Research Article Open Access

Conformity of Labeling into Real Composition of Local and Imported Chicken Burgers Sold in the State of Kuwait

Authors

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Mariam E. Al-Bahouh
Department of Aridland Agriculture and Greenery, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Safat, 13109, Kuwait
|
Sameer F. Al-Zenki
Food and Nutrition Program, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait
|
Husam Alomirah
Food and Nutrition Program, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait
|
Betool Al-Failee
Food and Nutrition Program, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait
|
Tahani Al-Mutairi
Food and Nutrition Program, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait
|
Abdul-Rehman Khan
Department of Environmental Technology Management, Kuwait University, Kuwait
Published on: July 15, 2012
DOI 10.3923/ijps.2012.529.535
PDF

Abstract

Food authenticity is considered to be one of the most important issues that affect food quality. Food authenticity is very crucial for a country like the State of Kuwait which imports more than 90% of its processed food from countries where the processing conditions are unknown. Chicken burger has been considered as a model food for this study. Thus, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the proximate analysis, added water and hydroxyproline contents, in addition to determine any false description on the label, or substitutions of cheaper ingredients which make the chicken burgers fall short in meeting meat quality standards. Chicken burgers (local and imported) analyzed in this study were purchased from different co-operatives, fast food restaurants and retail suppliers. Proximate analysis revealed a wide variation in the composition and nutritive value among samples. Most of the local chicken burgers had higher protein (p<0.05), meat content (p>0.05) and moisture content (p>0.05) and lower fat (p<0.05) and carbohydrate content (p>0.05) than those imported. Furthermore, both local and imported chicken burgers had high percentage of added water (p<0.05) and hydroxyproline (p>0.05), with respect to the standard, which give clear indication of fraudulence, as these ingredients are used to increase the size and weight of the final products without any regard to the nutritional value. Therefore, the results of the present study emphases the importance of conducting such studies to monitor and compare the quality of local and imported food products in the State of Kuwait.

Keywords:

Added water, carbohydrate, chicken burger, hydroxyproline, proximate composition, total meat content

Article Metrics

238 Abstract Views
127 File Views
0 Downloads

License

Copyright (c) 2012 Asian Network for Scientific Information

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Article Citation Metrics

Find Conformity of Labeling into Real Composition of Local and Imported Chicken Burgers Sold in the State of Kuwait on PlumX

How to Cite

Al-Bahouh, M. E., Al-Zenki, S. F., Alomirah, H., Al-Failee, B., Al-Mutairi, T., & Khan, A.-R. (2012). Conformity of Labeling into Real Composition of Local and Imported Chicken Burgers Sold in the State of Kuwait. International Journal of Poultry Science, 11(8), 529–535. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2012.529.535
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

1.
Alomirah, H.F., S.F. Al-Zenki, W.N. Sawaya, F. Jabsheh and A.J. Husain et al., 2010. Assessment of the food control system in the State of Kuwait. Food Control, 21: 496-504.
2.
Anonymous, 2000. Report by the analytical methods committee. Nitrogen factors for chicken meat. Analyst, 125: 1359-1366.
3.
Babji, A.S., M.N. Nuri, J. Suherman and M.Y. Seri Chempaka, 2000. Quality assessment of local and franchise beef and chicken burgers. Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci., 23: 103-112.
4.
Ballin, N.Z., 2010. Authentication of meat and meat products. Meat Sci., 86: 577-587.
5.
Das, A.K., A.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Y.P. Gadekar, R.P. Singh and H. Pragati, 2008. Effect of full-fat soy paste and textured soy granules on quality and shelf-life of goat meat nuggets in frozen storage. Meat Sci., 80: 607-614.
6.
Desmond, E., 2006. Reducing salt: A challenge for the meat industry. Meat Sci., 74: 188-196.
7.
Drake, P. and E. Hughes, 2004. Determination of hydroxyproline (TES-AC-490). CCFRA, 6: 1-7.
8.
Dreeling, N., P. Allen and F. Butler, 2000. Effect of cooking method on sensory and instrumental texture attributes of low-fat beef burgers. LWT Food Sci. Technol., 33: 234-238.
9.
Fernandez-Lopez, J., S. Jimenez, E. Sayas-Barbera, E. Sendra and J.A. Prerez-Alvarez, 2006. Quality characteristics of ostrich (Struthio camelus) burgers. Meat Sci., 73: 295-303.
10.
FSA, 2000. Survey of added water in chickens and chicken products (No. 08/00). Food Standard Agency.
11.
FSA, 2001. Survey of meat content, added water and hydrolysed protein in catering chicken breasts (No. 20/01). Food Standard Agency.
12.
FSA, 2003. Labeling and composition of meat products: Guidance notes. Food Standard Agency, UK.
13.
FSA, 2003. Water in chicken-your questions answered. Food Standard Agency, March 12, 2003, UK.
14.
FSA, 2009. Study into injection powders used as water retaining agents in frozen chicken breast products. Food Standard Agency, UK.
15.
Law of Malaysia, 1985. Malaysia: Food act 1983 and food regulations 1985. MDS Publishers SND BHD, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
16.
Kassem, M.A.G. and M.M.T. Emara, 2010. Quality and acceptability of value-added beef burger. World J. Dairy Food Sci., 5: 14-20.
17.
Gujral, H.S., A. Kaur, N. Singh and N.S. Sodhi, 2002. Effect of liquid whole egg, fat and textured soy protein on the textural and cooking properties of raw and baked patties from goat meat. J. Food Eng., 53: 377-385.
18.
Hargin, K.D., 1996. Authenticity issues in meat and meat products. Meat Sci., 43: 277-289.
19.
Ibrahim, M.A., M.F. Salama and A.A. Hussein, 2011. Production of functional low-fat chicken burger. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci., 5: 3149-3154.
20.
Giese, J., 1992. Developing low-fat meat products. Food Technol., 46: 100-108.
21.
Jimenez-Colmenero, F., 1996. Technologies for developing low-fat meat products. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 7: 41-48.
22.
Joly, G. and B. Anderstein, 2009. Starches. In: Ingredients in Meat Products: Properties, Functionality and Applications, Tarte, R. (Ed.). Springer, New York, ISBN: 978-0-387-71327-4, pp: 25-55.
23.
KSS 1187, 1999. Kuwait Standard Specifications (KSS), 1187/1999. Prepared meat: Burger meat. Authority for Industry, State of Kuwait.
24.
Lord, D.W. and K.J. Swan, 1984. Connective tissue in beef burgers. J. Assoc. Public Anal., 22: 131-140.
25.
Mclean, B.D. and D. Turner, 2003. The calculation of the apparent fish content, apparent meat content and added water content of foods (TES-AC-334). CCFRA, 1: 1-9.
26.
McWatters, K.H., 1990. Functional characteristics of cowpea flours in feeds. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc., 67: 272-276.
27.
USDA, 1999. Meat quality standards 1999. United States Department of Agriculture, USA.
28.
Montowska, M. and E. Pospiech, 2011. Authenticity determination of meat and meat products on the protein and DNA basis. Food Rev. Int., 27: 84-100.
29.
Nollet, L.M.L., T. Boylston, F. Chen, P.C. Coggins and M.B. Gloria et al., 2007. Handbook of Meat, Poultry and Seafood Quality. Blackwell Publishing, USA.
30.
AOAC., 2002. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 17th Edn., Association of Official Analytical Chemists Inc., USA.
31.
Papadima, S.N. and J.G. Bloukas, 1999. Effect of fat level and storage conditions on quality characteristics of traditional Greek sausages. Meat Sci., 51: 103-113.
32.
Ramadhan, K., N. Huda and R. Ahmad, 2011. Physicochemical characteristics and sensory properties of selected Malaysian commercial chicken burgers. Int. Food Res. J., 18: 1349-1357.
33.
Ray, F.K., N.A. Parett, B.D. Van Stavern and H.W. Ockerman, 1981. Effect of soya level and storage time on the quality characteristics of ground beef patties. J. Food Sci., 46: 1662-1664.
34.
Rentfrow, G., M.S. Brewer, K.E. Weingartner and F.K. Mckeith, 2004. Sensory characteristics of beef and pork processed meats containing non solvent extracted texturized soy protein. J. Muscle Foods, 15: 225-234.
35.
Serdaroglu, M. and O. Degirmencioglu, 2004. Effects of fat level (5%, 10%, 20%) and corn flour (0%, 2%, 4%) on some properties of Turkish type meatballs (koefte). Meat Sci., 68: 291-296.
36.
SPSS, 2007. SPSS 16.0 for Windows. SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA.
37.
Suman, S.P. and B.D. Sharma, 2003. Effect of grind size and fat levels on the physico-chemical and sensory characteristics of low-fat ground buffalo meat patties. Meat Sci., 65: 973-976.
38.
Troy, D.J., E.M. Desmond and D.J. Buckley, 1999. Eating quality of low-fat beef burgers containing fat replacing functional blends. J. Sci. Food Agric., 79: 507-516.
39.
Turhan, S., H. Temiz and I. Sagir, 2007. Utilization of wet okra in low-fat beef patties. J. Muscle Foods, 18: 226-235.
40.
Turhan, S., H. Temiz and I. Sagir, 2009. Characteristic of beef patties using okara powder. J. Muscle Foods, 20: 89-100.

Most read articles by the same author(s)