Pink Slime

[Furcifer]

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.

It does though. The beef used to make LBT was unrecoverable because it cost too much to recover it manually ie; with a knife. BPI's process was new and they (USDA) had to decide; is it more like a knife or more like mechanical seperation. Because BPI's process doesn't introduce the "impurities" to the beef mechanical seperation does it was essentially more "knife like".

The real concern here isn't labeling at all, it's whether or not it's safe to use ammonium in the processing of meat. Canada and other countries say no, but they allow it in the US.

Incidentally, they also use CO2 pellets in the processing of ground beef (some processors do, or did at least), which doesn't appear on the label either. It's just that pouring soda water on a pile of ground beef doesn't get the reaction pouring Ajax on a pile of ground beef does.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...The real concern here isn't labeling at all,

Maybe to you it isn't, but it is the real concern I have.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Do you not know what the definition of contaminated it? It's contaminated!!! Who cares how it got that way?

Instead it's being collected to be processed, just like any other trim.

NO IT ISN'T. If it were processed like the rest of the trim we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Your post is bizarre. But from the next part I think I see what your problem is. You are still arguing your lie.

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

Stop repeating yourself and try replying to what I post.

You claim that all the 'trim' is the same except some sits in a dirty bucket and has to be decontaminated and some doesn't.

If that is true then why does this stuff need to be heated, centrifuged and then decontaminated with the ammonia? Got that?
heating.... centrifuging.....heating.... centrifuging.....heating.... centrifuging

“We originally called it soylent pink,” Carl Custer, another microbiologist with the Food Safety Inspection Service, told The Daily. “We looked at the product, and we objected to it because it used connective tissue instead of muscle. It was simply not nutrionally equivalent (to ground beef). My main objection was that it was not meat.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/...raps-hidden-in-your-kids-lunch/#ixzz1uVtIwYWN

But do go ahead repeating your unsupported claim that the stuff is just trim that was put n a bucket.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, the test has been approved. We are going to try to get the tavern staff to cook the burgers. I'll post the outcome of that plan when it is confirmed.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

This discussion is fun

 

[rustypouch]

OK, the test has been approved. We are going to try to get the tavern staff to cook the burgers. I'll post the outcome of that plan when it is confirmed.

Take plenty of pics!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Take plenty of pics!

I'll ask the group to.

Here's the write up, (not sure if non-members can see it but it's free to sign up), as always the night is crammed with stuff: The Seattle Skeptics May Meetup

Can you tell the difference between a hamburger with the controversial beef additive LBT (aka 'pink slime') and not? While the science largely proves that LBT is safe, there is an open question on if there's a difference in taste. Our very own Ginger will be conducting a live double-blind taste test and will reveal the results.

 

[rustypouch]

Why can't you take pics?

And sorry, I don't care to give out my info to be able to read your ranting.

 

[Furcifer]

Maybe to you it isn't, but it is the real concern I have.

Some things are better left to regulation as opposed to putting it on the label and letting people, who don't have the resources or the knowledge a body like the FDA or the USDA have, decide.

IMO the real issue in the US with food today is consumption, not labeling. And the facts seem to indicate LBT is an effective way to lower calories and reduce cost.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why can't you take pics?

And sorry, I don't care to give out my info to be able to read your ranting.

What ranting? I quoted the only relevant part. It's just a description of our upcoming meeting and what is planned for the evening.

I'll be busy with the burger but someone usually brings a camera.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some things are better left to regulation as opposed to putting it on the label and letting people, who don't have the resources or the knowledge a body like the FDA or the USDA have, decide.

IMO the real issue in the US with food today is consumption, not labeling. And the facts seem to indicate LBT is an effective way to lower calories and reduce cost.

Is your sentiment also going to hold if people can tell the difference?

 

[Furcifer]

Do you not know what the definition of contaminated it? It's contaminated!!! Who cares how it got that way?

Well I'll tell you why, if it's handled like garbage it's going to be garbage, but if it's handled properly it isn't. The fact is it starts out perfectly edible, it's only through improper handling that it becomes contaminated.

For instance, I used to throw my cigarette butts in the bone bucket. If BPI was puchasing the bone bucket to process I wouldn't do that. I also used to throw wood shavings into the bone bucket, but if it was going to BPI I wouldn't do that anymore.

It's very easy to change "how it got that way". You simply tell your staff to treat the bone bucket going to BPI like it was the trim bucket.

NO IT ISN'T. If it were processed like the rest of the trim we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Try reading for comprehension, I said "collected" not "processed".

You claim that all the 'trim' is the same except some sits in a dirty bucket and has to be decontaminated and some doesn't.

Correct. Some of the buckets had a recycle symbol on them and some of them had "not for human consumption". I have every reason to believe the beef going to BPI would have been treated better because it wasn't garbage anymore, it was money.

(most places use color code bins to differentiate the scrap or garbage from the trim or otherwise edible meat)

If that is true then why does this stuff need to be heated, centrifuged and then decontaminated with the ammonia? Got that?
heating.... centrifuging.....heating.... centrifuging.....heating.... centrifuging

Because that's the processing they use to get more of it from the bones and scraps.

You dont' seem to understand biology at all, but because of the increased surface area the chance of bacterial growth is also increased. Most of this is controlled by regulating the temperature and exposure time during and after processing. In the case of the trim used in LBT the increased surface area, combined with exposure to higher temperatures over longer time periods necessitates chemical treatment to stop bacterial growth. Cargill uses citric acid and BPI uses amonium. I mentioned this before but you don't seem to understand.

Face it, you're utterly clueless how beef is processed and you're arguing from complete ignorance.

But do go ahead repeating your unsupported claim that the stuff is just trim that was put n a bucket.

No, you probably didn't look at the video or read what I wrote, but I showed you how a cow was processed and I showed you the pieces being used by BPI to collect the trim used in LBT. I then explained to you why it's infeasible to manually collect the trim. Now I've explained exactly why a chemical processing like the ones used by Cargill and BPI is necessary.

It's all been supported.

 

[Dipayan]

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?

Because they are a B2B company. They sell their product to companies - why would they be advertising to the consumers? That is not their target audience!

BPI's responsibility is to be transparent with the various companies it supplies to and show that its produce is healthy, safe and nutritious. From then on, it is the responsibility of those companies to pass on any relevant information to the public that they serve.

BPI had fulfilled its side of the deal by informing the various companies about LFBT. This is obvious from the fact that some companies have come forward in this debacle to state that they have never used LFBT meat because they did not feel that it met their standards (how would they know of it unless they were informed?). So there does not seem to be any deceit from BPI's side. Yet they are the ones getting screwed in this deal.

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.

A 'marketing' name would be useless for a B2B company for the above mentioned reasons. And with regard to the second issue, again, as mentioned above, BPI had informed the companies about LFTB (after USDA approval), and it was the responsibility of the various companies to inform the public. They failed to do so - it is their fault, not BPI's. But the general public (including you) is vilifying BPI and ignoring the primary role of these other companies.

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?

Firstly, I take exception to your snide use of the word 'laundered'. You don't understand what a Board member does. Yes, they do not meet every day. But what they do is oversee key decisions taken by the company, keep a check on the CEO, work towards building the image of the company, lobby for the company within the industry and of course, protect the interests of shareholders. These functions do not require a regular 9-5 office visit. Your claim seems to be that board members get paid a lot to not do anything - which would mean that 90% of all large businesses worldwide are stupid and want to spend money without any benefits. Is that your claim?

With regards to lobbying, it is a perfectly legal and acceptable process to inform and educate organizations to lead to policy change. Keeping in mind that this act is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, what is your beef with it exactly?

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.

Sure, but the point remains that BPI has been perfectly open about its processes. If you have a problem, rail against corporations such as Wendy's, McDonalds, Safeway etc. Why in the world are you vilifying BPI?

 

[Dipayan]

The real concern here isn't labeling at all, it's whether or not it's safe to use ammonium in the processing of meat. Canada and other countries say no, but they allow it in the US.

Small clarification. Canada specifically does not say 'No' to ammonia. It's just that no organization has yet asked to use it. Hence, it has not been considered yet to be added to the approved list of additives.

But according to Health Canada, which regulates food additives, it is not allowed in this country. “Ammonia is not permitted in Canada to be used in ground beef or meats during their production,” the agency said in a statement.
The reason is apparently that no one has asked to use it. “Health Canada requires that all food additives undergo a pre-market safety evaluation,” the agency said. “Ammonium hydroxide added to meat … would be regulated in Canada as a food additive. Therefore, Health Canada would need to receive a submission requesting a specific use of ammonium hydroxide in meat products before the substance could be considered for approval.”

Health Canada also says that any imported meat must adhere to Canadian rules and standards, meaning LFTB cannot be brought into the country.

So it’s not a matter of LFTB being banned in Canada, it’s just never been on the list of approved additives for meat. And we do allow ammonium hydroxide in the processing of cocoa products and gelatin.

Link here

 

[Furcifer]

Small clarification. Canada specifically does not say 'No' to ammonia. It's just that no organization has yet asked to use it. Hence, it has not been considered yet to be added to the approved list of additives.
Link here

True, it's a de facto "no" for processing in Canada, but it's an outright "no" for import.

eta: excellent point about B2B. They're really taking a beating for what their customers did, not what they did. They couldn't force their customers to label the product if they wanted to.

 

[Dipayan]

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.

The fact that your purpose was different does not mean that we cannot make an extrapolation.

You made a claim that the current situation with BPI has arisen because the addition of LFBT changed the texture or taste of ground beef. Your poll suggests that 90% of the our small sample does not think that the texture of taste of ground beef has changed. So what evidence are you basing your claim on?

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.

I have seen your posts, and I think you and I would be arguing on the same side in most threads

Alas, this is not one of them!

 

[Dipayan]

True, it's a de facto "no" for processing in Canada, but it's an outright "no" for import.

Correct, but that is because all imports need to match domestic standards. If the domestic standard changes, the import standard would also.

 

[Drs_Res]

OK, the test has been approved. We are going to try to get the tavern staff to cook the burgers. I'll post the outcome of that plan when it is confirmed.

I am looking forward to the test and your results. Maybe the time between confirmation and the test could be used to discuss the protocol for your test.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am looking forward to the test and your results. Maybe the time between confirmation and the test could be used to discuss the protocol for your test.

Yeah, I think I'll start a new thread asking for that very input. This one is getting tiring with all the repetition of unsupported arguments without offering anything more than the same assertions. Seems I'm the only one willing to actually test my hypothesis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Test design thread started. Test is scheduled for Tues, 05-15-2012.