Pink Slime

[Joey McGee]

Wikipedia:

A complete joke of a wiki article. Look at the sources... the same sources named in the billion dollar lawsuit! Exactly what we have been arguing about.. cartiledge etc... all ********.

The UK, Canada and EU don't allow it either.

This is another joke, a canard. They don't disallow it, it has never been applied for in those countries. Poor reporting, and gullible stupidity have turned this falsity into an argument point and it's *********** pathetic!

 

[Joey McGee]

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

Having to go to court costs people time and money. They are eating massive amounts of **** right now and will have to account for their actions in public. It's *********** beautiful. Greed, stupidity, callousness, delusion, all combined in a lot of people to make this ********** up story happen. ****in Jaime Oliver throwing household ammonia on beef and throwing it in a laundry machine, it's all extremely hilarious stupidity, and I love every second of it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

No I didn't.

Your own words in post #1486:

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.

Yes you did.

You said the cut wouldn't affect the texture.

In my lifetime of eating hamburger not until this crappy product, LFTB, entered the marketplace have I ever had an issue with rubbery textured burger.

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'.

This is where you are wrong. No sense going over it, you are ignoring the analysis that showed the stuff to be 70% NOT MEAT!

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.

Uh, no. In the main producer's own marketing research customers complained when the amount of LFTB exceeded 15%.

I've not made a single false assertion. But you certainly are making some.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A complete joke of a wiki article. Look at the sources... the same sources named in the billion dollar lawsuit! Exactly what we have been arguing about.. cartiledge etc... all ********.This is another joke, a canard. They don't disallow it, it has never been applied for in those countries. Poor reporting, and gullible stupidity have turned this falsity into an argument point and it's *********** pathetic!

Says the man who has mostly/(only?) cited company marketing material.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Having to go to court costs people time and money. They are eating massive amounts of **** right now and will have to account for their actions in public. It's *********** beautiful. Greed, stupidity, callousness, delusion, all combined in a lot of people to make this ********** up story happen. ****in Jaime Oliver throwing household ammonia on beef and throwing it in a laundry machine, it's all extremely hilarious stupidity, and I love every second of it.

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time the news media has been attacked for reporting the news. It's their job and they no doubt know their business and what they are and are not allowed to report.

It's a very high bar. Perhaps you've forgotten the outcome when similar charges where brought against Oprah Winfrey by beef feedlot operator Paul Engler and the company Cactus Feeders.

The jury in the case found that the statements by Winfrey and Lyman did not constitute libel against the cattlemen.[7]

 

[tyr_13]

Your own words in post #1486:
Yes you did.

You're right, I did say it was like. I wasn't following how you connected our bit of conversation back to my comment there.

Yes, read what I actually wrote and now read what I said responding to you. I said it was to me as important as listing the cut, not that it is like the cut, and that your assertion that the cut doesn't change the texture is wrong. You were the one saying that cut doesn't change the texture. I was following in that line of argument. Yes I did say it is like listing the cut in some aspects.

In my lifetime of eating hamburger not until this crappy product, LFTB, entered the marketplace have I ever had an issue with rubbery textured burger.

Even assuming that's true, and your perception is caused by that, and you were able to tell, and you know that all the rubbery textured burgers were from that, so? That doesn't mean that the cut doesn't effect texture and a whole lot of other taste factors. Not only that, it does so through the exact same mechanism you're claiming make LTFB such a 'crap' product.

This is where you are wrong. No sense going over it, you are ignoring the analysis that showed the stuff to be 70% NOT MEAT!

Wait, so you're saying you were wrong? You were the one who claimed it was nothing but tendons and such. I said that was not true. Now you're saying it's true that it's not all tendons and such.

Uh, no. In the main producer's own marketing research customers complained when the amount of LFTB exceeded 15%.

How does that equal a 'no'? Again, what you're presenting as evidence is consistent with what I'm saying.

I've not made a single false assertion. But you certainly are making some.

You assert that LTFB is not beef. Then you say it's beef, but not beef you like. You assert that the different cuts and types of beef used to make ground beef don't effect texture. It does. You assert that you will only get a greasy burger using 30% trim. That might be the only thing you detect different about it, but it is not the only thing in texture (even though it is a texture difference, contradicting your claim it doesn't effect texture) or taste for everyone, or even for most people.

 

[jimbob]

It seems pretty clear that there is a difference in the mouthfeel of burgers with and without LTFB, and that many people prefer the one with LTFB.

That's fine, however many don't.

What's wrong with labelling it?

 

[ehcks]

It seems pretty clear that there is a difference in the mouthfeel of burgers with and without LTFB, and that many people prefer the one with LTFB.

That's fine, however many don't.

What's wrong with labelling it?

We don't usually require food to be labeled to say that it has something in it that's generally expected unless it's a high risk for allergies. Peanuts and such.

They should put a big "No LFTB" sticker on it, as is done with gluten, or dairy, or soy, or many other labels.

 

[jimbob]

We don't usually require food to be labeled to say that it has something in it that's generally expected unless it's a high risk for allergies. Peanuts and such.

They should put a big "No LFTB" sticker on it, as is done with gluten, or dairy, or soy, or many other labels.

The highlighted part is where my expectations would be different from yours.

Mind you, I have zero expectation of having LFTB in anything I eat in the next couple of years.

 

[SinisterBen]

I don't think I even understand anymore what you guys are saying. It's not noticeable but it is. It's beef but not what you think of as beef, but still beef. And finally, they should label it but they shouldn't because it's expected but itr expected because they didn't label it. This is just silly.

People want it labeled. You free market types should love the invisible hand making decisions based on informed choices, but I rather think you don't believe in the free market unless it's bent in a way you desire.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't think I even understand anymore what you guys are saying. It's not noticeable but it is. It's beef but not what you think of as beef, but still beef. And finally, they should label it but they shouldn't because it's expected but itr expected because they didn't label it. This is just silly.

People want it labeled. You free market types should love the invisible hand making decisions based on informed choices, but I rather think you don't believe in the free market unless it's bent in a way you desire.

I for one apologize for the disjointed and hard to follow nature of my posts. Also for any snark. It's a bad idea to post when exhausted and distracted, but that's no excuse for not even following my own arguments.

I stand by what I said in post 1486 on this page. I even italicized the important word in my argument. I'm fine with say, Wegman's labeling and carrying beef with LTFB and non-LTFB. As a marketing label I'm fine. What I'm against is a labeling requirement. Nutrition and safety labeling should be based on nutrition and safety. As far as truth in labeling, it's still beef. To show what I mean, I don't think McDonald's should have to put any signage up that says they use meat with LTFB. They could still say "100% Beef Patties" or whatnot because it is.

For me I keep arguing because while there are some valid criticisms of the product and even its use, there are also a lot of bad arguments along the lines of other food woo. When I see someone arguing that different cuts of beef won't grind differently, when I know from working Maplevale Farms food shows that it does, I'm not letting it go unchallenged. Maybe on Facebook or some other site, but not here.



(On a side note, I think they should sell the stuff straight up in cans and let people do their own mixes.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We don't usually require food to be labeled to say that it has something in it that's generally expected unless it's a high risk for allergies. Peanuts and such.

They should put a big "No LFTB" sticker on it, as is done with gluten, or dairy, or soy, or many other labels.

That's not true. Food is required to be labeled as to what is in it, allergies are not the criteria. As for "generally expected" it comes back to the belief that LFTB is either beef or adulterated enough that is should be labeled. The scientific testimony was that it was different enough it should be labeled.

According to the Wiki entry it's a filler and can't be either sold directly to the public or added in a quantity greater than 15% without being labeled. That doesn't sound like 'just beef' to me.

Legal status in various countries[edit]
In the United States, the additive itself cannot legally be sold directly to consumers. However, it can constitute up to 15 percent of ground beef without additional labeling,[22] and it can also be added to other meat products such as beef-based processed meats.[22]

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Shouldn't that legal status include:

Taco Bell can use this stuff any way it wants, without saying anything to anybody ...

 

[Butter!]

I don't think I even understand anymore what you guys are saying. It's not noticeable but it is. It's beef but not what you think of as beef, but still beef. And finally, they should label it but they shouldn't because it's expected but itr expected because they didn't label it. This is just silly.

People want it labeled. You free market types should love the invisible hand making decisions based on informed choices, but I rather think you don't believe in the free market unless it's bent in a way you desire.

It's true, this thread has gotten really weird.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

(On a side note, I think they should sell the stuff straight up in cans and let people do their own mixes.)

I can see the marketing campaign now.

Are you missing your school lunches' mystery meat? No need for nostalgia. Make your own mystery meat with genuine Oscar Meyer pink* slime. Mix with any ground meat product to get that "what the heck is this?" flavor you haven't tasted since high school. Add extra for more bounce and make your meatballs high performance for food fights.

*Also available in green for making your own prison bologna.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

^

 

[Joey McGee]

Says the man who has mostly/(only?) cited company marketing material.

What a vague and stupid claim. It's just a fact that the majority of academia and government are on their side as well. You have certainly put up the stupid conspiracy theories as well how perhaps that crowd are all paid off by bpi as well, but you have zero evidence of that and never really lay out your case like a lawyer or a debater or a rationalist, you just like to babble about your petty theories without laying out a case. Well, I think I never got a reply about why you think that the two Iowa State scientists are both lying about the study you get your crank interpretations from. That's the author and his colleague. They are paid off you think for disagreeing with you? You think?

 

[Joey McGee]

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time the news media has been attacked for reporting the news. It's their job and they no doubt know their business and what they are and are not allowed to report.

Ridiculous! This is not the first time greedy attention whores have embellished and lied and become self-deluded over their desire to feed a animalistic and stupid consumer. Not the first time a news company has been sucessfully sued (so far) for being *********** moronic and greedy ********. Right they never try and twist the rules and bend the line such is your faith in modern media. What a hilarious set of reasonings I just adore it all...

It's a very high bar. Perhaps you've forgotten the outcome when similar charges where brought against Oprah Winfrey by beef feedlot operator Paul Engler and the company Cactus Feeders.

Perhaps you should try and explain why this makes sense to you as an argument relative to anything we are talking about, instead of hoping or guessing or believing that we have any idea how it adds to the conversation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Joey, feel free to link to what you've cited in this thread that wasn't industry materials. Because except for the university that published the analysis apologizing that people were using the data and the university wished they weren't involved, all your links have been company PR source.

You do know Oprah won that lawsuit, right?

 

[Joey McGee]

Joey, feel free to link to what you've cited in this thread that wasn't industry materials.

Why would I do that again if it didn't work the first time? And if you won't address the fact that the author and his colleague disagree with your crank interpretation of that study, as well as your zero proof that there is "hide" in the burger and zero retraction on that claim... why should I continue to play your game and repeat the udsa and independent expert claims? You claim a USDA official took a board job to pass it... zero evidence.. you're playing a game any it's so transparent. Argue, for once.That is not how it is done.

Because except for the university that published the analysis apologizing that people were using the data and the university wished they weren't involved

What the hell are you talking about?

all your links have been company PR source.

Prove it, that's your claim, I don't need to dig up all of my posts to prove that you're wrong, so ridiculous. Anyone can google for 5 minutes and find plenty of independent experts supporting the narrative. I like to focus on the fact you think you know better what Sebranek and Russell Cross because you've decided they are tainted. Anyway, thanks for those laughs.