Pink Slime

[Joey McGee]

It DOES justify the outrage, absolutely it does! The USDA and BPI, etc. have put a product in my food that I didn't know was there! I ate it, digested it. How much more personally and intimately involved can a person get involved in something? They betrayed my personal trust as well as everyone elses who consumed their product without knowing what they were getting. It was done purposefully and unethically imo because they didn't want the product questioned by having it on the label and for financial gain. They should have labeled it in the first place. They could have clearly explained the product on their website and been transparent about its values and drawbacks. There still would have been an honest market for their product. Even now they are not supplying the public with the nutritional or composition breakdowns of LFTB. Why not?

Now they dare turn it back on the customer. How dare you NOT continue accepting a product in your food, that we have snuck into your food the last 10-20 yrs without your consent or knowledge. No one died or anything. If you don't continue eating something you never agreed to eat in the first place people will lose their jobs! And we'll lose a lot of money. And it will be all your fault!

Your conspiracy theories about the USDA and BPI are hysterical, sorry. You'll have a way to prove them negligent by the science, not by ranting about the Republicans. Politcal donations and Smith taking a job on the board are not evidence of anything, sorry. Add that to the fact that the vast majority of people who do not want to eat this product are making that decision on misinformation. You and every other critic has reverted to less and less serious claims until we're basically bitching about a centrifuge being involved. First it was full of e.coli, previously fed to dogs, full of dangerous poison. This entire campaign is a joke.

I'll let a food expert respond to your other concerns here.

Although there are some who call for labeling this safe and nutritious food product, the fact is, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognizes that this product is what it is: 100% beef. There is no need for labeling LFTB — because nothing is being added that is not beef.

...

The use of ammonia is another example of a pathogen intervention.

Neither the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nor USDA thinks it should be labeled because it is what they call a "processing aid." I agree. The residual level is very low, but has a very positive effect on food safety.

Based on your way of thinking this man needs to be investigated to see how much money he has taken for shilling for corporate bloodsuckers.

He makes a very good argument as to why your position is hysterical and essentially a persecution of imaginary enemies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Joey, I don't know what to make of your insistence on ignoring facts. I take it you get the dog food issue and are just kidding. The scraps went into dog food, they changed the processing and started putting it in hamburger.

Insoluble proteins = indigestible proteins.
Myosin = muscle fiber.

As for "doesn't affect the nutritional content", that's a marketing lie. Its the same as saying it's pure beef when it is not pure meat. If you want to link to your "author's" quote I'll look at it in context. The "author's comments" you note are not in the A.S Leaflet and I'm not going to hunt down what paper you are referring to. In that paper the authors conclude:

Implications
This work shows that recovered lean tissue from fat trimmings can be used successfully for high value-added processed products, thus increasing the overall value of beef carcasses.

Increasing the value of the beef carcasses doesn't preclude the adding of less nutritious protein to hamburger.

 

[Mark6]

Being fed what is meant to be dog food is being nutritionally poisoned in my opinion.

Then you better give up steak, because for thousands of years that's what dog ate after stone-age hunters made a kill. Humans ate organ meat.

Not to mention the ammonia added to kill off all of the ecoli. Beyond gross.

You'd rather have live ecoli?

 

[Joey McGee]

Joey, I don't know what to make of your insistence on ignoring facts. I take it you get the dog food issue and are just kidding. The scraps went into dog food, they changed the processing and started putting it in hamburger.

You're just wrong. They found a way to separate the meat from the scraps. Where are you getting your misinformation from?

Insoluble proteins = indigestible proteins.
Myosin = muscle fiber.

Why are you ignoring that the author of the study says that your conclusions about nutrition here are unfounded?

As for "doesn't affect the nutritional content", that's a marketing lie.

lol, the scientist author of the study is a marketer now? So you're calling his scientific rationale for that statement and credentials into question? So you realize by that logic you have to throw out his study now too

Its the same as saying it's pure beef when it is not pure meat. If you want to link to your "author's" quote I'll look at it in context. The "author's comments" you note are not in the A.S Leaflet
and I'm not going to hunt down what paper you are referring to.

Why would his comments on the recent controversy be appearing in a study from +15 years ago? The author issused a statement that has been printed a few places. Try googling the quote. In my browser you just highlight the statement, right click and "search google!" win! I requoted, I already put the source here. So, no.

In that paper the authors conclude:Increasing the value of the beef carcasses doesn't preclude the adding of less nutritious protein to hamburger.

You have no direct evidence it is less nutritious. You're making that up from your interpretation. Which he is on record now saying is unfounded. But you call me the ignorant one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not me who is wrong Joey. And I've addressed all your points more than once now.

 

[Joey McGee]

“It’s a predicament, isn’t it? We don’t want the LFTB stuff. We don’t want irradiation. We don’t want anything like that in our food, but we want it to be safe,” he said. “There seems to be this feeling among the public that somebody is always trying to get something over on them, and BPI just happened to get caught this time. Nobody wants to do that. BPI wasn’t hiding anything — they were trying to make a quality product. If people had been better informed, this might not have gone south so quickly.”

This is the kind of thing people end up feeling stupid and ashamed of supporting years down the road. It's almost as bad as all those people tricked into signing a petition against water. I mean what's closer to the truth, a) a bunch of greedy corporate monsters and government agencies conspired to put e coli laden dog food in our food supply or

"We are sick and tired of the news media hijacking the truth, minimizing science, frightening consumers and creating a false crisis, just to boost their ratings," they wrote. "Lean Fine-Textured Beef is not unsafe, deceptive or pet food."

That is from the article where I found the quote from the author of the study. The author of the article prefaces the statements with his own quote.

While Sebranek's study did not compare nutritional differences between ground beef with and without LTFB, some media reports have claimed that LFTB degrades the meat to which it's added.

Yes some people just claim it over and over again based on this study....

 

[Joey McGee]

The dog food argument is used to insinuate it's not healthy or not fit for human consumption, so anyway you nitpick about this history of meat production, it's still fearmongering misinformation by slacktivists.

 

[Joey McGee]

It's not me who is wrong Joey. And I've addressed all your points more than once now.

Where did you address how the author of the study is wrong and you are right when it comes to drawing conclusions about nutritional content? I understand how you think you are able to do this, I just don't get why you still think we should listen to you and not him. You're basically telling us he doesn't understand his own study.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where did you address how the author of the study is wrong and you are right when it comes to drawing conclusions about nutritional content? I understand how you think you are able to do this, I just don't get why you still think we should listen to you and not him. You're basically telling us he doesn't understand his own study.

Collagen Collagen is nearly one third glycine and lacks the essential amino acid tryptophan while muscle protein does not.

Scleroproteins: Connective tissues and hard tissues. Fibrous protein; insoluble in all solvents and resistant to digestion.

The stuff is still digestible but the nutritional content per gram of food eaten is still less than eating muscle meat.

 

[casebro]

...You'd rather have live ecoli?

I'm sure somebody here will corredt me if I'm wrong, but aren't ecoli, like yeast, an excellent protein source? And high in B vitamins?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sure somebody here will corredt me if I'm wrong, but aren't ecoli, like yeast, an excellent protein source? And high in B vitamins?

No. You can't digest bacteria that live quite nicely among all the digestive juices.

E-coli, the good ones, are responsible for digesting some of your food for you. This is responsible for some of your B-vitamins. They aren't high in B-vitamins, they make B-vitamins available to you.

 

[Joey McGee]

Collagen Collagen is nearly one third glycine and lacks the essential amino acid tryptophan while muscle protein does not.

Scleroproteins: Connective tissues and hard tissues. Fibrous protein; insoluble in all solvents and resistant to digestion.

The stuff is still digestible but the nutritional content per gram of food eaten is still less than eating muscle meat.

What part of the author's response to these claims

Our research is potentially being misinterpreted by some in the media as suggesting that LFTB has a deleterious effect on the nutritional quality of ground beef. Nothing in our study or what we know about collagen more broadly should lead one to that conclusion

allows you to continue to make these comments with a straight face?

So I'm right you don't think he understands his own study?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I asked you to link to the source of your quotes and you still have not done so.

 

[Joey McGee]

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/03/how-will-bpis-plant-closures-affect-americas-beef/

I already posted this explicitly in 302. Hey I thought you said you were a stickler for people reading threads and missing citations? Hey it's really not surprising that you'd miss that post, or refuse to look for the source yourself, or even imagine that the source of the quote somehow was misleading. I can imagine you'll come up with some other objection now too, so if you still have a problem, that's why I already mentioned that google found his email address fine too.

Cheers

 

[Haldur]

So people have been eating chopped beef that includes 'pink slime' now for years. My question is what has been the health impact, vs. eating pure beef?

IF its impact so far is too small to have been actually measured or noticed, then I see this as nothing more but a battle for consumer's money. Forget the 'theoretical', what has been the actual impact? I'm not saying there isn't one, but until someone points it out, I'm very happy to continue to eat my pink slime (well actually, I haven't eaten ground beef in ages, but still, I sometimes do get a hankering for it).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So people have been eating chopped beef that includes 'pink slime' now for years. My question is what has been the health impact, vs. eating pure beef?

IF its impact so far is too small to have been actually measured or noticed, then I see this as nothing more but a battle for consumer's money. Forget the 'theoretical', what has been the actual impact? I'm not saying there isn't one, but until someone points it out, I'm very happy to continue to eat my pink slime (well actually, I haven't eaten ground beef in ages, but still, I sometimes do get a hankering for it).

If anyone is arguing it is unhealthy they have may dropped out of the thread. I am not arguing the stuff is bad for you. I am disgusted it has an awful texture and I was lied to that nothing had changed about the burger I was buying despite my asking what was different and repeatedly asking for something without the changed processing.

 

[Joey McGee]

It is pure beef. But I get what you meant. It's the lean meat separated from the fat. You wouldn't expect it to have a noticeably different health impact seeing as it's the same thing, right? You won't find anything in the media or from experts or in the literature saying it has negative effects on health compared to meat without it added, save for perhaps this bit about collagen that the author of the study rejects as a misinterpretation.

You will find stuff like this though (reposted from page 9)

Nutritionists say LFTB is just as healthy, if not more so, than other ground beef because it’s so lean — 95 percent, on average.

“(That’s) an accurate statement,” said Mary Steffensmeier, a registered dietician with Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare in Waterloo.

The nutrition educator said LFTB has the same or more vitamins and minerals than hamburger with out it. For example, vitamin B-6, niacin and iron are greater in 95-percent lean burger than 70 percent. And, Steffensmeier said LFTB is lower in saturated fat.
“I think they (BPI) could be unfairly targeted,” she added.


Read More: http://wcfcourier.com/business/loca...a6b-11e1-b296-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz1r8xj7FIX

This product makes it cheaper to produce a lean beef product. Will this change lead to more people eating fattier and therefore less healthy beef? I don't know. If anything this product is leaning towards the beneficial side of the spectrum no matter how you slice it.

Needing 1.5 million more cows to replace this while supply has already been dwindling and demand is increasing can't be healthy for society, not to mention the environment, that's for sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Environmental_impact

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/03/how-will-bpis-plant-closures-affect-americas-beef/

I already posted this explicitly in 302. Hey I thought you said you were a stickler for people reading threads and missing citations? Hey it's really not surprising that you'd miss that post, or refuse to look for the source yourself, or even imagine that the source of the quote somehow was misleading. I can imagine you'll come up with some other objection now too, so if you still have a problem, that's why I already mentioned that google found his email address fine too.

Cheers

Having to repeat the same citation over and over is hardly the same as citing something once then quoting from it a dozen more times expecting the thread reader to dig through 10 pages to find the citation. But what ever.

It doesn't say anything that supports your claim there is no difference between hamburger and this additive. It merely says the analysis did not find the product unhealthy. I never claimed it did. As for nutrition, muscle and collagen are not the same. If they were then why not eat tendons without fake names?

It comes down to interpreting "deleterious effect on the nutritional quality of ground beef."

Sebranek wrote. "Nothing in our study or what we know about collagen more broadly should lead one to that conclusion."

You are welcome to enjoy your collagen. I prefer the taste of meat. Don't try to tell me they are the same.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is pure beef. But I get what you meant. It's the lean meat separated from the fat. You wouldn't expect it to have a noticeably different health impact seeing as it's the same thing, right? You won't find anything in the media or from experts or in the literature saying it has negative effects on health compared to meat without it added, save for perhaps this bit about collagen that the author of the study rejects as a misinterpretation.

You will find stuff like this though (reposted from page 9)

This product makes it cheaper to produce a lean beef product. Will this change lead to more people eating fattier and therefore less healthy beef? I don't know. If anything this product is leaning towards the beneficial side of the spectrum no matter how you slice it.

Needing 1.5 million more cows to replace this while supply has already been dwindling and demand is increasing can't be healthy for society, not to mention the environment, that's for sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Environmental_impact

What is it about "it tastes bad" that you can't seem to grasp?

 

[GlennB]

It is pure beef.

For a certain definition of "beef" this is true. However, if you asked for "ground beef" and a butcher offered to grind up those trimmings right there in front of you I suspect you'd refuse them, however healthy and nutritious they might be.

It's the lean meat separated from the fat.

Yes, it's lean because it's separated from the fat.

I'll guess here that you've taken a turket drumstick apart for the substantial meaty bits. You're left with bone, several hefty tendons (that are considered inedible by most) with scraps of meat attached, right? Is that residual tendon/meat arrangement "lean turkey meat" in your book?