Reducing salt in meat products Eero Puolanne –Marita Ruusunen Viikki Food Science Department of Food Technology University of Helsinki, Finland Food Safety Authority of Ireland Dublin, Ireland, September 3, 2009
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Reducing saltin meat products
Eero Puolanne –Marita RuusunenViikki Food ScienceDepartment of Food TechnologyUniversity of Helsinki, Finland
Food Safety Authority of IrelandDublin, Ireland, September 3, 2009
Salt reduction
PhDMarita Ruusunen
Conflict of interestsnHuman needs/instincs
n sweet: energyn sour: homeostasis; acidbase balance/spoilagen salty: mineral balancenbitter: toxicnumami: protein
npeople want to eat sweet, salty, and umamitasting foods, repeatedly and as much aspossiblen"fat has no taste receptor", but internal signalling
n textural and indirect effectsnpool of flavour precursorsnCD36 fat transporter (Dransfield, ICoMST 2008)
n if eating is not limited in a long termà fatness,unbalanced nutritionà heath problems
Conflict of interestsnHuman needs are utilized by the industry
n fat, salt, sugar is added alone or in combinationn consumers do instinctly want that
nHealt problems/responsibility??n science: nutritionn health: authorities/industry??/consumers??n information and consciousness
what do you want that your children eat?nWhen to start, when there is a proper time?
n those who do not, get their products well sold?nA leagal issue, and nutritional guidance as well
required
Coronary heartdisease mortality,men 3564 y.Cases/100 000(WHO)
1970àabout 70 000+early deaths lessOf that reductionof blood pressure15 00020 000(Inofficialcalculations/Epu)
Real
The real andpredictedCHD mortalityby 35 64 menin Finland
Mor
talit
y(%
)
Predicted
Cholestrol
Blood pressure
Smoking
Sources of sodium (%) in the diet
Food sector Ireland1 UK2 USA3 Finland4
Cereals andcereal products 35 38 27 35Meat & meatproducts 21 21 21 305
Soups & sauces 7 13 8Processedvegetables 4 9 7 9
Milk and cream 9 5 7 10
Fish dishes 101FSAI (2005); 2SACN (2003); 3Engström et al. (1997); 4Findiet 2002; 5included meat dishes
9Introduction –Improving health –Effect other cations –Substantial reduction sodium Conclusion
Salt consumption Europe
salt intake in gram/day
02468
1012141618
Denmark
women
Netherla
nds women
Finland w
omen
Finland m
enFranc
e
UK 2006
Icelan
d
Netherla
nds men
Denmark
menIre
land
Italy
Norway
Belgium
Lithuania
Sweden
Czech
Repu
blic
Switzerl
and
Bulgaria
Portuga
l 200
6Spain
Slovenia
Hungary
women
Hungary
men
2008 Collated information on salt reduction in the EU
NPA HLG/2008 28 april
From Theo Verkleij, TNO, NL
10Introduction –Improving health –Effect other cations –Substantial reduction sodium Conclusion
Deaths in Europe 2000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1
sele
cted
risk
fact
ors
number of deaths [000]
urban air pollutionalcohol usephysical inactivitylow fruit and vegetable intakehigh body mass indexuse tabaccohigh cholesterolhigh blood pressure
Deaths attributed to leading risk factors
World Health Report 2002
From Theo Verkleij, TNO, NL
Men 2002 Men 2007 Women 2002 Women 2007
Salt in Finnish diet in 2002 and 2007 (Food Balance Studies 2007)
Other foods
Vegetable foods
Fatfs
Dairy products andcheeses
Fish
Bread and cerealproducts
Meat dishes and products
g/d
National average 1980
Meat products as source of sodiumPearson and Wolzak, 1982
Addedamount g/kg
Na content%
Namg/100 g
Natural Na 515
NaCl 1830 39.3 7071178Na tripolyphosphate 2.55.0 31.2 78156Na ascorbateor erytorbate 0.6 11.6 7
NaNO2 0.12 33.2 4
NaNO3 0.3 27.1 8Monosodiumglutamate 12 13.6 1427
Na lactate 12 24 288
Waterbinding
Firmness and consistency
“Quality”
The role of water content in cooked sausage
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+++++++++++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+++++++++++
+++++++++++
+++++++++++
pH , suola , fosfaatti > VSK nousee
Myofilamentit PoikittaissidoksetMyofilaments Crossbridges
pH , salts , phosphates àWBC
Basis for osmotic pressure
Neg.
+ + + ++ + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + ++ + + + +++++++++++ + + + + + + +++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + +
Positive ions form a ”cloud” around the negatively chargedmyofilamentChloride is important for WBC and structureSodium is important for taste
Basis for osmotic pressure
ProteinfilamentØ 16 nm
A) Salt content and waterbindingo = no added water, • = 60 % added water. (Hamm 1975).
B) Swelling of a myofibril (Offer 1988).
Mechanism of swelling(a) before salting(b) salted myofilament (myosin)(c) high salt and added water. (Offer & Knight 1988).
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5% NaCl
Withphosphate
Withoutphosphate
Waterbindingcapacity(= gellingstrength)
1.5 % is criticalFat moves the curve"to the northwest"à low fat, low saltchallencing!
0,0
0,35
0.7
1,05
1,4
1,75
2,1
2,8
3,5
0,0
0,3
0.6
0,9
1,2
1,5
1,8
2,4
3,0
Salt only Salt + phosphatesOffer and Knigth 1988
Salt is necessary for sausage stucture
With phosphates
The salt content in cooked sausagesin Finland 197395
Low fat, high meatRing sausageAverageFrankfurter
Current average1.61.7 %!
Salt content %
PuolanneThe First FinnishConcensus MeetingHelsinki 1997
pH and waterbinding capacity
3 4 5 6 7 pH
No salt
Salt
Waterbindingcapacity
The effect of pH on thewaterbinding capacityof meat. (Hamm1972)
+ 12 %
Puolanne et al. 2001
More (bad)ß pH sensitiveà Less
Less (bad)
saltsensitive
More
Figure 3. The effect of ionic strength and pH on waterbinding in sausage.Black line indicates the estimated course of pHionic strength in fermentedsausage during ripening (Puolanne ja Peltonen, in preparation)
In practice ca 3% NaCl
Examples of salt substitues: each rowhas the same sodium content
NaCl, % PANSalt®, % Biosal, %1.0 1.75 1.521.2 2.11 1.821.5 2.63 2.271.8 3.16 2.732.1 3.68 3.18
Sodium reduction is not the same as salt reduction!
PANSalt®: 57% NaCl, 28% KCl, 12% MgCl2, 2% LysineHCLBiolsal: 66 % NaCl, 31 % KCl, 3 % protein hydrolysate etc
Technological aspects§ Sausages, hams§ Fermented products§ Prepared foods
Cooked sausage§ without phosphate to 1.1 % NaCl (technologically)§ with phosphate 1.0 % (basic Kphosphate)§ problems of purge and/or grainy structure may arise§ in low salt products the phosphate is more important§ added water and/or fat maybe should be reduced
(price!)§ with salt mixtures, easy to achieve§ soy protein, carrageenan, potato flour§ microbial safety is not relevantly changed (i.e. is
perishable anyway!)§ at <1.3 1.4 % NaCl typical flavour is lost!!!§ conclusion: total sodium max. 500 mg Na/100g can
be reached!§ the same NaCl level does not necessarily apply to
every population
(Sausage) formulation• Prepare concentrated industrial foods
– use extenders in moderation– usually increse the amount of salt, sugar and fat– again, conflict of interest
• extending usually lowers the price/ kg• efficiency will be reduced
– nutritionally, pricewise and environmentally– the consumer actually looses (and the producer wins?)
• sensory effects?• easy to eat?
• problem of changed food systems and eating patterns• preferably dense foods even with more sodium than large
quantities of foods with low sodium content– "Enhanced" products!!!
• brine injection to traditional meat foods!
Extender effect
2 g salt
4 g salt + others
§ without phosphate to 1.4 % NaCl§ with phosphate 1.3 % (basic Kphosphate)§ problems of purge and/or grainy structure may
arise§ added water maybe should be reduced (price!)§ with salt mixtures, easy to achieve§ soy protein, carrageenan§ microbial safety is not relevantly changed (i.e. is
perishable anyway!)§ at 1.4 –1.6 % NaCl, typical flavour is lost!!!§ conclusion: total sodium max. 600 mg Na/100g
can be reached!
Cooked ham
§ consumers prefer 1.11.3 % NaCl§ when lowering, problems of purge and/or
grainy structure may arise§ added water maybe should be reduced
(price!)§ with salt mixtures, easy to achieve§ soy protein, carrageenan, potato flakes§ microbial safety is not relevantly changed
(i.e. is perishable anyway!)§ lowering to 0.7 % possible (300 mg Na/100
g)
Cooked hamburger
NaCl content of commercial meatballs in Finland (Ruusunen, unpublished)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Meat
NaC
l% NaCl% (Clm ittaus)
NaCl% (Nam ittaus)
Meat ball
Through Cl
Through Na
Fermented sausages
n So many types and technologies!n When real fermentation is used, 2.2% NaCl seems to
be the lowest leveln Quality?n Microbial safety?
n In ready product the level is about 4%n Salt mixtures have been studied, and used as well
n IRTA: 50% NaCL can be replaced with KCl
n The relevance of should be evaluated on the basis ofconsumption data
Microbiology and safety
Our results on keepabilityn In cooked sausage
n 1.1% NaCl/ 1.7% NaCl / 1.9% PanSalt (57% NaCl+28% KCl
+12%MgCl2+2%LysineHCL)
no relevant differences were seen lower level showed, however, somewhat lower keepability
at longer keeping times pathogenic bacteria were not tested
n In cooked hamn 1.4 and 1.7% NaCl, 2.1% Biosal (66 % NaCl, 31% KCl, 3% protein
hydrolysate etc.)
nno systematic differencesn in 1.4% NaCl after longer keeping time: offflavours more
than in othersnThe main concern is the afterprocesscontamination.
Perceived saltiness
Without courtesy of Eric Dransfield or
Perceived saltinessnPerceived saltiness: salt ions must be
simultaneously in salt taste cellsnonly the salt in saliva tastes saltyn saliva salt level is a reference à when less salt is used in
diet, less salt will be perceived saltyndetection treshold, recognition treshold, just noticable
difference, terminal treshold, all vary from product toproductn salt influences other aspects than taste only, and they in
turn affect the taste and flavour (e.g. consistency, waterbinding, the binding of aroma compounds to the matrix)
nMeat proteins bind saltà less perceived saltiness
Neg.
+ + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + ++ + + + + ++++++ + + + + + + +++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + +
Positive ions form a ”cloud” around the negatively chargedmyofilamentChloride is important for WBC and structureSodium is important for taste
Loosely bound sodium and chloride?
ProteinfilamentØ 16 nm
Perveived saltiness of meat pattiescontaining different amount of fat and
lean meat
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 210% 20%Fat content
50% 60%Meat content
This isa significantmessage!
THE EFFECT OF FAT CONTENT ON THE PERCEIVED SALTINESS OF ‘BOLOGNATYPE’ COOKED SAUSAGES
Fat content varied by replacing lean pork with pork fat
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
8 12 16 20 24 28
Fat content (%)
Salti
ness
1.2% NaCl2.0% Na Cl
a
a
ab abb b
a ab
ab
abcc bc
This isa significantmessage!
THE EFFECT OF FAT CONTENT ON THE PERCEIVED SALTINESS OFBOLOGNATYPE COOKED SAUSAGES
Fat content varied by replacing water with pork fat
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
8 12 16 20 24 28
Fat content (%)
Salti
ness
1.2% NaCl2.0% NaCl
This isa significantmessage!
Timing of salting Taste buds
With the onplate salting a salt reduction of 3040 % for beef and 5060 %for pork can be achieved. Similar reduction will be in prepared foods.
Water and proteins
Presalted Onpan salted Onplate salted
?
§ Meat proteins bind saltà less perceived saltiness§When salt added on plate, the salt does not penetrate intothe meatà food will be perceived more salty§ beef steakà ca. 40% reduction§ pork chopsà ca 60 % reduction
§ Do not use salt at all into the food during the preparation!•check where it is possible (in most readytoeat foods)•do not listen to your mother or a cook!•one gram, on plate, is enough for a whole meal!!!•insert a onegram bag of salt with the food!, i.e. let theconsumer decide, how much salt will be enough!!!•in most cases the keepability is not a problem
Concluding, perceived saltiness
Reduction
§ Most simple: cut first the highest contents§ General reduction slowlier§ Regognize the development!§ When lower levels turn more usual, higher
values may offer a commercial advantage!
Policy?
Policy?
Finnish "reduced salt" claim
(cooked and raw)
Finnish "reduced salt" claim
•Salt?•Normal? where?•Formulation/cooked?
–a marginal of about 0.2 % required–e.g. frankfurter 1.4 % NaCl when prepared (cooking loss,cooling in brine in 6 ºC increase the content)
•Low fat/low salt/low sodium?
Concluding remarks
§ Technologically a significant reduction in saltcontents can be achieved, by using e.g.§ phosphates§ (high pH meat)§ salt substitutes§ other ingredients: extenders and thickening agents like
soya, modified starches, caseinates, etc.(amount/content relation must be checked!!!)
§ transglutaminases§ hydrostatic high pressure
§ Technology or shelf life are not particular problems
§ But: The taste is the limiting factor
Concluding remarks (cont.)§ Sodium reduction depends on the composition of the meat product
§ Meat products with higher percentage of lean meat need more salt to achieve the
same level of perceived saltiness than those with lower percentage
§ Meat products with lower fat content need more salt to achieve the same level ofperceived saltiness than those with higher
§ The acceptance level must be tested§ product by product,§ by consumer segments§ as well as by nationalities
Related Documents
