Pink Slime

[RandFan]

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.

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.

While the "pink slime" rhetoric didn't bother me I did in fact buy into it without any skepticism other than I thought the claims were simply trying to appeal to disgust which is a fallacy. However, people have a right to know what is in their food and if they are disgusted that is their right. But I didn't realize how badly I failed to be skeptical.

 

[Draca]

Hey you know that 1996 study that has been waved around here like the smoking gun? I think it's what most people are using to support their "it's inedible" "it's undigestible" "it's not beef" arguments, right?

In a statement dated March 23, Iowa State University agriculture professor Joseph Sebranek, Ph.D., wrote that his 1996 study on LFTB in the Journal of Food Sciences had been misconstrued by some media reports.

While Sebranek's study did not compare nutritional differences between ground beef with and without LTFB, some media reports have claimed that LFTB degrades the meat to which it's added.

"Our research is potentially being misinterpreted by some in the media as suggesting that LFTB has a deleterious effect on the nutritional quality of ground beef," Sebranek wrote. "Nothing in our study or what we know about collagen more broadly should lead one to that conclusion."

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/03/how-will-bpis-plant-closures-affect-americas-beef/

What I would do for a burger containing pink slime right now.

I'm not clear what Sebranek means. Is he saying that the addition of LFTB doesn't have a harmful effect on the real ground beef it's added to? That's how I read it.

There are others involved who make it clear that LFTB is not as nutritious as real ground beef meat.

"Pink slime" does provide nutrition, but not as much as ground beef, according to Richard Ludescher, a nutritionist at Rutgers University in New Jersey who, at the request of ABC News, reviewed data from a study on lean finely textured beef from Iowa State University.

Ludescher said that because lean finely textured beef has five times the collagen level as standard ground beef it "will have a lower nutritional value than beef muscle."

Collagen is a protein, he said, that is higher in non-essential amino acids and lower in essential amino acids than meat from an animal's muscle.

"Addition of LFTB would thus lower the nutritional quality of ground beef," Ludescher said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/beef...safe-nutritious-beef/story?id=16014232&page=2

Gerald Zirnstein and his former colleague at the USDA food inspection service, microbiologist Carl Custer, cited a 1996 Iowa State University study on BPI’s treated beef that found the product’s protein composition was different from that of beef chuck. The lean finely textured beef contained higher levels of collagen than chuck, the study showed.

Custer also said there’s another glaring omission when it comes to how “pink slime” ought to be marked in supermarkets.

“If there is residual ammonia,” Custer wrote in an email, “then that is an ingredient that should be on the label.”

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03/12/031212-news-pink-slime-1-2/

“Not only is this product a potential source of killer pathogens if the ammonia levels are not controlled properly, but that the overall protein quality of the beef hamburger is compromised by the inclusion of LFTB,” former US Department of Agriculture microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein said.

“Kit Foshee said. “The finished product is just 6 percent fat, but it’s filled with glands and connective tissue, and is very susceptible to pathogens like listeria, E. coli and salmonella.” Kit Foshee - BPI quality assurance manager for 10 years until 2001

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.

That is NOT correct. It is not the same nutritional profile.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

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.

Making something leaner by adding indigestible protein is not the same as simply removing fat content or adding actual meat.

And as for improving the product, it is misleading to leave out by what criteria they measured "improvement". It gave the burger a longer shelf life. And while it took less force to cut the coked burger with an instrument, texture and taste tests were not performed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... simply trying to appeal to disgust which is a fallacy. ....

Which can also be applied to "lean beef trimmings" which is trying to appeal to one's perception of a good steak, also a fallacy as you put it. I don't call it a fallacy, I call it marketing newspeak, branding, framing, and propaganda intended to call up a certain narrative.

 

[RandFan]

Which can also be applied to "lean beef trimmings" which is trying to appeal to one's perception of a good steak, also a fallacy as you put it. I don't call it a fallacy, I call it marketing newspeak, branding, framing, and propaganda intended to call up a certain narrative.

You know I agree. In the end the only thing that really matters is the nutritional content and what people want to eat.

 

[Joey McGee]

I'm not clear what Sebranek means. Is he saying that the addition that of LFTB doesn't have a harmful effect on the real ground beef it's added to? That's how I read it.

No that wouldn't make any sense for him to say that. No one is saying that in the media. He's clearly saying that you can't use his study to say it has a harmful effect on the total product.

There are others involved who make it clear that LFTB is not as nutritious as real ground beef meat.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/beef...safe-nutritious-beef/story?id=16014232&page=2

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03/12/031212-news-pink-slime-1-2/

Pfft these people are all basing this off of that 1996 study, are they not? All you've done is quote the stuff he is taking issue with. This is why the guy made the statement!

Hey look I can find experts saying what I want too.

Nutritionists say LFTB is just as healthy, if not more so, than other ground beef because it’s so lean — 95 percent, on average.

“(That’s) an accurate statement,” said Mary Steffensmeier, a registered dietician with Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare in Waterloo.

The nutrition educator said LFTB has the same or more vitamins and minerals than hamburger with out it. For example, vitamin B-6, niacin and iron are greater in 95-percent lean burger than 70
percent. And, Steffensmeier said LFTB is lower in saturated fat.

http://wcfcourier.com/business/loca...cle_c8354a1c-7a6b-11e1-b296-001a4bcf887a.html

Hey did you accept the product is not poison yet?

eta: what is that picture supposed to be influencing me to think? Where is the source?

 

[Joey McGee]

This is the issue condensed.

Theno, who has done consulting for BPI, begins by pointing out that - while difficult - any home cook could separate beef fat from beef muscle with a knife and cutting board, creating the same boneless lean beef trimmings.

But long lines of butchers working with knives on such a difficult task would not be economically feasible. That's why before BPI came up with a mechanized process to do this

This man said it better than me.

I’m all for open disclosure of food contents, but not when the labeling effort is aimed at fomenting fear over facts.http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/why-im-o-k-with-pink-slime-in-ground-beef/

It's beef muscle. The USDA stands on solid ground for not requiring labeling. I do laugh whenever it is fired back that we must be against disclosure. "What, you're anti-freedom?"

Posting while completely blitzed at four in the morning didn't work out very well, sorry.

 

[Joey McGee]

Making something leaner by adding indigestible protein is not the same as simply removing fat content or adding actual meat.

Where are you basing this off of? The Sebranek study?

And as for improving the product, it is misleading to leave out by what criteria they measured "improvement". It gave the burger a longer shelf life. And while it took less force to cut the coked burger with an instrument, texture and taste tests were not performed.

That study said it improved tenderness. We're splitting hairs on definitions I suppose.

It also hints at why BPI is claiming meat will actually be less safe from now on! Holy crap the irony here people!

 

[MattusMaximus]

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.

No. Any "danger" is purely imaginary, as near as I can tell. If there is hard evidence of the "danger" of this stuff, I'd like to see it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
It's beef muscle. ...

Sorry, that's a fail. It's tendons, connective tissue, fat and a significantly smaller proportion of "muscle" than is in ground chuck.

I'm always amazed when people conveniently forget evidence we covered in the thread and revert back to their original misconceptions.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, that's a fail. It's tendons, connective tissue, fat and a significantly smaller proportion of "muscle" than is in ground chuck.

What is the ratio of muscle to non-muscle? What are the nutritive value of the non-muscle constituents?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where are you basing this off of? The Sebranek study?

What is it about "LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins than muscle meat" that you don't understand?

Let's see, are you dismissing an A.S. Leaflet as something less than a peer reviewed paper? Did you even make any effort to see what it was?

I did: Iowa State University, Department of Animal Science, Animal Industry Report -Annual Reports

It is with great pleasure that we at Iowa State University bring you this annual report of the research activities that relate to the animal agriculture industries. This report combines research reports from faculty associated with various departments on campus. We have attempted to bring you all of the research as it relates to the Beef, Dairy, Equine, Poultry, Sheep, Swine and companion animal industries in the state of Iowa. This research is conducted to support the viability of each of these industries in Iowa. The research reported here is supported by the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station.

So what's your beef with this paper?

That study said it improved tenderness. We're splitting hairs on definitions I suppose.

I'm not splitting hairs. I have no opinion about tenderness as measured by the pressure of cutting a burger in half. The stuff has a horrible texture that I describe as rubbery or gristly.

It also hints at why BPI is claiming meat will actually be less safe from now on! Holy crap the irony here people!

It's a BS claim. The meat will be just as unsafe as it has always been. The problem is contamination with fecal material during slaughter. If people aren't cooking their burger thoroughly, all the ammonia processing of additives in the world isn't going to take that risk away.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is the ratio of muscle to non-muscle? What are the nutritive value of the non-muscle constituents?

It's been posted a dozen times in this thread now. Must I post it again? See the tables in this paper.

 

[RandFan]

It's been posted a dozen times in this thread now. Must I post it again? See the tables in this paper.

I didn't know it had. I was simply asking a question. Next time tell me that the data was posted thread and I'll thank you and go look for it. Or ask someone else.

In any event. Thank you.

 

[Joey McGee]

Sorry, that's a fail. It's tendons, connective tissue, fat and a significantly smaller proportion of "muscle" than is in ground chuck.

I'm always amazed when people conveniently forget evidence we covered in the thread and revert back to their original misconceptions.

Sorry, please educate me by referencing the facts that prove this

 

[Joey McGee]

What is it about "LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins than muscle meat" that you don't understand?

Let's see, are you dismissing an A.S. Leaflet as something less than a peer reviewed paper? Did you even make any effort to see what it was?

I did: Iowa State University, Department of Animal Science, Animal Industry Report -Annual ReportsSo what's your beef with this paper?

That the author has issued a statement that says the conclusions from from it in the media are wrong? I think you messed up on that link it takes me to a table of contents.

I'm not splitting hairs. I have no opinion about tenderness as measured by the pressure of cutting a burger in half. The stuff has a horrible texture that I describe as rubbery or gristly.

Pfft we're not acknowledging your experience as fact here, it's not part of the debate. Interesting and appreciated as a contribution to the conversation sure. But you're using it as an argument here.

It's a BS claim. The meat will be just as unsafe as it has always been. The problem is contamination with fecal material during slaughter. If people aren't cooking their burger thoroughly, all the ammonia processing of additives in the world isn't going to take that risk away.

Prove this! The product is safe! You're making this up

 

[RandFan]

It's been posted a dozen times in this thread now. Must I post it again? See the tables in this paper.

The paper isn't very helpful. I'll try to find other sources. Thanks.

 

[Joey McGee]

Well the majority of the reasons people are against the product have been proved wrong. We'll have a residual amount of slacktivists poisoned with cognitive dissonance trying to justify their outrage for awhile. Mostly due to paranoia and a hyper-vigilant attitude against corporations that leads to delusions and a persecution complex. Unless new evidence is presented the thread is dead. The product is safe and nutritious, the company didn't do anything wrong, and we can all sleep soundly at night knowing that the USDA doesn't give itself away to the highest bidder. FFS this thread almost belongs in CT

 

[RandFan]

Okay, I can't find information that I feel comfortable with. There doesn't seem to be anything from a neutral third party or skeptical organization. I'll wait on the issue.

 

[Joey McGee]

Word! Cheers to that! I made my decisions on the weight of evidence and expert opinion but I do feel the same way at the end of the day.

There are neutral experts being quoted throughout all the articles, such as my slew of Canadian scientists that say what I'm saying. I just think we need something really well done and comprehensive in order to put it to rest.