Pink Slime

[Joey McGee]

You do know Oprah won that lawsuit, right?

It has nothing to do with this case. And you won't explain how you think it does? Believe me, no one is going to do your work for you at this point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Really, you need that connection spoon fed?

It's called freedom of speech and a freedom of the press. Just as it was legal for Oprah to talk about BSE including her opinion about beef, the fact it resulted in the industry losing money was not sufficient for the industry to win a defamation lawsuit and neither will Cargill or BFI win their case against the news reporters who reported on Pink Slime.

 

[Joey McGee]

Really, you need that connection spoon fed?

It's called freedom of speech and a freedom of the press. Just as it was legal for Oprah to talk about BSE including her opinion about beef, the fact it resulted in the industry losing money was not sufficient for the industry to win a defamation lawsuit and neither will Cargill or BFI win their case against the news reporters who reported on Pink Slime.

Unsurprisingly transparent. You apparently don't believe it's illegal to destroy businesses willingly if you're merely incompetent. That's not the case. If you can prove that it is the case, hey, I'm all ears. Maybe you could take some time out your day to show exactly how the cases are the same. Maybe then you could give me some meat I could sink my teeth into. Sharpening them right now.

 

[Joey McGee]

Look I have read every word of the lawsuit, perhaps if anyone wants to argue with me about it, do some homework. ABC intended to hurt BPI for their own profit and acted without due diligence when they knew perfectly well what would happen if they were proved wrong. They took a gamble, and they will lose. If you think they didn't know what they were playing, you probably think maybe Barry Bonds didn't take steroids. I'm out

 

[jimbob]

Joey, do you accept that LFTB has an effect on the mouthfeel of burgers that many people can detect reliably?

 

[Joey McGee]

I accept that most people can sense that it is better in some way, and that some people on those laboratory tests, like 12 percent, rated it lower. Do I accept that someone could detect it's presence in a true blind test? Absolutely not. A true blind test would entail meat from one cow and two versions of processing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why is it, Joey, that one cannot add too much or sell it straight?

 

[Joey McGee]

Why is that that you deny that this question has been answered countless times by myself, the USDA, the company and the academics? Why after I repeat the answers they have given, do you pretend none have been offered? Could you be in complete denial? After all, you seem to be heavily invested. Just sayin'

 

[jimbob]

Why is that that you deny that this question has been answered countless times by myself, the USDA, the company and the academics? Why after I repeat the answers they have given, do you pretend none have been offered? Could you be in complete denial? After all, you seem to be heavily invested. Just sayin'

But sufficient numbers of people can tell the difference - some prefer the burgers with LFTB, some don't, but there is also an upper limit on what is acceptable.

I think it is fairly obvious that it does affect the mouthfeel and perceived quality of the burger. Letting the customer know is really not a bad thing - maybe it is just misunderstood, in which case, then an advertising campaign to explain the benefits would be a reasonable approach.

 

[Prometheus]

But sufficient numbers of people can tell the difference - some prefer the burgers with LFTB, some don't, but there is also an upper limit on what is acceptable.

I think it is fairly obvious that it does affect the mouthfeel and perceived quality of the burger. Letting the customer know is really not a bad thing - maybe it is just misunderstood, in which case, then an advertising campaign to explain the benefits would be a reasonable approach.

Been there, done that.

Plus a grass roots movement to the same end

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Been there, done that.

Plus a grass roots movement to the same end

Silk purse made from a sows ear?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Plus a grass roots movement to the same end

Grass roots? Looks more like an astroturf event.

 

[Prometheus]

Silk purse made from a sows ear?

Grass roots? Looks more like an astroturf event.

Could be. I've not investigated either in depth, so I have no opinion as to their validity. My point is in response to jimbob's suggestion that the industry ought to be conducting an advertising campaign to attempt to educate the public. They have been, and are doing just that. It doesn't appear to be working as well as the industry would like in all quarters.

For me it's a toss-up as to whether the industry view is not widespread because it is invalid, or because the industry has made a strategic PR blunder, or whether they have suffered real and undesrved damage from a bunch of woos. So far, nothing I've seen in this thread has been wholly convincing toward any of those possibilities.

I do not see much similarity between Skeptic Ginger's arguments and those of woos like Jamie Oliver. I have no problem with people saying they can tell the difference and they dislike the mouthfeel of hamburger with LFTB, and they would like to avoid it. I don't see any reason not to take this claim at face value. Whether it is true or not does not affect my stance: I just don't think that preference for a certain mouthfeel amounts to reason enough to burden the industry with a labling requirement.

 

[jimbob]

Could be. I've not investigated either in depth, so I have no opinion as to their validity. My point is in response to jimbob's suggestion that the industry ought to be conducting an advertising campaign to attempt to educate the public. They have been, and are doing just that. It doesn't appear to be working as well as the industry would like in all quarters.

For me it's a toss-up as to whether the industry view is not widespread because it is invalid, or because the industry has made a strategic PR blunder, or whether they have suffered real and undesrved damage from a bunch of woos. So far, nothing I've seen in this thread has been wholly convincing toward any of those possibilities.

I do not see much similarity between Skeptic Ginger's arguments and those of woos like Jamie Oliver. I have no problem with people saying they can tell the difference and they dislike the mouthfeel of hamburger with LFTB, and they would like to avoid it. I don't see any reason not to take this claim at face value. Whether it is true or not does not affect my stance: I just don't think that preference for a certain mouthfeel amounts to reason enough to burden the industry with a labling requirement.

Why not? Surely the marketplace of ideas is where this should be played out? If you have some labelling requirement, then adding an extra line of text is not a significant problem - unless it is the textural content that is the problem. If the consumer believes that "value" is key, and there is no effect on "quality", then LFTB should be fine. If the consumer decides that they don't want LFTB, then they can choose something without it.

It shouldn't be up to a group of players in the industry to decide that they have no need to label food produced with a novel process that reduces cost by adding recovering meat with a different texture to the bulk product. That is unfair on producers that are not doing this.

In the EU, it is forbidden to sell pasties as Cornish Pasties unless they are made in a specified manner in Cornwall; it is illegal to label cheese as Parmesan unless it comes from Parma and is made in a specified manner.

I happen to think the first of those is slightly silly, but have few problems with that. I have been caught out outside the EU when buying "parmesan" that wasn't. It had a completely different taste and texture.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So if the butcher used ground up all-beef hot dogs as filler in your hamburger without disclosing it, that wouldn't be a lie about putting beef in your beef?

 

[Prometheus]

So if the butcher used ground up all-beef hot dogs as filler in your hamburger without disclosing it, that wouldn't be a lie about putting beef in your beef?

Hot dogs generally contain other ingredients. If there are some that do not, then. of course it wouldn't be a lie.

 

[Prometheus]

Why not? Surely the marketplace of ideas is where this should be played out? If you have some labelling requirement, then adding an extra line of text is not a significant problem - unless it is the textural content that is the problem. If the consumer believes that "value" is key, and there is no effect on "quality", then LFTB should be fine. If the consumer decides that they don't want LFTB, then they can choose something without it.

It shouldn't be up to a group of players in the industry to decide that they have no need to label food produced with a novel process that reduces cost by adding recovering meat with a different texture to the bulk product. That is unfair on producers that are not doing this.

In the EU, it is forbidden to sell pasties as Cornish Pasties unless they are made in a specified manner in Cornwall; it is illegal to label cheese as Parmesan unless it comes from Parma and is made in a specified manner.

I happen to think the first of those is slightly silly, but have few problems with that. I have been caught out outside the EU when buying "parmesan" that wasn't. It had a completely different taste and texture.

Because we're not talking about the market place of ideas. The beef producers aren't selling ideas ; they're selling foodstuffs. Labeling requirements for foods have to strike a balance between providing consumers with enough information to make informed choices with regard to health and safety, and allowing. businessses to safeguard proprietary information that a competitor might be able to take advantage of. This is why some ingredients must be specified rather strictly. while others can be merely hinted at (eg. "other natural and artificial flavors ").

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hot dogs generally contain other ingredients. If there are some that do not, then. of course it wouldn't be a lie.

The point is, a technical "lie" is what Joey wants the argument to be about. The rest of us are talking about what's reasonable to label. Is it reasonable to add ground up beef hot dogs (sans chemicals) to hamburger and not label it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because we're not talking about the market place of ideas. The beef producers aren't selling ideas ; they're selling foodstuffs. Labeling requirements for foods have to strike a balance between providing consumers with enough information to make informed choices with regard to health and safety, and allowing. businessses to safeguard proprietary information that a competitor might be able to take advantage of. This is why some ingredients must be specified rather strictly. while others can be merely hinted at (eg. "other natural and artificial flavors ").

Adding unlisted filler to burger is hardly in the category of "proprietary information". Proprietary information is more like the recipe for Jack-in-the-Box secret sauce.

But as for the rest, I preferred to avoid the texture I didn't like (intensely) and asked about repeatedly, getting only, "nothing I know of is different," answers.

 

[jimbob]

Not quite... I have an issue with the unlabelled addition of a differently textured meat to the product that reduces its cost per kilo. The lack of labelling means that lower quality meat is not identified in the product.

Meanwhile, I can expect Melton Mowbray pork pies to be made in a small area of Leicestershire and Cornish pasties to be made in Cornwall, both to specified methods. Mind you, I also can expect not to come across LFTB in my food.