The question of whether veal is classified as red meat or white meat has long been a source of confusion for many consumers With its pale pink color, mild flavor, and tender texture, veal seems to fall somewhere in between the two categories So which is it – red or white? The answer, it turns out, depends on who you ask.
The Complex Science Behind Meat Color
To understand what makes a meat “red” or “white”, we first need to look at the science behind meat color. The main factor that determines meat color is the concentration of a protein called myoglobin. Myoglobin plays a crucial role in providing oxygen to muscles. The more myoglobin a muscle contains, the darker red the meat will be.
Red meats like beef contain high levels of myoglobin due to their higher proportion of “slow twitch” muscle fibers. These fibers are used for sustained physical activity and require more oxygen. White meats like chicken contain less myoglobin because they have more “fast twitch” fibers for short bursts of activity.
When you look at veal under a microscope, it falls somewhere in between red meat and white meat in terms of myoglobin content and muscle fiber types The myoglobin concentration can also vary depending on the age of the calf and specific cut of meat So scientifically speaking, veal occupies a gray area between the two categories.
The Culinary Definition Favors “White Meat”
While the biology is ambiguous, the culinary arts have generally placed veal in the white meat category. Its pale pink hue, mild taste, and tender texture share more in common with poultry than beef. When cooking veal, chefs often treat it as a delicate white meat and pair it with lighter flavors like lemon, capers, and mushrooms.
The veal’s young age also contributes to its “white meat” status in the kitchen. Calves raised for veal are generally slaughtered before 8-9 months old. At this tender age, their muscles have not fully developed the myoglobin concentration and slow-twitch fibers of mature cattle. The resulting meat is lighter in both color and flavor.
Nutrition Studies Classify it as “Red”
Nutrition studies, however, tell a different story. While veal may look and taste delicate, its nutritional profile aligns more closely with beef than chicken. Ounce for ounce, veal contains more saturated fat, cholesterol, and heme iron than white meats like poultry and fish.
The heme iron and saturated fat content link veal to potential health risks associated with red meat consumption, like increased risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes. For this reason, nutritional guidelines generally group veal under “red meat” along with beef, pork, and lamb.
The USDA Takes a Stance
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) settled the debate in 2008 when it included veal with beef in the “red meat” category. The USDA based this decision on the collective research showing veal has a nutritional profile similar to beef despite its lighter color.
However, some ambiguity remains. The USDA itself points out that the term “white meat” is sometimes used in the culinary arts to describe veal due to its pale color. So while officially classified as red meat, veal still enjoys white meat status on some menus and recipes.
Tips for Cooking Veal at Home
So now that the debate is largely settled, how do you cook veal at home? Here are some tips:
-
Choose lean cuts like chops, rib, and loin. They have less fat and calories than fattier cuts.
-
Don’t overcook. Cook veal to medium rare or medium to prevent it from becoming tough. Use a meat thermometer to check doneness.
-
Marinate first to tenderize and add flavor. A simple olive oil, lemon, garlic, and herb marinade works well.
-
Sear then roast. Searing the veal first adds flavor then finish cooking in the oven.
-
Pair with lighter flavors like mushrooms, tomatoes, basil, and capers to complement the delicate taste.
-
Add a sauce. A quick pan sauce made with the fond left in the pan is easy and delicious with veal.
While its classification may still cause confusion, correctly cooked veal is tender, juicy, and full of flavor. Knowing whether to treat it as red or white meat can help you cook veal properly and enjoy its unique taste and texture.
Role of Lipids in Meat and Cardiovascular Disease
As cited by Kris-Etherton et al. (2014), Gilmore et al. (2011) was the only study that tried to test the idea that eating ground beef high in MUFA would lower cardiovascular risk factors in a way similar to plant-based MUFA. Eating ground beef low in MUFA, on the other hand, would not have this effect. Ground beef from both grass-fed and grain-fed cattle was used, and the total fat content was set at 22.4 percent of the calories. Cattle that were fed grass had higher amounts of SFA, TFA, and α-linolenic acid (ALA, 18:3(n-3)), while cattle that were fed grains had higher amounts of oleic acid [18:1(n-9)]. Their theory was proven true when high-MUFA beef significantly raised HDL-C levels compared to low-MUFA beef and significantly lowered the LDL-C:HDL-C ratio compared to the starting point. The authors note that the magnitude of the effect of high-MUFA ground beef in increasing HDL-C concentration (∼0. 08 mmol/L) is about the same as what Kris-Etherton and Yu found when they looked at how high-oleic acid vegetable oils affected HDL-C levels in human studies in 1997.
‘Red’ Meat vs. ‘White’ Meat– Health Controversies
The most recent meta-analysis by Wang et al. (2016) that looked at the links between eating meat and different types of death included nine studies with 17 prospective cohorts from all over the world. The highest amount of unprocessed “red” meat (beef, lamb, or pork) eaten by the whole population was not linked to a higher risk of death from any cause (RR = 1). 05, and 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0. 93–1. 19), cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality (RR = 1. 06, 95% CI = 0. 88–1. 28), or cancer mortality (RR = 1. 03, 95% CI = 0. 89–1. 18). However, for people in the US, eating one serving of unprocessed “red” meat a day was linked to a higher risk of death from any cause (RR = 1). 15, 95% CI = 1. 12–1. 19), CVD mortality (RR = 1. 19, 95% CI = 1. 13–1. 26), and cancer mortality (RR = 1. 12, 95% CI = 1. 07–1. 17). One reason for the difference between populations could be that Americans eat more beef, pork, and lamb than people in other populations. On the other hand, Asian populations may have been less likely to get sick because they eat more fish. Plus, some people think that cooking foods in certain ways, like frying or grilling meats in the US, can make you more likely to get sick (Wang et al. , 2016). There is no negative effect on major CVD risk factors when eating a heart-healthy diet that includes lean beef, according to clinical trials that looked at the link between eating beef or lean beef and those risk factors. In fact, a heart-healthy diet that includes lean beef has been shown to lower major CVD risk factors. A review of 124 clinical trials that looked at changes in lipids and lipoproteins after eating beef, chicken, or fish found no big differences; all three types of food decreased LDL-C in the same way (Maki et al. , 2012).
Epidemiological studies have linked eating “red” meat to diabetes, stroke, cancer, illness, and death. However, white meat (poultry and fish) and these health problems have not been linked as strongly. Most of the epidemiological studies that linked eating “red” meat to these health problems were surveys based on people remembering what they ate, meta-analyses of cohort studies, or checks to see if foods disappeared from nutrient databases (i.e. e. , NHANES, USDA-ARS), and few case-control studies. Correlations from these studies may show a statistical link or an estimate of the health risk of eating certain kinds of meat, but they can’t prove that one type of meat caused another. Observational studies such as these are helpful in generating hypotheses but are not suited for testing the hypothesis. Observational studies with a lot of participants generally find weak, inconsistent, or no link between eating “red” and “white” meat (both unprocessed) and health risks.
Here are some problems with using epidemiologic studies to look at the health effects of eating meat and meat products:
- Using the terms “red” and “white” meat to describe recall surveys makes it hard to show how accurate and precise they are.
- It’s possible that survey groups are too broad or not accurate to look into specific effects of meat.
- It’s not always true that food disappearance means it was eaten (it doesn’t take into account food waste).
- It’s possible that the nutrients in a category are too different for specific conclusions to be made.
- Cooking or preparing meat in different ways, like grilling, broiling, pan frying, deep-fat frying, etc., might not be possible, but it could have a direct effect on the diet. can alter compositional characteristics and/or generate undesirable compounds).
- Correlations can only show how strongly two things are linked; they can’t prove cause and effect.
There aren’t any randomized controlled studies that use animal models that are physiologically similar to humans or human intervention trials that look at the effects of eating meat by species and/or specific meat products. These are needed to find out if there are any health risks linked to eating meat. Following Avkan’s (2015) research on the link between “red” meat and colorectal cancer, it was noted that “correlation does not mean causation of course,” as many other international lifestyle factors besides red meat intake can also affect this result. As a result, there is a great need for prospective case-control or cohort studies to test the hypothesis of the link between “red” meat consumption and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk after this correlation study. ”.
Categorizing “red” and “white” meats in relation to health outcomes is quite often problematic. How different types of meat are grouped on surveys into “red,” “white,” or “processed” categories is at the heart of many studies that link eating meat to health problems. The problem usually arises when “red” and “white” meat items are grouped too broadly (for example, poultry and fish, which are made up of different parts) or wrongly (for example, by including further processed items with only approved ingredients), along with “red” muscle meats on a survey. This gets even more complicated when meta-analyses are used to look at data on meat consumption or disappearance using broad groups of things that aren’t really the same. So, the results from these studies that are used to figure out health risks or give health advice (like disease risk, morbidity, mortality, or dietary advice) might be too broad or generalized to accurately describe the link between a certain meat or meat item and diet and health. As an example, Sinha et al. (2009) looked at how “red” and “white” meat intake was linked to the deaths of 617,119 people using 24-hour recalls based on a 124-item food frequency questionnaire and a dietary assessment of the meat items categorize The following excerpt describes how meats were grouped. These writers put “red” meat intake into groups based on “all types of pork and beef” like bacon, beef, cold cuts, ham, hamburgers, hot dogs, liver, pork sausage, steak, and meats found in pizza, chili, lasagna, and stew. It included chicken, turkey, fish, and low-fat sausages and hot dogs made from chicken. “White” meat also included chicken cold cuts, chicken mixtures, canned tuna, and low-fat sausages and hot dogs. Bacon, red meat sausage, poultry sausage, luncheon meats (red and white meat), cold cuts (red and white meat), ham, regular hot dogs, and low-fat hot dogs made from poultry were all processed meats. Red, white, and processed meats all have similar parts. For example, bacon, sausage, and ham are all examples of red meat, and smoked turkey and chicken are examples of processed meat. But not all of these meat groups were used in the same models, so they are not used twice in the same study. “A 10-year cohort follow-up was done to see how many of the subjects died, and Sinha et al.’s final conclusion was According to a study from 2009, eating “red” and “processed” meat, especially as part of a high-risk meat diet, was “linked with a modest increase in risk of total mortality, cancer, and CVD mortality in both men and women.” On the other hand, they found that eating a lot of “white” meat and a low-risk meat diet were linked to a small drop in both total and cancer deaths. “A 10-year cohort follow-up was done to see how many of the subjects died, and Sinha et al.’s final conclusion was According to a study from 2009, eating “red” and “processed” meat, especially as part of a high-risk meat diet, was “linked with a modest increase in risk of total mortality, cancer, and CVD mortality in both men and women.” On the other hand, they found that eating a lot of “white” meat and a low-risk meat diet were linked to a small drop in both total and cancer deaths. ”.
Based on the somewhat confusing excerpt above, it’s clear that the “red” and “white” meat products in this study weren’t the usual cuts of beef and pork and breast meat from chickens and turkeys. Instead, they were processed meats that were very different in terms of their nutritional content, the addition of non-meat ingredients, and the way they were cooked. Also, it’s not clear if the amounts of each meat item in the 124-item food frequency list were taken into account. It might not be possible to use a traditional “red” or “white” category to explain death rates because different kinds of beef, pork, chicken, and fish meat were included in each “red” and “white” group. The point of this review of the research is not to criticize the authors’ efforts to find dietary health risks. Instead, it is to show how incorrectly classifying or grouping meats can make it hard to find out the real effects of “red” (beef, pork, and lamb) and “white” (poultry and turkey breasts) portions on health outcomes.
Micha et al. did one of the largest studies of the link between eating “red” (unprocessed), “processed,” and all meat and the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and diabetes mellitus. (2010) found that “processed” meats, but not “red” meats, were linked to a higher risk of heart disease and diabetes. But what isn’t known is how well the 17 cohort studies and three case-control studies that were used for the meta-analysis defined and grouped meat and meat products. Turner and Lloyd (2017) also looked at 40 studies that used animal models or cell cultures to look at the link between eating “red” and “processed” meat and the risk of colorectal cancer. They found that there wasn’t enough evidence to confirm a mechanistic link between eating “red” meat as part of a healthy diet and the risk of colorectal cancer. Most of the studies that were looked at used much higher amounts of meat or meat products than people normally eat, and they also used semi-purified diets that didn’t have the extra compounds that come from whole foods. In the end, they decided that better-designed studies had to be done using relevant amounts of meat in model diets that were similar to what people eat. This finding supports the need for definitive randomized controlled studies to look into the dietary effects of eating meat. This could then lead to good policy and dietary suggestions.
Mayo Clinic Minute: Meat Myths, red vs. white
FAQ
Is veal healthier than beef?
What kind of meat is veal?
Can veal be white meat?
What meat is not red meat?
What does veal taste like?
Veal is the name given to the meat that comes from calves. The calves can be slaughtered as early as 2 weeks old, and up to 8 months. The meat is a pinky white or grayish color, and has a mild delicate flavor. Due to the young age of the meat, it is generally more tender, and more expensive to buy, than beef. What animal does veal come from?
What is veal meat?
Veal is red tender meat harvested from both bull and cow calves. Like with beef, veal can be cut from calves of either gender. However, male calves are typically used since veal meat most commonly comes from dairy cows. When talking about veal, however, it’s important to remember that this is an umbrella term.
What is the difference between white veal and rose veal?
Rose veal is a type of veal that comes from calves that are between two and four months old. The calves are fed a diet of milk and grains, which gives the meat a pinkish color. Rose veal has a slightly stronger flavor than white veal. Brown veal? Brown veal comes from calves that are six to eight months old.
What is the difference between beef and veal?
Veal comes from young calves, typically under 20 weeks old, resulting in a more delicate and tender meat than beef, which is derived from older cattle. Veal is also lighter in color and has a milder flavor compared to the darker and stronger taste of beef. What are the ethical considerations concerning veal production?