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