Pink Slime

[Joey McGee]

If you're going to argue against the "official story" and the "industry propaganda" wouldn't a good spot to start be the "final report"?

http://beefisbeef.com/assets/content/FINALComplaint1.pdf

Some more interesting keywords to search for in that document would be "waste" and "contamination"...

All of the people who made these claims are being sued, the USDA and academia are on the company's side, yet people just can't help themselves! They put hide in my burger I read it on HuffPo!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

I'm pretty sure most people would expect hamburger to be labeled if it included organ meat. The industry's argument is that it's beef because it comes from the cow. It's a flawed argument.

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.

Are you in a country or city where people buy meat from the butcher behind the meat counter? Here the hamburger is packaged elsewhere and in the grocer's fridge. They don't have those labels, they just say hamburger and there was no way to tell which meat had the stuff in it until I brought it home and cooked it.

Why should it be up to the consumer to buy hamburger, cook and eat it to find out it has horrible texture from an additive in it?

What's wrong with proper labeling?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

The question is not, would you eat it. The question is, would you expect it to be labeled as containing organ meat, or tongue, or tripe?

 

[ehcks]

The question is not, would you eat it. The question is, would you expect it to be labeled as containing organ meat, or tongue, or tripe?

No, the question was "would I mind," not "would I expect." I would not mind.

I also wouldn't expect it. I wouldn't request it be required, just to aim for the moving goalpost.

 

[Joey McGee]

The industry's argument is that it's beef because it comes from the cow.

False. A completely fabricated claim. They don't argue that anywhere. Here you have a golden opportunity to prove me wrong and show I don't know what I'm talking about...

Why should it be up to the consumer to buy hamburger, cook and eat it to find out it has horrible texture from an additive in it?

Why should anyone accept your anecdote/opinion/closely held belief? Shouldn't we go with the best available evidence instead?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, the question was "would I mind," not "would I expect." I would not mind.

I also wouldn't expect it. I wouldn't request it be required, just to aim for the moving goalpost.

Mind or expect, neither changes the question relevant to the point.

And I'm skeptical that you really wouldn't mind if you found out there was organ meat ground up in your burger and it wasn't labeled, but regardless, truth in labeling laws exist for food for a reason.

 

[Myriad]

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/

Oh, so it's not banned, it's just not legal there. (Which is what I said: "not allowed.") And nobody there wants it anyhow.

And you talk about me nit-picking.

Those differences are not significant in production of ground beef.

So there are no differences, but those differences that aren't there are not significant. How do you define significant? Food experts have noted aesthetic differences in texture and taste. That's significant, because red meat is a luxury food and is not particularly healthy. Most dietitians recommend severely limited amounts. So taste and texture is all it has going for it.

Let's try a scenario. You go to a sandwich shop and order a ham and provolone with mustard and pickle slices on rye. You watch the preparer spread mustard on a slice of rye and stack the cheese and ham and add pickle slices topping it off with the second slice of rye.

Then he takes the whole thing and stuffs it between some heavy-duty rollers, folds the resulting compressed mass and stamps it into chunks with a cookie cutter, flash freezes the pieces, thaws them out by microwaves, puts it on the plate, and serves it to you. When you object, he (1) boasts about how clean his squashing-chunking-freezing-thawing machine is and that no one has ever been poisoned by it, (2) insists it's exactly the same product you ordered because no ingredient apart from what you specifically asked for was added or subtracted, (3) "the only difference" is that instead of a knife to cut your sandwich into pieces (he used to just slice sandwiches in half before serving them), he now uses the squasher-chunker-freezer-thawer instead.

When you object "that's not how a sandwich is processed," he disagrees vehemently, explaining that a sandwich is inherently a highly processed food; the ham gets spiced and cooked and sliced thin, the cheese stirred and cultured and sliced, the mustard ground, the pickles brined and sliced and chilled, the rye bread kneaded and baked and then frozen for storage. He's done nothing to the sandwich that isn't already inherent in the process of sandwich-making.

Do you buy the "sandwich?"

No, the process of it being flash frozen and then added to other ground beef is approved by the USDA as safe.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 you can find where I made the claim that LFTB is "connective tissue and hide," or that it isn't safe if treated as previously frozen, then maybe you can have me charged in this vengeful lawsuit.

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.

Since "significantly" is vague and subjective, there's nothing to prove. I don't have to buy it, after all.

And I won't, unless it's labeled.

 

[ehcks]

Mind or expect, neither changes the question relevant to the point.

And I'm skeptical that you really wouldn't mind if you found out there was organ meat ground up in your burger and it wasn't labeled, but regardless, truth in labeling laws exist for food for a reason.

I don't mind when there are things in my food that are also food of such a similar type that allergies wouldn't apply.

It would seem like being upset that my wheat cereal that didn't specify it was whole grain was actually whole grain.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm pretty sure most people would expect hamburger to be labeled if it included organ meat. The industry's argument is that it's beef because it comes from the cow. It's a flawed argument

That I happen to be willing to accept it not withstanding, I don't recall seeing an industry source making that particular argument. LFTB does not contain any organ meat. My understanding of the official industry position is that it's beef because it's made of scraps of low grade muscle meat that are otherwise difficult to separate from the inedible parts. I would also agree with you that it's likely most people would expect hamburger to be labeled if it contained organ meat. In fact, even though I don't personally care, that's exactly what I would expect since it's illegal in the U.S. to include organ meat without such labeling.

Are you in a country or city where people buy meat from the butcher behind the meat counter? Here the hamburger is packaged elsewhere and in the grocer's fridge. They don't have those labels, they just say hamburger and there was no way to tell which meat had the stuff in it until I brought it home and cooked it.

I am in Massachusetts. I generally buy meat pre-packaged from a refrigerated case at my local Stop & Shop. I don't ever actually see the butcher unless I push the little doorbell type button next to the meat case that says, "Ring for Service," on it, and then ask him to please grind the wrapped chuck roast I just grabbed out of the refrigerator for me. I have noticed recently that pre-wrapped ground beef from specific cuts is less commonly available in the refrigerator--probably because most customers don't ask for it.

Why should it be up to the consumer to buy hamburger, cook and eat it to find out it has horrible texture from an additive in it?

I'm sorry, is there some reason that ground beef deserves such special treatment. I'm not aware any other food that is required to ensure I'll like it's texture before I've actually tried it.

What's wrong with proper labeling?

Nothing. I certainly wouldn't complain if they did label meat as you suggest. I just don't see any particular need to go through the hassle and expense or requiring it. You can easily get meat of the quality you prefer if you're willing to put a bit more effort into doing so. What's wrong with allowing purveyors to offer disinterested customers a less specific product?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That I happen to be willing to accept it not withstanding, I don't recall seeing an industry source making that particular argument. LFTB does not contain any organ meat. My understanding of the official industry position is that it's beef because it's made of scraps of low grade muscle meat that are otherwise difficult to separate from the inedible parts. I would also agree with you that it's likely most people would expect hamburger to be labeled if it contained organ meat. In fact, even though I don't personally care, that's exactly what I would expect since it's illegal in the U.S. to include organ meat without such labeling.

It's the argument they made to the USDA to be exempt from having to label the product and it's the argument Joey makes. However, where do you draw the line? Some of that trim is likely all tendon and fat with no muscle meat whatsoever.

Drawing the line at organs is obvious. What makes previously useable 'trim' beef vs 'other'? Does it need to contain some muscle meat? What about the pieces that only contain connective tissues and cartilage? Do you think anyone is sorting the scraps and tossing the ones without red in them? Still beef? It's one thing to say there is connective tissue in beef. It's quite another to say that connective tissue is actual beef. There's a point where it is filler.

I am in Massachusetts. I generally buy meat pre-packaged from a refrigerated case at my local Stop & Shop. I don't ever actually see the butcher unless I push the little doorbell type button next to the meat case that says, "Ring for Service," on it, and then ask him to please grind the wrapped chuck roast I just grabbed out of the refrigerator for me. I have noticed recently that pre-wrapped ground beef from specific cuts is less commonly available in the refrigerator--probably because most customers don't ask for it.

I've not seen any labeling other than "hamburger". Could be I never noticed if they'd been there in the past, but the only label I've seen around here is calling it 'angus'.

I'm sorry, is there some reason that ground beef deserves such special treatment. I'm not aware any other food that is required to ensure I'll like it's texture before I've actually tried it.

Way to miss the entire point. It's not like you to do that.

Some years back a new processed product was added to hamburger. The industry lobbied and received a pass on having to label the additive. It turned out that additive made hamburger rubbery, the texture appealing to some while disgusting others.

I don't care what the stuff is technically, it alters hamburger and it is an additive. It's not like one can buy (or sell) LFTB as hamburger.

Nothing. I certainly wouldn't complain if they did label meat as you suggest. I just don't see any particular need to go through the hassle and expense or requiring it. You can easily get meat of the quality you prefer if you're willing to put a bit more effort into doing so. What's wrong with allowing purveyors to offer disinterested customers a less specific product?

Suppose we applied that same principle to cheese food. Why the special treatment, it is still cheese after all. How about tuna, they add casein for some reason. Why label it, it's still tuna. There are valid analogies where additives are labeled.

It is added to the burger. It is not burger on its own. It is beef only in that it comes from the cow, but it is not hamburger. It's added to the burger.

 

[Joey McGee]

Oh, so it's not banned, it's just not legal there. (Which is what I said: "not allowed.")

It means nothing that it's not in the Canadian market.

And nobody there wants it anyhow.

Perhaps now after a bunch of idiots like Jamie Oliver spread lies about it...

So there are no differences, but those differences that aren't there are not significant.

What I was clearly saying is that there is no meaningful difference in the composition, as in it is still meat from the same trimmings they cut steaks and roasts out of, just hard to cut out with a knife. But nice try...

How do you define significant? Food experts have noted aesthetic differences in texture and taste.

You're aware of properly controlled and blinded tests that show a negative result?

That's significant, because red meat is a luxury food and is not particularly healthy. Most dietitians recommend severely limited amounts. So taste and texture is all it has going for it.

Wait, it's the opposite now? So it tastes better so now we need to label it because it makes people want to eat more of it?

Let's try a scenario. You go to a sandwich shop and order a ham and provolone with mustard and pickle slices on rye. You watch the preparer spread mustard on a slice of rye and stack the cheese and ham and add pickle slices topping it off with the second slice of rye.

Then he takes the whole thing and stuffs it between some heavy-duty rollers, folds the resulting compressed mass and stamps it into chunks with a cookie cutter, flash freezes the pieces, thaws them out by microwaves, puts it on the plate, and serves it to you. When you object, he (1) boasts about how clean his squashing-chunking-freezing-thawing machine is and that no one has ever been poisoned by it, (2) insists it's exactly the same product you ordered because no ingredient apart from what you specifically asked for was added or subtracted, (3) "the only difference" is that instead of a knife to cut your sandwich into pieces (he used to just slice sandwiches in half before serving them), he now uses the squasher-chunker-freezer-thawer instead.

When you object "that's not how a sandwich is processed," he disagrees vehemently, explaining that a sandwich is inherently a highly processed food; the ham gets spiced and cooked and sliced thin, the cheese stirred and cultured and sliced, the mustard ground, the pickles brined and sliced and chilled, the rye bread kneaded and baked and then frozen for storage. He's done nothing to the sandwich that isn't already inherent in the process of sandwich-making.

Do you buy the "sandwich?"

I fail to see how this is an appropriate analogy to regular ground beef and this product. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

If you can find where I made the claim that LFTB is "connective tissue and hide,"

you said "adding back connective tissue from the hide in the form of LFTB". Since the hide is removed before the animal is even cut up, let alone delivered to BPI, the "from the hide" part is clearly false. As is the "adding connective tissue in the form of LFTB" part, since LFTB is not a form of connective tissue, and is made up of meat.

or that it isn't safe if treated as previously frozen

Your argument that because it's been flash frozen it should be labelled then, but you offered a reasoning of safely. I again, fail to understand what you're talking about.

then maybe you can have me charged in this vengeful lawsuit.

I guess if you're a conspiracy theorist and you think that the USDA approved a product of lesser quality and safety because BPI was able to pay off someone there, and the company knew this and is simply trying to harm ABC, vengeful would be the correct word. Instead it appears they are trying to recoup some of their losses that were caused by malice and journalistic malpractice. Funny how a choice of words can mean so much...

The truth is that BPI didn't do anything to deserve this. And these smug people celebrating will have the beef on their faces when ABC loses...

 

[Joey McGee]

It's the argument they made to the USDA to be exempt from having to label the product

No it's not. Prove it. Should be extremely simple.

and it's the argument Joey makes.

No it's not.

Some of that trim is likely all tendon and fat with no muscle meat whatsoever.

No it's not. Prove it.

It's one thing to say there is connective tissue in beef. It's quite another to say that connective tissue is actual beef.

No one is saying that.

I'm starting to get the feeling that there might not actually be any substance to your claims.

 

[Myriad]

Wait, it's the opposite now? So it tastes better so now we need to label it because it makes people want to eat more of it?

The "it" I was referring to is red meat. The only thing red meat, including hamburger, has going for it, as a food choice, is taste and texture. It's not cheap, it has serious health risk warnings, it's environmentally costly to produce. It's not like beans or tofu or whole grains, that people will make the best of because it's an inexpensive protein source or produced sustainably or better for their health.

So, go ahead and mess with the taste and texture. That'll be great for business.

Hey, it has to be ground anyhow, so why not heat, centrifuge, chemically treat, compress, pelletize, freeze, and thaw it too?

Just like with bread. It has to be baked anyhow, so what harm would putting it in a blast furnace do? I'm sure consumers will like it just as much.

All those EU countries that did in fact ban it are probably just jealous of American ingenuity. What do France, Spain, Greece, and Italy know about good food anyhow?

ETA: New Coke also was preferred in double-blind taste tests. Good luck with New Beef. Here's hoping it'll be just as big a hit.

 

[tyr_13]

The "it" I was referring to is red meat. The only thing red meat, including hamburger, has going for it, as a food choice, is taste and texture. It's not cheap, it has serious health risk warnings, it's environmentally costly to produce. It's not like beans or tofu or whole grains, that people will make the best of because it's an inexpensive protein source or produced sustainably or better for their health.

So, go ahead and mess with the taste and texture. That'll be great for business.

Hey, it has to be ground anyhow, so why not heat, centrifuge, chemically treat, compress, pelletize, freeze, and thaw it too?

Just like with bread. It has to be baked anyhow, so what harm would putting it in a blast furnace do? I'm sure consumers will like it just as much.

All those EU countries that did in fact ban it are probably just jealous of American ingenuity. What do France, Spain, Greece, and Italy know about good food anyhow?

ETA: New Coke also was preferred in double-blind taste tests. Good luck with New Beef. Here's hoping it'll be just as big a hit.

Yet I still want it in a can. Ooo, or maybe in cartons like they do with some egg whites. Let my mix it into stuff to cook. I could add some to my lazy veggie mixes for some more protein when I'm tired of beans.

Why did the EU countries ban it anyway? Was it linked to somewhere?

 

[Joey McGee]

The "it" I was referring to is red meat. The only thing red meat, including hamburger, has going for it, as a food choice, is taste and texture. It's not cheap, it has serious health risk warnings

Very controversial ones, and this is over the saturated fat. Since this product helps makes meat leaner for extremely cheap, allowing poorer people to afford leaner meat, you seem to be on the wrong side of the fence on this argument.

it's environmentally costly to produce. It's not like beans or tofu or whole grains, that people will make the best of because it's an inexpensive protein source or produced sustainably or better for their health.

So, go ahead and mess with the taste and texture. That'll be great for business.

It actually was great for business (70% of hamburgers in the US, McDonalds etc) until some very pathetic and delusional people started spreading lies about it.

Hey, it has to be ground anyhow, so why not heat,

I'd just like to remind everyone that it is brought up to 105F which is the same temperature it is at the moment the animal is slaughtered, and this has no effect on the freshness or bacterial activity

centrifuge, chemically treat, compress, pelletize, freeze, and thaw it too?

They don't even say a prayer for the soul of the poor thing!

Just like with bread. It has to be baked anyhow, so what harm would putting it in a blast furnace do? I'm sure consumers will like it just as much.

Now this is just being dramatic...

All those EU countries that did in fact ban it are probably just jealous of American ingenuity. What do France, Spain, Greece, and Italy know about good food anyhow?

Probably as much as they know about GMO.

BOOM! I win

 

[Myriad]

I'd just like to remind everyone that it is brought up to 105F which is the same temperature it is at the moment the animal is slaughtered.

This is a very misleading and potentially harmful (if people are dumb enough to take the implied "bacteria won't grow at the body temperature of the former animal" suggestion seriously) talking point.

I suspect that the moment the animal is slaughtered, it had (up to then) a functioning immune system. Once it's been cut into parts, not so much.

 

[Marcus]

The USDA did not, and still does not, require different labeling because it is still beef. It does not significantly change the final product in any way, so why would they do that?

Ginger, I know you put a lot of effort into running a test, but perhaps it is not out of the question for you to run another one. The problems with the last test were first a small sample size, but also you yourself were not tested.

Given your confidence in discriminating the slime enhanced hamburger, if you were able to pick the difference in several samples in a double blind test I'm sure many would be convinced, well maybe not Joey.

 

[ThunderChunky]

The "it" I was referring to is red meat. The only thing red meat, including hamburger, has going for it, as a food choice, is taste and texture. It's not cheap, it has serious health risk warnings, it's environmentally costly to produce. It's not like beans or tofu or whole grains, that people will make the best of because it's an inexpensive protein source or produced sustainably or better for their health.

Sounds like you drank the vegan kool aid. Beef is incredibly nutritious by virtually all metrics. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6193/2 Vitamins, minerals, fats, and high quality protein that aligns with the metabolic needs of the human body.

Maybe you could make a case against processed meats, but then the comparison should be to processed grains, which are far worse.

 

[Joey McGee]

This is a very misleading and potentially harmful (if people are dumb enough to take the implied "bacteria won't grow at the body temperature of the former animal" suggestion seriously) talking point.

I suspect that the moment the animal is slaughtered, it had (up to then) a functioning immune system. Once it's been cut into parts, not so much.

I can't express how stupid this sounds to me right now. That is not what is being implied... How tedious this all is...

The point of mentioning the fact that it is not heated past the original tissue temperature is that the proteins are not being altered by the heat. Part of the lawsuit is over the claims that it was "cooked" or "simmered". The entire process, from beginning at a refrigerated state to being flash frozen is less than 30 minutes, and this is not enough time to allow bacteria to multiply.

Just read the lawsuit FFS before you start wading into this it's just a bloody waste of time! We could be getting into the real meat of it here...

 

[ThunderChunky]

This is a very misleading and potentially harmful (if people are dumb enough to take the implied "bacteria won't grow at the body temperature of the former animal" suggestion seriously) talking point.

I suspect that the moment the animal is slaughtered, it had (up to then) a functioning immune system. Once it's been cut into parts, not so much.

He probably means it's not "cooking" the meat. Obviously bacteria will grow at the temperature of the living animal. That's quite likely close to their optimal temperature. The risk of bacterial contamination in these scraps is mitigated by the treatment with small amounts of ammonia.

There are other chemical treatments in use that also do not require labeling. These include chlorine, organic acids, ozone, and numerous others.