Facilitators and Barriers for Foods Containing Meat Coproducts

Chapter 12

Facilitators and Barriers for Foods Containing Meat Coproducts Maeve Henchion1 and Mary McCarthy2 1

Rural Economy and Development Programme, Teagasc, Ashtown Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin, Ireland; 2Department of Management

and Marketing, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

12.1 INTRODUCTION Humans have slaughtered animals for thousands of years to produce meat. In addition to meat, a whole range of other coproducts are produced. These are not part of the dressed carcass and can account for 50%e60% of slaughtering yield depending on species (see Fig. 12.1). They have a wide range of applications, following processing, including food, feed, pharmaceutical, and industrial use (Toldra and Nollett, 2011). More recent advances in science and technology have increased the range of potential applications. Furthermore, economic drivers such as competitive pressures on the meat industry, growth in the number of specialized processing companies that produce added-value ingredients for pharmaceutical, food, and feed applications as well as the need to feed a growing global population, ensure food security and reduce food waste and food loss while simultaneously addressing climate change and degradation of natural resources has focused academic and industry attention on further valorization of these products. This chapter focuses on one of the routes to valorization; specifically, it is concerned with looking at the facilitators and barriers for increasing market availability of foods containing meat coproducts. It emphasizes consumer aspects however broader issues are also introduced.

Other 8% Hide 7% Fat 4% Blood 4%

Meat 46%

Organs 15%

Bones 16%

FIGURE 12.1 Cattle breakdown by meat and coproducts. From Rabobank, December 2012. The Return of Animal By-products: Is the Carcass Valuation in the Meat Industry Reversing? Rabobank Industry Note #355, The Netherlands.

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814874-7.00012-2 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

237

238 Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

The chapter starts by considering the definition of meat coproducts and examining related terminology. It proceeds by elaborating on the drivers for developing foods containing meat coproducts and continues with an exploration of the factors which influence consumers judgments of such foods in terms of being food/nonfood and edible/inedible. Finally, it concludes by briefly identifying other factors that may act as facilitators and barriers for successful development of foods containing meat byproducts.

12.2 WHAT ARE MEAT COPRODUCTS? Terminology associated with coproducts includes fifth quarter, offal, animal byproducts, processing coproducts, and waste. While some stakeholders associate with some terms more strongly (e.g., meat scientists tend to talk about processing coproducts while regulators talk about animal byproducts and waste) many of these terms are currently used interchangeably. It is important to clearly distinguish them as such products are governed by strict legislation which governs appropriate methods of processing and standards as well as use and disposal of such materials. Furthermore, different terms frame any discussion around them, with for example negative connotations associated with “waste” as opposed to “coproducts” or “byproducts.” Fifth quarter refers to all the nonmeat parts of the carcass that are harvested from the carcass in the abattoir (Mullen et al., 2015). In the United States, animal byproducts are classified as hides, edible offal (including variety meats), and inedible offal (Marti et al., 2011). Edible offals are termed red offals in other contexts (e.g., liver, heart, kidney, tongue, and sweetbreads) while inedible offals are also called white offal (e.g., lungs, pancreas, and esophagus). However, in the EU, animal byproducts(ABPs) have a more focused definition under Regulation (EC) 1069/2009, consisting of materials of animal origin that are deemed unsuitable for human consumption (fifth quarter products intended for human consumption are covered by regulations for food of animal origin and should not be classified as animal byproducts). According to the regulation, ABPs are further divided into three categories based on their potential risk to public and animal health, and the environment. Category 1 ABPs contain very high-risk material, known as Specified Risk Material (SRM), such as: 1. constituents of animals suspected or confirmed of being infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), 2. materials from animals that have been administered certain prohibited substances/drugs, and 3. floor waste from beef processors. The following beef fifth quarter constituents are categorized as SRM, and are unsuitable for human consumption in all circumstances: 1. materials such as the tonsils, intestines (duodenum to rectum), and mesentery from cattle of all ages, 2. materials from the skull (including brain and eyes) and the spinal cord (excluding mandible) from cattle over 12 months, and 3. materials from the vertebral column (including dorsal root ganglia but excluding tail vertebra) from cattle over 30 months (Woodgate, 2013). It is interesting to note that the definition of SRM can vary by region globally. Category 2 ABPs include: 1. constituents from animals that die on farm, 2. manure and the digestive tract content, and 3. constituents from animals that exceed permitted residue levels of certain allowed substances (such as therapeutic drugs). Category 3 ABPs include: 1. materials which were previously fit for human consumption, including retail and catering waste, 2. constituents from slaughtered animals which are edible, but are not intended for human consumption (i.e., due to commercial reasons, problems with manufacturing, or packaging defects), and 3. constituents which are collected or processed for human consumption (i.e., constituents which are sent straight to rendering for animal/pet food) (Woodgate, 2013). Table 12.1 below shows the distinctions between and overlaps among these different aspects of nonmeat products derived from farm animals. Other regulations within the EU can cause some confusion. For example, Regulation (EC) 854 (2004) which is a hygiene regulation defines offal as “fresh meat other than that of the carcass including viscera and blood” while ingredient labeling regulations (Regulation (EC) 1169/2011) defines “meat” more narrowly as skeletal attached muscles (Mullen et al., 2017).

Facilitators and Barriers for Foods Containing Meat Coproducts Chapter | 12

239

TABLE 12.1 Categorization of Offal, Coproducts, Byproducts, and Fifth Quarter (EU) Name

Edible

Carcass

Yes

No

Meat

Yes

No

Offals

Offals

Coproducts

Yes

Byproducts (ABP)

(Possible)

5th Q

Yes

Hide/skin

Yes

(Possible)

Yes

Fats/bones, stomachs and bladders

Yes

(Possible)

Yes

ABP category 3

Yes

Yes

ABP category 2

Yes

Yes

ABP category 1

Yes

Yes

From Woodgate, S., 2013. Economic Viability of Future Opportunities for Obtaining Better Returns for the 5th Quarter. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/531079bee4b0a39dbd7d9f3f/t/5318e6bbe4b01676f173bf29/ 1394140859868/IMSþPresentation.pdf.

TABLE 12.2 Opportunities for Use of Different Categories of Animal Byproduct (ABP) Use or Process

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Human food

No

No

No

Pet food (raw)

No

No

Yes

Compost/Anaerobic digestion

No

Maybea

Yes

Coincineration

Yes

Yes

Yes

Rendering

Yes

Yes

Yes

a Subject to pre- or postprocessing conditions. From Woodgate, S., 2013. Economic Viability of Future Opportunities for Obtaining Better Returns for the 5th Quarter. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/531079bee4b0a39dbd7d9f3f/t/ 5318e6bbe4b01676f173bf29/1394140859868/IMSþPresentation.pdf.

According to the ingredient labeling regulations, other parts of the animal must be declared separately with the species of the animal clearly specified. Thus, protein derived from the heart of a bovine animal must be declared as “beef heart protein” or “bovine heart protein.” Table 12.2 illustrates the restrictions of use according to ABP categorization. Generally, coproducts include the hides, bones, skin, and fat. However, it should be noted that this varies with Australia, for example, categorizing all nonmeat components as coproducts (Mullen et al., 2017). Coproducts (hide, bones, skin, and fat) can be used to make food-grade ingredients including food-grade fats, collagen, gelatin, and edible bone phosphate (Kenny et al., 1999) for products with application in the pharmaceutical industry (e.g., gelatin as a binding and compounding agent in the manufacture of medicated tablets and pastilles and bile fluid to produce medicinal products and capsules in the pharmaceutical industry (Jayathilakan et al., 2012)) and in the cosmetic industry (e.g., rendered fat as an ingredient hand lotions and body creams). Current definitions of food waste in the EU include byproducts. The EU Commission Council Directive 2008/98/EC define“waste” as “any substance or object, which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard.” This includes some byproducts which are excluded from the human food chain for regulatory reasons (see category 3 above) and also other edible products which may be classified as waste due to industrial practices. Current categorizations have defined byproducts from a waste management and regulatory perspective rather than from a food perspective. Coproducts exclude many nonmeat products which provide opportunities for valorization. Waste has negative connotations which may influence consumer evaluations of resultant products. Thus, this section emphasizes the importance of having clear terminology in any discussions around meat byproducts. While strict definitions are required from a regulatory perspective, definitions can constrain thinking with regards to identifying opportunities and can also,

240 Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

unintentionally, influence future acceptance of novel products and processes. The development of consistent, neutral yet nonmisleading terminology is likely to be supportive of byproduct valorization.1

12.3 DRIVERS FOR DEVELOPING FOODS CONTAINING MEAT COPRODUCTS Drivers for developing foods containing meat coproducts are important to understand because such drivers may be facilitators or barriers and because they, and associated discussions within the media and elsewhere, frame consumer’s evaluations of such products. It is useful to establish from the outset that developing foods containing meat coproducts is not in itself new. This is partly because the contribution of animal coproducts to the profitability of the meat industry is well known and industry has existing markets for many coproducts. Indeed, while traditional markets for coproducts have been gradually declining because of low prices and health concerns (Liu, 2002), many coproducts and ABPs are commonly used for nonfood uses in the pharmaceutical, feed, and leather industries and for energy. In relation to human consumption, red offals have been widely used for many years as ingredients in processed products, such as sausages, and spreadable products, such as pâtés. White offal such as blood can be processed into functional ingredients which have been used as emulsifiers, vitamin additives, clarifiers, color additives, protein supplements milk substitute, and egg replacer (Toldra and Nollett, 2011; Baiano, 2014). What is new, however, is the attention given to some coproducts that may not have been considered for human consumption and the technologies that may be used to facilitate such use. This attention turn is because of the significant volumes of these coproducts that are being used for lower value applications or going for incineration, and the related negative implications for production costs, the environment, and possibly health (Selmane et al., 2008). The potential for exploitation of the fifth quarter to reduce the carbon footprint of meat is also increasingly valued in an environment in which there are a growing number of meat reducers. In 2014, EBLEX reported that increased use of fifth quarter in the United Kingdom could reduce the carbon footprint of beef by around 25% and they indicate that between 2006 and 2012 the percentage by weight of a bovine animal consumed by humans increased by 10 percentage points from 38% to 48%.2 Further increases could allow more meat to be included in carbon footprint calculations and thereby reduce the environmental impact of meat production. Thus there are significant economic and environmental reasons to seek increased value from slaughterhouse coproducts. Quantification of the volume of animal coproducts draws attention to questions relating to sustainability and the impact of food production and consumption on the environment, on public and animal health, and on communities as well as on economies. Table 12.3 below shows the weight of ABPs in Australia, Canada, and the EU (per 600 kg steer). When this is scaled up its impact is significant. In the EU alone, over 20 million tons of ABPs are produced each year by slaughterhouses, plants producing food for human consumption, dairies, and as fallen stock from farms.3 This has a direct impact on the environment as a result of the need to dispose of these products. The challenge in disposing of such a volume of animal byproducts is recognized by the EC, who state that “the disposal of all animal byproducts is not a realistic option, as it would lead to unsustainable costs and risks for the environment.”1 The convenient disposal option also has to be

TABLE 12.3 Weight of Animal Byproducts in Australia, Canada, and the EU (Based on 600 kg Steer) Country/Region

SRM (kg)

ABP (kg)

Australia

0

w250

Canada

25

w225

125

w125

EU

From Woodgate, S., 2013. Economic Viability of Future Opportunities for Obtaining Better Returns for the 5th Quarter. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ 531079bee4b0a39dbd7d9f3f/t/5318e6bbe4b01676f173bf29/1394140859868/IMSþPresentation. pdf.

1. Coproducts will be the term used throughout this chapter in line with the Australian approach to include all nonmeat components of the carcass and to avoid any negative connotations associated with the term byproducts. 2. https://www.agindustries.org.uk/news-and-events/news/fifth-quarter-helps-cut-carbon-footprint-of-beef-production/. 3. EU https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/animal-by-products_en.

Facilitators and Barriers for Foods Containing Meat Coproducts Chapter | 12

241

considered in terms of human health concerns. Thus, BSE for example, and the associated regulatory environment, have restricted the use of some coproducts to pet food and has characterized certain offals that would have previously been consumed as inedible. This volume of ABPs also has an indirect impact on the environment as a significant waste of resources and emissions associated with such production have been produced for no consumption benefit. In this way, the volume of ABPs produce provides further justifications for criticisms of animal production practices as reflected in concerns about greenhouse gas emission, energy and water use, land use/land-use change, biodiversity loss, and waste production (Henchion et al., 2017). These sustainability concerns are feeding into international commitments by governments, the development of policies and legislation, and raising consumer consciousness of where and how their food is produced. Industry has been responding, and there is evidence that the amount of meat and edible products in individual bovine, and particularly porcine, animals has been increasing while the weight of animal byproducts has been decreasing (Woodgate, 2013). A further driver of the development of food products containing meat byproducts are the challenges associated with a growing population, which requires more food, and changes in consumption patterns because of increased incomes and urbanization. Projected demand for protein, and specifically animal-based protein which is expected to double by 2050 (Westhoek et al., 2011), results in further food security and sustainably concerns, and the search for alternative protein sources (Van Huis et al., 2013). This places pressure on food processors to look at all processing streams in terms of adding or recovering value (Mullen et al., 2017). Animal coproducts offer a partial solution to this challenge. However, Mullen et al. (2017) and others highlight the value of animal coproducts as rich sources of protein, lipids, and other molecules, and indicate that use of some edible meat products has not been optimized for human nutrition (Subba, 2002). It is argued that it is “imperative to recognise that we have a readily available and under-utilised resource ripe for exploitation in coproducts arising from meat processing” (Mullen et al., 2017, p. 91). Progress in science and technology is supporting this shift in three significant ways. Firstly, advances provide opportunities to use meat byproducts in new ways. Research has focused on understanding the properties of proteins and other extracts and developing the most efficient recovery processes for protein without considerably altering their properties. These advances provide new opportunities to use previously underutilized coproducts. For example, lung, which is a good source of protein and the essential amino acid lysine has been largely wasted (Subba, 2002) or used in pet-food. However, new techniques are being developed to facilitate extraction of valuable ingredients without adversely affecting functionality. Technologies such as ultrasound, pulse electric field, high hydrostatic pressures, and subcritical water hydrolysis are seen to offer promise in this area (Mullen et al., 2017). Other avenues of research include advances in membrane technology (including ultrafiltration), spray drying, and enzymatic hydrolysis. There has been some limited commercial success, including development of methods for collection and processing of blood (which represents approx. 4% of animal live weight or 6% of the lean mean content of the carcass (Alao, 2017)) into dried blood plasma and red cells however progress in the extraction and purification of other meat proteins is limited, particularly in relation to methods that may be scaled up to industrial level (Selmane et al., 2008). Fractionation of blood provides other value adding opportunities. While whole blood gives the final product a dark color which may not be acceptable in a meat product, the plasma portion (which contains one-third of the total blood protein) is of interest due to its lack of color combined with its functional properties while the red blood cells are of interest as a food colorant (red) and as a valuable source of organic iron amongst other opportunities (Liu, 2002). Research also continues on developing new products by incorporating varying levels of offal and assessing the resulting products in terms of sensory acceptability and nutritive value, e.g., incorporating varying levels of offal into snacks, meat products and other foods (Kenny et al., 1999; Subba, 2002; Malvestiti et al., 2007; Magoro et al., 2012). This is because offals offer a wide range of flavors and textures which provides a range of opportunities as ingredients. However, some offals are appealing from a sensory perspective, e.g., liver has an appealing taste and is used to manufacture sausages and meat extracts, while others, even though edible, require masking or transformation to be acceptable from a sensory perspective (e.g., spleen and lung). Using offal to replace meat, i.e., to function as fillers, in products such as sausage, is seen as acceptable because it does not cause the product to look different than expected (Wansink, 2002). The development of hybrid meat products or products in which meat and other protein sources are blended, which positions meat coproducts as having a role in improving the nutritive value of plant-based products for example, also presents opportunities. However, to realize such opportunities, sensory aspects relating to taste, texture and color need to be addressed to provide a product that is as would be expected by consumers for the product in question, e.g., a protein blended burger should have sensory characteristics that are consistent with consumers’ expectations of a burger. All sensory aspects have to be acceptable; Subba (2002) found sensory panelists accepted snack products containing offal in terms of taste and texture but rejected the products in terms of color and thus rejected the products overall. In addition to such scientific and technological advances, new knowledge about health beneficial compounds such as bioactives in meat

242 Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

and nonmeat components support moves to valorize meat coproducts (e.g., Bah et al., 2013; Hayes and Lafarga, 2014). While research has been published describing the extraction and characterization of functional proteins from various offals such as lung, liver, heart, viscera, and bones, research funding in looking at the use of offals beyond collagen and blood has been limited, and very few patents using offal as an ingredient have been published (Mullen et al., 2017). A third way science and technology advances can support coproduct valorization is through the development of new processes that increase the range of opportunities available for valorization of specific coproducts, i.e., the development of new processes which may eliminate or minimize the risks of certain byproducts to public and animal health and thus facilitate a wider range of (higher value) uses. This could result in amendments to the lists of animal byproducts listed in the EC to take account of such progress. Such amendments are however of course subject to appropriate risk assessments. An example of the flexibility of the regulations, subject to appropriate scientific risk assessment, is the reclassification of blood from young ruminants and ruminants from category 2 to category 3, reflecting their lower level of risk as a result of passing Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy tests (Mullen et al., 2015). As illustrated in Table 12.2, this changes the range of available valorization opportunities. Thus, the current drive to add value to coproducts derives from economic and environmental factors as well as general sustainability reasons. It is supported by an increased demand for food, particularly protein, and concerns about waste. The development of foods containing such byproducts has been proposed as a potential partial solution to these challenges and the science and technology community are responding to this opportunity. As stated by the European Commission,1 “there is a clear interest for all citizens that, provided the health risks are minimised, a wide range of animal byproducts are safely used for various applications in a sustainable manner.”1 However, it is not a magic bullet and prudent policy makers, researchers and food companies are concerned with understanding challenges and barriers to such developments.

12.4 CONSUMER PERSPECTIVES ON MEAT COPRODUCTS AS FOODS AND FOOD INGREDIENTS The starting point to consider consumer perspectives in relation to the use of coproducts as food must be current and historical use of offals. This contributes to understanding whether consumers are likely to consider such products as novel or “extreme,” or even edible, and the extent to which diets are malleable. Sociologists have long argued that what is food is “culturally or socially variable” (Murcott, 1999, p. 308) and not so much of “a biological affair” (Murcott, 1999, p. 309), i.e., what is edible in one cultural or social context may not be viewed as edible in another. This was recognized in wartime efforts during World War II in the United States when the Department of Defense enlisted psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists, as well as food scientists, dieticians, and food economists to address the challenge of changing dietary habits. They wanted to include organ meats in the diet as a substitute for meat, as much of the meat produced in the United States at the time was exported overseas to feed soldiers and allies (Wansink, 2002). The extent to which food (of animal origin) is culturally constrained currently can be seen by the differences in trade and use of offals in different countries. For example, Russia and Egypt are two of the world’s leading importers of edible offal. In these countries, offal is seen as an inexpensive way to obtain high quality protein and therefore it is associated with lower income households. This contrasts with Japan where cow tongue, for example, is considered an expensive delicacy (Marti et al., 2011). Nonetheless, certain offals are generally perceived as inedible and are not viewed as a potential food by consumers in any country, e.g., lung. While a growing prevalence of food allergies and food intolerances place emphasis on food as a biological issue, there is strong evidence that people are guided by individual tastes and preferences and sociocultural factors (e.g., religion) in determining what they should eat and what they should avoid (Veeck, 2010). This indicates that familiarity with offal is likely to influence acceptance of food containing coproducts. Offal is not currently a part of the everyday diet in many parts of the world. This, in part, is due to the historic link to being food for the poor. As economies grew and developed many “poor man foods” were rejected for higher value alternatives and thus decades later they are somewhat unfamiliar, inaccessible, and undesirable to most consumers in developed economies. In contrast certain offals are considered delicacies in some countries, reflecting the use of the term “sweet meats,” and there is evidence of a strong growing demand for offals in regions such as Africa and Asia. Furthermore, according to Diamonon (2014) offal is officially an “in” trend, and it is believed that demand for these constituents will remain in the long term as consumers demand more innovative, convenient and unconventional products (Rabobank, 2012). Interestingly, the role of organ meats as a means to add variety to the diet and prevent monotony was one of the bases on which it was promoted during World War II America (Wansink, 2002). Its current positioning in the Western World, whereby it is viewed as novel and a source of variety rather than a long-term substitute, is likely to facilitate a gradual introduction of offal as an unfamiliar food.

Facilitators and Barriers for Foods Containing Meat Coproducts Chapter | 12

243

There is not a singular consumer response to new/novel products due to interplays between the characteristics of the product, individual and the environment. Important in the case of new/novel food is the individual tendencies toward neophobia or neophilia. This is reflected in the omnivore’s paradox: humans are conditioned to avoid unfamiliar products due to the fear of ingesting toxins and pathogens while simultaneously enjoying sensation seeking and novelty. While neophobic/neophilic tendencies will not predict acceptance, it has been found that people who self-classify as adventurous (neophilia) have different responses to unusual foods compared to people who self-classify as picky (most likely to be more neophobic) (Veeck, 2010). Importantly, evaluations of products and thus responses to these are influenced by this personality trait. Indeed, research in the United States has found that foods viewed as comforting by some were viewed as boring by others, similarly the same foods were interesting or disgusting by different consumers. Interestingly, neophobic tendencies are not homogeneous across foods with neophobic tendencies likely to be stronger in response to animal products than nonanimal products (Martins et al., 1997). Veeck (2010) found that the social setting into which new foods are introduced can have a strong moderating impact on individual neophobic/neophilic tendencies. If new foods are introduced in a holiday setting, while dining in a trusted restaurant, or when dining in the homes of friends and relatives, neophobic tendencies are moderated or “safety anxieties must yield to more pressing social concerns” (Veeck, 2010, p. 259). Restaurants provide safe environments for people to try new foods (Veeck, 2010). The option to try foods in a buffet situation reduces the perceived risk. Nonetheless, this does not guarantee repeat consumption with consumers who felt compelled to try a new food in a social occasion often vowing never to consume such a product again. Acceptance has a strong emotive as well as cognitive aspect as highlighted by Veeck (2010) and Henchion et al. (2016) in relation to novel foods. Consequently, what these foods represent, their meaning, can steer and direct emotional and cognitive responses. Rozin and Fallon (1987) highlighted three important motives that influence product acceptance/ rejection in relation to unfamiliar foods: 1. Negative sensory properties (distaste). This can relate to a product’s real or imagined sensory characteristics. Appearance and texture (relating to ideational/disgust aspects) can be more important than taste in influencing acceptance (Veeck, 2010). This is because substances rejected on the basis of disgust are objectionable while substances rejected on the basis of distaste are not objectionable (Martins and Pliner, 2006). 2. Harmful consequences (perceived danger) based on anticipated consequences of consumption. 3. Ideational, i.e., knowledge of the nature or origin of the product. Martins and Pliner (2006) identify disgust and (in) appropriateness(for an item not typically classified as a food within a given culture) as two type of ideational reasons for rejecting products. What a food is, where it comes from and its social history influence the disgust motive. Henchion et al. (2016) identified rejection motivations relating to each of these three aspects for a range of different food product concepts that incorporated different offals using different processing technologies (see Table 12.4). They argue, drawing on Martins and Pliner (2006), that science and technology and industry practices can impact the bipolar motivational dimensions underlying acceptance/rejection. Science and technology, for example, can help to change perceptions from distaste to taste, harmful to healthy and aversive texture to acceptable. It can have an influence in relation to

TABLE 12.4 Influences on Acceptance and Rejection of Offal Derived Foods Concentrated Extract

Meat Plus Offal (Ground)

Mince Plus Powdered Offal

Reasons for rejection

Ideational: Emotional and visceral responses. Appropriateness Negative taste experience. Industry motivations questioned.

Nonalignment between level of processing and product. Negative health perceptions due to levels of processing. Necessity

Necessity

Reasons for accepting

Past experience Liking taste

Get health benefit. Could be like a seasoning.

Control Transparency Clear benefit Natural ingredient

Prerequisite to acceptance

Trust in oversight that the products are safe

From Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., Callaghan, J.O’., November 2016. Transforming beef by-products into valuable ingredients: which spell/recipe to use? Frontiers in Nutrition Nutrition and Food Science Technology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2016.00053.

244 Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

the physical state in which the product is presented to consumers and thereby the extent to which the source ingredient is transformed and is able to be identified. In the specific case of meat coproducts, processing can serve to distance the ingredient from its animal origin (deanimalize it) thereby rendering it potentially more acceptable. The first hurdle appears to be the ideational hurdle. However, even when consumers do not reject products on ideational grounds, benefits can influence acceptance. In some instances, strong, personally relevant benefits (e.g., improved health/appearance) can overcome initial rejection on ideation grounds in the case of foods produced from meat coproducts (Henchion et al., 2016). It is important to highlight the role of perceived risks and fears in relation to public reactions to food composition as opposed to scientific understanding of the probability of such risks (Evans et al., 2010). Indeed public risk perceptions in relation to food are often driven by a failure to provide information relevant to consumers’ actual concerns rather than technical risk estimates based on expert knowledge. While there is pressure on manufacturers to remove content or processes that may be perceived as unnatural, consumers do recognize that additives provide salient benefits including convenience, nutrition and sensory characteristics as well as functioning as processing aids (Evans et al., 2010). Chemical changes during processing result in larger reductions in perceived naturalness than physical changes. Ethical and moral considerations can also influence the acceptability, or otherwise, of a particular hazard (Frewer and Gremen, 2007). Furthermore, consumer risk perceptions influence how they respond to hazards, with involuntary/voluntary exposure influencing being more/less threatening. Industry practices are particularly interesting as changes in preferences are often supply driven (Shelomi, 2015) such that ensuring widespread availability of such products so that they become integrated into people’s culinary practices suggest there is an important role that industry can play in influencing acceptance. While there are marked boundaries between what is edible and inedible, such boundaries are“diverse and idiosyncratic” at an individual level (Veeck, 2010, p. 258). Indeed, a study by Kennedy (1945) cited in Wansink (2002) indicates further complexity to the binary edible/ inedible argument by suggesting that individuals consider three categories of food: “food for us,” food that is appropriate for others (which may be a subordinate reference group) and food for animals. Furthermore, these boundaries are altered over time, with both stability (habits) and changes in diet influenced by multi-generational processes (Wansink, 2002). The success or failure of “coproduct derived” foods hinges on consumer responses. Thus, careful consideration has to be given to alignment between ingredients, food products, benefits and, sociocultural and customer characteristics. Central to success is the: 1. 2. 3. 4.

framing of offerings within the familiar while targeting those that seek new and exciting foods, integrating into everyday food practices by delivering convenient solutions to priority needs, situating these within sub-cultures and, engaging with social media to support the cocreation of consumer appropriate products.

Meanings built around these products through engagement with potential target groups will be fundamental to their market trajectory.

12.5 LESSONS FROM OTHER NOVEL FOOD SOURCES An examination of the consumer related barriers and facilitators to acceptance of other “culturally inappropriate” novel meat substitutes may offer some interesting insights (due to the similarity in many of these substitutes characterizes, from a consumer perspective, to those of foods containing meat coproducts). The novel components of these foods generally fall outside what is culturally acceptable as food (at best they are culturally inappropriate), they are unfamiliar to the person and there is a level of perceived uncertainty/risk in their consumption from performance, psychological, and social perspectives. A lot of research attention has been focused on the potential for using insects as a food solution in recent years, particularly given global demands on animal protein. This effort provides an opportunity for learning in relation to food products containing meat coproducts. This is because while insects have been consumed for thousands of years, and are part of the traditional diets of at least 2 billion people (Van Huis et al., 2013), they will need to be consumed in parts of the world in which they have not traditionally been consumed if they are to present a solution to the global “protein dilemma.” For example, it is argued that they offer environmental benefits, requiring less land and water and emitting lower levels of greenhouse gases and ammonia than regular livestock. Indeed, the suggestion is that of the range of potential meat substitutes, insect flourebased alternatives have among the lowest environmental impact (Smetana et al., 2016). Furthermore, they can be reared on organic side streams thus reducing waste streams and adding value. They are also argued to perform better in terms of feed conversion efficiency than other animals due to their cold-blooded nature. However, as with any food source, there are several concerns associated with their consumption. Firstly, the environmental impact of insects is influenced by the insect species in question and their associated diet (this also determines whether they

Facilitators and Barriers for Foods Containing Meat Coproducts Chapter | 12

245

can be used for food or feed purposes from a regulatory perspective) (Smetana et al., 2016). While they have a favorable nutritional profile, many insects are deficient in certain essential amino acids (Belluco et al., 2013). Furthermore, question marks remain with regards to their safety due to a lack of research in this area. Finally, in Western cultures, there is a reluctance to consume insects. They are frequently regarded as pests and a source of contamination, and thus to be avoided. Hence, while many of the arguments in favor of and against consuming insects echo arguments in favor of and against increased consumption of meat coproducts, from a consumer perspective one of the key commonalities is the challenge associated with ideation or the “yuck” factor. Consequently, it is unsurprising that consumer willingness to consume is generally low. To illustrate, Verbeke (2015) work suggests that more than four in five of Belgians are unwilling to eat insects as a meat substitute. One may argue that this is as would be expected, given that a disgust response may be triggered as part of a protective mechanism against ingesting potentially harmful substances (Hartmann and Siegrist, 2017). Taking the disgust response (which is somewhat typical in western societies when considering insect as a food source) into account the fact that one in five of people were willing to consume these foods warrants mention. This suggests that the more venturesome, novelty-seeking innovators are willing to take a “leap of faith” while also possibly recognizing that insects form parts of the food menu in other societies. While the aforementioned characteristics of these products suggest a slow consumer adoption rate, a focus on innovators in the early phase of product introduction is important to illustrate the products in use and thus legitimize it within the broader market (Goldsmith and Flynn, 1992). Indeed, the actions and reactions of this cohort strongly determine the direction and pace of adoption of any novel meat substitutes. Moving potential consumers through the first three stages of the adoption process (awareness, interest, and evaluation) may be facilitated by the “novelty factor,” however major challenges lie in stages 4 (product trial) and 5 (product adoption). This draws our attention to factors that facilitate positive evaluations and product trials of these novel foods. Research suggests that the order of product launches is important. Transitioning consumers from rejecting these culturally inappropriate foods to integrating them in their everyday food lives requires positioning them within what is familiar (e.g., burgers, chips, sauce dishes), removing evidence of their origins (e.g., present in the form of flour, patty, or mince), and ensuring that they look and smell appealing (Schosler et al., 2012; Megido et al., 2016; Hartmann and Siegrist, 2017). Megido et al. (2016, p. 237) suggest, in the case of insect-based alternative meat products, the most likely to succeed are those with “minced or powdered insects incorporated into ready-to-eat preparations.” Tan et al. (2016) warn that trial may not imply acceptance, it may just represent curiosity. Consequently, while attention should be given to enticing individual to try, there is a need to draw on conventional wisdom on the necessary elements for market success of any new food product. Taste, value for money, convenience, availability, and relevance within everyday food practices are central to moving consumers from trial to repeat purchases (House, 2016). Attention needs to be given to targeting market segments to ensure that the product offerings are congruent with expectations and products are designed to target those open to trying and using such products (coproduct or nonmeat-based substitutes). Within this context factors such as cultural background, gender, age, and experience have been noted as important (Verbeke, 2015; Tan et al., 2016). In line with this thinking Apostolidis and McLeay (2016) argue that to reduce meat consumption through substitution activities and interventions should be “holistic and target specific consumer segments.” Greehy et al. (2013)work on citizens’ evaluation of novel food technologies draws attention to perceived product relevance and the importance of unique tangible benefits. They suggest if either of these are absent one can anticipate that the product/technology will be rejected. When considering meat substitutes it is interesting to note that environmental benefits are central to their communication narrative, however Hartman and Siegrist (2017) highlight that consumer awareness of the suggested environmental impact of meat production (based on life-cycle analysis) is low. Additionally, the strong connection and ties to consuming meat held by many may lead them to questions about the overall relevance of these substitutes in their food lives. As a result, overall motivation to change meat consumption patterns is low (Hartmann and Siegrist, 2017). Irrespective of the food solution a significant challenge lies in achieving market success where the food falls into the category of being culturally inappropriate.

12.6 OTHER BARRIERS In addition to consumer challenges, technical, operational, commercial, and regulatory challenges exist. According to Mullen et al. (2017) many of these challenges can be addressed by good industry practice and an applied research approach. While there has been some progress in the development of techniques at laboratory scale, scale-up is a challenge: “progress in the extraction and purification of other [non-blood] proteins is limited, especially when one considers only the methods that can be applied at industrial scale” (Selmane et al., 2008, p. 641). This is because conventional extraction may

246 Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

involve solvents that are not food grade, for example, and new technologies can necessitate significant capital costs or result in high operational costs (Galanakis et al., 2015a). Furthermore, selection of recovery methodologies involve tradeoffs such that “methodologies with fewer recovery steps are cheaper and scale-up is easier but at the same time they generate cruder products with lower concentrations of target products” (Galanakis et al., 2015b, p. 356). Considerations relating to intellectual property, its protection, and exploitation are also relevant for start-up companies, individual researchers, and research organizations, and companies seeking to utilize this valuable resource. Coproducts are highly perishable and need to be collected in a hygienic manner, stabilized, stored under refrigerated conditions to minimize microbial growth and other deteriorative changes and then processed at an economically viable scale. Collection in a hygienic manner and stabilization may require changes to work practices in abattoirs and investment in equipment while achievement of economies of scale may be dependent on collaboration between several abattoirs as well as significant capital investment. These conditions may represent significant barriers; for example, in Scotland the lack of processing facilities for blood was identified as a barrier to the development of new markets based on blood (Couture, pers. comm.). The challenge of achieving economies of scale should not be underestimated given the extremely competitive nature of the meat industry as a result of its tight margins, the need to convince all players of the benefits of using the coproducts rather than simply (but costly) disposing of them, the need to develop legal agreements for supply (including storage and transport) and the need to obtain commitments along the supply chain to use the resulting products. Challenges related to scale and location of plants may favor easier, but more costly, options in some cases and limit opportunities for joint ventures (Quality Meats Scotland, 2010a). Furthermore, the relatively low (actual or perceived as such by industry) economic value of some materials, or a lack of differentiation between the price of category 1 and category 3, means that they may be processed as a batch rather than separated for processing, thereby constraining opportunities to achieve economies of scale. Low costs of disposal can also make some opportunities uneconomic, e.g., it is not economically viable to empty intestines in Scotland due to the low costs of disposing of SRM (Quality Meats Scotland, 2010a). The impact of these issues is that category 3 and edible products often leave the abattoir as category 1 byproducts. Yield of the applied technologies and overall costs can also impact achievement of economic viability (Galanakis et al., 2015b). Furthermore, dramatic fluctuations in the market for fifth quarter products result in financial risk with a continual need to evaluate profitability (Quality Meats Scotland, 2010a). On the positive side, the development of emerging, mainly nonthermal, technologies may provide opportunities to mitigate some of these challenges by improving yields, reducing processing time and costs, and resulting in higher quality products (Galanakis et al., 2015b). Furthermore, it is believed that technologies are available that permit a pay-back period of less than three years for some applications, e.g., blood (Couture, pers. comm.). As ABPs can be dangerous to animal and human health e.g., ABPs can spread animal diseases (e.g., BSE) or may contain chemical contaminants (e.g., dioxins), they are governed by strict rules regarding movement, processing, and disposal. They can also be significant environmental contaminants (e.g., causing air pollution, ground water contamination and eutrophication of water) if not handled carefully and thus they will have to comply with environmental regulations, possibly requiring Pollution Prevention Control permits, as well as being subject to food safety regulations. These regulations come into play without delay such that edible byproducts destined for human consumption need to be examined by public health inspectors immediately after slaughter and approved as free from infections and physical abnormalities (Alao et al., 2017). This inspection phase may result is significant losses from the human food chain with up to 50% of livers reported to be contaminated in some abattoirs in the United Kingdom (Quality Meats Scotland, 2010a) The level of detail specified in regulations regarding how byproducts are handled to ensure hygienic management is considerable and has implications for collection, handling and storage systems. For example, European Directive 64/433/EEC “Council Directive on Health Conditions for the Production and Marketing of Fresh Meat” Annex 1 states: 30: bleeding must be complete; blood intended for human consumption must be collected in absolutely clean containers. It must not be stirred by hand, only with instruments”. 37. If the blood or the offal of several animals is collected in the same container before the completion of the postmortem inspection, the entire contents must be declared unfit for human consumption if the carcass of one of the animals concerned has been declared unfit for human consumption which meet hygiene requirements. According to Butina Anitec,4 a Danish-based supplier of blood collection and processing systems to the meat industry, these regulations mean that open bleeding systems cannot be used (to avoid contamination as a result of spraying, for example), and that intermediate storage of collected blood is required until each animal has passed the final postmortem

4. http://www.butina.eu/products/blood_collection/.

Facilitators and Barriers for Foods Containing Meat Coproducts Chapter | 12

Anticoagulant added to stop blood coagulating and blocking equipment

Raw Blood Collected •

Hygienic Blood

247

Intermediate Storage (Veterinary approval)

Soiled Blood (waste)

• •

Rendering Biogas

Anticoagulant or Salt can be added to extend shelf life Fresh Whole Blood •

Approved Blood Separation Process

• •

Freezing Process

Fresh Plasma Fresh Hemoglobin (red blood corpuscles)

Drying Process Ready-To-Use Dry Product Ready-To-Use Frozen Products

FIGURE 12.2 Flow diagram of processing of blood for human consumption. From Quality Meats Scotland, 2010b. Adding Value to the Scottish Red Meat Supply Chain: Recovering Value for the 5th Quarter and Reducing Waste: Topic 7 Blood, Available at: http://www.qmscotland.co.uk/sites/default/ files/Topic7þBloodþ27May.pdf.

inspection (to ensure that the blood from sick animals is separated from healthy animals). If the blood is to be used in the pharmaceutical industry, it needs to be pumped into an agitated tank for further processing (Quality Meats Scotland, 2010b). (Anticoagulant needs to be added at the collection point regardless of use). Fig. 12.2 illustrates the process of collecting, storing and processing blood for human consumption. Unfortunately, while “an important aspect of recovery of additional value from meat processing is adherence to the strict legislation associated with animal byproducts, etc.” (Mullen et al., 2015, p. 37), this framing presents byproducts as a waste management problem rather than a source of biomass, or “substrates for the recapture of functional compounds and the development of new products with a market value” (Galanakis, 2012, p. 68) and an opportunity for valorization. As well as restricting industry thinking in relation to potential opportunities, this framing can impact market acceptance. Labeling aspects are also important. Other challenges arise in ensuring that coproduct processing does not have further negative environmental impacts. Principles such as total exploitation and avoidance of the generation of extra waste also apply (Waldron, 2007), along with circularity (whereby the whole process is designed to minimize waste) and cascading (whereby higher value uses that allow reuse and recycling are prioritized), as reflected in discussions regarding the use of biomass in the bioeconomy. Hence regulations and policy measures related to waste management, energy production and consumption, and many other areas may be necessary. These considerations highlight the need to measure, and thus ensure, the long-terms sustainability of the proposed valorization solutions.

248 Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

12.7 FINAL WORDS The viability of the world’s meat industry depends on the utilization of animal coproducts, particularly in light of increased competitive pressures from vegetal protein sources. This imperative, combined with the broader sustainability considerations and advances in science and technology, facilitate greater optimization in valorizing such byproducts and interest by policy makers and researchers as well as industry. However, several challenges may impede their development such as the risk that foods that include ingredients derived from coproducts may be rejected out of hand if account is not taken of potential barriers from a consumer perspective. As with all consumer behavior, context is critical. Acceptance is likely to depend on the ingredient/coproduct in question, the product into which any ingredients are put, and the social norms in the given context. Furthermore, as highlighted by Henchion et al. (2016, p. 6) “experts, celebrity chefs, and friends have an important role to play in reducing consumer concerns by providing an example of “correct” behavior that people can copy, i.e., providing “social proof ”. They provide important role models, as a primary reference group, and thus can help to restructure social norms. The COB-M model developed by Mitchie et al. (2011) provides a useful framework to seek to influence behavior in this regard. 1. Enhance Capability: This is defined as “the individual’s psychological and physical capacity to engage in the activity concerned” and includes necessary knowledge and skills (Mitchie et al., 2011, p. 4). Helping consumers to evaluate foods containing meat coproducts is likely to be helpful. Consumer will have concerns regarding the food products themselves and the processes by which they have been produced. The establishment of effective traceability systems and labeling strategies that focus on both sustainability and food production are likely to be supportive (Frewer and Gremmen, 2007). Involving “consumer citizens” as much as “experts” in debating and explaining the safety and sustainability-related attributes of such products is important. Providing recipes and cooking tips may serve a dual function as they will enhance consumers’ capability to use such products. However, providing information that results in individuals using similar preparation and serving methods to that of the products they may be replacing (e.g., regular meats) may also help to create a more familiar taste, and thus enhance acceptance (Wansink, 2002). 2. Enhance Motivation (reflective and automatic): Motivation includes habitual processes, emotional responding, as well as analytical decision-making (Mitchie et al., 2011). Frewer and Gremmen (2007) state that “unless consumers can agree that the benefits of byproducts management are equivalent to sustainable, desirable and acceptable food production practices, consumers are unlikely to recognise and realise many of the potential benefits of byproducts management”. If products are positioned based on sustainability, there is a need to understand what consumers mean by sustainability, and how this might be introduced in product and process design. There will be a need to have consumers’ confidence in food production and technology as well as to debate issues about sustainable food production 3. Enhance Opportunity. Opportunity is “all the factors that lie outside the individual that make the behaviour possible or prompt it” (Mitchie et al., 2011, p. 4). Science and technology provide the opportunity to develop such products and thus enhance the opportunity for consumers to consume such products. In addition, there are opportunities for industry to reposition offals as part of the supporting context to develop supportive social norms for foods containing coproducts. This view is supported by evidence from Diamonon (2014) who attributed consumers’ desire to experiment with these constituents to offal becoming a more popular cooking ingredient in consumer households due to its increased availability. These “interventions” should focus as much on reducing consumption barriers as well as increasing consumption incentives. Indeed, Wansink (2002) and others argue that the latter will be “compromised” if not proceeded by efforts to reduce barriers. They should also address cognitive, emotive and habitual aspects of consumer decision making. These developments have and will continue to result in significant changes along the supply chain with implications for relationships between farmers and processors because of its impact on carcass valuation. The impact of this will vary by country and indeed by individual slaughterhouse. This is because the value of the animal results from the sale of meat cuts and the coproducts. The price of the latter will be optimized differently by different companies depending on their strategies which in turn are reflected in target markets, industrial work practices, supply chain relationships, and technological capabilities.

REFERENCES Alao, B.O., Falowo, A.B., Chulayo, A., Muchenje, V., 2017. The potential of animal by-products in food systems: production, prospects and challenges. Sustainability 9 (1089). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071089. Apostolidis, C., McLeay, F., 2016. Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution. Food Policy 65, 74e89.

Facilitators and Barriers for Foods Containing Meat Coproducts Chapter | 12

249

Bah, C.S.F., Bekhit, A., Carne, A., McConnell, M.A., 2013. Slaughterhouse blood: an emerging source of bioactive compounds. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Technology 12, 314e331. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12013. Baiano, A., 2014. Recovery of biomolecules from food wastes e a review. Molecules 19, 14821e14842. Belluco, S., Losasso, C., Maggioletti, M., Alonzi, C.C., Paoletti, M.G., Ricci, A., 2013. Edible insects in a food safety and nutritional perspective: a critical review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 12 (3), 296e313. CaparrosMegido, R., Gierts, C., Blecker, C., Brostaux, Y., Haubruge, É., Alabi, T., Francis, F., 2016. Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Quality and Preference 52, 237e243. Diamonon, K., June 2014. Consumer and Innovation Trends in Meat, Fish and Poultry: The Latest Consumer, Product and Market Insights, Datamonitor. Evans, G., de Challemaison, B., Cox, D.N., 2010. Consumers’ ratings of the natural and unnatural qualities of foods. Appetite 54 (2010), 557e563. Frewer, L.J., Gremmen, B., 2007. Consumer’s interests in food processing waste management and co-product recovery. In: Waldron, K. (Ed.), Handbook of Waste Management and Co-product Recovery in Food Processing, vol. 1. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK, pp. 21e33. Galanakis, C.M., 2012. Recovery of high added-value components from food wastes: conventional, emerging technologies and commercialized applications. Trends in Food Science and Technology 26 (2), 68e87. Galanakis, C., Barba, F.J., Krishnamurthy, N.P., 2015a. Cost and safety issues of emerging technologies against conventional techniques, chapter 14. In: Galanakis, C.M. (Ed.), Food Waste Recovery, Processing Technologies and Industrial Techniques. Elsevier, London. Galanakis, C.M., Martinez-Saez, N., del Castillo, M.D., Barba, F.J., Mitropoulou, V.S., 2015b. Patented and comercialized applications, chapter 15. In: Galanakis, C.M. (Ed.), Food Waste Recovery, Processing Technologies and Industrial Techniques. Elsevier, London. Goldsmith, R., Flynn, L.R., 1992. Identifying innovators in consumer products markets. European Journal of Marketing 26 (12), 42e55. Greehy, G., McCarthy, M., Henchion, M., McCarthy, S., Dillion, E., 2013. Complexity and Conundrums: citizens’ evaluations of potentially contentious novel food technologies using a deliberative discourse approach. Appetite 70, 37e46. Hayes, M., Lafarga, T., 2014. Bioactive peptides from meat muscle and by-products: generation, functionality and application as functional ingredients. Meat Science 98, 227e239. Hartmann, C., Siegrist, M., 2017. Insects as food, perception and acceptance; findings from current research. Ernahrungs Umschau 64 (3), 44e50. https:// doi.org/10.4455/EU.2017.010. Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., O’Callaghan, J., November 2016. Transforming beef by-products into valuable ingredients: which spell/recipe to use? Front. Nutr. - Nutrition and Food Science Technology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2016.00053. Henchion, M., Hayes, M., Mullen, A.M., Fenelon, M., Tiwari, B., 2017. Future protein supply and demand: strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Foods 6 (7), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6070053. House, J., 2016. Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in the Netherlands: Academic and commercial implications. Appetite 107, 47e58. Jayathilakan, K., Sultana, K., Radhakrishna, K., Bawa, A.S., 2012. Utilization of by-products and waste materials from meat, poultry and fish processing industries: a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology 49 (3), 278e293. Kennedy, B.M., 1945. Food habits in California, Fifth Session Regional vs National Food Habits and Nutrition. Committee on Food Habits (mimeograph). Kenny, T., Desmond, E., Ward, P., 1999. Up-grading of Low Value Meats and By-products for Use in Consumers’ Foods. Available at: https://t-stor. teagasc.ie/handle/11019/1302. Liu, D.-C., 2002. Better Utilization of By-products from the Meat Industry, Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region. Available at: http://www.fftc.agnet.org/library.php?func¼view&id¼20110706135001. Magoro, M.M., Zondagh, B.I., Jooste, P.J., Morey, L., 2012. Sensory analysis of cooked fresh meat sausages containing beef offal. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences 40, 22e37. Malvestiti, L., Giannuzzi, L., Ferrero, C., 2007. Mixtures of beef tripe, beef liver and soy beans applied to food development. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 31, 270e285. Marti, D., Johnson, R., Mathwers Jr., K., 2011. Where’s the (Not) Meat? By-products from Beef and Pork Production. USDA Economic Research Centre. Available at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/LDP-M/2010s/2011/LDP-M-11-21-2011_Special_Report.pdf. Martins, Y., Pliner, P., 2006. Ugh! That’s disgusting!” Identification of the characteristics of foods underlying rejections based on disgust. Appetite 46, 75e85. Martins, Y., Pelchat, M.L., Pliner, P., 1997. Try it; it’s good and it’s good for you: effects of taste and nutrition information on willingness to try novel foods. Appetite 28 (2), 89e102. Mitchie, S., Van Stralen, M.M., West, R., 2011. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Science 6, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42. Mullen, A.M., Álvarez, C., Pojic, M., HadnaCev, T.D., Papagergiou, M., 2015. Classification and target compounds, chapter 2. In: Galanakis, C.M. (Ed.), Food Waste Recovery, Processing Technologies and Industrial Techniques. Elsevier, London. Mullen, A.M., Álvarez, C., Zeugolis, D.I., Henchion, M., O’Neill, E., Drummond, L., 2017. Alternative uses for co-products: harnessing the potential of valuable compounds from meat processing chains. Meat Science 132 (October 2017), 90e98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.243. Murcott, A., 1999. Scarcity in abundance: food and non-food. Social Research 66, 305e339. Quality Meats Scotland, 2010a. Adding Value to the Scottish Red Meat Supply Chain: Recovering Value for the 5th Quarter and Reducing Waste. Available at: http://www.qmscotland.co.uk/sites/default/files/FinalþProjectþReportþlowþresþ8Jul.pdf. Quality Meats Scotland, 2010b. Adding Value to the Scottish Red Meat Supply Chain: Recovering Value for the 5th Quarter and Reducing Waste: Topic 7 Blood. Available at: http://www.qmscotland.co.uk/sites/default/files/Topic7þBloodþ27May.pdf.

250 Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

Rabobank, December 2012. The Return of Animal By-products: Is the Carcass Valuation in the Meat Industry Reversing? Rabobank Industry Note #355, The Netherlands. Rozin, P., Fallon, A.E., 1987. A Perspective on Disgust. Psychological Review. 94, pp. 23e41. Schösler, H., De Boer, J., Boersema, J.J., 2012. Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite 58 (1), 39e47. Selmane, D., Christophe, V., Gholamreza, D., 2008. Extraction of proteins from slaughterhouse by-products: influence of operating conditions on functional properties. Meat Science 79 (2008), 640e647. Shelomi, M., 2015. Why we still don’t eat insects: assessing entomophagy promotion through a diffusion of innovations framework. Trends in Food Science and Technology 45 (2015), 311e318. Smetana, S., Palanisamy, M., Mathys, A., Heinz, V., 2016. Sustainability of insect use for feed and food: life cycle assessment perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 137, 741e751. Subba, D., 2002. Acceptability and nutritive value of keropok-like snack containing meat offal. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 37, 681e685. Tan, H.S.G., Fisher, A.R., van Trijp, H.C.M., Stieger, M., 2016. Tasty but nasty? Exploring the role of sensory-liking and food appropriateness in the willingness to eat unusual novel foods like insects. Food Quality and Preference 48 (Part A), 293e302. Toldrá, F., Nollett, L.M.L., 2011. Handbook of Analysis of Edible Animal By-products. Taylor Francis. Van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A., Muir, G., Vantomme, P., 2013. Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Food. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 190 p. Veeck, A., 2010. Encounters with extreme foods: neophillic/neophobic tendencies and novel foods. Journal of Food Products Marketing 16 (2), 246e260. Verbeke, W., 2015. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference 39, 147e155. Waldron, K., 2007. In: Waste Minimization, Management and Co-product Recovery in Food Processing, an Introduction, vol. 1. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, UK. Wansink, B., 2002. Changing eating habits on the home front: lost lessons from World War II research. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 21 (1), 90e99. Westhoek, H., Rood, T., van den Bert, M., Janse, J., Nijdam, D., Reudink, M., Stehfest, E., 2011. The protein puzzle: the consumption and production of meat, dairy and fish in the European Union. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague. ISBN 9778-90-78645-61-0. Woodgate, S., 2013. Economic Viability of Future Opportunities for Obtaining Better Returns for the 5th Quarter. Available at: https://static1.squarespace. com/static/531079bee4b0a39dbd7d9f3f/t/5318e6bbe4b01676f173bf29/1394140859868/IMSþPresentation.pdf.