Pink Slime

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no "problem". You're just making this up. You're fabricating this "problem" in order to confirm your own bias. The USDA says quite clearly there is no problem.

At least with the ground beef. There is a problem with reactionary people, who are utterly clueless as to how ground beef is processed, and who refuse to look at the science, making up stories about "problems".

Sound familiar?

In other words, you are just going to deny that the producers of LFTB did marketing tests.

That would be the marketing study done by the producers themselves upon which they based their business plan of adding no more than 15% LFTB to hamburger because the test market subjects found more than 15% intolerable.

You are in denial Fur.

 

[Dipayan]

Since LFTB is mostly connective tissue and not 'meat' it changes the texture of the burger.

Fat also change the texture of burger, correct? There is no 100% fat burgers. Would you therefore say that no percentage of fat should be added to a burger?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fat also change the texture of burger, correct? There is no 100% fat burgers. Would you therefore say that no percentage of fat should be added to a burger?

This is a false equivalency straw man.

It's not the fact the texture is changed by LFTB. You are arguing a straw man if you think I'm saying no one should mess with traditional hamburger. I don't have an issue with the idea some people might prefer burger with the stuff in it.

And it's a false equivalency since the fat content in the burger is listed on the label. The issue with LFTB is the fact it changes the burger AND it is NOT listed on the label.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is of course incorrect and yet another gross misrepresentation of fact.

I said the product is heated to facillitate the "mechanical" seperation of meat and connective tissue from the fat,bone, cartilage tendons etc.

Like I said, that is false. It's no less false even with your backtracking. The product is heated solely to liquify the fat and centrifuge it off. Nothing but the fat is separated.

Want to see the citation again?

[Snipped redundant error]
This is why the USDA is 100% correct in saying LFBT is basically the same as anything else you would find in normal ground beef, it's just processed differently.

According to you, it is processed differently because it is dirty and needs bacteria killed. We agree.

According to you it is dirty because it what, sits in a bucket on the floor during slaughter? You are wrong about why this product has a higher risk of contamination.

Want to see the citation again?

[snipped the rest since your whole underlying premise is false]

 

[Dipayan]

And it's a false equivalency since the fat content in the burger is listed on the label. The issue with LFTB is the fact it changes the burger AND it is NOT listed on the label.

I apologize if I created a strawman. Really, my only efforts is to try and understand your issues with this particular issue. You have made a few claims in this thread, so I am just trying to understand where this particular argument is coming from.

You have said that LFBT is not 'beef'. You have said that this is clear through the fact that there is no 100% LFBT burger.

To extend this argument, one can put forth the example of fat. If your claim is that LFBT can be labelled and then you will be fine with it, that is ok. But I want to know whether you will be ok with it in the sense that you accept that LFBT is 'beef'.If not, then you are merely creating a red herring.

So could you please tell me which of the following is your stance -

1) LFBT is 'beef' just like fat is 'beef' and both should be labeled
2) LFBT is not beef and fat is beef, and both should be labeled
3) Neither LFBT nor fat can be called 'beef' but both need to be labeled

If there is a fourth option available, even that is ok, as long as you can put it into a simple sentence like the 3 above.

I am honestly trying to simplify the discussion, since we have covered a lot of points till now.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I apologize if I created a strawman. Really, my only efforts is to try and understand your issues with this particular issue. You have made a few claims in this thread, so I am just trying to understand where this particular argument is coming from.

Not a problem. Because some people in the thread have been arguing the stuff is 'bad' for you I keep getting lumped in with them. My issue is I have literally been asking at the meat counters, "what is wrong with this stuff?", repeatedly met with, "nothing has changed that we know of", when all along something had indeed changed and the hamburger producers paid off at least one USDA regulator to have a ruling that LFTB did not need to be labeled.

You have said that LFBT is not 'beef'. You have said that this is clear through the fact that there is no 100% LFBT burger.

No, that isn't what I've said or if I did it was with the caveat. LFTB is not MEAT and using the label "beef" is intentionally meant for the consumer to think meat is being claimed. It's like adding hide and hooves while arguing, "technically it's still 100% beef."

To extend this argument, one can put forth the example of fat. If your claim is that LFBT can be labelled and then you will be fine with it, that is ok. But I want to know whether you will be ok with it in the sense that you accept that LFBT is 'beef'.If not, then you are merely creating a red herring.

It is technically part of the cow so if by "beef" you mean part of the cow, then it is beef. But if by beef you mean "meat" (the caveat) then it is not beef meat.

Contrary to Fur's false and unsupported claim, the waste trim used to make LFTB is the stuff further away from the muscle, not the stuff that needs to be cooked to remove it from the bone. It is trim that is closer to the hide and bones, but it is not mechanically removed from either. Mechanically recovered beef is something else.

So could you please tell me which of the following is your stance -

1) LFBT is 'beef' just like fat is 'beef' and both should be labeled

Yes.

The university analysis of LFTB found it to be 70% connective tissue protein. Hamburger is 70% or more muscle tissue protein. The industry deceptively has been using connective tissue protein to lower the fat content of ground beef rather than increasing the amount of muscle protein.

 

[Furcifer]

Like I said, that is false. It's no less false even with your backtracking. The product is heated solely to liquify the fat and centrifuge it off. Nothing but the fat is separated.

Want to see the citation again?

According to you, it is processed differently because it is dirty and needs bacteria killed. We agree.

According to you it is dirty because it what, sits in a bucket on the floor during slaughter? You are wrong about why this product has a higher risk of contamination.

Want to see the citation again?

[snipped the rest since your whole underlying premise is false]

lmfao, "nothing but the fat is seperated". Explain to us how you can separate 1 thing?

"I separated the lights from the darks"
"The only thing you separated was the lights"
"Yes, but there's a pile of lights and a pile of darks, they've both been separated"
"No, you only separated the lights"

The same principle applies here to the process of doing laundry. In order to do a load of darks you have to seprate them. The fact the only the lights (LFBT) remain is inherent to the process. It's like you're saying it's racist to do a load of laundry because you're segregating the darks from the rest of the laundry.

I'm not wrong. Surface area is the key measurable in determining the liklihood of contamination, all other variables being equal, which I've explained aren't. Even if we assume a butcher takes a cut of meat and "trims" it down to a few steaks and a pile of trim, the trim is more likely to be contaminated because it has a greater surface area. This is a scientific fact.

My premise is science, yours is a recollection of some change in texture 10 years ago. I know which premise is false.

 

[Furcifer]

Not a problem. Because some people in the thread have been arguing the stuff is 'bad' for you I keep getting lumped in with them. My issue is I have literally been asking at the meat counters, "what is wrong with this stuff?", repeatedly met with, "nothing has changed that we know of", when all along something had indeed changed and the hamburger producers paid off at least one USDA regulator to have a ruling that LFTB did not need to be labeled.


No, that isn't what I've said or if I did it was with the caveat. LFTB is not MEAT and using the label "beef" is intentionally meant for the consumer to think meat is being claimed. It's like adding hide and hooves while arguing, "technically it's still 100% beef."

It is technically part of the cow so if by "beef" you mean part of the cow, then it is beef. But if by beef you mean "meat" (the caveat) then it is not beef meat.

Contrary to Fur's false and unsupported claim, the waste trim used to make LFTB is the stuff further away from the muscle, not the stuff that needs to be cooked to remove it from the bone. It is trim that is closer to the hide and bones, but it is not mechanically removed from either. Mechanically recovered beef is something else.

Yes.

The university analysis of LFTB found it to be 70% connective tissue protein. Hamburger is 70% or more muscle tissue protein. The industry deceptively has been using connective tissue protein to lower the fat content of ground beef rather than increasing the amount of muscle protein.

Pure nonsense. Hooves, hair and hide aren't normal parts of ground beef, connective tissue is. If Safeway was adding toilet paper, something that isn't normally found in ground beef to their product, they would have to add it to the label (of course they can't because the USDA already won't allow it)

As I said, I don't have any problem with forcing producers to put the percentage of connective tissue in ground beef on the label. At least in principle, in practice it's completely absurd.

Short of that, labeling LFBT puts the product at a disadvantage not because of science but because some people idiots. That shouldn't sit right with skeptics.

 

[Furcifer]

LFBT is "meat". It's connective tissue, which you can find in a New York strip. It's fat, which you can find in a New York strip. And it's lean muscle tissue, which you can find in a New York Strip.

This is all fact, and this is a logic statement. Unless you're saying New York strip isn't "meat" you have to admit LFBT is "meat". (it's actually "beef", technically "meat" only refers to muscle. I know it's pedantic but we are talking about LFBT as a "technicality" so terminology is important)

 

[Furcifer]

SG, forget the rest and just answer this:

If LFBT was 100% connective tissue should it have to be labelled in ground beef?
If so, why shouldn't any other ground beef have to be labelled with the connective tissue content?
If not why?
If ground beef has to be labelled with connective tissue content, why not steaks or pastrami or bacon?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

lmfao, "nothing but the fat is seperated". Explain to us how you can separate 1 thing?

It's really very simple, Fur.

The trim is heated to melt the fat. That makes the fat liquid. It is then spun in a centrifuge separating the solids from the liquified fat.

 

[Furcifer]

It's really very simple, Fur.

The trim is heated to melt the fat. That makes the fat liquid. It is then spun in a centrifuge separating the solids from the liquified fat.

No pun intended but this is just spin. It's heated to facillitate the seperation of fat and muscle and connective tissue.
Beef is heated and cooled as part of the processing so is LFBT. Your point is moot.

Anyhow, dodge noted. You really can't answer the questions above without exposing how ridiculous your premise is can you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No pun intended but this is just spin. It's heated to facillitate the seperation of fat and muscle and connective tissue.
Beef is heated and cooled as part of the processing so is LFBT. Your point is moot.

Anyhow, dodge noted. You really can't answer the questions above without exposing how ridiculous your premise is can you?

You are just putting your foot further in your mouth, Fur.

There have been a half dozen links in this thread about how the LFTB/pink slime is made. They all say low heat is applied to melt the fat and the centrifuge is used to separate solids from liquids.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

One more chance, Fur, to correct your mistake:

From a pro-Pink Slime site: Ground beef gets ‘raw deal’ in media

“Meat processors have been using lean, finely textured beef to increase the percentage of lean protein in ground beef for nearly 20 years,” Williams said. “They obtain the lean meat by melting fat away and separating it from the lean meat in a centrifuge-type device.

And an anti-Pink Slime site: 18 Most Sickening Food Ingredients

Pink slime is a product derived from the bits of meat clinging to fat, which are separated out by melting the fat away and spinning in a centrifuge.

The result is a pinkish substance called lean finely textured beef that’s treated with ammonia gas to kill germs, and then added to ground beef as a filler.

See anywhere in the process where a product that is 70% connective tissue had the connective tissue separated from the actual meat (aka muscle)?

 

[Furcifer]

You are just putting your foot further in your mouth, Fur.

There have been a half dozen links in this thread about how the LFTB/pink slime is made. They all say low heat is applied to melt the fat and the centrifuge is used to separate solids from liquids.

Second dodge noted

The solids won't seperate in a centrafuge, heating the product is required. You can continue to try and spin this or accept the fact that this is what science dictates.

For those more technically inclined, recovery of edible meat from the trim requires an input of energy. This is basic thermodynamics. What SG fails to understand is that if this input of energy is by way of heat to melt the fat and electricity used to spin the centrafuge, or by the chemical and mechanical energy required by 1000 butchers with boning knives and the patience of a saint extricating the edible bits from the trim that used to be destined for dog food, IT'S STILL 100% BEEF and it's still the exact same thing you find in any other ground beef. It's all the same, it just gets from here to there in slightly different ways.

The science supports the USDA's decision to allow LFBT to be included ground beef. Even if we entertain the notion of a vast conspiracy between BPI and the USDA the science is still there. As skeptics I think we should be looking to science and not something as subjective and tangentially related to the issue as a "taste test".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your mental gymnastics are getting interesting.

 

[Furcifer]

Your mental gymnastics are getting interesting.

Your ad hom arguments are predictable

I haven't made any mistakes. You continue to insist incorrectly that in or for LFBT to be the same thing as "trim"; (which the name clearly indicates) they wouldn't heat it. I've pointed out the the science necessitates heating the product in order to make it viable.

You can ask anyone you like to check the science, I assure you there's no mistake. In fact I implore you to check the science. Science is your friend and won't decieve you, your taste buds lie.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did you just pretend post #1014 didn't exist?

 

[Furcifer]

Did you just pretend post #1014 didn't exist?

No, I addressed them, unlike your continued dodge of direct questions posted to you in #1010.

SG has, 3 times now avoided answering simple questions asked in post #1010. If LFBT is "connective tissue" and that's what you claim to be able to notice, why shouldn't it be labeled on every package of ground beef? I believe SG doesn't understand that the connective tissue in LFBT is the exact same connective tissue found in ground beef and Delmonico steaks.

As for #1014, again, spin is spin. You don't understand science, whether the fat is removed by heating it and spinning it, or cutting it off with a knife, what's left over is beef. Sometimes you're left with stew beef sometimes you're left with fillet mignion and sometimes you're left with LFBT.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I addressed them

Please tell us Fur, in which post did you address the fact the 'trim' is heated to melt the fat which is then removed using the centrifuge?

..If LFBT is "connective tissue" and that's what you claim to be able to notice, why shouldn't it be labeled on every package of ground beef?

Adding concentrated amounts of connective tissue changes the texture of the ground beef. I'm not sure why you don't see how that would occur.

.As for #1014, again, spin is spin. You don't understand science, whether the fat is removed by heating it and spinning it, or cutting it off with a knife, what's left over is beef. Sometimes you're left with stew beef sometimes you're left with fillet mignion and sometimes you're left with LFBT.

And sometimes you are left with ground tendons.

So now you are going to pretend you've been saying all along that only the fat is removed by heating and centrifuging?

Let's review:

science necessitates heating the product in order to make it viable

Huh?

The solids won't seperate in a centrafuge, heating the product is required.

So the bone and connective tissue liquifies and the muscle doesn't?

mechanical energy required by 1000 butchers with boning knives and the patience of a saint extricating the edible bits from the trim

But you admitted that only the fat is removed by heating and centrifuging.

IT'S STILL 100% BEEF and it's still the exact same thing you find in any other ground beef. It's all the same, it just gets from here to there in slightly different ways

And the reason LFTB requires heating and centrifuging is?

To remove the fat.

It's heated to facillitate the seperation of fat and muscle and connective tissue.
Beef is heated and cooled as part of the processing so is LFBT

Ground beef and LFTB are both heated? Are you sure?

lmfao, "nothing but the fat is seperated". Explain to us how you can separate 1 thing?

I did. The fat is melted and the centrifuge separates the solids from the liquids.

I'm not wrong. Surface area is the key measurable in determining the liklihood of contamination, all other variables being equal, which I've explained aren't. Even if we assume a butcher takes a cut of meat and "trims" it down to a few steaks and a pile of trim, the trim is more likely to be contaminated because it has a greater surface area. This is a scientific fact.

According to the evidence I've found, surface area is not mentioned. It appears to be something you simply imagined. Pink Slime may include the most contaminated portions of cattle, such as near the hide which is often exposed to fecal matter. And, the most contaminated beef scraps near the fecal matter exposed hide that are processed, heated, and treated with ammonium hydroxide to kill E. coli, salmonella, and other bacteria,

I said the product is heated to facillitate the "mechanical" seperation of meat and connective tissue from the fat,bone, cartilage tendons etc. It wouldn't seperate without being heated, and without seperation the process would be useless.

Huh?

The key point in all of this being that LFBT could be made by hand from normal "beef trimmings", the kind that all ground beef is made from, but the time it would take to do so would make it infeasible.

So according to you heating and centrifuging saves time. That time saving is needed with this particular trim and not the rest of the trim because?


I could go on but this is like shooting fish in a barrel.


Your main argument is:

Hooves, hair and hide aren't normal parts of ground beef, connective tissue is. If Safeway was adding toilet paper, something that isn't normally found in ground beef to their product, they would have to add it to the label (of course they can't because the USDA already won't allow it)

The amount of fat is labeled. If 70% connective tissue was added to decrease the fat % while very little muscle meat was added to decrease the fat %, you still don't see a problem with not labeling that fact? Because I do.