Pink Slime

[Furcifer]

I know this is a slipper slope fallacy, but I think it's appropriate with something like food, where does it end? If producers are forced to label the LBT content in their ground meat, and sales drop off, BPI is going have a good case at this point for claiming the losses are due to scare and not rational, logical, skeptical thinking on the part of the consumer. I can honestly see them saying "Why not label the amount of excrement in every pound of ground beef?" How much pig face is in your sausage, you have the constitutional right to know exactly what's in your food.
So what does this accomplish? Nothing IMO. If people knew exactly what's in their food and exactly how it's processed there would be an initial reaction while people desensitize themselves and then it's pretty much back to usual because at the end of the day what people really want to know is is it safe and how much does it cost per pound.
And what else is going to happen? The people who can afford to are going to know their food is "better" because it does have slime in it, and the people who can't afford it are just going to be reminded that if they had more money they could buy something "better" that really isn't.
I'm reminded of ribs and chicken wings. Both were at one time pretty much scrap meat. No self respecting person would eat those cuts of meat, they were garbage for the lower classes. Why? Well because someone who could afford to buy what they like decided one was "good" and one was "bad". The fact is you throw some spices and some sauce on them and they taste just fine. Now chicken wings, at least the meat, is worth more per pound than sirloin steak.
I've said I don't mind the idea of labeling the LBT content, but I honestly wonder if this just isn't another reincarnation of that sensless classism we've seen in the past.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What's unskeptical about it is that humans are notoriously bad at determining that.

It's even more unskeptical to stereotype all humans.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Calling it "slime" is the exact same process in reverse.

Also, soap is slime. You are bathing by rubbing slime all over yourself every morning. My chemistry professor, a scientist, called it slime.

Evil people at Dial and Irish Spring! Evil liars!

So because both names have misleading connotations no valid name exists?

Framing worth noting:

Anti-corporate activists name for the stuff: Pink Slime
Commercial producers name for the product: Lean Beef Trimmings

As for Irish Spring, that's the brand name, not the product name. You are confusing the two. The product name is soap.


It fascinates me that after an argument is made and isn't refuted, (the name "beef" is being used here to imply 'meat' when the analysis shows there is very little 'meat' as in muscle meat in the product), one waits a certain amount of time and then just repeats the original false claim, that the name LBT is not misleading because it is actually 'meat'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know this is a slipper slope fallacy, but I think it's appropriate with something like food, where does it end? If producers are forced to label the LBT content in their ground meat, and sales drop off, BPI is going have a good case at this point for claiming the losses are due to scare and not rational, logical, skeptical thinking on the part of the consumer. I can honestly see them saying "Why not label the amount of excrement in every pound of ground beef?" How much pig face is in your sausage, you have the constitutional right to know exactly what's in your food.
So what does this accomplish? Nothing IMO. If people knew exactly what's in their food and exactly how it's processed there would be an initial reaction while people desensitize themselves and then it's pretty much back to usual because at the end of the day what people really want to know is is it safe and how much does it cost per pound.
And what else is going to happen? The people who can afford to are going to know their food is "better" because it does have slime in it, and the people who can't afford it are just going to be reminded that if they had more money they could buy something "better" that really isn't.
I'm reminded of ribs and chicken wings. Both were at one time pretty much scrap meat. No self respecting person would eat those cuts of meat, they were garbage for the lower classes. Why? Well because someone who could afford to buy what they like decided one was "good" and one was "bad". The fact is you throw some spices and some sauce on them and they taste just fine. Now chicken wings, at least the meat, is worth more per pound than sirloin steak.
I've said I don't mind the idea of labeling the LBT content, but I honestly wonder if this just isn't another reincarnation of that sensless classism we've seen in the past.

Are you in favor then of grinding up hooves and calling that a "beef" additive?

 

[IDB87]

Are you in favor then of grinding up hooves and calling that a "beef" additive?

Boil them until the gelatin comes out and put that in beef - sure, why not. Whole hooves? As long as they're edible. Grind away baby.

 

[Furcifer]

Boil them until the gelatin comes out and put that in beef - sure, why not. Whole hooves? As long as they're edible. Grind away baby.

I was going to say, I think it's already marketed as Jello.

If the hooves could be processed into some edible nutrious product I don't have any problem with it. Heck even as a filler with no nutritional value I don't see the problem. I honestly fear stigmatizing a product, simpy because some people are grossed out by it, more.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nice way to purposefully miss the point. Where on the continuum would you draw the line? How about grinding in some hyde? It is beef after all. How about sterilized bowel contents, is that also 'beef'?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I like cake.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Nice way to purposefully miss the point. Where on the continuum would you draw the line? How about grinding in some hyde? It is beef after all. How about sterilized bowel contents, is that also 'beef'?

Or maybe some Jekyll?

 

[IDB87]

Nice way to purposefully miss the point. Where on the continuum would you draw the line? How about grinding in some hyde? It is beef after all. How about sterilized bowel contents, is that also 'beef'?

What's with the axe grinding? Are you looking to squabble over personal opinion? If I told you I wouldn't mind ground hide in my ground chuck, would you take issue with that?

Where does Skeptic Ginger draw the line? That seems a like more interesting(?) conversation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What's with the axe grinding? Are you looking to squabble over personal opinion? If I told you I wouldn't mind ground hide in my ground chuck, would you take issue with that? ...

That wasn't the point they purposefully ignored. It's not about whether you like something or not, the issue is at what point is a product altered enough it should be labeled as such. You might love hamburger laced with sugar but you'd expect it to be labeled as having sugar added.

The analysis of LBT showed it differed significantly from hamburger with >70% proteins that come from something other than muscle meat vs <30% non muscle meat protein in ground chuck. Furcifer insists without any actual evidence that LBT is no different than some other cuts of meat hamburger is made from, it merely differed from the ground chuck it was compared to. That's not true. No other cuts of meat make hamburger that would match the LBT analysis. And it's obvious no one would like something called hamburger that was 100% LBT.

So how much filler do you think is OK to add to hamburger without noting it on the label? Would you think hamburger that was 15% gelatin should be labeled as having an additive? Or would labeling such a product, "100% pure beef", seem just a tad dishonest?

 

[Furcifer]

Nice way to purposefully miss the point. Where on the continuum would you draw the line? How about grinding in some hyde? It is beef after all. How about sterilized bowel contents, is that also 'beef'?

Well no, you could stick your head inside of a cows ass and you wouldn't be "beef". At a minimum I'd say moved through the intestinal walls and into the blood stream would be "beef".

As for hide no it's an already excluded part of the cow. The thing is LBT isn't specifically excluded from being called beef because it's a normal component of what's already in ground beef, it's just been seperated and recovered.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...The thing is LBT isn't specifically excluded from being called beef because it's a normal component of what's already in ground beef, it's just been seperated and recovered.

Still just your assertion Fur, no evidence posted that any cut of regular meat ground into hamburger would match the LBT analysis you keep ignoring.

 

[Furcifer]

Still just your assertion Fur, no evidence posted that any cut of regular meat ground into hamburger would match the LBT analysis you keep ignoring.

Nonsense. I expained in my very first post in this thread how I could make "pink slime". I just wouldn't be able to match the exact texture, because from how it's explained at least the ammonia does breakdown some of the connective tissue. It's pretty easy, all you need is trim. But it would be pink and it would match the analysis you think I'm ignoring.

Nobody in their right mind though is going to sort through the bone bucket and pick out the right bits to process into a "pink slime". Plus you would have to be processing it as fast as the butchers cut the trim, and keep the room temperature at an uncomfortablly low temperature to prevent bacteria growth. A huge hassle for little or no return, you're better off selling it as dog food.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nonsense. I expained in my very first post in this thread how I could make "pink slime". I just wouldn't be able to match the exact texture, because from how it's explained at least the ammonia does breakdown some of the connective tissue. It's pretty easy, all you need is trim. But it would be pink and it would match the analysis you think I'm ignoring.

Just an assertion, Fur, no evidence. You got nothing.

LBT is NOT the same as the rest of the hamburger. LBT has more than twice as much fibrous protein as any cut of meat that hamburger is going to be made out of and you have no evidence to the contrary. The ammonia does nothing to change the fibrous (connective tissue) protein ratio.

 

[Furcifer]

Just an assertion, Fur, no evidence. You got nothing.

No, all that's been explained in the articles you've cited, it's just that you obviously don't fully understand what you're reading. It's not an assertion, it's a very well known fact within the industry. There's plenty of "good meat" that gets thrown into the bone bucket. It's just that the bone bucket has always been the point of diminishing returns.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Explaining in your case is just making unsupported assertions. You can call it something else, but it changes nothing and nothing really is all you got.

 

[Furcifer]

LBT is NOT the same as the rest of the hamburger. LBT has more than twice as much fibrous protein as any cut of meat that hamburger is going to be made out of and you have no evidence to the contrary. The ammonia does nothing to change the fibrous (connective tissue) protein ratio.

See you don't exactly know what a "cut of meat" is, or what the difference between wholesale and retail cuts are.

Trim is what's left over once you prepare a "cut of meat", usually for retail. Some trim, like the tail off of a strip loin, is meat and fat. The trim off of a flank is pretty much connective tissue and meat. Some trim like that off the neck is almost 100% muscle. Some trim is almost 100% connective tissue, when you peel it off it should come off in one piece, although sometimes you tear off some muscle with it. Some trim has cartilage or tendon in it because you fillet it off the bone.

Trim is what ground beef is traditionally made from. I explained how the growing demand for ground beef does mean that wholesale cuts like the round and the chuck are going to ground beef, but that doesn't mean the trim doesn't go into the hopper anymore.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

More assertions, Fur.

Where is an analysis of any cut of meat ground into burger without LBT that has anywhere close to the composition of hamburger with 15% LBT in it? You keep saying it is true but all you have is your assertion it must be true, it makes sense to you. Where's an analysis that confirms your claim?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here, let me help you:

"Chuck" is very high in connective tissue. That's why it is often used in hamburger. Grinding it up helps tenderize it.

The chuck contains a lot of connective tissue, including collagen, which partially melts during cooking. Meat from the chuck is usually used for stewing, slow cooking, braising, or pot roasting.

In the analysis they used ground chuck. That was the stuff with <30% connective tissue. 30% is considered high. LBT had >70% connective tissue.

If you add 15% of 70% connective tissue to a 30% connective tissue mix it's like adding a full 10% more connective tissue to the mix. And that's without even addressing how the LBT differs in other ways from the hamburger it's being added to.

So how many cuts of meat are going to give you 40% connective tissue if ground chuck gives you 30%?