Is “Meat Glue” As Gross As It Sounds?

Three strips of beef that have been bound together with "meat glue" and rolled into a log, in preparation for being sliced into steak-like pieces. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GluedBistroTenders.jpg">The Boathouse at Sunday Park</a>/Wikimedia Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Update (Friday, June 8): Tom Philpott joined Terry Gross on NPR’s Fresh Air to discuss “meat glue”, “pink slime”, and other issues affecting the meat industry. Listen to the interview here.

Broadcast news and social-media sites have been aflame with reports about something called “meat glue.”

“If you were disturbed to hear about ‘pink slime’ in your burger, you’ll want to know about ‘meat glue,’ because a fat, rare-cooked filet mignon may not be what it seems,” ABC News’ Bay Area affiliate gasped last week.

First reaction: Ooh, gross. Reaction upon a bit of reflection: Meat glue, an enzyme known as transglutaminase, is indeed a trick up the meat industry’s sleeve, but a relatively minor one in the grand scheme.

A couple of weeks ago, I named four common industry practices that are “grosser than pink slime.” (Pink slime itself is pretty gross.) Here’s a fifth: Every year, dairy and beef cows are fed around 2 billion pounds of chicken litter—chicken shit, dead chickens, and leftover feeds, which contains cow protein. Cows being fed chicken shit is deeply gross; cows eating cow protein is downright scary.

But using transglutaminase to glue pieces of meat together? It can be a dodgy practice, but it doesn’t make the cut.

Transglutaminase is an enzyme, naturally found in blood, that can bind proteins together. Food scientists figured out how to synthesize it from bacteria, and a Japanese company called Ajinomoto markets it in the United States under the brand name Activa.

As far as I can tell, there are no health problems associated with consuming transglutaminase itself. Environmental Working Group’s “Skin Deep” cosmetics database lists it as an ingredient in six hair-care products and categorizes it as a “low hazard” substance.

The dodgy part lies in how the meat industry can put it to use. Meat purveyors can use it to bind together disparate scraps of meat that can be sliced into cuts that look shockingly like whole steaks—thus passing off cheap scraps as pricey cuts. The Ajinomoto site has an image, captioned “Sample Beef Application,” that illustrates how four thin strands of beef can be bound together into a piece resembling a fat beef tenderloin, which can then be sliced into cuts that look a whole lot like pristine filet mignons.It's what's for dinner: "Sample Beef Application": Ajinomoto Food Ingredients LLCIt’s what’s for dinner: “Sample Beef Application.” Ajinomoto Food Ingredients LLC

Beyond deception, there’s a food safety angle here, too. I’ve written a lot about how US meat is routinely tainted with pathogens, often strains that are resistant to antibiotics. These bacteria appear only on the surface of meat; so when you sear a real steak on both sides, you’re also killing those bacteria, even if the meat inside is cooked rare. (Ground meat, of course, is different—since surface area gets ground into the final product, you have to cook it all the way through to ensure that you’re not risking illness.)

But in a “steak” made up of several pieces bound by meat glue, surface meat (and any pathogens like salmonella clinging to it) ends up inside the final cut—so searing on both sides won’t do the trick. A rare real steak can be a pleasure to eat; rare meat-glued “steak” presents a potential health hazard.

Happily, the USDA’s meat inspection service decreed in 2001 that cuts that have been cobbled together with transglutaminase have to add a label indicating “that it has been formed from pieces of whole muscle meat, or that it has been reformed from a single cut.” Such a labeling requirement, while important, doesn’t warn consumers that the cuts should be cooked all the way through, though.

And anyway, such labels only inform consumers when they’re shopping at the supermarket. But according to ABC News’ reporting, consumers are more likely to encounter transglutaminase-bound cuts when eating outside the home.

Pinning down who is using transglutaminase isn’t easy. One meat company owner told KGO-TV that gluing meat is common practice, and the most glued product by far is filet mignon destined for the food service industry. An industry trade group also said meat glue is most often used where filet mignon is served in bulk—at a restaurant, banquet, cafeteria or hotel.

God forbid, if I ever find myself at some cursed banquet where they’re serving “filet mignon,” I’ll eat around the entree—whether or not it’s cooked to the leather stage to kill pathogens. But honestly, I’ll probably be thinking more about the cow’s awful life and deplorable diet than I am about the meat glue.

Now, the other way consumers might find themselves eating glued meat is at a very different kind of meal: at a high-end restaurant run by a creative chef. The standard bearer for such chefs in the United States, Wylie Dufresne of Manhattan’s WD-50, loves the stuff. According to Meat Paper, he has “concocted all manner of playful and bizarre food products with meat glue, including shrimp spaghetti, which he made by mixing salt, cayenne, deveined shrimp, and meat glue in a blender.”

Would I eat Dufresne’s famous “shrimp spaghetti” if confronted with a plate of it?

Honestly, yes. I trust chefs on Dufresne’s level to use top-quality raw materials and cook them properly—even if I can rarely afford to eat their food. I guess, in the end, it’s not the glue itself I find particularly gross; it’s when it’s used to bind together industrial meat that that it gets me.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate