Pink Slime

[Furcifer]

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?

Again you're suggesting there was something nefarious, but without knowing what the "rules" were I don't see the problem. As long as BPI continues to provide pathogen free meat what does the FDA care about how much ammonium is used or what the resulting alkalinity is? Or what it smells like.

eta: i keep using FDA and USDA synonymously, please bear with me.

 

[Joey McGee]

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....

You have no evidence they lied! What a joke...

In the NYT's article the author specifically notes that the USDA accepted BPI's bacterial safety research unchallenged

Where does it say that?

I have to laugh at your "against the law" assertion.

So it's not against the law for companies and the usda to conspire to defraud and lie to the public? WOW REALLY? I DOUBT THAT!!!

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.

Looks like? Great detective work!

You're telling us your beliefs about things, connecting dots that have alternative explanations, accusing everyone involved of criminal corruption and defrauding the public intentionally... this is CT country and has been for pages and pages..

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Hey, if you want to trust industry sponsored research and discount the AP reporter food critic, be my guest. But I'm pretty sure conflict of interest issues exist in those studies.

How do you know there weren't 10 studies paid for and 5 of them with inconvenient results were quashed?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Again you're suggesting there was something nefarious, but without knowing what the "rules" were I don't see the problem. As long as BPI continues to provide pathogen free meat what does the FDA care about how much ammonium is used or what the resulting alkalinity is? Or what it smells like.

eta: i keep using FDA and USDA synonymously, please bear with me.

Even though you chose the word, nefarious, I didn't, your definition of "nefarious" seems to be "illegal". That differs from mine which is "obviously corrupt". Bribes are typically considered to be corrupt even if the money is laundered behind a fake job, sweetheart real estate deal or a lucrative lobbying position.

From Google:

ne·far·i·ous/niˈfe(ə)rēəs/
Adjective: (of an action or activity) Wicked OR criminal...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seems this background information is appropriate here. I tend to forget not everyone knows this stuff. The revolving door on K St:

Although the influence powerhouses that line Washington's K Street are just a few miles from the U.S. Capitol building, the most direct path between the two doesn't necessarily involve public transportation. Instead, it's through a door—a revolving door that shuffles former federal employees into jobs as lobbyists, consultants and strategists just as the door pulls former hired guns into government careers. While officials in the executive branch, Congress and senior congressional staffers spin in and out of the private and public sectors, so too does privilege, power, access and, of course, money.

 

[Joey McGee]

Hey, if you want to trust industry sponsored research and discount the AP reporter food critic, be my guest.

This is pretty transparent as to why you're so out in left field in this issue.

But I'm pretty sure conflict of interest issues exist in those studies.

No, it doesn't. Any conflict of interest is more than outweighed by the risk of them being discovered as fraud. Think about how all of the results were in their favor, completely, in three separate companies, who would all have to be creating total fraud, inventing results wholecloth, in a huge conspiracy. That's three companies risking all of their wealth on one stupid taste test, that no one really even knows about and BPI hasn't even been pushing hard except for one post on their blog where I found it! Ridiculous conspiracist beliefs.

How do you know there weren't 10 studies paid for and 5 of them with inconvenient results were quashed?

I don't know that. How do you know that they aren't good, honest people?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because I recognize that an ad claiming 9 doctors out of 10 prefer Tylenol for their patients is fake, that makes me "out in left field"?

Got it.

BPI lowered the ammonia level in their product after using studies on the higher level to convince the USDA that BPI didn't need to monitor bacterial contaminants in their LBT. Do you consider that honest?

 

[Marcus]

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.

I skimmed the first study Joey linked and it appears far more thorough and methodical than any test you could hope to carry out. Perhaps instead of simply dismissing it, you could point out flaws in the methodology, or places you think they could have cheated.

If we must dismiss any study financed by one side or the other, then we must dismiss yours as well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I skimmed the first study Joey linked and it appears far more thorough and methodical than any test you could hope to carry out. Perhaps instead of simply dismissing it, you could point out flaws in the methodology, or places you think they could have cheated.

If we must dismiss any study financed by one side or the other, then we must dismiss yours as well.

Again, I a bit taken aback that no one is questioning an industry's own self serving study. I would have thought that was a given. Do you believe ads when they say "studies show" or even "clinical studies show"? How often would you say you heard that in an ad? More than once a day at least I'd think. And you believe those claims?

I'm at a loss for words here that skeptics who know better when they see a supposed homeopathy study don't approach a meat product study with the same level of skepticism.

It's up to you if you want to dismiss my study. There will be other skeptics there, however, that are members of the JREF.

 

[Marcus]

Again, I a bit taken aback that no one is questioning an industry's own self serving study. I would have thought that was a given. Do you believe ads when they say "studies show" or even "clinical studies show"? How often would you say you heard that in an ad? More than once a day at least I'd think. And you believe those claims?

I'm at a loss for words here that skeptics who know better when they see a supposed homeopathy study don't approach a meat product study with the same level of skepticism.

It's up to you if you want to dismiss my study. There will be other skeptics there, however, that are members of the JREF.

That's your response? You can't even be bothered to analyze the study ? You think that the skeptic position would be to throw it out without even attempting to find the flaws? If you can't find anything wrong with the methodology and think that the data was falsified, say so.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I don't know if you are correct or not, but this idea that we should automatically throw out data you don't like but keep the data you do just grates.

I've read a number of homeopathy threads, the studies cited by believers as evidence invariably have holes in the methodology or statistical analysis you could drive a truck through.

As for your test, it's hard to say, you have shared very little of the protocol with us.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's your response? You can't even be bothered to analyze the study ? You think that the skeptic position would be to throw it out without even attempting to find the flaws? If you can't find anything wrong with the methodology and think that the data was falsified, say so.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I don't know if you are correct or not, but this idea that we should automatically throw out data you don't like but keep the data you do just grates.

I've read a number of homeopathy threads, the studies cited by believers as evidence invariably have holes in the methodology or statistical analysis you could drive a truck through.

As for your test, it's hard to say, you have shared very little of the protocol with us.

Actually I started to analyze the studies. I realized none of you naysayers was going to give a rat what I said and I decided not to invest the time.

Basically the student's study I already commented on a half dozen times. No one tasted the stuff in that study.

The 2 ABC Research studies actually did find a texture difference. It was hard to compare since they used "15 cm" as their measure which I would have had to look up and didn't bother. I don't see they used some 1-10 scale as all the 8 and 9 scores suggest. Texture differed. The outcome was their 99 test subjects seemed to like all the samples about the same as far as I can see. That doesn't say the texture was affected, only that the 99 liked it. I'm not arguing personal preference here. I'm arguing it was noticeable and the label should have said the product differed. At that point I decided to quit wasting my time.

But do feel free to tell us how honest this company is and how the position that people selling things lie is the wrong default position. Surely we have no evidence of that.


Just what in the protocol is it you think I have not shared? All the details are just not worked out yet.

 

[Joey McGee]

Because I recognize that an ad claiming 9 doctors out of 10 prefer Tylenol for their patients is fake, that makes me "out in left field"?

No, your belief system against "industry" or "corporate" and "corrupt regulators" obviously comes from some kind of weird belief system and emotional fixation. Which is causing you to make up crazy conspiracy theories about 3 independent labs totally fabricating taste tests.

Got it.

Bizarre...

BPI lowered the ammonia level in their product after using studies on the higher level to convince the USDA that BPI didn't need to monitor bacterial contaminants in their LBT. Do you consider that honest?

You read whatever you want into old articles... I just read them.

"Beef Products said it had submitted new research to the agriculture department showing that its treatment remained effective with lower alkalinity. Agriculture officials said Beef Products’ latest study is under review."

Doesn't sound dishonest to me. Doesn't sound like they had anything to hide. What did the USDA find? Again, this company has the highest possible reputation amongst virtually all foodbourne illness experts... because there is no evidence of them being dishonest or lying. There is only you and your opinion, which everyone is ignoring in favor of the statements of the qualified experts in regards to this company's reputation. Statements I have put in the earlier thread, statements that anyone can find if they go looking for the qualified experts themselves.

 

[Marcus]

Just what in the protocol is it you think I have not shared? All the details are just not worked out yet.

I understand that you have not worked out the details yet, it would be good to known them before the test though. Things like the number of participants, how it will be double blinded(your previous response was that the skeptic leader would be passing out the samples, so of course he can't know what is in them. You'll need some type of labeling scheme, you can't just assign each type of meat one color.

How you get ground beef whose only difference is the presence of LFTB. This sounds like the hard part to me. After reading the first study( I know, you don't believe it, I'll leave it at that) I'm wondering if there are visual cues that could be used to tell the difference between the two meats, since they used red lights to prevent this.

Will the participants be exposed to each other, or will they be isolated?

The questions have to be decided, and what constitutes a hit and how many hits would be considered a win. If you want to include something about a texture difference, you can use whatever adjectives you want, the key would be if the participants successfully identify the LFTB burger as gristly, slimey, or whatever description you choose.

 

[Belz...]

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

Whether you are is irrelevant.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
How you get ground beef whose only difference is the presence of LFTB. This sounds like the hard part to me. After reading the first study( I know, you don't believe it, I'll leave it at that) I'm wondering if there are visual cues that could be used to tell the difference between the two meats, since they used red lights to prevent this.

Walmart claims to be selling burger with and without and if so that should solve the sample problem.

As for the rest, the study will be randomized and blinded, I know how to do that. I can understand you don't know that I know that, but it'll be done right and I'll describe the methodology when the details are worked out.


However, don't expect this to be a master's thesis here. It'll be enough to show LBT changes the texture. If people want to nitpick the test they are going to reject the results regardless of how well the test is done.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whether you are is irrelevant.

Maybe to you, but not to me. I think the competency and reliability of an observer is an important factor to consider.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Not when the observer literally cannot know precisely what is being observed.

When did the stuff first reach you? You don't and can't know.

What else changed (added, subtracted, altered) over that time? You don't and can't know.

Nor do you seem to care.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not when the observer literally cannot know precisely what is being observed.

When did the stuff first reach you? You don't and can't know.

What else changed (added, subtracted, altered) over that time? You don't and can't know.

Nor do you seem to care.

This has been addressed. You are not addressing the evidence but rather just denying it.

The timeline of LBT's introduction into the market and its increased use all coincide with the timing of my finding the texture problem in the burger. It coincides with the stores I was buying burger in. It was not in the burger I found reliably OK. All these things were documented in this thread, the stores, the timeline and the lack of LBT in the Whole Foods fresh ground burger.

Nothing else fits the timeline and where LBT was and wasn't.

Denying this evidence doesn't make it go away.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

How can you be sure that you're not altering your timeline to fit the LBT timeline? Were you keeping careful notes over the years (Kroger burger from 2/2/02 was chewy)?

When you talk to patients (if nurse practitioners do patient histories) and you ask how long a patient has been experiencing a symptom, what fudge factor do you apply to their answer to account for the human inability to accurately remember the passage of time?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How can you be sure that you're not altering your timeline to fit the LBT timeline? Were you keeping careful notes over the years (Kroger burger from 2/2/02 was chewy)?

When you talk to patients (if nurse practitioners do patient histories) and you ask how long a patient has been experiencing a symptom, what fudge factor do you apply to their answer to account for the human inability to accurately remember the passage of time?

That's the whole point of testing the hypothesis. You use the evidence (patient's history in your example) to form an hypothesis (establish a differential diagnosis) then you test.

Sometimes you can make a diagnosis based on the history alone even given patient histories can be unreliable. In the case of the LBT, there so far has been nothing else added to the differential that meets all the observations. If you have something else that has not already been offered as an equally likely hypothesis, feel free.

One does not just toss out the only thing on the dif list because something you aren't aware of might be the actual diagnosis. You test the hypothesis and if it fails you continue looking.



Your premise is asking for evidence no one would be expected to have in establishing an hypothesis. You are suggesting we develop hypotheses based on the results of a study. That's absurd. You develop the hypothesis first then test it. You don't establish proof first then hypothesize.