• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Pink Slime

Not at all, I'm mocking the idea that her acceptance of that job is evidence of conspiracy, especially when it was legal at the time.
I don't have a clue what this is in reference to. I've been talking about a change that was made in the USDA definition of beef to include "lean beef trimmings" without having to put on the burger label that any change had actually occurred.

We must be talking about different things.
 
The irony is that it is the waste of humanity's resources, IE woo and pseudoscience, that is driving this. It is literally a combination of politicians being apathetic to their voters and scientists being apathetic to the ignorant masses! Leaving the skeptics to wallow in the swamp of feces leftover.
I hope you are leaving the right to know this stuff is in one's burger before buying it out of your rant.
 
It went into pet food.

Only because the only way to separate the flesh from the fat was by melting the fat away, which also cooked the flesh. You can't sell cooked meat as fresh ground beef, so they had to put it in a product. So why not put it into pet food? After all, it's cheap meat and your everyday pet food needs to be cheap.

Presumably they still put a lot of it into pet food.

But just because they put something into pet food is no reason to believe it wasn't fit for human consumption. After all, my cat's dry food contains "wholegrain cereals", but that doesn't mean that I'd refuse to eat wholegrain cereals because it's "pet food", or claim that its nutritionally harmful when used in human food.

ETA: I know that's not what you were saying in your post, but I thought I may as well address related points that have been bugging me since I've heard them.
 
Last edited:
I've been following the Pink Slime story with disgust.
Just to add my pov. I seriously don't give a ****. I don't mind that people have visceral disgust for pink slime and I'm fine that people be informed about what they eat. That said, revulsion of Balut, gefilte fish or pink slime is fine but to form a conclusion about "good" or "bad" is irrational and a fallacy.

I'm fine with pink slime.
 
Just to add my pov. I seriously don't give a ****. I don't mind that people have visceral disgust for pink slime and I'm fine that people be informed about what they eat. That said, revulsion of Balut, gefilte fish or pink slime is fine but to form a conclusion about "good" or "bad" is irrational and a fallacy.

I'm fine with pink slime.
I'm just as happy to eat a bucket of pink slime as I am to sleep in a haunted house.
 
I do not object to pink slime on health grounds. I'd just rather eat straight beef, for the flavor if nothing else.

I have no problem with the stuff being sold in stores either. I'd just like to be able to choose not to eat it.
 
I'm just as happy to eat a bucket of pink slime as I am to sleep in a haunted house.

I do not object to pink slime on health grounds. I'd just rather eat straight beef, for the flavor if nothing else.

I have no problem with the stuff being sold in stores either. I'd just like to be able to choose not to eat it.
Exactly. I can't say I'd enjoy eating a bucket of pink slime. :)
 
I hope you are leaving the right to know this stuff is in one's burger before buying it out of your rant.
Blah blah what? I said the right to know is a legitmate issue in my first post. Ive done nothing in this thread but point out facts and mock slacktivists... Whatever
 
Hey did anyone notice my post that the author of the 96' study about connective tissue says ur all full of ******? Nah i missed that too
 
Last edited:
This thread needs a Godwin. Clearly I'm engaged in social Darwinism or socialism by saying beef is beef here
 
Here's a Timeline provided by the Des Moines Register:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...05/-1/GETPUBLISHED03/Timeline-BPI-controversy


1971: Eldon Roth, CEO of BPI, starts Roth Refrigeration and invents the Roller Press Freeze, which reduces freezing time from three to five days down to two minutes.

1974: Food grade ammonium hydroxide (basically ammonia plus water) is declared safe by the Food and Drug Administration. It is used to produce a number of products such as puddings and baked goods.

1981: BPI builds its first plant, in Amarillo, Texas, that uses the Roller Press Freeze technology and begins making frozen beef.

1988: Builds its second plant, in Finney County, Kan.

1992: Opens its third plant, in Waterloo, Ia.

1994: Begins developing its pH Enhancement System, which is later proven to reduce the number of potential pathogens such as E. coli in beef and ultimately leads to the production of lean, finely textured beef. The system relies on slightly increasing the level of ammonium hydroxide already present in beef to elevate its pH. By combining a small amount (measured in parts per million) of ammonia gas with the naturally occurring moisture in beef, the company produces ammonium hydroxide and reduces the level of pathogens in the product.

1998: Opens its fourth plant, in South Sioux City, Neb.

2001: The Federal Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture approve the pH Enhancement System, and BPI begins making pH enhanced lean beef. The process allows beef producers to separate beef fat from meat in a way that would be impossible to do by hand, providing 10 to 12 more pounds of meat per animal.

2002: USDA microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein is credited with first using the term “pink slime” to refer to lean, finely textured beef. Zirnstein uses the term after touring a BPI plant and later emails his peers, saying he doesn’t “consider the stuff to be ground beef,” according to the online news site the Daily.

2007: International Association for Food Protection awards BPI its highest honor, the Black Pearl Award.

Dec. 30, 2009: The New York Times reports that in testing for the school lunch program, E. coli and salmonella pathogens have been found dozens of times in BPI’s meat, challenging claims by the company and the USDA about the effectiveness of the ammonium treatment. Since 2005, E. coli is found three times and salmonella 48 times, including back-to-back incidents in August 2009 in which two 27,000-pound batches are found to be contaminated. The meat was caught before reaching lunch-room trays, the newspaper reports.

January 2012: McDonald’s announces it has stopped using beef treated with ammonium hydroxide in production of its food, a policy the restaurant says started in August 2011.

March 8, 2012: An ABC News investigation finds that 70 percent of the ground beef on store shelves contains lean, finely textured beef, which the report says is often called “pink slime.” The coverage identifies Zirnstein, the former USDA scientist, as a whistle-blower: “It’s not fresh ground beef, it is a substitute,” he says. Social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and an online blog called TheLunchTray.com are soon abuzz about the product, calling for its removal from school lunch programs.

March 15, 2012: The USDA announces it has adjusted requirements so schools can choose whether to order products with or without lean, finely textured beef.

March 26, 2012: BPI announces it is temporarily closing its plants in Texas, Kansas and Iowa, placing 600 people out of work, including 220 in Iowa.

March 28, 2012: Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad announces he has formed a coalition of governors to fight the “baseless media scare.” He also appears in a news conference with former Iowa Gov. and current U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to defend use of the product.

March 29, 2012: Branstad tours the BPI plant in South Sioux City, Neb., with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, Nebraska Lt. Gov. Rick Sheehy and South Dakota Lt. Gov. Matt Michels.


----------------

This timeline say that the FDA and USDA approved the process and BPI begins making pH enhanced lean beef in 2001. That would be only 11 yrs in food chain. I'm confused though because other articles have said that it was approved by the undersecretary of agriculture in 1991. Can anyone help clarify what happened on these different dates? When did LFTB start entering the food chain, 1991 or 2001?
 
You would need to develop the market after the product was approved. The timeline fits my timeline for complaints.
 
Perhaps the question is a bit after the fact but is there any evidence that "pink slime" is harmful? Sorry if I missed that.

FWIW: I like transparency and full disclosure.
 
I don't imagine it's strictly harmful; after all, cuts like rib racks and such which include bone (and connective tissue and cartilage) exist and people buy, cook, and consume them; but in such cases it's often that the gristle is left uneaten, as it has a disagreeable texture and taste.

This is perhaps more clearly demonstrated in the case of chicken, where large bits of cartilage and tendon are left on the bone by those eating them.

It seems rather obvious that by grinding up these unwanted trimmings and mixing them into the ground beef, the meat packers are attempting (and in large part succeeding) in charging consumers for, say, five pounds of product that only contains 4 or 4 and a half pounds of what they actually want, and the remainder is empty filler whose sole function is to serve as a figurative thumb on the scale.

The ground beef doesn't come with the concentrated LFTB already in it; it's added later. But to what point? This isn't an argument like with , say, adding orange flavor packs to orange juice, where not only is it all technically "orange" but there's actually a point behind it (improving or sharpening flavor) for the consumer's benefit. Adding LFTB to ground beef does what exactly for the consumer? It may not be unhealthful, but adding it doesn't add any health or nutritional benefits. Even if it doesn't "really" taste "bad", it's not added to improve or alter flavor. Even if it doesn't "really" have an objectionable texture, improving product texture has never been used as a justification for adding it. It may technically be beef, but...why add it? Especially if consumers obviously don't want it? Why does there have to be a scientifically sound reason to not want to eat something? I am not a big fan of Indian food...but I can't say I based this decision on a scientific study. I just don't want it; I should have the option therefore not to eat it.
 
I don't imagine it's strictly harmful; after all, cuts like rib racks and such which include bone (and connective tissue and cartilage) exist and people buy, cook, and consume them; but in such cases it's often that the gristle is left uneaten, as it has a disagreeable texture and taste.

This is perhaps more clearly demonstrated in the case of chicken, where large bits of cartilage and tendon are left on the bone by those eating them.

It seems rather obvious that by grinding up these unwanted trimmings and mixing them into the ground beef, the meat packers are attempting (and in large part succeeding) in charging consumers for, say, five pounds of product that only contains 4 or 4 and a half pounds of what they actually want, and the remainder is empty filler whose sole function is to serve as a figurative thumb on the scale.

The ground beef doesn't come with the concentrated LFTB already in it; it's added later. But to what point? This isn't an argument like with , say, adding orange flavor packs to orange juice, where not only is it all technically "orange" but there's actually a point behind it (improving or sharpening flavor) for the consumer's benefit. Adding LFTB to ground beef does what exactly for the consumer? It may not be unhealthful, but adding it doesn't add any health or nutritional benefits. Even if it doesn't "really" taste "bad", it's not added to improve or alter flavor. Even if it doesn't "really" have an objectionable texture, improving product texture has never been used as a justification for adding it. It may technically be beef, but...why add it? Especially if consumers obviously don't want it? Why does there have to be a scientifically sound reason to not want to eat something? I am not a big fan of Indian food...but I can't say I based this decision on a scientific study. I just don't want it; I should have the option therefore not to eat it.
I hold no such position. As I've said so at least twice. I champion full disclosure. People have a right to know what it is they are eating and they have a right to not purchase a product for any reason what so ever. There's a lot of products I don't eat because I don't want to.
 
It seems rather obvious that by grinding up these unwanted trimmings and mixing them into the ground beef, the meat packers are attempting (and in large part succeeding) in charging consumers for, say, five pounds of product that only contains 4 or 4 and a half pounds of what they actually want, and the remainder is empty filler whose sole function is to serve as a figurative thumb on the scale.
No. It seems people are imagining this. It is the same thing, it is the same nutritional profile, it is a good source of several nutrients.

Adding LFTB to ground beef does what exactly for the consumer? It may not be unhealthful, but adding it doesn't add any health or nutritional benefits. Even if it doesn't "really" taste "bad", it's not added to improve or alter flavor. Even if it doesn't "really" have an objectionable texture, improving product texture has never been used as a justification for adding it. It may technically be beef, but...why add it?
You clearly have not done any research into this. start at pinkslimeisamyth.com For one thing this super lean product is added to higher fat meat to create a lower fat product. For another it is actually used to improve burger, as a study posted here proves.
 
Last edited:
The only beef worth eating is Steak Tartare. The problem is that there are only two restaurants in the Phoenix area that I trust to do it properly. It is wonderful.
I cannot remember the last time I ate a hamburger.
So, I have absolutely nothing to add to the Pink Slime discussion. Sorry.

V.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom