Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products

Chapter 3

Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges Federica Balestra and Massimiliano Petracci Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Cesena, Italy

3.1 INTRODUCTION Nonmeat ingredients are used in the meat industry to achieve different tasks. The ingredients can be used to reduce formulation cost and to enhance nutritional content and consumer image of the product with the main objective being improved functionality, flavor, appearance (color), and shelf life (Barbut, 2017). As a general definition, unlike food ingredients, an additive is a component of a food product with a technological function in the food product as defined by functional categories in EU Regulation 1333/2008/EC. However, the meat industry uses both ingredients and additives to retain moisture and modify texture. This chapter will discuss about the so-called technofunctional ingredients/additives which can be divided into those added to enhance functionality of the muscle proteins (myofibrillar), or those added as an additional “system” to aid in the retention of moisture and fat as well as in the modulation of texture. The tolerance of meat system for a binder is limited by either competition for moisture or disruption of the meat gel structure. Meat proteins require water to form a strong gel and in general, it is desirable that added ingredients do not compete for water, whereas for highly extended meat products a strong binder is required as the meat system has higher quantities of available water. However, competition for water is still prevalent in such meat mixtures where full functionality of the ingredients requires complete hydration (Lamkey, 1998; Petracci et al., 2013). The first group of technofunctional ingredients that enhance meat protein functionality consist of sodium chloride, phosphates, carbonates, and citrates, while the second group includes starches, flours, hydrocolloids, vegetable fibers as well as plant and animal proteins (Petracci et al., 2013). Otherwise, descriptions of ingredients obtained from byproducts and waste materials from muscle food are covered in Chapters 4 and 8. The choice and technological reason for addition of technofunctional ingredients to meat products varies according to meat applications. The products can be grouped into four categories based on the degree of size reduction of the muscle according to Petracci et al. (2013): (1) whole-muscle products where the cytoarchitectural design and distribution of intraand extracellular water are maintained intact (i.e., parts, cut-up, whole carcass of small animals); (2) formed/restructured products manufactured by chunks or pieces of meat bonded together (i.e., hams); (3) ground products made of coarse minced meat where the fibrous structure is still detectable to some extent (i.e., burgers and sausages); (4) emulsified products made of finely comminuted meat slurry in which fibrous structure is disintegrated (i.e., frankfurters, bologna-type sausages; see Fig. 3.1). In comminuted (both coarse and finely minced) products, the meat and nonmeat ingredients are mixed together, whereas incorporation of nonmeat ingredients into whole-muscle and restructured products is usually achieved by multineedle injection or by tumbling (O’Grady and Kerry, 2010). Using technofunctional ingredients to optimize the functional properties of processed meat can also reduce the effect of natural quality variability of meat origin (Petracci et al., 2013). At the same time, it can provide more flexibility for processed meat producers to introduce broad spectrum of products to meet the consumer demands and to optimize the cost of formulations. Indeed, some of the main nonmeat technofunctional ingredients (i.e., textured and nontextured vegetable proteins, wheat gluten, egg albumen, hydrocolloids, enzymes, starches) are also key ingredients of meat analogs (Asgar et al., 2010; Kumar et al., 2017).

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814874-7.00003-1 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

45

46

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

FIGURE 3.1 Classification of meat products according to raw meat materials used to its manufacturing and different roles played by technofunctional ingredients. Modified from Petracci, M., Bianchi, M., Mudalal, S., Cavani, C., 2013. Functional ingredients for poultry meat products. Trends in Food Science and Technology 33 (1), 27e39.

Nowadays, the use of technofunctional ingredients in industrialized societies is also strongly affected by market trends such as health concerns and sustainability (Grunert, 2013). Health concerns are driven by consumers’ affluence, but also explained by the increasing number of food and lifestyle related diseases, allergies and intolerances. In the last few years, a new trend in food products has also emerged, which is often summarized under the umbrella of “clean label” which is defined as being free of “chemical” additives, displaying easy-to-understand ingredient lists and being produced by use of traditional techniques with limited processing (Cheung et al., 2016; Asioli et al., 2017). Sustainability concerns originated due to the growing awareness of environmental pollution caused especially by meat production. Such trends of healthiness consciousness and sustainability have triggered consumers into considering which ingredients are present in the food products (Asioli et al., 2017). To date, there are many studies dealing with environmental impact of raw materials (i.e., meat, milk, eggs, legumes, cereals, vegetables) but scarce information is available on sustainability of single food ingredients (i.e., protein isolates, starches, etc.). Therefore, it can be expected that in the near future estimation of lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions as well as water and ecological footprints of main food ingredients, including those used in meat sector, will be extensively evaluated to assess the environmental impact of not only raw materials but also of processed foods and ready meals (Calderón et al., 2010). However, one of the first studies on this topic showed that nonmeat ingredients had a limited impact on overall sustainability of processed meat products such as beef meat ball (about 7% of total carbon footprint) and breaded chicken breast (1% about of total carbon footprint) (Fig. 3.2) (Biswas and Naude, 2016). The use of technofunctional ingredients in the meat sector has also significant implications on food losses because of their ability to increase the physicochemical shelf life (i.e., prevent changes in taste, aroma, texture or appearance) and indirectly limit the spoilage (i.e., water and fat entrapment, pH change). According to the European Commission (2010), food waste in the EU accounts for around 88 million tons of waste per year. Currently, for meat and meat products most of the losses occur at consumption and distribution levels (63%) due to their high level of perishability (Bräutigam et al., 2014). In principle, proper use of technofunctional ingredients can play an active role in preventing food waste by preserving food quality. However, this is in contrast with the growing trend toward increase in demand for minimally processed foods which are more perishable because of their way of production (Troy et al., 2016). In this context, the present chapter deals with the mechanisms of technofunctional ingredients used in meat products to retain moisture and modify texture, their implications on sustainability as well as their usage according to current market trends.

Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges Chapter | 3

47

FIGURE 3.2 Estimation of carbon footprint of a Swedish meat ball (beef 73%, water 9%, spices and soy products 9%, and vegetable oil 9%) and crunchy chicken garlic breast (chicken meat 61%, water 8%, spiced breadcrumbs 8%, vegetable oil 8%, wheat flour 7%, and spices and soy products 7%). Data taken from Biswas, W.K., Naude, G., 2016. A life cycle assessment of processed meat products supplied to Barrow Island: a Western Australian case study. Journal of Food Engineering 180, 48e59.

3.2 SODIUM CHLORIDE 3.2.1 Mechanism of Action Sodium chloride, commonly called salt, consisting of 40% sodium and 60% chloride by weight is considered as a multifunctional ingredient and imparts multiple functional properties in processed meat products. In addition to the use for flavoring or as a flavor enhancer, it is also responsible for the water-holding capacity and desired textural properties of processed meat (O’Grady and Kerry, 2010; Petracci et al., 2013). The theory on the role of sodium chloride in promoting solubilization/extraction of the salt-soluble myofibrillar proteins and improving water-holding capacity of meat products has been extensively reviewed (Puolanne and Halonen, 2010; Ruusunen and Puolanne, 2005). In the meat matrix, sodium chloride dissociates into sodium (Naþ) and chloride (Cl) ions of which Cl ions are more strongly adsorbed than Naþ ions to positively charged groups of myosin. Binding of the chloride ions to myosin and actin filaments increases the electrostatic repulsive forces between fibers, causing unfolding of the protein structure matrix, thereby expanding the spaces between actin and myosin (Hamm, 1986). Moreover, the adsorption of Cl ions with positively charged groups of myosin results in a shift of the isoelectric point toward a more acidic pH value increasing the difference between the ultimate pH of meat and isoelectric point (pI) thereby providing more flexibility to improve water-binding capacity (Feiner, 2006a). Indeed, when sodium chloride is used in meat which is on basic side of the isoelectric point of actomyosin (pI ¼ 5.0), the binding of Cl ions to positively charged proteins sidegroups screens the positive charge and breaks salt bridges, allowing the protein stands to spread resulting in greater hydration. Moreover, the binding of anions shifts the isoelectric point to a lower pH (Brewer, 2004).

3.2.2 Sustainability Concerns and Market Trends Even though sodium chloride is technically a nonrenewable resource, it is very abundant, and its production does not imply high sustainability issues. However, excessive consumption of sodium has been associated with negative health effects, with the most alarming being elevated blood pressure and a consequent higher risk of cardiovascular and renal diseases. It has been estimated that if the average person would decrease salt intake by about 5 g per day to the intake recommended by the World Health Organization, a reduction of 23% of strokes and 17% of cardiovascular diseases would result preventing an estimated four million deaths annually worldwide. In industrial countries, about 75%e80% of dietary salt is obtained through processed food consumption, 5%e10% is naturally occurring in the foods that make up the diet and the remaining 10%e15% comes from salt added during cooking or at the table. Meat products are considered as the second source of sodium intake after bakery products (Kloss et al., 2015). Strategies to reduce salt in processed meat products initiated about 30 years ago due to health reasons. Recently, strategies for salt reduction in meat sector have been well reviewed by Inguglia et al. (2017) (Table 3.1).

48

Approach

Description

Issues

Lowering salt content: reduction by stealth

Stepwise reduction of salt over a prolonged period

time-consuming approach to be applied at an industrial- scale reduction of palatability and shelf life

Use of salt alternatives Mineral salts (KCl, CaCl2, MgCl2, lactates, MgSO4) Flavor enhancers (sodium glutamate, amino acids, yeast extracts, hydrolysates proteins, maltodextrins) and masking agents (i.e., herbs and spices)

Improve palatability of reduced salt foods by addition of substitutes. In addition, to salt substitutes, technofunctional ingredients are usually added to compensate losses in protein functionality (i.e., phosphates, hydrocolloids, etc.)

aftertastes consumer perception (more complex formulation and increased use of food additives) challenges in product design

Change in the size of salt

Higher salt perception due to faster dissolution of smaller salt particles

not effective in meat products

Change in the shape of salt

Change physical form of salt (i.e., flaked)

limited commercial applications

Strategies for Salt Reduction

Alternative Processing Techniques for Low-Salt Meat Products High-pressure processing

Partial microbial inactivation and increase in perceived saltiness

drawbacks in color and textural properties limited commercial applications

Power ultrasound

Partial microbial inactivation and increase in perceived saltiness

limited knowledge

Adapted from Inguglia, E.S., Zhang, Z., Tiwari, B.K., Kerry, J.P., Burgess, C.M., 2017. Salt reduction strategies in processed meat products e a review. Trends in Food Science and Technology 59, 70e78.

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

TABLE 3.1 Major Strategies to Reduce Salt in Meat Products

Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges Chapter | 3

49

While progression in the development of salt replacing ingredients and taste enhancers have been made in the last decades, there is still negative sensory impact associated with their use. Challenges result from the necessity to use other ionic compounds to replace the water-holding, protein-binding, and fat-binding functions of the eliminated salt. Overall, saltiness increases in products with high fat content and decreases in products with high protein content. Therefore, it is easier to reduce the salt content in high fat meat products than lean meat products. Designing preservative strategies to maintain microbial safety in reduced salt products is complicated as each one relies on combinations of different preservative factors. The degree of safety that is built into a product is often limited by the sensory properties. A number of challenges have to be faced in order to satisfy consumers’ opinion about low-salt meat product (taste, color, flavor, texture, aroma, etc.) parameters which can become unacceptable if too much sodium is removed (Inguglia et al., 2017).

3.3 PHOSPHATES 3.3.1 Mechanism of Action Phosphates are salts of phosphoric acid available in different chemical forms (orthophosphates, pyrophosphates, tripolyphosphates, polyphosphates) which are used to improve the quality of many foodstuffs, but specifically in meat and seafood, phosphates act as water binding, antioxidant, antimicrobial and buffering agents. In meat related applications, different phosphate blends, which are available in the market, show better functionality than single phosphates. The most popular phosphates are alkaline polyphosphates such as tripolyphosphate which represents more than 50% of the phosphates that are used by the meat industry (Feiner, 2006a; Long et al., 2011; Petracci et al., 2013). Some crucial factors that influence the choice of appropriate phosphate mixtures in meat processing industries are solubility, pH value of products, and its effect on muscular proteins (Table 3.2). Most phosphates are not easily soluble in marinade solutions and hence are typically dissolved in water at room temperature, added with salt and then chilled before use (Alvarado and McKee, 2007). Monophosphates are commonly used to adjust and buffer the pH values; however, individually they have a minor effect on the muscular protein (Feiner, 2006a). Thus, monophosphates are not usually applied individually in meat products. The most functional phosphates are the diphosphates, especially sodium pyrophosphates as they act on the actomyosin complex of meat protein immediately and have a high pH value even if their solubility is low (Table 3.2). Therefore, longer-chain phosphates such as sodium tripolyphosphate and hexametaphosphate are most commonly used as a blend to improve and optimize solubility as well as functionality in a variety of meat product formulations (Brewer, 2004; Alvarado and McKee, 2007; Long et al., 2011). However, the use of phosphates is usually in restricted dosages and in some Countries is banned in meat products (Feiner, 2006a). In EU, phosphates are not permitted in fresh meat, but could be added to meat preparations, minced meat and meat products (Regulation 853/2004/EC). The maximum permitted level of phosphates in meat and meat products according to EU legislation is 5 g/kg as phosphorus peroxide (P2O5) individually or in combination in the finished product (Directive 95/2/EC, Rev. 2006). Phosphates are known to improve the functionality of meat proteins in different ways. Commercial phosphates with a pH of 9e10 can raise tissue pH above isoelectric point by increasing charge on the myofibrillar proteins, causing them to repel each other and allowing water interspersion. However, buffering capacity of meat proteins is substantial and phosphates with pH 10 shift meat pH by only 0.1e0.2 pH units, which would be expected to have negligible effects on water-holding capacity unless the tissue will be at or very close to the muscle protein’s isoelectric point. Low-molecular-weight inorganic phosphates can react directly with actomyosin complex. This effect is related to a break down of low-molecular-weight inorganic phosphates to pyrophosphates by muscle ATP-ase, which has specific swelling effect on lean meat in addition to its pH effect and ability to split actomyosin complex formed during rigor mortis by sequestrating calcium (Ca2þ) and magnesium (Mg2þ) cations (Brewer, 2004). In addition, phosphates increase the electrostatic repulsive forces which expand the spaces between actin and myosin allowing for entrapment of more water in these gaps. Finally, phosphates also increase the ionic strength of the meat which leads to severe swelling of muscle fibers and activation of protein. Only phosphates are known to exert all these functions which justify their worldwide use (Feiner, 2006a). Sodium chloride in combination with phosphate can further improve protein functionality. When actomyosin complexes are separated by the effect of phosphate, addition of sodium chloride increases ionic strength and therefore the solubility of muscular proteins improves. Solubilized proteins have higher ability to immobilize high levels of added water and emulsify a large amount of fat. This synergistic effect between phosphates and sodium chloride gives more flexibility for mutual replacement and substitution (Xiong et al., 2000). Therefore, phosphates can be used in the development of lowsalt meat products (Ruusunen and Puolanne, 2005).

50

Common Name

Abbreviation

Formula

pH (1% Solution)

Solubility (g/100 g H2O) at 208C

E Number

% P2O5

Monophosphates (Orthophosphates) l

sodium

MSP

NaH2PO4

4.4

85

339

59.2

l

potassium

MKP

KH2PO4

4.4

20

340

52.1

l

disodium

DSP

Na2HPO4

8.8

7.7

339

50.0

l

dipotassium

DKP

K2HPO4

9.5

120

340

40.8

l

trisodium

TSP

Na3PO4

12

13

339

43.3

l

tripotassium

TKP

K3PO4

12

51

340

33.4

Diphosphates (Pyrophosphates) l

sodium

TSPP

Na4P2O7

10.2

6

450

53.4

l

potassium

TKPP

K4P2O7

10.4

180

450

43.0

l

disodium

SAPP

Na2H2P2O7

4.2

12

450

64.0

Polyphosphates l

sodium tripolyphosphate

STPP

Na5P3O10

9.8

15

451

57.9

l

potassium tripolyphosphate

KTPP

K5P3O10

9.6

178

451

47.5

l

sodium hexametaphosphate

SHMP

(NaPO3)n n ¼ 10e15 n ¼ 50e100

6.2 7.0

High soluble

452

69.6

Adapted from Long, N.H.B.S., Ga´l, R., Bu nka, F., 2011. Use of phosphates in meat products. African Journal of Biotechnology 10 (86), 19874e19882.

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

TABLE 3.2 The List and Properties of Phosphates Commonly Used in Meat Products

Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges Chapter | 3

51

3.3.2 Sustainability Concerns and Market Trends Phosphorus is a naturally occurring element essential to life on earth, however there are concerns regarding long-term sustainability and reliability of supply. As early as 2035, it is calculated that the demand for phosphorus outpaces the supply (Comber et al., 2013; Cordell et al., 2012). On the other hand, massive emissions of phosphorus in the environment, especially in water, causes algae to grow faster than ecosystems can handle. This two-sided challenge of phosphorus sustainability (pollution and scarcity) also involves the use of phosphates in food sector, which is estimated to be approximately 90% of all phosphate demand for agrifood production, however, a negligible fraction (1%e2%) is due to the use of food additive containing phosphorus (Schröder et al., 2010). It has been estimated that there is a significant intake of phosphorus via additives in drinks and processed meats (0.59 g-P/person day), which accounts for about 30% of total phosphorus intake and domestic excretion (Comber et al., 2013). In this context, even if sustainability implications on the use of phosphates in food sector seem negligible compared with overall exploitation by humans, food industry is directed to reduce the use of phosphates as a food additive. This request is also strengthened by the negative consumer perception toward this type of additive because of nutritional concerns about the use of phosphates in foods. Some researchers have shown that phosphates form insoluble salts with calcium, iron and other metal ions which might result in lowering the absorption of these minerals inside the intestinal tract and as a result increase risk of bone diseases and iron deficiency, anemia. Moreover, high phosphorus intake increases the potential risk of chronic kidney diseases (Gutiérrez et al., 2017). Nowadays, apart from these nutritional drawbacks, the term “phosphate” sometimes has negative connotations. To this extent and to address the natural or clean-label trends, processors are increasingly interested in phosphate replacers which fit with consumers’ preference for perceived natural food (Petracci et al., 2013; Roman et al., 2017). In response to the sustainability issues and especially to nutritional drawbacks and negative connotation of phosphates, the current trend is to evaluate different food ingredients as phosphate replacers, optimizing processing techniques and improving the formulation to reduce or eliminate phosphates in meat products (Table 3.3). Consequently, finding ingredients that have equivalent functionality as phosphates is an imposing challenge for the meat industry. However, more promising ingredients for some applications in pork and poultry seem to be carbonates, which can increase water retention even if some problems arise in the appearance and microbial shelf life. Also, alternative technological approaches (i.e., high-pressure processing) have been proposed as alternative strategies to reduce the phosphate additive levels (O’Flynn et al., 2014).

3.4 CARBONATES AND CITRATES 3.4.1 Mechanism of Action Carbonates are salts of carbonic acid (H2CO3) and the most common salts used in meat industry are sodium and potassium carbonates (Table 3.4) which are classified by EU legislation as acidity regulators (E500). Trisodium or tripotassium, salts of citric acid, are used as ingredients in processed meat products due to their alkalization effect and are classified within the E300 category (Table 3.4). As explained for alkaline phosphates, functional properties of carbonates and citrates are mainly related to their alkalinization effect that shifts the meat pH away from the isoelectric point of myofibrillar proteins and increases the net negative charge (Feiner, 2006a; Xiong, 2012). For example, it was estimated that meat pH after marination linearly responded with about 0.17 pH unit increase per 0.1%-unit addition of sodium bicarbonate (Petracci et al., 2013), while addition of citrates is less effective in raising pH (Feiner, 2006a). Overall, this pH increase leads to muscle fiber expansion (swelling) caused by electrostatic repulsion that allows for more intrinsic and added water to be immobilized in the myofibrillar lattice (Xiong, 2012). Bertram et al. (2008) demonstrated that sodium bicarbonate if compared with phosphates, in certain conditions seems to induce a higher degree of swelling of the myofibrils and a higher solubilization effect on meat protein structures, especially in reducing the expulsion of water during cooking. It has been speculated that due to the smaller size of HCO3  ions, compared to ðP3 O10 Þ5 ions, they could easily penetrate into meat muscle and interact with many protein side chains, leading to larger increases in the repulsive forces among meat proteins (Kaewthong and Wattanachant, 2018). Apart from the change in protein charge, carbonates also produce carbon dioxide during cooking, which improve the ability of the meat to hold water by physical entrapment (Sheard and Tali, 2004; Mudalal et al., 2014). However, it has been demonstrated that very high concentration of sodium bicarbonate in presence of sodium chloride may have adverse effects on functional properties and integrity of actomyosin (Saleem et al., 2016).

52

Type of Meat Product

Type of Phosphate

Ingredient Used as Phosphate Replacer

Beef strip loins

Blend

Acid solubilized proteins

Advantages

Drawbacks

Vann and Mireles DeWitt (2007)

l

lean and fat color aerobic plate count lipid oxidation purge, cook yield shear force

l

lipid oxidation

Lowder et al. (2011)

l

Parsons et al. (2011a,b)

l

purge and cook loss microbial counts

l

cook loss

Sheard and Tali (2004)

l

l

l l

Beef strip loins

MSP

Dehydrated beef protein (0.45%)

Beef strip loins

TSPP/STPP

Ammonium hydroxide

l

color stability

Pork loin (whole-muscle)

STTP

Sodium bicarbonate (0.3%)

l

weight gain

Pork loin (whole-muscle)

TSPP

Sodium bicarbonate (0.3%)

l l

weight gain cook loss

l

tenderness

Pork loin (whole-muscle)

STTP

Sodium bicarbonate (0.2%)

Pork loin

STTP

Alkaline electrolyzed water

Bertram et al. (2008) Santos et al. (2012) Rigdon et al. (2017a,b)

l

purge loss lipid oxidation color stability

l

darkening

Petracci et al. (2012)

l l

Chicken breast (wholemuscle)

STTP

Chicken breast

Blend

Chicken breast (wholemuscle)

STTP

Restructured chicken steaks

STPP

References

l

weight gain water retention ability

SavorPhos (0.50%)

l

texture

Sodium bicarbonate (0.3%)

l

l

drip loss

Mudalal et al. (2014)

l

weight gain textural properties

l

cook loss

l

pH increase

¨ ztu¨rk and Serdaroglu O (2017)

Sodium bicarbonate (0.3%)

Inulin (4.5%) þ sodium carbonate (0.2%)

l

Casco et al. (2013)

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

TABLE 3.3 Summary of the Studies Investigating Alternative Ingredients Under Phosphate-Replacing Strategy

Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges Chapter | 3

53

TABLE 3.4 Properties of Carbonates and Citrates Commonly Used in Meat Products Common Names

Formulas

pH (1% Solution)

Solubility (g/100 g H2O) at 208C

E Number

Bicarbonates l

sodium

Na2CO3

8.3

8.7

501

l

potassium

K2CO3

8.5

112

501

Carbonates l

sodium

NaHCO3

11.4

30.7

500

l

potassium

KHCO3

11.6

111

500

Citrates l

sodium

C6H5O7Na3

7.5

42.5

331

l

potassium

C6H5O7K3

7.5

Not available

332

Adapted from Kim, S., Thiessen, P.A., Bolton, E.E., Chen, J., Fu, G., Gindulyte, A., Han, L., He, J., He, S., Shoemaker, B.A., Wang, J., Yu, B., Zhang, J., Bryant, S.H., 2016a. PubChem substance and compound databases. Nucleic Acids Research 44 (D1), D1202eD1213.

3.4.2 Sustainability Concerns and Market Trends There are no major concerns on consumer perception and sustainability issues following the use of carbonates and citrates in meat industry. Indeed, sodium bicarbonate is a common salt used at home level for different purposes and its chemical production does not implicate problems related to environmental pollution. Therefore, the problems are solely of technical nature and derive basically from possible negative outcomes on product shelf life and appearance due to the increase in pH to much higher than 6.0 (Petracci et al., 2013). This is because pH not far from neutrality supports microbial spoilage during shelf life (Allen et al., 1997) and can favor “meat pinking phenomenon” in cooked products (a defect potentially leading to an undercooked appearance) due to increased resistance to denaturation of myoglobin during heat treatment (Petracci et al., 2012, 2014; Lee et al., 2015). In contrast, an increase of the dark color due to Maillard reaction in grilled chicken marinated by sodium bicarbonate has been observed (Wongmaneepratip and Vangnai, 2017). On the other hand, the incorporation of potassium lactate has been demonstrated to mitigate differences in product color and appearance due to bicarbonate addition. Moreover, one study evidenced that addition of alkaline marinade solutions (through the inclusion of sodium bicarbonate) significantly increased the concentration of the carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in grilled chicken breast meat (Wongmaneepratip and Vangnai, 2017). Also, no drawbacks on lipid and protein oxidation in beef (Semitendinosus muscle) marinated with alkaline solution have been observed (Sharedeh et al., 2015). However, attention should be paid to dosage in relation to its effect on product quality. Currently, in meat industry the use of carbonates is quite limited. Due to the very effective pH raising ability, first applications have proposed to use bicarbonates to minimize quality defects and reduce of variation due to occurrence of pale, soft, exudative (PSE) in pork (Kauffman et al., 1998; Wynveen et al., 2001; Booren et al., 2017) and in broiler meat (Woelfel and Sams, 2001; Alvarado and Sams, 2003; Santos et al., 2012) as well as to mask atypical aromas and flavors in sow meat (Sindelar et al., 2003a,b). However, in the last decades the market trend to find alternative technofunctional ingredients to phosphates has stimulated researchers to test carbonates as phosphate replacer with promising outcomes (see Table 3.3). In addition, following trend toward reduction of sodium in meat products, potassium carbonates have been shown to exert similar performance compared to the sodium counterpart in ground beef (Mohan et al., 2016), pork frankfurters (Booren et al., 2017), and chicken whole-muscle breast (Lee et al., 2015). Practical interest on the use of carbonates has also been demonstrated by the recent adoption of EU Regulation 601/ 2014/EC, which allows the use of sodium carbonates as humectant in some poultry meat preparations to maintain consistency and juiciness during subsequent processing. A further stated reason is that its usage allows cooking poultry meat longer and more effectively, maintaining its juiciness and avoiding the consumption of undercooked poultry.

54

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

3.5 STARCHES 3.5.1 Mechanism of Action Starch, a primary carbohydrate reserve present in plant tissues, additionally to its nutritive value contribution can be used to modify the physical properties of many foods. Commercial starches obtained from corn, wheat, rice, and tubers such as potato, sweet potato, and cassava (tapioca starch) are commonly used in: thickening, gelling, adhesion, stabilizing, moisture retention, texturizing, and antistaling applications (Thomas and Atwell, 1997). Starches are usually added to meat product formulations as water binders to reduce formulation costs, increase yields, reduce cooking losses, improve texture, sliceability and succulence, and extend durability (Totosaus, 2009; Eliásová et al., 2012). Starch is formed by two different glucose polymers: amylose and amylopectin. Amylose is a linear structure bonded via 1,4-a-glycosidic linkage and is primarily responsible for the firmness or gel strength of a starch gel. In hot starch slurry of cooked meat, the amylose particles move freely, and the water is immobilized. In a hot meat product if the hot starch slurry is cooled very slowly or too quickly, retrogradation takes place. Because of this effect, caution must be taken to cool the starch-containing meat product quickly enough to avoid retrogradation that can be caused by slow cooling, simultaneously avoiding placing of the product at very low temperature. Storage of meat products containing high-amylose starches, at low temperatures from around 1 to 0 C for a prolonged time as well favors retrogradation. The level of retrogradation depends on the type of starch and increases in the sequence: tapioca > potato > maize > wheat, with wheat starch demonstrating the greatest tendency toward retrogradation. Syneresis and purge (weeping), common in sliced and vacuumpacked meat products, are a result of retrogradation. The second major component of starch, amylopectin, a branched structure with glucose units linked via 1,6-a-glycosidic bond, is responsible for the elasticity and viscosity of starch gel (Feiner, 2006b). The structural differences between these two polymers contribute to significant differences in starch properties and functionality. Indeed, different starch sources, the ratio of amylose to amylopectin and their content affect starch properties (Thomas and Atwell, 1997). Main characteristics of starches commonly used in food products are reported in Table 3.5. Starches are commonly added to coarse ground and emulsion-style meat products not only for their functional properties, but also for their low cost if compared to alternatives (Genccelep et al., 2015). Starches with high viscosity profiles and high watereholding capacities are typically good to improve the texture and shelf life of processed meat products (Thomas and Atwell, 1997). The most important criterion in choosing a starch for meat products is its gelatinization temperature that must correspond with the temperatures achieved during thermal processing of the meat product and close to the temperature at which the meat proteins denature and release water, so that the starch can be used to swell and hold moisture (Joly and Anderstain, 2009). It is worth to consider that heat-treated meat products must be heated to a minimum core temperature of 70 C for a period of 10 min to be safe for human consumption (Eliásová et al., 2012).

TABLE 3.5 Characteristics of Various Types of Starch Amylose (%)

Amylopectin (%)

Swelling Capacity (%)

Gelatinization Temperature (8C)

700

59e68

Source

Type

Granular Shape

Size (mm)

Potato

Tuber

Round, oval

25e80

21

78

Corn/ maize

Cereal

Round polygonal

5e20

26

65e70

24

62e72

Rice

Cereal

Round polygonal

3e8

20

78

19

68e78

Tapioca

Tuber

Truncated round, oval

5e25

15e18

80e85

75

62e73

Wheat

Cereal

Round lenticular

25

27

75

21

58e64

Waxy maize

Cereal

Round polygonal

5e25

2

95-98

65

63e72

Adapted from Feiner, G., 2006b. Additives: proteins, carbohydrates, fillers and other additives. In: Meat Products Handbook - Practical Science and Technology. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Duxford, pp. 89e141; Joly, G., Anderstain, B., 2009. Starches. In: Tarte´, R. (Ed.), Ingredients in Meat Products. Springer, New York, pp. 25e55.

Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges Chapter | 3

55

Starches applied in meat product can be divided into two groups: the cook-up and the cold swelling starches. Cook-up starches are used in many meat products because of their ability to bind water when the meat is being heat treated, whereas the cold swelling starches work in minced meat product as water binders and texturizers to improve the processability of the uncooked meat. Different types of starch could be used depending on different meat products such as emulsified meats, minced/ground meat products (Joly and Anderstain, 2009). In general, root and tuber starches swell more rapidly and in a narrow temperature range than cereal starches. Rice starch is the most neutral tasting starch while modified tapioca and potato starches show good freeze-thaw stability (Feiner, 2006b). Potato starch is frequently used in meat products due to its high-water binding capacity and high viscosity (Petracci et al., 2013). Moreover, potato starch starts gelatinizing simultaneously at the temperature at which meat proteins lose most water and is fully gelatinized in the same temperature range to which most meat products are cooked (Joly and Anderstain, 2009). Tapioca starch is applied mainly in bland meat systems to impart smooth texture and neutral taste but is generally more expensive than other starches (Petracci et al., 2013; Joly and Anderstain, 2009). Starches which contain 97% or more amylopectin, and therefore little or no amylose, are collectively known as waxy starches. These types of starches result in clear and transparent gels which do not retrograde primarily because of the high percentage of branched molecules and absence of amylose fraction. Waxy starches generally demonstrate good freeze-thaw stability and are also used for heat-freeze processes. Meat product, containing starch and being stored frozen, should be produced by utilizing waxy starches to avoid, or reduce, syneresis during thawing (Feiner, 2006b).

3.5.2 Sustainability Concerns and Market Trends Starch is a versatile and widely used additive in food, paper, chemical and pharmaceutical industries and is expected to record increasing demand in the next decades. As previously stated, the most important botanical origins for producing starches are maize, cassava, wheat, and potato (Thomas and Atwell, 1997). As for other ingredients obtained from crops, sustainability and key environmental issues at the agricultural stage are related to land use, soil nutrients depletion and erosion, while at the processing stage are those concerning use of fossil energy and fresh water with regards to resource depletion and greenhouse gases emissions (An et al., 2012; Tran et al., 2015). Due to wide use in the food industry, environmental impact of starches and starch-containing ingredients (cereal flours) has been among the first food ingredients to be assessed (Table 3.6). Overall, starches appear to have a limited environmental impact when compared with animal-derived ingredients and leguminous crops (Nielsen et al., 2003). However, as for all the food ingredients, their use is also strongly affected by the growing demand for clean-label foods. Regarding this, starches can be categorized mainly into two groups, particularly

TABLE 3.6 Estimation of Lifecycle Carbon Emission, Water, and Ecological Footprint of Some Starch Ingredients Product

Carbon Footprint (g CO2/kg)

Water Footprint (L/kg)

Ecological Footprint (m2/kg)

References

Wheat flour

1,010

Not available

Not available

Nielsen et al. (2003)

Not available

Not available

7

Collins and Fairchild (2007)

1,130

Not available

Not available

Michaelowa and Dransfeld (2008)

366 (organic) 411(conventional)

Not available

10

Meisterling et al. (2009)

576

Not available

Not available

Xu and Lan (2016)

Rye flour

980

Not available

Not available

Nielsen et al. (2003)

Starch (native)

877

42

Not available

An et al. (2012)

Starch (tapioca)

594

Not available

Not available

Usubharatana and Phungrassami (2015)

539

21e62

Not available

Tran et al. (2015)

56

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

from a labeling point of view, as either native or modified. Native starches are produced through the separation of naturally occurring starch from grain or root crops and can be used directly in food production (McDonagh, 2012). However, unmodified starches have limited use in the food industry because of their inferior quality and are uneconomical. Native starches generally exhibit limited resistance toward low pH values in food, impact of heat during processing, impact of shear and lower performance regarding the stability in refrigerated and freeze-thaw conditions (Feiner, 2006b). The modern food industry with its enormous variety of food products require a starch able to tolerate a wide range of processing techniques as well as various distribution, storage and final preparation conditions. These demands are satisfied by modifying native starches by chemical and physical methods (Thomas and Atwell, 1997). The various modifications of native starch are designed to change one or more of the following properties: pasting temperature, solid-viscosity relationships, resistance of starch pastes to breaking down, gelatinization and cooking characteristics, retrogradation tendency viscosity by acids, heat and/or mechanical shear, ionic character and hydrophilic character (McDonagh, 2012) (Fig. 3.3).

FIGURE 3.3 Schematic summarizing some common methods of chemical and physical modification of starches. Adapted from Masina, N., Choonara, Y.E., Kumar, P., du Toit, L.C., Govender, M., Indermun, S., Pillay, V., 2017. A review of the chemical modification techniques of starch. Carbohydrate Polymers 157, 1226-1236; Zia-ud-Din, Xiong, H., Fei, P., 2017. Physical and chemical modification of starches: A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 57(12), 2691-2705.

Cross-linking

Acetylation

Oxidation Chemical Hydroxypropylation

Cationization

Acid Hydrolysis Starch modification Drum drying

Pregelatinization

Spray drying

Thermal treatment

Extrusion

Physical Ultrasonication

High hydrostatic pressure (HHP) Non thermal treatment Microwave

Pulsed electric field (PEF)

Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges Chapter | 3

57

Starches are modified to: (1) reduce gelatinization temperature or reduce hot paste viscosity; (2) provide functional attributes in food applications that native starches cannot normally provide; and (3) provide an economical advantage in many applications where higher priced items such as gums must be used (Genccelep et al., 2015). Modified starches are less limiting in extreme processes and formulations. The selection of a starch that is compatible with a process is one of the most critical aspects of achieving proper starch performance and the desired product quality. Certain modified starches are also being increasingly used as fat substitutes in low-and no-fat products (Thomas and Atwell, 1997). The use of modified starches in processed meat products helps to bind moisture, besides providing heat and shear stability, extending shelf life and improving freeze-thaw stability and texture (Totosaus, 2009). Chemically modified starches are considered as food additives and they have an E number designation and are not perceived as natural ingredients (McDonagh, 2012). In Europe, these modified starches are assigned E numbers and are regulated in accordance with Directive 95/2/EC on “food additives other than colors and sweeteners,” as amended (European Parliament and Council, 2006) and must be manufactured in accordance of specified purity criteria (Joly and Anderstain, 2009). Native starches without chemical modifications are considered clean-label ingredients and are now finding greater acceptance in food products due to consumer’s demands for natural products (Lawton, 2004). Nowadays the issue for starch manufactures is to find innovative ways to create clean-label solutions that offer the functionality and qualities of modified starch (McDonagh, 2012). Therefore, in recent years, to meet market requirements for clean label, special “native functional” starches produced by using physical processes to confer them comparable properties to chemically modified ones, with the advantage of retaining the label declaration “native” and their clean “image,” have been introduced in the markets (McDonagh, 2012). These starches exhibited improvement in technological behavior and comparable properties to chemically modified starches with the advantage of a clean-label status (Petracci et al., 2013).

3.6 VEGETABLE PROTEINS 3.6.1 Mechanism of Action Vegetable proteins, frequently added in meat formulation, can be included among binders which are ingredients used to help “glue” particles, increase water-holding capacity and form a gel system or participate in meat protein gelation. Some proteins even enhance the flavor in finished products and are also occasionally added to meat products to raise the level of protein to fulfill legal requirements (Feiner, 2006b). The vegetable proteins are commonly marketed under certain categories (Barbut, 2017): (1) flour-fine particles with 40%e60% protein content; (2) concentrates with 70% protein level; (3) isolates with 90% protein content. These ingredients can be expensive and therefore processors should consider their added value, such as reducing shrinkage during processing, texture enhancement, emulsification capabilities, and reduction of formulation cost when using them (Barbut, 2017). Fat emulsification is one of the key functional properties of plant proteins in processed meat systems. The emulsifying characteristics of plant proteins can vary based on the protein source, solubility, concentration, and the processing conditions under which the protein was manufactured. Water binding is another critical functional property required in plant proteins that are used in processed meat systems. The composition and conformational structure of the protein play key role in its water-holding capacity. Water binding properties of proteins can also be influenced by a variety of factors within the meat system, including pH and salt concentration. The water-holding capacity of the plant protein used in processed meat products is critical to the overall eating quality and the shelf life (Egbert and Payne, 2009). Plant proteins can be used in processed meat to enhance the textural properties of the system through incorporation of additional protein into the product matrix. The textural characteristics of each processed meat product are dependent on product formulation as well as the processing conditions employed in the manufacture of the final product (Feiner, 2006b). The vegetable proteins are used as meat extenders because of their lower price compared to muscle proteins and, consequently, lower the cost of the final product. In fact, high meat prices have prompted the industry to produce meat products with inexpensive sources of proteins such as soybean proteins. Furthermore, in many underdeveloped countries animal proteins are very scarce and food supplies must be supplemented with vegetable proteins (Belloque et al., 2002). There has been increasing interest in vegetable proteins due to their various health benefits and prospective applications in the food industry. As shown in Fig. 3.4, there are three main types of vegetable proteins: leguminous proteins, cereal proteins, and oil seed proteins (Lin et al., 2017).

58

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

VEGETABLE PROTEINS

LEGUMINOUS PROTEINS

Soy Mung bean Red mung Kidney bean Lupin Chickpea Pea

CEREAL PROTEINS

Wheat Corn Rice

OIL SEED PROTEINS

Peanut Sunflower Canola Flax seed Sesame Safflower

FIGURE 3.4 The classification of vegetable proteins commonly used in food industry. Adapted from Lin, D., Lu, W., Kelly, A.L., Zhang, L., Zheng, B., Miao, S., 2017. Interactions of vegetable proteins with other polymers: structure-function relationships and applications in the food industry. Trends in Food Science Technology 68, 130e144.

Worldwide, the most common plant proteins found in meat products are those derived from soybeans or wheat. There are a variety of other plant proteins that are or could be commercially available including pea, potato, corn, canola, rice, and various other proteins from legumes and oilseed sources (Egbert and Payne, 2009). Legumes refer to edible seeds of leguminous plants belonging to the family Leguminosae, which include beans and pulses. Legume flours such as black-eyed beans, chick-peas, and lentils can be successfully used in meatball formulations as extenders to increase the toughness of meatballs (Asgar et al., 2010). Mung-bean flour and its products are used as a water and meat binder in processed meat products and the use of mung-bean protein isolate as water-binding agent and substrate for the microbial transglutaminase in pork myofibrillar proteins was proposed by Lee and Chin (2013). Soybean proteins are the most widely utilized vegetable protein in the meat industry due to their nutritional and functional properties. It is commonly used owing to its biological value, fat absorption, and emulsification capacities; gelling/textural and water-holding capabilities; ability to control color and improve the textural properties of the final product (Belloque et al., 2002; Feiner, 2006b; Asgar et al., 2010; O’Grady and Kerry, 2010). Together with these, health and economic reasons are the major causes for the addition of soybean protein to meat products. Some advantages of using soybean proteins as additives are (1) very little off-flavor; (2) low cost; (3) high nutritional value; (4) interesting functional properties (soybean proteins can easily associate with water and fat showing good hydration, gelling and emulsifying properties); (5) improvement of the appearance and organoleptic characteristics of meat products. Every soybean product presents different functional properties, and the selection of a soybean product for manufacture of a meat product depends on the type of product (Belloque et al., 2002). Main uses of soybean products as additives in meat products are reported in Table 3.7. Soy isolates are good water binders (higher yield, reduce the purge loss during storage and more juiciness for marinated, injected/tumbled whole meat or restructured products), and excellent emulsifiers of fat (improve sliceability in meat sausage rolls and consistency in bologna-type products). In whole-muscle injected ham products, soy isolates are applied to add firmness and texture to the product. Different injectable soy isolates exhibit different molecular structures, which determine their dispersibility in cold water and their water-holding capacity (Feiner, 2006b; Petracci et al., 2013). The rate of addition of soy proteins to meat products varies considerably and is generally between 0.5% and 3.0% in the finished product. Injectable soy concentrates are used at an increasing rate rather than isolates in injected whole-muscle products as the water-holding capacity of a concentrate is around 20% less than an isolate but the cost of concentrate, compared with that of an isolate, is significantly less. In general terms, a soy isolate immobilizes water at a ratio of 1:5 while soy concentrates at a ratio of 1:4. The difference between soy isolate and concentrate in injected meat products becomes even less distinguishable when other additives such as carrageenan and/or starch are applied in combination (Feiner, 2006b). Soy protein concentrate is widely used in meat formulations to improve water and fat holding capacity and can add nutritional value to meat products due to its fiber content (Petracci et al., 2013).

Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges Chapter | 3

59

TABLE 3.7 Soybean Products Used as Protein Ingredient in Meat Functional Properties Improved by the Addition of Soybean and Example of Meat Product Prepared

Soybean Product

Protein Content (%)

Flour and grits

65

Protein solvation, water absorption and binding, viscosity, cohesion-adhesion, emulsification, and color control (e.g., chili with meat, meatballs, patties, etc.)

Textured

65

Water and fat absorption, texture and flavor (e.g., chili with meat, meatballs, meat bits, stews, etc.)

Protein concentrate

65e90

Protein solvation, water absorption, and binding, gelation, cohesion-adhesion, emulsification, fat absorption and flavor binding (e.g., frankfurters, ham, poultry breast, stews, etc.)

Protein isolate

>90

Protein solvation, viscosity, gelation, cohesion-adhesion, elasticity, fat absorption, flavor binding, and color control (e.g., Bolognas, frankfurters, miscellaneous sausages, chili with meat, meat balls, patties, ham, etc.)

Adapted from Belloque, J., Garcia, M.C., Torre, M., Marina, M.L., 2002. Analysis of soyabean proteins in meat products: a review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 42 (5), 507e532.

The United States Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) has defined texturized vegetable protein products as “food products made from edible protein sources and characterized by structural integrity and identifiable structure such that each unit will withstand hydration, cooking, and other procedures used in preparing the food for consumption” (Asgar et al., 2010). Flaked texturized vegetable protein is heavily used in meat products such as burgers, patties, pies and salami to imitate lean meat by substituting meat with hydrated flakes of textured vegetable protein. The dried and frequently colored flakes are usually soaked with water in ratio of around 1:3 (one part of flakes to three parts of water) and then added to the meat product mostly during the mixing process. These hydrated flakes can hardly be differentiated from “real” meat in the finished product and this addition in most cases is for cost-reduction, given that a texturized vegetable proteinewater mix is less costly than muscle protein and, subsequently, can reduce the cost of meat products (Feiner, 2006b; Asgar et al., 2010). Soy flour is used as filler and extender in meat product to improve the water-binding capacity (Petracci et al., 2013). In coarsely chopped meats, such as meat patties, sausages, chili, Salisbury steaks and meat sauces, texturized soy protein concentrates and soy flours are the preferred ingredients to obtain the desired texture. Soy isolates are also used in meatballs, ground meat, bolognas and frankfurters to improve the texture and quality (Asgar et al., 2010). As an alternative to soybean, proteins obtained from peas have gained a certain interest during the past few years. Pea protein isolates are soluble proteins used in processed meat systems for their good gelation, emulsification, water-binding and texturizing properties (Egbert and Payne, 2009; Tulbek et al., 2017). Current research indicates that pea protein products tend to exhibit weaker gel strength, viscosity and texture compared to egg, soy, and meat protein. However, new extraction and drying technologies could be proposed to improve the functional attributes of pea proteins. Peas and pea ingredients can be used in meat applications in several forms based on formulation, technology and regulatory compliance. Pea proteins and flours can bind water and fat to generate firm texture after thermal process due to their amylase content, starch retrogradation, gel formation and protein gelation properties (Tulbek et al., 2017). As categorized in the sources of proteins, another class of proteins which exhibits similar properties as leguminous proteins are cereal proteins, among which wheat proteins have the structural, emulsification, and water-binding properties. However, in the recent years, wheat gluten is not highly used in the meat industry as other plant proteins partially due to its nutritional inadequacies compared to other proteins and increasing celiac concerns. Studies have been conducted using wheat gluten in bologna-type products, meat batters, and restructured beef steaks, in which most of the studies demonstrated no compelling reason to use wheat gluten in these products. Gluten has found more widespread use in coarse ground meat applications in the form of texturized pieces that mimic meat and is extensively used in combination with soy protein to produce meat analogs. It acts to give textured protein pieces a meat-like bite characteristic. Similarly, powdered vital gluten can also help form the chewy matrix necessary to replace meat eating characteristics. This is true when firmness of a product is needed while replacing lean meat in a product formulation (Egbert and Payne, 2009). These desirable functional properties like water and fat binding and emulsification are also found in oilseed proteins which form the third class of vegetable proteins. Moreover, the functional properties of sunflower protein products have been reported to be comparable to those of soybean flour indicating the potential of these products for use in a variety of food products. Sunflower meal absorbed 107% water and 205% fat, with strong emulsification properties. Studies on the

60

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

TABLE 3.8 Estimation of Lifecycle Carbon Emission and Water and Ecological Footprint of Soy Isolate Product

Carbon Footprint (g CO2/kg Protein)

Water Footprint (l/kg Protein)

Ecological Footprint (m2/kg Protein)

References

Soy isolate

2.4

Not available

Not available

Braun et al. (2016)

1e7 kg

38e205

6e8

Thrane et al. (2016)

functional properties of peanut proteins indicated that they have a strong capacity toward water absorption, fat absorption and emulsification. Also, safflower proteins were found to have fat binding and emulsification properties that are equivalent to soybean proteins. But these properties of canola proteins were found to be adequate but not comparable to soybean proteins (Asgar et al., 2010). Increasing research on the usage of these products should be directed at product specific applications.

3.6.2 Sustainability Concerns and Market Trends The availability and use of plant proteins should continue to grow in the future as the world population grows and becomes more prosperous and their meat consumption patterns increase. With an ever-increasing demand for animal proteins, there will be a greater need for plant proteins to fill the gap between the global animal protein production capabilities and demand for protein-based food products (Egbert and Payne, 2009). Some preliminary studies are available to assess environmental impact of most common plant proteins used in food sector such as those derived from soybean (Table 3.8). Apart from environmental issues, soy protein was, and still is, one of the food substances at the center of the debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and leading producers of soy protein have strict quality control measurements in place to guarantee that they are producing non-GMO products. Whereas many countries are comfortable with the use of genetically modified soy, others, such as Europe and Australia, show great resistance toward genetically modified soy protein (Feiner, 2006b). Due to this issue, pea proteins are popular in Europe because they are currently produced from non-GMOs. Thanks to the growing production sustainability, low carbon footprint, non-GMO, allergen-free, clean label, and single-ingredient trends in the global marketplace, peas and pea ingredients are becoming major alternative ingredients, which present opportunities for value addition in the food industry. Taste, flavor, and overall sensory attributes are the leading challenges for restricting pea ingredients use in major food applications and in meat products as they detrimentally influence processed meat sensory attributes. Thus, use of pea protein isolate, de-flavored and thermally stabilized pulse ingredients can be suggested as alternative ingredients. Stabilized pea ingredients, such as deflavored flours and pea proteins isolates, contain no lipoxygenase enzyme which can negatively affect processed meat quality (Tulbek et al., 2017). Growing efforts for improved taste and flavor, enhanced protein content and quality, reduced energy use, increased yield attributes will be the targets for the future research of peas. Moreover, potato proteins are relatively new to the food processing industry and are still in the early commercialization process in Europe.

3.7 HYDROCOLLOIDS (GUMS) AND VEGETABLE FIBERS 3.7.1 Mechanism of Action Hydrocolloids have been traditionally used since many years in the meat industry due to their properties of forming viscous dispersions (thickening function) and selective ability to form (reversible or irreversible) gels when dispersed in water (gelling ability) (Feiner, 2006a). Hydrocolloids, also known as gums, are substances that form colloidal systems when dispersed in water. With the increased interest in the beneficial health properties of dietary fibers, especially obtained from vegetable byproducts, (soluble/insoluble fiber fractions obtained by minimally processed vegetable, fruit, and cereals materials), the vision of food hydrocolloids has profoundly changed (Hotchkiss, 2015). Nearly all food hydrocolloids would qualify as dietary fibers according its modern definition (Viebke et al., 2014). As a consequence, until a few years ago, hydrocolloids and fibers have been viewed as distinct compounds, although with many communalities in functionality; with the drive toward naturalness and less processed food ingredients there is an increased overlapping use in meat industry (Hotchkiss, 2015; Roman et al., 2017). For this reason, hydrocolloids and fibers have been considered together in this chapter (Table 3.9).

TABLE 3.9 Origins and Functional Properties of Main Hydrocolloids and Food Fibers Used in Meat Processing Agent

Main Functions

Hydrocolloids Obtained From Plants (Fragments) Carboxymethylcellulose (E466)

Used as thickener (highly viscous solution) in finely minced products

Konjac (E425)

Used in combinations with starches and vegetable proteins with reduced/low-fat meat applications as thickener (highly viscous solution)

Pectins (E440)

Used as both thickener and gelling agents. Pectins form a thermo-reversible gel on cooling and are used for ready meals containing meat as ingredients

Hydrocolloids Obtained From Seaweeds (Cell Walls) Agar forms a thermo-reversible gel on cooling highly sensible to syneresis. Mainly used in retorted meat products

Alginate (E401-402)

Alginate forms a thermo-stable cold-setting gels in the presence of calcium ions. Mainly used for cold meat binding, fat emulsions or as meat extender

Carrageenans (kappa and iota forms, E407)

Carrageenans form thermo-reversible gels on cooling and are included in injected, tumbled and emulsified meat products as gelling agent for medium (20%e40%) to high (60%e100%) extension and also as meat or fat replacer

Hydrocolloids Obtained From Seeds (Flours) Guar gum (E412)

Used as thickener in the manufacturing of sausage products and stuffed meat products in conjunction with other ingredients (starches, vegetable fibers, etc.)

Carrob/locust bean gum (E410)

Own both thickening and gelling properties, in meat sector mainly used for its synergistic behavior with k-carrageenans to increase gel elasticity and resistance to syneresis

Hydrocolloids Obtained Using Microorganisms (Fermentations) Xanthan gum (E415)

For its thickener properties, it is generally used in fat replacement applications and as adjunct to increase brine viscosity to avoid starch precipitation

Food Fibers Obtained From Vegetable Byproducts (No E Number) Fibers consisting of almost insoluble (>80%) fiber fractions (bamboo, wheat, oat, etc.)

Food fibers mainly containing insoluble fractions (cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin) are able to create a three-dimensional network where moisture is bound, so they can be used as thickeners in restructured, coarse/ground or emulsified meat products

Fibers containing a mix of insoluble (<70%) and soluble (<20%) fiber fractions (pea, carrot, potato, citrus, sugar beet, etc.)

Food fibers mainly containing also soluble fractions (gums, pectins and mucilages) impart cold swelling ability with overall higher water adsorption capability. These fibers are mainly used in restructured, coarse/ground or emulsified meat products

Refined Soluble Food Fibers (No E Number) Inulin

Inulin is a fructan-type polysaccharide and mainly extracted from roots or tubers of the family of plants known as Compositae (i.e., chicory and lettuce) and it is able to form thermoreversible gel on cooling. Mainly used as fat replacer in comminuted and emulsified meat products

Psyllium

Psyllium is as mucilage gums and can be used as thickeners because of its ability to swells and forms a mucilaginous dispersion with gel-like properties

61

Adapted From Feiner, G., 2006a. Additives: phosphates, salts (sodium chloride and potassium chloride, citrate, lactate) and hydrocolloids. In: Meat Products Handbook - Practical Science and Technology. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, pp. 72e88; Saha, D., Bhattacharya, S., 2010. Hydrocolloids as thickening and gelling agents in food: a critical review. Journal of Food Science and Technology 47 (6), 587e597; Petracci, M., Bianchi, M., Mudalal, S., Cavani, C., 2013. Functional ingredients for poultry meat products. Trends in Food Science and Technology 33 (1), 27e39.

Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges Chapter | 3

Agar (E406)

62

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

Hydrocolloids are classified in food additives as gelling and thickening agents and fulfill several functions in meat products along with reduction in cooking loss and thereby assisting in increasing yield. In addition, formation of gel assists in obtaining texture in a meat product and resists against syneresis in the finished product (Feiner, 2006a). They are generally added at very low dosage (<1%) because of their high molecular weight and technological functionality and moreover a wide range of gels with different textures (i.e., soft, elastic, very firm, and brittles) can be prepared by selecting different types of gums and by varying gelation conditions. Many hydrocolloids are available in the market, but carrageenans and alginates are the most commonly used in meat product formulations. The hydrocolloid chosen for meat processing is based on the attributes desired in the finished product and processing capabilities, as well as distribution, holding, and reconstitution requirements. For example, in whole-muscle products hydrocolloid applications are generally directed at attempting to retain moisture and/or improve yield, reduce drip loss, and to protect against freeze/thaw conditions in which the formation of ice crystals can lead to greater weeping and the destruction of the muscle tissue. Carrageenans are one of the primary hydrocolloids used by the processed meats industry mainly in the manufacture of comminuted products, but also work well in reformed meat products when it is injected via the brine during meat pumping (McArdle et al., 2011). The use of food fibers in the meat sector as technofunctional ingredients in addition to nutritional enrichment purposes is new and represents a promising trend. Fibers have multifunctional properties: enhance water-holding capacity, modulate texture by viscosity and gel-forming abilities, stabilize fat in emulsified products, exert a fat mimetic behavior in reducedfat products, etc. Various types of fibers have been studied singly or in combination with other ingredients to formulate reduced-fat meat products, coarse ground and restructured products, and meat emulsions (Bodner and Sieg, 2009; Kim and Paik, 2012; Mehta et al., 2015). The functional properties of fibers primarily depend on their water solubility. Insoluble fiber-rich products are mainly derived from cereals and bamboo, while fruits, vegetables, and legumes are richer in soluble fibers. There are also refined food fibers available which are very soluble and are classified as either additives (i.e., carboxymethylcellulose) or ingredients (i.e., inulin and psyllium). Other than the plant origin, botanical part utilized to extract the fibers (i.e., pea husk vs. pea inner part), physical status of fibers particles (i.e., fiber length or fiber “expansion”), and extraction technology play an important role in defining specific technofunctional properties. Therefore, each commercial product has up to some extent a special functional behavior, and so is less accessible to find different commercial products with the same fingerprint of functional properties. In addition, as one single fiber source is not able to provide all possible features, there is progressive development of commercial solutions enabling to combine the unique characteristics of single fibers (Bodner and Sieg, 2009; Petracci et al., 2013).

3.7.2 Sustainability Concerns and Market Trends There are not special sustainability issues concerning the use of hydrocolloids and food fibers in meat sector because overall they are obtained by different sources which also include byproducts and renewable materials. Indeed, in our knowledge there are not published data on environmental impact of these categories of ingredients. However, as for all food additives, some hydrocolloids can suffer from negative connotations toward consumers even if they are included in very low percentage. The demand for food hydrocolloids has risen significantly, partly in response to the rapid expansion in the convenience foods and ready meals sector, but mostly as a response to the rise in consumer awareness and growing demand for more healthy foods. Hydrocolloids provide functional solutions that allow the reduction and replacement of fat, sugar, and salt (sodium). As for other food additives, among hydrocolloids those with more familiar connotations (pectin vs. carrageenans), those not containing allergens, etc. are preferred and their overall use is usually avoided in high-quality and clean-label products (McArdle et al., 2011). However, as gelling and thickening agents, hydrocolloids are classified as food additives even in cases like guar gum which is extracted from seeds essentially by a mechanical means. Therefore, due to increasing marketing requests for “clean-label” formulations, there is an emergence in the use of clean-label functional food fibers which offer significant texture and nutritional functionality to the meat industry (Hotchkiss, 2015). In addition, fibers are profitably used to improve healthy perception and nutritional values through fiber enrichment and fat reduction (Talukder, 2015).

3.8 ANIMAL PROTEINS 3.8.1 Mechanism of Action Numerous types of animal proteins derived from animals (meat, skin, and blood) or from their products (egg and milk) are available in the market as functional ingredients for meat products for their technological and sensorial properties

Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges Chapter | 3

63

TABLE 3.10 Dairy Proteins and Main Applications in Meat Products Protein Ingredient

Principal Functional Properties and Main Applications

Non-fat milk solid

Texturization, flavor, emulsification (all meat products)

Whey protein concentrates or isolates

Water binding, gelation, inhibiting pink color (injected meats)

Pre-heated whey protein concentrates or isolates

Gelation, Texturization (sausage, emulsion-type meats)

Texturized whey protein concentrates or isolates

Texturization, emulsification (sausage, emulsion-type meats)

Sodium caseinate

Emulsification, texturization, meat binding (sausage, emulsion-type meats)

Partially hydrolyzed caseinate

Emulsification, texturization, water binding (sausage, emulsion-type meats, gravies)

Adapted From Xiong Y.L., 2009. Dairy proteins. In: Tarte´, R. (Ed.), Ingredients in Meat Products. Springer, New York, pp. 131e144.

(Petracci et al., 2013). As mentioned before, descriptions of ingredients derived by the utilization of byproducts and waste materials from animal slaughtering are included in Chapters 4 and 8, so only dairy and egg proteins are described in the present paragraph. In addition, the use of proteins derived from edible insects are discussed as promising market trend. Dairy proteins are generally divided into two groups: caseins and whey proteins. Whey and whey proteins that are used in processed meats include sweet whey, reduced-lactose whey, demineralized whey, whey protein concentrates, and isolates. Texturized whey proteins can be used as meat extenders, whereas hydrated, texturized whey proteins can be used to replace up to 40% of the weight of hamburger patties without affecting consumer acceptance of the product. Because of their structural differences, dairy proteins or protein-derived ingredients usually have different predominant functionalities (Table 3.10) (Xiong, 2009). Both caseins and whey proteins have been used commercially in comminuted and emulsified meats such as frankfurters and bologna-type, and in coarse ground products, such as fresh sausage, meat patties, and meatballs. These dairy protein ingredients are used to improve moisture retention, fat binding, and textural characteristics of cooked meats. When used in restructured products, including a variety of boneless ham and chicken rolls, these exogenous proteins can improve the binding strength, firmness and sliceability. In addition to their texture-related functionality, milk proteins show antioxidant activity in cooked meats probably caused by the formation of antioxidant Maillard reaction products, that occur because of a condensation reaction between amino acids (or proteins) and reducing sugars (i.e., lactose present in whey protein concentrate) (Xiong, 2009). Casein and whey proteins are distinguished by their insolubility of casein at its isoelectric point (pH 4.6). The whey fraction remaining following casein separation contains soluble proteins which may be concentrated by ultrafiltration producing a range of whey protein concentrates with protein contents ranging typically from 35% to 80% (O’Grady and Kerry, 2010). Most commonly, whey protein concentrates of around 35% protein are used in meat products (Feiner, 2006b). The most important functional properties of whey proteins in meat applications are: solubility, water binding and viscosity, emulsification, adhesion, gelation, and organoleptic characteristics (Prabhu, 2006). Whey protein concentrates are easy to use in injection brines as they are highly soluble over the entire pH range (pH 2e10), with low viscosity at the same time (Feiner, 2006b). In meat products, the water-binding property of whey proteins contributes to the texture of the meat product reducing cooking losses and contributing to the juiciness or moistness of the final product. The emulsification properties of whey proteins can be very useful in emulsified products such as hot dogs and bologna-type products to improve stability, especially when low quality meat is used, or to replace expensive lean meat (Prabhu, 2006). The ability of whey protein to gel and the temperature at which this takes place are largely determined by temperatures applied during manufacturing of the whey protein itself and on the pH levels and salt concentration within a meat product. In their pure form, whey proteins are very bland in flavor, generally equivalent to that of meat and it also matches the light color of poultry meat. Whey protein is also reasonably stable against varying pH values in meat products (Feiner, 2006b). Whey protein concentrate has the ability to form heat-induced three-dimensional gel structures with increased water-holding capacity and potential texture modifying properties (O’Grady and Kerry, 2010). Caseinate is produced from defatted milk and demonstrates excellent fat emulsification properties but quite limited water-holding capacity. To improve its water-binding ability, caseins are sometimes subjected to limited hydrolysis before addition to meats. Meat batters containing hydrolyzed caseins also exhibit improved textural characteristics

64

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

(Feiner, 2006b; Xiong, 2009). The protein content of caseinate is around 90% and is fully denatured at around 110e115 C. In general, the flavor of caseinate mimics the flavor of meat very effectively. The disadvantage of caseinate, however, is that it is relatively expensive (Feiner, 2006b). Sodium caseinate has the ability to improve the quality of sausages and other emulsified meat products by binding fat and water, and thereby increasing yield and reducing shrinkage, while contributing high-quality protein (Joly and Anderstain, 2009). Eggs which are known to have many functional properties such as foaming, emulsifying and a unique color and flavor, are important in several food products (Abeyrathne et al., 2013). Liquid full egg consists of around 65% egg white and 35% egg yolk; and egg white contains around 11% protein. Egg albumen is preferred over egg yolk as ingredient in meat products for its gelling ability owing to its lower lipid content as well as being colorless and milder in flavor. Egg albumen can form a thermally irreversible gel even at temperatures around 60 C lower than those usually used for meat cooking at industrial level (70e72 C). It is basically used to improve water-holding capacity and gel strength of finely minced products thus positively contributing to the firmness of low-cost emulsified products (Feiner, 2006b; Mine, 2015).

3.8.2 Sustainability Concerns and Market Trends Recently, the introduction of restrictive legislation in many countries regarding food waste treatment and the possibility of taking advantage of the interesting properties of whey components have contributed to the consideration of whey as a valuable and prized raw material instead of a waste. However, there are also some available evaluations on their environmental impact (Table 3.11) which show higher values if compared with plant proteins (see data reported in Table 3.8). In EU countries as well as countries from most other parts of the world, milk proteins, caseins, and caseinates are not considered food additives. Therefore, their usage in muscle food is essentially unregulated. However, in the United States, where diary proteins intended for meat products are used primarily as binders, extenders, and water binders, specific regulations are established to control their level of application. Milk and egg allergies together with wheat are the most common allergens, so dairy and egg proteins must be identified in the product label when used as a deliberate ingredient in any prepacked food product (Xiong, 2009). However, as part of the “clean-label” initiative, companies are also making it a point to emphasize allergen-free claims (i.e., lactose free) (Asioli et al., 2017). Thus, currently companies are motivated to develop allergen-free meat products, and for this reason use of dairy proteins and egg albumen is decreasing especially in high-quality products. Besides these market trends in the use of conventional animal proteins, today there is an increasing interest on alternative and more sustainable sources. Indeed, among animal-derived proteins, edible insects are received growing interest as a sustainable protein source mainly because of their environmental and nutritional advantages (Alexander et al., 2017; Megido et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2016b). Besides the positive effects on the environment, edible insects are also considered a valuable food product with an adequate nutritional composition (Schouteten et al., 2016). The protein content and amino acid composition of most edible insects is like that of conventional meat products. The quality of insect’s protein is comparable to soybean and beef, is much higher than wheat flour, and lower only if compared with casein and egg white. Limiting amino acids in many incomplete plant proteins, such as lysine in wheat protein and methionine in soy protein, are in higher concentration in yellow mealworm protein. Insects contain more mono- and poly-unsaturated fatty acids than conventional meat but are low in calcium because they do not have an internal skeleton. Several species are rich in most other minerals, such as copper, magnesium, manganese, phosphorous, selenium, iron, and zinc. Edible insects are also a good source of B vitamins, but not of vitamin A (van Huis, 2017). Several food products containing edible insects have been launched in Europe, however, little is currently known about how consumers evaluate and experience such products (Schouteten et al., 2016; van Huis, 2017). A survey on entomophagy perception and hedonic tests were realized to assess the level of sensory-liking of hybrid insect-based burgers (beef, lentils, mealworms and beef, Tenebrio molitor mealworms and lentils) demonstrated that insect integration into TABLE 3.11 Estimation of Lifecycle Carbon Emission, Water and Ecological Footprint of Whey Proteins Product

Carbon Footprint (g CO2/kg Protein)

Water Footprint (l/kg Protein)

Ecological Footprint (m2/kg Protein)

References

Whey proteins

15e20

32e203

12e19

Thrane et al. (2016)

36e41

Not available

Not available

Bacenetti et al. (2018)

Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges Chapter | 3

65

Western food culture will involve a transitional phase with minced or powdered insects incorporated into ready-to-eat preparations, as people are not yet ready to add insects to their diets in “whole form” (Megido et al., 2016). Recently, it was investigated the overall liking, perceived quality, nutritive value, the emotional and sensory profiling of three commercially available burgers (insect-based, plant-based, and meat-based), under blind, expected, and informed conditions (Schouteten et al., 2016). The findings of this study revealed that although the overall liking for the insect burger was comparable to the liking for the plant-based burger, further product development is needed to improve its sensory quality. There are already signs that consumers attitudes in developed countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom may be starting to change, and there may be less of a barrier to including insect-derived materials in other products, for example in powdered form. However, in some jurisdictions, there are legal barriers; for example, within the European Union, regulations on novel food and the legal status of insect-based foods means that insects cannot be processed and must be marketed as whole (Alexander et al., 2017). In 2015, the European Food Safety Authority addressed this issue, and made a risk profile to identify the potential biological and chemical hazards, as well as allergenicity and environmental hazards associated with the use of farmed insects as food and feed (EFSA, 2015). Besides current legislation and consumer perception barriers, edible insect proteins have been already tested as a functional ingredient for providing technological benefits such as emulsion capacity, gel-forming ability and water/oil absorption ability. Indeed, the inclusion of insect flours in finely comminuted pork sausages has been evaluated and it was concluded that edible insect proteins can be practically utilized as a nonmeat food ingredient without compromising the nutritional and technological properties of the products (Kim et al., 2016b). Thus, it would be reasonable to predict that soon insect proteins will be used as a novel protein source to partially substitute meat in processed products.

3.9 CONCLUSIONS The technofunctional ingredients sector is always continually evolving in relation to the new needs of industry and society. However, novel concepts are crucial to drive food innovations in the direction that also accounts for non-technical issues, such as health and sustainability. Currently, innovations in the meat processing sector are demanding higher social responsibilities and environmentally friendly products. For this reason, even if the effect of ingredients on environmental issues appears limited, at least in the context of meat, it is foreseen that soon there will be a spasmodic search for new ingredients and resources and technological solutions for production able to satisfy this demand. Additional challenges for meat industry are to address consumer demand for healthier meat products (i.e., low sodium) and meet the so clean-label trend (i.e., free from synthetic additives, allergens, GMOs). In this unstable context, however, the know-how concerning the meat matrix and the mechanism of action of the individual ingredients is even more crucial.

REFERENCES Abeyrathne, E.D.N.S., Lee, H.Y., Ahn, D.U., 2013. Egg white proteins and their potential use in food processing or as nutraceutical and pharmaceutical agents - a review. Poultry Science 92 (12), 3292e3299. Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Dias, C., Finnigan, J., Moran, D., Rounsevell, M.D., 2017. Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? Global Food Security 15, 22e32. Allen, C.D., Russell, S.M., Fletcher, D.L., 1997. The relationship of broiler breast meat color and pH to shelf-life and odor development. Poultry Science 76 (7), 1042e1046. Alvarado, C.Z., Sams, A.R., 2003. Injection marination strategies for remediation of pale, exudative broiler breast meat. Poultry Science 82 (8), 1332e1336. Alvarado, C., McKee, S., 2007. Marination to improve functional properties and safety of poultry meat. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 16 (1), 113e120. An, V., Evelien, D., Katrien, B., 2012. Life Cycle Assessment Study of Starch Products for the European Starch Industry Association (AAF): Sector Study. Flemish Institute for Technological Research NV, Boeretang. Asgar, M.A., Fazilah, A., Huda, N., Bhat, R., Karim, A.A., 2010. Nonmeat protein alternatives as meat extenders and meat analogs. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 9 (5), 513e529. Asioli, D., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Caputo, V., Vecchio, R., Annunziata, A., Næs, T., Varela, P., 2017. Making sense of the “clean label” trends: a review of consumer food choice behavior and discussion of industry implications. Food Research International 99, 58e71. Bacenetti, J., Bava, L., Schievano, A., Zucali, M., 2018. Whey protein concentrate (WPC) production: environmental impact assessment. Journal of Food Engineering 224, 139e147. Barbut, S., 2017. Ingredient addition and impacts on quality, health and consumer acceptance. In: Petracci, M., Berri, C. (Eds.), Poultry and Quality Evaluation. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, pp. 291e311. Belloque, J., Garcia, M.C., Torre, M., Marina, M.L., 2002. Analysis of soyabean proteins in meat products: a review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 42 (5), 507e532.

66

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

Bertram, H.C., Meyer, R.L., Wu, Z., Zhou, X., Andersen, H.J., 2008. Water distribution and microstructure in enhanced pork. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 56 (16), 7201e7207. Biswas, W.K., Naude, G., 2016. A life cycle assessment of processed meat products supplied to Barrow Island: a Western Australian case study. Journal of Food Engineering 180, 48e59. Bodner, J.M., Sieg, J., 2009. Fiber. In: Tarté, R. (Ed.), Ingredients in Meat Products. Springer, New York, pp. 83e109. Booren, B.L., Castell-Perez, M.E., Miller, R.K., 2017. Effect of meat enhancement solutions with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and konjac flour on texture and quality attributes of pale, soft, and exudative pork. Journal of Texture Studies 48, 403e414. Braun, M., Muñoz, I., Schmidt, J.H., Thrane, M., 2016. Sustainability of soy protein from life cycle assessment. The FASEB Journal 30 (Suppl. 1), 894e895. Bräutigam, K.R., Jörissen, J., Priefer, C., 2014. The extent of food waste generation across EU-27: different calculation methods and the reliability of their results. Waste Management Research 32 (8), 683e694. Brewer, M.S., 2004. Chemical and physical characteristics of meat - Water-holding capacity. In: Jensen, W.K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences. Elsevier, New York, pp. 242e249. Calderón, L.A., Iglesias, L., Laca, A., Herrero, M., Díaz, M., 2010. The utility of life cycle assessment in the ready meal food industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (12), 1196e1207. Casco, G., Veluz, G.A., Alvarado, C.Z., 2013. SavorPhos as an all-natural phosphate replacer in water-and oil-based marinades for rotisserie birds and boneless-skinless breast. Poultry Science 92 (12), 3236e3243. Cheung, T.T.L., Junghans, A.F., Dijksterhuis, G.B., Kroese, F., Johansson, P., Hall, L., De Ridder, D.T.D., 2016. Consumers’ choice-blindness to ingredient information. Appetite 106, 2e12. Collins, A., Fairchild, R., 2007. Sustainable food consumption at a sub-national level: an ecological footprint, nutritional and economic analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy Planning 9 (1), 5e30. Comber, S., Gardner, M., Georges, K., Blackwood, D., Gilmour, D., 2013. Domestic source of phosphorus to sewage treatment works. Environmental Technology 34 (10), 1349e1358. Cordell, D., Neset, T.S.S., Prior, T., 2012. The phosphorus mass balance: identifying ‘hotspots’ in the food system as a roadmap to phosphorus security. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 23 (6), 839e845. EFSA, 2015. Risk profile related to production and consumption of insects as food and feed. EFSA Journal 4257, 60. Egbert, W.R., Payne, C.T., 2009. Plant proteins. In: Tarté, R. (Ed.), Ingredients in Meat Products. Springer, New York, pp. 111e129. Eliásová, M., Pospiech, M., Tremlová, B., Kubícková, K., Jandásek, J., 2012. Native and modified starches in meat productsedetection of raw materials using microscopy methods”. Maso International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2, 101e106. European Commission, 2010. Final Report: Preparatory Study on Food Waste across EU 27. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. European Parliament and Council, Directive 2006/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006, OJ: JOL_2006_204_R_0010_01. Feiner, G., 2006a. Additives: phosphates, salts (sodium chloride and potassium chloride, citrate, lactate) and hydrocolloids. In: Meat Products Handbook Practical Science and Technology. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, pp. 72e88. Feiner, G., 2006b. Additives: proteins, carbohydrates, fillers and other additives. In: Meat Products Handbook - Practical Science and Technology. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Duxford, pp. 89e141. Genccelep, H., Saricaoglu, F.T., Anil, M., Agar, B., Turhan, S., 2015. The effect of starch modification and concentration on steady-state and dynamic rheology of meat emulsions. Food Hydrocolloids 48, 135e148. Grunert, K.G., 2013. Trends in food choice and nutrition. In: Klopcic, M., Kuipers, A., Hocquette, J.-F. (Eds.), Consumer Attitudes to Food Quality Products: Emphasis on Southern Europe. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp. 23e30. Gutiérrez, O.M., Kalantar-Zadeh, K., Mehrotra, R., 2017. Clinical Aspects of Natural and Added Phosphorus in Foods. Springer-Verlag, New York. Hamm, R., 1986. Functional properties of the myofibrillar system and their measurements. In: Bechtel, P.J. (Ed.), Muscle as Food. Academic Press Inc., New York, pp. 135e199. Hotchkiss, S., 2015. Food Texture and Nutrition: The Changing Roles of Hydrocolloids and Food Fibres. https://www.aocs.org/stay-informed/readinform/featured-articles/food-texture-and-nutrition-the-changing-roles-of-hydrocolloids-and-food-fibers-march-2015. Inguglia, E.S., Zhang, Z., Tiwari, B.K., Kerry, J.P., Burgess, C.M., 2017. Salt reduction strategies in processed meat products e a review. Trends in Food Science and Technology 59, 70e78. Joly, G., Anderstain, B., 2009. Starches. In: Tarté, R. (Ed.), Ingredients in Meat Products. Springer, New York, pp. 25e55. Kaewthong, P., Wattanachant, S., 2018. Optimizing the electrical conductivity of marinade solution for water-holding capacity of broiler breast meat. Poultry Science 97 (2), 701e708. Kauffman, R.G., Laack, R.L.J.M., Russell, R.L., Pospiech, E., Cornelius, C.A., Suckow, C.E., Greaser, M.L., 1998. Can Pale, Soft, Exudative pork be prevented by posmortem sodium bicarbonate injection? Journal of Animal Science 27, 310e315. Kim, H.J., Paik, H.D., 2012. Functionality and application of dietary fiber in meat products. Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources 32 (6), 695e705. Kim, H.W., Setyabrata, D., Lee, Y.J., Jones, O.G., Kim, Y.H.B., 2016b. Pre-treated mealworm larvae and silkworm pupae as a novel protein ingredient in emulsion sausages. Innovative Food Science Emerging Technologies 8, 116e123. Kim, S., Thiessen, P.A., Bolton, E.E., Chen, J., Fu, G., Gindulyte, A., Han, L., He, J., He, S., Shoemaker, B.A., Wang, J., Yu, B., Zhang, J., Bryant, S.H., 2016a. PubChem substance and compound databases. Nucleic Acids Research 44 (D1), D1202eD1213.

Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges Chapter | 3

67

Kloss, L., Meyer, J.D., Graeve, L., Vetter, W., 2015. Sodium intake and its reduction by food reformulation in the European Union - a review. NFS Journal 1, 9e19. Kumar, P., Chatli, M.K., Mehta, N., Singh, P., Malav, O.P., Verma, A.K., 2017. Meat analogues: health promising sustainable meat substitutes. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 57 (5), 923e932. Lamkey, J.W., 1998. Non meat ingredients for meat processing. In: Reciprocal Meats Conference Proceedings, vol. 44. American Meat Science Association, Savoy (IL), pp. 48e52. Lee, H.C., Chin, K.B., 2013. Evaluation of mungbean protein isolates at various levels as a substrate for microbial transglutaminase and water binding agent in pork myofibrillar protein gels. International Journal of Food Science Technology 48 (5), 1086e1092. Lee, N., Sharma, V., Brown, N., Mohan, A., 2015. Functional properties of bicarbonates and lactic acid on chicken breast retail display properties and cooked meat quality. Poultry Science 94 (2), 302e310. Lin, D., Lu, W., Kelly, A.L., Zhang, L., Zheng, B., Miao, S., 2017. Interactions of vegetable proteins with other polymers: structure-function relationships and applications in the food industry. Trends in Food Science Technology 68, 130e144. Long, N.H.B.S., Gál, R., Bunka, F., 2011. Use of phosphates in meat products. African Journal of Biotechnology 10 (86), 19874e19882. Lowder, A.C., Goad, C.L., Lou, X., Morgan, J.B., DeWitt, C.A.M., 2011. Evaluation of a dehydrated beef protein to replace sodium-based phosphates in injected beef strip loins. Meat Science 89 (4), 491e499. Lawton, J.W., 2004. Starch-uses of native starch. In: Wrigley, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Grain Science. Elsevier Ltd, New York, pp. 195e202. Masina, N., Choonara, YE., Kumar, P., du Toit, LC., Govender, M., Indermun, S., Pillay, V., 2017. A review of the chemical modification techniques of starch. Carbohydrate Polymers 157, 1226e1236. McArdle, R., Hamill, R., Kerry, J.P., 2011. Utilization of hydrocolloids in processed meat systems. In: Kerry, J. (Ed.), Processed Meats Improving Safety, Nutrition and Quality. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, pp. 243e264. McDonagh, P., 2012. Native, modified and clean label starches in foods and beverages. In: Baines, D., Seal, R. (Eds.), Natural Food Additives, Ingredients and Flavourings. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, pp. 162e174. Megido, R.C., 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. Mehta, N., Ahlawat, S.S., Sharma, D.P., Dabur, R.S., 2015. Novel trends in development of dietary fiber rich meat products-a critical review. Journal of Food Science and Technology 52 (2), 633e647. Meisterling, K., Samaras, C., Schweizer, V., 2009. Decisions to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture and product transport: LCA case study of organic and conventional wheat. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2), 222e230. Michaelowa, A., Dransfeld, B., 2008. Greenhouse gas benefits of fighting obesity. Ecological Economics 66 (2), 298e308. Mine, Y., 2015. Egg proteins. In: Ustunol, Z. (Ed.), Applied Food Protein Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, pp. 459e489. Mohan, A., Jaico, T., Kerr, W., Singh, R., 2016. Functional properties of bicarbonates on physicochemical attributes of ground beef. LWT-Food Science and Technology 70, 333e341. Mudalal, S., Petracci, M., Tappi, S., Rocculi, P., Cavani, C., 2014. Comparison between the quality traits of phosphate and bicarbonate-marinated chicken breast fillets cooked under different heat treatments. Food and Nutrition Sciences 5 (1), 35e44. Nielsen, P.H., Nielsen, A.M., Weidema, B.P., Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., 2003. LCA Food Data Base. www.lcafood.dk. O’Flynn, C.C., Cruz-Romero, M.C., Troy, D.J., Mullen, A.M., Kerry, J.P., 2014. The application of high-pressure treatment in the reduction of phosphate levels in breakfast sausages. Meat Science 96 (1), 633e639. O’Grady, M.N., Kerry, J.P., 2010. The effect of non-meat ingredients on quality parameters in meat and poultry. In: Skibsted, L.H., Risbo, J., Andersen, M.L. (Eds.), Chemical Deterioration and Physical Instability of Food and Beverages. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, pp. 701e725. Öztürk, B., Serdaro glu, M., 2017. Effects of inulin and sodium carbonate in phosphate-free restructured poultry steaks. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 85 (1), 012026. Parsons, A.N., VanOverbeke, D.L., Goad, C.L., DeWitt, C.A., 2011a. Retail display evaluation of steaks from select beef strip loins injected with a brine containing 1% ammonium hydroxide. Part 2: cook yield, tenderness, and sensory attributes. Journal of Food Science 76 (1), S84eS88. Parsons, A.N., VanOverbeke, D.L., Goad, C.L., Mireles DeWitt, C.A., 2011b. Retail display evaluation of steaks from select beef strip loins injected with a brine containing 1% ammonium hydroxide. Part 1: fluid loss, oxidation, color, and microbial plate counts. Journal of Food Science 76 (1), S63eS71. Petracci, M., Bianchi, M., Mudalal, S., Cavani, C., 2013. Functional ingredients for poultry meat products. Trends in Food Science and Technology 33 (1), 27e39. Petracci, M., Laghi, L., Rimini, S., Rocculi, P., Capozzi, F., Cavani, C., 2014. Chicken breast meat marinated with increasing levels of sodium bicarbonate. Journal of Poultry Science 51 (2), 206e212. Petracci, M., Laghi, L., Rocculi, P., Rimini, S., Panarese, V., Cremonini, M.A., Cavani, C., 2012. The use of sodium bicarbonate for marination of broiler breast meat. Poultry Science 91 (2), 526e534. Prabhu, G., 2006. US Whey Protein in Processed Meats. Application Monograph Processed Meats. US Dairy Export Council. http://www.thinkusadairy.org. Puolanne, E., Halonen, M., 2010. Theoretical aspects of water holding in meat. Meat Science 86, 151e165. Rigdon, M., Hung, Y.C., Stelzleni, A.M., 2017a. Evaluation of alkaline electrolyzed water to replace traditional phosphate enhancement solutions: effects on water holding capacity, tenderness, and sensory characteristics. Meat Science 123, 211e218. Rigdon, M., Hung, Y.C., Stelzleni, A.M., 2017b. Replacing traditional enhancement solutions with alkaline electrolyzed water does not improve pork shelf life. Meat and Muscle Biology 1 (1), 90e99. Roman, S., Sanchez-Siles, L.M., Siegrist, M., 2017. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: results of a systematic review. Trends in Food Science and Technology 67, 44e57.

68

Sustainable Meat Production and Processing

Ruusunen, M., Puolanne, E., 2005. Reducing sodium intake from meat products. Meat Science 70, 531e541. Saha, D., Bhattacharya, S., 2010. Hydrocolloids as thickening and gelling agents in food: a critical review. Journal of Food Science and Technology 47 (6), 587e597. Saleem, R., Hasnain, A.-U., Ahmad, R., 2016. Changes in some biochemical indices of stability of broiler chicken actomyosin at different levels of sodium bicarbonate in presence and absence of sodium chloride. International Journal of Food Properties 18, 1373e1384. Santos, V.M.O.D., Caldara, F.R., Seno, L.D.O., Feijó, G.L.D., Paz, I.C.D.L.A., Garcia, R.G., Altemio, Â.D.C., 2012. Marinade with alkaline solutions for the improvement of pork quality. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 47 (11), 1655e1662. Schouteten, J.J., De Steur, H., De Pelsmaeker, S., Lagast, S., Juvinal, J.G., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Verbeke, W., Gellynck, X., 2016. Emotional and sensory profiling of insect-, plant-and meat-based burgers under blind, expected and informed conditions. Food Quality and Preference 52, 27e31. Schröder, M., Cordell, D., Smit, A.L., Rosmarin, A., 2010. Sustainable Use of Phosphorus. Report 357. Plant Research International, part of Waganigen UR, The Netherlands. Sharedeh, D., Gatellier, P., Astruc, T., Daudin, J.D., 2015. Effects of pH and NaCl levels in a beef marinade on physicochemical states of lipids and proteins and on tissue microstructure. Meat Science 110, 24e31. Sheard, P.R., Tali, A., 2004. Injection of salt, tripolyphosphate and bicarbonate marinade solutions to improve the yield and tenderness of cooked pork loin. Meat Science 68 (2), 305e311. Sindelar, J.J., Prochaska, F., Britt, J., Smith, G.L., Miller, R.K., Templeman, R., Osburn, W.N., 2003a. Strategies to eliminate atypical flavours and aromas in sow loins. 1. Optimization of sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate, and injection level. Meat Science 65, 1211e1222. Sindelar, J.J., Prochaska, F., Britt, J., Smith, G.L., Osburn, W.N., 2003b. Strategies to eliminate atypical flavours and aromas in sow loins. 2. Consumer acceptance of loins marinated with sodium tripolyphosphate and sodium bicarbonate. Meat Science 65, 1223e1230. Talukder, S., 2015. Effect of dietary fiber on properties and acceptance of meat products: a review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 55 (7), 1005e1011. Thomas, D.J., Atwell, W.A., 1997. Starches. Eagan Press Handbook Series, St. Paul Minnesota, USA. Thrane, M., Paulsen, P.V., Orcutt, M.W., Krieger, T.M., 2016. Soy protein: impacts, production, and applications. In: Janitha, S.R., Wanasundara, P.D., Scanlin, L. (Eds.), Sustainable Protein Sources. Academic Press, Oxford, pp. 23e45. Totosaus, A., 2009. The use of potato starch in meat products. Food 3 (special issue 1), 102e108 (Global Science Books). Tran, T., Da, G., Moreno-Santander, M.A., Vélez-Hernández, G.A., Giraldo-Toro, A., Piyachomkwan, K., Sriroth, K., Dufour, D., 2015. A comparison of energy use, water use and carbon footprint of cassava starch production in Thailand, Vietnam and Colombia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 100, 31e40. Troy, D.J., Ojha, K.S., Kerry, J.P., Tiwari, B.K., 2016. Sustainable and consumer-friendly emerging technologies for application within the meat industry: an overview. Meat Science 120, 2e9. Tulbek, M.C., Lam, R.S.H., Wang, Y., Asavajaru, P., Lam, A., 2017. Pea: a sustainable vegetable protein crop. In: Janitha, S.R., Wanasundara, P.D., Scanlin, L. (Eds.), Sustainable Protein Sources. Academic Press, Oxford, pp. 145e163. Usubharatana, P., Phungrassami, H., 2015. Carbon footprint of cassava starch production in North-Eastern Thailand. Procedia CIRP 29, 462e467. van Huis, A., 2017. New sources of animal proteins: edible insects. In: Purslow, P.P. (Ed.), New Aspects of Meat Quality: From Genes to Ethics. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, pp. 443e461. Vann, D.G., Mireles DeWitt, C.A., 2007. Evaluation of solubilized proteins as an alternative to phosphates for meat enhancement. Journal of Food Science 72 (1), C072eC077. Viebke, C., Al-Assaf, S., Phillips, G.O., 2014. Food hydrocolloids and health claims. Bioactive Carbohydrates and Dietary Fibre 4 (2), 101e114. Woelfel, R.L., Sams, A.R., 2001. Marination performance of pale broiler breast meat. Poultry Science 80 (10), 1519e1522. Wongmaneepratip, W., Vangnai, K., 2017. Effects of oil types and pH on carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in grilled chicken. Food Control 79, 119e125. Wynveen, E.J., Bowker, A.L., Grant, A.L., Lamkey, J.M., Fennewalk, K.J., Henson, L., Gerrard, D.E., 2001. Pork quality is effected by early postmortem phosphate and bicarbonate injection. Journal of Food Science 66, 886e891. Xiong, Y.L., 2009. Dairy proteins. In: Tarté, R. (Ed.), Ingredients in Meat Products. Springer, New York, pp. 131e144. Xiong, Y.L., Lou, X., Wang, C., Moody, W.G., Harmon, R.J., 2000. Protein extraction from chicken myofibrils irrigated with various polyphosphate and NaCl solutions. Journal of Food Science 65, 96e100. Xiong, Y.L., 2012. Non-meat ingredients and additives. In: Hui, Y.H. (Ed.), Handbook of Meat and Meat Processing. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 573e588. Xu, X., Lan, Y., 2016. A comparative study on carbon footprints between plant-and animal-based foods in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 2581e2592. Zia-ud-Din, Xiong, H., Fei, P., 2017. Physical and chemical modification of starches. A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 57 (12), 2691e2705.