Pink Slime

[Furcifer]

Did you even bother to check what the FDA and or USDA define "beef" as?

Yes, did you bother to read what I wrote? I said I've posted it before.

USDA GlossaryThey don't define "Lean Beef Trimmings", "Beef Trimmings", "Trimmings", "Finely Textured Beef", "Flesh", "Connective Tissue", or "Protein".

Wrong section, you want to check out the section and guidelines on labeling.

eta: not that the labelling guidelines define LBT, but they do outline what can and can't be called beef or meat in products better than the glossary you've cited.

The whole issue of industry lobbyists successfully petitioning Congress to change the FDA definition of ground beef so they could add this product without teling anyone was discussed at length already in the thread. And a university sponsored analysis of the stuff found it contained a considerable amount of connective tissue compared to usual ground beef.

If you think something contradictory besides the company that sells the stuff's claims was cited in either thread, post the citation.

This isn't correct as stated. They probably expanded the definition of "additives" to include whatever is in LBT, not change the definition of ground beef. The definition you've cited has been around for much longer than LBT.

As for connective tissue, yes it's in everything. It's commonly called silver skin and it's what tends to make steaks tough. It's typically what gets "trimmed" off during butchering, so yes it stands to reason it would be in greater concentration in LBT. Tendons and ligaments are another thing altogether (if memory serves)

Regardless, hooves don't meet the definition of beef as it pertains to ground beef. I don't know where you got this idea from?

 

[Furcifer]

I see this is getting confusing, let me simplify this. Everything in LBT, except possibly the "additives", meets the definition of "ground beef". It's fat and meat and connective tissue.
Hooves don't. Any they're specifically excluded from being include in human foods and called "beef" or "meat". I've cited the link before, but I don't know if it was from the USDA or the FDA or what.

Anyhow, who's making the run for the border? I'm starving.

etaa: I forgot to make my point again- your issue isn't with the product, it's with the processing. As far as I know that's never been included on the label. I would support the inclusion of processing methods on the label of products. I don't know how practical that is though.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are just going over the same stuff that's been discussed, Fur. If you want to discuss labeling, address what's already been covered: The people selling this stuff had to lobby Congress to change the food labeling rules and the stuff contains lots of connective tissue and very little 'meat'.

 

[tyr_13]

Which doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad decision. Oh, and for certain values of 'lots of' and 'very little'.

 

[Furcifer]

You are just going over the same stuff that's been discussed, Fur. If you want to discuss labeling, address what's already been covered: The people selling this stuff had to lobby Congress to change the food labeling rules and the stuff contains lots of connective tissue and very little 'meat'.

I did, that's not changing the definition, it's expanding it to include a new form of processing. A process that from my understanding was only used for animal feed at one time, but because it was deemed safe for human consumption it was officially recognized as such. That has nothing to do with the labels.

It's like saying they "redefined" the tomatoe when they started allowing producers to spray them with ethylene gas. That doesn't appear on the ingredients list because it's part of the processing. You can probably taste the difference on treated tomatoes as well (they look red but taste green). None the less a tomatoe is a tomatoe on the label.

Sorry if this has been covered, but these are the answers to the questions you've posed.

 

[slingblade]

I see this is getting confusing, let me simplify this. Everything in LBT, except possibly the "additives", meets the definition of "ground beef". It's fat and meat and connective tissue.
Hooves don't. Any they're specifically excluded from being include in human foods and called "beef" or "meat". I've cited the link before, but I don't know if it was from the USDA or the FDA or what.

Anyhow, who's making the run for the border? I'm starving.

Just got back. *noisily sucks up the last of the soda, then belches*

Sorry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did, that's not changing the definition, it's expanding it to include a new form of processing. A process that from my understanding was only used for animal feed at one time, but because it was deemed safe for human consumption it was officially recognized as such. That has nothing to do with the labels.

It's like saying they "redefined" the tomatoe when they started allowing producers to spray them with ethylene gas. That doesn't appear on the ingredients list because it's part of the processing. You can probably taste the difference on treated tomatoes as well (they look red but taste green). None the less a tomatoe is a tomatoe on the label.

Sorry if this has been covered, but these are the answers to the questions you've posed.

They are not answers to my issues at all. They are the points which have been discussed ad nauseum and don't address the problem I'm most concerned with. That is adding something to hamburger which noticeably changes the meat all the while denying or hiding that change from consumers by using one's money to influence the labeling law.

The 'stuff' that is recovered is fine. If you want to save 3 cents a pound on your burger, you buy it. I don't like the stuff and want to know by reading the label, not by buying the stuff only to throw it out or return it to the store once I tasted it.

If you would read a few of the posts I've written here you'd find I've said over and over and over, I don't think the stuff is any less safe than other burger which must be thoroughly cooked to kill any bacterial contaminants.

 

[Furcifer]

They are not answers to my issues at all. They are the points which have been discussed ad nauseum and don't address the problem I'm most concerned with. That is adding something to hamburger which noticeably changes the meat all the while denying or hiding that change from consumers by using one's money to influence the labeling law.

Just because you repeat it doesn't make it true. The labeling laws weren't changed, the process was added to the approved list of processes. There's a difference, but some people seem to be ignoring this, or don't understand it.

Could be me

The 'stuff' that is recovered is fine. If you want to save 3 cents a pound on your burger, you buy it. I don't like the stuff and want to know by reading the label, not by buying the stuff only to throw it out or return it to the store once I tasted it.

Me too, but as I explained it has nothing to do with ingedients and everything to do with processing and that's not on the label of any other food so it's unlikely to happen.
I think the best you could hope for is getting the FDA to include amonia to the label of LBT. Of course there's probably numerous other chemicals used in the processing of meats and vegetables that would also have to be added to the labels of other products. In the end what would it accomplish? Consumer outrage, a change that results in foods that can't be handled as easily, and more outbreaks of salmonella e.coli and the like?

If you would read a few of the posts I've written here you'd find I've said over and over and over, I don't think the stuff is any less safe than other burger which must be thoroughly cooked to kill any bacterial contaminants.

It's supposed to be more safe but human error seems to be the bigger issue when it comes to handling foods.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just because you repeat it doesn't make it true.

My complaint? Are you saying I'm not a valid source of my own complaint?

The labeling laws weren't changed, the process was added to the approved list of processes. There's a difference, but some people seem to be ignoring this, or don't understand it.

Could be me

It's you. If it were just the processing, why can't you find 100% LBT burger? Why is it an additive?

Your logic is a FAIL.

Not to mention you keep repeatedly ignoring the analysis that has been cited showing the stuff is full of connective tissue and has very little muscle meat.

 

[Joey McGee]

You could answer your own question if you'd just email the USDA and ask them why there is a 15% limit. You assume there is something nefarious about this without evidence. You're so sure it means something you won't even answer your own question.

And you are clearly not qualified to comment on and interpret that study.

 

[Furcifer]

It's you. ? If it were just the processing, why can't you find 100% LBT burger. Why is it an additive?

Your logic is a FAIL.

That's a complete non sequitur. What does the processing have to do with finding a burger with 100% LBT?
I meant additive as in something that's added during the process, and not "additive" as in the USDA definition. I should be more careful considering the topic. The amonia AFAIK is an "additive" to LBT, in residual amounts as part of the processing. The LBT is then used as an additive to ground beef, meat fillings, hamburgers, sausages etc.

Not to mention you keep repeatedly ignoring the analysis that has been cited showing the stuff is full of connective tissue and has very little muscle meat.

No I haven't I told you connective tissue is part of any meat product. The amount of connective tissue isn't measured and labelled in any product because it's inherent to meat.

 

[Furcifer]

You could answer your own question if you'd just email the USDA and ask them why there is a 15% limit. You assume there is something nefarious about this without evidence. You're so sure it means something you won't even answer your own question.

And you are clearly not qualified to comment on and interpret that study.

The USDA got back to me in less than 48 hours last time. I thought that was pretty cool.

I'm betting the fat content in LBT plays the largest role in what percentage is allowable in certain products, namely ground beef. That's just a guess.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You could answer your own question if you'd just email the USDA and ask them why there is a 15% limit. You assume there is something nefarious about this without evidence. You're so sure it means something you won't even answer your own question.

And you are clearly not qualified to comment on and interpret that study.

I can taste the difference. I realize for everyone else it's not convincing and it needn't be. But I have been upset about the change in hamburger for years, asking again and again what has changed, are they doing something different? I even suspected it had to do with how the meat was taken off the bone, some new process. The grocery butchers didn't have an answer.

This explains it and fits all the evidence. Other explanations like aging tastes do not.

You want me to email the USDA? Are you serious? That's your answer? I'd say it supports my conclusion, the stuff is different, not your claim it isn't different after the processing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The USDA got back to me in less than 48 hours last time. I thought that was pretty cool.

I'm betting the fat content in LBT plays the largest role in what percentage is allowable in certain products, namely ground beef. That's just a guess.

What did you ask and what did they say?

And why should we believe you?

 

[Furcifer]

What did you ask and what did they say?

And why should we believe you?

I forget, it had something to do with seasonings. I could find it, I think it's still in my hotmail.

I think the answers are available on the website, they give you a case number when you submit a question.

I can ask about the 15%, or why they don't make 100% LBT products or if it's prohibited if you want. I just didn't want to mow your grass.

 

[Joey McGee]

You keep asking me a question, essentially, why does the USDA have a 15% limit? I don't know. The USDA does know. If you don't want to ask them, I don't think you actually want to know . That's very simple, right?

I don't even think you know what my claims are anymore.

You don't have any direct evidence that pink slime caused this taste change, so you started grasping at straws. First was the texture study, now it's the question about why there's a limit on the additive. You clearly don't care about what the study really said or what the limit is really for, as long as you have something to latch onto.

No one is saying that your theory is impossible, we're just pointing out that your belief is unjustified, and your reasoning is weak. And on top of that, lots of theories explained or fit evidence that later turned out to be completely false. I thought that was one of the most important lessons the history of science has taught us.

 

[Joey McGee]

I would ask them

a) Why is there a 15% limit on LFTB as an additive?
b) Are there any significant differences at the molecular level in the nutritional and chemical makeup? Does it contain indigestible protein? Harder to digest protein?
c) Is there any reason it would have a significantly deletorious effect on the the taste of a burger?

Yeah Furcifer if you know where to email do it up, someone basically has to at this point.

Yeah I would definitely ask for that information instead of just assuming I could figure it out with the power of my skepdar.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your question dodging isn't helping your case except maybe in your own mind and in the minds of people looking for confirmation bias that LBT doesn't change the hamburger.

It's clear why there's a limit. It was clear from the university analysis of LBT. The percentage of connective tissue (aka fibrous protein^WP) was huge compared to the amount of what most people call 'meat' (aka globular protein^WP).

Since you won't answer the question I'll answer it for you: Your insistence there's no difference between LBT and regular hamburger is unsupportable. If your claim was supportable then 100% LBT should look and taste just like 100% hamburger without it. It doesn't.

The university analysis supports my contention. If you want to email the FDA or the USDA to support your erroneous claims, go for it.

 

[Furcifer]

Your question dodging isn't helping your case except maybe in your own mind and in the minds of people looking for confirmation bias that LBT doesn't change the hamburger.

It's clear why there's a limit. It was clear from the university analysis of LBT. The percentage of connective tissue (aka fibrous protein^WP) was huge compared to the amount of what most people call 'meat' (aka globular protein^WP).

Since you won't answer the question I'll answer it for you: Your insistence there's no difference between LBT and regular hamburger is unsupportable. If your claim was supportable then 100% LBT should look and taste just like 100% hamburger without it. It doesn't.

The university analysis supports my contention. If you want to email the FDA or the USDA to support your erroneous claims, go for it.

No, and I've explained why. "Ground beef" isn't uniform in consistency, there are "chunks" and there is paste. It's part of the grinding process, some stuff shoots through the plate and some stuff gets stuck between the cutter and the plate, turning it into what can only be described "pink slime". "Slime" is a bit of a misnomer because the paste usually has a very high fat content, it's waxy.
If you took the slime that forms during the grinding process and compared it to LBT it would be very similar. I'm guessing the LBT would have much more connective tissue though, because in normal ground beef "slime" there's very little. The connective tissue tends to wrap around the grinder shaft and get stuck in the plate holes. When you wash the "head" it tends to be full of white connective tissue. You have to pull it out because it won't wash away.

I strongly suggest next time you're in the shop ask a butcher why they don't grind the ground meat 3 or 4 times. They will confirm it turns the ground into a pink slimey mush.

I think this is a good example of Occam's Razor. You're trying to find some nefarious intentions here, when it's as simple as LBT being too fatty to be called "regular ground beef", which is the minimum standard for it to be called ground beef. It's only purpose is to be a cheap additive to mix into ground beef, which nobody but producers will buy.

eta: I shot off an email to the USDA

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No matter how you write that apology, Fur, it's full of holes.

No one is saying there is zero connective tissue in ground beef. LBT changes the ratio of hamburger components, noticeably in my case, maybe not so noticeable to others. If 100% LBT is different than hamburger even if some similar product is in the burger, how is adding more of this 'different' stuff not going to change the burger?

There are insect remnants in cereals. Does that mean adding 15% insect parts wouldn't change the cereal?