Pink Slime

[Joey McGee]

To further underscore my last point. Laura's lean ground beef costs about 5.50-6.00 a pound. The average ground beef costs 3.00 a pound. Not a point, not a win, a huge fail.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To further underscore my last point. Laura's lean ground beef costs about 5.50-6.00 a pound. The average ground beef costs 3.00 a pound. Not a point, not a win, a huge fail.

They could have marketed burger with LFTB as cheaper, they did not.

The point is, however, you were wrong on yet one more thing that you can't bring yourself to say.

Because you can't make a product that is that lean stick together!

When are you going to stop lying about your posts?

 

[Joey McGee]

They could have marketed burger with LFTB as cheaper, they did not.

Why would they market it as cheaper when it takes extra processes to extract it? When it is the same product being delivered? Makes no sense at all. Plus it was always sold for less as the USDA has maintained all along.

The point is, however, you were wrong on yet one more thing that you can't bring yourself to say.

When are you going to stop lying about your posts?[

I have zero idea what you're talking about. The product has so little fat in it that it doesn't stick together like regular ground beef. It's only good for burgers when you put like a fifth, in, then it's BETTER than burgers. I have no idea what you're rambling on about.

Talk about a vacuum.

 

[Draca]

Did Diane Sawyer smear "pink slime"?

http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/258246/publisher_ID/40/

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

News reporters are protected from libel. Think about it, if you could sue every reporter for errors or mischaracterizations, ... it's not practical. This has to be a publicity and/or harassment lawsuit. This is interesting but

The lawsuit, originally filed in South Dakota state court, is hinged partly on a state product-disparagement statute designed to protect farming interests. Twelve other states have similar laws - dubbed "veggie libel" measures by critics - but they have rarely been invoked.

Under the South Dakota version of the law, plaintiffs must show that defendants publicly spread information they knew to be false and stated or implied "that an agricultural food product is not safe for consumption by the public."

Proving someone 'knew' info to be false, that's an almost impossible standard to prove against a news organization. Heck, Fox News would go out of business if anyone seriously applied that standard to them.

 

[phiwum]

News reporters are protected from libel.

Er, I don't think so.

Think about it, if you could sue every reporter for errors or mischaracterizations, ... it's not practical. This has to be a publicity and/or harassment lawsuit. This is interesting butProving someone 'knew' info to be false, that's an almost impossible standard to prove against a news organization. Heck, Fox News would go out of business if anyone seriously applied that standard to them.

The same laws apply to reporters as to anyone else. That's why reporters have resouces like http://www.rcfp.org/digital-journalists-legal-guide/libel.

And why searching Google for "reporter sued for libel" brings up so many hits.

As with any libel suit, the mischaracterization has to matter. A minor misquote that does not change the meaning, for instance, isn't sufficient to win a libel suit, whether the defendant is a reporter or anybody else.

Seems to me that you made up this protection for reporters. But, I could be wrong. How about a citation?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Er, I don't think so.



The same laws apply to reporters as to anyone else. That's why reporters have resouces like http://www.rcfp.org/digital-journalists-legal-guide/libel.

And why searching Google for "reporter sued for libel" brings up so many hits.

As with any libel suit, the mischaracterization has to matter. A minor misquote that does not change the meaning, for instance, isn't sufficient to win a libel suit, whether the defendant is a reporter or anybody else.

Seems to me that you made up this protection for reporters. But, I could be wrong. How about a citation?

I wasn't talking about absolute immunity. I was talking about immunity because freedom of the press is broadly interpreted. It's a different thing altogether to make up a story like 'famous person' was drunk at a party, or 'famous person' is getting a divorce, or those kinds of successful libel cases.

For hits on Google, try "reporter successfully sued for libel". You'll find the results quite different from the hits you get showing how many pissed off people sued reporters over a story.

Texas Cattlemen vs Oprah Winfrey

Significance: The ruling in this case reaffirmed the right of a person to freely speak his or her opinion without fear of prosecution. Also, it was determined that beef does not qualify as perishable food under the Texas False Defamation of Perishable Food Products law. (The law is commonly known as the “veggie libel” law.)

It looks like case law says the “veggie libel” law doesn't even apply.


This site provides some clarity on the subject.

 

[phiwum]

I wasn't talking about absolute immunity. I was talking about immunity because freedom of the press is broadly interpreted. It's a different thing altogether to make up a story like 'famous person' was drunk at a party, or 'famous person' is getting a divorce, or those kinds of successful libel cases.

For hits on Google, try "reporter successfully sued for libel". You'll find the results quite different from the hits you get showing how many pissed off people sued reporters over a story.

Texas Cattlemen vs Oprah WinfreyIt looks like case law says the “veggie libel” law doesn't even apply.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I was responding to the following claim: News reporters are protected from libel.

Reporters have no special protection that others don't have. If I'm mistaken, show me.

ETA: Even the snippet about Winfrey that you quoted refers to the "right of a person" to give his opinion. There is no special right for reporters that protects them from libel more than any other person.

This site provides some clarity on the subject.

Er, right. Good link, that. Which is, of course, why I included it in my post to which you just replied.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I was responding to the following claim: News reporters are protected from libel.....

Your claim is "freedom of the press" offers no protection to reporters? That seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[phiwum]

Your claim is "freedom of the press" offers no protection to reporters? That seems a bit of a stretch.

My claim is that reporters gain no special protection from libel suits.

Whether you think that's a stretch or not really doesn't mean much. If I'm wrong, please show me evidence that I'm mistaken.

 

[Joey McGee]

It's a harassment lawsuit? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

They provably ignored evidence that their damaging claims were wrong, hundreds of people lost their jobs, and when the victim tries to get justice it's called harassment?

WTF!!!! LOL

 

[Lowpro]

It's a harassment lawsuit? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

They provably ignored evidence that their damaging claims were wrong, hundreds of people lost their jobs, and when the victim tries to get justice it's called harassment?

WTF!!!! LOL

What I wonder is who should be accountable for the debacle. Sure we can bash on ABC news but in true "viral" fashion the pink slime fiasco exploded far and wide. I mean should Zirnstein be charged for his involvement too? I don't know. I think the entire debacle demonstrates that stupid people who lie to stupid people amplify stupidity and BPI suffered for it. ABC was full of crap and people ate it up and added their own crap to it.

 

[Joey McGee]

I mean should Zirnstein be charged for his involvement too?

I say yes because he has a responsibility not to use his credibility recklessly, to not say things he should provably know better not to say. "It’s not fresh ground beef.” "It’s a substitute", next thing you know people are assuming that it's cartilage and tendons or even guts, because what the hell else is "not beef" or "a substitute" for beef? He knowingly or recklessly used his credibility in an irresponsible way, the law is very clear about that. He thinks he's a superhero fighting against pink slime, Batman and Robin him and Custer, that's what they said. So when you publicly declare war on a product using your credibility and you get the facts wrong or make it sound like something it's not, you're going to be liable and you'd have to be a pink slime ball to think it's acceptable to act like that.

think the entire debacle demonstrates that stupid people who lie to stupid people amplify stupidity and BPI suffered for it. ABC was full of crap and people ate it up and added their own crap to it.

ABC is some really bottom of the barrel ******** these days, what the hell. Guess what network funds the Jamie Oliver show? The other day I saw what Brian Ross thinks what doing his job is. These people are jackasses.

 

[Lowpro]

Well that's true of Zirstein but initially (iirc) the email he sent was to a fellow employee and was later made public. After that he was interviewed and gave his opinion on LFTB but he is absolutely wrong in that LFTB is a "substitute" to anything as it IS beef; it's source is the trimmings of the meat and when it's processed all that's really been done is more meat has been added to meat. When I've gone to a butchers and have a tenderloin prepared for me I ask them to keep the trimmings so that I can grind it up to add later to my hamburger meat.

So as far as smearing the process I don't know what line needs to be crossed here; as a matter of personal taste some may find LFTB to be unappealing. Those people also probably eat chocolate not knowing it was made with insect parts in it (unavoidable in the processing) and it's not a smear to say "lookie at this gross crap!" but by declaring that LFTB is anything "un-beef" is wrong both on definition by USDA and by common sense.

 

[Draca]

Interesting article revealing internal emails about pink slime.

Internal Emails Reveal FSIS Was Divided on ‘Pink Slime’
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/...-fsis-was-divided-on-pink-slime/#.UWN4Rc8o5dg

My favorite:
Sally Jones, a senior technical adviser on labeling, asking if she knew anything about “pink slime” in early March, she responded incredulously.

“Are you kidding?? It is the BPI finely textured beef that is treated with ammonia,” wrote Jones. “Let’s see, Ashland and Ron were about the 50th people from DC to go see the stuff, and Ron said it went in white and came out red. It’s pretty much fat with a little lean, that is heated, centrifuged and becomes finely textured beef or beef. YUCK.”

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...as a matter of personal taste some may find LFTB to be unappealing. Those people also probably eat chocolate not knowing it was made with insect parts in it (unavoidable in the processing) and it's not a smear to say .....

What bull. The texture of burger with pink slime in it sucks and I could care less there are insect parts in my cereal.

 

[Lowpro]

What bull. The texture of burger with pink slime in it sucks and I could care less there are insect parts in my cereal.

What bull. Insect parts in my cereal suck and I could care less about the texture of my burger with pink slime in it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What bull. Insect parts in my cereal suck and I could care less about the texture of my burger with pink slime in it.

That's a non-sequitur to my comment which followed you claiming, "Those people also probably eat chocolate not knowing it was made with insect parts in it." But whatever.

BTW, cowhide is 100% "beef".

 

[Lowpro]

That's a non-sequitur to my comment which followed you claiming, "Those people also probably eat chocolate not knowing it was made with insect parts in it." But whatever.

BTW, cowhide is 100% "beef".

Oh cut the horsecrap. My point about the insect parts is that people get disgusted about things but their disgust is not an indicator of health. In the case of chocolate the insect parts are unavoidable in the process but do not affect the health of the chocolate in any significant way and there is no deception when the chocolatier fails to mention it either. Your disgust in beef with LFTB likewise is not an indicator of health and there is no deception in the industry by failing to mention it. If all you have to piss and moan about like a child is that it disgusts you because you just figured it out then we can ignore you because your disgust gives us nothing useful.

And your cowhide comparison is ridiculous and you should feel ridiculous for using it.

Oh and if you were as smart as you pontificate to be then you'd have realized my initial response was mocking you and shouldn't have been considered a non-sequitir. The fact that you decided to pick a part of my post instead of actually addressing it was enough for me to dismiss you as an idiot.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Get out of your tunnel, Lowpro, and recognize you have this wrong. It was never about the ick factor for me, it was about the texture that ruined my burger long before I ever heard of pink slime.

Tendons and cowhide, both mostly connective tissue, are probably closer than tendons and muscle meat, but whatever.