Pink Slime

[PitPat]

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.

Being a gadfly.

Post 55: Cartilage and connective tissue explains the rubbery gristley texture I've been disgusted by and trying to figure out.

 

[Lowpro]

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.

Oh. Honestly I thought of your complaints about texture to actually be an "ick" factor. I do indeed have that wrong.

Anyways I actually do recommend next time you get some meat from a butcher to ask them to save the trimmings and grind them up and mix them into your hamburger patties. It's actually very good, especially if you get it from a sirloin.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How about you write to the pink slime factory that's still operating and ask them to make you a burger out of the stuff.

If you recall, they couldn't put more than 20% in the burger without getting excessive complaints. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Lowpro]

How about you write to the pink slime factory that's still operating and ask them to make you a burger out of the stuff.

If you recall, they couldn't put more than 20% in the burger without getting excessive complaints. Why do you suppose that is?

Pink slime is not intended to actually BE a burger patty itself and was never developed as such I think you're committing a misdirection. Food additives are additives when they do not significantly change the composition:

(a) substances that are added during the processing of a food but are removed in
some manner from the food before it is packaged in its finished form;
(b) substances that are added to a food during processing, are converted into
constituents normally present in the food, and do not significantly increase the
amount of the constituents naturally found in the food; or
(c) substances that are added to a food for their technical or functional effect in
the processing but are present in the finished food at insignificant levels and do
not have any technical or functional effect in that food.

source

So the percentage probably was made in order to comply with those standards and not due to a popular demand. But hey maybe I am wrong; I don't recall anyone determining the reason for the percentage they used. And if you read that source you'll see that the factories themselves do not determine that for themselves; the FSIS does. And they determined that Pink Slime in that percentage is considered an additive.

 

[Aepervius]

Pink slime is not intended to actually BE a burger patty itself and was never developed as such I think you're committing a misdirection. Food additives are additives when they do not significantly change the composition:



source

So the percentage probably was made in order to comply with those standards and not due to a popular demand. But hey maybe I am wrong; I don't recall anyone determining the reason for the percentage they used. And if you read that source you'll see that the factories themselves do not determine that for themselves; the FSIS does. And they determined that Pink Slime in that percentage is considered an additive.

There is a lot of way to weasel around . For example :

"(b) substances that are added to a f
ood during processing, are converted into
constituents normally present in the f
ood, and do not significantly increase the
amount of the constituents naturally found in the food; or "

Technically true, because if you change the texture without changing the amount of natural constituent, you pass.

Furthermore ask yourself why it was not listed. You know if it had been properly listed I am willing to bet it would have been fine, just a few marketing correction to get ride of the pink slime word. But it was not listed.

The reason the additive was developed is because it is cheaper than normal burger stuff. The reason it was limited to 20% is almost certainly because that was the amount an acceptable number of people did not remark too much a difference.

But the fact is that it was not added out of ecological reason, or to make the quality higher. it was added because it was cheaper than normal meat. And only that.

 

[Lowpro]

There is a lot of way to weasel around . For example :

"(b) substances that are added to a f
ood during processing, are converted into
constituents normally present in the f
ood, and do not significantly increase the
amount of the constituents naturally found in the food; or "

Technically true, because if you change the texture without changing the amount of natural constituent, you pass.

Furthermore ask yourself why it was not listed. You know if it had been properly listed I am willing to bet it would have been fine, just a few marketing correction to get ride of the pink slime word. But it was not listed.

The reason the additive was developed is because it is cheaper than normal burger stuff. The reason it was limited to 20% is almost certainly because that was the amount an acceptable number of people did not remark too much a difference.

But the fact is that it was not added out of ecological reason, or to make the quality higher. it was added because it was cheaper than normal meat. And only that.

It's not weaseling. Meat recovery has been a common practice well before LFTB was manufactured; even BUTCHERS used to do it in their own shops because ground beef is desired with different fat content. That's not at a slaughterhouse that's in the shop you as a consumer buy from. All Beef Inc did was manufacture it on a larger scale (also safer as far as food safety is concerned). The reason it's 20% is probably a mixture of standard fat content and whatever industries want the mixture to be which is informed by texture but also cost, availability, but also probably because 20% is the most successful mix that sells. Not because they're avoiding outcry but because it just works best for the industry. That may also be an FSIS decision but I am not sure of that. But weaseling? Hardly. Believe it or else, people actually probably DO like ground beef that has lftb in it (or lower fat in general). They just change their tune when they actually learn about it.

And the reason it's not listed is because additives don't have to be listed and there's nothing to really list with LFTB; it's nothing different. That's like saying I would have to list the water dilution to tea if I want it to taste weaker.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...So the percentage probably was made in order to comply with those standards and not due to a popular demand. But hey maybe I am wrong; I don't recall anyone determining the reason for the percentage they used. ....

You are wrong. One of the companies early on did taste tests and found adding 20% led to complaints that the smell of ammonia was too obvious. 15% was about the max they could get away with. The link's in the thread.

You're wasting everyone's time trying to re-litigate everything that's already been covered in the thread without even reading what's been posted. At a minimum you should go through the 32 pages and read the citations.

 

[Lowpro]

You are wrong. One of the companies early on did taste tests and found adding 20% led to complaints that the smell of ammonia was too obvious. 15% was about the max they could get away with. The link's in the thread.

You're wasting everyone's time trying to re-litigate everything that's already been covered in the thread without even reading what's been posted. At a minimum you should go through the 32 pages and read the citations.

First of all there is absolutely no reason not to re-litigate especially when there are 32 pages. It doesn't waste anyone's time unless the outcome doesn't change which is something you and I do not know. Don't bully around.

Secondly the only citation I found (after doing a search for "smell" rather than ammonia because ammonia came up a lot) was this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2

If you're referring to another citation it seems to be elusive. You don't have to search for it, I'll do it but if this isn't the citation you're getting the 20-15% decrease from (we'll get to that) could you at least give me more information on it so I can search for it myself.

Okay onto the article.

In 2004, lunch officials increased the amount of Beef Products meat allowed in its hamburgers to 15 percent, from 10 percent, to increase savings. In a taste test at the time, some school children favored burgers with higher amounts of processed beef.

Nothing about 20-15% which is why I felt maybe this wasn't the right article.

As to smell:

In early 2003, officials in Georgia returned nearly 7,000 pounds to Beef Products after cooks who were making meatloaf for state prisoners detected a “very strong odor of ammonia” in 60-pound blocks of the trimmings, state records show.

“It was frozen, but you could still smell ammonia,” said Dr. Charles Tant, a Georgia agriculture department official. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

It sounds like the cooks were buying LFTB direct rather than mixed which is why it had the ammonia odor; it was not mixed into any percentage of ground beef at least from what I gather. If that's right then that's probably why it smelled. From this article I do not see how it was THIS cause (the smell) that determined the % use of LTFB. That leads me to believe it must be in another article or the relation is a mistake.

Now look there's a reason why the "smell" makes no sense to the % choice and that's because ground beef is actually sold at a fat content ( 80/20 or 93/7) and because LFTB is extremely lean its addition would shift that ratio. You would want to put LFTB in and keep those percentages. The ratios for ground beef exist as a standard, I don't know why. It's always the ratio I've seen though. If you're going to use LFTB you would want to at least keep that ratio for cooking purposes (too little fat changes both the texture as it's too brittle and the cooking time). That seems more practical explanation. Whether it's true I don't know but I am not finding anything that substantiates the "smell" of ammonia dictating the %age. The USDA seems to give that recommendation and 15% is the maximum but not necessarily the standard amount either but I would go ahead and assume that's irrelevant.

 

[Joey McGee]

ffs there is more ammonia in the burger bun

http://www.beefisbeef.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CBFacts.png

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you both wait until the evidence is no longer fresh in people's minds to start the thread up again in hopes no one will point out all the evidence that has been presented?

Joey, that Beefisbeef web site is a corporate shill site. It's not any more reliable now than it was when you posted that propaganda puff stuff earlier.

 

[Joey McGee]

lol ct thread

 

[Lowpro]

So you both wait until the evidence is no longer fresh in people's minds to start the thread up again in hopes no one will point out all the evidence that has been presented?
.

Then I leave my post open to readers and extend the argument. I made efforts to find your source, admitted that it may not be the source you specifically referred to and admitted as to why (and even requested that you double-check for me with minimal effort; a simple "that aint it" would be more than what you're giving...) brought up a potentially strong misrepresentation within the argument (again if the argument comes from the source I linked then we do indeed have legitimate reason to discuss). The complaints about the smell of ammonia in relation to the percentage chosen for LTFB make no sense on a practical level or through the source but I again emphasize that the source is suspect in ambiguity (the 20% to 15% decision does not exist within the one I linked and the problem of smell seems to be in relation to the 100% LFTB sold by BPI not a mixture which is regulated by the USDA) but also in practicality. You wouldn't want a larger mixture because more than say 15-20% would (A) be beyond the classification of an additive by the USDA for reasons I am not clear on and that was the original question anyways... but more importantly (B) that would be too lean to cook with and be successful as a product.

And the only reason I'm taking the time to even present this again is because it has not been discussed via this source (again assuming it's the one you're referring to). I haven't found the rationale for the percentage choice of LFTB additive. I've found the criteria for all additives (I linked them for you) but I haven't found specifics. You said you presented them earlier but as my argument stands what you said ain't what it is.

 

[Joey McGee]

there is more ammonia in a bun than a burger... you have the floor, prove me wrong skeptic

 

[Joey McGee]

....I leave my post open to readers and extend the argument.

Excuse me sorry, how is a statement like this necessary at at a forum like this? Shame.

 

[Joey McGee]

It's hard to make a good joke on how RIDICULOUS this thread has gotten sorry

 

[Aepervius]

It's hard to make a good joke on how RIDICULOUS this thread has gotten sorry

It has gotten ridiculous indeed. But IMNSHO not due to the reason you think.
For example the way some of you go to find excuse why it was not mentioned , I find that funny.

In case of the food industry I have my standard : if somebody do not mention something, it is because they fear people would rightfully (as in , their right as consumer to avoid something out of science based, or belief based reason) avoid their product if they knew.

 

[Aepervius]

It's not weaseling. Meat recovery has been a common practice well before LFTB was manufactured; even BUTCHERS used to do it in their own shops because ground beef is desired with different fat content. That's not at a slaughterhouse that's in the shop you as a consumer buy from. All Beef Inc did was manufacture it on a larger scale (also safer as far as food safety is concerned). The reason it's 20% is probably a mixture of standard fat content and whatever industries want the mixture to be which is informed by texture but also cost, availability, but also probably because 20% is the most successful mix that sells. Not because they're avoiding outcry but because it just works best for the industry. That may also be an FSIS decision but I am not sure of that. But weaseling? Hardly. Believe it or else, people actually probably DO like ground beef that has lftb in it (or lower fat in general). They just change their tune when they actually learn about it.

And the reason it's not listed is because additives don't have to be listed and there's nothing to really list with LFTB; it's nothing different. That's like saying I would have to list the water dilution to tea if I want it to taste weaker.

Wrong. it would be like not listing that 20% of the water you use to make your beer/tea/whatever is tap water because it is cheaper to add to your 80% natural source water you advertise using. It is maybe legal but highly deceptive.

"Believe it or else, people actually probably DO like ground beef that has lftb in it (or lower fat in general). They just change their tune when they actually learn about it. "

Yeah. Right.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
"Believe it or else, people actually probably DO like ground beef that has lftb in it (or lower fat in general). They just change their tune when they actually learn about it. "

Yeah. Right.

There were people that preferred with over without and vice versa in some of the research. I don't recall learning about it made them change their minds.

The texture is distinctly different. I don't care about the ick factor except as it relates to the misleading studies of the actual bacterial hazards but I cook my burger so that was more of an issue with the school lunch programs.

It's a lie the consumer was saving money, all the savings went to profit.

My main complaint was the false labeling, I would like the choice, thank you very much.

Lowpro and Joey just keep ignoring all this and now want to ignore it some more.

 

[Lowpro]

There were people that preferred with over without and vice versa in some of the research. I don't recall learning about it made them change their minds.

The texture is distinctly different. I don't care about the ick factor except as it relates to the misleading studies of the actual bacterial hazards but I cook my burger so that was more of an issue with the school lunch programs.

It's a lie the consumer was saving money, all the savings went to profit.

My main complaint was the false labeling, I would like the choice, thank you very much.

Lowpro and Joey just keep ignoring all this and now want to ignore it some more.

Er I don't think I've ignored it but how you've persuaded yourself isn't persuasive to me. That's not a bad thing, it doesn't mean you're wrong. Before I had made a mistake; I thought that your complaint on texture was an ick factor (which was subjective and qualitative ) and when you said it wasn't I did not ignore that.

I don't care about the savings/profit thing honestly. I think it's fine and it doesn't seem to grieve me; it's hard for me to meet you on that sympathy. Again this does not make a "you're wrong, I am right" dichotomy though and I don't think I've argued that it has. In fact I don't think I've ever said a word on cost-saving profit stuff. Because again I just don't care.

As to false labeling beef is a qualitative label not a label based on tissue ratios but on tissue source, processing etc etc. LFTB meets the definition of an additive by the USDA or FSIS (I forget which now) and because it is beef (it just freakin' is dude. If I processed chuck roast the same way LFTB is processed via centrifuge you'd get pink slime I just do not see how anyone can make an argument against LFTB being beef unless you want to say "It's not beef to me" like Zirstein said which again well you think that, I've listened to it and I don't agree. I have not ignored that though.

The only thing lately that we've I've taken issue with is that after you dismissed me because of re-litigating your source you said I needed to read 32 pages. I did that, a lot of it was weird and honestly I now wish that I hadn't posted in it. The reason I did is because of my beef with media portrayal not so much the product. If I could go back and stop myself I would.

But there was something interesting. I said that I didn't know why the % of LFTB use was determined. You said there was a source that gives that information. I've posted on that and I believe you mischaracterized the source.

I'm going to accuse you now of having read just the first sentence of that thread, made your response and ignored it (this is why I said later that I will extend the argument and let readers get into it since you wouldn't)

The idea that the ratio is determined by smell doesn't make sense on many levels, think about it. It's not determined by BPI (as far as I can tell, it's determined by USDA or FSIS) so their testing would have dictated the ratio WITHIN that standard, right? As far as smell goes the article never connects the two since the smell complaint was over 100% LFTB, not the mixture with the ratio we are discussing (or at least that's how the article presented it).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Read the thread, Lowpro, it's all been covered plus you seem to be making up a few of your own facts there.

You joined a 32 page thread on page 30, post #1232 and you want us to go dig through all the citations here in order to refute your unsupported assertions?

Puhleese.