Pink Slime

[Furcifer]

It sounds like it doesn't say any more than we already know except clarifying the limits.

Begs the question again, Fur, why not sell 100% LFTB if it's the same as the rest of the ground beef?

If you want to buy it and make 100% LFTB burgers there's nothing stopping you from doing so but common sense.
You keep stating this like it means something. "Why not make 100% fat burgers? Why can't I buy them at my grocery store? What are they hiding?" There's a difference from being prevented from buying something and there simply being no market for it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you want to buy it and make 100% LFTB burgers there's nothing stopping you from doing so but common sense.
You keep stating this like it means something. "Why not make 100% fat burgers? Why can't I buy them at my grocery store? What are they hiding?" There's a difference from being prevented from buying something and there simply being no market for it.

You keep dodging the obvious. You aren't fooling many people. You seem to be fooling yourself.

Do you or do you not claim LFBT is the same as the rest of the hamburger?

 

[Furcifer]

You keep dodging the obvious. You aren't fooling many people. You seem to be fooling yourself.

Do you or do you not claim LFBT is the same as the rest of the hamburger?

Dodging? lnfao, I'm reiterating what the USDA has said; it's made from trim which is exactly what ground beef is made from.

You're the one dancing around this obvious and proven fact. It's only the uniformed public who don't have any clue how ground beef is made that are even questioning this.

It's the same stuff, it wasn't practical to salvage it before because it was too labour intensive to recover. That made it suitable for dog food and oil etc. Then someone figured out how to recover the bits and make it into a safe and saleable product and LFBT was born.

This isn't unusual, there are probably 100's of products on the shelf in your grocery store that were once garbage, fed to the pigs or burned for fuel. Then some industrious person said "Hey, I can make this into such and such" and the rest is history.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are dodging the questions, Fur:

If LFTB is so similar to other ground beef made from trim, why does no one sell 100% LFTB? Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests?


You can pretend all you want that you are not dodging that question, but I doubt you're fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[Furcifer]

You are dodging the questions, Fur:

If LFTB is so similar to other ground beef made from trim, why does no one sell 100% LFTB? Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests?


You can pretend all you want that you are not dodging that question, but I doubt you're fooling anyone but yourself.

lol, if ground beef is made from trim why can't you buy trim? Hmmm? Oh noes!

You can buy trim, just go a butcher and ask for trim. The fact that it isn't normally sold means nothing, and it certainly does mean they don't use trim to make ground beef.

The fact that in some taste test people preferred ground beef with 5% or 10% or 15% LFBT to that of 20% means absolutely nothing. There's a ton of taste tests that show people prefer ground beef with 22% fat to that of 5% fat. And by your faulty logic that implies they should sell burgers with 100% fat.

Seriously, think about this for a second. Becuase you make it even worse for yourself. By extending the same analogy you're infering fat couldn't be in ground beef because well shucks, they don't sell 100% fat burgers

The USDA Assistant Director of Something Policy or Something has confirmed in a hand signed letter LFBT is beef trim that has been processed to remove the fat, as such does not meet the definition of a binder or extender, but is in fact 100% beef.

It's processed trim. Trim is what ground beef is made of. Processed trim is ground beef. That's an irrefutable fact. I'm afraid you're the one dodging this, not me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests? It wasn't that "some people" preferred a different taste. It was that no one could stand the burger with so much connective tissue in it.


Your denial is clear.

 

[Furcifer]

Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests? It wasn't that "some people" preferred a different taste. It was that no one could stand the burger with so much connective tissue in it.


Your denial is clear.

Aside from denying you're making any sense what have I denied?

People in some taste test you cherry picked didn't prefer a burger with 20% LFBT, so what? They wouldn't prefer a burger with 30% fat either. That doesn't say sweet FA about fat and whether or not it's a normal part of ground beef. Why for FSM do you think it says anything about LFBT?
I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from and what point you're trying to make but it still eludes me.
The USDA will allow you to make and sell a 100% LFBT burger if you want to. I have it in writing on USDA letterhead. You've answered your own question though, the reason you can't buy a 100% LFBT burger is becuase nobody wants it.
None of this changes the fact that LFBT is the exact same stuff you find in any other burger, it's just in different proportions. If you add too little fat people don't like it, if you add too much fat people don't like it, if you add too much connective tissue people don't like it, if you add too little connective tissue people don't like it.

The fact is what people like or dislike has NO relevance on the quality of the product. I really don't care if your taste test proves otherwise. The fact is there are hundreds of more reliable studies that say the exact opposite.

Of course that's all within reason and I don't think you get this. People prefer some fat in their burger, that doesn't mean they want 100% fat burger. People seem to prefer burger with some LFBT, but that doesn't mean they want a 100% LFBT burger.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"People in some taste test you cherry picked didn't prefer a burger with 20% LFBT"

I highlighted a lie you've told there.

A) The test was not cherry picked, it was a marketing test the company selling the stuff did which found if they added more than 15% LFTB to hamburger people could tell and didn't like it.

B) If I cherry picked the study, where are the studies that I didn't cherry pick which showed different results?

 

[Furcifer]

"People in some taste test you cherry picked didn't prefer a burger with 20% LFBT"

I highlighted a lie you've told there.

A) The test was not cherry picked, it was a marketing test the company selling the stuff did which found if they added more than 15% LFTB to hamburger people could tell and didn't like it.

B) If I cherry picked the study, where are the studies that I didn't cherry pick which showed different results?

So you didn't cherry pick it, it's just the only taste test you have that you keep going on about as if it means something?

All of the taste tests cited in this thread take into account the varying amounts of connective tissue. The fact that you can't see the forest for the trees is very telling.

So what if LFBT allows the producer to control the amount of connective tissue in the hamburger without the addition of fat? Connective tissue has been and will always be a part of ground beef. The fact is it's a blessing, because as numerous studies have shown people PREFER some connective tissue in their ground beef. Up until LFBT it always came by way of adding fat, which the USDA actually limits.

Despite the numerous pages and explanations given to you it's very clear my very first assessment still stands. You clearly don't understand all of the variables in this equation. It doesn't come as much surprise to me, as I mentioned before I worked in a butcher shop long enough to know the vast majority of consumers are totally clueless when it comes to buying meat.
In the immortal but some what convoluted words of Chris Farley, you can get a good pound of ground beef by sticking your head up a cows ass, but you could just take my word for it

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Despite the fact the questions are simple, you still cannot give a simple answer. The fact you continue to post these gyrations and your repeating ad hom that [x] has been explained, you still don't answer the very simple question.

Here's another straw man:

So what if LFBT allows the producer to control the amount of connective tissue in the hamburger without the addition of fat? Connective tissue has been and will always be a part of ground beef.

No one has said there is no CT in hamburger. The argument is LFTB is 70% connective tissue and that proportion, even when only added at 15% to hamburger, makes the TEXTURE of the burger SIGNIFICANTLY different.

You keep claiming LFTB doesn't change the burger.

I'll ask you again: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll ask you again: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

Just answer that. Don't clutter your post with rationalizations.

 

[Furcifer]

I'll ask you again: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

Just answer that. Don't clutter your post with rationalizations.

I bet, the rationalizations just expose your absurd logic.

There is no "problem" with adding more than 15% LFBT. You know this, I've got SIGNED government documents that prove this.

The "problem" is clearly in your head. That's been proven conclusively. In fact the whole "problem" with LFBT is in the heads of consumers without the knowledge of how beef is processed, and the willful ignorance of the scientific studies behind LFBT. That again has been supported, in writing, by the USDA at your request.

I'm sorry, but you're falling into this conspiracy theorist territory, where you make outrageous claims about the faceless "gubmint", but when you get a direct answer from the "gubmint" you just ignore it.

You asked why the USDA limits the amount of LFBT to 15%. You were shown to be mistaken, they do not limit the amount of LFBT to 15%. The national lunch program limits the amount of LFBT to 15% in the product they buy because of nutritional concerns. Your claim has nothing to do with nutritional concerns, it has to do with taste. It's obvious this does not support your claim.

Your whole premise is wrong, as I said there is no "problem" with the adddition of LFBT to ground beef. It's seen going on for years without issue until some British clown poured a bunch of Ajax on some meat and made the erroneous and misleading equation. Unfortunately that wasn't based in science but science fiction.
What I find most disturbing about this SG is you're being mislead by a cook. You're supposedto be skeptical and looking to science. If you don't understand the science as I've explained it you should at least be looking to other scientists. But even when the scientists fromt the USDA get back to you directly you still continue to deny the obvious. Don't you find that a little bit strange?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Still a bunch of rationalizations. You did not answer the simple question:

If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

 

[Furcifer]

Still a bunch of rationalizations. You did not answer the simple question:

If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

No. By this point you're just lying when you ask "rhetorically" If it doesn't change the burger...

As has been explained numerous times, using countless examples and analogies, it does "change the burger".

It does so you can stop saying otherwise.

It doesn't "change the burger" as you put it outside of how changes to any other component ie. trim, would change it. (because most of us know burger changes every time you make it)

Very simple put, adding 30% LFBT is the same as adding 10% fat and 30% low quality trim. If there was such thing as low quality trim. Unfortunately, low quality trim isn't economically feasible and gets made into dog food.

But if some "magic" process made that trim feasible, well then it would be the exact same thing. At least according to the USDA. Can you possibly begin to think of a way to recover than trim? Hmmm?

I'm almost 100% certain I've explained this to such an extent that even children or the mentally challenged could understand it without issue.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Still unable to answer? Of course you are. Because you are trying to defend a disproved position.

If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

 

[Dipayan]

Sorry, have to jump in!

SG, what do you mean by 'change the burger'?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry, have to jump in!

SG, what do you mean by 'change the burger'?

Since LFTB is mostly connective tissue and not 'meat' it changes the texture of the burger.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To summarize, so people don't need to reread a 25 page thread:

Fur continues to argue that since there is connective tissue of varying amounts in hamburger, LFBT does not change the texture of the burger beyond the normal range of variability.

Fur incorrectly argued that heat was used to separate the 'trim' from the bone. It is not. Heat is used to liquify the fat of the waste trim then a centrifuge is used to separate the fat from the trim used to make LFTB. When showed the error, he shifted his argument to claim it didn't matter.

Incorrectly believing the heat was used to remove LFTB from the bone, Fur initially argued that the trim needed additional processing simply because it was close to the bone, but was otherwise the same as the rest of the trim used to make hamburger. The two kinds of trim are not the same. The trim used to make LFTB is waste trim (previously used only in pet food), not because it was on the floor or dirty or needed additional processing to remove it from the bone, but rather it was waste trim because it was of such poor quality with very little red meat in it and a whole lot of other tissues.

The analysis of the LFTB showed it had ~70% fibrous protein compared to ~30% fibrous protein in ground chuck. This waste trim comes from tissues that are further from the muscle, not simply closer to the bones. Actually, a good portion of the waste trim is closer to the hide, not just closer to the bone.

Connective tissue is also protein, but it is not meat which is a very different protein. An obvious illustration of this is comparing eating ground up tendons to eating a ground up steak. Obviously they are not the same but both are proteins.

The beef industry has been taking the waste trim that is of very poor quality because it has so little meat in it, removing the fat with low heat and a centrifuge, then using it as an additive to hamburger to lower the overall fat content. Rather than grinding up a leaner cut of meat, the processer simply adds more protein but not more meat. That connective tissue protein is not the same texture as muscle meat protein. And no matter what the range of connective tissue volume in regular hamburger, adding LFTB which is almost all connective tissue, noticeably changes the hamburger well beyond the range of connective tissue proportions before the industry started using LFTB.

 

[Furcifer]

Still unable to answer? Of course you are. Because you are trying to defend a disproved position.

If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

There is no "problem". You're just making this up. You're fabricating this "problem" in order to confirm your own bias. The USDA says quite clearly there is no problem.

At least with the ground beef. There is a problem with reactionary people, who are utterly clueless as to how ground beef is processed, and who refuse to look at the science, making up stories about "problems".

Sound familiar?

 

[Furcifer]

To summarize, so people don't need to reread a 25 page thread:

Fur continues to argue that since there is connective tissue of varying amounts in hamburger, LFBT does not change the texture of the burger beyond the normal range of variability.

Fur incorrectly argued that heat was used to separate the 'trim' from the bone. It is not. Heat is used to liquify the fat of the waste trim then a centrifuge is used to separate the fat from the trim used to make LFTB. When showed the error, he shifted his argument to claim it didn't matter.

Incorrectly believing the heat was used to remove LFTB from the bone, Fur initially argued that the trim needed additional processing simply because it was close to the bone, but was otherwise the same as the rest of the trim used to make hamburger. The two kinds of trim are not the same. The trim used to make LFTB is waste trim (previously used only in pet food), not because it was on the floor or dirty or needed additional processing to remove it from the bone, but rather it was waste trim because it was of such poor quality with very little red meat in it and a whole lot of other tissues.

The analysis of the LFTB showed it had ~70% fibrous protein compared to ~30% fibrous protein in ground chuck. This waste trim comes from tissues that are further from the muscle, not simply closer to the bones. Actually, a good portion of the waste trim is closer to the hide, not just closer to the bone.

Connective tissue is also protein, but it is not meat which is a very different protein. An obvious illustration of this is comparing eating ground up tendons to eating a ground up steak. Obviously they are not the same but both are proteins.

The beef industry has been taking the waste trim that is of very poor quality because it has so little meat in it, removing the fat with low heat and a centrifuge, then using it as an additive to hamburger to lower the overall fat content. Rather than grinding up a leaner cut of meat, the processer simply adds more protein but not more meat. That connective tissue protein is not the same texture as muscle meat protein. And no matter what the range of connective tissue volume in regular hamburger, adding LFTB which is almost all connective tissue, noticeably changes the hamburger well beyond the range of connective tissue proportions before the industry started using LFTB.

This is of course incorrect and yet another gross misrepresentation of fact.

I said the product is heated to facillitate the "mechanical" seperation of meat and connective tissue from the fat,bone, cartilage tendons etc. It wouldn't seperate without being heated, and without seperation the process would be useless. Again this was in response to your nefarious assumptions about the process deeply rooted in your misunderstanding of some basic scientific principles.

The key point in all of this being that LFBT could be made by hand from normal "beef trimmings", the kind that all ground beef is made from, but the time it would take to do so would make it infeasible.
This is why the USDA is 100% correct in saying LFBT is basically the same as anything else you would find in normal ground beef, it's just processed differently.
And, because labeling laws do not require manufacturers to label every single method used in their processing there's no reason for LFBT to be specifically labelled when added to ground beef.
You can come up with all the conspiracy theories you want, Beef Products Inc., the USDA and the stores using LFBT have done nothing wrong. It's clearly a case of the uninformed public overeacting to what they have no clue about. Not surprising really, what is surprising is a member of the JREF doing this, and continuing to do this for 25 pages.

Shameful really. But even the best skeptics get suckered in once and a while.