Pink Slime

[Finn McR]

An unblinded, non-scientific, anecdotal test.

Agree. The known good stuff tastes good, the know bad stuff tastes bad. This is an example of why journalism majors should take science classes before reporting on science matters.

 

[Joey McGee]

I'm reminded of the Penn and Teller organics episode. They presented people at a market with two half bananas. One organic, one "conventional" Of course the organic got rave reviews and the NWO-supported banana was met with disdain.

Then the truth was revealed, it was the same banana cut in half.



BEHOLD! And laugh your ass off

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You might find this article interesting, the author did a taste test.

'Pink slime' in burgers? A taste test.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0316/Pink-slime-in-burgers-A-taste-test

Aha! At least someone has noticed besides me!

Thanks for the link.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

An unblinded, non-scientific, anecdotal test.

Yeah, except why would he mention texture differed and not just taste?

And then there was the texture. Unpleasantly chewy bits of what I can only describe as gristle, though they were not visible, seemed to stud the meat of the pink slime burger. The result was a mealy chew that, while not overtly unpleasant, didn't leave me wanting another bite.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm just happy I can now find hamburger that tastes normal again now that I know what to look for.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Agree. The known good stuff tastes good, the know bad stuff tastes bad. This is an example of why journalism majors should take science classes before reporting on science matters.

Again, why does he mention texture?

I get it that Pepsi, Coke and New Coke taste the same and I get it that the placebo pain pill has some effects.

But you guys are dismissing the rubbery hamburger thing and it is unmistakeable! It's not something I made up.

Remember, I didn't know a thing about pink slime until now. I've asked grocery butcher after butcher, what is different about this stuff? I've taken it back and thrown it out. I quit buying burger anywhere but Whole Foods organic burger.

How did I know? How was my observation not blinded?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm reminded of the Penn and Teller organics episode. They presented people at a market with two half bananas. One organic, one "conventional" Of course the organic got rave reviews and the NWO-supported banana was met with disdain.

Then the truth was revealed, it was the same banana cut in half.



BEHOLD! And laugh your ass off

I like the organic bananas better than non-organic but I chalked it up to Dole vs Chiquita brands. I buy both brands depending on what is available.

 

[Joey McGee]

Unpleasantly chewy bits of what I can only describe as gristle, though they were not visible, seemed to stud the meat of the pink slime burger. The result was a mealy chew that, while not overtly unpleasant, didn't leave me wanting another bite.

I'll join in the meaningless anecdote conversation and add that I've had similar experiences with different qualities of ground beef myself. But I live in Canada where pink slime doesn't exist. FWIW, which is pretty much nothing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll join in the meaningless anecdote conversation and add that I've had similar experiences with different qualities of ground beef myself. But I live in Canada where pink slime doesn't exist. FWIW, which is pretty much nothing.

Are you sure this additive doesn't have a Canadian version?

While a Google search finds a denial it is in Canadian burger it is not clear if it is in imported burger sold in Canada.

If I had any definitive links I'd cite them but nothing I found was definitive.

 

[Joey McGee]

I like the organic bananas better than non-organic but I chalked it up to Dole vs Chiquita brands. I buy both brands depending on what is available.

Ya there's just so many factors that go into the taste! With soil, other ecological factors, transport conditions, etc. I've seen blind taste tests where organic wins, and others where conventional wins, on a variety of products. At this point I'm skeptical that the "organic vs conventional" is ever the major factor in these studies that show a difference. We do need to nail down what any differences are in the name of having awesome tasting stuff though.

As wiki puts it "The weight of the available scientific evidence has not shown a significant difference between organic and more conventionally grown food in terms of safety, nutritional value, or taste." But that just means we need to look elsewhere to figure out how to make our foods taste as awesome as possible.

 

[Joey McGee]

Are you sure this additive doesn't have a Canadian version?

While a Google search finds a denial it is in Canadian burger it is not clear if it is in imported burger sold in Canada.

If I had any definitive links I'd cite them but nothing I found was definitive.

‘Pink slime’ stops at the 49th parallel

“Ammonia is not permitted in Canada to be used in ground beef or meats during their production,” the agency said in a statement.

The reason is apparently that no one has asked to use it. “Health Canada requires that all food additives undergo a pre-market safety evaluation,” the agency said. “Ammonium hydroxide added to meat … would be regulated in Canada as a food additive. Therefore, Health Canada would need to receive a submission requesting a specific use of ammonium hydroxide in meat products before the substance could be considered for approval.”

Health Canada also says that any imported meat must adhere to Canadian rules and standards, meaning LFTB cannot be brought into the country.

So it’s not a matter of LFTB being banned in Canada, it’s just never been on the list of approved additives for meat. And we do allow ammonium hydroxide in the processing of cocoa products and gelatin.

 

[arthwollipot]

Again, why does he mention texture?

Because he was looking for differences. Of course he found them.

I get it that Pepsi, Coke and New Coke taste the same...

They don't. I've differentiated Pepsi and Coca-Cola in a blind taste test (we don't have New Coke here).

...and I get it that the placebo pain pill has some effects.

But you guys are dismissing the rubbery hamburger thing and it is unmistakeable! It's not something I made up.

Remember, I didn't know a thing about pink slime until now. I've asked grocery butcher after butcher, what is different about this stuff? I've taken it back and thrown it out. I quit buying burger anywhere but Whole Foods organic burger.

How did I know? How was my observation not blinded?

None of us can deny your observation. There is lots of really crappy ground beef on the market. I very much doubt that all crappy beef contains pink slime - after all, I've had some really awful gristly steaks too. But over the course of the thread it seems to me that you have looked for reasons to object to the stuff. I don't recall you mentioning rubbery hamburger at the beginning. Back at the top of the thread it was all about what went into it. Then you complained about lack of labelling. Now you're talking about texture and quality.

 

[OMGturt1es]

I can't believe how readily self-identified skeptics posted links to industry-funded information sources. Industry has a long, well documented history of attacking science in defense of its products. Its bias is legendary. If skeptics want to support science, scientific journals and textbooks should always be primary sources of information. Where these sources provide insufficient data, conclusions should provide insufficient certainty. Conclusions should be held in proportion to the weight of scientific evidence.

In the debate over potential nutritional differences, I can't believe that only one poster (Ginger) tried to provide scientific data. Sadly, the study to which she linked does not appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and the research was industry funded.

I think skeptics are often far too quick to rule out potential chronic exposure implications. For some reason, it seems we mistake concern over potential scientific unknowns with unsupported hype. I think this is a big mistake. Where scientific data are lacking-- and they usually are for chronic exposure-- we have little data from which to conclude.

Chronic exposure hazards are exceedingly difficult to gauge. Our ability to detect chronic exposure hazards has been woefully inept. Our conclusions generally grow only with body counts. Chronic hazards may present decades after exposure and may even require decades of exposure, which makes them very, very difficult to detect in any meaningful timescale-- by the time the science is in, it's too late.

Regarding ammonia, yes, I understand it's common knowledge that ammonia has been used in similar processes for a couple decades now, but so had countless other chemicals until evidence slowly accumulated to implicate real chronic hazard. Yes, I understand it's common knowledge that ammonia is produced by the human body, but so is stomach acid, which, if chronically in the esophagus due to acid reflux, increases esophageal cancer hazards. I understand common knowledge. We all do. The problem with common knowledge is that it's all too common. When we rely on common knowledge, everyone has an equally unqualified opinion bolstered by biased worldview. The more I learn about science, the more complex I understand the world to be, and the less useful I find common knowledge.

I don't have an opinion on whether ammonia-treatment poses chronic hazards. And neither should other posters here, unless they are epidemologists who have studied ammonia-treatment or are actually familiar with relevant non-industry-funded scientific research published in reputable journals. The only opinion I can muster is that most posters here seem perfectly fine with accepting some uncertainty in exchange for economic efficiency. And I guess that's fine. I don't care. I rarely eat beef.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I am very picky about ground beef texture. Much of it is hard for me to believe that people happily eat it. Walmart for instance has their ground beef in long strings which do not break apart when ground easily, you have to actually grind it again and again to get rid of the stringy texture, well, actually I never managed to get rid of it.

As I said on the first page, I am happy to learn the only place I bought ground beef does not use pink slime and never has used it. But I think I am just lucky, and I would be willing to accept that there is ground beef in America with pink slime I would probably find palatable.

 

[Joey McGee]

I can't believe how readily self-identified skeptics posted links to industry-funded information sources.

Actually a wide variety of links pointing to a wide variety of experts shows that there is essentially a consensus position that the product is safe and qualifies as beef. Obviously with some exceptions. Is the expert I referenced that made the comment about vinaigrettes a paid industry stooge too? Sure there are a few experts in the news that disagree about whether to call it beef or the ethics of labeling, but AFAIK none claim it's poison. To claim that only the industry's side has been presented here is quite far from the truth.

I did point to their blog and their letter in the WSJ, giving them a chance to defend themselves. Their evidence and reason isn't disqualified because of their vested interest, that's not being skeptical.

In the debate over potential nutritional differences, I can't believe that only one poster (Ginger) tried to provide scientific data. Sadly, the study to which she linked does not appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and the research was industry funded.

You have missed this then, the source being usda.gov eta: I screwed up, there are two references on that pic, one is industry the other is usda. I'm dyslexic or something, I've typed in "pink smile" too many times to google recently (the first result is nsfw lol)

I think skeptics are often far too quick to rule out potential chronic exposure implications. For some reason, it seems we mistake concern over potential scientific unknowns with unsupported hype. I think this is a big mistake. Where scientific data are lacking-- and they usually are for chronic exposure-- we have little data from which to conclude.

I don't think we ruled it out in this thread, I think we pointed out there is no evidence of it and reason to believe there won't be. I'm not saying that research should stop, I'm saying that the job-killing chemophobia is offensive and insane.

The only opinion I can muster is that most posters here seem perfectly fine with accepting some uncertainty in exchange for economic efficiency.

I'm not a hundred percent sure that there isn't a black widow spider inside this banana I'm about to eat either. Life's a little short for that level of concern.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because he was looking for differences. Of course he found them.

They don't. I've differentiated Pepsi and Coca-Cola in a blind taste test (we don't have New Coke here).

None of us can deny your observation. There is lots of really crappy ground beef on the market. I very much doubt that all crappy beef contains pink slime - after all, I've had some really awful gristly steaks too. But over the course of the thread it seems to me that you have looked for reasons to object to the stuff. I don't recall you mentioning rubbery hamburger at the beginning. Back at the top of the thread it was all about what went into it. Then you complained about lack of labelling. Now you're talking about texture and quality.

My first post:

...
This might explain what I've been trying to figure out for years now. The hamburger I consume some years back started tasting awful, mostly because of the texture that seemed 'grisley' to me. It got to the point that the only hamburger I found not to have that texture which I found distasteful was the organic stuff at Whole Foods. It costs as much as a good steak from Safeway. Whole Foods grinds their own burger at the store.

QFC meat department claimed they also ground their own hamburger but it turns out the Kroger brand contained the 'product'. They are now reporting they will quit using it.

I was talking to the Whole Foods butcher about this just a couple days ago. I asked him if it was possible there was some new way the meat was taken off the bone or some other processing thing that would account for the grisley texture of all the commercial hamburger. The butcher didn't know of anything.

It will be interesting to see if indeed this is why hamburger texture has become an issue for me.

I misspelled gristle as grisle and corrected my posts mid thread.

As for your dismissals, you admit you don't live in the US. It would appear the additive is not used in Canada. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss my complaint. The texture is so unmistakably different ...well it is not mistakable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't believe how readily self-identified skeptics posted links to industry-funded information sources. Industry has a long, well documented history of attacking science in defense of its products. Its bias is legendary. If skeptics want to support science, scientific journals and textbooks should always be primary sources of information. Where these sources provide insufficient data, conclusions should provide insufficient certainty. Conclusions should be held in proportion to the weight of scientific evidence.

I too am surprised by this and by how often skeptics cite studies when it is exposed that industry funding backs the scientific conclusions which also go against the majority of scientists' conclusions.

In the debate over potential nutritional differences, I can't believe that only one poster (Ginger) tried to provide scientific data. Sadly, the study to which she linked does not appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and the research was industry funded.

Because it was pro-industry and inadvertently supported an essentially anti-industry conclusion I suggested that lent it some cred.

Chronic exposure hazards are exceedingly difficult to gauge. ...

Regarding ammonia, yes, I understand it's common knowledge that ammonia has been used in similar processes for a couple decades now, but so had countless other chemicals until evidence slowly accumulated to implicate real chronic hazard. Yes, I understand it's common knowledge that ammonia is produced by the human body, but so is stomach acid, which, if chronically in the esophagus due to acid reflux, increases esophageal cancer hazards. I understand common knowledge. We all do. The problem with common knowledge is that it's all too common. When we rely on common knowledge, everyone has an equally unqualified opinion bolstered by biased worldview. The more I learn about science, the more complex I understand the world to be, and the less useful I find common knowledge.

I don't have an opinion on whether ammonia-treatment poses chronic hazards. And neither should other posters here, unless they are epidemologists who have studied ammonia-treatment or are actually familiar with relevant non-industry-funded scientific research published in reputable journals. The only opinion I can muster is that most posters here seem perfectly fine with accepting some uncertainty in exchange for economic efficiency. And I guess that's fine. I don't care. I rarely eat beef.

Ammonia is a byproduct of metabolism and your body processes lots of it in every tissue every single day. It's only when a person has liver failure that toxic levels of ammonia build up in the tissues harming a person.

Amino Acid Transamination/Deamination Contributes to the TCA Cycle

The second kind of reaction, deamination, removes the amino group of the amino acid in the form of ammonia. In the liver, the oxidative deamination of glutamate results in α-keto-glutarate (a TCA cycle intermediate) and ammonia, which is converted into urea and excreted. Deamination reactions in other organs form ammonia that is generally incorporated into glutamate to generate glutamine, which is the main transporter of amino groups in blood.

 

[Joey McGee]

Responsible journalists doing their job today in droves

http://bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/he...your-burger/ERjxbrzsmU92RA5cSsrSjM/story.html

Many people may be breathing a giant sigh of relief after hearing that Beef Products Inc., the manufacturer of “pink slime” used in some ground beef products, has decided to drastically cut back on its production due to falling sales.

While no doubt, the beef product -- which is made from discarded fat and connective tissue trimmings -- is cheap to produce and makes those burgers less costly, there’s no evidence it makes beef less safe, or even less nutritious.

Like I said, the only thing making anyone sick over this product is the amount of crazy people fighting it.

 

[Joey McGee]

reposted from the jamie oliver forum...

texasbluedarter: Thank you Jamie. Your crusade against pink slime has shut down an industry that has been in business since 1981 here in the Texas Panhandle. This has cost some 200+ people their jobs. I want to thank you for this special effort to put people out of work. BTW, the FDA had approved this "pink slime", as you called it, for use for years. The OFFICIAL name for the beef product is "lean finely textured beef". This a beef product that has been deemed safe for human consumption. I hope you choke on your "victory". Do you want to pay these workers their lost wages and support for their familes? I doubt it. you can't muster enough money to pay them since you severely damaged a company and their employees. You can guess where I am from by my screen name. This is BEEF country and you and your crusade has caued immeasurably damage. Again, a great big Texas THANK YOU.

/thread

 

[Joey McGee]

I too am surprised by this and by how often skeptics cite studies when it is exposed that industry funding backs the scientific conclusions which also go against the majority of scientists' conclusions.

That is true for this situation? Where is the evidence that the majority of scientists think that this product is unsafe or not nutritious?