The scientific community is divided on the accuracy of the meat analyses being performed by meat processors.
However, a new study has found that many of the products on supermarket shelves are also accurate in the accuracy department.
In the study published in the Journal of Food Science and Technology, scientists from the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London analysed the accuracy and purity of products made by meat producers and retailers.
The study was undertaken to find out which meat was accurate, and how accurate the results were.
The researchers examined a total of 7,000 meat products from over 60 meat processors in the UK.
Each product was tested on two separate occasions.
The first was before it was packaged.
The second was after packaging was completed.
The team analysed the product by using three methods to assess the accuracy.
They tested for colour, texture, and smell.
The first method was called a colour-based analysis.
This is when the team analysed each meat product for the colour and texture of each meat item.
They also analysed the taste of each product, by analysing whether the taste was either “warm or cold” (which means that the taste is bitter), “warm” or “hot” (a combination of both flavours), and “dry” (not tasting any flavours).
The scientists then analysed the flavour using a different method called an aroma-based analysement, where they also measured the flavour of each item.
A total of 9,638 products were analysed for each of these three methods, and the scientists found that 97.7 per cent of them were accurate in their colour and/or texture accuracy.
This means that 99.8 per cent (98.9 per cent) of products were correct.
A further 8.4 per cent products were inaccurate in the smell accuracy tests.
The remaining 2.4 percent products were incorrect.
“Our results suggest that most of the food that we consume today is actually quite accurate in its colour, flavour and smell, but our food is not perfect,” said study co-author, Professor Stephen Jaffe from the Department of Food Sciences and Humanities at Imperial College, London.
“What we need to do now is make the food industry more accountable for the accuracy that it delivers, so that consumers know what they’re buying.”
The researchers suggest that the next step is to make more transparent and easy-to-understand food labels.
“There’s still a lot we don’t know about what goes into our food, so we need better standards for what’s actually in the food, and for what we’re paying for,” said co-lead author, Professor Simon Collins, from the School of Food Chemistry at Imperial.
“The next step would be to put a price on the food in terms of the purity of the ingredients and the quality of the processing that went into it.”
The study also found that a small number of products, such as meatballs, were the most accurate.
“A meatball is a small piece of meat that is marinated, marinated with spices, marinating in water, then baked,” said Dr. Michael Grewal, from Imperial’s Food Science Research Centre.
“We found that it was the most reliable and the most economical.
So, if you’re going to use meatballs on your burgers, you’re pretty much going to have to cook them in the oven.
And that’s the problem with meatballs.”
Dr. Grewall said that meatballs were often made from processed pork, so there could be a potential health risk.
“They’re not going to taste any different than meatballs that are normally cooked,” he said.
“But they’re not cheap, and they’re still probably going to cost you quite a bit.”
You could put them on your breakfast, lunch or dinner, but the problem is you’re paying the premium for that.
So it’s not going be as healthy as meat.
“Dr Grewals comments on the study can be read in the journal Science Advances.