Pink Slime

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since when is tongue not muscle? As for the others, they are delicacies which deserve their own names, but I would have no problem at all with having them added to ground beef. In the case of brains, I'd actually pay extra for the finished product if I knew they were in there. Them's yummy! I don't ask the supermarket butcher which cuts have gone in to the ground beef I normally by, because I don't care. If they sell me product that I don't like the taste or texture of, then I won't buy it again. If I want to have my burgers made out of particular cuts, as I mentioned above I sometimes do, then I'll buy those cuts and either grind them myself or ask the butcher to do it for me (they will do so on request, you know).

And if that tongue or those brains were added in your hamburger, you wouldn't mind there was no label telling you so?

As for, "won't but it again" the problem was I could not identify just what I should not buy again in order to avoid this stuff because it was not labeled.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Type of beef? Really? No reason to single this stuff out? That's what you think this is about?

Next time you are buying steak in the supermarket, see if you think there should be something on the package that distinguishes between round steak and filet mignon on the label.

I already mentioned that the cuts get labeled, this is because they are considered nutritional claims. Each individual steak doesn't need to get its fat content labeled, it's classified by the cut of steak. "Ground beef" is not a cut, it can come from many (but not all) parts of the cow and the fat content is precisely controlled. It's labeled based on the the leanness 70/30, 85/15, 90/10. Other labels are optional like "ground chuck" or "ground sirloin" or whether it's from angus cows and whether they were grassfed. If you think treatment with small amounts of ammonia should require a special mandatory label, then that should apply to all foods--not just beef.

 

[ehcks]

And if that tongue or those brains were added in your hamburger, you wouldn't mind there was no label telling you so?

As for, "won't but it again" the problem was I could not identify just what I should not buy again in order to avoid this stuff because it was not labeled.

If they're adding beef tongue and brain to ground beef and not labeling it, they're ripping themselves off because those normally sell a lot higher than ground beef does.

 

[Myriad]

It is honestly labelled because it is 100% ground beef. Do you have evidence that it is not 100% beef? I am sure that you don't.

My point is that they have gone out of their way to voluntarily have it labelled. Cargill and other companies have announced that they will start labeling it. Will you buy the labelled Cargill products? There is nothing dishonest here in the slightest...

The USDA isn't in the business of labeling for every single aspect of the details of a product. They are in the business of labeling for a what a product physically is.

How a product was processed is also important. Do you really think there's a difference in what organically labeled produce "physically is" versus conventionally farmed produce of the same plant?

Orange juice reconstituted from concentrate "physically is" the same as orange juice. But it's labeled because differences in the aesthetic quality of the resulting product matter to some consumers.

Here is a response they wrote to someone seeking comment

Yes, a repetition of "we allow sellers to label it if they feel like it," and "we don't wanna label it."

Label it.

...Not a proper analogy to the product. If you were talking about the difference between oranges that were separated from the rind by a knife or a centrifuge, I could see your point.

It's a perfect analogy. Your objection is invalid, no better than "it's not a proper analogy because oranges and beef are different colors." Water is a natural component of orange juice, but when it's removed and re-introduced later, that event is labeled. The LFTB is processed separately and later reintroduced into the main product, just as the reconstituting water for fruit juice is. So label it.

 

[Joey McGee]

How a product was processed is also important. Do you really think there's a difference in what organically labeled produce "physically is" versus conventionally farmed produce of the same plant?

Yes, of course, one has pesticide residue and the other does not.

Orange juice reconstituted from concentrate "physically is" the same as orange juice.

No, it has undergone a number of physical changes and had a lot more than just water and orange rind flavor added back.

Yes, a repetition of "we allow sellers to label it if they feel like it," and "we don't wanna label it."

Label it.

Actually an argument as to why it is nonsensical to label it, it has nothing to do with "we don't wanna"

It's a perfect analogy. Your objection is invalid, no better than "it's not a proper analogy because oranges and beef are different colors." Water is a natural component of orange juice, but when it's removed and re-introduced later, that event is labeled. The LFTB is processed separately and later reintroduced into the main product, just as the reconstituting water for fruit juice is. So label it.

You clearly don't understand what normal ground beef is, or how this product is made. The only difference is that instead of a knife chopping pieces of meat off the trimmings of a cow, they use a centrifuge to pull the meat out of the the trimmings of a cow. They are adding ground beef that has been processed with a knife to ground beef that has been processed using a centrifuge, the same way they mix different kinds of ground beef from different areas and different cows and different processing techniques and different levels of lean already... whew this isn't that complicated...

There are lots of ways of processing beef that need to be labelled differently if you want to add it to ground beef. This is not one of them. If you have any evidence that it is not as simple as the difference between a knife and a centrifuge removing the meat, that would be interesting. And if you really care, I suggest you forward it as soon as possible to the lawyers at ABC because they are going to get their asses handed to them over this central claim of the case.

 

[Myriad]

Yes, of course, one has pesticide residue and the other does not.

Um, no.

But watch out; agricultural producers and their advocacy councils can sue you for saying things like that the good wholesome healthy food they sell has pesticide residues in it.

No, it has undergone a number of physical changes and had a lot more than just water and orange rind flavor added back.

What physical changes? Heating (like LFTB)? Centrifuging (like LFTB)? Compression into lumps (like LFTB)? Freezing for storage and transport (like LFTB) and then thawing for final use (like LFTB)?

What else, is added back besides flavor compounds extracted (by centrifuging, perhaps) from the rind, which of course is completely different from adding back connective tissue from the hide in the form of LFTB?

You clearly don't understand what normal ground beef is, or how this product is made. The only difference is that instead of a knife chopping pieces of meat off the trimmings of a cow, they use a centrifuge to pull the meat out of the the trimmings of a cow.

The trimmings of the same cow, or the same herd of cows?

Does this happen at the same facility where the beef is ground?

Is the rest of the beef heated, frozen, and compressed in the course of the grinding process?

If the only difference is the separation tool, then why does the LFTB require the ammonia or citric acid treatment when regular ground beef does not?

Are heating, compression, freezing, disinfection, and combining product steams transported from different sources not differences?

(Apparently they're differences enough for the product not to be allowed for human consumption in Canada, the UK, or the EU.)

They are adding ground beef that has been processed with a knife to ground beef that has been processed using a centrifuge, the same way they mix different kinds of ground beef from different areas and different cows and different processing techniques and different levels of lean already... whew this isn't that complicated...

Instead of accounting for the other differences (heating, ammonia treatment, compression, freezing, transport to and from different facilities), you keep repeating that the separation tool is the only difference. It's not.

There are lots of ways of processing beef that need to be labelled differently if you want to add it to ground beef. This is not one of them. If you have any evidence that it is not as simple as the difference between a knife and a centrifuge removing the meat, that would be interesting.

Heating, compression, freezing, ammonia disinfection, transport of different product streams to and from different facilities. Those are differences.

Food safety sources have consistently told me for decades that previously frozen meat should not be refrozen. That if I want to freeze homemade portions or patties, I should buy fresh hamburger. But the LFTB additive is previously frozen. So unless it's physically different in some way (which you insist it is not), then why should I believe that it's safe to freeze unfrozen hamburger from the supermarket, if it might have the previously frozen beef additive in it without labeling? If it doesn't have to be labeled "contains LFTB," it should at least be labeled "previously frozen," right?

If it's safe, nutritious, and tastes good, I'll eat it. If they label it.

(In fact, I wish I could buy the pure stuff. I'm an amateur chef willing to experiment, and it sounds like a few ounces of LFTB might be very useful, such as for adding beef flavor to sauces without getting a lot of purines as happens with regular gravies, sauces, and stocks.)

And by the way, the texture is an important difference too. I buy and use four different kinds of sugar, all the exact same chemical compound (sucrose), but they differ in the granule size. In many recipes, using the wrong one won't work. It's not saying there's anything wrong with "finely textured" powdered sugar, to point out that it won't have good results if used in Toll House style chocolate chip cookies. So I expect granulated sugar to be granulated, and powdered sugar to be powdered, and so forth. That's why they're all labeled.

Many recipes advise not "overworking" (excessive kneading or squeezing into shape by hand) ground beef, to avoid adversely affecting the texture of the cooked dish. Yet, you claim that compressing some of beef into pellets between industrial flash-freezing rollers is not different from how regular ground beef is processed (since the centrifuge is "the only difference"). That's not credible.

Label it.

And if you really care, I suggest you forward it as soon as possible to the lawyers at ABC because they are going to get their asses handed to them over this central claim of the case.

What a strange thing to suggest. Forward what, exactly? I'm sure they know the differences between, say, heating meat up to melt the fat out instead of trimming it, compressing it into blocks between rollers instead of not doing so, freezing it instead of not doing so, using ammonia or citric acid treatment instead of handling it in ways that don't make that necessary, and so forth.

I don't want to sue or defend anybody. I just want it labeled.

 

[GlennB]

You clearly don't understand what normal ground beef is, or how this product is made. The only difference is that instead of a knife chopping pieces of meat off the trimmings of a cow, they use a centrifuge to pull the meat out of the the trimmings of a cow.

Er, no.

When you get down to the "thin end" of a piece of muscle - even before the sinew (tendon) becomes apparent - the ratio of CT:muscle meat rises. Separating this from the fat has nothing strictly to do with "de-sinewing" machinery, simply that the muscle sheaths (fascia) are high in collagen and it's present in higher proportion as we get down to the muscle insertion points (think of carving a leg of lamb or turkey). Or roll up your trouser leg, tense your calf muscle and imagine which part of it people would like to eat / not be so keen on 'because it's gristly'.

Add in to that, if you wish, de-sinewing machinery will certainly release some collagen from sinews, where present. The only separation technique going on here with LFTB is based on the density of protein vs. fat, and the CT protein ends up in the LFTB.

And, guess what, LFTB is high in collagen. Who knew?

 

[Joey McGee]

Um, no.

But watch out; agricultural producers and their advocacy councils can sue you for saying things like that the good wholesome healthy food they sell has pesticide residues in it.

What a nitpick! The rules are that you cannot add pesticides, most people realize that means synthetic pesticides, there is a limit of what can been found on it due to drift and environmental contamination...

What physical changes? Heating (like LFTB)? Centrifuging (like LFTB)? Compression into lumps (like LFTB)? Freezing for storage and transport (like LFTB) and then thawing for final use (like LFTB)?

What else, is added back besides flavor compounds extracted (by centrifuging, perhaps) from the rind, which of course is completely different from adding back connective tissue from the hide in the form of LFTB?

This is not true. I'm not sure why people insist on repeating this as a fact. Perhaps you could provide evidence of this?

If the only difference is the separation tool, then why does the LFTB require the ammonia or citric acid treatment when regular ground beef does not?

It does not require it. In fact, it was approved and sold for 8 years without the ammonia process. It was done to improve safety and add an extra layer of assurance to customers, without any change to the quality of the food. It's exactly what a responsible company would do.

Are heating, compression, freezing, disinfection, and combining product steams transported from different sources not differences?

Not significant enough for other sources of beef to be labelled something else either

(Apparently they're differences enough for the product not to be allowed for human consumption in Canada, the UK, or the EU.)

More poor reasoning and embarrassing assumptions. The reason is apparently that no one has asked to use it. “Health Canada requires that all food additives undergo a pre-market safety evaluation,” the agency said. “Ammonium hydroxide added to meat … would be regulated in Canada as a food additive. Therefore, Health Canada would need to receive a submission requesting a specific use of ammonium hydroxide in meat products before the substance could be considered for approval.”

Health Canada also says that any imported meat must adhere to Canadian rules and standards, meaning LFTB cannot be brought into the country.

So it’s not a matter of LFTB being banned in Canada, it’s just never been on the list of approved additives for meat. And we do allow ammonium hydroxide in the processing of cocoa products and gelatin. http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2237256--pink-slime-stops-at-the-49th-parallel/

Instead of accounting for the other differences (heating, ammonia treatment, compression, freezing, transport to and from different facilities), you keep repeating that the separation tool is the only difference. It's not.

Those differences are not significant in production of ground beef.

Food safety sources have consistently told me for decades that previously frozen meat should not be refrozen. That if I want to freeze homemade portions or patties, I should buy fresh hamburger. But the LFTB additive is previously frozen. So unless it's physically different in some way (which you insist it is not), then why should I believe that it's safe to freeze unfrozen hamburger from the supermarket, if it might have the previously frozen beef additive in it without labeling? If it doesn't have to be labeled "contains LFTB," it should at least be labeled "previously frozen," right?

No, the process of it being flash frozen and then added to other ground beef is approved by the USDA as safe.

What a strange thing to suggest. Forward what, exactly?

If you ever find evidence for your claim that that it's "connective tissue and hide" it would be helpful to their legal team.

If the process of using a centrifuge and a knife makes it significantly different, that's up for you to prove. You're never going to get it in a million years from the USDA because their experts have concluded that it's the same product.

 

[Joey McGee]

Er, no.

When you get down to the "thin end" of a piece of muscle - even before the sinew (tendon) becomes apparent - the ratio of CT:muscle meat rises. Separating this from the fat has nothing strictly to do with "de-sinewing" machinery, simply that the muscle sheaths (fascia) are high in collagen and it's present in higher proportion as we get down to the muscle insertion points (think of carving a leg of lamb or turkey). Or roll up your trouser leg, tense your calf muscle and imagine which part of it people would like to eat / not be so keen on 'because it's gristly'.

Add in to that, if you wish, de-sinewing machinery will certainly release some collagen from sinews, where present. The only separation technique going on here with LFTB is based on the density of protein vs. fat, and the CT protein ends up in the LFTB.

And, guess what, LFTB is high in collagen. Who knew?

So you're going off of the one study done by Sebranek right? Did you catch what him and his colleague at the Uni of Iowa said?

James Dickson: I doubt that there are any meaningful differences in nutritional value between ground beef and lean finely textured beef. Both have approximately equal amounts of protein, roughly 17-18% of total weight. There was one report that showed that lean finely textured beef had more collagen than beef chuck, but the lean finely textured beef was not compared to ground beef or even ground chuck, but was compared to whole muscle chuck which was trimmed on all fat and connective tissue, which would have eliminated the collagen. It is hard to find data on how much collagen might be present in ground beef, and not surprisingly, the numbers vary considerably based on the composition of the ground beef and what it is made from. On the high end, the percent collagen as percent of total protein is roughly the same between lean finely textured beef and ground beef.

And THEN you add it into regular ground beef...

 

[Joey McGee]

Yeah I'm just going to go with the experts at the USDA from now on, they seem to have my back on these issues.

 

[phunk]

If the only difference is the separation tool, then why does the LFTB require the ammonia or citric acid treatment when regular ground beef does not?

Because in the process of making lftb it is warmed to a temperature range where bacteria could potentially grow, but not cooked to kill them off.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I already mentioned that the cuts get labeled, this is because they are considered nutritional claims. ...

What nonsense. They taste differently, they have different texture and toughness or tenderness. I don't go buy a Ribeye because it's more nutritious. I buy it because I can broil it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If they're adding beef tongue and brain to ground beef and not labeling it, they're ripping themselves off because those normally sell a lot higher than ground beef does.

Dodge much?

 

[Joey McGee]

Because in the process of making lftb it is warmed to a temperature range where bacteria could potentially grow, but not cooked to kill them off.

That's not true, the refrigerated beef is brought up to 105F which is the same temperature as when it is killed, and the entire process from beginning to end takes less than 30 minutes, less time than it takes for the bacteria to grow.

They did it without the ammonia for 8 years without a single poisoning, they simply improved to the point of near-perfection. This both covers their ass in case of a breakdown in the system and assures the customer that it is as safe as humanly possible. This is why the company won awards and was given the highest ratings by food safety advocates.

One of the most disturbing moments was when people attacked Nancy Donley of being on the take from BPI for defending the company, and she had to emotionally explain that her 6 year old son died from tainted beef and BPI just happened to be the industry leader in making sure that never happened to anyone again...

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/03/in-defense-of-food-safety-leadership/#.UznIR6Ia34c

The smug accusations of people is the only thing that makes me want to puke about this product

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because in the process of making lftb it is warmed to a temperature range where bacteria could potentially grow, but not cooked to kill them off.

That doesn't answer the question, why does ground beef not need the ammonia when the LFTB does?

The answer is because one is ground from meat that was butchered and handled in a relatively clean manner. The LFTB has a much higher rate of contamination because it is slaughterhouse floor waste, a little fact missing from all the industry propaganda.

Joey would have us believe it is collected neatly in little buckets rather than swept up off the floor. Slaughter houses move too fast to be bothered to use little buckets to hold the trim. If it were handled cleanly like ground beef is, it wouldn't need the ammonia or citric acid treatment.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Joey is forgetting there were citations in the thread where the school lunch hamburger with LFTB in it failed excess bacteria tests. The ammonia processing was found to be unreliable and the industry claimed to have fixed the problem but no more tests were done.

That suggests not using the ammonia for 8 years and having no problems was likely due to thorough cooking, not because the raw product met USDA safety standards. But the food safety law says relying on cooking is the back up plan, and primary safety is obtained by testing ground beef for contamination.

 

[Joey McGee]

Am I on ignore now? lol

That doesn't answer the question, why does ground beef not need the ammonia when the LFTB does?

LFTB does not need the ammonia. It was approved in 1993 and the ammonia process was added in 2001. Not a single case of poisoning in that time. So why are you making this completely bogus claim? Why are you still arguing against BPI when you haven't even read their position? It's like arguing against the government when you haven't event read the NIST report

The answer is because one is ground from meat that was butchered and handled in a relatively clean manner. The LFTB has a much higher rate of contamination because it is slaughterhouse floor waste, a little fact missing from all the industry propaganda.

Should be easy for you to prove this, but you've gone and made it harder on yourself using weasel words... poor form!

Joey would have us believe it is collected neatly in little buckets rather than swept up off the floor. Slaughter houses move too fast to be bothered to use little buckets to hold the trim. If it were handled cleanly like ground beef is, it wouldn't need the ammonia or citric acid treatment.

Standard conspiracy theorist babble. Good luck finding support for these completely made-up beliefs anywhere...

 

[Prometheus]

And if that tongue or those brains were added in your hamburger, you wouldn't mind there was no label telling you so?

As for, "won't but it again" the problem was I could not identify just what I should not buy again in order to avoid this stuff because it was not labeled.

I would not mind if tongue or brain were added without labeling as such. Though if the price were raised commensurate with the added value, I likely wouldn't buy the more expensive meat in the first place UNLESS I knew the price was justified by having those luxury ingredients added.

What's so difficult? If you don't like the ground beef sold by a particular grocer, then don't buy their generic ground beef. Look for "ground sirloin" or "ground chuck" or "ground round". By law (at least in the U.S.) products labeled with any of those identifiers can only contain lean and fat from the specifically labelled primal cut. If you don't see such labels in your store then buy a chuck roast roast or some sirloin and ask them to grind it for you.

 

[Joey McGee]

Joey is forgetting there were citations in the thread where the school lunch hamburger with LFTB in it failed excess bacteria tests. The ammonia processing was found to be unreliable and the industry claimed to have fixed the problem but no more tests were done.

No one has ever gotten sick, no contaminated batches ever left the factory, and the USDA and the vast consensus of experts still maintain it is extremely safe and always has been. Nothing is perfect 100% of the time, you're desperately clawing at anything you can get now...

That suggests not using the ammonia for 8 years and having no problems was likely due to thorough cooking, not because the raw product met USDA safety standards. But the food safety law says relying on cooking is the back up plan, and primary safety is obtained by testing ground beef for contamination.

You're just making it up as you go along! They passed all their tests for those 8 years... the USDA approved it for all those years... oh wait right! BPI was paying them to look the other way!

Gets funnier, are there any more arguments you want to rehash?

 

[ehcks]

Dodge much?

Apparently you accept nothing but the most direct of replies.

Fine. I would eat ground beef with brain and tongue without a label. I would also eat cow brain or tongue not in ground beef.

If I knew then what I know now, the time I ate a chicken heart would have been preceded by holding it up and yelling "Kalima!" If it's edible and non-poisonous, I can't see the problem with it.