Pink Slime

[phunk]

My crock pot cooks stuff at a low temperature after enough time. But upon reconsidering, if it were cooked there would be no need for the extra effort to kill bacteria. So it must not be cooked.

It's not. The extra effort is only because it is raised above refrigeration temperatures.

ETA: I'd be amazed if there was a crock pot with a 100f setting. It would be a recipe for food poisioning.

 

[Draca]

100f is no where near simmering. It's barely above your body temperature, and you aren't cooked, are you?

Sure to make a lovely lukewarm pathogen soup.

 

[Cleon]

Is anyone against the idea of labeling meat with the stuff in it?
Does anyone thing it should be banned?

If the answer to both of these questions is "no," then I don't see what the problem is. The people who actually think it's harmful are a minority (and virtually nonexistent here). So let's just slap some labels on beef indicating which packages have it and which don't, and everybody goes home happy. The folks who prioritize saving money can get what they want, and the folks who want (what they feel is) higher quality beef get what they want. Everybody wins.

It seems deceptively simple enough that I wonder if I'm not completely off-base. I mean, there has to be some good reason for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Right?

Right?

 

[Daald]

Is anyone against the idea of labeling meat with the stuff in it?
Does anyone thing it should be banned?

If the answer to both of these questions is "no," then I don't see what the problem is. The people who actually think it's harmful are a minority (and virtually nonexistent here). So let's just slap some labels on beef indicating which packages have it and which don't, and everybody goes home happy. The folks who prioritize saving money can get what they want, and the folks who want (what they feel is) higher quality beef get what they want. Everybody wins.

It seems deceptively simple enough that I wonder if I'm not completely off-base. I mean, there has to be some good reason for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Right?

Right?

That's the conclusion I came to after reading a few pages of this thread when it first started. I was surprised when it got this long.

 

[PetersCreek]

My crock pot cooks stuff at a low temperature after enough time. But upon reconsidering, if it were cooked there would be no need for the extra effort to kill bacteria. So it must not be cooked.

Nope, it's not. Maintaining meat at 100°F for any length of time will not 'cook' it, as the term is commonly used in culinary circles. When making salami, I incubate it a similar temperature for about 24 hours, depending on the bacterial culture used, and it is still essentially (if not technically) raw. I can get away with this because of the preservative effects of salt, nitrite, nitrate, and the lower pH brought about by the aforementioned bacteria. Meat lacking those additives must by protected by other means if it is going to spend a significant amount of time above 40°F.

On low, your crock pot probably cooks at a temperature somewhere in the neighborhood of 200°F. 'Low and slow' cooking techniques work by breaking down connective tissue (collagen) over a long period of time to make tough cuts tender. This doesn't really begin to happen until the internal temperature reaches at least ~165°F and in the case of whole meats, typically isn't considered 'done' until 185–195°F.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In Japan you put thin slices of pork in hot water that is at your table to cook the meat. I wonder how hot that water is. I don't recall that it is boiling. Anyone from Japan know? I'm just curious.

 

[PetersCreek]

In Japan you put thin slices of pork in hot water that is at your table to cook the meat. I wonder how hot that water is. I don't recall that it is boiling. Anyone from Japan know? I'm just curious.

I've heard of that technique but know nothing about it. If I were to guess, I'd say that it's not too far below boiling. When cooking lean pork on the grill, I pull it off as it reaches an internal temp of 145–148°F and residual heat ('carryover') takes it up to 150–155ish.

 

[Draca]

So let's just slap some labels on beef indicating which packages have it and which don't, and everybody goes home happy. The folks who prioritize saving money can get what they want, and the folks who want (what they feel is) higher quality beef get what they want. Everybody wins.

It seems deceptively simple enough that I wonder if I'm not completely off-base.

Why wasn't it labeled in the FIRST PLACE! Why isn't it mandatory? The USDA/BPI deceptively snuck LFTB into ground beef (assumed to be ground beef muscle meat) without giving people the knowledge or choice.

Now the USDA has said they will allow stores to label LFTB. Doesn't that mean that if grocers wanted to label it before they would NOT have been allowed to? Not allowed to upset the applecart with truthful labeling maybe?

'Pink slime' in your meat? Labels to tell you, USDA says
http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ime-in-your-meat-labels-to-tell-you-usda-says

As consumers clamor for more transparency about the beef product dubbed “pink slime,” federal agriculture officials have agreed to allow several meat producers to list the stuff on package labels.

Dirk Fillpot, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food safety branch, said Tuesday he could not identify the firms that sought labeling changes, or even say how many were involved. He only confirmed that the agency has received voluntary requests from beef firms to change their labels to indicate it contains lean finely textured beef, or LFTB.

“We’ve determined that such requests will be approved,” Fillpot said.

Others have urged that labeling products with LFTB should be mandatory. It's not clear whether voluntary measures would provide consumers with adequate information, because some companies might choose to label their products while others would not, some experts suggested. The USDA agreement was first reported on the meat industry online site Meatingplace.com.

Fillpot, of the USDA, said he couldn’t discuss whether the agency was considering making it a requirement. Beef producers who received USDA approval could start changing the labels immediately, agency officials said.

So what of this quote also from the USDA?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/schools-can-opt-out-of-pink-slime-beef/
"A USDA source told ABC news it’s up to the grocery stores to disclose what’s in their ground beef and the Agriculture Department has no jurisdiction."

In one quote the USDA is allowing labeling or not, in another they are pushing responsibilty for labeling onto the grocery stores. Can't have it both ways USDA. This is a black mark on the USDA and the trust of the public. The labels need to be required; voluntary labels are not good enough imo.

Short answer to why it isn't just labeled - Money.

 

[Draca]

In Japan you put thin slices of pork in hot water that is at your table to cook the meat. I wonder how hot that water is. I don't recall that it is boiling. Anyone from Japan know? I'm just curious.

It's common in Vietnamese pho noodle soups. The water is boiling before brought to the table and the just added steak slices finish cooking in the bowl.

 

[Montag451]

I actually agree with Ginger Skeptic. I also think burgers taste different since I was a kid. I don't agree with why though. I think burgers taste different simply because they are too lean because fat is suddenly really 'bad'. Try adding a bit if extra fat, to your grind see if that makes a difference. Even better try a blind test. Take 2 identical steaks with some nice fat on the edge. Cut the fat off one, grind both. Get someone to make identical burgers to your favorite recipe. Et and decide without knowing which is which.

As to pink slime... No problem with it it is just the beef. Perhaps the removal process does effect texture, maybe even change the nutritional vales a bit, even the flavor but we live in a world with such nutritional poverty anything which gets food into bellies is a good thing.

The simple answer is above. If you really don't want to eat it grind your own or don't expect to pay pennies for burgers.

Calling it pink slime is emotive and therefore should be avoided in a discussion such as this. Filler is simply wrong. It is beef meat. Simple question. If it was cut off by butchers with knives would it bother you?

 

[tyr_13]

Short answer to why it isn't just labeled - Money.

The short answer is, it's beef. Putting beef in ground beef doesn't require any further labeling based on the method it was separated from the fat and bone.

Although it would now be advantageous from a marketing standpoint to label ground beef without beef separated without knives at a premium.

It's not mandatory because it would only be a marketing label, not a health one.

 

[Montag451]

The short answer is, it's beef. Putting beef in ground beef doesn't require any further labeling based on the method it was separated from the fat and bone.

Although it would now be advantageous from a marketing standpoint to label ground beef without beef separated without knives at a premium.

It's not mandatory because it would only be a marketing label, not a health one.

I like the cut of your jib. What if all the beef intended for ground beef was extracted this way? Would we have 'knife cut' beef and 'mechanically cut' beef labeling.

 

[tyr_13]

I like the cut of your jib. What if all the beef intended for ground beef was extracted this way? Would we have 'knife cut' beef and 'mechanically cut' beef labeling.

Sounds like a good idea.

 

[Cleon]

Why wasn't it labeled in the FIRST PLACE!

Maybe it was an oversight; **** happens. Maybe the USDA decided it was a consumer issue, not a health issue. Hell, maybe it was political; it was approved for consumption during a period when the when the government was being run by a party generally opposed to government regulation of business. Either way, I'm not buying the conspiracy angle.

But again...This is an extremely minor problem with a fairly simply solution. It's not hurting anyone; it's the equivalent of finding out that Starbucks has been mixing Maxwell House into its blend in order to keep costs down. So what's the big deal?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The short answer is, it's beef. Putting beef in ground beef doesn't require any further labeling based on the method it was separated from the fat and bone.

Although it would now be advantageous from a marketing standpoint to label ground beef without beef separated without knives at a premium.

It's not mandatory because it would only be a marketing label, not a health one.

Define "beef".

 

[Ryokan]

Why wasn't it labeled in the FIRST PLACE!

Because no one in their wildest dreams thought anyone would get their panties in a bunch over people discovering how to get the meat from the entire animal, thus wasting less - which is both ethical and good for the environment.

Define "beef".

Meat from domesticated bovines.

 

[Draca]

Because no one in their wildest dreams thought anyone would get their panties in a bunch over people discovering how to get the meat from the entire animal, thus wasting less - which is both ethical and good for the environment.

Actually, the owner was given advise by a food lawyer that he should label it.

The short answer is, it's beef. Putting beef in ground beef doesn't require any further labeling based on the method it was separated from the fat and bone.

Meat from domesticated bovines.

It is only a small part meat. It has a high percentage of insoluable protein. It is a filler in other words.

Summary
Lean, finely textured beef (LFTB) is a lean product
derived from beef-fat trimmings. Characterization
of LFTB showed that, while it is high in total
protein, the LFTB contains more serum and
connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar
proteins than muscle meat.

http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/ansci/beefreports/asl-1361.pdf

-----

Kit Foshee, who was a quality assurance manager at Beef Products Inc., 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.”

http://foodwhistleblower.org/blog/2...leblower-kit-foshee-interviewed-on-network-tv

------

Carl Custer, a retired microbiologist who spent 35 years in the USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service, toured a BPI factory in 2002 while investigating salmonella in ground beef. "We originally called it soylent pink," Custer told The Daily. "We looked at the product and we objected to it because it used connective tissues instead of muscle. It was simply not nutritionally equivalent [to ground beef]. My main objection was that it was not meat."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/13/1073956/-USDA-to-Serve-Kids-More-Pink-Slime-

------

Overall the quality of the product is poor, Gerald Zirnstein USDA microbiologist said. “It has a higher level of insoluble protein,” he said. “That’s basically because of the high level of connective tissue. It’s tested for rancidity and there is literature saying that there is six to seven percent of fat remaining in the LBT. It’s lean but it’s not fat free. Because it goes through a low temperature rendering process, that fat has a higher rancidity level ... It has a higher level of spoilage bacteria. It has a higher level of rancidity in the remaining fat. A higher level of connective tissue. It is not as usable as a protein, as the soluble proteins in red meat. We’ve got a list of things, just quality issues.”

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2012/apr/02/former-emporian-coined-term-pink-slime/

 

[Draca]

So what's the big deal?

This attitude honestly blows my mind. Who cares?! They snuck a bunch of low quality filler into Amercian ground beef and it's no big deal? It is a huge deal! People have the right to know what they are eating. You think you are buying ground beef meat and they serve up a collagen, gland, blood slurry. It's an incredibly deceptive practice approved of by the USDA, which is suppose to working for us. It's absolutely outrageous and this is just one example. This lack of transparency and disclosure is a huge problem.

 

[Cleon]

This attitude honestly blows my mind. Who cares?! They snuck a bunch of low quality filler into Amercian ground beef and it's no big deal? It is a huge deal! People have the right to know what they are eating. You think you are buying ground beef meat and they serve up a collagen, gland, blood slurry. It's an incredibly deceptive practice approved of by the USDA, which is suppose to working for us. It's absolutely outrageous and this is just one example. This lack of transparency and disclosure is a huge problem.

So label it. Problem solved.

 

[Draca]

So label it. Problem solved.

I agree. Just label it, and the USDA/FDA needs to make it mandatory that it is labeled.