• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Pink Slime

Skeptic Ginger said:
I realize you've not read every post in the thread but I addressed this. After being burned numerous times I eventually migrated to the $10/pound fresh ground at Whole Foods as the only consistently OK burger. Your scolding is confirmation bias based.
Click to expand...
At that price, why don't you grind your own?

You could be 100% sure a disgruntled employee didn't go postal in your ground meat ...
 
Furcifer said:
So far your "evidence" is a funny taste and the lack of scientific study on the composition of garbage. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The composition of garbage? You've added some new straw there, Fur.

You got the process wrong, the correct LFTB process has been cited.
The amount of connective tissue in LFTB was cited, you have yet to cite anything supporting your assertion that the trim used in LFTB is no different than the trim which does not need the extra processing.

To review yet again evidence posted in the thread: The trim used in LFTB is "closer to the hide", i.e. further from the muscle. It is not, as you assert, just trim that fell on the ground or was tossed into a bucket and therefore more contaminated.

The trim used in LFTB is >70% connective tissue, and has very little meat in it.
Ground beef is <30% connective tissue.

Your argument: adding connective tissue to lower the fat ratio doesn't change hamburger because hamburger has connective tissue in it.
You claim the range of connective tissue in regular ground beef extends to the amount that adding connective tissue would result in.

You not only haven't posted any evidence of what the normal range of connective tissue is in ground beef, you can't say at what point adding 70% connective tissue would change the burger's texture.

And, you have yet to support your assertion the trim used in LFTB is the same as the rest of the trim. Initially you claimed heat was used to facilitate removal of the trim from the bone. That was false but instead of admitting your blatant mistake, you backtracked and claimed the heat was used to separate the meat and connective tissue. That's not true either but you now just ignore your mistake as if you never made it. False memory maybe?

The heat is used to separate the fat. It is not used to do anything else. The evidence of that has been cited.

Given your explanations for why LFTB requires special treatment turned out to be incorrect, you nonetheless continue to assert the unsupported claim that the trim used to make LFTB is no different from the trim that is just ground into burger without it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The composition of garbage? You've added some new straw there, Fur.

You got the process wrong, the correct LFTB process has been cited.
The amount of connective tissue in LFTB was cited, you have yet to cite anything supporting your assertion that the trim used in LFTB is no different than the trim which does not need the extra processing.

To review yet again evidence posted in the thread: The trim used in LFTB is "closer to the hide", i.e. further from the muscle. It is not, as you assert, just trim that fell on the ground or was tossed into a bucket and therefore more contaminated.

The trim used in LFTB is >70% connective tissue, and has very little meat in it.
Ground beef is <30% connective tissue.

Your argument: adding connective tissue to lower the fat ratio doesn't change hamburger because hamburger has connective tissue in it.
You claim the range of connective tissue in regular ground beef extends to the amount that adding connective tissue would result in.

You not only haven't posted any evidence of what the normal range of connective tissue is in ground beef, you can't say at what point adding 70% connective tissue would change the burger's texture.

And, you have yet to support your assertion the trim used in LFTB is the same as the rest of the trim. Initially you claimed heat was used to facilitate removal of the trim from the bone. That was false but instead of admitting your blatant mistake, you backtracked and claimed the heat was used to separate the meat and connective tissue. That's not true either but you now just ignore your mistake as if you never made it. False memory maybe?

The heat is used to separate the fat. It is not used to do anything else. The evidence of that has been cited.

Given your explanations for why LFTB requires special treatment turned out to be incorrect, you nonetheless continue to assert the unsupported claim that the trim used to make LFTB is no different from the trim that is just ground into burger without it.
Click to expand...

You've got this burden of proof thing all backwards. You're the one claiming the USDA is wrong in it's assessment of LFBT and was bought off by BPI. The burden of proof is on you.
I'm just explaining the process and how it's very easy to see why the USDA, the "authority", has no problem with LFBT.
"Closer to the hide" is your white whale. The fat is "closer to the hide" than the muscle. Look at any anatomy book.

And no, I'm not going to chase down a study showing that "trim" is "trim". You're the one saying otherwise, it's ridiculous, you prove how it isn't. The USDA disagrees with you, I'm just trying to help you understand why. Don't shoot the messenger.

I've explained the process and the fact is you refuse to understand it because it conflicts with your preconcieved notions. You don't want to believe the USDA because you believe there is something nefarious going on. The reality here is, in the case of BPI, one man's garbage is another man's treasure. It's really just as simple as that.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Answer the question, Fur: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?
Click to expand...
lmao

sg why are you still asking people this instead of writing an email to the usda asking them...

fun times dropping back by the thread, keep up the good work! Comedic genius, all of you, lol as if anyone actually cares what the facts are when we have THE MAN vs. THE COMMON MAN going on here?
 
Last edited:
Joey McGee said:
lmao

sg why are you still asking people this instead of writing an email to the usda asking them...

fun times dropping back by the thread, keep up the good work! Comedic genius, all of you, lol as if anyone actually cares what the facts are when we have THE MAN vs. THE COMMON MAN going on here?
Click to expand...
If you had been paying attention, the 15% is based on the producer of LFTB doing a market survey. Beyond 15% mix, the consumers couldn't tolerate the stuff.

Try again.
 
Oh cool update, thanks.

Kind of conflicts with the 4 lab studies saying even more than 15% was better but at this point, at least we know it wasn't because they were putting dog food in it or poisoning us or stealing from us.
 
The test was done. Only 9 skeptics in a room of almost 40 were willing to participate. Here are the results and the procedure:

People got an answer sheet with the order to eat the samples in, randomized at the top of the sheet. I cooked 3 samples of burger in three pans at the same time on my stove. They all got the same amount of light salt and pepper. They were all cooked for the same length of time over the same heat. All were cooked as chopped burger the way I cook burger for tacos or spaghetti rather than patties. I then put the samples into cups designated for hot drinks and put those cups into an insulated box. I went straight to the meetup and the samples did not need reheating. I did not participate because it didn't work out that I was blinded. And while it was not technically double blinded, the participants had an answer sheet, I was not an interviewer adding any kind of subjective influence to the answers.

It is possible the samples with LFTB had different amounts of LFTB as they were purchased after the controversy was in full swing. So it cannot be assumed that the burger with 4% fat had more LFTB than the sample with 7% fat. It can be said both had LFTB, just not how much.

The questionnaire asked for 3 possible ratings of texture, flavor, juiciness and preference to disguise the fact texture was the main quality being investigated. The other answers added interest to the findings but I was looking for texture evaluations.

I used 'tender', 'chewy' and 'gristly' as options knowing people describe texture in different ways. The main idea was, did the texture differ, not how did people describe the difference.

Sample 1 was 7% fat with LFTB.
1 person found it tender, 6 found it chewy and 2 found it gristly.
Sample 3 was 4% fat with LFBT.
4 people found it tender and 5 found it chewy.

Sample 2 was 7% fat and contained no LFTB.
6 people found it tender and 3 found it chewy.

So with LFTB: 28% tender; 61% chewy; 11% gristly.
Without LFBT: 67% tender; 33% chewy; 0% gristly.

If you just compare the 7% with to the 7% without:

With LFTB: 11% tender; 67% chewy; 22% gristly.
Without LFBT: 67% tender; 33% chewy; 0% gristly.

It can be concluded that in this pilot study, the hamburger texture without the LFTB had a significantly different texture than the hamburger with LFTB.
If you add my unblinded assessment I found both samples 1 & 3 gristly and 2 tender.


As for preference, some people preferred the burger with LFTB and that did not surprise me nor affect my issue, that labeling should have included information that LFTB was added.

Sample 1: 1 person rated as "best", 3 as "middle" and 5 as "worst".
Sample 3: 2 people rated as "best", 6 as "middle" and 1 as "worst".

Sample 2: 4 people rated as "best", 3 as "middle" and 2 as "worst".

While there were 9 assessments of best, middle, worst for each sample, some people gave equal ratings to some of the samples. I.e. best has 7 votes, middle has 12 and worst has 8 total votes.

The flavor options were 'good', 'fair', & 'bad'.

Sample 1: 0 good; 6 fair; 3 bad.
Sample 3: 5 good, 4 fair; 0 bad.

Sample 2: 3 good, 5 fair and 1 bad.

Some people preferred the burger with LFTB. The people selling it shouldn't be afraid of labeling it.

Juiciness options were 'good', 'fair', & 'bad'.

Sample 1: 1 good; 3 fair; 5 bad.
Sample 3: 2 good, 4 fair; 3 bad.

Sample 2: 1 good, 5 fair and 3 bad.

The method of preparation may have resulted in extra dryness of all the samples.
 
That's disappointing that only 9 people participated. It's still interesting, but it's hard to have confidence in any conclusions with such a small sample.
 
Marcus said:
That's disappointing that only 9 people participated. It's still interesting, but it's hard to have confidence in any conclusions with such a small sample.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, because the people in this thread who are invested in the claim there is no effect on texture are sure to discount anything that supports the opposite conclusion. :rolleyes:

The participants were unaware of which burger was which. There was a clear detection of a difference in texture.

If anyone wants to continue with their unsupported conclusion, there is no difference, they should conduct their own test.

I'll wait for all the denials before recapping the evidence.
 
It's disappointing because of the people on this thread? I know you were already confident of your conclusions, but wouldn't you rather have had a study with more than 9 participants?
 
Marcus said:
It's disappointing because of the people on this thread? I know you were already confident of your conclusions, but wouldn't you rather have had a study with more than 9 participants?
Click to expand...
Sure. I had enough burger to test at least 20. But it wasn't a total loss. I donated the leftovers to someone for their cat. The skeptic's group enjoyed the test and the results, and we all learned a little about the test procedure and the Pink Slime controversy.


As for convincing evidence I was right, I already have that evidence. I've been buying LFTB free burger now and haven't found any of it with the gristly texture that was grossing me out. I found a mechanism for the texture problem, the analysis showing the greater amount of connective tissue protein over muscle protein in LFTB. Despite Fur's insistence trim is trim, the trim they make the LFTB from is further from the muscle and closer to the hide and he's not been able to counter that with anything but foot stamping. One of the main producer's own study found consumers did not like burger if more than 15% LFTB was added to it. That's evidence it does change the burger. And at least one food critic, who had no obvious reason to be biased about the outcome, did an analysis and also found LFTB changed the texture of hamburger.


I don't see any evidence against LFTB being the cause of the hamburger texture change except Fur's assertion hamburger has connective tissue in it. That doesn't mean adding more would have little effect. In addition, a blood vessel made of connective tissue is softer than a tendon made of connective tissue, so not all connective tissue is equally fibrous. And, Fur was grossly misinformed about how LFTB is processed and he was misinformed about which trim was used to make LFTB. He said trim was used that had fallen on the floor or was put in a dirty bucket. In reality, trim that is closer to the hide and further from the muscle is used.


It is extremely rare for people in this forum to admit they were wrong. I could have done the test with 100 people and it would still be very unlikely that those who don't believe LFTB affects the texture of hamburger would change their mind. Just look at the overwhelming evidence that was available before the test and you can see people are filtering the evidence to fit their confirmation bias. One conclusion is true, either the stuff affects burger texture or it doesn't. So people on one side of this debate are looking at the evidence objectively and the others aren't.

For people on the fence, I would think that the small study plus the other evidence is enough. If not, meh, my hamburger tastes good again. For people doubling down in this thread and arguing LFTB doesn't change the texture, evidence is not likely to change their beliefs.
 
On a separate note, I don't eat very often at McDonalds but my recollection is the burger was rather rubbery. I'm wondering if people who frequent McD's have noticed a change in the hamburger now that McD's has quit using LFTB in the burger.
 
We do have your small study, and the study you quoted, we also have double blind studies with hundreds of people which you have dismissed because of their funding. The problem is that you weren't able to point to any defects in the studies, but covered them with a blanket "they must be cheating" allegation.

I won't mind at all if you are right, I've never made any claim that "15% LFTB doesn't change the texture of hamburger". As a skeptic though, I need more evidence before I decide. I would think that you would too. For one thing, unless I missed something, you have never tested yourself, you talked about having a friend help you do so but never did it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom