Pink Slime

[Draca]

And therein lies the problem, the meat processer lying about the products they are selling. All they need to do is tell the truth. But you can't trust them to do that because they have demonstrated they have no qualms about lying even if the consumer asks.

Yep! They have completely broken the consumer's trust. You can't trust them or the USDA. Even after it is all out in the open there in no requirement for labeling, no protection for the consumer. All the outrage is aimed AT the consumer for not wanting to continue eating something they were NEVER GIVEN THE CHOICE to consume in the first place. The Beef State Governors and USDA has a lot of outrage for people not wanting to buy it. "It didn't make anyone ill, that can be traced back to it anyway!"

 

[Ferguson]

Houston School District may sue vender who sent beef with LFTB. Good on them!

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/memo...cle_7c9d54d4-ba70-5bf7-8cfc-049ffde5a4e9.html

Yes, good on them for capitalizing on irrational hysteria to squeeze settlement money out of their food suppliers!

"HISD reiterated in a news release Friday that its bid specifications prohibit “variety meats, filler or extenders,”"
I don't see anything prohibiting beef trimmings.

 

[tyr_13]

Here's the problem, you are distorting what I said when you describe my words as, "LBT is a nefarious and misleading label".

Certainly not. You go on to make that same claim. It's the claim you've so carefully hinted around for pages now.

Why is the actual issue I have now repeated multiple times so hard to correctly describe?

'Just asking questions' without question marks is still 'just asking questions'. You're trying really hard to sound like you're not making a claim, but you are.

Years ago I started getting hamburger which the texture of had changed and for me it was personally awful. When I inquired at the grocer, what had changed? I was told, "nothing". I asked more than once. I threw hamburger I paid for out more than once because I didn't know which hamburger had the bad texture so I had to try it to find out. This happened increasingly often over the years until the only burger I could rely on to taste normal to me was the fresh ground at Whole Foods.

All of that was before I ever heard of LBT.

Now that I have heard of LBT everything about it, timing, which burger it is in and not in, all fits the hypothesis LBT is the thing that was making burger horrible for me.

Irrelevant anecdote that actual testing cases in doubt.

In addition, it turns out the industry lobbied Congress to change hamburger labeling law in order to include LBT in the definition without having to tell the consumer anything was changed about their hamburger.

So you're saying it was nefarious. Note that I didn't put a question mark there because I'm not asking a question but making an observation. That is what you are doing everything to imply by insist you are not claiming. My family has been in food service a long time, and there are plenty of changes that don't get advertised to consumers or a press release. If industry was working so hard to hide this change, where or where is the cover up? Was it actually difficult for reporters to figure it out?

I have cited an analysis showing LBT is not the same as ground chuck, regardless of the processing. The part of the animal used is different, not just the process.

Earlier evidence was cited noting the industry had to get the labeling law changed to add LBT to burger WITHOUT TELLING CONSUMERS. They could have added it and told consumers, there was nothing about the changed labeling law that allowed LBT into the human food chain. That was a different regulation.

See above. Again what do you want it to be labeled. Better yet, what would you have liked the industry to have done when this was first used? Put out a press release, or maybe an add campaign?

So what is it about this complaint are you claiming I have not supported?

You put out lots of sound and fury that doesn't advance a thing about your claim about what this should be labeled and that what the industry did was improper ('nefarious'). That they lobbied doesn't make them wrong. That the product is different (but still made of the same stuff, and by stuff I mean proteins and fats from the same animal on the same skeleto-muscular structure) doesn't make the change bad or wrong.

You're trying to make your preference the necessary course of action while at the same time acting as if you're just 'stating things'.

 

[Draca]

Yes, good on them for capitalizing on irrational hysteria to squeeze settlement money out of their food suppliers!

"HISD reiterated in a news release Friday that its bid specifications prohibit “variety meats, filler or extenders,”"
I don't see anything prohibiting beef trimmings.

LFTB is an extender.

 

[Draca]

I think this article got it right:

Whether or not labeling will turn things around and have a positive impact on the industry remains to be seen. However, if the product was so innovative and terrific as its creators claim, the question begs asking, why the secret in the first place? Wouldn't a better approach have been to simply label, this way consumers ultimately make the choice for themselves and determine whether or not the product is worthy of purchase?

Had the beef industry been upfront about LFTB from the get-go, would they currently be in the predicament they are today?

Probably not.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323361#ixzz1tD1A1eZa

 

[Furcifer]

I think this article got it right:



Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323361#ixzz1tD1A1eZa

Given the reaction I think the answer to "why so secretive?" is pretty obvious. Is it the lowest quality possible? You bet. Is it any worse for you than most of the crap people digest on a regular basis? Probably not.

That's the real question isn't it? If I eat a LBT burger with fries and a shake is is worse for me than a Blooming Onion? Probably not. Is is marginally better than the same burger without LBT? Yup.

What you don't know won't hurt you so long as the FDA does its job.

 

[Draca]

30 Lawmakers Ask USDA to 'Correct the Public Record' on LFTB

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/30-lawmakers-ask-usda-to-correct-the-public-record-on-lftb/


Here's the letter:
http://www.meatami.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/77168

We agree with you that consumers should always have the ability to exercise choice in the marketplace. This is a foundational principle of the American way of life. However, in the current environment of rampant and intentional mischaracterization and misinformation, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that consumers are able to make choices that are based on the facts, rather than emotion and hysteria.

30 lawmakers show up to protect the big business of BPI. Hey, I can understand that they have to show the financial political contributions given over the years wasn't a waste.

1) Where were these lawmakers to make sure their constituents were told what was in their food in the first place?

2) Where was their demand that the consumer be allowed to make the choice to consume LFTB in the marketplace by labeling it? It's part of the American way of life right?

3) Where were they to make sure the consumer was able to make choices based on the facts before it became 'emotional and hysterical.'

Hypocrites.

 

[Draca]

Given the reaction I think the answer to "why so secretive?" is pretty obvious. Is it the lowest quality possible? You bet.

So you agree it was hidden because most people wouldn't want to eat it if given a choice? Given the knowledge? That says a lot.

Is it any worse for you than most of the crap people digest on a regular basis? Probably not.

Depends on the person. I consider ground beef a healthy part of a daily meal. Spaghetti, hotdish, gringo tacos. I have usually bought 90-95% lean, often natural or organic. Now I find out it was partially bacteria prone scraps, gassed to kill pathogens. I was deceived, we all were.

That's the real question isn't it? If I eat a LBT burger with fries and a shake is is worse for me than a Blooming Onion? Probably not. Is is marginally better than the same burger without LBT? Yup.

No! That is not the main question. Honesty and information about the food we consume in the question. We should have that information. It shouldn't be hidden and snuck into our food supply. Here's the info on the Blooming Onion - http://www.outback.com/menu/nutritionitem.aspx?id=2115 Nice to be able to have the information in order decide if you really want to order it. Don't you think?

What you don't know won't hurt you so long as the FDA does its job.

Hopefully that is true. I would rather the consumer have the information instead of trust the USDA/ FDA. They have shown that they make decisions based on money and politics and not solely on the best interest of the consumer. They can not be trusted, as they have proven in this case.

 

[Furcifer]

So you agree it was hidden because most people wouldn't want to eat it if given a choice? Given the knowledge? That says a lot.

It means nothing. Offer the guests at your party a choice between highly nutritious ground red earth worms and regular ground beef with LBT and see what they choose. Sorry, people are stupid, knowledge doesn't always correct that when it comes to food.
I believe it was hidden specifically because people are stupid. I cite the Big Foot threads and 9/11 conspiracy threads as evidence.

Depends on the person. I consider ground beef a healthy part of a daily meal. Spaghetti, hotdish, gringo tacos. I have usually bought 90-95% lean, often natural or organic. Now I find out it was partially bacteria prone scraps, gassed to kill pathogens. I was deceived, we all were.

The bulk of ground beef is sold as "regular". The reason is twofold, it's cheaper and there are numerous studies showing regular ground beef, or those with higher fat content, make for more tender and tasty burgers. Ground beef is one of the few products where there is proven science showing "quality" does not make for a "better" product. It's something to consider.

No! That is not the main question. Honesty and information about the food we consume in the question. We should have that information. It shouldn't be hidden and snuck into our food supply. Here's the info on the Blooming Onion - http://www.outback.com/menu/nutritionitem.aspx?id=2115 Nice to be able to have the information in order decide if you really want to order it. Don't you think?

First and foremost there's a difference between what is "nice" and what should be required by law. Second the nutritional information is available for ground beef with LBT, it doesn't make any difference because there's enough variability anyways. Third and most importantly, if the information is going to be thrust in people's faces, which I'm not exactly opposed to, it needs to be done across the board. Not just for LBT because people think it's bad. That means the green pepper you buy should have a label on it saying what chemicals were used on it while it was grown and what residual amounts are left on it when you buy it.
Why? Because I realize making BPI put a label on it's product but not doing so with chicken nuggets or tomatoes might leave people with the false impression chicken nuggets are better or safer than LBT. And that would be just as much a "lie" wouldn't it?

Hopefully that is true. I would rather the consumer have the information instead of trust the USDA/ FDA. They have shown that they make decisions based on money and politics and not solely on the best interest of the consumer. They can not be trusted, as they have proven in this case.

I disagree. Consumers are dumb, but collectively the USDA or the FDA are smarter than almost everyone in the US when it comes to food. "They" know much more than Joe Six Pack.

 

[Dipayan]

All collagen and connective tissues are not the same just as heart muscle and skeletal muscle are not the same.

Hallelujah! At last you got it! All connective tissues are indeed not the same. So you just cannot say 'This has connective tissues, hence bad'.

LFTB from a 5 month old cow will probably be more tender than beef with no LFTB from a 6 year old cow. It's not about quantity, it's about quality.

 

[Beerina]

She has explained several times that she could tell the difference. That she noticed the change 10 yrs before she heard of LFTB makes her credible in my opinion.

You have 'less problem' with the labeling? Why would you have ANY problem with it being labeled?

I have no problem with truth, as long as people aren't trying to take advantage of invalid concepts that have had the well poisoned.

Clearly there are many people who are upset that they didn't know this filler was in their ground beef and that they were not given the option, the choice to buy it or not. I don't have a great deal of problem with LFTB's existence. If people want to buy it because it makes their food cheaper let them.

It was NOT labeled though, which I think was a deceptive practice that has come home to roost. It STILL in not being required to be labeled by the USDA. The USDA has allowed it to be labeled if the stores want to, but it is not required. I want to know why this is! Why isn't it required. The Beef advocates have gone on record saying people should have the right to purchase LFTB. What about people's right NOT to buy it?

Then don't buy it. I just don't believe it is much, if any, of an issue. People are running around not even acting like humans, but like scared little, I don't know, words fail me.

Little animalistic robots regurgitating fraudulent, flowery descriptions people with other motives have thought up for them to buy into.

How could a company even introduce such a thing when there are frauds, and well-monied frauds and lawyers, waiting to pounce on such a thing?


In the proper world, they would introduce it publicly and nobody would care. Or they would. But they wouldn't whip up idiotic descriptions like "pink slime".

That's the real scam here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Given the reaction I think the answer to "why so secretive?" is pretty obvious. ....

And yet you cite a study where the consumers supposedly preferred hamburger with LBT in it.

So which is it, Fur, tasty more tender burger, or an acquired taste people have a right to choose or not choose?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hallelujah! At last you got it! All connective tissues are indeed not the same. So you just cannot say 'This has connective tissues, hence bad'.

This straw man is not what I said.

Comparing veal to LBT does not prove the texture of LBT should be undetectably different in ground beef with 15% LBT.

An analysis showing LBT differs significantly from ground beef does support the claim it changes the texture of ground beef.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Irrelevant anecdote that actual testing cases in doubt. ...

This has been addressed in the thread already.

.... 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.

 

[Furcifer]

And yet you cite a study where the consumers supposedly preferred hamburger with LBT in it.

So which is it, Fur, tasty more tender burger, or an acquired taste people have a right to choose or not choose?

I don't know honestly. I think people have the right to know, but I also know they over react, especially when it comes to food. Within the confines of the system we have in place the practise of not indicating the LBT content appears to be OK. If we're going to label LBT it means reevaluating how everything is labelled. AFAIC the outrage should be directed towards changing the labels, again, to reflect the type of processing done on all foods, not just LBT.

As for the taste I believe there are too many variables to determine if ground beef containing LBT is more of less tasty than ground beef without. And that's without adding seasonings or making it an ingredient in something like spaghetti sauce or meat pie.

 

[Furcifer]

An analysis showing LBT differs significantly from ground beef does support the claim it changes the texture of ground beef.

Yes is does change the texture, but so does adding water, adding fat, changing the cutter, desinewing etc.

It may support the claim but it is MILES away from proving it to be true.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This may have been mentioned before, but doesn't it really boil down to eating what you like ?

If you like a burger, and you discover it contains LBT, is that a good ( logical ) reason not to eat it any more ?

If you think the hamburger you have been buying no longer tastes good to you, but you can confirm it doesn't contain LBT, should you keep buying it and eating it anyway ?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
If you think the hamburger you have been buying no longer tastes good to you, but you can confirm it doesn't contain LBT, should you keep buying it and eating it anyway ?

The only way I've been able to avoid burger in the past with the texture I don't like has been trial and error because LBT isn't on the label and even the butchers in the grocery store didn't and still don't know which prepackaged burger has it added or not.

I have now been consistently finding that store ground burger where the people who grind it know there is no LBT in it ALL TASTES NORMAL to me. It does not have the awful texture.

 

[Dipayan]

An analysis showing LBT differs significantly from ground beef does support the claim it changes the texture of ground beef.

Correct. Changes the texture by making it more tender and soft. Why mention only the part of the study that supports your position, and not the bit that refutes it?

 

[Dipayan]

She has explained several times that she could tell the difference. That she noticed the change 10 yrs before she heard of LFTB makes her credible in my opinion.

You are presupposing that LFTB makes ground beef bad. Circular argument.

It was incredibly deceptive of BPI and the USDA not to label it, to still not label it. They deserve every bit repercussion and more that they have received from the consumer finding out what was snuck into their food supply.

And this is utter stupidity. BPI does not sell to consumers. BPI sells to businesses. Businesses ensure the quality of products that they get from their vendors. So we can safely assume that all the businesses knew of LFTB. It is their responsibility to pass on that information (whether through labeling or advertising) to the consumer. The farmer that grows organic oranges does not put it on the label. It is the company that sells it to the consumer that does.

You want to get angry with somebody? Get angry with McDonalds, Taco Bell, Burger King, Safeway and Kroger. They are the ones who chose not to label. And stop ranting about the 'beef industry'.