This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Microbiological contamination in meat products represents a significant challenge for the food industry, with a direct impact on food safety and the sustainability of the sector. Traditionally, thermal and chemical methods have been used for microbial control, but they often compromise the sensory and nutritional attributes of food. In this context, this review examines innovative applications of electric current‐based technologies, including ohmic heating (OH), pulsed electric fields (PEF), low‐voltage electric current (LVEC), and electrolyzed water, as nonthermal alternatives for reducing the microbial load in meat. These technologies target critical cellular structures, producing effects such as electroporation, oxidative stress, protein denaturation, and nucleic acid degradation, which result in the effective microbial inactivation. Recent studies demonstrate promising applications in different meat matrices, including poultry, pork, and beef, with benefits related to the preservation of texture, color, and nutritional quality, as well as reduced environmental impact. Nevertheless, some limitations remain, particularly under high‐intensity or poorly optimized treatments, which may induce lipid oxidation, texture and color changes, localized protein denaturation, and possible impacts on sensory acceptance. Additional challenges include process standardization, implementation costs, and regulatory approval. The review also discusses the integration of electric current technologies with complementary preservation methods, such as natural antimicrobials and pulsed light, aiming to improve processing efficiency and sustainability. Overall, electric current‐based technologies represent promising tools for the modernization of meat processing systems, although further industrial validation and process optimization are still required for large‐scale application.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bavaresco et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: