Pink Slime

[Draca]

A borscht belt joke? Guess again. Not NA, not asia. He lives in the land of the sledge hammer, and knows how to wield it.

It was more literal. I don't know this sledge hammer clue. Now you have me thinking of Russia or Norway, which would make me way off base. I'll stick with beets on the burgers.

 

[arthwollipot]

A borscht belt joke? Guess again. Not NA, not asia. He lives in the land of the sledge hammer, and knows how to wield it.

It was more literal. I don't know this sledge hammer clue. Now you have me thinking of Russia or Norway, which would make me way off base. I'll stick with beets on the burgers.

We put beetroot, not beets, on our hamburgers. Beetroot is sliced, lightly pickled, and tinned, and delicious on a hamburger with lettuce, tomato, fried onion, cheese and bacon. No egg.

 

[arthwollipot]

I disagree with your analogy. It's akin to saying not a single observation is ever valid. Lots of observations are accepted as evidence in science. The people you are trying to compare me to didn't just make an observation, many of them drew an unsupportable conclusion about what they were observing. People make repeating observations in some areas, (ghosts, bigfoot, UFOs, homeopathy and so on) and with those specific observations we've looked and repeatedly failed to find supporting evidence. In addition a lot of evidence cannot be found where we should expect to find that evidence

There is a thing called lack of or the existence of corroborating evidence. There are trained observers and observations that are more reliable than others. There are observations which are less reliable such as an eyewitness to a crime committed by strangers. But if that same eyewitness sees their close friend commit a crime, that observation is more reliable.

You make a foolish mistake if you treat all observations equally.

Okay, forget the analogy. It was a bad one. I think you're overreacting to what I'm trying to say. I'm just saying that here in Australia, I haven't noticed any difference in hamburger meat over the past decade or so, and certainly not the rubberiness or gristliness you've described, and nor has anyone else I know. And I'd be very surprised if the meat we get wasn't padded out with mechanically separated trimmings or whatever they choose to call it. Stuff.

All I was saying was that your experience is local to your area. Your experience has caused you to dislike the Stuff even though there seems to me to be more evidence that the Stuff doesn't affect the taste or texture of the meat. Maybe your local providers use more Stuff than mine. I don't know. It may be something else that has caused the change in texture, and the Stuff is entirely innocent. I don't know. All I know is that I have no compelling reason to treat your anecdotal experience any more seriously than my own.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Actually a wide variety of links pointing to a wide variety of experts shows that there is essentially a consensus position that the product is safe and qualifies as beef.

As of the time of your post, here is a list of the links posted in this thread that you are suggesting demonstrate a consensus that the product is safe and "qualifies as beef":

1.

This advertisement appeared in the WSJ yesterday. I think that what Nancy Donley has to say there is extremely important.

2.

http://beefisbeef.com/2012/03/15/top-7-myths-of-pink-slime/

3.

re: ammonia, for perspective.

Furthermore, small traces of either are not a health concern (indeed, in Europe some forms of liquorice have ammonium chloride added to give it a salty taste).
...
Also notice how dramatic he is in showing how “dangerous” the ammonia solution is. I wonder if he realizes that in a chemistry lab, his kitchen grade vinegar would be considered just as hazardous – I don’t see him calling for a ban on vinaigrettes.

source

lol

4.

Well, in this case

When you compare the http://beefisbeef.com/2012/03/10/lean-beef-trimmings-have-similar-nutrition-to-90-lean-ground-beef/ of this lean beef with 90% lean/10% fat ground beef, they are virtually identical. That’s because boneless lean beef trim is beef – period.

5.

Apparently even the photo being circulated isn't true.

http://beefisbeef.com/2012/03/15/top-7-myths-of-pink-slime/

6.

To make the product, beef companies use beef trimmings, the small cuts of beef that remain when larger cuts are trimmed down. These trimmings are USDA inspected, wholesome cuts of beef that contain both fat and lean and are nearly impossible to separate using a knife.

http://beefmagazine.com/beef-qualit...me-beef-product-made-separating-lean-beef-fat

no connective tissue there

7.

Advanced meat recovery (AMR) is a slaughterhouse process by which the last traces of usable meat are removed from bones and other carcass materials after the primal cuts have been carved off manually.
The machinery used in this process separates meat from bone by scraping, shaving, or pressing the meat from the bone without breaking or grinding the bone. Product produced by advanced meat recovery machinery can be labeled using terms associated with hand-deboned product (e.g., "beef trimmings" and "ground beef"). AMR meat typically is used as an ingredient in products requiring further processing, such as hot dogs.... USDA regulations for procurement of frozen fresh ground beef products, however, state that "Beef that is mechanically separated from bone with automatic deboning systems, advanced lean (meat) recovery (AMR) systems or powered knives, will not be allowed".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_meat_recovery

To be clear - the confusion arises from the fact that 'lean beef trimmings' is a term that can be applied to meat that is mechanically separated from the bone - unless that meat is ground beef, in which case it means something else.

8.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/23/how-abc-news-smeared-stellar-company-with-pink-slime/

Fox News, but still. Seems a shame that this passes for journalism these days.

I hope it hasn't killed BPI.

And here is a list of links provided after your post:

9.

Responsible journalists doing their job today in droves

http://bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/he...your-burger/ERjxbrzsmU92RA5cSsrSjM/story.html


Like I said, the only thing making anyone sick over this product is the amount of crazy people fighting it.

10.

Study Shows 'Lean Finely Textured Beef' Improves Burger Quality ... THE HORROR

11.

An analysis conducted at Iowa State University (A.S. Leaflet R1361) found two-and-a-half times more insoluble protein (77% vs. 30%) relative to soluble proteins in ordinary ground chuck. Nutritionally, our gut bacteria digest much of what we cannot, but there’s a good bet that we can’t get as much value from insoluble proteins (collagen and elastin, found largely in tendons, ligaments, and cartilage) as from their soluble siblings (myosin and actin, usually associated with muscle tissues). While these proteins may be hard to digest, on the plus side, there’s less fat in LFTB (~5%) than standard ground chuck (15-20%).

So what on earth is the big deal? If you're making the argument that people should be made aware of all of this, I have never been against that. What I'm against is people thinking this is like including poop or eyeballs and that ammonia will kill your children. Or that this product is significantly less healthy than prime meat you ground up from a cow you killed with your bare hands 10 minutes ago. Or that "ground chuck" doesn't have any connective tissues in it at all. That's all wrong.

Pink Slime, Deconstructed

The potential issues with this product concern chronic exposure hazards and nutritional value. It seems to me pointless to argue that this product does or does not legally qualify as beef. The legal definition of beef is meaningless if the product increases exposure hazards and/or provides inferior nutrition. So let's please agree to discuss potential topics of consequence rather than semantics.

With these two general concerns in mind, let's run through the list of references provided in this thread.

1. This is an industry-funded advertisement. The advertisement argues that because food-borne illness can be fatal, it is best to tread cautiously by treating meat with ammonia. Now, you must agree that this is somewhat misleading. As I understand it, the concern isn't that food shouldn't be treated with ammonia when risks of food borne illness are elevated; the concern is that industry is choosing to use food that is inherently more prone to food borne illness risk. Regarding chronic exposure safety and nutritional quality, this industry-funded advertisement offers no evidence.

2. This is an industry-funded site. And now it appears that the blog is inaccessible. I briefly skimmed it last night, and I do not recall any scientific data.

3. This is a blog. The author claims that ammonia exposure is safe. The evidence? It's used in some European licorice. The author correctly explains why Jamie Oliver's explanation was incorrect, but that doesn't mean the author has demonstrated the safety of chronic exposure to levels of ammonia related to this product.

4. This is from the same industry-funded site that is not inaccessible.

5. This is from the same industry-funded site that is not inaccessible.

6. This is an article from an industry magazine. The author is the president of the American Meat Institute. The article claims the product is safe and nutritious, but no data are presented. The article refers readers to either http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/ (An obviously industry-funded site) or http://www.foodinsight.org (a not-so-obvious industry-funded site: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Food_Information_Council). The foodinsight article correctly indicates that when determined safe by the FDA in 1974, the FDA, "concludes that: There is no evidence in the available information on…. ammonium hydroxide….. that demonstrates, or suggests reasonable grounds to suspect, a hazard to the public when [it is] used at levels that are now current or that might reasonably be expected in the future.” But that's the problem. Chronic exposure data are scarce. For most potential hazards, they do not exist.

7. This is just a wiki article describing this product.

8. This is just mainstream media garbage.

9. This is just mainstream media garbage. The article lists various other foods that contain ammonia. I think this is meant to suggest that chronic ammonia exposure hazards must not exist, but just because the chemical is used in other products doesn't mean it is safe. Nor does it necessarily indicate that concentrations are the same. Nor does it indicate that it is digested the same.

10. This says nothing about chronic exposure or nutrition.

11. This is another blog. It seems to make the same argument regarding safety that we've seen already: Other foods contain ammonia, so it must be safe. Concerning nutrition, it cites the same data Skeptic Ginger already cited. These data certainly indicate the product is not as nutritious as ordinary ground beef.

So, where does this leave us?

First, at least so far as I can gather-- and I could be wrong, because I just don't have the time to really research this-- there's not really any empirical data concerning chronic exposure to foods treated with ammonia. We don't really have any reason to suspect that there's a hazard associated with chronic exposure, so it's not a priority to study. And that's fine and reasonable. But that doesn't mean we should thump on our chests and declare it safe-- at least not those of us posting in this thread thus far, because none of us have managed to find any empirical data concerning chronic exposure.

Second, of the sources we collectively cited in our attempt to find objective data regarding this product's safety and nutrition, roughly half are obviously industry funded. Three sources were articles from mainstream media that contain information that sounds awfully similar to that provided by industry-funded groups. Two sources were blogs. Only one source (the blog from Scientific American) provided actual scientific data.

So there you have it. That's how we decide what to believe. That's how we seek information to form opinions on subjects about which we know essentially nothing. And we feel good enough about it to suggest that the information we've gathered indicates a consensus.

I'm not a hundred percent sure that there isn't a black widow spider inside this banana I'm about to eat either. Life's a little short for that level of concern.

Not my point at all. Systematically, I'm not sure why we (as in consumers) should chose risk when we (again, as in consumers) have little to gain. Sure, the risk may be small. But, systematically, the more often we wager, the sooner we'll lose.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Because it was pro-industry and inadvertently supported an essentially anti-industry conclusion I suggested that lent it some cred.

I didn't mean to criticize you. I meant to point out just how pervasive industry-funded information really is.

Ammonia is a byproduct of metabolism and your body processes lots of it in every tissue every single day. It's only when a person has liver failure that toxic levels of ammonia build up in the tissues harming a person.

Amino Acid Transamination/Deamination Contributes to the TCA Cycle

You're far more knowledgeable about human biology than I, so I'll defer to your conclusion that there is no theoretical reason to expect chronic ammonia exposure hazard. But I also understand that reality has fooled us many times before. At the end of the day, I'm not willing to thump my chest until both empirical data and theory allow me to do so.

That being said, I honestly don't have an opinion about potential chronic ammonia hazards. I have no reason to believe that chronic exposure to these levels is anything but safe. And I don't even really care. I almost never eat ground beef. But I do care that so many posters here quickly formed conclusions based on industry-funded information. And I do care that while so many folks here have developed strong opinions regarding the nutritional, biological, and epidemological aspects of this product, you seem to be the only one with the necessary background to draw any real conclusion.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Incidentally, what journal would you expect to find peer-reviewed papers on beef production economics and techniques in, which would not have that industrial taint of ammonia? I happen (long story) to get the Pet Food Industry, but AFAIK there aren't any peer-reviewed articles in it.

Great question, but I don't care about the economics. I do care about safety and nutrition. And I don't know where to find those data. All I know is I haven't found them in this thread-- even though I've found a wealth of confident opinions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay, forget the analogy. It was a bad one. I think you're overreacting to what I'm trying to say. I'm just saying that here in Australia, I haven't noticed any difference in hamburger meat over the past decade or so, and certainly not the rubberiness or gristliness you've described, and nor has anyone else I know. And I'd be very surprised if the meat we get wasn't padded out with mechanically separated trimmings or whatever they choose to call it. Stuff.

All I was saying was that your experience is local to your area. Your experience has caused you to dislike the Stuff even though there seems to me to be more evidence that the Stuff doesn't affect the taste or texture of the meat. Maybe your local providers use more Stuff than mine. I don't know. It may be something else that has caused the change in texture, and the Stuff is entirely innocent. I don't know. All I know is that I have no compelling reason to treat your anecdotal experience any more seriously than my own.

Have you inquired whether they are using the stuff in Oz before comparing my observations to those of UFO and Bigfoot believers?

What evidence do you have that this additive doesn't affect texture? The way I see it your confirmation bias is not very skeptical.

I said the texture of burger has been grossing me out for years, long before I heard of this stuff. I've been asking grocer butchers again and again only to be told there was nothing different in the processing. But there has been a difference.

This explains what I've suspected long before I heard of this stuff. I didn't hear about it and start believing I could tell.

An analysis shows there's more connective tissue in the stuff like tendons. That explains the texture that's been grossing me out.

Someone else described the texture as gristly in a comparison test. It wasn't a blinded test.

One study found it was more tender as measured by cutting force. That is not the same as testing for the texture change I'm disgusted by.

So where's your friggen evidence? You haven't noticed a burger change in Oz. Have you even inquired as to the use of the stuff there? No, you just dismissed my observations as unreliable.

So yeah, forget your false analogy. I already did. This stuff changes burger texture and that's my complaint.

Stop conflating my complaint with the claims ammonia is an issue. It is not. There is ammonia in every cell in your body, a byproduct of metabolism. That suggests there is ammonia in meat anyway, since meat consists of cells. I'm not the one complaining this stuff is dangerous or bad for anyone. I think it's equivalent to adding cardboard to food, but that's my opinion about the food quality of ground tendons.

[/rant] Sorry, I'm annoyed, I admit it.

 

[Draca]

Okay, forget the analogy. It was a bad one. I think you're overreacting to what I'm trying to say. I'm just saying that here in Australia, I haven't noticed any difference in hamburger meat over the past decade or so, and certainly not the rubberiness or gristliness you've described, and nor has anyone else I know. And I'd be very surprised if the meat we get wasn't padded out with mechanically separated trimmings or whatever they choose to call it. Stuff.

All I was saying was that your experience is local to your area. Your experience has caused you to dislike the Stuff even though there seems to me to be more evidence that the Stuff doesn't affect the taste or texture of the meat. Maybe your local providers use more Stuff than mine. I don't know. It may be something else that has caused the change in texture, and the Stuff is entirely innocent. I don't know. All I know is that I have no compelling reason to treat your anecdotal experience any more seriously than my own.

BPI created the process and equipment to separate the meat from the fat. I haven't read any reports that LFTB is sold in other countries. It would take a law approving sale of LFTB additive in the countries that purchase the beef. It's unlikely that most countries would approve this for sale. From what I've read it got through approval in the USA because the head of the USDA had connections to the beef industry. The approval went against the USDA's own scientists concerns. Plus, AUS ships beef to the USA, no need to import a lesser product.


Here's an article from the UK. It isn't allowed there:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-to-the-sour-taste-of-pink-slime-7593484.html

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't mean to criticize you. I meant to point out just how pervasive industry-funded information really is.

Preacher, meet the choir.

You're far more knowledgeable about human biology than I, so I'll defer to your conclusion that there is no theoretical reason to expect chronic ammonia exposure hazard. But I also understand that reality has fooled us many times before. At the end of the day, I'm not willing to thump my chest until both empirical data and theory allow me to do so.

That being said, I honestly don't have an opinion about potential chronic ammonia hazards. I have no reason to believe that chronic exposure to these levels is anything but safe. And I don't even really care. I almost never eat ground beef. But I do care that so many posters here quickly formed conclusions based on industry-funded information. And I do care that while so many folks here have developed strong opinions regarding the nutritional, biological, and epidemological aspects of this product, you seem to be the only one with the necessary background to draw any real conclusion.

I can guarantee you the ammonia is not something you should be concerned about. Every cell in your body uses the same metabolism to make energy for cellular processes and ammonia is a byproduct. In addition there is going to be ammonia in the cells of just about everything you eat that is animal origin.

We should be accurate in our criticisms.

 

[Draca]

Scientific American looks at the nutrition in this article:

Pink Slime, Deconstructed

But, is it nutritious? Consumers can certainly make valid arguments regarding LFTB’s content: there’s less overall “functional” protein than that found in other meat products. An analysis conducted at Iowa State University (A.S. Leaflet R1361) found two-and-a-half times more insoluble protein (77% vs. 30%) relative to soluble proteins in ordinary ground chuck. Nutritionally, our gut bacteria digest much of what we cannot, but there’s a good bet that we can’t get as much value from insoluble proteins (collagen and elastin, found largely in tendons, ligaments, and cartilage) as from their soluble siblings (myosin and actin, usually associated with muscle tissues). While these proteins may be hard to digest, on the plus side, there’s less fat in LFTB (~5%) than standard ground chuck (15-20%).

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/03/27/pink-slime-deconstructed/

The article uses some percentages from this Iowa State study:
http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/ansci/beefreports/asl-1361.pdf


Interestingly, Iowa State got sued by BPI:
http://www.marlerblog.com/uploads/file/2010-01-21_Ltr_Patti Waller_PKD_Public Records Request.pdf

 

[arthwollipot]

Sorry, I'm annoyed, I admit it.

Yeah, okay, whatever.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, okay, whatever.

Hey, you haven't had this stuff slipped into your burger without your knowledge down there in Oz as far as we can tell. So lighten up. I'm allowed to be annoyed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Scientific American looks at the nutrition in this article:

Pink Slime, Deconstructed....


Interestingly, Iowa State got sued by BPI:
http://www.marlerblog.com/uploads/file/2010-01-21_Ltr_Patti Waller_PKD_Public Records Request.pdf

Joey McGee beat you to the SA blog and I posted the Iowa analysis earlier.

However, WOW! That company tried very hard to cover up the real content of their product.

 

[Draca]

The politics in this is immense.

3 Republican governors are touring BPI today.

The politicians who plan to tour the plant — including Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, Nebraska Lt. Gov. Rick Sheehy and South Dakota Lt. Gov. Matt Michels — all agree with the industry view that pink slime has been unfairly maligned and mislabeled.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74646.html

“Our governor had mentioned that he already eats this product and certainly continues to eat it.”

Governors Speak After Beef Plant Tour
http://www.ketv.com/video/30795016/detail.html


http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/mar/29/govs-tour-neb-beef-plant-to-see-pink-slime/

"It's beef, but it's leaner beef, which is better for you," Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad said after watching a presentation of how the textured beef product is made and taking a walking tour of the plant.

Also connections to Mitt:

Romney donor at center of 'pink slime' controversy
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...-center-of-pink-slime-controversy-119087.html

Beef Products Inc., which has suspended operations at several plants due to criticism of its products, was founded by Eldon Roth – a prominent Midwestern businessman who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to pro-Romney groups.

We’ve asked the Romney campaign if they intend to weigh in on the “pink slime” issue – as far as I’m aware, Romney has not yet done so – or comment on the donations. A number of Republican governors, including Rick Perry and Sam Brownback, issued a statement this week defending beef manufacturers and the treated meat under fire as a “safe, nutritious product that is backed by sound science.”

 

[Draca]

The governors are fighting the comedy of Jon Stewart though.

The Daily Show
Wednesday March 28, 2012

The Hunger Shame

A whistleblower reveals that 70% of ground beef contains "pink slime," which is the last thing Jon wants in his mulched-up cow corpse.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-28-2012/march-28--2012---pt--1

Even though most ground beef contains "pink slime," Jon just can't seem to quit the mechanically separated all-beef delicious meat pulp.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-28-2012/march-28--2012---pt--2

 

[Draca]

The Lunch Tray posted a new photo of LFTB

http://www.thelunchtray.com/new-photo-lean-finely-textured-beef-from-a-different-point-of-view/

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Lunch Tray posted a new photo of LFTB

http://www.thelunchtray.com/new-photo-lean-finely-textured-beef-from-a-different-point-of-view/

Now I get where they got "slime" from. Eeewww.

For the record, before I get attacked again by the thread pigeonholers, I'm not really concerned the stuff looks bad before it is turned into fake food.

 

[Draca]

Hy-Vee reverses decision on ground beef additive
http://journalstar.com/business/loc...cle_04285a28-04a8-5100-956d-71056d7d6888.html

Hy-Vee, the Iowa-based grocery chain, has changed its mind on lean finely textured beef, and will offer consumers the choice of buying product in some ground beef, but with labels that disclose its presence.

"Both products will be identified so customers can determine for themselves which type of ground beef they want to buy. This transition is underway and will be implemented in our retail stores as quickly as possible. We thank our customers for sharing their views on this issue, and encourage them to continue telling us what we can do to improve their shopping experience at Hy-Vee."

This is good to see. I hope more independent grocers label the product for customers. This should have always been done and I would expect the USDA to make it a requirement.

 

[PetersCreek]

This thread brings to mind the old joke, there are two things most people don't want to see made: sausage and legislation.

I make sausage...but I wouldn't become a legislator on a bet.

As for connective tissue, regular ground beef has it, too. It's practically impossible to remove all fascia ('silverskin') from the muscle. The same goes for cartilage, glands, veins, and the like. In large commercial operations, some of it is likely wind up in the mix. Even though LFTB appears to contain a higher proportion of connective tisse, leaving it out won't eliminate it altogether.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This thread brings to mind the old joke, there are two things most people don't want to see made: sausage and legislation.

I make sausage...but I wouldn't become a legislator on a bet.

As for connective tissue, regular ground beef has it, too. It's practically impossible to remove all fascia ('silverskin') from the muscle. The same goes for cartilage, glands, veins, and the like. In large commercial operations, some of it is likely wind up in the mix. Even though LFTB appears to contain a higher proportion of connective tisse, leaving it out won't eliminate it altogether.

No one in the thread is complaining about connective tissue being harmful or completely indigestible. My complaint is that the texture of the majority of grocery store hamburger changed some years back and the people selling it kept denying anything was different about it.

My personal taste preference is burger the way it used to be made and the more I've read the more convinced I am this additive is the reason for the texture change. If they label it so I have a choice instead of trial and error buying with no guarantee the next time I buy the same brand it won't have changed, that's all I ask for.