Pink Slime

[Joey McGee]

Man, you really have me mixed up with someone else.

wtf? "Had they labeled their product, they'd still be in business today. But the makers of this product chose to pay off the regulators and slip it in under the public radar. They had a decade of profits and now only themselves to blame for plant closures."

So you believe they are getting their just desserts! You believe that the USDA is corrupt and that their failure and closures are a GOOD THING. You are GLAD that they are being punished for what you see as lying to put dog food in burgers. Your babble about corporatism gives away why you see it this way. Does that make more sense?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm merely asking you do defend this statement with facts "I said NO, THE BACTERIA WERE FOUND AFTER THE BURGER REACHED THE SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS." All caps and all, I want the proof

Your nitpick is that the bacteria were all found before leaving the production facility. That's not a practical standard for testing hamburger. The goal is never to eliminate 100% of the bacterial contamination. That would be impossible. You eliminate the bulk of contaminated lots and rely on proper cooking as a back up protection.

So let's look at the process of testing burger for the school lunch program.

The USDA rules exempted LFTB from testing in general claiming the ammonia process eliminated the need for testing. That was a false conclusion. The process didn't eliminate the bacteria as advertised.

From MotherJones delving further into the NYTs report:

One "top official" of the USDA's division that oversees the meat supply assured Moss [the NYT's investigator], "It eliminates E. coli to the same degree as if you cooked the product.”

Yet that premise was false. Rather than eliminating pathogens from burger mixes, pink slime was often actually adding pathogens, Moss revealed. Beef Product International's raw material, fatty trimmings that come mainly from the outside of the carcass, tend to be loaded with E. coli and salmonella. The company had been lowering its ammonia dose based on complaints about flavor. Possibly as a result, in tests conducted by the National School Lunch Program between 2005 and 2009, pink slime tested positive for salmonella at a rate four times higher than the conventional burger mix it was supposed to sterilize, Moss revealed.

So at a minimum, burger mixed with LFTB left the production facility untested for consumers outside the school lunch purchasing program. So the tested stuff was contaminated and you want proof the untested stuff was also?


According to a detailed discussion of the rules, hamburger for school lunches is "sampled".

For product to be delivered to schools raw, although the N60 sampling plan is more stringent than would be recommended when considering the documented compliance with food safety practices in the NSLP, AMS should continue N60 sampling for E. coli O157:H7 for boneless beef trim for two reasons. First, N60 testing is the accepted standard for USDA-FSIS sampling and commercial practices for non-intact beef. Secondly, diverting positive lots for cooking in USDA-FSIS* inspected facility using a validated cooking process with AMS oversight, will remove these lots from the product stream delivered to the school system as raw, and can serve to further reduce the risk of cross-contamination with ready-to-eat foods.

So some burger is cooked in more closely inspected kitchens and some in less closely inspected kitchens.

I stop here to point out, as I have again and again, I have no issue with bacteria contaminated burger. All burger should be thoroughly cooked. But I also agree that with school lunches, the extra standards applied to burger are important when you get into the fallible system of commercial kitchens.

So, back to, did any of the contaminated stuff get through to the school lunch kitchens? Yes. One need merely look at the fact testing only "samples" the burger at intervals. All the burger is not tested.

For ground beef product destined for schools in raw form or for cooking in facilities outside AMS oversight, discontinue N8 whole-lot testing, but retain N4 for one hour sub-lots (maximum of 10,000 lbs.; N4 composited into one analytical unit). Each sub-lot found to be culture-positive for E. coli O157:H7, plus the “shoulder” sub-lots on either side of the positive sub-lot, will be diverted for cooking at a USDA-FSIS-inspected facility using a validated cooking process with AMS oversight for use in the AMS program.

First, why would they need to divert the "shoulder lots" if each lot's testing gave a certain result for the whole lot?

Second, you can see there are different frequencies for pulling samples out of the ground lots depending on which school kitchens the meat was destined for. AMS oversight kitchens could receive meat sampled in larger lots. The testing program allows more contamination to get through relying instead on cooking after it reaches the school kitchen. In all the school kitchens, some contaminated burger gets through. That's consistent with the standard. So the fact LFTB was supposed to be less contaminated after the ammonia process, but in reality was more contaminated, meant an increase in overall bacterial contamination of the burger and some of that contamination does get through.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

wtf? "Had they labeled their product, they'd still be in business today. But the makers of this product chose to pay off the regulators and slip it in under the public radar. They had a decade of profits and now only themselves to blame for plant closures."

So you believe they are getting their just desserts! You believe that the USDA is corrupt and that their failure and closures are a GOOD THING. You are GLAD that they are being punished for what you see as lying to put dog food in burgers. Your babble about corporatism gives away why you see it this way. Does that make more sense?

Your view of reality is so far from mine, I doubt it is reconcilable.

That you see my comments as "sticking it to the man" is comical.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Laugh factory, I'm amazed at this one. BPI paid the USDA to look the other way by hiring someone that used to work there. That's *********** hilarious. And this is your proof that they were paid off. Are you just trolling or what? That's not proof of anything. That's not obviously a payoff. You have to imagine that it is, and that's what you're doing. You don't like these people. You don't like the product. No one cares what you think we care what you can prove and you're absolutely full of it! Look how easily you assume how much she worked and that she doesn't deserve it, you don't like how much people get paid at the highest levels of coporatism which helps you invent the conspiracy theory that this was a bribe. Some *********** bribe! Omg 1.2 mil over 17 YEARS? Are you serious!?!? And all to smuggle dog food into people's burger! You can't get funnier and I do enjoy this subject for this reason.

Clearly hand waving here on your part.

The key person involved in allowing LFTB to enter the burger market unlabeled conveniently gets appointed to the board of a company that profited tremendously from the action of the regulator, shortly after influencing the regulation.

This is business as usual at the federal regulatory level. Every taxpayer and consumer should be outraged. But you seem to think because no one was charged with a crime that there isn't obvious corruption involved.

Perhaps some background material is in order:

Revolving door (politics)

Mapping Out The Revolving Door Between Gov't And Big Business In Venn Diagrams

Revolving Door: From Top Futures Regulator to Top Futures Lobbyist

 

[Joey McGee]

Your nitpick is that the bacteria were all found before leaving the production facility. That's not a practical standard for testing hamburger.

Not really a nitpick, my point was that this company did not compromise anyone's safety for profit, there is no evidence for that, nothing you just said made a case for it, and that's why people whose children have died from foodbourne illness now go to bat for this company partly to fight alarmism over techniques that can actually reduce foodbourne illness. Combine that with the facts that have been displayed and quoted by experts thought this thread that say that on the whole, this product is supremely safe compared to all products on the market and this kind of criticism you have been quoted is the nitpicking! No product is perfect and on the whole has never made anyone sick so what is the problem? Seriously! I know what narrative has more support. I don't care what your case is. If you don't want me to dispute your claims about it's safety, stop making them... an invisible hand is required for all of the laughs being produced...

What do the experts say about its safety?

Experts such as Dr. Gary Acuff at Texas A&M University and Dr. James Dickson with Iowa State University, among many others have examined these products and say that all forms of LFTB are wholesome, safe, and nutritious when produced in compliance with USDA regulations. A number of meat scientists, academics, food and safety experts, governmental officials, and consumer advocacy organizations have spoken on behalf of the food safety record and quality of LFTB. Experts such as Dr. Richard Ray Raymond former Under Secretary for The Food and Safety Inspection Service, Dr Randy Phebus a Meat Scientist and food and safety expert with The Food Science Institute at Kansas State University, Dr. Thomas Powell Executive Director of the American Meat Association, and Sally Greenberg Executive Director of the National Consumers League just to name a few.

What does the food safety data show?

USDA data shows that the incidence of E coli O157:H7 in fresh ground beef has been declining significantly over the past decade. The number of USDA ground beef samples testing positive for the E coli O157:H7 pathogen have dropped 72 percent between 2000 and 2010. LFTB has been a part of that success story.

http://www.beefisbeef.com/faq-3/

 

[Joey McGee]

Clearly hand waving here on your part.

The key person involved in allowing LFTB to enter the burger market unlabeled conveniently gets appointed to the board of a company that profited tremendously from the action of the regulator, shortly after influencing the regulation.

This is business as usual at the federal regulatory level. Every taxpayer and consumer should be outraged. But you seem to think because no one was charged with a crime that there isn't obvious corruption involved.

Perhaps some background material is in order:

Revolving door (politics)

Mapping Out The Revolving Door Between Gov't And Big Business In Venn Diagrams

Revolving Door: From Top Futures Regulator to Top Futures Lobbyist

I'm sorry, talking about how other crime happened doesn't mean one happened here. Nothing illegal happened. Nothing other than you not liking the kind of people involved and their personal belief systems about business is behind you accusing them of being paid off. Once again, you merely believe this. You have no evidence. The fact that numerous health safety experts at universities around the country (the majority) the majority of skeptical science writers including the JREF blog, the USDA, no none of this is interesting as an argument from authority. We're supposed to take your argument from authority as you are the authority of when states collude with industry. Fun

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not really a nitpick, my point was that this company did not compromise anyone's safety for profit,

How many times do I have to tell you take this argument to someone else, I've never said safety was an issue EVER!!!!!

In reality, however, the company did use a higher level of ammonia when the USDA said the end result didn't need further testing, then lowered the levels because of taste complaints without notifying the USDA.

But I don't give a rat's ass about the ammonia or the bacteria. I care that someone sold ground tendons labeled as ground muscle meat and snuck it in without telling consumers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sorry, talking about how other crime happened doesn't mean one happened here. Nothing illegal happened. Nothing other than you not liking the kind of people involved and their personal belief systems about business is behind you accusing them of being paid off. Once again, you merely believe this. You have no evidence. The fact that numerous health safety experts at universities around the country (the majority) the majority of skeptical science writers including the JREF blog, the USDA, no none of this is interesting as an argument from authority. We're supposed to take your argument from authority as you are the authority of when states collude with industry. Fun

Legalized corruption is still corruption.

 

[Joey McGee]

A December 2009 New York Times investigative piece questioned the safety of the meat treated by this process, pointing to occasions in which process adjustments were not effective.[39] This article included the first public use of the term "pink slime" as a pejorative term.[40] In January 2010, The New York Times published an editorial reiterating the concerns posed in the news article while noting that no meat produced by Beef Products Inc. has been linked to any illnesses or outbreaks.[41]

Wow so the process was not always effective? Good god ban if from human consumption forever. Wow the NYT wrote something that made someone look bad and then later had to admit nothing bad had been done? That's shocking news. Worthy of several pages of thread, really.

 

[Joey McGee]

How many times do I have to tell you take this argument to someone else, I've never said safety was an issue EVER!!!!!

In reality, however, the company did use a higher level of ammonia when the USDA said the end result didn't need further testing, then lowered the levels because of taste complaints without notifying the USDA.

You keep mentioning testing and posting stuff about it but them claim you don't care about it, I'm not psychic and don't guess what you care about.

But I don't give a rat's ass about the ammonia or the bacteria. I care that someone sold ground tendons labeled as ground muscle meat and snuck it in without telling consumers.

Well maybe you'd sleep better and become less aggravated with life if you could figure out that this is total ********.

 

[Nihilianth]

28 pages later? (Sounds like yet another zombie thread. Heh, get it? 28 pages later? Zombie thread? Oh me oh my, I crack myself up.)

Anyway, this thread should have been laid to rest on page 1.

If this so-called "pink slime" were sooooo bad for you, then why in the hell am I not dead yet!?

I don't get it. But what I DO get, is once again, the media forming national attention and national opinion on baseless arguments, all in the name of "ratings." I am sensing a pattern here....

 

[Joey McGee]

Legalized corruption is still corruption.

It's corrupt because you say it is? It's corrupt because people who spend their life in government working in a specific field should be banned from working in the same field for the private sector? Yes, I can see it now... that way Stick it to the Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the world!

What is your conclusive proof that is? How would you prove it in court? Oh WAIT! OH WAIT! You'd have do prove they did something wrong! Or lied! Still just blowing hot air on that....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Joey, it's corrupt to take a million dollar job working a handful of days for the money shortly after being a key player passing a regulation that hides facts from consumers but benefits the people paying you the million to the tune of millions more.

You can call it anything you want but the details are on the table.

 

[Joey McGee]

You haven't even shown that it's a couple of days work! or that it is uncommon for that kind of position in the industry. Key player is a weasel term, a cop-out, and another efficiently-produced, invisible-hand assisted joke. They didn't lie, it's beef, you relied on a study whose author publicly said that your analysis of it was %100 wrong. Add that to the fact that majority of experts aren't even complaining and all of your work is still ahead of you. Except for making up your mind, that was easy when you saw the states and players involved.

eta: NYT: USDA HIDES FACTS FROM CONSUMERS: PUT BEEF IN BEEF, MASSIVE SHAKEDOWN INEVITABLE

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

eta: NYT: USDA HIDES FACTS FROM CONSUMERS: PUT [TENDONS] IN BEEF, [CALLS IT MEAT] ...

ftfy

 

[Joey McGee]

Let us know when you have the evidence for that and we'll call it a thread!

eta: You base this off of a study where the author doesn't even agree with you. But maybe you think the author got their own study wrong. With this logic I'd be sure you'd be more sympathetic to the fast-food industry (what with your admiration of the double down and all)

 

[OMGturt1es]

Sure, this was brought up. I maintain that if you read the four studies and inquire as to the trustworthiness of the companies you will find it hard to believe that all four risked their reputation to fake studies way before this crap theory was thought up by Jamie Oliver and a new age mom blog.

I haven't been following this thread or issue closely enough to hold a real opinion, honestly. So take my concerns as they are: Opportunities to highlight a general topic about which I think skeptics are far too often ignorant. Given the wealth of literature and evidence concerning industry-funded "science," and given my past experience working for an internet marketing firm, I put zero trust in industry-funded research. Maybe I'm a bit extreme, but it turns out many of my past beliefs that were based on these data were just completely wrong. I'm not getting burned again. Industry can suck it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I haven't been following this thread or issue closely enough to hold a real opinion, honestly. So take my concerns as they are: Opportunities to highlight a general topic about which I think skeptics are far too often ignorant. Given the wealth of literature and evidence concerning industry-funded "science," and given my past experience working for an internet marketing firm, I put zero trust in industry-funded research. Maybe I'm a bit extreme, but it turns out many of my past beliefs that were based on these data were just completely wrong. I'm not getting burned again. Industry can suck it.

This^ is a no brainer.

But go ahead, Joey McGee, keep insisting no evidence has been cited in the thread, all the while touting the validity of the reports only straight from the mouths of people with a conflict of interest.

 

[Joey McGee]

The four labs as a study were brought out about texture. , seeing this is something that the USDA and the academics don't really have much interest in. The USDA and the majority of experts agree that a) This is 100% beef meet, same stuff you just can't cut out easy with a knife, b) It is just as nutritious if not MORE nutritious than normal methods of harvesting beef, c) it is safe. So you're saying that they faked four texture tests and you believe it was paid for corruptly because it happens so often and you already don't like the product because of that study you completely misread. Do all the academics quoted here have a conflict of interest? Does the USDA? I'm 100% positive it would take you 2 seconds to just imagine one. You posted evidence, stuff you misread and took to mean what you wanted it to mean. It's so bloody obvious. Thing is, what really matters about the product, the reason they have been punished, is not the texture! This is your private obsession which has little to do with the controversy. So who gives a ******

Yeah, it's a no brainer, everyone with a brain already factors this into their analysis and find it lacking while you wave it around like it's evidence in your favor! More jokes although they are cutter-cookie mass produced...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's pretty ludicrous to be telling someone who complained about the texture of burger a decade before ever hearing about Pink Slime, who did a blinded test themselves at a skeptics' meetup, and who can now find lots of burger without the texture problem, that I didn't really notice added ground up tendons in my burger changed the texture.

As for 4 tests, yadda yadda: any number of things from different amounts of LFTB in the burger to how the questions were asked could affect said tests. You seem to dismiss the company's own report that adding too much LFTB to hamburger did bother people.

Why is that if it doesn't change the burger?