Pink Slime

[Beerina]

Eh, if Popular Science had had an article about a natural additive that cut fat content and cost, we wpuldn't be here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because the process that gets it off the bones heats the meat up. Surely you knew this?

That's not correct. It isn't heated until after it is removed from the bones. There's a different product that bones are involved in the process.

The 'trim' in LBT is heated to melt the fat, then centrifuged to get the solids which are then low fat while 'trim' that is simply ground up to make hamburger has enough actual meat within the fat that no special treatment is needed.

If the two kinds of 'trim' were the same, as Furcifer asserts without evidence, then regular trim could be processed the same to make it have less fat or LBT trim could just be ground up. Neither thing is done. LBT 'trim' and the rest of the 'trim' are not identical.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Eh, if Popular Science had had an article about a natural additive that cut fat content and cost, we wpuldn't be here.

LBT isn't used primarily to make the hamburger low fat, LBT is used primarily to utilize more parts of the cow.

 

[Furcifer]

I can read, Fur. You still have an assertion and no evidence.

Then why are you repeating the same mistakes? See below.

It LBT was indeed the same as the rest of the 'trim', why does it require special treatment? Why not just grind the stuff up, add the ammonia which does not change globular protein into fibrous protein and add it to the hamburger?

I already told you, using a knife is too time consuming. I showed you a video of a butcher processing an entire side of beef in 12 minutes and you still don't understand why scraping the bones with knife for a few ounces of meat is why LBT requires "special treatment"?

(I could go on here about surface area being the determining factor in bacterial growth but I don't think you'd understand. That's why it goes bad so fast and that's why it's usually sold as dog food)

Just grinding it up creates too much calcium in the resulting product and is therefore excluded by the USDA. The resulting bone chips and tendon also render it useless.

You know this of course because you claim to have read the thread.

Show us a citation that notes the variability of connective tissue proportions in hamburger.

If I do your homework for you will you finally admit you're wrong?

 

[Furcifer]

If the two kinds of 'trim' were the same, as Furcifer asserts without evidence, then regular trim could be processed the same to make it have less fat or LBT trim could just be ground up. Neither thing is done. LBT 'trim' and the rest of the 'trim' are not identical.

See you don't have any clue what you're talking about. You aren't learning anything here.

Why would you take trim ready to go into the hopper and be mixed with fat and made into ground beef, out of the hopper to be processed and then back into the hopper?

You do not understand how ground beef is processed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Why would you take trim ready to go into the hopper and be mixed with fat and made into ground beef, out of the hopper to be processed and then back into the hopper?

Your arguments don't make your case, Fur. The reason for processing the 'trim' you keep insisting is the same as the LBT trim would be to lower the fat content. And yet it is not processed like the LBT. The 'trim' you think you know is the same is not the same.

I had an interesting discussion with the Safeway meat guy tonight. He said a lot of the LBT was added to the 4% fat hamburger. IOW LBT was used to create the lowest low fat burger. (I get it some consumers would choose that, but I am only saying the stuff should be labeled so consumers have a choice.)

OK, so if I've been buying very low fat burger, which I have, that might explain why I've had texture problems others have not encountered. The most LBT would be in the lowest low fat burger.

And if LBT has been used specifically for lowering the fat content I find that even more deceitful. They lowered the fat content by adding connective tissue, not by adding actual meat.

 

[Furcifer]

Your arguments don't make your case, Fur. The reason for processing the 'trim' you keep insisting is the same as the LBT trim would be to lower the fat content. And yet it is not processed like the LBT. The 'trim' you think you know is the same is not the same.

No your observations don't make sense. Trim is mixed with fat to make ground beef. Why would you "lower the fat content" of trim if you're going mix it with fat to make ground beef with it?

Face it, your preconcieved notions are so strong they are blinding you to reason.

And if LBT has been used specifically for lowering the fat content I find that even more deceitful. They lowered the fat content by adding connective tissue, not by adding actual meat.

If you've been buying 4% extra lean burger for the last 20 years no wonder you think it tastes like crap. Read the studies, fat and yes connective tissue, are what give the burger flavor and tenderness. You've been eating beef hockey pucks.
(I see some of your comprehension problem might come from buying extra lean meat. There wouldn't very much, if any trim in extra lean ground beef. The trim usually has more than 4% fat if I had to guess.)

So the net result of Jamie Oliver's not so skeptical scare mongering is; a company out of business, 3 plants shut down, numerous people out of work, higher prices and more fat being added to the American diet. Awesome.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Trim is mixed with fat to make ground beef. Why would you "lower the fat content" of trim if you're going mix it with fat to make ground beef with it?

What are you talking about? This claim is off the wall bizarre. Why would you lower the fat content of trim? Ask BPI.

...If you've been buying 4% extra lean burger for the last 20 years no wonder you think it tastes like crap. Read the studies, fat and yes connective tissue, are what give the burger flavor and tenderness. You've been eating beef hockey pucks.
(I see some of your comprehension problem might come from buying extra lean meat. There wouldn't very much, if any trim in extra lean ground beef. The trim usually has more than 4% fat if I had to guess.)

The bad texture is not in all "leanest" ground beef. In addition I have found the bad texture in 7% fat hamburger as well. I've been eating "leanest" ground beef long before this texture problem began. Your hypothesis is a fail.

Also, if hamburger producers started adding cheaper LBT instead of more expensive red meat to the mix to lower the fat %, that to me is even more misleading.

... So the net result of Jamie Oliver's not so skeptical scare mongering is; a company out of business, 3 plants shut down, numerous people out of work, higher prices and more fat being added to the American diet. Awesome.

What a tangled web Beef Products, Inc did weave, when first they practiced to deceive.

You cannot blame the consumers. Had the producers just been honest in the first place, and if their claims that LBT really did do nothing to the flavor or texture of the hamburger, or improved it as the companies that make it claim, then the problems they are having today would not be happening.

 

[Dipayan]

"Finely textured" is market speak. The scientists who saw it called it slime.

'Slime' is a term that one scientist used when he was chatting in a non-professional setting over mail, and so should not be regarded as a personal opinion, but rather a scientific consensus. Right.

Ever wonder why they named a bill in the US Congress, "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"?

So they could call it the USA Patriot Act.

I could fill pages with examples of market-speak intended to deceive.

The US government had to create currency for the bill among people. Among individuals. Hence the name - to create salience for the bill and immediately connect it to a strong emotion. When selling to the common public, naming is very important. Your error is in connecting this to a B2B product.

BPI never expected the public to ever care about LFBT. It had a product that it was supplying to corporations. Corporations or regulatory agencies such as the USDA do not have the liberty of being swayed by the 'name'. They have to do due diligence before getting into a contract or approving a product. Unless it is your contention that BPI foresaw the fact that LFTB was going to become a talking point among the American public and therefore created a misleading name for its product 20 years back, I'm not sure why you think that LFTB is 'marketing-speak'.

 

[Dipayan]

Had the producers just been honest in the first place, and if their claims that LBT really did do nothing to the flavor or texture of the hamburger, or improved it as the companies that make it claim, then the problems they are having today would not be happening.

10% of the people in your poll said that the texture of ground beef has changed (no idea if it is for the better or worse). 90% of the sample public don't think it has.

So do you really think it is about the flavour/texture of LFTB or just a case of mass media hype and the gullibility of the common public?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

'Slime' is a term that one scientist used when he was chatting in a non-professional setting over mail, and so should not be regarded as a personal opinion, but rather a scientific consensus. Right.

The point wasn't that it was slime. In one of my first posts in this thread I said Pink Slime was essentially an equally misleading name.

The point is there is an entire industry that has been built on the concept of the marketing advantage of portraying hidden meanings in names. I repeat for the gazzilionth time, calling something that is 70% not-muscle-meat by the name "beef" is specifically intended to imply the product is mostly muscle meat. Is a beef heart beef? Yes. Would you think the label was honest on a package of an unrecognizable ground up red stuff if it only said "100% beef" but it was actually "beef heart"? Technically it is beef.

The US government had to create currency for the bill among people. Among individuals. Hence the name - to create salience for the bill and immediately connect it to a strong emotion. When selling to the common public, naming is very important. Your error is in connecting this to a B2B product.

No error, see below. As to, naming is important, d'uh! The government has made a habit of giving misleading names to bills in order to sell the public a load of lipsticked pigs.

BPI never expected the public to ever care about LFBT. It had a product that it was supplying to corporations. Corporations or regulatory agencies such as the USDA do not have the liberty of being swayed by the 'name'. They have to do due diligence before getting into a contract or approving a product. Unless it is your contention that BPI foresaw the fact that LFTB was going to become a talking point among the American public and therefore created a misleading name for its product 20 years back, I'm not sure why you think that LFTB is 'marketing-speak'.

If BPI didn't think the public would mind, why not advertise LBT to the public the same way they advertised it to meat producers as a wholesome nutritious means of lowering the fat content in hamburger?

There are 2 separate issues here, BTW. One is the typical market-mislead name for the product. The second issue is getting the stuff into hamburger with no labeling at all. I expect the former, I find the latter to be over the line in reasonable food product labeling. At least if something is called cheese product I know it differs from cheese.

So about that labeling, why go to the expense of lobbying (including the cost of 1.2 million to pay off a regulator laundered under the guise of a 4 day a year job) if you are so sure the product is desirable? It wasn't like GMO with a pre-established fear reaction. Heck, they named it lean beef.

You can't possibly believe that a consumer reading "ground beef, lean beef trimmings, etc." on a hamburger label would be all that concerned? It sounds like an additive that added muscle meat and lowered the fat %. This would also be a misleading label but it would be the kind of market-mislead that is the norm.

I get it that "beef" does not mean "meat" in this case. I also know that "cheese product" does not mean "cheese". We've all come to expect that. Some people care, some don't. If it says cheese product, however, I have the option of finding out what that means. I have the option of buying it or the more expensive real cheese. And if I thought cheese product was fine nutrition-wise and the kids preferred it I would buy it.

Cheese product has mostly cheese in it. Why not call it cheese? Why inform the consumer at all? You could claim adding emulsifiers is just a different processing technique. People are attenuated to the list of chemical emulsifiers and preservatives in food. I know I am. But the people who care have the option of buying it or not when they are informed.

If hamburger had LBT listed on the label and I found that was the stuff with the awful texture, I could choose to buy it or not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

10% of the people in your poll said that the texture of ground beef has changed (no idea if it is for the better or worse). 90% of the sample public don't think it has.

So do you really think it is about the flavour/texture of LFTB or just a case of mass media hype and the gullibility of the common public?

You are completely misstating the outcome of the poll.

The purpose of the poll was just to find people besides myself that noticed the change. I found 5 of them.

The purpose of the poll was not to measure the proportion of people who noticed the difference.


As for the media hype, I'm against the ignorant way the media handles any scientific information. The fact the news sells scandal and controversy rather than information is a different topic and you and I probably would be arguing on the same side in such a thread.

 

[Furcifer]

What are you talking about? This claim is off the wall bizarre. Why would you lower the fat content of trim? Ask BPI.

You're not even following your own claims anymore, you're just kind of flailing around making nonsensical comparisons.

Doesn't that bother you? It's certainly not for lack of people trying to explain things to you.

The bad texture is not in all "leanest" ground beef.

That's your assertion, no proof no evidence yad yad yad

In addition I have found the bad texture in 7% fat hamburger as well. I've been eating "leanest" ground beef long before this texture problem began. Your hypothesis is a fail.

So you can taste a 3% difference in fat content now as well? Or they have that much control over the fat content to begin with? lol.

Also, if hamburger producers started adding cheaper LBT instead of more expensive red meat to the mix to lower the fat %, that to me is even more misleading.

No it isn't, you just think it is because you don't understand how ground beef is processed and you're convinced "slime" is bad. That's been made very clear by now.

What a tangled web Beef Products, Inc did weave, when first they practiced to deceive.

Because people are idiots.

You cannot blame the consumers. Had the producers just been honest in the first place, and if their claims that LBT really did do nothing to the flavor or texture of the hamburger, or improved it as the companies that make it claim, then the problems they are having today would not be happening.

Nonsense. The same Americans reacting like idiots to this are the ones going to Fenway and paying $8 for a hotdog this weekend and sending their kids to school on Monday with baloney sandwhiches. They'll probably stop at MacDonald's for a hamburger and some chicken nugets as well.

But "OH NOES THE TEXTURE OF MY BURGER IS FUNNY!" puh leeez.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Flailing Fur, try again:

LBT is made from taking the trim that was previously too contaminated to use. It also happens to be trim that has very little actual meat in it. The LBT is heated and centrifuged TO REMOVE THE FAT.

The ammonia is a separate issue to kill the more heavily concentrated bacterial contamination.

The remaining substance is mostly fibrous protein from connective tissue (70%) which is then added to hamburger to decrease the fat proportion.

Why not do the same thing to reduce the fat content of the 'trim' that the original hamburger was made from?

Why not just grind up the additionally recovered trim and only add the ammonia processing step?

If what you claim is true, the 'trim' they make LBT out of is the same 'trim' they make hamburger out of, why are the two not interchangeable?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
So you can taste a 3% difference in fat content now as well? Or they have that much control over the fat content to begin with? lol.

Where did I say this and why is it relevant?

 

[Draca]

Big Agriculture's Big Secrets: 9 Things You Need to Know About the Food You Eat
Food scandals are so costly to Big Food that it has repeatedly tried to kill the messenger rather than clean up its act.

http://www.alternet.org/health/1553...hings_you_need_to_know_about_the_food_you_eat

This article brings up the point that Big Ag has responded to critics by trying to kill the messenger instead of cleaning up it's act and by introducing Ag-gag laws to silence critics.

The articles defending BPI that I've read consistently miss the point that consumers are upset that LFTB was added to ground beef without informing them. Many consumers feel tricked and deceived both financially and for health reasons. The response given by the beef industry is that there is nothing wrong with LFTB. It does not answer why this extender was unlabeled and added without the consumers knowledge. The USDA/FDA failed to require labeling in the first place and have chosen to protect BPI over the citizen's reasonable desire to know what is in their food.


The 1997 Texas Cattlemen's suit against Oprah is a good example.

Oprah said she would never eat a hamburger again after a show showing cattle being fed to other cattle.

They attempted to silence criticism and used Oprah as an example. Oprah won the suit. The practice of cow cannibalism later became illegal after it was associated with Mad Cow disease.

I think it was a ridiculous suit in the first place. Why wouldn't Oprah have the right to say she thought cows eating cows was so gross she never wanted to eat another burger? It was her opinion.

The larger concern is that cattle are herbivores. It is going against their own biology to feed them meat. It's a disgusting and dangerous practice and should be questioned. Suits and laws designed to silence people who question food safety and practices is not the response I would like to see.


There are a lot meat issues currently in the news. It will be interesting if any changes will be made on how they are dealt with. How will the USDA/FDA respond?

Meat Glue - The USDA has also not required labeling of this product. Way to protect the public. Why would they approve not labeling a product that was designed to deceive people? A heath issue is that many people cook steaks to rare or medium rare, which is generally safe because any pathogens will more likely be on the outside of the steak. When meat glue is used the outside portion is now glued together with other pieces making the outside the inside of the steak and should be cooked to fully. How will consumers know to do this if it isn't labeled?

Human Growth Hormone - Scary. There are girls in the USA who are starting to menstruate at ever earlier ages. 7-9 yrs old. Could growth hormone be to blame? Idk. I've been buying organic milk for a long time and since LFTB have been buying all organic meat.

Anti-biotics - Is overuse of anti-biotics in the AG industry endangering all of us with resistant strands?

Chickens on drugs - Taking uppers and downers to try and calm them down from horrible living conditions.


I think these are all important issues. How are we going to treat the animals that become our food? How will the consumer be safe and informed?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I recently found out about the pink slime stuff. I was glad I rarely ever eat red meat.

Then I found out there were mutated shrimp affected by the oil spill. I was aware I had to cut down the shrimp.

Then I found out there's some problem with the chickens. I was glad I don't eat chicken that much.

Then I found out there's also a problem with fish... at this point I said **** it. Every single food item is messed up in some way. I'm just gonna keep eating what I want.

 

[Draca]

I recently found out about the pink slime stuff. I was glad I rarely ever eat red meat.

Then I found out there were mutated shrimp affected by the oil spill. I was aware I had to cut down the shrimp.

Then I found out there's some problem with the chickens. I was glad I don't eat chicken that much.

Then I found out there's also a problem with fish... at this point I said **** it. Every single food item is messed up in some way. I'm just gonna keep eating what I want.

I understand how you feel. People are busy and don't have time to do lots of research. I would have made some changes earlier if I had bothered to inform myself.

There are some easy changes that can be made though.

Buy organic if possible. Buying organic will get rid of the drugs and chemicals. If you have space for frozen food, you can buy directly from a family farmer. Buy a 1/4 or 1/2 of a steer. You can also go in on it with friends and family. The same with chicken, lamb, turkeys. You can buy much better quality and support family farms at the same time. Seafood is similar with a bit of research.

Since Pink Slime came out I've only had beef a few times. I bought organic burger at PCC to see if I could tell the difference. It was really good. Organic ground beef is expensive so I've been buying organic ground turkey more often. I can't control what meat I'm served when I eat out so, don't worry about it too much and am more careful about what I buy for groceries.

Organic milk and cage free chickens are also easy to find in many stores.


http://www.eatwild.com/
http://www.localharvest.org/store/meats.jsp

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I understand how you feel. People are busy and don't have time to do lots of research. I would have made some changes earlier if I had bothered to inform myself.

There are some easy changes that can be made though.

Buy organic if possible. Buying organic will get rid of the drugs and chemicals. If you have space for frozen food, you can buy directly from a family farmer. Buy a 1/4 or 1/2 of a steer. You can also go in on it with friends and family. The same with chicken, lamb, turkeys. You can buy much better quality and support family farms at the same time. Seafood is similar with a bit of research.

Since Pink Slime came out I've only had beef a few times. I bought organic burger at PCC to see if I could tell the difference. It was really good. Organic ground beef is expensive so I've been buying organic ground turkey more often. I can't control what meat I'm served when I eat out so, don't worry about it too much and am more careful about what I buy for groceries.

Organic milk and cage free chickens are also easy to find in many stores.


http://www.eatwild.com/
http://www.localharvest.org/store/meats.jsp

Thank you. I do buy organic stuff when there's such label. But so far, only the chicken I buy has the labeled distinction between regular chicken and organic chicken. But the pork chops or the shrimp don't have that. Neither does the fish I buy at the fish market. I can only trust that it is safe to eat.

 

[Furcifer]

Flailing Fur, try again:

LBT is made from taking the trim that was previously too contaminated to use.

This is a misrepresentation and probably a lie. The trim isn't "contaminated", it's just that it is usually thrown into a bucket and then sits. It was then sold for dog food. Instead it's being collected to be processed, just like any other trim.

I realize you don't understand this, but none the less it needs to be explained because I'm sure some people understand. If you threw striploin steaks into a bucket and let them sit, because they were thought to be "waste", they would become "contaminated" and be sold for dog food.

It also happens to be trim that has very little actual meat in it.

No, and I've explained this numerous times to you, it depends on where it's cut from and who is doing the cutting and the physical characteristics of the cow. It's the bits that are removed to make a retail cut of meat. Sometimes it's fat, sometimes it's connective tissue and sometimes it's meat, but it's almost always all three. You keep saying "But LBT is 70% connctive tissue, unlike "trim" why is that? Hmm" and I've told you it's random, sometimes it's 100% meat and sometimes it's 70% connective tissue.

Why not do the same thing to reduce the fat content of the 'trim' that the original hamburger was made from?

Because you have to add fat to ground beef

Why not just grind up the additionally recovered trim and only add the ammonia processing step?

Because you have to add fat to ground beef

If what you claim is true, the 'trim' they make LBT out of is the same 'trim' they make hamburger out of, why are the two not interchangeable?

You're just trolling arent' you?

For the 4th time, the manual recovery of the trim used in LBT isn't feasible.