Pink Slime

[Skeptic Ginger]

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse, Joey? A subpoena? Really, that's enough for your victory dance?

 

[GlennB]

When ABC loses I'm hosting a small party where we will eat beef with lftb ...

Why not eat burgers made of lftb? That would be more convincing.

 

[Butter!]

When ABC loses I'm hosting a small party where we will eat beef with lftb and whisky made in their hometown

 

[tyr_13]

Why not eat burgers made of lftb? That would be more convincing.

It won't have the right texture. You put LFTB on crackers.

 

[jimbob]

It won't have the right texture. You put LFTB on crackers.

That was mainly Skeptic Ginger's complaint.

They were using a cheaper source of meat that had a different texture and not listing it in the ingredients.

 

[tyr_13]

That was mainly Skeptic Ginger's complaint.

They were using a cheaper source of meat that had a different texture and not listing it in the ingredients.

That's nice, but the fact that burgers with the product are not the same thing as burgers made only of the product makes the statement I was responding to be of no relation to her complaint. Putting a little oatmeal in can improve the texture too, but that is in no way proved by making a burger of only oatmeal.

Again, in general adding a some LTFB made people say it had improved texture. Some people wouldn't like it. Personal preferences are all well and good, but the fact it is 'cheaper' is irrelevant in the extreme. To me it's no more important to list beef from LTFB in the ingredients than it is to specify what cut the beef was before being ground, or the feed of the cattle, or the breed of cattle used, or mainly hand or machine butchered meat. Sure, some will choose to advertize these things but I wouldn't hold it against a company for not listing all of that. All of those might be 'cheaper' as well, and will change the texture. It's still beef, whole beef patties.

So I still come down on the side of not requiring labeling, but let them if they want to. As it turns out a lot of people like the burgers with the product better it wouldn't have surprised me if they had started advertizing it had all this negative PR not come up instead.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Again, in general adding a some LTFB made people say it had improved texture. Some people wouldn't like it. ...S o I still come down on the side of not requiring labeling, but let them if they want to. As it turns out a lot of people like the burgers with the product better it wouldn't have surprised me if they had started advertizing it had all this negative PR not come up instead.

The fact they don't want to advertise it suggests the latter is false.

The fact some people like it some don't is evidence it does affect the burger.

The cut of meat ground up doesn't change the texture of the burger so that is a false analogy.

 

[tyr_13]

The fact they don't want to advertise it suggests the latter is false.

Now. We'll never know what could have been before people started in on criticisms both true but many straight up false.

The fact some people like it some don't is evidence it does affect the burger.

Do you want everything that has an affect on the burger listed?

The cut of meat ground up doesn't change the texture of the burger so that is a false analogy.

First of all, yes it does. Secondly, it affects the burger far more than the LTFB. Do you concede the other things I listed as things you'd like see required to be labeled?

 

[mgidm86]

Wikipedia:

The product is used as a filler or to reduce the overall fat content of ground beef. It is produced by processing low-grade beef trimmings and other meat by-products such as cartilage, connective tissue and sinew, which contain fat and small amounts of lean beef, and mechanically separating the lean beef from the fat through the use of a centrifuge at about 100 °F (38 °C). The heat liquefies the fat to help separate lean beef from fat and other by-products. The recovered beef material is processed, heated, and treated with gaseous ammonia or citric acid to kill E. coli, salmonella, and other bacteria. Gaseous ammonia in contact with the water in the meat produces ammonium hydroxide. The product is finely ground, compressed into pellets or blocks, flash frozen and then shipped for use as an additive.

it can constitute up to 15 percent of ground beef without additional labeling

My market grinds the beef several times a day in full view of customers. I asked them about pink slime and they said they never use it. The UK, Canada and EU don't allow it either. It is alarming to me what is allowed in much of the food here in the states.

For instance, you are probably still consuming MSG.

MSG is also called...

Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein
Yeast Extract
Textured vegetable protein
Glutamic Acid
"natural flavors"

 

[ehcks]

Wikipedia:
My market grinds the beef several times a day in full view of customers. I asked them about pink slime and they said they never use it. The UK, Canada and EU don't allow it either. It is alarming to me what is allowed in much of the food here in the states.

For instance, you are probably still consuming MSG.

MSG is also called...

Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein
Yeast Extract
Textured vegetable protein
Glutamic Acid
"natural flavors"

Yes, it is also called those things, because it literally is those other things. Just like lean finely textured beef is literally beef.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The fact some people like it some don't is evidence it does affect the burger.

Do you want everything that has an affect on the burger listed?

First of all, yes it does. Secondly, it affects the burger far more than the LTFB. Do you concede the other things I listed as things you'd like see required to be labeled?

You're arguing with someone who knows the texture difference between burger with LFTB in it and burger without. Am I supposed to believe your assertion over my years of randomly getting burger with the bad texture, finally finding out what the problem was, and currently not getting any burger with the bad texture now that I know how to avoid it?

What is your problem? What is Joey's problem? I don't like the stuff and I can tell when it's in the burger I'm eating. Are you seriously arguing you know I'm wrong? That's stupid!

It's like telling someone they can't really tell the difference between a New York steak and rump roast.

Despite Joey's argument that it wasn't fair to compare LFTB to ground chuck, he's not presented any evidence of the analysis of burger from other cuts of beef to show they would stack up to the LFTB. And more importantly, no one can explain why, if the stuff is the same as other hamburger, can they not then make a palatable product that is 100% or even 30% LFTB?


As for other labeling, that's a non sequitur. LFTB is the issue under discussion. Just because you don't care if your burger is labeled or not, this isn't about woo beliefs, it's about the right to know if the burger is going to taste right to me or not.

I honestly don't get why any of you are trying to defend the non-labeling of this stuff. How about all beef comes in an opaque wrapper and you take your chances?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Just like lean finely textured beef is literally beef.

Technically the beef tongue, heart and brain are also beef.

If you are defining beef as the red meat, no, LFTB has very little of the meat part of the cow in it.

 

[tyr_13]

You're arguing with someone who knows the texture difference between burger with LFTB in it and burger without. Am I supposed to believe your assertion over my years of randomly getting burger with the bad texture, finally finding out what the problem was, and currently not getting any burger with the bad texture now that I know how to avoid it?

What is your problem? What is Joey's problem? I don't like the stuff and I can tell when it's in the burger I'm eating. Are you seriously arguing you know I'm wrong? That's stupid!

Strawman.

And no, I don't trust your perceptions. I'm highly skeptical of them. You think you've found the issue that was keeping you from enjoying burgers? Fine. You actually don't like it? Fine. You expect me to believe that you've done anything like a double blind taste test and your perception applies well enough to everyone else that there should be a government labeling requirement change? Yeah right. I trust that you don't like the stuff, but I don't take your dislike as evidence of anything besides your personal preference. I give this no more weight than people who find they only like ground Angus and insist that everything non-Angus be labeled non-Angus.

It's like telling someone they can't really tell the difference between a New York steak and rump roast.

You just said that the cut doesn't effect the texture of the burger and now you're saying that differences in different cuts are manifest.

Despite Joey's argument that it wasn't fair to compare LFTB to ground chuck, he's not presented any evidence of the analysis of burger from other cuts of beef to show they would stack up to the LFTB. And more importantly, no one can explain why, if the stuff is the same as other hamburger, can they not then make a palatable product that is 100% or even 30% LFTB?

Why do you think that is important?

As for other labeling, that's a non sequitur. LFTB is the issue under discussion. Just because you don't care if your burger is labeled or not, this isn't about woo beliefs, it's about the right to know if the burger is going to taste right to me or not.

It's directly related to your exact reason to want product with LFTB labeled. It's not a non-sequitur when it's your reason for wanting more labeling. You want that labeled because of texture and taste, but you don't want to the others labeled because of texture and taste.

I honestly don't get why any of you are trying to defend the non-labeling of this stuff. How about all beef comes in an opaque wrapper and you take your chances?

Because I want labeling requirements to be based on safety and actual ingredients. You want it based on taste and texture, sometimes, and processing, sometimes.

It's not the worst thing or even a very bad thing for me if it ends up a requirement. It's a very small point for me. What's a bigger point is the advancement of bad arguments and poor reasoning, and basing decisions on them.

Stop making bad arguments, and I'll stop objecting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

no, I don't trust your perceptions. I'm highly skeptical of them.

You missed the point. I could not care less what you think of my perceptions. The point was, were you seriously trying to convince me you have a valid point? Because you don't.

By the way, how is, I don't like the crap, a bad argument?

 

[tyr_13]

You missed the point. I could not care less what you think of my perceptions. The point was, were you seriously trying to convince me you have a valid point? Because you don't.

By the way, how is, I don't like the crap, a bad argument?

I have no illusion that I can convince you.

'I don't like the crap' isn't even an argument. That's just a statement of opinion. However, 'I don't like the crap so it shouldn't be labeled beef/it should be labeled something other than beef' is an argument, and a bad one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Opinion, personal preference, yes, the whole friggin point.

I've not said the stuff is unsafe. I've not said it is unhealthy. I said I don't like it and I want to see it labeled so I don't have to get home and cook the stuff to find out if it has the LFTB in it I don't like.

What argument do you think you are debating?

 

[tyr_13]

Opinion, personal preference, yes, the whole friggin point.

I've not said the stuff is unsafe. I've not said it is unhealthy. I said I don't like it and I want to see it labeled so I don't have to get home and cook the stuff to find out if it has the LFTB in it I don't like.

What argument do you think you are debating?

Yours and a bunch of other ones from ABC to blog posters, to common misunderstandings. I've touched on yours, and for some reason you keep taking exception to things I've said that don't address yours. You can see that in my response to Jimbob I pointed out that my comment to GlennB wasn't about your complaint. You then claim that it is somehow. It's almost as if you're defending arguments you claim not to hold. I've not said you claimed it was unhealthy or unsafe, yet you behave as if I have.

Again, I made my point known and emphasized the correct words to make it clear what I was talking about, which you claim is not what you're talking about, but which you still take exception too and complain that it's not about what you're talking about. Of course not everything I say is about what you're talking about. Why would it be?

 

[Prometheus]

For instance, you are probably still consuming MSG.

MSG is also called...

If you're not consuming MSG then you're likely malnourished. MSG is a natural component of so many foods you wouldn't have time to read the list. In addition to being natural, it is also safe for nearly everyone, but a tiny fraction of the population that are genuinely allergic to it (far less common than most other food allergies), and there's some evidence that it can be a trigger for some people who suffer migraines. All the rest of the negative publicity it gets is just hype.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yours and a bunch of other ones from ABC to blog posters, to common misunderstandings. I've touched on yours, and for some reason you keep taking exception to things I've said that don't address yours. You can see that in my response to Jimbob I pointed out that my comment to GlennB wasn't about your complaint. You then claim that it is somehow. It's almost as if you're defending arguments you claim not to hold. I've not said you claimed it was unhealthy or unsafe, yet you behave as if I have.

Again, I made my point known and emphasized the correct words to make it clear what I was talking about, which you claim is not what you're talking about, but which you still take exception too and complain that it's not about what you're talking about. Of course not everything I say is about what you're talking about. Why would it be?

You said it was like listing the cut of meat included in the burger. I said it wasn't and you just dismissed that. So don't tell me I didn't address your point.

You claim I don't really know when I'm eating the stuff. That's utter bullocks.

Prove it's no different from the rest of the cow that goes into hamburger. You can't because it isn't the same as just another cut. LFTB is nothing but tendons and scraps and the analysis of the content and the fact you can't put more than 15% into the burger without it obviously being adulterated proves that. That is what the company's own marketing studies showed. You'll not see that with different cuts of meat in your burger. And even if you add 30% 'trim' you just get a greasy burger, you don't get one that people say, this doesn't taste like hamburger.

 

[tyr_13]

You said it was like listing the cut of meat included in the burger.

No I didn't.

I said it wasn't and you just dismissed that.

You said the cut wouldn't affect the texture.

So don't tell me I didn't address your point.

Are you even reading my posts?

You claim I don't really know when I'm eating the stuff. That's utter bullocks.

You aren't reading my posts.

Prove it's no different from the rest of the cow that goes into hamburger.

No.

You can't because it isn't the same as just another cut.

LFTB is nothing but tendons and scraps and the analysis of the content and the fact you can't put more than 15% into the burger without it obviously being adulterated proves that. That is what the company's own marketing studies showed. You'll not see that with different cuts of meat in your burger. And even if you add 30% 'trim' you just get a greasy burger, you don't get one that people say, this doesn't taste like hamburger.

No, LFTB is not 'nothing but tendons and scraps'. Yes, different cuts ground up will have different textures as well as different flavors and cook differently. Your opinion on what is a good burger and how to cook is very reduced in value by such silliness as asserting that all different cuts make is possibly 'a greasy burger'.

And now you're making claims about other people's perception of different ground beef formulations based on your own perceptions. You can't put more than 15% in not because it's not beef but because it's not ground or doesn't take to grinding.

All the false assertions you make do not inspire confidence in your observations. Your tone even less so. Talking about LFTB is not a yelling occasion.