Pink Slime

[Skeptic Ginger]

Correct. Changes the texture by making it more tender and soft. Why mention only the part of the study that supports your position, and not the bit that refutes it?

Round and round the mulberry bush. This has been addressed. It's useless to constantly repeat the same arguments. I stand by what I said, cutting with a knife is not the same as the experience one has chewing. I call the texture gristly or rubbery. It may be that my description is inadequate. But it is not evidence the stuff doesn't change the texture.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are presupposing that LFTB makes ground beef bad. Circular argument.

And you are ignoring all the evidence I cited supporting my hypothesis the LBT is what changed. LBT explains everything I experienced before I heard of the stuff (i.e. when I couldn't have had any confirmation bias) and other offered hypotheses all have some evidence that is inconsistent with the experience I've had with burger.

And this is utter stupidity. BPI does not sell to consumers. BPI sells to businesses. Businesses ensure the quality of products that they get from their vendors. So we can safely assume that all the businesses knew of LFTB. It is their responsibility to pass on that information (whether through labeling or advertising) to the consumer. The farmer that grows organic oranges does not put it on the label. It is the company that sells it to the consumer that does.

You want to get angry with somebody? Get angry with McDonalds, Taco Bell, Burger King, Safeway and Kroger. They are the ones who chose not to label. And stop ranting about the 'beef industry'.

The LBT segment of the beef industry was initially to blame but as more and more hamburger producers started buying the stuff they became part of the problem. Seems like "beef industry" is an appropriate generalization. We blame stuff on the pharmaceutical industry and don't specify it was only a half dozen corporations involved.

 

[Ryokan]

And you are ignoring all the evidence I cited supporting my hypothesis the LBT is what changed.

There's an old saying. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's an old saying. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

This has been addressed as well and not that long ago I repeated the answer. Your slogan answer is over-simplistic.

.... 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.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

So, the plural of anecdote is not data, unless it's your anecdote?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, the plural of anecdote is not data, unless it's your anecdote?

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.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

One has to wonder how reliable a taste witness is 8 years after the fact. Especially since there are numerous other variables that could account for any percieved changes.

It's more like reading in a newspaper there was a shooting just up the block 8 years ago and saying "I heard that".

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I'm still seeing a gut-belief that this one ingredient is the one and only reason ground beef has seemed 'off'. All you can offer for why is that it is, it must be? Why? and how can you know, unless you are all-knowing to be able to tell when it's present or not? I suppose being all-knowing would explain why your observations are superior.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is this a contest for she who posts last wins? I'm working on testing for the difference with our skeptics' group.

 

[Dipayan]

I stand by what I said, cutting with a knife is not the same as the experience one has chewing.

What you call 'cutting with a knife' is the Warner-Bratzler Shear Force Test, considered to be the standard test for testing tenderness of meat. You are proposing that an objective standard be rendered meaningless by your subjective experience.

 

[Dipayan]

And you are ignoring all the evidence I cited supporting my hypothesis the LBT is what changed.

You are using the term 'evidence' very loosely. The only 'evidence' you have is that you felt that some of the ground beef you bought was 'gristly'. You are ignoring that there might be hundreds of reasons for this experience (Furcifer has pointed out some of them). Yet you are not acknowledging those as possibilities.

LBT explains everything I experienced before I heard of the stuff (i.e. when I couldn't have had any confirmation bias) and other offered hypotheses all have some evidence that is inconsistent with the experience I've had with burger.

This is your circular argument. There is no real evidence that LFTB makes meat 'gristly'. You have presupposed that it does, and are now trying to fit data according to that supposition. All everyone (if I may speak for them) is saying is that the data you are using to support your claim does not necessarily support it. That's all.

The LBT segment of the beef industry was initially to blame but as more and more hamburger producers started buying the stuff they became part of the problem.

Why were they to blame? They did not do anything illegal. They used LFTB in beef when it was USDA approved. They informed the various companies they were supplying to that LFTB was included in the product. What did they do wrong exactly?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What you call 'cutting with a knife' is the Warner-Bratzler Shear Force Test, considered to be the standard test for testing tenderness of meat. You are proposing that an objective standard be rendered meaningless by your subjective experience.

I get that. It still is not the experience in one's mouth chewing. I'm guessing a hamburger might measure more 'tender' in such a test than filet mignon. Do they have the same texture when chewed?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are using the term 'evidence' very loosely. The only 'evidence' you have is that you felt that some of the ground beef you bought was 'gristly'. You are ignoring that there might be hundreds of reasons for this experience (Furcifer has pointed out some of them). Yet you are not acknowledging those as possibilities.

I'm not sure why I have to repeat this over and over and again and again someone 'forgets' the rest of the cited evidence.

The timing of the change in the burger, how it increased in more and more brands over time, the fact the burger I found which was consistently OK turned out not to have LBT, and the university analysis which explains why the burger with LBT would have a different texture, are all consistent with the LBT's introduction, spread through the marketplace, and a mechanism by which it could change burger texture.

This is your circular argument. There is no real evidence that LFTB makes meat 'gristly'. You have presupposed that it does, and are now trying to fit data according to that supposition. All everyone (if I may speak for them) is saying is that the data you are using to support your claim does not necessarily support it. That's all.

What circular is the constant ignoring instead of addressing my arguments.

Why were they to blame? They did not do anything illegal. They used LFTB in beef when it was USDA approved. They informed the various companies they were supplying to that LFTB was included in the product. What did they do wrong exactly?

I asked what was changed about the burger and couldn't find out. Who should I blame?

 

[Furcifer]

What circular is the constant ignoring instead of addressing my arguments.

Um, nuh uh. They've been addressed.

I believe it's possible you noticed the change. I believe it's more probable one of the many other factors, most of which have been explained, changed and that's what you noticed. Fat content, processing methods and preparation have been shown in this thread using the studies cited, to dominate the characteristics you claim to have noticed changing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Um, nuh uh. They've been addressed.

I believe it's possible you noticed the change. I believe it's more probable one of the many other factors, most of which have been explained, changed and that's what you noticed. Fat content, processing methods and preparation have been shown in this thread using the studies cited, to dominate the characteristics you claim to have noticed changing.

All of those variables were the same before and after pink slime yet the problem never surfaced until LBT was added to burger.

No one has addressed the observations relative to the possible explanations. Other than to dismiss my observations as confirmation bias even though I made the observations long before I ever heard of LBT, my hypothesis remains supported and alternative hypotheses don't. Your alternative hypothesis, for example, cannot explain the timing of when the problem surfaced.

 

[Dipayan]

I get that. It still is not the experience in one's mouth chewing. I'm guessing a hamburger might measure more 'tender' in such a test than filet mignon.

Yes, it might. If it measures more 'tender', then it is objectively more tender, and the majority of consumers would agree that it was more tender.

Do they have the same texture when chewed?

If, when you comment on the texture, you are make a statement on the tenderness of the meat (eg. calling it 'gristly' or chewy'), then yes, of course there can be a relative comparison that can be made.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A texture change is a texture change. The force it takes to cut a burger is a separate thing. You can argue all you want. I experienced a texture change that coincided with adding LBT to burger and did not occur before LBT was introduced into the burger and does not occur with burger I know to be LBT free.

 

[Dipayan]

I'm not sure why I have to repeat this over and over and again and again someone 'forgets' the rest of the cited evidence.

It's because you ignore the rebuttals.

The timing of the change in the burger,

Your memory is not perfect, and I doubt you have kept notes. So I would say you are guessing at best with this timing.

how it increased in more and more brands over time,

Are you saying you had tried out all these other brands even when you were happy with your beef brand? Or else how would you know that the meat texture of other brands also changed over time?

the fact the burger I found which was consistently OK turned out not to have LBT,

Which only shows that the burger you found consistently OK did not have LFTB, and nothing else.

and the university analysis which explains why the burger with LBT would have a different texture,

Again you are repeating a favourite half truth - the analysis said that adding LFTB did affect the burger - it made it more tender.

are all in no way consistent with the LBT's introduction, spread through the marketplace, and a mechanism by which it could change burger texture.

FTFY

I asked what was changed about the burger and couldn't find out. Who should I blame?

Why do you need someone to blame? You don't have any legal or moral right that you must get exactly the burger you want.

 

[Dipayan]

A texture change is a texture change. The force it takes to cut a burger is a separate thing. You can argue all you want. I experienced a texture change that coincided with adding LBT to burger and did not occur before LBT was introduced into the burger and does not occur with burger I know to be LBT free.

Yea sure. You can claim this as much as you want. Just don't go around telling people the half-truth that the Sebranek study supports your position that adding LFTB changes the texture of ground beef for the worse. Because then I have to again pipe in and remind you that what it says is that the meat becomes more tender.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not ignoring rebuttals. None of them have addressed the evidence in it's entirety. You guys cherry pick and ignore the contradictions. And just offering alternative hypotheses to each individual point, without offering an alternative hypothesis that fits all the evidence in it's entirety doesn't cut it.

Let me recap: You need an hypothesis besides LBT that fits ALL the observations.

First, I made the texture change observation before I ever heard of LBT.

Second, the timing of LBT introduction into the market coincides with the texture change observation.

Third, in all my decades of eating hamburger, until LBT was added to burger, I never tasted the disagreeable texture.

Fourth, there is still burger that I found OK, again, before I ever heard of LBT. It turns out not to have LBT in it.

Fifth, the university analysis provides a mechanism explaining the changed texture observation.


What alternative hypothesis has been offered that satisfies all of the above observations? You guys don't have one. I'm following the scientific process here. My hypothesis fits ALL the evidence. I don't have an alternative hypothesis. Even before testing this hypothesis you guys haven't offered a single alternative hypothesis that fits all the texture change observations. You've only offered alternative hypotheses for each individual piece of evidence. That doesn't suffice in a scientific analysis.