Pink Slime

[Joey McGee]

Not quite... I have an issue with the unlabelled addition of a differently textured meat

this bit is fair, all of the companies are on your side on this point

to the product that reduces its cost per kilo. The lack of labelling means that lower quality meat is not identified in the product.

This is a lie. It is cheaper meat, not lower quality. All of the academic and USDA opinion reiterates this. This is the problem you just can't help yourself.

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.

You can expect to get ground beef in your ground beef. You're not really with it.

 

[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.

This is a lie. It is cheaper meat, not lower quality. All of the academic and USDA opinion reiterates this. This is the problem you just can't help yourself.

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.

You can expect to get ground beef in your ground beef. You're not really with it.

I disagree with the highlighted bit. It reduces the cost per kilo of the product by adding a novel source of meat that alters the mouthfeel of the final product.

It is lower quality because in many people's experience it adversely affects the mouthfeel of the product. Quality is not just about safety it is also about the whole eating experience.

In this case LFTB is a different constitution to traditional mince made from bulk muscle tissue, and with a different processing method and a different mouthfeel. There is also a reason why 100% LFTB can't be used.

What about "mechanically separated and treated beef" in my "ground beef"?

ETA:: This bit of your quote: Where did that come from?

this bit is fair, all of the companies are on your side on this point

Also, why do you claim that "I just can't help myself" in "lying" about LFTB being lower quality than traditional mince?

Quality is not the same as safety. I was not saying it was dangerous, but low quality.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Not quite... I have an issue with the unlabelled addition of a differently textured meat

This is a lie. It is cheaper meat, not lower quality. All of the academic and USDA opinion reiterates this. This is the problem you just can't help yourself.

You can expect to get ground beef in your ground beef. You're not really with it.

The issue, as you correctly state, is getting only ground beef in my ground beef.

The 'Pink Slime' is not ground beef, it is (as you say) retrieved with a different process.

'Ground Beef' is rather specific, it is ground. Ground meat has a specific texture. 'Pink Slime' is not ground, nor shares the texture of ground.

 

[Joey McGee]

I disagree with the highlighted bit. It reduces the cost per kilo of the product by adding a novel source of meat that alters the mouthfeel of the final product.

This is twisted. It is not a novel source of meat. It is from a cow, and it is the same meat that was micrometers away from meat separated with a knife. That is not a new source, that is a novel method of recovery of the same substance. This, you cannot get straight. And in case you forgot, it improves the texture for the vast majority of people in legitimate taste tests. So really what are you complaining about can you quantify and qualify your argument properly with references or are you just all upset.

It is lower quality because in many people's experience it adversely affects the mouthfeel of the product. Quality is not just about safety it is also about the whole eating experience.

But, you have to prove this and convince people of it. And on top of that explain away how it improves texture for the vasy majority, and why that is a bad thing too. And then you have to show you were lied to. And then you have to show that you're still being lied to seeing as every body involved is pro-labelling. I mean flex your muscles put some elbow grease into this.

In this case LFTB is a different constitution to traditional mince made from bulk muscle tissue,

False. Evidence required. Or are you iffy on the definition of constitution or some ********.

and with a different processing method and a different mouthfeel.

A better one! Aha! And everyone is pro-labelling, who gives a ****** For what reasons? That you're paranopid?

There is also a reason why 100% LFTB can't be used.

Do tell!

What about "mechanically separated and treated beef" in my "ground beef"?

What the hell are you talking about?

ETA:: This bit of your quote: Where did that come from?

Science.

Also, why do you claim that "I just can't help myself" in "lying" about LFTB being lower quality than traditional mince?

You misconstrued obviously, I just think you're wrong, not lying.

Quality is not the same as safety. I was not saying it was dangerous, but low quality.

Then why the **** didn't you bother trying to prove it?

 

[ThunderChunky]

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.

How is that reason for a mandatory label? Many can tell the difference between different parts of the cow used, differences in diet of the cow, differences in genetics of the cow, how the cow was raised, etc etc. It's still hamburger/ground beef. Each unique process does not warrant it's own mandatory label.

 

[Myriad]

Since it's all cow muscle, it's a shame that stores aren't allowed to take bottom round and label it filet mignon. It's not lower quality, just cheaper!

Damn label-everything fanatics.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Since it's all cow muscle, it's a shame that stores aren't allowed to take bottom round and label it filet mignon. It's not lower quality, just cheaper!

Damn label-everything fanatics.

A truly pathetic comment. As pointed out, that would be selling one cut of meat as another. 'Ground beef' does not refer to any specific cut. 'Ground chuck' and 'ground sirloin' do.

 

[ehcks]

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?

If a company makes hot dogs out of 100% chuck roast, but then decides for some reason to grind those into ground chuck, then it's not a lie to label it as ground chuck.

If the package doesn't specify the cut, and it's just 100% beef hotdogs, it's not a lie to grind those up and label it ground beef.

But like the previous question of adding cow brains, this wouldn't make economical sense, as all-beef hot dogs have a higher price per weight than ground beef does.

 

[Myriad]

A truly pathetic comment. As pointed out, that would be selling one cut of meat as another. 'Ground beef' does not refer to any specific cut. 'Ground chuck' and 'ground sirloin' do.

So? Labeling by cut is current practice but the same arguments against labeling lftb appear to apply as arguments for rescinding labeling by cut. It's all equally safe, it's all the same kind of tissue from the same animal, and some people even prefer the bottom round. (A recent Cook's Illustrated article pointed out that although filet mignon is more tender, other less expensive cuts often have stronger flavor.) To some people, how the cow was raised or what its astrological sign was might be more important than what cut it is, but we don't require labeling for that.

What argument exists for labeling by cut being intrinsically necessary (rather than just the arbitrary point where the laws now stand) but not labeling by the processing (ground versus ground plus some centrifuged)? Both primarily affect (both positively and negatively) the perceived textural quality of the product.

 

[jimbob]

I disagree with the highlighted bit. It reduces the cost per kilo of the product by adding a novel source of meat that alters the mouthfeel of the final product.

This is twisted. It is not a novel source of meat. It is from a cow, and it is the same meat that was micrometers away from meat separated with a knife. That is not a new source, that is a novel method of recovery of the same substance. This, you cannot get straight. And in case you forgot, it improves the texture for the vast majority of people in legitimate taste tests. So really what are you complaining about can you quantify and qualify your argument properly with references or are you just all upset.

"Improvement" for some people means it is a detectable difference. Many people report a worse eating experience from this cheaper product.

It is lower quality because in many people's experience it adversely affects the mouthfeel of the product. Quality is not just about safety it is also about the whole eating experience.

But, you have to prove this and convince people of it. And on top of that explain away how it improves texture for the vasy majority, and why that is a bad thing too. And then you have to show you were lied to. And then you have to show that you're still being lied to seeing as every body involved is pro-labelling. I mean flex your muscles put some elbow grease into this.

I really don't understand what you are saying, not your fixation with lying.

I am not saying that the labels should say "Made with LFTB, a poor-quality product" I am saying it should mention the presence (and maybe proportion) of LFTB in the product. If people like it, then that could be a positive.

In this case LFTB is a different constitution to traditional mince made from bulk muscle tissue,

False. Evidence required. Or are you iffy on the definition of constitution or some ********.

The fat is separated out form the product
look at these images noice how the mince has streaks of white - this is fat, LFTB has that separated out.

It does have a different constitution due to the fat being centrifuged out.


Notice how the mince is not mush.

and with a different processing method and a different mouthfeel.

A better one! Aha! And everyone is pro-labelling, who gives a ****** For what reasons? That you're paranopid?

I personally won't have this problem because I know the farms where most of my meat comes from, and even if I didn't, it is banned in my country.

It is not paranoid to want to know if one's ground beef contains something that adversely affects one's eating experience.

There is also a reason why 100% LFTB can't be used.

Do tell!

Because it is lower quality mush, not mince.

What about "mechanically separated and treated beef" in my "ground beef"?

What the hell are you talking about?

The meet is not minced it is made in completely different way. Nor is it ground. It is centrifuged.

ETA:: This bit of your quote: Where did that come from?

Science.

OK, and what has that to do with anything? Do you agree? do you disagree? It is just hanging there.

Also, why do you claim that "I just can't help myself" in "lying" about LFTB being lower quality than traditional mince?

You misconstrued obviously, I just think you're wrong, not lying.

Quality is not the same as safety. I was not saying it was dangerous, but low quality.

Then why the **** didn't you bother trying to prove it?

The highlighted bit. I have only said it is lower quality and cheaper. I am still saying that. Are you saying I should argue it is lower quality and cheaper and still safe? Why should I bother with the other part.

I obviously have a different idea to you what food quality is. I happen to think that mush that needs additional chemical processing, and which reduces the cost of a product is lower quality than mince made from bulk muscle tissue.

I do happen to be in favour of as much labeling information as possible, because then the customer can make up their own mind if they want to find out about something.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since it's all cow muscle, it's a shame that stores aren't allowed to take bottom round and label it filet mignon. It's not lower quality, just cheaper!

Damn label-everything fanatics.

Good point.

 

[GlennB]

In this case LFTB is a different constitution to traditional mince made from bulk muscle tissue,

False. Evidence required. Or are you iffy on the definition of constitution or some ********

If this is the case then Steak tartare^WP would be the same if made with lftb. It wouldn't, and would be instantly rejected by anyone into steak tartare. The proof of the whole pudding is that lftb doesn't appear on restaurant menus or in labelled packages on supermarket shelves.

That it might be perfectly safe and nutritious I'm happy to accept.

p.s. the fact that lftb-added burgers are preferred by some doesn't mean a damn thing. I prefer Heinz baked beans to Crosse&Blackwell but that's just because I'm used to them. Let the lftb burgers be labelled suitably and their devotess can target them when shopping.

 

[Prometheus]

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?

That depends on what you mean by "hamburger". If the product in question is labled "100% ground round hamburger" then it would be illegal to do so. If it were labeled "100% beef hamburger blend" then it would be both legal and reasonable. If it were labeled "seasoned beef hamburger meat" then it doesn't have to be more than, I believe 65% actual meat. What I'm trying to point out is that the labeling you desire, already exists. You're just allowing yourself to remain willfully blind as to how to read the existing labels appropriately.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That depends on what you mean by "hamburger". If the product in question is labled "100% ground round hamburger" then it would be illegal to do so. If it were labeled "100% beef hamburger blend" then it would be both legal and reasonable. If it were labeled "seasoned beef hamburger meat" then it doesn't have to be more than, I believe 65% actual meat. What I'm trying to point out is that the labeling you desire, already exists. You're just allowing yourself to remain willfully blind as to how to read the existing labels appropriately.

Did you miss this whole discussion?

The labeling I wanted not only didn't exist, when I asked what had changed in the burger, the retailers all said nothing they knew of, because the labeling misled the retailers as well as the final consumers.

 

[ehcks]

So? Labeling by cut is current practice but the same arguments against labeling lftb appear to apply as arguments for rescinding labeling by cut. It's all equally safe, it's all the same kind of tissue from the same animal, and some people even prefer the bottom round. (A recent Cook's Illustrated article pointed out that although filet mignon is more tender, other less expensive cuts often have stronger flavor.) To some people, how the cow was raised or what its astrological sign was might be more important than what cut it is, but we don't require labeling for that.

What argument exists for labeling by cut being intrinsically necessary (rather than just the arbitrary point where the laws now stand) but not labeling by the processing (ground versus ground plus some centrifuged)? Both primarily affect (both positively and negatively) the perceived textural quality of the product.

Labeling ground meat by cut isn't a legal thing, it's done voluntarily because it's worth more to do so.

 

[Prometheus]

Did you miss this whole discussion?

The labeling I wanted not only didn't exist, when I asked what had changed in the burger, the retailers all said nothing they knew of, because the labeling misled the retailers as well as the final consumers.

The labeling I refer to, which does in fact allow one to avoid LFTB if one chooses, albeit with a trivial effort, has existed since long before your issue arose--since long before LFTB even existed. You didn't know that, and didn't know there was anything there to avoid. That's an understandable reason for dismay. It's reason to be upset with yourself for not bothering to investigate what the labels on your food mean. It's not reason enough to require a costly industry wide change.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The labeling I refer to, which does in fact allow one to avoid LFTB if one chooses, albeit with a trivial effort, has existed since long before your issue arose--since long before LFTB even existed. You didn't know that, and didn't know there was anything there to avoid. That's an understandable reason for dismay. It's reason to be upset with yourself for not bothering to investigate what the labels on your food mean. It's not reason enough to require a costly industry wide change.

Whatever you are talking about is not what the discussion is about. The same thing was said that it's all my problem and the producers have no obligation to label their additive of tendons and connective tissue: I should just go to the butcher and have them grind a cut of meat for me.

I did solve the problem. I began only buying fresh ground from Whole Foods because it was the only product that consistently didn't have the gross texture.

But that's not the issue. Why should I not be able to buy a package of burger from the grocery case and know if there was LFTB in it? Why should the producers be allowed to use filler that affects the product without saying so?

 

[Joey McGee]

So? Labeling by cut is current practice but the same arguments against labeling lftb appear to apply as arguments for rescinding labeling by cut. It's all equally safe, it's all the same kind of tissue from the same animal, and some people even prefer the bottom round. (A recent Cook's Illustrated article pointed out that although filet mignon is more tender, other less expensive cuts often have stronger flavor.) To some people, how the cow was raised or what its astrological sign was might be more important than what cut it is, but we don't require labeling for that.

What argument exists for labeling by cut being intrinsically necessary (rather than just the arbitrary point where the laws now stand) but not labeling by the processing (ground versus ground plus some centrifuged)? Both primarily affect (both positively and negatively) the perceived textural quality of the product.

That loud whistling noise you just heard was an argument flying over your head. Can you prove that the meat in ground beef is different from the meat in lftb? I bet you one million dollars you cannot.

 

[Joey McGee]

If this is the case then Steak tartare^WP would be the same if made with lftb. It wouldn't, and would be instantly rejected by anyone into steak tartare.

I don't have a response to this, other than to say it is extremely stupid.

The proof of the whole pudding is that lftb doesn't appear on restaurant menus or in labelled packages on supermarket shelves.

This means absolutely nothing. You haven't even tried to explain why you think it does, is plainly something you imagined under a spell of confirmation bias.

That it might be perfectly safe and nutritious I'm happy to accept.

p.s. the fact that lftb-added burgers are preferred by some doesn't mean a damn thing. I prefer Heinz baked beans to Crosse&Blackwell but that's just because I'm used to them. Let the lftb burgers be labelled suitably and their devotess can target them when shopping.

There is a difference between different preparation of beans. There is no difference in molecular constitution from meat that is micrometers away from the place the butcher put his knife. Total lack of attention to detail in this thread.

 

[Mister Earl]

The more people we insist on bringing to this world, the further lengths we will have to go to feed them. Might as well get used to mechanically separated everything. It's not going anywhere anytime soon. Other than your shelves.