Pink Slime

[Furcifer]

I swear I don't know this guy:

A taste-tester's beef with "pink slime"? Its texture

I rest my case until the test!

You heel dug in folks may want to reassess your positions about now. My heels are just fine, thank you.

I hope you're citing this as an example of what not to do SG.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Snipping for brevity, your post is close by.

"Tastes better" is relevant, if people don't think that the burger without the stuff tastes better (while blinded) than there is really no complaint, we've already established that it's healthy.

Double blinding would be nice, you could have someone do the labeling after you cook the burgers who is not present at the test. Theoretically you could tell the difference between burgers you cooked, but I'm sure you will do your best to keep them uniform. It's important that you participate in the tasting because you are very sure you can tell the difference.

Perhaps the food critic in that link is right, who knows, but he knew exactly what he was eating, his "test" doesn't inspire confidence.

Where do you see the food critic was expecting a 'texture' difference? Do you think he lurked in this thread and specifically noticed my posts? Can you explain why he used the adjectives, "gristly" and "mealy" based solely on confirmation bias? There aren't exactly dozens of people noting texture is an issue.

I think that's because some of us have noticed and some people haven't looked, haven't had burger with LBT in it, or simply aren't bothered by the texture like I and this food critic are.


For my test, double blinding is planned. I planned to make my samples look the same and they will all be in matching plastic cups. Our skeptic group leader can hand out the samples so I won't know which is which.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I hope you're citing this as an example of what not to do SG.

What a surprise. You simply dismiss this food critic's coincidentally similar descriptions of the texture issue.


Check those heels, they could be a problem with your critical thinking.

 

[Marcus]

Where do you see the food critic was expecting a 'texture' difference? Do you think he lurked in this thread and specifically noticed my posts? Can you explain why he used the adjectives, "gristly" and "mealy" based solely on confirmation bias? There aren't exactly dozens of people noting texture is an issue.

I think that's because some of us have noticed and some people haven't looked, haven't had burger with LBT in it, or simply aren't bothered by the texture like I and this food critic are.


For my test, double blinding is planned. I planned to make my samples look the same and they will all be in matching plastic cups. Our skeptic group leader can hand out the samples so I won't know which is which.

The food critic was fully aware which burger contained the dreaded Pink Slime, this could have influenced his perceptions. I don't think that his using one of the adjectives you used proves anything.

If your test group successfully identifies the LFTB burgers as gristly (by all means make this one of the test questions) then I would be convinced, I'm just saying that you haven't proved it yet.

How large is your test group going to be?

I'm assuming the person who knows which sample is which will not be at the test, the skeptic group leader can't have this information if he is handing out the samples.

 

[Joey McGee]

I swear I don't know this guy:

A taste-tester's beef with "pink slime"? Its texture

I rest my case until the test!

You heel dug in folks may want to reassess your positions about now. My heels are just fine, thank you.

I'm pretty sure everyone remembers this from page 5 of the thread, so I have no idea why you think anyone would reassess their positions. I remember distinctly someone saying "An unblinded, non-scientific, anecdotal test." in regards to it.

We actually do have real taste tests done by independent groups that you have hand-waved away in a bizzare manner.

http://beefproductsinc.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/tastepanelsummaries-v3-for-pdf.pdf

Yeah diggin' in ma heels! Yee-HAW!

 

[Joey McGee]

Don't you hate it when you eat a bunch of sushi and get drunk on sake and then when you puke, the seaweed wrapper comes back up and it looks like you ate a roll of electrical tape?

I know I do.

I do!

What I love about it is that the wasabi makes it still taste good!

 

[Furcifer]

What a surprise. You simply dismiss this food critic's coincidentally similar descriptions of the texture issue.


Check those heels, they could be a problem with your critical thinking.

Yah, it has nothing to do with the fact that this isn't even a blind experiment.


nm

 

[Furcifer]

For my test, double blinding is planned. I planned to make my samples look the same and they will all be in matching plastic cups. Our skeptic group leader can hand out the samples so I won't know which is which.

Sorry, I read this after my last post. I see you get it.

 

[Marcus]

I'm pretty sure everyone remembers this from page 5 of the thread, so I have no idea why you think anyone would reassess their positions. I remember distinctly someone saying "An unblinded, non-scientific, anecdotal test." in regards to it.

We actually do have real taste tests done by independent groups that you have hand-waved away in a bizzare manner.

http://beefproductsinc.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/tastepanelsummaries-v3-for-pdf.pdf

Yeah diggin' in ma heels! Yee-HAW!

Now I feel foolish, here I am going on about SG's test when it appears that many tests have already been done. I'll look at page five and find her response. I would still like to see what happens at her test, though.

 

[Marcus]

Some of those tests Joey linked to are far more elaborate than what you could hope to achieve, SG. Hundreds of subjects, many test variations, private rooms, even red lights to disguise any visual differences.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The food critic was fully aware which burger contained the dreaded Pink Slime, this could have influenced his perceptions. I don't think that his using one of the adjectives you used proves anything.

If your test group successfully identifies the LFTB burgers as gristly (by all means make this one of the test questions) then I would be convinced, I'm just saying that you haven't proved it yet.

How large is your test group going to be?

I'm assuming the person who knows which sample is which will not be at the test, the skeptic group leader can't have this information if he is handing out the samples.

Oh for pity's sake. Yeah, "texture" is such a common way to describe taste.

 

[Furcifer]

Oh for pity's sake. Yeah, "texture" is such a common way to describe taste.

Describe? No. An extremely essential component of "taste"? Yes. Otherwise, why would anyone put stale chunks of bread in their Ceasar salad?

 

[Joey McGee]

If you go through all of the tests that were done, you'll find that this whole taste/texture thing is not going to save anyone any face, since everything conceivable was run.

I'm guessing what we'll see next will look something like this

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm pretty sure everyone remembers this from page 5 of the thread, so I have no idea why you think anyone would reassess their positions. I remember distinctly someone saying "An unblinded, non-scientific, anecdotal test." in regards to it.

We actually do have real taste tests done by independent groups that you have hand-waved away in a bizzare manner.

http://beefproductsinc.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/tastepanelsummaries-v3-for-pdf.pdf

Yeah diggin' in ma heels! Yee-HAW!

And just how exactly do these links, cherry picked by the industry selling the stuff, mean a food critic in Denver did not indeed find LBT gave ground beef a disagreeable texture?

The student's study has been addressed: Study Shows 'Lean Finely Textured Beef' Improves Burger Quality - "Quality" was measured by,

improved fresh color, reduced spoilage and increased tenderness. ... The patties were frozen and then thawed and placed in a simulated retail display for five days before cooking....

So LBT makes burger last longer in the grocer's case. Great. And:

Tenderness was rated by a measurement of the force required to cut a patty.

Did anyone taste the stuff in this study? If so I can't find it.

there was no difference in the cooked color of any of the burgers in the study.

Then we have 4 studies paid for directly by Beef Products Inc., the company that makes the stuff. The findings are very curious considering the food critic in my link.

So, in summary, we have 4 studies paid for directly by a company with a financial interest in the outcome, a single study done by a student that measured color, the pressure to cut a patty and how the product held up after 5 days in the grocery fridge, a food critic that found the texture of burger with LBT to be nearly identical to how I described it, "gristly" and "mealy" while I called it gristly and rubbery.

And you all want to keep digging in your heels? Be my guest.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some of those tests Joey linked to are far more elaborate than what you could hope to achieve, SG. Hundreds of subjects, many test variations, private rooms, even red lights to disguise any visual differences.

In medical research the conflict of interests are disclosed by the researchers. See anything like that here?

If you go through the thread you'll find a number of documented instances of the same company lying about the bacterial growth in the treated product. Gee, a company that lies about its product, I'm shocked.

 

[Joey McGee]

Then we have 4 studies paid for directly by Beef Products Inc., the company that makes the stuff. The findings are very curious considering the food critic in my link.

lol

So, in summary, we have 4 studies paid for directly by a company with a financial interest in the outcome,

Who should pay for taste tests of a product if not the company? Ludicrous. You appear to think that all independent laboratories are for hire and corrupt. Wow, I'm shocked that you're using a conspiracy theory to handwave away independent studies. These would all need to be completely fabricated. Which would be easy for you to prove. Holy **** you could become famous! (not to mention destroy the reputations of all the companies)

And you all want to keep digging in your heels? Be my guest.

lol

 

[Joey McGee]

In medical research the conflict of interests are disclosed by the researchers. See anything like that here?

If you go through the thread you'll find a number of documented instances of the same company lying about the bacterial growth in the treated product. Gee, a company that lies about its product, I'm shocked.

BPI caught in a lie? News to me and I've read every post. Maybe you should back yourself up here with clarity.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

BPI caught in a lie? News to me and I've read every post. Maybe you should back yourself up here with clarity.

Riiight, because a manufacturer lying about their product is sooo unheard of.

From post #488, the link: Safety of Beef Processing Method Is Questioned

Eight years ago, federal officials were struggling to remove potentially deadly E. coli from hamburgers when an entrepreneurial company from South Dakota came up with a novel idea: injecting beef with ammonia.

The company, Beef Products Inc., had been looking to expand into the hamburger business with a product made from beef that included fatty trimmings the industry once relegated to pet food and cooking oil. The trimmings were particularly susceptible to contamination, but a study commissioned by the company showed that the ammonia process would kill E. coli as well as salmonella.

Officials at the United States Department of Agriculture endorsed the company’s ammonia treatment, and have said it destroys E. coli “to an undetectable level.” They decided it was so effective that in 2007, when the department began routine testing of meat used in hamburger sold to the general public, they exempted Beef Products.

But government and industry records obtained by The New York Times show that in testing for the school lunch program, E. coli and salmonella pathogens have been found dozens of times in Beef Products meat, challenging claims by the company and the U.S.D.A. about the effectiveness of the treatment. Since 2005, E. coli has been found 3 times and salmonella 48 times, including back-to-back incidents in August in which two 27,000-pound batches were found to be contaminated.

The article goes on for 4 pages documenting evidence discrediting the company's own self serving study.


Forgot to add, lol.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

BTW, I didn't emphasize that NYT article when I initially posted it because I don't think the ammonia process is unsafe and I didn't want to get into the safety can of worms. I consider all burger, LBT or not, potentially contaminated with bacteria and in need of thorough cooking.

 

[Furcifer]

"Quality" was measured by, So LBT makes burger last longer in the grocer's case. Great.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion but it does speak volumes about your potential prejudice.