Food Protection Trends - May/June 2018 - 172

pounded or cubed, enzyme formed, or vacuum tumbled
(with or without marinade or enhancement solutions).
Greater microbial risk is associated with mechanically
tenderized and enhanced beef products than with intact
beef products, because pathogens potentially residing on the
meat surface can become internalized into beef subprimals or
transferred by cross-contamination of subprimals if liquid/
marinade is reused after coming into contact with beef
containing pathogens (9, 14, 16). Since 2000, six confirmed
outbreaks illness caused by E. coli O157:H7 have been
associated with undercooked needle- or blade-tenderized
beef products in the United States (18). Additionally, an
outbreak caused by E. coli O157:H7 in Canada was associated
with consumption of undercooked mechanically tenderized
beef that had been tenderized at retail (2, 18).
Because of this increased risk, different consumer cooking
recommendations exist for these products. The labeling
rule (Docket No. FSIS-2008-0017) states that the label
should include a description designation (i.e., mechanically
tenderized, blade tenderized, or needle tenderized) and
validated cooking instructions specifying the minimum
internal temperature and any hold or "dwell" times to ensure
that products are fully cooked (18).
Equipment used to mechanically tenderize and enhance
beef products can be challenging to clean and sanitize
because of complex construction and difficulty of disassembling it. Improper cleaning and sanitation practices can allow
pathogens to persist within niches of the equipment, resulting
in subsequent contaminated meat (21). Because pathogens
have been shown to persist in commercial marinades (10,
13), incorporating marinades and solutions into beef products by mechanical tenderization and enhancement creates
an additional avenue for potential pathogen contamination in
the absence of proper cleaning and sanitation of equipment.
Various approaches are used to mechanically tenderize and
enhance beef products.
There are an estimated 555 manufacturing facilities that
blade or needle tenderizes beef products in the United States
(251 very small, 291 small, and 13 large establishments) (11,
18). Approximately 10.5% of total beef products sold annually, or about 2.6 billion pounds, are mechanically tenderized
(11, 18). Of these products, an estimated 479 million pounds
were packaged in retail operations (11, 18). The USDA FSIS
labeling rule does not estimate the number of retail establishments that would be involved with repackaging raw or
partially cooked mechanically tenderized beef products or
the number of labels they would require to be in compliance
with this rule (18). FSIS believes that "the number of retailers involved in repackaging mechanically tenderized beef is
small and declining, with large retailers and warehouse clubs
moving toward ordering case-ready packaged beef products"
(18) and that "very few retail facilities are producing mechanically tenderized beef "; however, there are few or no data
provided to support this estimation. To date, no studies have

172

Food Protection Trends May/June

investigated the prevalence of mechanical tenderization and
enhancement of beef at retail. The purpose of this study was
to explore the prevalence of mechanical tenderization and
enhancement of beef prepared onsite at independent and minor-chain meat retailers and document the types of practices
that are used.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A convenience sample of meat retailers in Wake, Durham,
and Orange counties in North Carolina was used for the
study. A list of inspected facilities was obtained from the
local health department in each of the three counties. Each
list contained all permitted facilities (both food and nonfood) inspected by the local health department. Google
searches (www.google.com) were then performed to
determine which food establishments from the lists sold raw
or partially cooked beef products intended for consumer
preparation within the home. Meat retailer (meat markets,
restaurants with separate meat counters, or food stands)
names and addresses were used as search terms. Electronic
searches were conducted from May 2015 to June 2016.
Telephone calls were used as a second confirmation method
if the sale of raw or partially cooked beef products by an
establishment could not be determined through Google
searches alone.
After this list of establishments was created, all independently run and minor-chain locations selling beef were
visited in person to conduct interviews with personnel,
with the top 75 retailers (in 2015) being excluded (15).
Minor and independent chain locations were chosen to
illustrate a specific population of food establishments. The
top 75 retailers were excluded from the study as a way to
designate the difference between the terms "independent"
and "minor" versus "chain" establishments, because of the
absence of an accepted definition that could be used to
distinguish them from one another. Interviews included
questions on business practices related to mechanical tenderization and enhancement of beef products, as well as
sanitation of equipment. Questions asked were limited to
business practices only. No information about knowledge,
opinions, or individual practices (such as handwashing)
was collected; all data collected and presented is therefore not linked to individuals and IRB approval was not
required, because this was not human subject research.
Interviewers
Six trained interviewers conducted the interviews
in the food establishments. A specific interview script
was used to compensate for any differences among
interviewers. All responses were compiled into a
shared database after completion of each interview.
Using in-person interviews to collect the data provided
the researchers with considerable control over who
completed the interview (3).

http://www.google.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - May/June 2018