Pink Slime

[Joey McGee]

You know, the first time I came across this thread I thought some people were just basically chemophobic, the ammonia aspect threw them off. But then I realized something far stupider was at work. Yes, some people actually want there to be poison in their food so they can have something to be mad at. Watch them go! Truly, tomfoolery is a spectator sport!

 

[Butter!]

 

[Joe Random]

Do you know what's in the fake-butter topping on that popcorn?!

 

[Butter!]

Gasp! Sliiiiiiiiiimmmmmeeeeeee *flump* *wither*

 

[tyr_13]

You know, the first time I came across this thread I thought some people were just basically chemophobic, the ammonia aspect threw them off. But then I realized something far stupider was at work. Yes, some people actually want there to be poison in their food so they can have something to be mad at. Watch them go! Truly, tomfoolery is a spectator sport!

I think this is somewhat hyperbole.

There is general anxiety around food and food safety, yes. That is one source of concern over all 'new' food processes. There is a similar objection to food irradiation and microwaving because it's 'dangerous', hell even to cooking food at all. It's a common form of woo.

Here the objections, while initially sprinkled with a some fears of 'poison' from the AH, seem to be more around food quality, or at least the perception of it. It's not about being 'poison'. They want 'a good deal' and to get the best product, so it's much as the same concern as McDonald's patties containing mostly soy and oatmeal fill when they are 100% beef. I WISH something that was mostly soy and oatmeal tasted like McDonald's, and I like soy and veggie burgers!

LTFB gives them something to latch onto as how they're getting 'ripped off' and to overcome so that they're smart enough to avoid getting 'ripped off', or at least get the best product. Or a product they like, or perceive that they'd like. To those of use more familiar with the food supply, latching onto LTFB comes off as naive as looking for ripe pineapple. There are other processes and factors that affect the meat quality and properties (like texture) much more than LTFB. That no one has even mentioned controlling for things like MAP (which is a good technique in and of itself but is abused), age, and only some given to different cuts, leaves me with the impression that it's far more about perception than any actual difference in the product.

Again, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world if vendors start labeling some ground beef as having LTFB or not, especially if it means I can get some cheaper while others by the more expensive crap. I still don't think it should be a requirement, as the USDA link says, it's still beef. Now I think that calling it ground beef is a little disingenuous because while it has been ground, it's also been put through a centrifuge first.

 

[Butter!]

Dangit tyr_13. You always have to come in and be all sensible and balanced and stuff. Seeing a possible moderate position between the two extremes in a debate? Have you gone mad, sir?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The issue is not about chemical poison, it's not over-reacting to food safety (though there was evidence the process was inadequate and the meat with the filler added was found to be contaminated, but this is solved with proper cooking).

There has been reasonable discussion in this thread of the ammonia and the bacterial contaminants issues. And while I don't recall every post, there has been no prolonged discussion of the safety of Pink Slime.

As for 'filler', Merriam Webster defines filler as

a : a substance added to a product (as to increase bulk, weight, viscosity, opacity, or strength)

Pink Slime is not hamburger. We know that because one cannot sell it alone. It is added to hamburger, not just to use up extra parts of the cow, but to artificially lower the fat percentage. That is a filler.

Whether something has nutritional value doesn't exclude the thing being filler.

The issue in this thread is for the most part about labeling, not about food safety.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think this is somewhat hyperbole.

There is general anxiety around food and food safety, yes. That is one source of concern over all 'new' food processes. There is a similar objection to food irradiation and microwaving because it's 'dangerous', hell even to cooking food at all. It's a common form of woo.

None of these issues are what the thread discussion has mostly been about.

It seems to me some people in the thread assume this straw man must apply here, after all, the discussion is about a food additive.

Here the objections, while initially sprinkled with a some fears of 'poison' from the AH, seem to be more around food quality, or at least the perception of it. It's not about being 'poison'. They want 'a good deal' and to get the best product, so it's much as the same concern as McDonald's patties containing mostly soy and oatmeal fill when they are 100% beef. I WISH something that was mostly soy and oatmeal tasted like McDonald's, and I like soy and veggie burgers!

LTFB gives them something to latch onto as how they're getting 'ripped off' and to overcome so that they're smart enough to avoid getting 'ripped off', or at least get the best product. Or a product they like, or perceive that they'd like. To those of use more familiar with the food supply, latching onto LTFB comes off as naive as looking for ripe pineapple. There are other processes and factors that affect the meat quality and properties (like texture) much more than LTFB. That no one has even mentioned controlling for things like MAP (which is a good technique in and of itself but is abused), age, and only some given to different cuts, leaves me with the impression that it's far more about perception than any actual difference in the product.

Perhaps you could tell us who "they" are that you are referring to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://fns.dpi.wi.gov/files/fns/pdf/dpi_lftb_info_031912.pdf

“LFTB is not filler; it is nutritionally equivalent to 95% lean beef and doesn’t contain connective tissue.“

Please provide evidence that the USDA is involved in a decades long coverup worth billions of dollars in lawsuits.

Wow, that's a blatant falsehood. You really have to wonder who is behind that "educational material".

It's scary that piece comes from a state agency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime

Rick Jochum, a spokesperson for BPI stated in 2012 that BPI's product does not contain cow intestines or connective tissue such as tendons.[17] A USDA microbiologist opined, the product does contain connective tissue "instead of muscle" and thus it is "not meat" and is "not nutritionally equivalent" to ground beef.[18] Fox news reported this dissent as: besides low-grade beef trimmings other meat by-products such as connective tissue, cartilage, and sinew which contain fat and small amounts of lean beef were present.[19][20] ...

17 Coghlan, Andy (March 19, 2012). "Is 'pink slime' being unfairly demonised?". New Scientist Magazine. Retrieved July 22, 2012.
18 "'Pink slime': Combo of connective tissue, scraps hidden in your kids’ lunch". Fox News. March 8, 2012. Retrieved March 28, 2012.
19 Zuckerbrot, Tanya (March 21, 2012). "Is 'pink slime' in ground meat safe?". Fox News. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
20 "Meijer says meat will be free of "pink slime" in April". WZZM 13 News. Mar 23, 2012. Retrieved July 19, 2012.

 

[tyr_13]

None of these issues are what the thread discussion has mostly been about.


It seems to me some people in the thread assume this straw man must apply here, after all, the discussion is about a food additive.

I know, that's what I said. I was explaining why it, the objections here, were being conflated with these other things, more traditional food woo.

Perhaps you could tell us who "they" are that you are referring to.

You mostly, but some others who don't seem to realize the extent many things, both labeled and not, effect their food and more specifically their beef. But also, not only here in the broader discussion.

 

[jimbob]

I have thought of an analogous situation with my "beef" about quality.

A meal made with a really fresh fish would generally be considered to have a better quality ingredient than one with the same fish when it is older and "stale" though perfectly safe.

Similarly, I would argue that LFTB is a lower-quality cheaper material than minced beef. I would have no issue with LFTB being an ingredient if it was labelled as such. It is the fact that two competing suppliers could be selling ostensibly the same product, but one have a cheaper basis material and the customer mightn't know until they try the product and find one has an "odd gristly texture"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know, that's what I said. I was explaining why it, the objections here, were being conflated with these other things, more traditional food woo.

I never read posts as carefully as I should.

You mostly, but some others who don't seem to realize the extent many things, both labeled and not, effect their food and more specifically their beef. But also, not only here in the broader discussion.

I don't believe I've implied feeling "ripped off" so much as being deprived of an informed choice.

 

[Joey McGee]

I think this is somewhat hyperbole.

The definition of hyperbole is an obvious and intentional exaggeration for effect... some people don't know that...

Here the objections, while initially sprinkled with a some fears of 'poison' from the AH, seem to be more around food quality, or at least the perception of it.

No, many people here are of the belief that if must be treated with ammonia because it is more likely to be contaminated because it's the kind of meat that was only fed to dogs earlier, therefore poisonous, and we are told that there evidence it is unsafe (a nytimes article is repeatedly brought up, means nothing, has been repeatedly shot down). Also, they do not say it is about different qualities of meat, they are saying that it is not even meat, that it is hide, or tendon or connective tissue. We are told that someone at the USDA approved the product as meat when it is not and was rewarded with a board seat at BPI. This isn't even close.

It's not about being 'poison'.

It's about it being contaminated with bacteria, or not even the same molecular substance as beef. While some people certainly are simply concerned about "quality" that is not what the lawsuit is about, and certainly I have not been in any conversations here about these things recently.

 

[Joey McGee]

Pink Slime is not hamburger. We know that because one cannot sell it alone.

No, this is your warped deduction that is based on nothing. It has been explained to you why they do not sell it on it's own, the processing changes the texture so that it does not stick together. But it is the exact same molecules, the exact same nutritional profile. You then make a logical jump that it must some how be inherently different. This is extremely stupid and embarrassingly naive logic to be using in order to come to a conclusion especially when faced with the overwhelming evidence and consensus from the USDA and independent experts.

It is added to hamburger, not just to use up extra parts of the cow, but to artificially lower the fat percentage. That is a filler.

Hilariously naive! Hamburger is made up of many different sources of ground beef that have different levels of lean meat and fat until they reach the desired ratio. What they do with lftb is no different, it's just extremely lean. They do this all the time with leat mean and fatty meat that is not processed with a centrifuge, but yet when they do it with meat that processed with a centrifuge, suddenly to you this is now a filler. That is absolutely delusional.

Whether something has nutritional value doesn't exclude the thing being filler.

When it's the exact same meat from the exact same animal from the exact same tissues, you aren't adding a filler. That is logically sound. You are desperate as all hell trying to push this logic on us, admit you have nothing. And it doesn't have some nutritional value, it has the EXACT SAME, because it is the EXACT SAME THING, processed differently. Unbelievable.

The issue in this thread is for the most part about labeling, not about food safety.

No that is your personal issue. This thread is about pink slime. And everything to do with it. And all the claims that are being made about it. Do you retract your claim about it containing hide yet or should we just sweep that malarkey under the rug? Jokes

 

[Joey McGee]

Wow, that's a blatant falsehood. You really have to wonder who is behind that "educational material".

It's scary that piece comes from a state agency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime

WOW! So as evidence against the USDA's position, you post the beliefs of a guy who is being sued for millions of dollars right now by BPI, who has no evidence other than his opinion and the fact he worked there at one point. Think about that. That's like you telling me that we can't trust the government's story on 911 because a former CIA guy says he has inside information that it was staged.

Please, keep the entertainment coming.

 

[Joey McGee]

I don't believe I've implied feeling "ripped off" so much as being deprived of an informed choice.

But you can't make an informed choice because you're willing to believe anyone that has a conspiracy theory about the product and unwilling to believe that the experts, even the authors of the paper you tried to use as evidence, have to say. Hide, tendons, BPI paid off a USDA admin with a board seat, *********** hilarious!

Got any questions for me yet?

Here's one for you...

Why do you reject what the author and his colleague have to say about your interpretation of his paper, refuse to address the fact that they have done so, and keep coming here posting it like you're not embarrassing yourself?

 

[Joey McGee]

I have thought of an analogous situation with my "beef" about quality.

A meal made with a really fresh fish would generally be considered to have a better quality ingredient than one with the same fish when it is older and "stale" though perfectly safe.

Similarly, I would argue that LFTB is a lower-quality cheaper material than minced beef.

And you would be wrong. That is the worst analogy we've had here in awhile. The fact is that it's the same cow, same area of the cow, same tissues, literally the exact same thing, removed one way with a knife and the other way with a centrifuge. It's only cheaper because they are using otherwise unusable parts and it changes the texture so it must be added to other ground. Not because it is less quality. That is the facts. That is the consensus of the USDA and the experts.

"odd gristly texture"

A myth

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It's only cheaper because they are using otherwise unusable parts and it changes the texture so it must be added to other ground. Not because it is less quality. That is the facts. That is the consensus of the USDA and the experts.

But it is not the consensus of the consumer. And since food is produced for the consumer, I think you have your priorities backwards. Consumers do not exist to make profits for factory food production. Just the opposite. Food production is to supply consumers what they want. If they don't want pink slime, then it isn't right to try and sneak it into their food unaware.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"odd gristly texture"

A myth

And yet more than 15% pink slime in burger is intolerable.

 

[GlennB]

“LFTB is not filler; it is nutritionally equivalent to 95% lean beef and doesn’t contain connective tissue.“

An interesting stat given that all meat contains connective tissue, no matter how lean. Otherwise the animal it came from would have fallen apart before it got to the slaughterhouse.