Originally Posted by taxlady
I'm confused. Isn't skeletal muscle what we usually consider meat (other than offal)? Does that study really say that one brand of burgers had no skeletal meat? "more than 20 fragments". I don't know how big a fragment is compared to a burger, but that doesn't sound like much meat to me. Scary stuff.
Skeletal muscle IS meat. It's round steak, chuck roast, chicken breast just to name a few. If a person isn't a vegetarian they eat skeletal muscle almost every day.
Fragments are not identified by size. The discussion in the full article states:
"Tissue types identified were quantified in 10 random but adjacent, high-power fields (area, 15.7 mm2 in aggregate)" for a histological survey so they could be er, em tiny.
"Bone and cartilage, observed in some brands, were not expected; their presence may be related to the use of mechanical separation
in the processing of the meat from the animal. Small amounts of bone and
cartilage may have been detached during the separation
process (advanced meat recovery
). The United States
Department of Agriculture regulations allow for up to
150 mg of calcium (usually in the form of bone) per 100 g of
The bolded phrases are worth a look at. A lot is explained there.
To see what needs to be labeled (or not) "SAFE AND SUITABLE INGREDIENTS USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF MEAT, POULTRY, AND EGG PRODUCTS"
Updated 2012 for the U.S.