Pink Slime

[Ryokan]

I would be very interested to see an actual double-blind test performed to see if people can even tell the difference. My guess is that most people will be able to tell the difference no better than mere chance. I say that because before this whole thing became a media sensation, no one was really making a big fuss because they never noticed a difference!

In post #461, you can read my short review of a taste test done by a Norwegian newspaper.

Here is the article, but you might want to learn Norwegian first..

And no, they really couldn't taste the difference.

 

[MattusMaximus]

In post #461, you can read my short review of a taste test done by a Norwegian newspaper.

Here is the article, but you might want to learn Norwegian first..

And no, they really couldn't taste the difference.

That's hilarious. Even the food "experts" couldn't tell the difference

Btw, I used Google translate to read the article. Thanks!

 

[tyr_13]

I'm not sure I'd trust Google translate with a phrase such as 'pink slime'.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'm not sure I'd trust Google translate with a phrase such as 'pink slime'.

In post #461, Ryokan stated it was "pink slime", so I was going on that. The article refers to it as MUK.

 

[Ryokan]

Yeah, MUK and 'pink slime' is the same. Translated into English, MUK means something like mechanically separated meat.

 

[Myriad]

So, label it.

Look, when I buy orange juice (in the US), the labels tell me whether the juice is "from concentrate" or not (that is, whether at some point water has been removed from the juice, and the same amount of different water was put back in later).

I don't for a moment think that concentrating and then reconstituting juice from concentrate is inherently unhealthy, is a significant health hazard, makes any difference nutritionally, or is "not really juice." I don't even claim to be able to taste the difference.

But, I appreciate the labeling anyhow. It means I can choose between less expensive "from concentrate" brands and more expensive "not from concentrate" brands based on my needs and wishes. For instance, if I were running a B&B (and not inclined to squeeze my own juice daily), I'd probably not risk serving "from concentrate" OJ to customers who might be able to taste the difference.

In the case of ground beef, mandatory labeling of the use of a processing method that makes at least as much difference in the composition of the food as concentrating and reconstituting orange juice just makes sense. Especially because there does seem to be, at least, a nutritional difference and a texture difference. (Does any source cover how LFTB compares to regular ground beef in purine content? Beef is already high in purines, but for gout sufferers who can tolerate an occasional burger, if the LFTB stuff has more purines, that alone would make labeling essential.)

I understand being against hysteria. But opposition to mandatory labeling for LTFB content is going too far the other way.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Dipayan]

I understand being against hysteria. But opposition to mandatory labeling for LTFB content is going too far the other way.

Agreed. I don't think anybody has a problem with labeling. But we must keep in mind that it's not BPI's fault that there was no labeling for the end consumer. That is the fault of the retailers and businesses. So I don't understand the entire angle of "Meat industries are out for profit/fooling consumers/influencing government officials" etc.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the record, labeling is all I ever wanted. But this discussion has helped me find more options without the stuff and so far I now have 3 places to buy burger that tastes OK. And since I only thoroughly cook burger the residual E-coli and salmonella don't affect me personally.

But I found this particular in depth discussion about the safety of the process actually killing the bacteria (IE the ammonia itself still doesn't worry me) and I'm going to have to say, it's not exactly a blue ribbon for the Beef Products, Inc corporate practices.

Also the cost savings sound high when you total up all schools' expenses but only about 3 cents a pound when you look at your individual impact. Hardly a big savings there.

NY Times article from 2009. This is about problems Beef Products, Inc had with bacterial contamination. Apparently the ammonia treatment has issues.

Pathogens died when enough ammonia was used to raise the alkalinity of the beef to a high level, company research found. But early on, school lunch officials and other customers complained about the taste and smell of the beef. Samples of the processed beef obtained by The Times revealed lower levels of alkalinity, suggesting less ammonia was used.

Cargill, one of the nation’s largest hamburger makers, is a big buyer of Beef Products’ ammoniated trimmings for its patties. Company records show that Beef Products, like other suppliers, has periodically exceeded Cargill’s limits on acceptable bacteria levels. That led Cargill to stop buying meat from two Beef Products plants for several months in 2006 after company tests showed excessive levels of salmonella.

Cargill, one of the nation’s largest hamburger makers, is a big buyer of Beef Products’ ammoniated trimmings for its patties. Company records show that Beef Products, like other suppliers, has periodically exceeded Cargill’s limits on acceptable bacteria levels. That led Cargill to stop buying meat from two Beef Products plants for several months in 2006 after company tests showed excessive levels of salmonella.

I don't know if this NYTs article was already posted. It seems most people were worried about the ammonia not the ineffectiveness of it given the higher bacteria content in the LBTs. Like I said, for me, all burger needs to be thoroughly cooked. And I know this has been said but I'll repeat it as it goes to the labeling issue:
I didn't realize the pink slime email was from 2002.

Another department microbiologist, Gerald Zirnstein, called the processed beef "pink slime" in a 2002 e-mail message to colleagues and said, “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.”

Some of you might find it amusing that according to the report, some kids supposedly like burger better with the LBTs in it.

 

[Draca]

LFTB vs Pink Slime on Iowa State University Campus Today
http://ames.patch.com/articles/lftb-vs-pink-slime-on-iowa-state-university-campus-today

"While local and national beef experts will explain the science behind lean, finely textured beef or pink slime, in a 2:30 p.m. press conference on Iowa State University campus today, family farmers and ranchers will be outside the building explaining how this scientific process and the politicization of it has affected their livelihoods"


http://ames.patch.com/articles/isu-students-want-to-spread-truth-on-lean-beef
"The discussion is open to anyone and lean finely textured beef is on the menu. The burgers should be ready by 2:15 p.m.

A panel discussion with six speakers begins at 2:30 p.m. ISU's Jim Dickson, an animal and meat science professor; Janet Riley, of the American Meat Institute; and Nancy Degner, of the Iowa Beef Industry Council will speak as will Branstad, Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds and Iowa Congressman Steve King. Branderhorst said her club invited Dickson, Riley and Degner."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

LFTB vs Pink Slime on Iowa State University Campus Today
http://ames.patch.com/articles/lftb-vs-pink-slime-on-iowa-state-university-campus-today

"While local and national beef experts will explain the science behind lean, finely textured beef or pink slime, in a 2:30 p.m. press conference on Iowa State University campus today, family farmers and ranchers will be outside the building explaining how this scientific process and the politicization of it has affected their livelihoods"


http://ames.patch.com/articles/isu-students-want-to-spread-truth-on-lean-beef
"The discussion is open to anyone and lean finely textured beef is on the menu. The burgers should be ready by 2:15 p.m.

A panel discussion with six speakers begins at 2:30 p.m. ISU's Jim Dickson, an animal and meat science professor; Janet Riley, of the American Meat Institute; and Nancy Degner, of the Iowa Beef Industry Council will speak as will Branstad, Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds and Iowa Congressman Steve King. Branderhorst said her club invited Dickson, Riley and Degner."

All they had to do was be honest. It would have blown over and those who wanted to save 3 cents a pound on their burger would have gone right back to being oblivious about it.

But they wanted to have the stuff declared the same as the rest of the burger despite the fact it wasn't. And if you read the NYTs link I posted above, it sounds like Beef Products, Inc went out of it's way to juggle safety and profits, often favoring profits over safety. But that probably was business as usual for many food producers.

 

[Furcifer]

Carried over from the poll- @SG

I'm not starting the discussion over again in this thread. This is about how hamburger used to taste to me MOST OF MY WHOLE LIFE and how it started tasting awful a number of years ago because the texture changed. That change coincides with the introduction of LBTs into hamburger.

None of your observations are consistent with what I'm talking about. Feel free to take your comments to the broader thread discussion: here.

I suspect it may have more to do with your personal tastes changing than anything else.

Like I mentioned in the other thread, ground beef is such a highly variable product to begin with. I know from working with it I can take a handful, divide it in half and send one part through the grinder again and change the taste and texture considerably.
The taste and texture of ground meat made from thawed and frozen differs considerably as well. When it's frozen you end up with a much more pasty or slimey product, almost the opposite of what you would expect. Likewise the type of fat mixed in changes the taste and texture.

I'm not saying it isn't possible you noticed the difference, I just think it's highly unlikely unless you had some sort of "control", as in control sample. The only possible way I could imagine that is if you were eating ground beef from a single supplier all of your life. For instance, if you were always buying Safeway frozen ground beef in the 1 pound tube, for the last 15 years and noticed a difference 7 years ago, and it happened to coincide with the change it's possible (you'd really need to be cooking it the same way and not seasoning it either)

We used to shop in the US and once and a while we would bring home some frozen ground beef. I always felt the texture of the US ground beef was "odd", a much finer "grain" if you will than stuff here in Canada. The problem is we were eating fresh Canadian ground beef and not from a chain store, from a butcher shop so I'm sure that has more to do with it than anything.

Anyhow that's my 2 cents.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Carried over from the poll- @SG


I suspect it may have more to do with your personal tastes changing than anything else.

I've addressed that hypothesis. My tastes changing does not fit the evidence that I've found burger that tastes normal to me. And it turns out the burger I found happens to not contain LBT.

Like I mentioned in the other thread, ground beef is such a highly variable product to begin with. I know from working with it I can take a handful, divide it in half and send one part through the grinder again and change the taste and texture considerably.
The taste and texture of ground meat made from thawed and frozen differs considerably as well. When it's frozen you end up with a much more pasty or slimey product, almost the opposite of what you would expect. Likewise the type of fat mixed in changes the taste and texture.

I'm not saying it isn't possible you noticed the difference, I just think it's highly unlikely unless you had some sort of "control", as in control sample. The only possible way I could imagine that is if you were eating ground beef from a single supplier all of your life. For instance, if you were always buying Safeway frozen ground beef in the 1 pound tube, for the last 15 years and noticed a difference 7 years ago, and it happened to coincide with the change it's possible (you'd really need to be cooking it the same way and not seasoning it either)

We used to shop in the US and once and a while we would bring home some frozen ground beef. I always felt the texture of the US ground beef was "odd", a much finer "grain" if you will than stuff here in Canada. The problem is we were eating fresh Canadian ground beef and not from a chain store, from a butcher shop so I'm sure that has more to do with it than anything.

Anyhow that's my 2 cents.

Yes, and as variable as you note burger to be, I've eaten it my whole life. I love hamburger in spaghetti, tacos, enchiladas, and as hamburgers. In all that time, I've not had the problem I've had in the last decade with the gross texture. I'm certain I've eaten all kinds of burger before this change.

 

[Furcifer]

Yes, and as variable as you note burger to be, I've eaten it my whole life. I love hamburger in spaghetti, tacos, enchiladas, and as hamburgers. In all that time, I've not had the problem I've had in the last decade with the gross texture. I'm certain I've eaten all kinds of burger before this change.

We seem to be crossing threads here but it's worth repeating in this one, I suspect I could grind a product from pure good old fashioned beef that you couldn't distinguish from one with pink slime once cooked. I'd be very surprised if you could tell the difference in texture. Taste on the other hand seems much more possible, although only if it were unseasoned. Still, I think the type of meat, fat content and how it was ground changes the taste much more than the treatment does.
Unfortunately I don't think I'll be making it to your skeptics meeting

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We seem to be crossing threads here but it's worth repeating in this one, I suspect I could grind a product from pure good old fashioned beef that you couldn't distinguish from one with pink slime once cooked. I'd be very surprised if you could tell the difference in texture. Taste on the other hand seems much more possible, although only if it were unseasoned. Still, I think the type of meat, fat content and how it was ground changes the taste much more than the treatment does.
Unfortunately I don't think I'll be making it to your skeptics meeting

This is the proper thread for the discussion.

I'd be surprised if I couldn't tell the difference. I've eaten burger with all the variables you think account for the difference and they did not have this specific texture problem.

 

[Furcifer]

This is the proper thread for the discussion.

I'd be surprised if I couldn't tell the difference. I've eaten burger with all the variables you think account for the difference and they did not have this specific texture problem.

There doesn't appear to be any "proper" discussion, you seem to be taking this personally.

The product from Beef Products Inc. comes in cubes from what I've seen and has the texture and consitency of something that has been triple ground with a high fat content. It's my suggestion, not to be condescending or anything, that if you're going to do the experiment you'd want to take something like regular ground beef, have it ground a third time (or 50-70% of it) and the freeze it, then thaw it and cook it in order to test your theory.

I could be wrong, but like I said in my experience grinding it different makes it taste different. And I know this because that's why they have different size grinding plates. A "saugsage grind" or coarse grind tastes way different than a fine grind. I think coffee drinkers are very aware of this effect.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I used to live in China Town.

You have no idea what kind of meat products I've eaten.

Come to think of it, neither have I.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There doesn't appear to be any "proper" discussion, you seem to be taking this personally.

It's really not that hard, Fur. This is the discussion thread. The other one was to look for people who have or have not noticed a change. When you have 13 pages of discussion it sucks to start repeating the discussion over again in a related thread. That's why threads get merged.

The product from Beef Products Inc. comes in cubes from what I've seen and has the texture and consitency of something that has been triple ground with a high fat content. It's my suggestion, not to be condescending or anything, that if you're going to do the experiment you'd want to take something like regular ground beef, have it ground a third time (or 50-70% of it) and the freeze it, then thaw it and cook it in order to test your theory.

I could be wrong, but like I said in my experience grinding it different makes it taste different. And I know this because that's why they have different size grinding plates. A "saugsage grind" or coarse grind tastes way different than a fine grind. I think coffee drinkers are very aware of this effect.

You are welcome to your opinion as have been dozens of other forumites here.

 

[Furcifer]

It's really not that hard, Fur. This is the discussion thread. The other one was to look for people who have or have not noticed a change. When you have 13 pages of discussion it sucks to start repeating the discussion over again in a related thread. That's why threads get merged.

My intent was only to point out that people with a "refined palate" should have noticed their ground beef changes from week to week. Anyone answering the poll with "no change" is probably an unreliable source, save for the few that buy frozen ground all the time (because it's probably coming from the same processor)
For those that have noticed a change, they're unreliable too, at least for your purposes, because unless they've bought from the exact same source, and the source hasn't changed anything to their process for 15 years, there's no way to pinpoint what change they noticed.

I realize you want to prove yourself right, and I'm not trying to say you're wrong, but IMO it's much harder to prove than you think.

As far as I know this is appropriate for this thread, and I've taken my argument to the other one as per your request, so stop yelling at me please.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You've made the same point multiple times now. Disagreeing with you does not mean I didn't understand you. And I have not been yelling.

 

[Joey McGee]

All they had to do was be honest. It would have blown over and those who wanted to save 3 cents a pound on their burger would have gone right back to being oblivious about it.

But they wanted to have the stuff declared the same as the rest of the burger despite the fact it wasn't. And if you read the NYTs link I posted above, it sounds like Beef Products, Inc went out of it's way to juggle safety and profits, often favoring profits over safety. But that probably was business as usual for many food producers.

Baloney. They were never dishonest, or lied. There are many independent food experts who agree that there is no case for labelling differently, because, horror of horrors, beef is beef. Just because this handful of scientists said they don't consider it the same product, doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong. You seem forget that the USDA approved the product. And the evidence shows that BPI has a flawless safety record and the backing of Foodbourne Illness expert activists like Nancy Donley (whose child was killed by food and devoted her life to the cause). So you can say that all you want, the only one it serves is whoever has an axe to grind with "the man"

Nancy is pissed because she sees this ******** controversy as being dangerous in regards to future innovations (LFTB was a genius invention on every level)

She's also extremely pissed at all the idiotic ******** seeing conspiracies everywhere, even with her, as you can see here.

Why the outrage around BPI? The Web petition? The TV coverage? “That’s the wrong way to think about this,” says Matthew Salganik, an assistant professor of sociology at Princeton University. “Imagine a forest fire. No one thinks, ‘Which lightning strike did it?’” More telling are the scant rainfall and hot weather that set the stage for a blaze. The meat industry has been taking heat in books, films, and news stories for years. Add a catchy phrase, schoolchildren, and the prospect that some icky-sounding stuff is in Junior’s Whopper, and you have a PR disaster. “Social media is something that adds oxygen to the environment,” explains Salganik. “It increases the chance that a small spark will turn into a big fire.”


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-12/the-sliming-of-pink-slimes-creator

Yeah BPI should have been able to prevent this for sure huh. oooh funny.

Product-defamation laws, anyone? I SAY **** YES!!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303302504577327503185576084.html

Ha, Ha. In fact, the three governors appear to be taking a page from legal scholars Timur Kuran and Cass Sunstein, now a senior regulatory official in the Obama White House. Despite current impressions, here's betting the pink slime episode will one day be cited as evidence that society has begun developing antibodies against product scares stirred up by media liars and activist groups.

Oh dear this man in the WSJ appears to be making some sense! Lets read on...

Interestingly, among the solutions proposed by Messrs. Kuran and Sunstein for this sort of thing is the creation of "product defamation" laws, which at least would raise the stakes for irresponsible reporting.

Another piece of their advice went sadly unhonored during the Toyota scare—that expert agencies should energetically confront media firestorms.
...
Happily, the leadership class has been reclaiming its self-respect amid the pink slime hysteria. Obama Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has been raising his voice against the tinny media roar to insist the meat industry's methods are safe.

So, that's reality.