Pink Slime

[Furcifer]

Riiight, because a manufacturer lying about their product is sooo unheard of.

From post #488, the link: Safety of Beef Processing Method Is QuestionedThe article goes on for 4 pages documenting evidence discrediting the company's own self serving study.


Forgot to add, lol.

Whoah, whoah. The article doesn't say where the salmonella or E.coli was found.
If it was found on the premises of Beef Products Inc. that's one thing, if it was found in the Roosevelt High cafeteria it's another.

If you sell me ground beef and I leave it in the back seat of my car all afternoon and it goes bad, whose fault is it? Beef Products Inc. because it has LBT in it? Nope, it's my fault because I'm an idiot and mishandled my beef. (I'm allowed to say that, you can't )

 

[Joey McGee]

There are no lies in that post, or that article. Maybe you're under another impression of what a lie is than me. To me, a lie is "to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth, intentionally." Now, I'm sure you'll try and invent some convoluted way to say that they were lying, I just want to hear in plain english what you think that is.

And if you think that BPI is lying than the USDA is certainly lying too, funny how you thought not to bold that part of the quote because it makes your conspiracy theory fall apart. Under your logic, everything the USDA commissioned as a study is probably fraud too!

No one has ever gotten sick from their product. Funny that the NYT had to print a correction, maybe you've never read it.

Correction: January 12, 2010

An editorial on Sunday mischaracterized the safety record of ground meat produced by Beef Products Inc. The editorial said incorrectly that two 27,000-pound batches of processed beef had been recalled. The contamination of the meat was discovered by the company in its plant before the beef was shipped. No meat produced by Beef Products Inc. has been linked to any illnesses or outbreaks.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whoah, whoah. The article doesn't say where the salmonella or E.coli was found.
If it was found on the premises of Beef Products Inc. that's one thing, if it was found in the Roosevelt High cafeteria it's another.

If you sell me ground beef and I leave it in the back seat of my car all afternoon and it goes bad, whose fault is it? Beef Products Inc. because it has LBT in it? Nope, it's my fault because I'm an idiot and mishandled my beef. (I'm allowed to say that, you can't )

This is your argument? Seriously?

including back-to-back incidents in August in which two 27,000-pound batches were found to be contaminated. The meat was caught before reaching lunch-rooms trays.

the agriculture department said it was revoking Beef Products’ exemption from routine testing and conducting a review of the company’s operations and research.

Now why would they need to review the COMPANY'S RESEARCH?

Thank your for the opportunity to post more about the dishonest claims of Beef Products Inc.

Within the U.S.D.A., the treated beef has been a source of friction for years. The department accepted the company’s own study as evidence that the treatment was effective. School lunch officials, who had some doubts about its effectiveness, required that Beef Products meat be tested, as they do all beef used by the program.

School lunch officials said that in some years Beef Products testing results were worse than many of the program’s two dozen other suppliers, which use traditional meat processing methods.

Now the same company that submitted its own clean bill of health to the USDA then turned around and said

Beef Products had a rate of 36 positive results for salmonella per 1,000 tests, compared to a rate of nine positive results per 1,000 tests for the other suppliers, according to statistics from the program. Beef Products said its testing regime was more likely to detect contamination.

Guess it depends who they were talking to.


That coincides with their variable use of ammonia levels depending on who was looking at the outcome.

Since introducing the treated meat, Beef Products has faced the challenge of balancing safety with taste, records and interviews show.

Pathogens died when enough ammonia was used to raise the alkalinity of the beef to a high level, company research found. But early on, school lunch officials and other customers complained about the taste and smell of the beef. Samples of the processed beef obtained by The Times revealed lower levels of alkalinity, suggesting less ammonia was used.

Beef Products acknowledged lowering the alkalinity, and the U.S.D.A. said it had determined that “at least some of B.P.I.’s product was no longer receiving the full lethality treatment.”

Seems they like to do their own research.

Beef Products already had one study showing its treatment would do that; another company-sponsored study..

This led to the infamous USDA "Pink Slime" internal e-mail.

Carl S. Custer, a former U.S.D.A. microbiologist, said he and other scientists were concerned that the department had approved the treated beef for sale without obtaining independent validation of the potential safety risk. Another department microbiologist, Gerald Zirnstein, called the processed beef "pink slime" in a 2002 e-mail message to colleagues and said, “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.”

Why should the USDA need independent validation of the company's own research? Hmmm, maybe this can tell us something:

Mr. Roth’s initial prediction that his treated beef could kill E. coli in any meat it was mixed with. The company acknowledges that its subsequent study found no evidence to back that up, although it says it is now trying with an enhanced treatment.

First you use more ammonia that customers will tolerate, you show it kills bacteria and you get USDA approval. Then you use less ammonia and don't tell the USDA, because after all, why should you be honest if no one is checking?

Soon after getting initial approval from the agriculture department, the company devised a plan to make a less alkaline version of the beef, internal company documents show. Beef Products acknowledged in an e-mail exchange that it was making a lower pH version, but did not specify the level or when it began selling it. ...

... The agriculture department said it did not learn that Beef Products was using lower levels until October, after inquiries by The Times, and that it was studying the company’s research.

Let's see, where was I going with this? Oh yeah, your claim the contamination wasn't found in LBT at the plant but only after it was at the school:

At 6:36 a.m. on Aug. 10, the Beef Products plant in South Sioux City, Neb., started up its production line for the school lunch program. In 60 minutes, the plant produced a batch of 26,880 pounds of processed beef that tested positive for E. coli.

Six days later at the same plant, another 26,880-pound lot was found to have salmonella, government records and interviews show.

Any more evidence of dishonesty by the company? Actually, yes.

“The system was stopped for two minutes in order to install a new valve,” the company said. “When the system was restarted, there was product flow for approximately one minute without NH3 flow.”

After the school lunch officials replied that the glitch might explain only one of the two episodes, Beef Products shifted focus to its suppliers, saying it would more closely scrutinize them for contamination.

But go ahead, dig in those heels. After all the company itself submitted 4 studies it paid for that just happened to praise the product's taste and texture.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are no lies in that post, or that article. Maybe you're under another impression of what a lie is than me. To me, a lie is "to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth, intentionally." Now, I'm sure you'll try and invent some convoluted way to say that they were lying, I just want to hear in plain english what you think that is.

And if you think that BPI is lying than the USDA is certainly lying too, funny how you thought not to bold that part of the quote because it makes your conspiracy theory fall apart. Under your logic, everything the USDA commissioned as a study is probably fraud too!

No one has ever gotten sick from their product. Funny that the NYT had to print a correction, maybe you've never read it.

Correction: January 12, 2010

An editorial on Sunday mischaracterized the safety record of ground meat produced by Beef Products Inc. The editorial said incorrectly that two 27,000-pound batches of processed beef had been recalled. The contamination of the meat was discovered by the company in its plant before the beef was shipped. No meat produced by Beef Products Inc. has been linked to any illnesses or outbreaks.

Gee, no, I didn't see that single correction from 4 pages of complaints. Was that the same 27,000-pound batches the NYT article said never reached the lunch trays of the kids? Because if so it seems like a fairly minor correction, found before shipped vs found before served.

I think my above post addresses the problems with the USDA being in bed with this industry.

 

[Joey McGee]

You said they lied. You have provided no evidence of that. The reason you need them to be liars is that you need to justify your belief that these independent studies are fraud. Like everything else, you're reading what you want to in that article, stretching statements beyond their meaning.

Like anyone is going to give a flying **** about any research you do when you dismiss research they independently contracted (on the basis of the reputation of those companies! one bit of fraud and they are done!). What were their other options? You and BPI have something in common, you won't be able to get the most prestigious universities and journals to publish something that is of sole benefit to you personally. At least they did it the best way they could... They didn't rely on anecdotal reports, like you do

Complaints and issues are not evidence of incompetence and lying. The company enjoys the highest reputation from foodbourne illness experts at prestigious academic institutions and by hardcore activists like Nancy Donley, but to you, they are liars who make unsafe products and try to hide it.

It's a huge difference. If it was found after it shipped that means they are danger to the public.

And you accuse the USDA of corruption based on nothing. If you actually had proof of that, I believe that's against the law and many regulations, and you should be reporting it instead of wasting time trying to save face here.

 

[Beerina]

Isn't the ammonia a separate issue from the pink slime per se?


Issue 1: Icky pink slime and its effect w.r.t. the palate

Issue 2: Ammonia used in processing

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't the ammonia a separate issue from the pink slime per se?


Issue 1: Icky pink slime and its effect w.r.t. the palate

Issue 2: Ammonia used in processing

The ammonia is a separate issue. I cite the NYT's article to demonstrate that research presented by Beef Products Inc was shown to be unreliable. Joey cites what amounts to marketing promotion as "studies" that found the stuff has a 'wonderful' texture.


BTW, the ammonia acts as a preservative adding shelf life which is what the one independent study by the student found. Note the student's study involved no tasting.

 

[Dipayan]

Observation 1: burger texture changed a number of years ago.

Observation 2: the timing of LBT introduction into the market coincides with the texture change observation.
Observation 3: in all my decades of eating hamburger, until LBT was added to burger, I never tasted the disagreeable texture.
Observation 4: there is still burger that I find OK, again, before I ever heard of LBT. It turns out not to have LBT in it.

Observation 5: the university analysis provides a mechanism explaining the changed texture.

2. You have no idea that this is true. Please do let me know how you came to this conclusion, since LFTB started production in 1991 and apparently you started to find the odd texture around 2002.

3. Since you don't know when LFTB was added, how in the world can you make this claim? As it is, this claim is the same as the above claim - you are just repeating it to make it look like there are more 'observations'

5. What is this mechanism exactly? Especially since the study claims that adding LFTB makes beef more 'tender' and 'soft'?

Now you are going to claim that the study talks about 'cutting' (a scientific test for checking meat tenderness) and not 'chewing'. But as soon as you open the gates to 'chewing' being the test, it makes the whole thing absolutely subjective, and open to your confirmation bias.

Eg. While you are using the 7% people from the poll who agreed 'the texture was different' as supporting evidence (even those who said it was 'mushy' - the opposite of 'gristly'), you wave away the majority who have not noticed a change in the poll thread with 'They probably don't recall'. (Quote below)

.... It doesn't surprise me people have various descriptions for what's different about the texture or taste. As a health care provider I am all too aware how differently people describe the same physical symptom. It also doesn't surprise me some people haven't noticed. We don't know what burger they eat and if they recall burger tasting differently in the past.

 

[Dipayan]

BTW, the ammonia acts as a preservative adding shelf life which is what the one independent study by the student found.

Your bias is making me feel a little icky. You read 'improved fresh colour, reduced spoilage and increased tenderness' and all you get from that is 'Oh, it adds shelf life!'

 

[Belz...]

When confronted with this, you dismiss an industry standard test in favour of your observations. Hardly the behaviour of a sceptic.

Indeed. Skeptigirl, your posting history suggests that you put far too much weight on your own observations, which was the point of my previous post here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Indeed. Skeptigirl, your posting history suggests that you put far too much weight on your own observations, which was the point of my previous post here.

I posted a food critic using the same adjective I used, "gristly" and the university analysis showing a significant difference in "fibrous" protein in LBT compared to ground chuck. And despite Furcifer's insistence other cuts of meat have fibrous protein in the same quantity as the LBT, he has yet to post any analyses backing that claim up.

All observations are not equally subjective. I have every reason to trust my observations here especially since I made most of them before ever hearing about LBT.

You are more than welcome to ignore the food critic, dismiss the university analysis and to also wait for the test.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your bias is making me feel a little icky. You read 'improved fresh colour, reduced spoilage and increased tenderness' and all you get from that is 'Oh, it adds shelf life!'

What does this even mean?


There were 5 studies Joey linked to. Four were paid for and/or done directly by BPI. Don't skeptics think conflict of interests matter in research reliability?

The fifth was a study done by a student who found the LBT added shelf life but didn't test taste or chewing texture. I merely commented that her shelf life observation made sense given the effects of the ammonia.

Whatever you are on about here, I suspect you misread something.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

2. You have no idea that this is true. Please do let me know how you came to this conclusion, since LFTB started production in 1991 and apparently you started to find the odd texture around 2002.

3. Since you don't know when LFTB was added, how in the world can you make this claim? As it is, this claim is the same as the above claim - you are just repeating it to make it look like there are more 'observations'

5. What is this mechanism exactly? Especially since the study claims that adding LFTB makes beef more 'tender' and 'soft'?

Now you are going to claim that the study talks about 'cutting' (a scientific test for checking meat tenderness) and not 'chewing'. But as soon as you open the gates to 'chewing' being the test, it makes the whole thing absolutely subjective, and open to your confirmation bias.

Eg. While you are using the 7% people from the poll who agreed 'the texture was different' as supporting evidence (even those who said it was 'mushy' - the opposite of 'gristly'), you wave away the majority who have not noticed a change in the poll thread with 'They probably don't recall'. (Quote below)

I've answered all this numerous times and it's getting very tiring.

Re timing: There are citations in this thread that refer to when production started. Approval in 1991 was not when actual production and marketing started. I'm not going to hunt for the cites for you, they are in here. It was about 10 years ago that BPI's business began to take off. By a few years ago they claim their product was in 70% of the ground beef in this country. There are a couple citations listing the specific stores and product lines like Kroger Foods that do and do not have LBT.


Re texture: It was brought up earlier that 15% LBT was a USDA limit. It wasn't. 15% was the amount of LBT in the school lunch hamburger because they didn't tolerate the burger with 20% LBT. That was in the NYT's article.

People selling LBT, (i.e. with a reason to make such a claim other than actual evidence), claim it makes burger tender and a student found that you can slice an LBT mixed patty with less pressure than a patty with out it.

None of that discredits the hypothesis that LBT can still be expected to change the texture of hamburger given the analysis showed that the stuff is >70% fibrous protein compared to burger that is <30% fibrous protein. The fact 20% LBT burger is not tolerated is also evidence LBT and hamburger are significantly different.

Look up fibrous and globular protein to understand the difference if you don't get the picture from the names.


Re corroborating evidence: I cited the food critic's using the same description as I did. It was an independent opinion, subjective or not. He called the texture gristly and mealy. I called it gristly and rubbery.

The poll wasn't supposed to measure the likelihood of a texture change. It was only intended to find other people who also noticed. I was being accused in this thread of being the only person who had noticed.

As I've said dozens of times now, you can't have confirmation bias with something you never heard of.



I've never said my observations were proof of cause. That's what the planned test is for. I said and continue to say my observations support my hypothesis. That's how the scientific process proceeds. Observe, hypothesize, test.

 

[Furcifer]

But go ahead, dig in those heels. After all the company itself submitted 4 studies it paid for that just happened to praise the product's taste and texture.

Yes, my argument is seriously that it depends on where the beef was tested and found to contain e.coli or salmonella. If it's found in the plant then Beef Products Inc. has a problem, if it's found in grocery stores or schools it suggests a problem with handling.

The studies happen to jive with other independent studies that show the increase in fat content, which is high in LBT, makes ground beef taste better and have a more palatable texture. The real problem is that it doesn't jive with your own claims.

 

[Furcifer]

Correction: January 12, 2010

An editorial on Sunday mischaracterized the safety record of ground meat produced by Beef Products Inc. The editorial said incorrectly that two 27,000-pound batches of processed beef had been recalled. The contamination of the meat was discovered by the company in its plant before the beef was shipped. No meat produced by Beef Products Inc. has been linked to any illnesses or outbreaks.

Oh, so there was no problem at all

That was found and caught at the plant like it was supposed to and all of the other claims of "tainted meat" seem to be due to handling and not BPI's processing. Go figure.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Complaints and issues are not evidence of incompetence and lying. The company enjoys the highest reputation from foodbourne illness experts at prestigious academic institutions and by hardcore activists like Nancy Donley, but to you, they are liars who make unsafe products and try to hide it.

It's a huge difference. If it was found after it shipped that means they are danger to the public.

And you accuse the USDA of corruption based on nothing. If you actually had proof of that, I believe that's against the law and many regulations, and you should be reporting it instead of wasting time trying to save face here.

Straw man: I have not and am not currently arguing the safety issues. I've said that numerous times including saying ammonia is a byproduct of metabolism in every cell in your body and our bodies are well equipped to handle it. In addition, I expect hamburger to have dangerous bacteria and it is the cooking that reliably protects the public. Efforts to keep bacteria contamination to a minimum prior to cooking supplement the protection but it is the cooking that matters more.

As I said above, I cited the NYT's article to show how unreliable Beef Products Inc sponsored or conducted research is. What a concept, a company that lies about its products. But I digress....


As to the "inbed with the industry" charge I did actually make, and, that you are trying to dismiss over semantics and foot stamping, I will elaborate.

In the NYT's article the author specifically notes that the USDA accepted BPI's bacterial safety research unchallenged and then went on to exempt BPI, not just from testing requirements of its LBT, but also exempted BPI from any recalls when aggregated hamburger was found to be contaminated and the individual source was unknown.

I have to laugh at your "against the law" assertion. The write-a-regulation/work-in-a-regulatory-field-in-the-federal-government - get-a-lucrative-job-in-the-industry revolving door is well established including a specific case discussed in this thread earlier. Dipayan dismissed the charge noting that over 17 years the 1.2 million the regulator-turned-private-board-member earned wasn't an unusual annual amount.

Looks like a legit post-government job until you consider a board member could work as few as 1 or 2 days the entire year. $70,000 a year for a couple days work, not bad. I think Tyson Food's board meets about 4 times a year.

From post #83

When Smith stepped down from the USDA in 1993, BPI’s principal major supplier appointed her to its board of directors, where she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years.

Post #97

According to Custer, the USDA ruled that "pink slime" was safe, despite concerns, because a George H.W. Bush appointee who had been president of both the Florida Cattlemen’s Association and the of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association -- undersecretary JoAnn Smith -- pushed it through. Smith now serves on the board of directors of Tyson Foods, the largest chicken, beef and pork processing company in the world.

Oh, that's right, you don't think there's anything wrong with taking 1.2 million dollars from the industry you previously regulated.

Dipayan weighed in with post #423 with the math for the annual payoff of Smith's job.

And unfortunately I can't see that I replied to his post. I had a reply, maybe I got sidetracked. Anyway, yeah $70,000 a year sounds like a real job, not a payoff. Until you look and find the job was just being a board member and while it is difficult to easily find it appears the board meets 4 times a year. So if the math is right, Smith got $70,000 a year for working 4 days. At the most the board would meet once a month making that $70,000 for 12 days work. Not bad.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Furcifer, you again skip the point and go off with a straw man. The issue here is BPI providing studies to the USDA showing BPI LBT was safe then lowering the amount of ammonia while conveniently not telling the USDA. It suggests honestly is not one of BPI's strong points.

I don't care about the bacteria or the ammonia, remember?

 

[Belz...]

I posted a food critic using the same adjective I used, "gristly" and the university analysis showing a significant difference in "fibrous" protein in LBT compared to ground chuck. And despite Furcifer's insistence other cuts of meat have fibrous protein in the same quantity as the LBT, he has yet to post any analyses backing that claim up.

All observations are not equally subjective. I have every reason to trust my observations here especially since I made most of them before ever hearing about LBT.

You are more than welcome to ignore the food critic, dismiss the university analysis and to also wait for the test.

I was merely making an observation about a behaviour of yours that I find makes me a bit wary of any of your claims. Unfortunate, but true.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was merely making an observation about a behaviour of yours that I find makes me a bit wary of any of your claims. Unfortunate, but true.

And you have some evidence I'm not a competent observer? Care to share?

 

[Joey McGee]

There were 5 studies Joey linked to. Four were paid for and/or done directly by BPI.

No, three separate companies were asked to do an independent study. The companies have an interest to be impartial because if there is any proof of fraud, their company will die. They all found basically the same thing. You handwave this away, it's funny to watch.