Pink Slime

[GlennB]

Connective tissue is mainly protein (collagen and elastin iirc), so what you say here is technically true.

Whether anybody wants to eat it or believes it's reasonable to call it "lean beef" is another matter.

Sorry what are you talking about and what are your resources?

Here I provided a very clear source, and one that was funded by BPI themselves.

“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,” he writes.

You know what, I'm going to believe SG and Glenn over the actual author of the study. That's what I'm actually going to do.

Our little exchange wasn't about nutritional content, so your rebuttal fails.

 

[GlennB]

This is a problem? Why?

Would you object if I served you up a plate of pulverised tendon and cartilage (cooked ) saying "Here, tuck into your beef" ?

Obviously I exaggerate hugely here, but the problem is one of terminology and deception.

"Low-fat tissue of cow origin" <> "Lean beef" in my book.

Let me throw the question back to you - if a meat patty or sausage contained minced earthworm while being marketed as "100% lean meat" would that be a problem?

 

[mortimer]

Would you object if I served you up a plate of pulverised tendon and cartilage (cooked ) saying "Here, tuck into your beef" ?

Obviously I exaggerate hugely here, but the problem is one of terminology and deception.

If it was safe, and tasted OK, why would I object?

"Low-fat tissue of cow origin" <> "Lean beef" in my book.

Why not?

Let me throw the question back to you - if a meat patty or sausage contained minced earthworm while being marketed as "100% lean meat" would that be a problem?

I'm hoping you're not being serious.

 

[Joey McGee]

Here I provided a very clear source, and one that was funded by BPI themselves.



Our little exchange wasn't about nutritional content, so your rebuttal fails.

Then what it is about? I thought it was about how connective tissue was being used as filler. Since this is a lie, I have no idea what you are talking about. It doesn't say they are using connective tissue. Try again.

Would you object if I served you up a plate of pulverised tendon and cartilage (cooked ) saying "Here, tuck into your beef" ?

Why do you keep making stuff up?

Yes, the sentence you have lost your collective **** over is "the LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins." Ok. Does that not imply that there are connective tissue proteins in regular ground beef, just less? Do you see where you have gone wrong yet...

I need to stop posting in this thread, sorry.

 

[GlennB]

Yes, the sentence you have lost your collective **** over is "the LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins." Ok.

Excellent, as this is a point you have strenuously denied before. For example:

".....you should simply be made to eat a burger containing LFTB. Don't worry, it's a scientific fact there is no connective tissue in it."

Does that not imply that there are connective tissue proteins in regular ground beef, just less? Do you see where you have gone wrong yet...

I know full well that muscle meat includes connective tissue. Just ~50% less (according to the study under discussion), as you now accept.

 

[GlennB]

Why not?

Because we typically leave parts that are normally considered indedible on the side. Powdered cow bone would be 'lean bovine tissue', but could hardly be considered "lean beef", could it? And nobody I know gnaws at the cartilage or tendon tissue.

I'm hoping you're not being serious.

Semi serious, but only to make a point (one you've ignored). Earthworm 'meat' is perfectly nutritious, just that I have no plans to eat any. And if it were present in a food product I'd like to have the information in order to make that choice myself.

 

[Joey McGee]

I thought it was obvious that we were talking about tendons and the stuff that is around the muscle meat, not the connective tissue that is within muscle meat. It is ALL muscle meat, right?

And in regards to the post that was edited, I should have said, anecdotes aren't interesting at this point, evidence is, I didn't mean to be mean.

 

[Joey McGee]

Right? With that non-issue out of the way, now you can explain where you are getting this ridiculous nonsense about cartilage and tendons. Got a link there?

 

[GlennB]

Right? With that non-issue out of the way, now you can explain where you are getting this ridiculous nonsense about cartilage and tendons. Got a link there?

First of all, do you now accept that FTLB contains ~2x the connective tissue of beef chuck^WP (which itself is rather higher in connective tissue than the edible portion of prime cuts)? The study in question compared FTLB to chuck.

"The chuck contains a lot of connective tissue, including collagen, which partially melts during cooking. Meat from the chuck is usually used for stewing, slow cooking, braising, or pot roasting."

I hope we have established that point.

As for your question, I don't know what it means. What "ridiculous nonsense" are you referring to? But if it's the fact that butchers remove the more prime meat by hand, leaving the more difficult tissue to the machines, then I'd say it's self evident that the scraps will be higher in connective tissue, and the results of the process confirm this.

But please feel free to enlarge.

 

[Joey McGee]

I never didn't accept that study, pat yourself on the back much? Besides it's 17 years old the product has evolved since then.

Younger animals have a much higher amount of connective tissue in their muscle meat. Are the evil corporations sneaking connective tissue into veal? Does this point make you realize why I think this is funny?

Do you not realize it is being claimed that tendons or anything other than muscle meat are in this product?

Would you object if I served you up a plate of pulverised tendon and cartilage (cooked ) saying "Here, tuck into your beef" ?

Were you just talking out of your ass here?

 

[Joey McGee]

...I didn't really notice added ground up tendons in my burger changed the texture...

WTF?

 

[GlennB]

I never didn't accept that study, pat yourself on the back much? Besides it's 17 years old the product has evolved since then.

Then why have you been denying the presence of connective tissue in FTLB, let alone its high proportion?

Younger animals have a much higher amount of connective tissue in their muscle meat. Are the evil corporations sneaking connective tissue into veal? Does this point make you realize why I think this is funny?

I have no idea why you're introducing this point, as we don't usually eat the gristle from veal.

Do you not realize it is being claimed that tendons or anything other than muscle meat are in this product?

I can't even understand this sentence. Are you drunk again?

Were you just talking out of your ass here?

No. I was illustrating - in an extreme manner - why it isn't reasonable to describe bovine products high in CT as 'lean beef'. I asked a similar question earlier ... would ground cow bone, skin, hoof or horn reasonably qualify for the description 'lean beef' ? After all, they're from a cow and are low in fat and (variably) high in protein

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is a problem? Why?

Because it changes the texture of the burger. Some people don't mind, I do. But when they hid the fact the stuff was added to the burger people like myself who didn't like the texture had no way of knowing which burger would taste normal. Even the people behind the meat counter couldn't say.

If they would have labeled it properly instead of trying to hide it from consumers by calling it "beef" when in reality it had very little meat, there wouldn't be an issue today.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Lets revisit the lies SG believes

OK, let's.

The reason they need ammonia is because they need to heat the meat to help it separate in the centrifuge. Increased heat leads to increased bacterial activity, the perfectly safe treatment prevents that.

SG has said repeatedly she is not in the, 'it's bad for you', camp.

1. A USDA offcial was bribed to let this go

One of the key regulators responsible for the decision to approve adding LFTB to hamburger without informing the consumer left her government position shortly after and was paid 1.4 million dollars (spread out over a number of years) to sit on the board of one of the main beneficiaries of the decision. While it was argued it only amounted to $40K a year, what was ignored was that $40K was for working a couple days a year.

This revolving door of government is well known, a recognized problem, and certainly not something SG imagined.

2. This product was only approved as dog food before this.

And you have evidence that isn't a true statement? (Except I believe the trim was sold to be put in animal feed, not necessarily just dog food.)

3. Sorry I have more but I can't stop laughing

I lieu of actual arguments no doubt.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... it isn't reasonable to describe bovine products high in CT as 'lean beef'. I asked a similar question earlier ... would ground cow bone, skin, hoof or horn reasonably qualify for the description 'lean beef' ? After all, they're from a cow and are low in fat and (variably) high in protein

Another good question not answered in this thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let's clarify the tendon thing.

The beef industry websites and some university websites associated with the beef industry say there are no tendons in the LFTB. This is a moot point since the issue is the connective tissue proteins, not which body part they come from.

From Scientific American guest blogger, See Arr Oh:

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%).

Note the author cites the same analysis I and others have been citing throughout the thread, Finely Textured Lean Beef as an Ingredient for Processed Meats - A.S. Leaflet R1361

If there are no tendons in the LFTB, then where does the fibrous protein fibers come from? Something other than tendons, ligaments, and cartilage? If it's the same kind of tissue, who cares? It's still fibrous CT protein, not globular muscle meat protein.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Finely Textured Lean Beef as an Ingredient for Processed Meats - A.S. Leaflet R1361

It's interesting revisiting this document. The point of the analysis was to find out why LFTB was an unsuitable ingredient in hot dogs.

Despite the low fat content, there has been concern that this material does not function well in processed meats such as frankfurters. This study was initiated to determine the cause of the lower functionality in LFTB and to develop processing treatments to improve the functionality of LFTB. As an ingredient, LFTB represents a high valueadded material and provides an excellent means of utilizing high-fat beef trimmings. Improved functionality of LFTB will add to the total value of beef carcasses.

I repeat that I have no issue with using as much of the cow as possible, and I have no issue with the safety of the stuff (though there has been more breakthrough bacteria in the product, I advocate cooking all burger thoroughly anyway).

In the discussion part of the paper, it was noted:

composition
analysis showed protein concentration of LFTB to be very similar to beef chucks.

However, re the quality of that protein:

Fractionation of proteins showed the LFTB to be relatively high in insoluble proteins and collagen compared to beef chuck. The highly functional highionic-strength proteins were present in low concentrations. Thus, the lower functionality is not surprising...

Like I said, if they would have just labeled it and been honest regardless if consumers accepted the product or not, there wouldn't be a problem now. But the industry decided to slip it in and not inform consumers.

Why would they do that? Because they were afraid consumers would reject the product. Well, in this country, that is supposed to be our right to do.

 

[theprestige]

Finely Textured Lean Beef as an Ingredient for Processed Meats - A.S. Leaflet R1361

It's interesting revisiting this document. The point of the analysis was to find out why LFTB was an unsuitable ingredient in hot dogs.


I repeat that I have no issue with using as much of the cow as possible, and I have no issue with the safety of the stuff (though there has been more breakthrough bacteria in the product, I advocate cooking all burger thoroughly anyway).

In the discussion part of the paper, it was noted:

However, re the quality of that protein:

Like I said, if they would have just labeled it and been honest regardless if consumers accepted the product or not, there wouldn't be a problem now. But the industry decided to slip it in and not inform consumers.

Why would they do that? Because they were afraid consumers would reject the product. Well, in this country, that is supposed to be our right to do.

I'm beginning to think that the Kosher labeling example should be a litmus test for pro-nanny-staters.

Anybody who looks at food labeling questions of personal preference (or religious prohibitions) and instead of saying "no problem, we'll just emulate the success of the kosher community", says "no problem, we'll just get the government to criminalize something" is clearly having a gay crush on the Nanny State, Solver Of All Life's Problems.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm beginning to think that the Kosher labeling example should be a litmus test for pro-nanny-staters.

Anybody who looks at food labeling questions of personal preference (or religious prohibitions) and instead of saying "no problem, we'll just emulate the success of the kosher community", says "no problem, we'll just get the government to criminalize something" is clearly having a gay crush on the Nanny State, Solver Of All Life's Problems.

What crap to claim that simply wanting to know which burger was going to have distasteful texture and which would not, means one wants a nanny state.

 

[Joey McGee]

I'm sorry you really just repeated what has been called out as ******** before. There are higher amounts of connective tissue in a study from 1995. The author said that people seeing this as having a negative effect on nutrition were wrong. We have seen that it is actually more tender when we look at the majority of taste tests. We also see that despite the higher amount of connective tissue in veal that no one would ever call that product tough or not-tender. So the presence of higher amounts of connective tissue would never insinuate a lesser quality product.

We have people far out of their depth reading what they want into studies that actually don't say anything of the kind. It is ALL muscle meat. Yes, there are connective tissues throughout the body, not just in muscle meat, just fantasist ranting.