Pink Slime

[Furcifer]

What changed 10 years ago that didn't change before that? Why is this so hard for you?

I don't know, you have to go back in time and ask whomever was making it. All I know for sure is there could be dozens of possibilities.

If your hypothesis was right I would have found bad texture burger randomly my whole life. I didn't.

Which would suggest to anyone familiar with ground beef you just weren't looking very hard. The texture changes all of the time, it's an irrefutable fact. "Bad" is just a wildly subjective term.

 

[Furcifer]

The pressure to cut and the texture of something you chew are two different things.

Is this really all you guys have?

As you've gotten long in the tooth you're ability to chew things properly has diminished, thereby affecting the "texture".

Oh I've got lots more

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know, you have to go back in time and ask whomever was making it. All I know for sure is there could be dozens of possibilities.

So you're in Silly Monkey's camp, you're sure there must be another hypothesis, you just can't think of one.

It's either that or you are critically thinking challenged. If it were the explanations you offered, the timing would not be consistent with the introduction of LBT into ground beef. You keep not getting that and I can't figure out how to better explain your mistake. If it were the things you think it might be, THE TEXTURE PROBLEM WOULD HAVE HAPPENED RANDOMLY. But it wasn't random.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As you've gotten long in the tooth you're ability to chew things properly has diminished, thereby affecting the "texture".

Oh I've got lots more

How many times do I have to repeat this, IF CHANGES WITH AGE WERE THE CAUSE THEN ALL BURGER WOULD HAVE THE BAD TEXTURE. But all of it doesn't. I continue to find LBT free burger and it continues to taste fine. Most recently I bought some LBT free prepackaged regular corn fattened non-organic burger from Whole Foods and the texture was fine.

 

[Furcifer]

So you're in Silly Monkey's camp, you're sure there must be another hypothesis, you just can't think of one.

Ah no, we've thought of dozen of possible reasons including the addition of LBT. What we can't do, and you can't do is rule any of them out.

It's either that or you are critically thinking challenged. If it were the explanations you offered, the timing would not be consistent with the introduction of LBT into ground beef.

You mean your vague recollection of some change that may or may not have been consistent with the change to LBT that may or may not have been the change to LBT

You keep not getting that and I can't figure out how to better explain your mistake. If it were the things you think it might be, THE TEXTURE PROBLEM WOULD HAVE HAPPENED RANDOMLY. But it wasn't random.

It did happen randomly, you're just now claiming 8 years later it wasn't because you heard it might be due to something which you have no idea if it was or wasn't used. You honestly don't see any problem with your premise here?

 

[Furcifer]

How many times do I have to repeat this, IF CHANGES WITH AGE WERE THE CAUSE THEN ALL BURGER WOULD HAVE THE BAD TEXTURE. But all of it doesn't.

Not necessarily.

I continue to find LBT free burger and it continues to taste fine. Most recently I bought some LBT free prepackaged regular corn fattened non-organic burger from Whole Foods and the texture was fine.

This remains to be seen.

(Still nothing from the USDA)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Furcifer, your logic fails. Either you're not paying attention or you don't get some basic concepts.

You offer no comprehensive hypothesis that explains ALL the observations. You continue to only offer hypotheses that possibly explain single observations.

Summarize your hypothesis that explains ALL the observations together please or quit repeating yourself, thank you.

 

[Furcifer]

You offer no comprehensive hypothesis that explains ALL the observations. You continue to only offer hypotheses that possibly explain single observations.

Summarize your hypothesis that explains ALL the observations together please or quit repeating yourself, thank you.

You don't have observations, you have speculation, there's a difference. You don't have empirical evidence, you have highly subjective evaluations based on memory. I'm sorry but your observations don't amount to squat from a skeptical stand point.

You've been shown why your "observations" are inconsistent with everything that is known about ground beef. You say you noticed a change 8 years ago and ever since it's been the same, but in fact there's no possible way for it to be the same. Therefore your observation must be faulty. This is the explanation for everything.

You need some epirical evidence to back up your "observations". I don't think it's possible to do at this point. I think the best you can do it carry out your experiment taking into consideration everything you've read here and see what happens.

 

[tyr_13]

Around eight years ago, your taste in burgers changed to be more picky.

That's a hypothesis that explains all the observations.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Around eight years ago, your taste in burgers changed to be more picky.

That's a hypothesis that explains all the observations.

Round and around and around. No, because I can still find burger that has normal texture. So far, the burger that definitely doesn't have LBT in it tastes normal to me. That includes some prepackaged stuff now and not just the fresh ground.

 

[rustypouch]

Furcifer, your logic fails. Either you're not paying attention or you don't get some basic concepts.

You offer no comprehensive hypothesis that explains ALL the observations. You continue to only offer hypotheses that possibly explain single observations.

Summarize your hypothesis that explains ALL the observations together please or quit repeating yourself, thank you.

Keep shouting. That really helps to make your point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You don't have observations, you have speculation, ....

You seem to be confusing an observation with an hypothesis (aka speculation as you are using the word).

Observation: burger texture changed a number of years ago

Observation: the timing of LBT introduction into the market coincides with the texture change observation.

Observation: in all my decades of eating hamburger, until LBT was added to burger, I never tasted the disagreeable texture.

Observation: there is still burger that I find OK, again, before I ever heard of LBT. It turns out not to have LBT in it.

Observation: the university analysis provides a mechanism explaining the changed texture.

Hypothesis (what you refer to as speculation): LBT explains these observations.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Keep shouting. That really helps to make your point.

But the people in the thread keep missing the points I shouted in the posts you are complaining about. How else do you propose I get a reply to the actual point I made when it continues to be ignored? I'm hoping that drawing attention to the missed KEY point gets a response to the point instead of a mulberry go round ignoring the key issue.

 

[Furcifer]

You seem to be confusing an observation with an hypothesis (aka speculation as you are using the word).

Observation: burger texture changed a number of years ago

Observation: the timing of LBT introduction into the market coincides with the texture change observation.

Observation: in all my decades of eating hamburger, until LBT was added to burger, I never tasted the disagreeable texture.

Observation: there is still burger that I find OK, again, before I ever heard of LBT. It turns out not to have LBT in it.

Observation: the university analysis provides a mechanism explaining the changed texture.

Hypothesis (what you refer to as speculation): LBT explains these observations.

True, not my best work here. I'm trying to say it's not a scientific observation, it's not quantified. They're generalizations that can't be refuted or proven. They're not so much observations as claims.

 

[Joey McGee]

Around 9 years ago I started noticing increased bloating and gassiness whenever I indulged in spicy tuna roll, which often led to increased pukiness whenever I hammered the sake. I chalked it up to getting older and falling apart at the time, but now I know there was a more nefarious reason... RED SLIME...

Not surprisingly, while making a meal (so to speak) of the pink slime non-issue, the activists completely ignored a recent outbreak of actual illnesses from Salmonella bareilly contamination of a frozen raw yellowfin tuna product known as “tuna scrape.” A hundred sixty people in 20 states and the District of Columbia have been infected, 26 of whom have been hospitalized. Scraped from the bones of the fish, it resembles ground raw tuna, so we hereby christen it “red slime.”

Well we were too busy fighting the industry over the poison ammonia inside of our buns, cheese and condiments on our burgers! It's several times higher than the ammonia in an LFTB burger! I mean did you see the video of Jamie Oliver when he realized how much ammonia is in the total burger?

Yeah, this is terrifying stuff, folks.

Taverne argues that “in the practice of medicine, popular approaches to farming and food, policies to reduce hunger and disease, and many other practical issues, there is an undercurrent of irrationality that threatens the progress that depends on science and even [threatens] the civilized basis of our democracy,” and that we ignore it at our peril. The undercurrent has now become a torrent.

We've got the powers that be running scared! Look what the NWO-backed publications are printing!

Taverne argues persuasively that the conflict over genetically engineered crops is the most important battle of all between the forces of reason and unreason, both because of the consequences should the opponents prevail and also because their arguments are so perverse and so consistently and utterly wrong-headed.

Lots more hard work to do people

Anti-Technology Activists Are The Real Slime

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're not offering an alternative hypothesis, Joey, you are only making false analogies. It's not furthering the discussion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

True, not my best work here. I'm trying to say it's not a scientific observation, it's not quantified. They're generalizations that can't be refuted or proven. They're not so much observations as claims.

Why not start by accepting my posts as honest. I hope you are at least that far in this discussion. I have been around long enough to earn that much.

I have a master's degree and several certifications, FNP, COHN-S and CIC, in addition to being licensed as an ARNP. The point, I'm a competent observer.

If I were going to investigate a problem using the scientific process, I'd have no problem accepting a person's observations under those circumstances. It's conclusions that get people into trouble when it comes to anecdotal observations. The observations themselves can be reliable or not based on other assessments. I would hope an ARNP who was licensed to diagnose and treat patients was a competent observer.

So, if you want to dismiss anecdotal evidence, at least understand what you are dismissing and why, rather than having a knee jerk reaction to everything anyone says.

An observation is not the same as a claim in this situation. An observation is, the burger texture changed. The claim is that LBT is the reason. The observations, (refer to pervious posts), are facts. Only the LBT conclusion is a claim.

Now if you had reason to consider me a liar or an incompetent observer, that would be different. Is that your claim?

 

[Joey McGee]

There's really no way to make sense of this "debate" anymore, it's all nuts. That was the point... Furthering the discussion... that's funny.

Anyway, because I just mentioned a quote about how the battle of GM crops is the most important issue in food and perhaps in reason vs. unreason I thought I'd share this little tidbit I came across just now.

Open letter and video re threat to GM Research

Dear Take the Flour Back,

We have learned that you are planning to attack our research test site on 27th May. Please read the following in the spirit of openness and dialogue – we know we cannot stop you from taking the action you plan, nor would we wish to see force used against you. Therefore we can only appeal to your consciences, and ask you to reconsider before it is too late, and before years of work to which we have devoted our lives are destroyed forever.

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/645814-open-letter-and-video-re-threat-to-gm-research

Apparently going for the biggest losers of all time award.

So, this is why food technology and production techniques are important issues to address and debunk.

 

[Furcifer]

Why not start by accepting my posts as honest. I hope you are at least that far in this discussion. I have been around long enough to earn that much.

I have a master's degree and several certifications, FNP, COHN-S and CIC, in addition to being licensed as an ARNP. The point, I'm a competent observer.

If I were going to investigate a problem using the scientific process, I'd have no problem accepting a person's observations under those circumstances. It's conclusions that get people into trouble when it comes to anecdotal observations. The observations themselves can be reliable or not based on other assessments. I would hope an ARNP who was licensed to diagnose and treat patients was a competent observer.

So, if you want to dismiss anecdotal evidence, at least understand what you are dismissing and why, rather than having a knee jerk reaction to everything anyone says.

An observation is not the same as a claim in this situation. An observation is, the burger texture changed. The claim is that LBT is the reason. The observations, (refer to pervious posts), are facts. Only the LBT conclusion is a claim.

Now if you had reason to consider me a liar or an incompetent observer, that would be different. Is that your claim?

I never said it wasn't possible you noticed the change because of LBT, I just said it wasn't probable. I think you may be jumping to conclusions.

I also think you're overstating your case by calling it an observation within the context of this discussion and your forthcoming experiment. Just nit picking I suppose.

That being said your "observations" have been shown to be detached from reality. I've outlined the reasons why, namely your claim that the ground beef you bought was consistent, then it changed suddenly, then it was consistent again. That's just not possible given the numerous variables. There's no need to fit a theory to your faulty "observation", it's wrong to begin with.

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying you're most likely mistaken.

 

[Dipayan]

Observation: burger texture changed a number of years ago

Your subjective experience, that a large majority of other people do not agree with, as evidenced by your poll thread.

Observation: the timing of LBT introduction into the market coincides with the texture change observation.

This is your fanciful make-believe fact. You have said this so many times that you have actually started believing in it. Below is the first time you mentioned this, after seeing BPI's History page, of all things.

First, I don't know other than it has been years I've been getting hamburger that had this unpleasant texture. I estimated a decade, give or take.

The company making the stuff started making this particular product in the early 90s not the 70s. So if the stuff was invented in the 70s doesn't mean it was used then and even in the 90s the market may have started out small. I believe the company's history page is consistent with when I started having complaints.

So you started feeling this rubbery texture ten years ago (~2002). And since BPI started production of LFTB in 1991, somehow these two dates coincide? That's a wide brush you wield.

Observation: in all my decades of eating hamburger, until LBT was added to burger, I never tasted the disagreeable texture.

You don't know when LFTB was added to your burger and when it was not. You are merely assuming the antecedent. So this point is irrelevant.

Observation: there is still burger that I find OK, again, before I ever heard of LBT. It turns out not to have LBT in it.

Have you checked to see if there are any other brands that you are not OK with that doesn't use LFTB, or any brand that you are OK with that uses LFTB? Otherwise this point is irrelevant - you were buying expensive ground beef, and expensive ground beef did not use cheaper meat and was good. Nothing sensational there.

Observation: the university analysis provides a mechanism explaining the changed texture.

You cannot use the university analysis as a crutch when claiming that the texture changed to rubbery and gristly. That is disingenuous at best. The analysis shows that the texture can change to more tender and soft. If that is your claim, you can use the analysis. If your claim is completely the opposite, please don't cherry-pick the finding.

Hypothesis (what you refer to as speculation): LBT explains these observations.

Only if you start off with the assumption that LFTB is rubbery and gristly and changes the texture of meat for the worse. Which is not very scientific.