential hazards associatedwith a food and measures to control those haz-ards are identified. The hazard could be biolog-ical, such as a microbe; chemical, such as atoxin; or physical, such as ground glass ormetal fragments.Identify critical control points. These are pointsin a foods production-from its raw statethrough processing and shipping to consump-tion by the consumer-at which the potentialhazard can be controlled or eliminated.Examples are cooking, cooling, packaging, andmetal detection. 23. 2 HACCP and Muscle Food Safety in the United States 93.4.5.6.7.Establish preventive measures with critical lim-its for each control point. For a cooked food,for example, this might include setting the min-imum cooking temperature and time requiredto ensure the elimination of any harmful mi-crobes.Establish procedures to monitor the criticalcontrol points. Such procedures might includedetermining how and by whom cooking timeand temperature should be monitored.Establish corrective actions to be taken whenmonitoring shows that a critical limit has notbeen met-for example, reprocessing or dis-posing of food if the minimum cooking tem-perature is not met.Establish procedures to verify that the systemis working properly-for example, testing timeand temperature recording devices to verifythat a cooking unit is working properly.Establish effective record keeping to documentthe HACCP system. This would includerecords of hazards and their control methods,the monitoring of safety requirements and ac-tion taken to correct potential problems.Each of these principles must be backed by soundscientific knowledge such as published microbiolog-ical studies on time and temperature factors for con-trolling food-borne pathogens.THENEEDFOR HACCPNew challenges to the U.S. food supply haveprompted the USDA and FDA to consider adoptingan HACCP-based food safety system on a wider ba-sis. One of the most important challenges is the in-creasing number of new food pathogens. There alsois increasing public health concern about chemicalcontamination of food, for example, the effects oflead in food on the nervous system.Another important factor is that the size of thefood industry and the diversity of products and pro-cesses have grown tremendously, in the amount ofdomestic food manufactured and the number andkinds of foods imported. At the same time, federal,state, and local agencies have the same limited levelof resources to ensure food safety. The need forHACCP in the United States, particularly in theMUSCLE food industries, is further fueled by thegrowing trend in international trade for worldwideequivalence of food products and the CodexAlimentarius Commissions adoption of HACCP asthe international standard for food safety.ADVANTAGESAND PLANSHACCP offers a number of advantages over previ-ous systems. Most importantly, HACCP:1.2.3.4.5.6.focuses on identifying and preventing hazardsfrom contaminating food.is based on sound science.permits more efficient and effective govern-ment oversight, primarily because the recordkeeping allows investigators to see how well afirm is complying with food safety laws over aperiod rather than how well it is doing on anygiven day.places responsibility for ensuring food safetyappropriately on the food manufacturer or dis-tributor.helps food companies compete more effec-tively in the world market.reduces barriers to international trade.The seven steps used in HACCP plan develop-ment follow:1. Preliminary Stepsa. General informationb. Describe the foodc. Describe the method of distribution andstoraged. Identify the intended use and consumere. Develop a flow diagram2. Hazard Analysis Worksheeta.b.C.d.e.f.g.Set up the Hazard Analysis WorksheetIdentify the potential species-relatedhazardsIdentify the potential process-relatedhazardsComplete the Hazard Analysis WorksheetUnderstand the potential hazardDetermine if the potential hazard is significantIdentify the critical control points (CCP)3. HACCP Plan Forma. Complete the HACCP Plan Formb. Set the critical limits (CL) 24. 10 Part I: General Foods Quality Factors4. Establish Monitoring Proceduresa. Whatb. Howc. Frequencyd. Who5. Establish Corrective Action Procedures6. Establish a Record Keeping System7. Establish Verification ProceduresIt is important to remember that apart from HAC-CPR promulgated for seafood and juices, the imple-mentation of HACCP by other categories of foodprocessing is voluntary. However, the FDA and var-ious types of food processors are working togetherso that eventually HACCPR will become availablefor many other food processing systems under FDAjurisdiction. Using the HACCPR for seafood pro-cessing as a guide, the following discussion for anHACCP plan applies to all categories of food prod-ucts being processed in the United States.HAZARDANALYSISEvery processor should conduct a hazard analysis todetermine whether there are food safety hazards thatare reasonably likely to occur for each kind of prod-uct processed by that processor and to identify thepreventive measures that the processor can apply tocontrol those hazards. Such food safety hazards canbe introduced both within and outside the proces-sing plant environment, including food safety haz-ards that can occur before, during, and after harvest.A food safety hazard that is reasonably likely to oc-cur is one for which a prudent processor would es-tablish controls because experience, illness data, sci-entific reports, or other information provide a basisto conclude that there is a reasonable possibility thatit will occur in the particular type of product beingprocessed in the absence of those controls.THEHACCP PLANEvery processor should have and implement a writ-ten HACCP plan whenever a hazard analysis revealsone or more food safety hazards that are reasonablylikely to occur. An HACCP plan should be specificto the following:1.2.Each location where products are processed bythat processor.Each kind of product processed by the processor.The plan may group kinds of products together, orgroup kinds of production methods together, if thefood safety hazards, CCPs, CLs,and procedures thatare required to be identified and performed are iden-tical for all products so grouped or for all productionmethods so grouped.The Contents of the HACCP PlanThe HACCP plan should, at a minimum:List the food safety hazards that are reasonablylikely to occur, as identified, and that thus must becontrolled for each product. Consideration shouldbe given to whether any food safety hazards arereasonably likely to occur as a result of the follow-ing: natural toxins; microbiological contamination;chemical contamination; pesticides; drug residues;decompositionin productswhere a food safety haz-ard has been associated with decomposition; para-sites, where the processor has knowledge that theparasite-containingproduct will be consumedwith-out a process sufficient to kill the parasites; unap-proved use of direct or indirect food or color addi-tives; and physical hazards;List the critical control points for each of theidentified food safety hazards, including as appro-priate: critical control points designed to controlfood safety hazards that could be introduced in theprocessing plant environment; and critical controlpoints designed to control food safety hazards in-troduced outside the processing plant environment,including food safety hazards that occur before,during, and after harvest;List the critical limits that must be met at eachof the critical control points;List the procedures, and frequency thereof, thatwill be used to monitor each of the critical controlpoints to ensure compliance with the critical limits;Include any corrective action plans that havebeen developed to be followed in response to devi-ations from critical limits at critical control points;List the verification procedures, and frequencythereof, that the processor will use;Provide for a record keeping system that docu-ments the monitoring of the critical control points.The records should contain the actual values andobservationsobtained during monitoring.Signingand Dating the HACCP PlanThe HACCP plan should be signed and dated eitherby the most responsible individual on site at the pro-cessing facility or by a higher-level official of the 25. 2 HACCP and Muscle Food Safety in the United States 11processor. This signature should signify that theHACCP plan has been accepted for implementationby the firm.It should be signed and dated upon initial accep-tance; upon any modification; and upon verificationof the plan.SANITATIONSanitation controls (3) may be included in theHACCP plan. However, to the extent that they areotherwise monitored, they need not be included inthe HACCP plan.IMPLEMENTATIONThis book is not the proper forumto discuss in detailthe implementation of HACCPR. Readers interestedin additional information on HACCP should visitthe FDA HACCP website http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/that lists all of the currently available documents onthe subject.REFERENCESFood and Drug Administration. 2006. Current GoodManufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packing,or Holding Human Food. 21 CFR 110. U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Food and Drug Administration. 2006. Hazard Analysisand Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems. 21CFR 120. U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, DC.Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. 2006.Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point(HACCP) Systems. 9 CFR 417. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC. 26. Part I1SensoryAttributes of Muscle FoodsHandbook of Meat, Poultry and Seafood QualityEdited by Leo M. L. NolletCopyright 2007 by Blackwell Publishing 27. History, Background,and Objectivesof Sensory Evaluationin Muscle FoodsM. W SchillingIntroductionHistory of Muscle FoodsHistory,Background, and Development of SensoryObjectivesSensory Evaluation Specificto Muscle FoodsRelationship of Consumer Panels to Trained PanelsQuality CharacteristicsConclusion and Future of Sensory EvaluationReferencesEvaluationINTRODUCTIONSensory evaluation is a scientific discipline used toevoke, measure, analyze, and interpret reactions tothose characteristics of foods and materials as theyare perceived by the senses of sight, smell, taste,touch, and hearing (Anonymous 1975). This defini-tion verifies that sensory evaluation encompasses notonly taste but all of the senses (Stoneand Side11993).Sensory evaluation of food products has been con-ducted as long as human beings have been evaluatingthe goodness and badness of food (Meilgaard andothers 1991) and is currently crucial in the field offood science for two separate but important purposes.First, consumer testing is crucial since acceptability isthe number one determinant of whether a consumerwill purchase a product Ramirez and others 2001).Second, objective quality measurements must be per-formed in order to relate the consumers acceptanceof a product to laboratory data. Munoz and Chambers(1993)reported that relating consumer data to labora-tory data (instrumental andor trained panelists) ad-dresses the limitations of consumer panels. This is be-cause only consumers can provide information on aproducts acceptance or its perceived integrated at-tributes, and only laboratory methods can provide thetechnical, precise, and reliable information re-searchers need regarding product attributes.The principles of sensory evaluation originatedfrom physiology and psychology, and sensory sci-ence is currently an interdisciplinary science includ-ing these fields along with food science, biochemis-try, statistics, nutrition, and others. Because of theutilization of live human panelists, sensory experi-mentation is much more complex than researchwhere instrumentation is used and requires muchgreater care in experimental design and interpretationof results. Meilgaard and others (1991) reported thatwe perceive attributes of a food item in the order ofappearance, odor, texture, and flavor. Appearance isgenerally the only attribute on which consumers basea decision to purchase or consume a food product andincludes but is not exclusive of color,size, shape, andsurface texture. Odor refers to the sensation that oc-curs when volatiles from a product enter the nasalpassage and are perceived by the olfactometry sys-tem, and these sensations are most often associatedwith the formulation of compounds during the cook-ing process. Texture can be defined as the sensoryand functional manifestation of the structural and15Handbook of Meat, Poultry and Seafood QualityEdited by Leo M. L. NolletCopyright 2007 by Blackwell Publishing 28. 16 Part 11:Sensory Attributes of Muscle Foodsmechanical properties of foods,detected through thesenses of vision, hearing, touch, and kinesthetics(Szczesniak 1963) and consists of hardness, cohe-siveness, adhesiveness, denseness, springiness, per-ception of particles, and perception of water. Theseattributes are perceived by sensors in the mouth bothbefore and after chewing and have been describedextensively (Brandt and others 1963; Szczesniak1963;Szczesniak and others 1975). Flavor includesaromatics, tastes, and chemical feelings. Aromaticsconsist of olfactometry perceptions caused byvolatile substances released from a product in themouth. Tastes consist of salty, sweet,sour, and bitterperceptions caused by soluble substances in themouth, and chemical feelings include astringency,spice heat, cooling, and metallic flavor. Flavor iscrucial in the acceptance of food, and the use offlavor-related words is a very important aspect ofmarketing (Amerine and others 1965).The NationalResearch Council (1988) reported that the threemost important factors that consumers look for inmeat products are nutrition, price, and taste. How-ever, if taste is not acceptable, then nutrition andprice are irrelevant.Stone and others (1991) have reported that thou-sands of new products are unsuccessfully introducedto the retail market every year. With the continuedinflux of new products into the market, sensory eval-uation has become increasingly important to foodcompanies in the creation of new food products aswell as in determining the quality attributes of prod-ucts within a competition category. Marketing andsensory evaluation departments must work togetherto bring the appropriate new product to market. Bothgroups have equally important roles that must be un-derstood by each other as well as by upper manage-ment to perform the appropriate market research,trained panel sensory evaluations, and consumertesting. This book will provide an in-depth look atthe sensory characteristics of all muscle foods fromboth a trained panel and a consumer panel perspec-tive through discussing the important sensory attrib-utes as well as the sensory methods utilized to eval-uate beef, pork, poultry, seafood, processed musclefoods, as well as lamb, venison, bison, and equine.HISTORY OF MUSCLE FOODSMuscle foods or meats can be defined as flesh fromanimals that is suitable for consumption (Kinsmanand others 1994), and first became a steady foodsource in the diet between 10,000and 16,000yearsago as animals were domesticated and people be-came less nomadic in nature (Kinsman 1994).Refer-ences have been made in the Iliad and in theOld Testament to meat consumption that has beencarbon dated back greater than 3,000 years, and themeat industry in the United States evolved fromColumbus and Cortez bringing cattle, hogs, andsheep to North America in 1493 and 1519, respec-tively. The history of the meat industry will not bediscussed in this chapter, but an informative per-spective on the history of this exciting industry canbe found in Kinsman (1994). The seafood industryalso has an exciting history in which large humanpopulations tended to settle near seas or large riversystems where fish and shellfish were readily abun-dant as food. References to fishing have also beenmade in the Old and New Testament of the Biblecarbon dating back thousands of years. As time pro-gressed, larger fish were desired and fishermen builtboats to travel further from shore. Quite often fishingwas the reason for discovering new lands, and the ex-cellent fishing possibilities in the North AtlanticOcean lured fishermen to North America fromEurope leading to commercial fishing becoming thefirst industry in the New World (Martin 1990). Thehistory of this diverse industry will not be discussedin detail, but there is an excellent account of this his-tory in Martin (1990).U.S. meat and poultry products consumption hasfluctuated between 87 and 100 kilograms (kg) percapita consumption between 1980 and 2001, respec-tively (American Meat Institute [AMI] 2003), andseafood products consumption has held steady at 5to 7 kg per capita between 1960 and 2002 (AM11993; NMFS 2002). This demonstrates the stayingpower of meat products in the food industry. Mealswill continue to be planned around meat productsfor two reasons. First, muscle foods are the mostnaturally occurring nutrient-dense foodstuff (Kins-man 1994). Second, meat products are of vital im-portance in providing high quality proteins, miner-als, vitamins, and a high satiety value (Price andSchweigert 1987).With the high percentage of two-parent wage earners, there will be a greater need anddemand for more table-ready and microwaveablefoods that require minimum preparation time(Kinsman 1994).This will lead to an increased im-portance of sensory testing since all meat products 29. 3 History, Background, and Objectives of SensoIy Evaluation in Muscle Foods 17of these types must be evaluated for sensory quality(appearance, odor, texture, and flavor).HISTORY, BACKGROUND, ANDDEVELOPMENT OF SENSORYEVALUATIONMuch literature has been reported pertaining to theevolution of sensory evaluation into the complexscience that it is currently. Likewise, the practice ofusing a trained panel to relate product attributes toconsumer acceptability in the successful develop-ment of food products is well documented. The prin-cipal sources behind the science of sensory evalua-tion as it is studied today are psychology, physiology,sociology, and statistics (Peryam 1990). The psy-chophysical roots for sensory evaluation can betraced to the work of Weber, a German physiologist(Boring 1950), but it was Fechner, a German psy-chologist, who built on the observations of Weber inorder to demonstrate a link between the physical andpsychological worlds. Weber found that differencethresholds, the extent of changes in stimuli neces-sary to produce noticeable differences, increase inproportion to the initial perceived stimulus intensityat which they are measured. Fechner then utilizedthe findings of Weber to demonstrate that perceivedmagnitude may be related to the change in intensityand absolute intensity of a sensation. The combinedefforts of these two scientists laid much of thegroundwork during the late nineteenth century forthe field of psychometrics that deals with the mathe-matical explanation of psychological phenomena.The development of statistical methods (duringthe nineteenth century) that are currently utilized insensory evaluation was also essential in the founda-tion of this discipline. When sensory evaluationstarted to show life in the 1930s, many statisticalprocedures including analysis of variance were al-ready in place to describe the variation in perceptionand behavior of people evaluating food products(Peryam 1990). The evolution of sensory science asit is practiced today originated in the 1930s aroundthe time of the organization of the Institute of FoodTechnologists. During this time, sensory informa-tion was largely confined to recording opinions ofone or two experts evaluating the quality of a spe-cific commodity in order to provide quality controlfor their organizations products (Pangborn 1964).The problem with this type of sensory evaluationwas that it did not necessarily reflect consumer atti-tudes. In a regional environment, utilizing one ortwo experts was extremely helpful in determiningproduct quality, but Hinreiner (1956) stated that cer-tain values on scorecards can become fixed in theexperts minds as acceptable to consumers that donot necessarily reflect consumer attitudes. Stone andSide1 (1993) stated that though this approach iscommon in quality control, its prevalence in sensoryevaluation reflects a basic lack of understanding ofhuman behavior or the wistful desire of some to re-duce response behavior to some simplistic level.Platt (1931) recommended that critical experts beeliminated, and thatjudges be selected for participa-tion on sensory panels on the basis of being able topredict public preference. Platt understood the im-portance of meeting the needs and wants of the con-sumer, but the consumer testing and trained paneltesting necessary to accomplish this goal was not yetavailable to the industry.Dove (1947) reported that food acceptance re-search was a result of rationing of foods to thetroops in World War 11.Rations were tested for qual-ity specifications on a nutritional basis. However,the soldier-consumer refused to eat some rations,which ended up in storage dumps. This occurrenceled to an official directive to determine causes of un-acceptance. These food products had been tested fornutrition, tenderness, viscosity, compression, flavor,and quality, or had been tested by scorecard ratings.These methods had all been applied, and the foodwas still rejected. In this objective approach, mea-surements are directed toward the food. However,the subjective test deals with an individualsphysio-logical or psychological response. These occurrencesled to an impetus in sensory evaluation developmentthrough the U.S. Army Quartermaster Food andContainer Institute, an organization that supportedresearch in the acceptance of food products con-sumed by the armed forces (Peryam 1990). Duringthis time period, the U.S. Army Quarter-masterFood and Container Institute made many great con-tributions to sensory evaluation research. The mostwell-known contribution was the invention of the9-point hedonic scale (Peryam and Pilgrim 1957).Another outstanding contribution of the Institutewas undoubtedly the collaboration between psy-chologists, food technologists, and statisticians.This multidisciplinary collaboration is a good modelfor the scientists that should be working together to 30. 18 Part 11:Sensory Attributes of Muscle Foodsperform sensory evaluation on all foods, includingmuscle foods. The importance of sensory accep-tance was then quickly forgotten by the federal gov-ernment as they initiated their War on HungerandFood from the Sea programs (Stone and Side11993) in which the governments intention was tofeed starving and malnourished people even thoughno research was performed on whether the productsbeing provided were acceptable to the targetedgroups.During a similar time period, many developmentswere occurring in the private sector relating to theuse of both affective testing as well as trained pan-elists to explain the quality of food products. In thelate 1940s, the Kroger company started performingaffective consumer tests by sending samples tohousewives (Peryam 1990). This innovative ideawas very informal but provided an impetus towardconsumer tests that are utilized today. The duo-triotests and triangle tests were also developed duringthe 1930s and 1940s by Seagram Distillers and re-searchers in Europe (Peryam 1990) in order to main-tain uniform quality in standard products. This wasthe beginning of the development of trained panelmethods that are currently used. In the 1950s, theflavor profile analysis was first developed by ArthurD. Little in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to provideinformation about the complexities of perception offlavor characteristics and their relation to the physi-cal components of food products (Cairncross andSjostrom 1950). This methodology led others to in-troduce texture profile analysis (Brandt and others1963;Szczesniak 1963) and quantitative descriptiveanalysis (Stone and others 1974),respectively. Crossand others (1978) adapted this methodology into adescriptive analysis method that is now commonlyutilized in muscle foods (AMSA 1995).During this time period, former departments ofdairy science, meat science,and other food productsmerged into departments of food science and tech-nology, and researchers began to relate sensory eval-uation or subjective testing to objective tests such asthe Instron and gas chromatograph (GC) (Pangborn1989). Academic endeavors in evaluating sensoryproperties of foods date back to the mid-1930s.TheUniversity of California at Davis has contributedgreatly to the scientific community from an academicviewpoint. Maynard Amerine and his associateswere followed by Rose Marie Pangborn and hercoworkers utilizing the best techniques availableand developing new techniques and effective varia-tions of tests (Peryam 1990). Currently, sensoryevaluation is taught in connection with many foodscience and nutrition curricula, and many universi-ties now offer a Ph.D. in sensory science with an ar-ray of multidisciplinary courses. Pangborn (1989)stated that the industrial demand for well-trainedsensory professionals at the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.levels greatly exceeds the supply, a statement that isstill true today. Another development that has madea huge impact on sensory science in recent years(1969-1988) is the development of journals such asJournal of Texture Studies, Chemical Senses,Journal of Food Quality, Appetite, Journal ofSensory Studies, and Food Quality Preference(Pangborn 1989). These journals have improved thelevel of applied sensory science by providing bothincreased avenues for scientists to share their find-ings and method developments with the scientificcommunity. Sensory evaluation has now evolvedinto testing that can use complicated multivariateanalysis as well as mathematical modeling and otherstatistical analyses to evaluate data. This has al-lowed for excellent connections between trainedsensory panels and consumer data. However, nomatter how complicated the analysis, it is crucialthat the sensory design be set up appropriately, orthe data will be meaningless. This is of increasedimportance when dealing with human subjects.Human panelists are more sensitive than instrumentsbut are also more variable.OBJECTIVESThe objectives of sensory evaluation can be dividedinto two categories. The first can be viewed as thepurpose of sensory evaluation. This purpose is to de-termine product quality and ultimately provide theconsumer with the products that they desire. Thesecond category can be viewed as the actual objec-tives that must be followed in conducting sensorytesting that are both specific and nonspecific to mus-cle foods.DETERMININGQUALITYAND CONSUMERACCEPTABILITYThe objective of providing the consumer with de-sired products requires two kinds of information-sensory descriptive and preference (quality) judg- 31. 3 History, Background, and Objectives of SensoIy Evaluation in Muscle Foods 19ments. The former are usually obtained from atrained panel and the latter are obtained from appro-priately recruited and qualified consumers (Stoneand others 1993). These two goals can be brokendown further into four types of tests, each with theirown objective. These tests include affective, dis-criminative, descriptive, and quality tests (Sidel andothers 1981).Affective tests are generally utilized toindicate preference or acceptance of productsthrough selecting, ranking, or scoring samples bypanelists that represent the target consumer popula-tion. Discrimination tests are utilized to test whethersamples are different from one another and shouldusually be run with trained panels. Some discrimina-tion tests such as triangle tests can also be utilized inpanel selection for descriptive tests. Descriptivetests describe sensory properties and measure theperceived intensity of those properties. The twomost popular descriptive methods include classicaland modified flavor profile (Cairncross and Sjostrom1950),texture profile (Brandt and others 1963),andquantitative descriptive analysis (Stone and others1974). Cross and others (1978) later adapted thesemethods in the creation of a descriptive attributepanel intended for the evaluation of meat products.The Spectrum method published by Meilgaard andothers (1991)further enhances descriptive testing byadapting the test to the product being evaluatedthrough the use of reference points. These are indi-cated by intensities of descriptors in specific com-mercially available foods. This scale prevents pan-elists from avoiding the ends of the scale,which is amajor problem with fixed scales. The fourth type oftesting utilized is quality testing in which one or twoexperts are utilized to test a product to determine if itmeets quality specifications. This method can workwell when it is solely used to see if a product meetsspecifications, but it should not be assumed thatthese judgments by trained experts directly relate toconsumer preference or acceptance of food prod-ucts. Typically, physical and chemical instrumentalmeasurements should also be incorporated in testingto relate instrumental measurements of quality tosensory perceptions of quality. Therefore, it can bestated that the ultimate objective of sensory evalua-tion is to predict consumer acceptability, but thiscannot be done without trained sensory panels andinstrumental measures to relate to preference test-ing. This objective can be accomplished through dif-ferent means, but the company that has this capabil-ity and is able to exploit this knowledge hasachieved a major accomplishment (Stone and Sidel1993).PRACTICALOBJECTIVESOF SENSORYEVALUATIONIn dealing with a subjectssensory responses, thereis a three-step mechanism (Meilgaard and others1991).First, a sensation results from a stimulus thatis detected by a sense organ and travels to the brainas a nerve signal. The brain is then utilized to trans-pose the sensations into perceptions, and lastly, aresponse is formulated based on the subjects per-ceptions (Carlson 1998).This causes much greatervariability when utilizing humans as instrumentssince this three-step process exists in comparison toa one-step process that exists in other instrumentaltests. The complexity of sensory evaluation makesit imperative that a specific process be taken inthe design of sensory evaluation experiments.Pangborn (1979) states that there are three commonproblems to sensory evaluation that include lack oftest objective, adherence to a single test method re-gardless of application, and improper subject selec-tion procedures. These three details must be ad-dressed in all sensory analyses. Erhardt (1978)reports that there is a specific role of the sensory an-alyst that can be broken down into seven tasks. Thefollowing is a paraphrased version of these sevensteps that are discussed in detail in that paper. Thefirst step in conducting a sensory experiment is todetermine the project objective. The next step is todetermine the test objective to assure that the result-ing data will be relevant to the overall objective ofthe sensory project. The third step for the analyst isto screen samples. This allows the analyst to be-come familiar with the responses that might be ex-pected, minimizes the evaluation of obviously dif-ferent samples, and helps the analyst to design thetest. The next step for the sensory analyst is to de-sign the test. The correct time to consider experi-mental design and statistical analyses is after a testis planned and not at the conclusion of the work.The next step is to conduct the test. When conduct-ing a test, it is imperative that the procedures arestrictly adhered to in order to prevent nontest vari-ables from influencing panelist responses and/orperception. The last two responsibilities of the sen-sory analyst are to analyze data according to the 32. 20 Part 11:Sensory Attributes of Muscle Foodspredetermined statistical analyses and to report theresults to the entity that requested the research. Theanalyst must make it clear to the requester what testresults mean, the conclusion that can be drawn fromthe results, and the next step to take based on theinitial project objective.SENSORY EVALUATION SPECIFICTO MUSCLE FOODSSensory evaluation as it is currently practiced formuscle foods is documented by the American MeatScience Association (AMSA 1995).Through the useof sophisticated panel training and method selec-tion, sensory evaluation can provide accurate and re-peatable data. Sensory factors in meat include ten-derness, juiciness, flavor and aroma, and color(Cross 1987). Cross and others (1978) originated themost commonly utilized method for descriptiveanalysis in the testing of meat products. This is themost referenced method for descriptive testing inmuscle foods, thus implying that it is also the mostutilized method. Consumer testing of meat productsis generally performed with affective tests of accep-tance or preference that are utilized for all foodproducts. Those tests that were termed consumerguidance tests in Griffin (1999) should be utilizedalong with market research tests in the developmentof food products in the industry. There is a clear dis-tinction between the two types of testing, and it isthe sensory scientists responsibility to help uppermanagement understand this in order to provideproducts to the consumer that will be successful forthe company (Griffin 1999).TRAINEDPANELSTrained panels are utilized to provide accurate andrepeatable data pertaining to the quality of meatproducts. Cross and others (1978) reported foursteps that should be taken in the selection of atrained panel including recruitment, screening,training, and performance evaluation. A sensorystudy should only be initiated after all of these stepshave been taken (AMSA 1995; Cross and others1978).Trained tests in muscle foods include rankingand scaling of samples, magnitude estimation, anddescriptive sensory analysis. The second of thesemethods has limitless applications. It has been uti-lized to relate to physical and chemical analyses,product formulations, preferences, and other kindsof consumer measures of concepts, pricing, and soforth (Stone and Side1 1998). Descriptive analysesare very important to the meat industry since theyare useful in investigating treatment differences,monitoring ingredient process control criteria, anddefining sensory properties of a target product (Bett1993).CONSUMERPANELSKauffman (1993) stated that meat quality includesseven variables: wholesomeness, nutrition, proces-sing yield, convenience, consistency, appearance,and palatability. Palatability has five components:tenderness, texture, juiciness, and flavor (odor andtaste) (Kauffman and others 1990). Booth (1990)stated that people eat foods they like, includingmeat, and sensory properties impact those likes.However, Logue and Smith (1986) reported that lik-ing fresh meat was not related to liking fish, and nei-ther of those was related to liking restructured meatproducts. This demonstrates that consumers expectand emphasize different sensory characteristics forvarious meat products (Chambers and Bowers1993). For example, consumer studies have revealedthat tenderness is the most important attribute ofbeef (AMSA 1978) and chicken, but this attribute isnot as important in other species since it is not asvariable. This has led to researchers determining therelationship between consumer acceptability andobjective measurements of tenderness in meat prod-ucts (Lyon and others 1990; Schilling and others2003). These factors are measured objectively, butthe most important perception is evaluated by sen-sory panels. Since meat cookery has a significant in-fluence on sensory characteristics, its selection is anintegral part of sensory evaluation (Cross 1987).Thesensory properties that consumers want depend onspecies as well as whether the food is being pur-chased, stored, cooked, or eaten (Chambers andBowers 1993). To fully understand consumer ac-ceptability testing in meat products, it must be un-derstood what attributes are important to consumersfor each particular study. Objectives will often besimilar when testing different muscle food products,but quality attributes that are important to con-sumers may differ among different muscle foodproducts. 33. 3 History, Background, and Objectives of SensoIy Evaluation in Muscle Foods 21RELATIONSHIPOF CONSUMERPANELSTO TRAINED PANELSElrod (1978) reported that many companies arestructured so that trained panels are utilized to de-sign products and then the marketing department isresponsible for consumer testing if it is performed.To produce the best possible product, it is imperativefor marketing and research and development depart-ments to relate all market research, consumer test-ing, and trained sensory evaluation. Munoz andChambers (1993) describe a model for relating de-scriptive analysis techniques and objective testing toconsumer acceptability. These authors report thatthis approach can provide the following usefulpieces of information. First, actionable productguidance will be provided that is based on attributesfor product formulation and reformulation toachieve high consumer acceptance. Second, the at-tributes that affect consumer acceptability can be de-termined. Third, laboratory data can be used to pre-dict consumer response and determine its usefulnessin explaining consumer responses. Fourth, appropri-ate marketing terms can be identified that coincidewith consumers desires, and lastly, it allows re-searchers to interpret and understand consumer ter-minology.QUALITY CHARACTERISTICSIn general, it has been reported that tenderness, acomponent of texture, is the most important at-tribute of fresh meat products, and has thus beenstudied more with consumers than other properties.This may be in part due to the broad range in ten-derness of products not seen in other quality charac-teristics. Cross and Stanfield (1976) and Diamantand others (1976) have reported that tenderness wasthe most important attribute in determining accept-ability in restructured beef steaks and cooked porkchops, respectively. If a product is not tender, it isautomatically deemed unacceptable. Textural char-acteristics of muscle food products are often evalu-ated using trained texture profile analyses. Thismethodology is most often utilized in processedmeat products and the characteristics studied aregenerally hardness, springiness, chewiness, gummi-ness, and cohesiveness.Color is one of the most important characteristicsof meat since it is the primary attribute by whichboth fresh and cured meats are judged by the con-sumer before purchase (Fox 1987). Two commonexamples of this are the preference of purchasingbeef that is cherry red in color and the lack of con-sumer acceptability for pork and poultry productsthat are pale in color (Kropf 1980).Flavor is a very important sensory attribute inmuscle foods, but this attribute cannot be explainedwell by consumers since their vocabulary is insuffi-cient to describe the complex flavors found in mostmeat products (Chambers and Bowers 1993). Forthis reason, flavor intensity and off-flavor are usu-ally the only flavor characteristics determined inconsumer studies. However, these variables may notbe well understood by consumers. Chambers andothers (1992) concluded that off-flavor as describedby consumers was characterized as soapy by a de-scriptive panel. This reveals that the consumers werenot really distinguishing off-flavors at all. They werereally distinguishing the soapy flavor that can be afunction of phosphate addition in processed meatproducts. In trained panels, descriptive analysis pro-cedures have been utilized to accurately characterizemeat flavor from different species as well as pro-cessed meat products. Volatiles extracted from meatproducts that are responsible for these flavors havebeen characterized utilizing gas chromatography(GC), GC-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and GC-olfactometry (GC-0).Sensory evaluation is commonly utilized in deter-mining the shelf life of muscle food products. Bothanalytical and affective testing can be effective indetermining shelf life, and the simultaneous use ofboth tests allows the best determination of how longthe product will have acceptable quality (Dethmers1979). This testing will allow for determinations ofexpiration, freshness or quality assurance, and packdates. A products shelf-life is determined by bacter-ial or enzymatic spoilage, loss of aesthetic qualities,physical changes such as moisture evaporation,chemical reactions such as oxidation, contaminationfrom storage environment, loss of nutritive value,and interactions between product and package con-ditions (IFT 1974). Sensory evaluation will allowfor determination of manufacturing, packaging, andstoring conditions that will minimize these deterio-rations from occurring. Such shelf life determina-tions follow a similar pattern to the relationships be-tween consumer and trained sensory panels asdescribed by Murioz and Chambers (1993). 34. 22 Part 11:Sensory Attributes of Muscle FoodsNOVELUSESOF STATISTICALMETHODSFour novel methods that have come to fruition overthe last 10 to 15 years include response surfacemethodology, principal components analysis, princi-pal factor analysis, and logistic regression. The po-tential for the relation of trained sensory panels toobjective measurements and consumer acceptabilityis very exciting. Also, the possibility for buildingflavor languages for food products based on brand,region, or other appropriate attributes will allow forthe determination of consumers desires in regionsas well as allow for increased communicationamong researchers working in different parts of thecountry. Novel approaches to statistical design ofsensory experiments and analysis of sensory dataare being developed or adapted to this discipline allof the time. These novel statistical methods are valu-able tools, but they should never take the place ofcommon sense and clearly understanding the objec-tive of the study. Utilizing computers has also in-creased the number of possibilities available for an-alyzing sensory data. This is excellent in that itmakes it much easier to run complicated regressionand multivariate analyses. However, utilizing com-puter programs can also be dangerous since theywill give you incorrect results if you do not under-stand the experimental design and/or the computerprogram. Substitution of statistical programs forpractical knowledge of sensory evaluation and dataanalysis is a danger that must be avoided. The possi-bilities and applications of logistic regression andvarious multivariate analyses are limitless in theirapplication as far as relating trained data to con-sumer data, in determining shelf life, and in productdevelopment. Proper use of these experimental de-signs and statistical packages will help contribute toa company providing products that are desired byconsumers.CONCLUSION AND FUTURE OFSENSORY EVALUATIONAs food technology becomes more complex, the ba-sics of sensory evaluation need to be remembered.The goal of sensory evaluation is to explain the con-sumer acceptability of food products. This can onlybe done through utilization of the four sensorymethodologies listed in this chapter and working to-gether with the market research department to makesure that the appropriate questions and problems arebeing answered and solved. Education on appropri-ate utilization of sensory analysis must be contin-ued. It is clear that most companies are utilizing sen-sory analysis, but quite often, the wrong methods arebeing utilized for the stated objectives of the studies(Stone and Side1 1993).This book will provide a ba-sic understanding of sensory properties and evalua-tion as they relate to muscle foods.REFERENCESAmerican Meat Institute. 1993. Meat Facts. AmericanMeat Institute, Washington, DC.American Meat Institute. 2003. Overview of U.S. Meatand Poultry Production and Consumption. AM1 FactSheet. www.meatami.com.Amerine, MA, RM Pangborn, and EB Roessler. 1965.Principles of sensory evaluation of food. New York:Academic Press, p. 602.AMSA. 1978. Guidelines for Cookery and SensoryEvaluation of Meat. Am. Meat Sci. Assoc. and Natl.Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago, Ill.AMSA. 1995. Research Guidelines for Cookery,Sensory Evaluation and Instrumental TendernessMeasurements of Fresh Meat. Am. Meat Sci. Assoc.and Natl. Live Stock and Meat Board. Chicago, Ill.Anonymous. 1975. Minutes of Division BusinessMeeting. Institute of Food Technologists, SensoryEvaluation Division, IFT, Chicago, Illinois.Bett, KL. 1993. Measuring sensory properties of meatin the laboratory. Food Technol, 47(11), pp. 121-2,124-6.Booth, DA. 1990. Sensory influences on food intake.Nut Rev, 48(2),pp. 71-7.Boring, EG. 1950. A History of ExperimentalPsychology. 2nd ed. Appleton, New York.Brandt, MA, E Skinner, and J Coleman. 1963. Textureprofile method. J Food Sci, 28, pp. 404-10.Cairncross, WE, and LB Sjostrom. 1950. Flavor pro-file-a new approach to flavor problems. FoodTechnol, 4, pp. 308-1 1.Carlson, NR. 1998. Physiology of Behavior. 6th ed.,Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon Inc., p.736.Chambers, E, and JR Bowers. 1993. Consumer percep-tion of sensory qualities in muscle foods. FoodTechnol, 47(11), pp. 116-20.Chambers, L, E Chambers, IV, and JR Bowers. 1992.Consumer acceptability of cooked stored groundturkey patties with differing levels of phosphate. JFood Sci, 57, pp. 1026-8. 35. 3 History, Background, and Objectives of SensoIy Evaluation in Muscle Foods 23Cross, HR. 1987. Sensory Characteristics of Meat. Part1 ~ Sensory Factors and Evaluation. In: Price, JF, BSSchweigert, editors. The Science of Meat and MeatProducts. 3rd ed. Westport, Connecticut: Food andNutrition Press, Inc. pp. 307-27.Cross, HR, R Moen, and MS Stanfield. 1978. Trainingand testing of judges for sensory analysis of meatquality. Food Technol., 32, pp. 48-52, 54.Cross, HR, and MS Stanfield. 1976. Consumer evalua-tion of restructured beef steaks. J Food Sci, 41, pp.1257-8.Dethmers, AE. 1979. Utilizing sensory evaluation todetermine product shelf life. Food Technol, 33(9),pp. 40-2.Diamant, R, BM Watts, and RL Cliplef. 1976.Consumer criteria for pork related to sensory, physi-cal, and descriptive attributes. Can Inst Food Sci andTechnol J, 9(3),pp. 151-4.Dove, WF. 1947. Food acceptability; Its determinationand evaluation. Food Technol, 1, pp. 39-50.Elrod, J. 1978. Bridging the gap between laboratoryand consumer tests. Food Technol, 32(1l),p. 63.Erhardt, JP. 1978. The role of the sensory analyst inproduct development. Food Technol, 32(1l),pp. 57-60.Fox, JB. 1987.The Pigments of Meat. In: Price,JF, andBS Schweigert, editors. The Science of Meat andMeat Products. 3rd ed. Westport, Connecticut: Foodand Nutrition Press, Inc., pp. 193-216.Griffin, RW. 1999. Applied sensory science and con-sumer testing in the industry: history and future.Food Testing and Analysis, 5(2), pp. 9-13, 28.Hinreiner, EH. 1956. Organoleptic evaluation by indus-try panels-the cutting bee. Food Technol, 10, pp.62-7.IFT. 1974. Shelf life of foods. Institute of FoodTechnologists expert panel on food safety and nutri-tion. J Food Sci, 39, p. 861.Kauffman, RG. 1993.Opportunities for the meat indus-try in consumer satisfaction. Food Technol, 47(11),pp. 132-4.Kauffman, RG, W Sybesma, and G Eikelenboom.1990. In search of quality. J Inst Can Sci TechnolAliment, 23, pp. 160-164.Kinsman, DM. 1994. Historical Perspective andCurrent Status. In: Kinsman, DM, AW Kotula, andBC Breidenstein, editors. Muscle Foods. New York:Chapman & Hall, pp. 1-24.Kinsman, DM,AW Kotula, and BC Breidenstein. 1994.Muscle Foods. New York: Chapman & Hall, p. 573.Kropf, DH. 1980. Effects of retail display conditionson meat color. In: American Meat ScienceAssociation. Proc. 33rd Reciprocal Meat Confer-ence. June 20-25,West Lafayette, Indiana, pp. 15-32.Logue, AW, and ME Smith. 1986. Predictors of foodpreferences in adult humans. Appetite, 7, pp. 109-25.Lyon, CE, and BG Lyon. 1990.The relationship of ob-jective shear values and sensory tests to changes intenderness of broiler breast meat. Poultry Sci, 69, pp.329-40.Martin, RE. 1990. A hi