Pink Slime

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Safe, yes I agree. Qualifies as 'beef'? Only IF you define 'beef' as any part of cattle, or if you use the USDA definition which was changed by lobby driven legislation when this product was introduced so that the product could be included in the definition of consumable part of the 'beef'. The chemical analysis shows it contains more connective tissue such as tendons than typical hamburger does.

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.

Who was that, I'll check.

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.

No, but conflicts of interest need to be disclosed in scientific research and the reader can then evaluate whether the conflict influenced the study or not.

You have missed this then, the source being usda.gov

That source is the company that makes the additive and the label includes nothing that actually discloses the stuff is nutritionally different from hamburger. THAT'S THE MISLEADING I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!

The company is hiding the fact the stuff has less available protein by what is not said in that label. The company is hiding the fact the stuff has more connective tissue than muscle fiber by lobbying Congress to change the definition the USDA had been using to now use a definition that includes this product without disclosing it differs from the rest of the burger.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

OMGTurt1es was talking about citing industry sources of information and I was speaking generally about the science of a number of products/issues where industry has paid for million dollar campaigns aimed specifically at discrediting valid science. The subjects range from the tobacco companies trying to discredit science supporting the dangers of smoking and later the dangers of second hand smoke. The oil companies have paid millions to discredit valid global climate change science. The Discovery Institute spends millions to discredit evolution theory science and promote the pseudoscience of intelligent design. There are others areas where industry markets a 'discredit valid science' message.

As far as this issue goes, I'm not claiming the stuff is unhealthy. And evidence has been presented in this thread that the USDA changed its definition of consumable beef to include this stuff without disclosing it wasn't the same as hamburger and the company that makes and distributes it has made an effort to hide the fact it was being used.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Responsible journalists doing their job today in droves

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


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

I will buy more hamburger if it is removed and if it was the cause of the burger texture I don't like and it's looking more and more like it is.

I will bet you that company will take a brief hiatus until the news dies down then it will find some other use for "lean beef trimmings". They can put it in hotdogs or make some new deli meat with it. Or, look out Canada, perhaps they'll just find a foreign market for it. Mexico is a possibility. They aren't necessarily going out of business. If they would have disclosed the use of the product more widely before, perhaps they wouldn't look like they've been hiding something now.

 

[Joey McGee]

Safe, yes I agree. Qualifies as 'beef'? Only IF you define 'beef' as any part of cattle, or if you use the USDA definition which was changed by lobby driven legislation when this product was introduced so that the product could be included in the definition of consumable part of the 'beef'. The chemical analysis shows it contains more connective tissue such as tendons than typical hamburger does.

It's muscle meat. There's nothing refuting that. Let's assume there is a slightly higher concentration of connective tissues. Does that mean there is none in normal ground beef? No!. "LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins than muscle meat." If there was NONE of that in there, why would they use that wording?

Study Shows 'Lean Finely Textured Beef' Improves Burger Quality ... THE HORROR

No, but conflicts of interest need to be disclosed in scientific research and the reader can then evaluate whether the conflict influenced the study or not.

How? "Connected to corporations, must be evil?"

That source is the company that makes the additive

You've got me there, there are two sources given on that gif and I thought the usda one was for both.

and the label includes nothing that actually discloses the stuff is nutritionally different from hamburger. THAT'S THE MISLEADING I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!

No evidence it's not muscle meat or beef yet. No evidence it's nutritionally different. Other than not trusting their sources.

The company is hiding the fact the stuff has less available protein by what is not said in that label. The company is hiding the fact the stuff has more connective tissue than muscle fiber by lobbying Congress to change the definition the USDA had been using to now use a definition that includes this product without disclosing it differs from the rest of the burger.

They aren't hiding anything, they could have been more upfront about, that's the only issue. It's muscle meat. End of story. Cheers

 

[Joey McGee]

it wasn't the same as hamburger

It is the same stuff as hamburger. This is a new process that was developed relatively recently. I can understand the fact that there is no reason to alarm everyone when it's purely a technical and not reasonable change. The only thing BPI screwed up on is underestimating how irrational and crazy people get about their food processing. I'm sure other companies are going to be more pre-emptive about this from now on.

The people who have hollow lives and get a big kick out of "sticking it to the man" over past offenses of "the corporations" are literally the only people in the world benefiting from this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's muscle meat. There's nothing refuting that. Let's assume there is a slightly higher concentration of connective tissues. Does that mean there is none in normal ground beef? NO. "LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins than muscle meat." If there was NONE of that in there, why would they use that wording?

...No evidence it's not muscle meat or beef yet.

The aren't hiding anything, they could have been more upfront about, that's the only issue. It's muscle meat. End of story. Cheers

I'm sorry, do you not know what myofibers are? That's muscle. If you then go to the body of the report you'll see the percentages are significant different between "lean beef trimmings" and "ground chuck".

Study Shows 'Lean Finely Textured Beef' Improves Burger QualityTHE HORROR

From the news report:

added at levels up to 20 percent in ground beef improved fresh color, reduced spoilage and increased tenderness....

...The study design included ground beef patties formulated in six replicated treatments. Patties were either 82 percent or 93 percent lean. A control group with no lean beef trim was compared to ground beef that contained 10 or 20 percent lean beef trim. The patties were frozen and then thawed and placed in a simulated retail display for five days before cooking.

Color and spoilage are not measures that matter to everyone. They do matter to industry because keeping something on the shelf longer is beneficial.

I don't usually eat burger that's been sitting around 5 days. I don't know if fresh or frozen and thawed matter that much because I don't know if the pre-packaged burger at the grocer has been frozen.

As for the "tenderness":

"I also expected the LBT burgers to be tougher, but they were more tender," Apple said. Tenderness was rated by a measurement of the force required to cut a patty.

I don't know that force to cut something equals texture.

From what I see, the additive makes burger last longer on the shelf. That's nice. Label the burger as having the additive and I'll choose the non-rubbery stuff without it. People who don't notice the difference will eventually migrate back to the cheaper stuff. As it is now, I'm paying $9-10/pound for burger just to avoid the distasteful texture.

How? "Connected to corporations, must be evil?"

Straw man. Any good scientist discloses conflicts of interest in a study write up.

You've got me there, there are two sources given on that gif and I thought the usda one was for both.

You ignored or missed the point. If you compare vitamins and total calories or even total protein, but you leave out the fact more tendons are ground up in the mix, the two labels are misleadingly implying the products are the same. They are not.


-

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is the same stuff as hamburger. This is a new process that was developed relatively recently. I can understand the fact that there is no reason to alarm everyone when it's purely a technical and not reasonable change. The only thing BPI screwed up on is underestimating how irrational and crazy people get about their food processing. I'm sure other companies are going to be more pre-emptive about this from now on.

The people who have hollow lives and get a big kick out of "sticking it to the man" over past offenses of "the corporations" are literally the only people in the world benefiting from this.

If it were the same as burger, why not sell it as burger? Why mix it at all?

 

[Joey McGee]

An analysis conducted at Iowa State University (A.S. Leaflet R1361) found two-and-a-half times more insoluble protein (77% vs. 30%) relative to soluble proteins in ordinary ground chuck. Nutritionally, our gut bacteria digest much of what we cannot, but there’s a good bet that we can’t get as much value from insoluble proteins (collagen and elastin, found largely in tendons, ligaments, and cartilage) as from their soluble siblings (myosin and actin, usually associated with muscle tissues). While these proteins may be hard to digest, on the plus side, there’s less fat in LFTB (~5%) than standard ground chuck (15-20%).

So what on earth is the big deal? If you're making the argument that people should be made aware of all of this, I have never been against that. What I'm against is people thinking this is like including poop or eyeballs and that ammonia will kill your children. Or that this product is significantly less healthy than prime meat you ground up from a cow you killed with your bare hands 10 minutes ago. Or that "ground chuck" doesn't have any connective tissues in it at all. That's all wrong.

Pink Slime, Deconstructed

 

[Joey McGee]

If it were the same as burger, why not sell it as burger? Why mix it at all?

Actually I'd love to head over to BPI and get some pink slime and cook it in a pan and do some taste tests with it. It's because it's too different from what people are used to, it doesn't automatically mean that it's because it's not nutritious.

 

[Oliver]

Responsible journalists doing their job today in droves

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


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

Look, it's not all that complicated:

If they make meat out of what used to be for the garbage can or the dogs a decade ago ... fine.

But if they're doing it - tell the customers what's in the product and how it's produced. Then everybody is happy - and your heroes at the garbage-factory can make a fortune with their products, for sure!

 

[Joey McGee]

It's garbage. It's dog food. Blah blah blah

 

[Joey McGee]

Garbage means it has no use. Dog food means unfit for human consumption. Both are wrong. cya

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually I'd love to head over to BPI and get some pink slime and cook it in a pan and do some taste tests with it. It's because it's too different from what people are used to, it doesn't automatically mean that it's because it's not nutritious.

As I said in my PM: People keep conflating my position with everyone else's in the thread.

See my very first post on page one. I think it's about #27 give or take.

I have been bummed out for years that my beloved hamburger began tasting rubbery or gristly years ago. I hate it. It's a personal preference. I am not worried the burger is bad for me and I'm especially not concerned they use ammonia in the processing.

Ginger

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So what on earth is the big deal? If you're making the argument that people should be made aware of all of this, I have never been against that. What I'm against is people thinking this is like including poop or eyeballs and that ammonia will kill your children. Or that this product is significantly less healthy than prime meat you ground up from a cow you killed with your bare hands 10 minutes ago. Or that "ground chuck" doesn't have any connective tissues in it at all. That's all wrong.

Pink Slime, Deconstructed

Not only does this say exactly what I posted earlier, they are citing the same source, the one OMGturt1es complained earlier wasn't a peer reviewed paper. Sometimes a scientific analysis is not testing an hypothesis. Everything reputably scientific is not necessarily peer review destined.

Taking regular hamburger everyone is used to and tossing in a 20% (maybe more?) mix of processed burger, tendons and cartilage, without labeling it is not what I consider truth in labeling. The USDA and the FDA are supposed to protect the consumer from misleading food labeling. That our legislators capitulated to the interests of monied lobbyists and allowed this product to enter the food chain unannounced is a concern to me. Just because something is safe doesn't mean people don't have a right to know.

Yes, you can make an argument that some consumer labeling caters to woo beliefs and can give something an unfair market disadvantage. In those special cases I agree certain labeling might do more harm than good. Since all agricultural products are essentially genetically modified, I don't agree with some arbitrary decision which products should have additional labels.

But in this case, the texture of the meat was most definitely affected and it pisses me off no one would tell me what the difference was when I inquired about the problem in the stores I was buying the burger in. I want a class action suit to pay me back for the dozens of pounds of burger I threw away () because this stuff wasn't labeled. I figure Safeway and QFC owe me about $50 each. They don't owe me because I had to pay more for burger without the stuff.

 

[shadron]

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.

Not only does this say exactly what I posted earlier, they are citing the same source, the one OMGturt1es complained earlier wasn't a peer reviewed paper. Sometimes a scientific analysis is not testing an hypothesis. Everything reputably scientific is not necessarily peer review destined.

Incidentally, what journal would you expect to find peer-reviewed papers on beef production economics and techniques in, which would not have that industrial taint of ammonia? I happen (long story) to get the Pet Food Industry, but AFAIK there aren't any peer-reviewed articles in it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Incidentally, what journal would you expect to find peer-reviewed papers on beef production economics and techniques in, which would not have that industrial taint of ammonia? I happen (long story) to get the Pet Food Industry, but AFAIK there aren't any peer-reviewed articles in it.

You're asking the wrong person. I cited a technical analysis paper and someone else said it wasn't peer reviewed. I pointed out every technical paper is not an hypothesis research or review paper. Sometimes citations are just to a technical source.

However, there are food safety research journals:

The IAFP which as far as I can tell is not an industry front group publishes the Journal of Food Production.

First published in 1937, the Journal of Food Protection® is a refereed monthly publication.

Each issue contains scientific research and authoritative review articles reporting on a variety of topics in food science pertaining to food safety and quality. The journal is internationally recognized as the leading publication in the field of food microbiology with a readership exceeding 11,000 scientists from 69 countries. The Journal of Food Protection® is indexed in Index Medicus, Current Contents, BIOSIS, PubMed, Medline, and many others.

The American Meat Science Association has a mix of industry and academic members on its board. They publish the journal: Meat Science which looks legitimate and not necessarily a front group publication. I'm not familiar with the organization or the journal though so I'm not endorsing it outright. I don't find a search of "lean beef trimmings" returns any hits in the journal itself but it does gets some results on the association website.

I have to go to work but maybe someone is interested in looking at these papers for things pertinent to the thread.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

I'm not from Canada either. And I did mention in my last post that "no-one can deny your observations". It's just that, like a UFO or Bigfoot sighting, your experience is personal, local and subjective, and may not generalise well to the rest of the world. I'm sorry that your hamburger tastes like crap.

 

[Draca]

I'm not from Canada either. And I did mention in my last post that "no-one can deny your observations". It's just that, like a UFO or Bigfoot sighting, your experience is personal, local and subjective, and may not generalise well to the rest of the world. I'm sorry that your hamburger tastes like crap.

I'm glad the only strange things found in your burgers are the BEETS found on top of them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not from Canada either. And I did mention in my last post that "no-one can deny your observations". It's just that, like a UFO or Bigfoot sighting, your experience is personal, local and subjective, and may not generalise well to the rest of the world. I'm sorry that your hamburger tastes like crap.

I disagree with your analogy. It's akin to saying not a single observation is ever valid. Lots of observations are accepted as evidence in science. The people you are trying to compare me to didn't just make an observation, many of them drew an unsupportable conclusion about what they were observing. People make repeating observations in some areas, (ghosts, bigfoot, UFOs, homeopathy and so on) and with those specific observations we've looked and repeatedly failed to find supporting evidence. In addition a lot of evidence cannot be found where we should expect to find that evidence

There is a thing called lack of or the existence of corroborating evidence. There are trained observers and observations that are more reliable than others. There are observations which are less reliable such as an eyewitness to a crime committed by strangers. But if that same eyewitness sees their close friend commit a crime, that observation is more reliable.

You make a foolish mistake if you treat all observations equally.

 

[shadron]

I'm glad the only strange things found in your burgers are the BEETS found on top of them.

A borscht belt joke? Guess again. Not NA, not asia. He lives in the land of the sledge hammer, and knows how to wield it.