No, are you blind? I said that people are claiming that this product is not 100% muscle meat, it is, everything else is a lie. Sure, it has higher amounts of connective tissue, but that is from the muscle meat, and from a study from 17 years ago when now they have ways of making it even more palatable and tender. I'm just done with you now too.
Not under USDA standards, which the USDA has confirmed, this product does, this all muscle meat.... 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
Happy yet?
This is the exact kind of blogger the author of the study is saying is wrong maybe you missed that. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You are saying that the connective tissues which are present in all meat muscle is equal to tendons. Well, that's funny.
Wow, your denial is something else.
Not sure what you mean.
Do you even have a clue here? The stuff was added to hamburger and the issue is, a label saying so should have been required but wasn't. LFTB significantly changes the texture of hamburger. It is an additive not previously added to hamburger. The public has a right to know.
LFTB has ammonia added as part of processing and ammonia is not "generally recognized as safe". But the regulators with heavy lobbying from the companies that stood to gain financially got an exception for LFTB with no input whatsoever from consumers.
By all accounts, the "additive" is actually beef. Just not the kind of beef texture you like. The public has a right to know that there's beef in their beef? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's already clearly indicated on the label.
Don't conflate your ammonia labeling concerns with your LFTB texture labeling concerns. Otherwise I might think you're trying to sneak in "the government should save me from gross hamburger texture" when your argument really only supports "the government should reconsider whether ammonia really is a GRAS additive".
By all accounts, cowhide is "beef".
Read the thread. You are talking out of the wrong orifice.
Do you want a nanny state where food manufacturers actually have to put honest labels on your food?
Read the thread. I had to return burger or throw it out over and over again all the while the meat counter employees kept repeating, "No, to my knowledge they haven't changed anything."
You need to look at the section collagen in total protein. The USDA label says that there is 20g of protein for every 112 of product, and regular ground beef has 22g. Yes, muscle is only about 20% protein. Again, this is muscle meat. And the collegen in protein % is 28% in the study.
Joey, stop ignoring the facts, it's getting tiring. Let me remind you yet again: THE ANALYSIS SHOWED THE LFTB CONTAINED 77% FIBROUS PROTEIN. GROUND CHUCK, BY COMPARISON, CONTAINS 30% FIBROUS PROTEIN.
Proof you are reading the study wrong. Insoluable protein does not equal connective tissue.
Yes, you just said this product is 77% connective tissue. Do you want to try that again?
Before this whole scandal was fabricated by some idiot with a tv show and another idiot with a blog, they weren't allowed to label it something different, the USDA had to make a change to make it voluntary to do so, and they only did that because they were trying to help the company out with the hysteria-driven attacks. So that's why you need a conspiracy theory that BPI paid off the USDA make it so they didn't have to label it as something different in the first place, which under close scrutiny has absolutely no truth to it, not even a reason to suspect.
Hopefully that's the end.
Wow, exactly the opposite of what you just said. I think I'll go with the experts from the government as opposed to you.
The caps were to point out the facts you keep denying. I'm not angry that you are denying the facts. You're angry some companies went belly up, I'm pleased the burger I buy is less likely to have that gawdawful texture.Whoa! Don't get angry there! It's the holidays take it easy
You really should have Googled it before posting. It's pretty basic biology.
(bolding mine) "Involved in muscle movement" refers to the structures that contract when you flex you muscle. That's why there is some connective tissue in muscle. But muscle is still primarily made of the globular protein, especially myoglobin.
Myoglobin is the protein in your muscles that makes them red.
BPI funds an advertising message about LFTB. They are directly involved in profiting from the stuff. I don't know all the companies involved in funding the lobbyists that worked on getting LFTB into hamburger unlabeled. Nor do I know who specifically awarded the lucrative position to the regulator who played a key role influencing ruling.
This is your answer? No answer, just claim there's some conspiracy belief is involved by asking the question?
Not the opposite of what I said at all, but apparently you keep reading stuff into my posts that isn't there. Nutrition and "meat" are not synonymous. "Meat" generally refers to muscle meat. Protein that is not muscle meat can still be nutritious as long as it's digestible.
You have no source for the hi-lighted claim about muscle meat. What do you suppose goes into hotdogs and sausage? Only muscle meat?
Trying to sidewind your way out of admitting you've been wrong in this thread?
Because you can't make a product that is that lean stick together! Ironically this is the feature that makes it most appealing, making ground beef leaner and also making lean products more palatable. Nothing nefarious about this except to the CT.
link below said:
So I should read the statement for the plaintiff before the case goes to court and take it as the gospel truth? Not that there is anything in the paper that backs your claim anyway.
Find where I've ever said any of the fibrous protein was "bad" other than altering the texture of the hamburger. Straw men don't make your case.
"Looks appealing"?
You've been arguing this from page one of the thread!It was added to burger without labeling. It changed the texture of the burger. When it was revealed, there was a backlash. They brought the backlash on themselves by not disclosing the change in the first place.
Yes, the analyzed ground chuck was 30% fibrous protein. Where have I ever said differently?
They could have labeled it and marketed it as making the burger leaner. They chose not to.
No. Never even came close to insinuating that.
What? What's my claim?
I'm not saying it never happens, I'm saying there is no evidence of it here. You're clearly trying to say that it's happening here, based on no evidence.
Not responsible, only remotely involved, was approved six months after she left the USDA, according to the lawsuit. Not "take your pick." Big difference. Except in CT land I guess. As if you're trying to win points by claiming I accept that the lawsuit is evidence. I'm saying that you're on thin ice and you don't actually have proof of anything over believing the word of one person who was fired from there... Maybe you could address this central weakness to your claims when the vast majority of academic and government sources vehemently disagree with your position. And there is 1.2 billion lawsuit pending over the claims you're making.
Evidence for that? lol
You claimed that the 77% insoluble means fibrous. You haven't even come close to showing that.
You are claiming this product isn't meat! You mention dog food and cartilage! You haven't even proved that it changes the texture negatively besides one anecdotal report. There have been numerous taste tests done on it and the majority prefer burger with lftb in it.
You saw 77%, your eyes glazed over, and thought you had a point, you don't"Looks appealing"?
Where are you getting insoluble = fibrous protein this makes no sense.
Wrong. I have been saying there is nothing in this product which is not in regular ground beef, which makes it still beef. Which does not change when there is extra collagen in it, and I admit that. Nice try! You might have forgotten that when this thread started, people were saying there was tendons and cartilage and even guts in this product. Now where down to the amount of collagen present due to the areas where this meat comes from. Big difference, nice attempt at self-congratulations though.
Ah, but I see you've finally conceded, pretending you never denied it in the first place. Interesting how the human brain does that.
The added burger to burger, that's why.
For the better, says all of the best evidence with actual blind studies by reputable people. I mean as if you claimed that all four private companies took a payoff when they reported that, and then expected anyone to care what your personal feelings were.
Lies. They were only allowed to call it something different on the label when the usda approved an optional labeling. Because by the standards of USDA it WAS beef. Keyword, optional, that's because the usda has not backed away from the idea that this is actually the same molecular structure as ground beef, just a more intense way of recovering it. That means nothing has changed, the usda just threw them a lifeboat with this optional labeling change in the hope some people would buy from them again. Really, really pathetic and lame.
Again, insoluble does not mean fibrous protein. You said "LFTB isn't muscle meat" If it having collagen or insoluble tissue in it is how you're judging this, then ground chuck isn't "muscle meat" either. It's the same thing, from areas that have more collagen maybe, but the same thing. And this is where you've gone off the rails.
Why would they label something that is the same thing as not being the same thing? What to mollycoddle the conspiracy theorist paranoids out there?
You can make ground beef from cuts of prime steak too, not like anyone gives a ****.