Pink Slime

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have:
Analysis of the make up of the stuff by a university
Testimony of scientists
Documented unethical actions of the USDA regulators re the labeling
And a pilot test with the local skeptics

What do you have:
The industry's promotional material
An industry run taste test

'Bout sums it up I think.

 

[Joey McGee]

Right, you've seen some stuff in bucket in a slaughter house (or wherever it was) and you know more than the USDA scientists I cited.

"over objections of its own scientists, USDA officials with links to the beef industry labeled it meat."

Those people are being sued, read the lawsuit... they have proof they are wrong.

The official analysis said it was more connective tissue than meat,

The author and his colleague at the same university say you are wrong. End of story why you do not accept this is beyond me.

the scientists called it "connective tissue instead of muscle"

They are being sued for this exact claim, judge waived it through, a fact you ignore.[/QUOTE]

but you want us to believe your assertions that you have not supported with any alternative analysis, only with the industry's promotional material.

Lies I cite the USDA and independent academics you are incapable of reading coherently perhaps? I can't tell.

I'm sorry the evidence pisses you off. It's not me that's fringe here.

You never saw those pieces of the plane at the Pentagon huh

I have yet to see a single retail label with lftb on it, you can stamp your feet all you want, it's not being labeled.

That's how you offer proof, you're some skeptic I tells ya. See you at the Amazing Meeting! lol

 

[Joey McGee]

I have:
Analysis of the make up of the stuff by a university

Author of it and colleage says you are wrong about it, I've shown that here. You ignore it without comment lol.

Testimony of scientists

That are being successfully sued in a court of evidence.

Documented unethical actions of the USDA regulators re the labeling

LOL your crackpot conspiracy theory that an official took a bribe with a board seat.

And a pilot test with the local skeptics

no one cares

What do you have:
The industry's promotional material

try again usda and most academics are on my side you're blind

An industry run taste test

4 indepedentent labs who have an incentive not to cheat. All four labs? And the tests the USDA accepted that it made the texture better they ALL are on the take? You make me laugh

'Bout sums it up I think.

Yep, you're right

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Successfully sued? You need a basic law review. A judge ruling a case can go forward has no implications for the legitimacy of the claims, only that the plaintiffs have a standing to bring the case.

No, you didn't prove anything and you can't because the stuff is mostly tendons and connective tissue.

Where's that counter analysis? It would have been simple wouldn't it? Surely a company that spent millions on a campaign trying to rehabilitate it's image would have proven that the ground chuck the LFTB was compared to wasn't average hamburger? Why do you suppose they only asserted the ground chuck wasn't your average hamburger but never offered any other hamburger analyses?

You have assertions, I posted evidence. Post your evidence? Oh, that's right, all you have are assertions.

 

[Joey McGee]

Successfully sued? You need a basic law review. A judge ruling a case can go forward has no implications for the legitimacy of the claims, only that the plaintiffs have a standing to bring the case.

You misread something I say to try and score a point? That's just bizarre...

No, you didn't prove anything and you can't because the stuff is mostly tendons and connective tissue.

This appears to be what your brain is telling you, but we haven't seen any evidence of it. Again dodges the author and his colleague disagreeing with you, so funny....

Where's that counter analysis? It would have been simple wouldn't it? Surely a company that spent millions on a campaign trying to rehabilitate it's image would have proven that the ground chuck the LFTB was compared to wasn't average hamburger?

You're failing to grasp that no one really cares about your angle or talks about it because youre making a special misreading of a study and real jourmalists dont deal in the delusions of people and false claims easily disproved by public records and academic opinion.

Why do you suppose they only asserted the ground chuck wasn't your average hamburger but never offered any other hamburger analyses?

Why do you think this makes sense, is a fact, or that there is a conspiracy?

You have assertions, I posted evidence. Post your evidence? Oh, that's right, all you have are assertions.

Well I guess all of the USDA statements, FDA position papers, independent academics and newspaper articles are in a sense "asserting" things,,, ****,,,,

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh for pity's sake, FDA position paper my ass. There is no such thing. There was a corrupt USDA decision on labeling, that's not "a position paper". That just shows all the more that you don't know what you are talking about.

The independent academics said the stuff was 70% connective tissue compared to 30% in ground chuck.

Where's your analysis that the ground chuck didn't really represent hamburger? Yes the people who did the analysis were sorry they may have financially hurt the industry. That didn't change the analysis and you haven't presented anything countering your industry propaganda that ground chuck wasn't like real hamburger.

So present proof that ground chuck wasn't really the same as hamburger or stop using that unsupported claim.

And it's not a conspiracy, it was standard regulating corruption, revolving door, goes on all the time, business as usual on the Hill.

As for your attempt to use "majority" as if that was some kind of evidence, I've cited scientists working at the USDA, you've cited industry marketing propaganda. The right wingers on this forum that believe industry marketing propaganda do not add weight supporting an evidence based conclusion.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Not all of us shop at the meat counter asking for cuts of meat to be ground up for us. Maybe you should get out more, see how other people live.

And you do have an imaginary version of events, but whatever.

You did not have access to one of the major chains such as Kroger's?

If not, I will have to defer to your lack of resources....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You did not have access to one of the major chains such as Kroger's?

If not, I will have to defer to your lack of resources....

First off, oddly enough while there are many QFCs here, and they carry many Kroger products, they don't carry Kroger ground beef. And second, it was only after 2012 that Kroger stopped using LFTB.

Safeway, at the time of the exposure that LFTB was out there, said they would stop carrying it. But if you ask at the meat counter, they say that only applies to Safeway prepared ground beef and they don't know whether the prepackaged products in their meat case contain LFTB or not.

There's another product called "Laura's Lean Natural Beef". One would think calling something natural means they couldn't add LFTB to it. And currently they claim they don't. However, oddly enough their 4% fat product disappeared here as soon as the issue came to the forefront. (They still list it online.) The same with some of the 7% fat hamburger that supposedly didn't have LFTB in it is now gone with 10% currently being the lowest fat content in most hamburger. Laura's was dinged by the AHA back in 2003 for lying about the fat content in their meats so I don't buy that brand anyway.

It hasn't been hard to find hamburger without LFTB in the last couple years. But there are still labels one cannot be sure of without buying and cooking the stuff so I buy organic hamburger now to be sure it doesn't have LFTB in it.

 

[Joey McGee]

Oh for pity's sake, FDA position paper my ass. There is no such thing. There was a corrupt USDA decision on labeling, that's not "a position paper". That just shows all the more that you don't know what you are talking about.

The FDA and the USDA both have very specific definitions of what is allowed in ground beef that exclude the presence of hide which you bizarrely maintain is in the product... I posted this very recently. You never acknowledge anything I actually post, and then make up stuff that you think I posted, quite entertaining.

The independent academics said the stuff was 70% connective tissue compared to 30% in ground chuck.

This is your uneducated, delusional belief about a paper you do not understand. His colleague is equally reputable and has directly said your claim is wrong. I even pointed out to you about 3 times that you aren't reading the paper right, but enjoy your delusions.

Where's your analysis that the ground chuck didn't really represent hamburger? Yes the people who did the analysis were sorry they may have financially hurt the industry.

Uhm, actually no one really brought that study up. The entire story rested on the opinions of the defendents of the court case. They never brought up the study, it just came out after it blew up. Ammonia was the main issue, and stupid beliefs about hide were believed by people who can't resist a good "stick it to the man" story.

That didn't change the analysis and you haven't presented anything countering your industry propaganda that ground chuck wasn't like real hamburger. So present proof that ground chuck wasn't really the same as hamburger or stop using that unsupported claim.

If I did, would you believe it? You don't believe the guy who works with him at the same university who commented on that, why would believe any other academic source? It's all corrupt any way! This is how you are behaving.

On the second note how much time have you spent looking for corroboration of his statements? Probably zero, which proves you are not being skeptical and investigating your own beliefs. The guy is reputable, if you don't believe him, the onus is actually on YOU to do your OWN WORK!

Yeah right

And it's not a conspiracy, it was standard regulating corruption, revolving door, goes on all the time, business as usual on the Hill.

You have no proof of this, and they have documented proof that it was approved after she had already left the USDA, 6 months and more, you didn't read the lawsuit? Too bad for you egg on your face.

As for your attempt to use "majority" as if that was some kind of evidence, I've cited scientists working at the USDA, you've cited industry marketing propaganda. The right wingers on this forum that believe industry marketing propaganda do not add weight supporting an evidence based conclusion.

You maybe can't read? Anyone with a real interest can just go read recent news articles on it and find plenty of independent experts. We can't trust the USDA! There's dog food and hide in our meat! HAHAHA good for a laugh

 

[Joey McGee]

There's another product called "Laura's Lean Natural Beef". One would think calling something natural means they couldn't add LFTB to it. And currently they claim they don't. However, oddly enough their 4% fat product disappeared here as soon as the issue came to the forefront. (They still list it online.) The same with some of the 7% fat hamburger that supposedly didn't have LFTB in it is now gone with 10% currently being the lowest fat content in most hamburger.

What a scoop! You could totally humiliate them and score a victory! I just know who to call... ABC News!

They might be a little more cautious though after... well, you know.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No, they're not pleasant. But raising beef conventionally, in feedlots and such, is more sustainable than raising it in a free-range, organic method.

That's a whole bunch of woo. What possibly ever gave you that idea? Conventional feedlot production of beef is one of the most unsustainable agricultural practices on the planet! Far and away worse than pasture raised organic beef. How much worse? Depends on the grazing system used and the corn and soy cropping system used in the comparisons. But CAFOs are not sustainable at all, where grass fed organic CAN be sustainable and even regenerative if a good grazing system is used.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

First off, oddly enough while there are many QFCs here, and they carry many Kroger products, they don't carry Kroger ground beef. And second, it was only after 2012 that Kroger stopped using LFTB......

Whether or not the store carried pre-prepared burger was not my point..

I was responding to your claim:

Not all of us shop at the meat counter asking for cuts of meat to be ground up for us. Maybe you should get out more, see how other people live.

At the Kroger's and other stores around here, you can take a pre-packaged piece of meat to the meat counter and get them to do whatever you want done.. i.e., grind it into hamburger.. No extra charge..


You were insinuating that that using the services of a butcher at a meat counter was beyond the reach of us common folks...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What a scoop! You could totally humiliate them and score a victory! I just know who to call... ABC News!

They might be a little more cautious though after... well, you know.

It was apparently in the news in 2003.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whether or not the store carried pre-prepared burger was not my point..

I was responding to your claim:



At the Kroger's and other stores around here, you can take a pre-packaged piece of meat to the meat counter and get them to do whatever you want done.. i.e., grind it into hamburger.. No extra charge..


You were insinuating that that using the services of a butcher at a meat counter was beyond the reach of us common folks...

Again, not always possible. The meat counters are not open the same hours as the store

But I don't know what your issue is? You think I should shop the way you recommend? I don't. None of this is relevant. When the problem started I didn't know what to avoid. It wasn't public there was a differently processed material being added to hamburger. You can't avoid something you don't know exists. You only know burger randomly has a rubbery texture you don't like but nothing on the packaging suggest which burger is going to be rubbery.

 

[Joey McGee]

You know, the billion dollar lawsuit... they may be gun shy I don't know.

It was apparently in the news in 2003.

Actually your crank conspiracy theory that companies are lying about having lftb in the their meat has never been news.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

........But I don't know what your issue is? You think I should shop the way you recommend? I don't. None of this is relevant.

It's relevant to the fact that you chose to buy mystery meat (for years)when you had an alternative.

It's not about shopping my way, I couldn't care less. It's about pointing out that you could have avoided the problem and chose not to.

I'm only going on about this because you keep insisting there was nothing you could do about it at the time, except take your chances with what they put on the shelf.

You can't avoid something you don't know exists. You only know burger randomly has a rubbery texture you don't like but nothing on the packaging suggest which burger is going to be rubbery.

Yes you can. You can choose to avoid pre-packaged burger.

You chose not to do this, then you rationalize about why it was not convenient for you to avoid the problem that you put up with for years; while you launched a personal crusade to unveil the meat mystery..


I'm glad things are better for you now.. I will let it rest..

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

@ Skeptical Greg

Hamburger is mystery meat?

Seems you have the impression because of a discussion that I found the cause of the rubbery burger texture it must have been traumatic prior that.

Your version of events here is seriously distorted.

@Joey

You are conflating two separate things, Laura's Lean Beef marking meat as lower in fat that it actually was and using LFTB in it. Try re-reading for comprehension.

 

[Joey McGee]

@Joey

You are conflating two separate things, Laura's Lean Beef marking meat as lower in fat that it actually was and using LFTB in it. Try re-reading for comprehension.

Uhm... it is you that is deliberately misreading what I said, again. You have no proof they are lying to you and it has it as a component, and trying to, again, misread my posts as your attempt at providing evidence. I'm declaring this my favorite thread at JREF so far. Even better than the AA thread and CrossFit

 

[Prometheus]

I still wanna know when I can buy some 100% LFTB. I'm thinking it will be good caramelized and used as a salad topping.

 

[GlennB]

I still wanna know when I can buy some 100% LFTB. I'm thinking it will be good caramelized and used as a salad topping.

It's a good point. If it's lean muscle meat why not sell as it as it comes? Economy-minded folks might appreciate it.