Pink Slime

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow we have a half dozen nitpicking scientists, a bunch of a spineless apologists for the JAQ'ing off system, and a slew of fearmongerers petitioning for irrational laws based on pseudoscience.

Popcorn is getting warm

Yes because it is a nitpick to note tendons are not very edible.

 

[Joey McGee]

Pink slime is tendons? I thought it was muscle meat and we're not sure about any possible differing ingredients effects on nutrition to a lack of data especially when the author of the 96 study is calling all of the people commenting on his study into question.

Well we'll take everything the provably disgruntled former employees say, they are obviously in the right because, you know, WE'RE STICKIN IT TO THE MAN

BC one of the tenets of skepticism is, if an expert is complaining about it, it must be true...

Foshee is disgruntled and pink slime buddy is nitpicking on the term "ground beef" big deal. We still have people claiming this is an empty product on the thread, this company is screwed. This product actually makes beef safer and we have a movement that is destroying the company based on misinformation about safety, This is a *********** travesty

 

[Joey McGee]

Let's say I bend to all of your arguments.

SG says the taste is different

Draca says the labelling of the product is an issue

Fine, that doesn't justify the outrage though does it. It's a joke. Everyone knows that the power of this campaign is based on MISINFORMATION, not the actually legitimate issues that me and every apologist for this company has acknowledged!

Clearly we are watching mental illness at work here. They are killing our children ffs

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have no basis to dismiss the University of Iowa analysis of lean beef trimmings, Joey. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. There is a lot more 'other' tissue besides muscle in the stuff. If there was not then one could use it as burger by itself rather than having to add it to actual burger.


As for the outrage, I'm outraged I've been asking what is wrong with the burger for years now and no one at the stores knew or would tell me. I should have at least been able to find out when I asked even if the label didn't require telling people.

 

[GlennB]

You have no basis to dismiss the University of Iowa analysis of lean beef trimmings, Joey. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. There is a lot more 'other' tissue besides muscle in the stuff. If there was not then one could use it as burger by itself rather than having to add it to actual burger.

This, quite simply.

When I ask for 1/2kg of minced (ground) beef at our local butcher's shop he hauls out a slab of actual beef muscle, chops a lump off and puts it through the mincer twice.

If he brought out 1/2kg of tendons and cartilage and put that through the mincer ... hmmm ... wait now ... would I think "Well, it's cow produce, to be sure. It's well minced and digestible. It's bug-free ... so burgers/spag. bol./chili/cottage pie here we come! Whoopee! Here darling, see the nice meat I bought for our dinner tonight" ???

Nope. And nor would anybody else.

 

[Joey McGee]

Pfft all im saying is that the author of the study seems to be saying that the way you're using the data is wrong. Take it up with him his contact information is easy to find.

Its muscle meat, not crappy pieces mixed in, fearmonger all you want

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pfft all im saying is that the author of the study seems to be saying that they way you're using the data is wrong. Take it up with him his contact information is easy to find.

Its muscle meat, not crappy pieces mixed in, fearmonger all you want

I fail to see how you can interpret "LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins than muscle meat" as "it's muscle meat".

Care to support your contradiction? Do you not know what myofibers are perhaps?

 

[Joey McGee]

U think they grind up cartilage and tendons to make this product? Ya those ppl need to find new jobs this company is **********

 

[Joey McGee]

Does normal ground beef have no connective tissue in it? This is ct country im out

 

[Joey McGee]

Its indigestable. Lmao. Add that to "its poisonous" and "it's dog food" and "it's dangerous" on the list of stupid lies about this product

 

[Brian-M]

Note to Randfan: this kind of comment which continues to be repeated in this thread despite the presented facts and citations is why my annoyance showed through when I answered your post.

"Exactly how it is different" has been addressed ad nauseum. Why do you keep asking, Brian? It's full of indigestible connective tissue and has very little muscle "meat" in it.

You should have read my entire post before responding. Sure, other people have asked how the product is different before, but my question was referring to the process, not the product.

This is a distinction I made very clear in my post.

If you want to argue that it's the ingredient which is different, due to having much higher levels of collagen and connective tissue, then that's a completely separate issue.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess you just can't believe the facts, Joey. I can't make sense of your posts any other way.

Yes, regular ground beef has a small amount of connective tissue like that found in blood vessels.

Yes they grind up tendons and other connective tissue to make this stuff. There is a tiny amount of muscle left in the scraps but mostly this product is made from the scraps. If there was meat in it, it would have been cut off the cattle with the rest of the meat.

Yes, it used to go into pet food until they started adding it to people food.

I'm not one arguing it is poisonous or dangerous. I've made that clear more than once.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You should have read my entire post before responding. Sure, other people have asked how the product is different before, but my question was referring to the process, not the product.

This is a distinction I made very clear in my post.

You said:

Originally Posted by Brian-M
Are you saying that if they took the exact same meat they make non-LFTB ground beef from and put it through the centrifuge and all the rest that they do to LFTB, you wouldn't call it ground beef?

Exactly how would it be different? Harmless traces of ammonia and possibly more finely ground? Would you honestly argue that it isn't really ground beef?

It isn't "ground beef" by the common definition of that term. I wouldn't call it "ground beef".

Of course if I wanted to mislead the consumer I would call it 'beef' because I know they would hear 'meat' and technically I would not be lying. But in reality I would be lying because I know full well I am technically saying 'beef' because it comes from cattle.

Everyone else thinks ground beef means ground up muscle meat, not ground up tendons and connective tissue.

 

[Draca]

A new term is hitting the discussion:

Slimegate

Slimegate: Should USDA Require Labeling for LFTB?
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/slimegate-should-usda-require-labeling-for-lftb/


The USDA in BPI and the beef industries pocket? Yes.

So if LFTB contains added ammonia, is 100 times more alkaline, and has both a different texture and sometimes smell, why isn't it labeled as a component when it's thawed and mixed in ground beef? Because both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have decided that ammonia is not an additive, but a processing aid.

 

[Draca]

Let's say I bend to all of your arguments.

SG says the taste is different

Draca says the labelling of the product is an issue

Fine, that doesn't justify the outrage though does it. It's a joke. Everyone knows that the power of this campaign is based on MISINFORMATION, not the actually legitimate issues that me and every apologist for this company has acknowledged!

It DOES justify the outrage, absolutely it does! The USDA and BPI, etc. have put a product in my food that I didn't know was there! I ate it, digested it. How much more personally and intimately involved can a person get involved in something? They betrayed my personal trust as well as everyone elses who consumed their product without knowing what they were getting. It was done purposefully and unethically imo because they didn't want the product questioned by having it on the label and for financial gain. They should have labeled it in the first place. They could have clearly explained the product on their website and been transparent about its values and drawbacks. There still would have been an honest market for their product. Even now they are not supplying the public with the nutritional or composition breakdowns of LFTB. Why not?

Now they dare turn it back on the customer. How dare you NOT continue accepting a product in your food, that we have snuck into your food the last 10-20 yrs without your consent or knowledge. No one died or anything. If you don't continue eating something you never agreed to eat in the first place people will lose their jobs! And we'll lose a lot of money. And it will be all your fault!

 

[23_Tauri]

Personal anecdote: I bought burger at Fred Meyer, the meat counter fresh stuff. The counter people said it had no lean beef trimmings additive. I just ate some and it did not have the rubbery texture.

And you complain of others indulging in confirmation bias?

 

[Brian-M]

It isn't "ground beef" by the common definition of that term. I wouldn't call it "ground beef".

Of course if I wanted to mislead the consumer I would call it 'beef' because I know they would hear 'meat' and technically I would not be lying. But in reality I would be lying because I know full well I am technically saying 'beef' because it comes from cattle.

Everyone else thinks ground beef means ground up muscle meat, not ground up tendons and connective tissue.

Wait... so even in the hypothetical scenario where they use the ordinary meat they'd normally put in the grinder, you still think it'd somehow be transformed into ground up tendons and connective tissue?

I'm not sure what to make of this. Either you're making some kind of radical new claim, or you're having problems with reading comprehension.

Try re-reading the text you quoted...

Originally Posted by Brian-M
Are you saying that if they took the exact same meat they make non-LFTB ground beef from and put it through the centrifuge and all the rest that they do to LFTB, you wouldn't call it ground beef?

Exactly how would it be different? Harmless traces of ammonia and possibly more finely ground? Would you honestly argue that it isn't really ground beef?

And I'm not sure how a post responding to Draca suddenly turns into an argument with you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And you complain of others indulging in confirmation bias?

I realize the thread is too long to read but I addressed personal observations earlier.

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wait... so even in the hypothetical scenario where they use the ordinary meat they'd normally put in the grinder, you still think it'd somehow be transformed into ground up tendons and connective tissue?

I'm not sure what to make of this. Either you're making some kind of radical new claim, or you're having problems with reading comprehension.

Try re-reading the text you quoted......

So now you're complaining that any interpretation of your post except your own is the reader's fault? Try restating your point in a way that clarifies your meaning.

A lot of people in this thread have claimed the stuff is the same as hamburger. That's how I interpreted your post.

 

[Joey McGee]

Yes they grind up tendons and other connective tissue to make this stuff. There is a tiny amount of muscle left in the scraps but mostly this product is made from the scraps. If there was meat in it, it would have been cut off the cattle with the rest of the meat.

Are you just making this up or do you have a source for this? What you imagine and what you imagine studies to say aren't evidence.

Yes, it used to go into pet food until they started adding it to people food.

Lies! What used to go into petfood was the entire trimming before they invented a product to separate the meat. This is you getting busted. This statement is 100% misleading. How did the product go into pet food before they invented it?

Funny you took issue with my claim it's used to improve texture. This 1996 study says it's used to improve texture right in the first paragraph how did you miss that?

The softer texture may be used to advantage in high-protein, low-fat meat products where excessive toughness or firmness is often a problem.

then

Texture evaluation of the frankfurters showed the products with LFTB to be softer and more tender, a desirable characteristic for low-fat products.

It's not meat?

is a lean meat ingredient

Crap, the study you're using to support your theories is refuting your positions. And the author says the way you're using the study is wrong.

Now let's requote the author

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. Nothing in our study or what we know about collagen more broadly should lead one to that conclusion

Nowhere in the study does it mention digestibility or nutritional accessibility. That bit has been added on by people who are not qualified or knowledgeable, and he's having none of it.