Pink Slime

[Furcifer]

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?

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.

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:Huh?
So the bone and connective tissue liquifies and the muscle doesn't?
But you admitted that only the fat is removed by heating and centrifuging.
And the reason LFTB requires heating and centrifuging is?

To remove the fat.

Ground beef and LFTB are both heated? Are you sure?
I did. The fat is melted and the centrifuge separates the solids from the liquids.
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,


Huh?
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: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.

All of them.

I never said adding LFBT didn't change the texture of ground beef, you're lying. I said the change isn't outside the normal variance found in ground beef. I realize this is a technical explanation outside your personal area of understanding but there's no reason to lie about what I said. If you don't understand, which I doubt, just ask.

I never said ground beef was heated, you're lying again.

I know posters will make strawmen, but you're outright making things up at this point.

Surface area isn't mentioned because you're not reading the science.

No, time is not energy. I can best explain this to you as this: if you put your stove on 4 and you put you stove on 10, it takes the same amount of energy to boil a pot of water but the length of time it takes varies.

No my main argument is the same as the USDA's, LFBT is beef as in "ground beef". Your argument is because you think it has a different texture LFBT isn't beef. It's laughable, as is you proposed "taste test".

You're lying and you've dodged answering direct questions for a 4th time now.

SG refuses to answer questions posed in post #1010 because they expose the inconsistencies in her logic. If LFBT is connective tissue and should be labelled, all connective tissue should be labelled. The uninformed public, incapable of understanding the science "sees" a difference because some people allege there is a difference. In reality there is no science to support their claim.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All of them.

And yet you can't cite a single post with facts countering those quotes of erroneous facts of yours I posted above.

...I said the change isn't outside the normal variance found in ground beef. ...

That is the claim I am addressing that you have not supported.

I never said ground beef was heated....

Where did I say you did? You seem to have a hard time with "if that was true, it would follow, and it doesn't." You have repeatedly misinterpreted that as, "SG is saying I said it was true and I didn't say that."

... Surface area isn't mentioned because you're not reading the science.

What? Why would this scientific fact not be mentioned while "closer to the hide" was?

No, time is not energy. I can best explain this to you as this: if you put your stove on 4 and you put you stove on 10, it takes the same amount of energy to boil a pot of water but the length of time it takes varies.

What is relevant about this? The heat is used to melt (i.e. liquify) the fat. It's simple and straightforward.

No my main argument is the same as the USDA's, LFBT is beef as in "ground beef". Your argument is because you think it has a different texture LFBT isn't beef. It's laughable, as is you proposed "taste test".

Here's a comparison of your straw man to my actual argument. See if you can tell the difference.

Fur: "Your argument is, because you think it has a different texture LFBT isn't beef."
SG: My argument is, using the term "beef" is intended to make the consumer think "meat". While connective tissue is technically "beef" it is not "meat".

... you've dodged answering direct questions for a 4th time now.

SG refuses to answer questions posed in post #1010 because they expose the inconsistencies in her logic.

I'll answer it again because you seem hung up on not recalling the answer.

[post #1010] 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 LFBT is connective tissue and should be labelled, all connective tissue should be labelled. ....

Perhaps listing the % of connective tissue would be a good idea. At what point should if be labeled, Fur?

If the burger is 70% connective tissue and contains only 30% 'meat' would you call that hamburger? Would it be within the normal 'range' of connective tissue content in hamburger? So where is the cutoff of that normal range of connective tissue?

Have you posted anything besides assertion what the 'normal range' of connective tissue in hamburger is?

While you assert that the trim used in LFTB is the same as the rest of the trim used in hamburger, the analysis of LFTB provides evidence, not assertion, that the trim used in LFTB is not the same as the rest of the hamburger.

If ground beef has to be labelled with connective tissue content, why not steaks or pastrami or bacon?

Because no one is adding extra connective tissue to the cuts of these meats.


You're just back to asserting unsupported facts and ignoring the errors you posted that I pointed out in my post above. Those are quotes, Fur, not straw men. You made erroneous claims that the trim in LFTB is no different. In making this claim you described erroneously how the trim used in LFTB did not differ from the rest of the trim used in the burger.

To review: The trim used to make LFTB is further from the muscle than the rest of the trim. It has less muscle meat in it than the rest of the trim used in hamburger. While it is beef, it is not meat. Hamburger manufacturers have been adding this product to hamburger to lower the fat content. It changes the ratio of fibrous connective tissue protein in hamburger to levels well outside the range in any hamburger LFTB is not added to.

 

[stilicho]

....

To review: The trim used to make LFTB is further from the muscle than the rest of the trim. It has less muscle meat in it than the rest of the trim used in hamburger. While it is beef, it is not meat. Hamburger manufacturers have been adding this product to hamburger to lower the fat content. It changes the ratio of fibrous connective tissue protein in hamburger to levels well outside the range in any hamburger LFTB is not added to.

You've accidentally stumbled across a simple solution. Labelling.

You're very welcome.

 

[Furcifer]

And yet you can't cite a single post with facts countering those quotes of erroneous facts of yours I posted above.

That is the claim I am addressing that you have not supported.

Where did I say you did? You seem to have a hard time with "if that was true, it would follow, and it doesn't." You have repeatedly misinterpreted that as, "SG is saying I said it was true and I didn't say that."

What? Why would this scientific fact not be mentioned while "closer to the hide" was?

What is relevant about this? The heat is used to melt (i.e. liquify) the fat. It's simple and straightforward.


Here's a comparison of your straw man to my actual argument. See if you can tell the difference.

Fur: "Your argument is, because you think it has a different texture LFBT isn't beef."
SG: My argument is, using the term "beef" is intended to make the consumer think "meat". While connective tissue is technically "beef" it is not "meat".


I'll answer it again because you seem hung up on not recalling the answer.
Perhaps listing the % of connective tissue would be a good idea. At what point should if be labeled, Fur?

If the burger is 70% connective tissue and contains only 30% 'meat' would you call that hamburger? Would it be within the normal 'range' of connective tissue content in hamburger? So where is the cutoff of that normal range of connective tissue?

Have you posted anything besides assertion what the 'normal range' of connective tissue in hamburger is?

While you assert that the trim used in LFTB is the same as the rest of the trim used in hamburger, the analysis of LFTB provides evidence, not assertion, that the trim used in LFTB is not the same as the rest of the hamburger.

Because no one is adding extra connective tissue to the cuts of these meats.


You're just back to asserting unsupported facts and ignoring the errors you posted that I pointed out in my post above. Those are quotes, Fur, not straw men. You made erroneous claims that the trim in LFTB is no different. In making this claim you described erroneously how the trim used in LFTB did not differ from the rest of the trim used in the burger.

To review: The trim used to make LFTB is further from the muscle than the rest of the trim. It has less muscle meat in it than the rest of the trim used in hamburger. While it is beef, it is not meat. Hamburger manufacturers have been adding this product to hamburger to lower the fat content. It changes the ratio of fibrous connective tissue protein in hamburger to levels well outside the range in any hamburger LFTB is not added to.

*sigh

It's not "different". You keep using the term as if it precludes LFBT from being trim. The amount of connective tissue in trim could be as high as 70%. Is it? Not typically, because typically trim with that amount of connective tissue was useless for all but dog food and the like.
The fact that trim with this amount of surface area would be susceptible to contamination is science, not conspiracy.

Connective tissue has ALWAYS been considered "beef". You continue to incorrectly suggest BPI bought off the USDA in order to change the definition to include connective tissue and hence LFBT. YOU ARE WRONG. Connective tissue has always been a significant component of trim. This is a known fact, and can easily be proven scientifically. Why? Because trimming is the process of removing fat and connective tissue from lean muscle.

I personally would LOVE if the amount of connective tissue in meat was labelled. In a way cost is an indicator, beef tenderloin is in fact tender in part because it has very little connective tissue. It's what makes meat "tough" and "chewy". Unless it's heated a bit, ground up, treated with amonia and then added back that is.

Sadly, labelling connective tissue is a fools errand. It's an uncontrolable variable.

 

[stilicho]

....

I personally would LOVE if the amount of connective tissue in meat was labelled. In a way cost is an indicator, beef tenderloin is in fact tender in part because it has very little connective tissue. It's what makes meat "tough" and "chewy". Unless it's heated a bit, ground up, treated with amonia and then added back that is.

Sadly, labelling connective tissue is a fools errand. It's an uncontrolable variable.

Labelling may consist of "may contain" as well. It's not hard to do and lots of food has that kind of labelling.

It's tough to follow the arguments against "pink slime" except that it "sounds bad". If there's no real health risk (eg carcinogen) then it should be treated as any other food item.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You've accidentally stumbled across a simple solution. Labelling.

You're very welcome.

That's all I ever asked for.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
It's tough to follow the arguments against "pink slime" except that it "sounds bad". ....

... and changes the texture of hamburger which means some people would like to avoid it and cannot do so because it isn't on the label.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

*sigh

It's not "different". ....

Round and round the mulberry bush
Fur ignored the evidence
Claimed he was addressing it
Instead showed LFTB ignorance.

Answer the question Fur, if it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

... and changes the texture of hamburger which means some people would like to avoid it and cannot do so have difficulty doing so, because it isn't on the label.

FTFY


I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I have been following along.

All people have to do, if they don't want this pink slime stuff, is make sure they are buying ground meat that doesn't have it.

I'm sure you will want to tell me how difficult that might be, but really, that is what you have to do ..

You are not going to change the market driven cause behind this, because enough people just don't care..

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

FTFY

Sure, I have no issue with your nitpick.

All people have to do, if they don't want this pink slime stuff, is make sure they are buying ground meat that doesn't have it.

But I have a nitpick with this. I tried to avoid it but because it wasn't labeled and the grocers denied there was anything causing the texture change I often didn't know without buying and cooking it. Then I had the choice of taking it back, throwing it out or eating it, all three options were a hassel or had a cost or both.

You are not going to change the market driven cause behind this, because enough people just don't care..

The people changed the market. And I think had the producers been more honest they could have sold the product to people who didn't care and avoided the backlash of finding out after the fact.

I'm happy to say I can now easily find LFTB free burger and have not encountered the disgusting texture in any product the store assures is LFTB free.

 

[Furcifer]

Labelling may consist of "may contain" as well. It's not hard to do and lots of food has that kind of labelling.

It's tough to follow the arguments against "pink slime" except that it "sounds bad". If there's no real health risk (eg carcinogen) then it should be treated as any other food item.

It would have to be the reverse, instead of "trace" amounts it would be "high" amounts of connective tissue. It's doable.
I'm not opposed to this type of labeling, but I am opposed to people "reacting" to something without looks at the facts and science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

More assertion, Fur, still no facts to back it up.

Surely you could find a source with the range of connective tissue in trim used for hamburger instead of continuing to insist trim that is further from the muscle doesn't differ from trim closer to the muscle.

 

[Furcifer]

Round and round the mulberry bush
Fur ignored the evidence
Claimed he was addressing it
Instead showed LFTB ignorance.

Answer the question Fur, if it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

Not only have I answered this, the USDA has through me answered it for you.

There is no "problem". Continuing to maintain there is, when you know there isn't just exposes your bias and ultimately your ignorance.

 

[Furcifer]

More assertion, Fur, still no facts to back it up.

Surely you could find a source with the range of connective tissue in trim used for hamburger instead of continuing to insist trim that is further from the muscle doesn't differ from trim closer to the muscle.

Trim is muscle, and fat and connective tissue. You're not making any sense.

(surely if ground meat doesn't contain unicorn horn you could find a study proving this. Therefore ground beef is actually unicorn. WIN!)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....

But I have a nitpick with this. I tried to avoid it but because it wasn't labeled and the grocers denied there was anything causing the texture change I often didn't know without buying and cooking it. Then I had the choice of taking it back, throwing it out or eating it, all three options were a hassel or had a cost or both....

You finally chose to avoid the choices that did not guarantee Pink Slime free burger..

Do you pay more for it ? You should; it costs more to produce..

If you are not paying more for it, you have found a bargain..

For someone who cares about their burger, as much as you seem to, it's really surprising you ever had anything but fresh ground..

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You finally chose to avoid the choices that did not guarantee Pink Slime free burger..

Do you pay more for it ? You should; it costs more to produce..

If you are not paying more for it, you have found a bargain..

For someone who cares about their burger, as much as you seem to, it's really surprising you ever had anything but fresh ground..

I realize you've not read every post in the thread but I addressed this. After being burned numerous times I eventually migrated to the $10/pound fresh ground at Whole Foods as the only consistently OK burger. Your scolding is confirmation bias based.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm still waiting for your evidence, Fur, not your assertions and claims you have posted evidence you haven't posted.

 

[Furcifer]

I realize you've not read every post in the thread but I addressed this. After being burned numerous times I eventually migrated to the $10/pound fresh ground at Whole Foods as the only consistently OK burger. Your scolding is confirmation bias based.

Evidence?

If you're paying $10/lb for ground beef no wonder there's a disconnect. Whole foods should be coming to your home and preparing the burger for you at that price. I would feel violated if I was paying that kind of money for ground beef and found out it contained LFBT.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm still waiting for your evidence, Fur, not your assertions and claims you have posted evidence you haven't posted.

lol. I'm still waiting for a study proving words are made from letters.

Heck, LFBT isn't meat at all it's dirt. Where's the study confirming LFBT isn't dirt???

I don't know what kind of fallacy you're employing, but begging these absurd questions doesn't further the discussion. When I trim a steak the trim is pretty much fat and connective tissue. But I'm anal about not getting any muscle meat in my trim. Perhaps that's my Scottish side. Other people aren't so careful. There's no scientific study confirming this, but I know it's true.

The same goes for any trim. Sometimes the butcher is careful and sometimes he isn't. When the butcher is careful trim is pretty much fat and connective tissue, when he isn't it could be almost entirely lean meat.

It's completely and utterly preposterous to say this isn't true because there's no study to confirm this. It would be like saying words aren't made of letters because nobody has studied this.

I'm asserting trim has as much or as little connective tissue in it as it has depending on how the butcher cuts it. That's a fact. You saying otherwise just demonstrates how little you know about how things are done. If you think otherwise the burden of proof is on you to prove it, whether you realize it or not.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Right now, neither of you would admit that inhaling water causes drowning.

You're at a standstill.

The immovable object has encountered the irresistible force.