Pink Slime

[Marcus]

On a separate note, I don't eat very often at McDonalds but my recollection is the burger was rather rubbery. I'm wondering if people who frequent McD's have noticed a change in the hamburger now that McD's has quit using LFTB in the burger.

I don't eat there, but I can tell you that I haven't noticed any change in Whataburger meat, but then again I have no idea if they have ever used LFTB.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... we also have double blind studies with hundreds of people which you have dismissed because of their funding. The problem is that you weren't able to point to any defects in the studies, but covered them with a blanket "they must be cheating" allegation.

The studies you cite do not say what you claim they say and you are mischaracterizing my response. But go ahead, believe what you want and dismiss the test I did. No surprise there.

...I won't mind at all if you are right, I've never made any claim that "15% LFTB doesn't change the texture of hamburger". As a skeptic though, I need more evidence before I decide. I would think that you would too. For one thing, unless I missed something, you have never tested yourself, you talked about having a friend help you do so but never did it.

It was difficult enough as it was to do the testing at the meetup. It just wasn't possible to do everything I wanted to do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't eat there, but I can tell you that I haven't noticed any change in Whataburger meat, but then again I have no idea if they have ever used LFTB.

You only need to look at their web page. They do not use LFTB.

Here's a quote from the full statement.

In light of the recent concerns regarding beef products that contain 'pink slime,' we want our customers to rest assured that when they visit Whataburger they can expect to receive only 100 percent, USDA-inspected fresh, never frozen beef. Our beef does not contain pink slime nor does it undergo an ammonia-treated process.

 

[Furcifer]

Sure. I had enough burger to test at least 20. But it wasn't a total loss. I donated the leftovers to someone for their cat. The skeptic's group enjoyed the test and the results, and we all learned a little about the test procedure and the Pink Slime controversy.


As for convincing evidence I was right, I already have that evidence. I've been buying LFTB free burger now and haven't found any of it with the gristly texture that was grossing me out. I found a mechanism for the texture problem, the analysis showing the greater amount of connective tissue protein over muscle protein in LFTB. Despite Fur's insistence trim is trim, the trim they make the LFTB from is further from the muscle and closer to the hide and he's not been able to counter that with anything but foot stamping. One of the main producer's own study found consumers did not like burger if more than 15% LFTB was added to it. That's evidence it does change the burger. And at least one food critic, who had no obvious reason to be biased about the outcome, did an analysis and also found LFTB changed the texture of hamburger.


I don't see any evidence against LFTB being the cause of the hamburger texture change except Fur's assertion hamburger has connective tissue in it. That doesn't mean adding more would have little effect. In addition, a blood vessel made of connective tissue is softer than a tendon made of connective tissue, so not all connective tissue is equally fibrous. And, Fur was grossly misinformed about how LFTB is processed and he was misinformed about which trim was used to make LFTB. He said trim was used that had fallen on the floor or was put in a dirty bucket. In reality, trim that is closer to the hide and further from the muscle is used.


It is extremely rare for people in this forum to admit they were wrong. I could have done the test with 100 people and it would still be very unlikely that those who don't believe LFTB affects the texture of hamburger would change their mind. Just look at the overwhelming evidence that was available before the test and you can see people are filtering the evidence to fit their confirmation bias. One conclusion is true, either the stuff affects burger texture or it doesn't. So people on one side of this debate are looking at the evidence objectively and the others aren't.

For people on the fence, I would think that the small study plus the other evidence is enough. If not, meh, my hamburger tastes good again. For people doubling down in this thread and arguing LFTB doesn't change the texture, evidence is not likely to change their beliefs.

Utter nonsense. You don't need a study to know fat is "closer to the hide" than muscle. It's basic anatomy.

It follows logically that ground beef with higher fat content, which has been proven in numerous studies already cited in this thread, to be, for lack of a better term "more appealing" to tasters.

Your premise is therefore flawed. You're trying to extend what you misunderstand to fit your own biased opinion. This is obvious.

Again, the USDA rightfully calls the product "lean beef trimmings" because that's exactly what it is. Your continued pleading for evidence that "lean beef trimmings" are "trimmings" is ridiculous. The burden of proof is still on you to show otherwise. I think it's obvious to everyone reading this, and even SG, pursuing such evidence is a fools errand.

Trim is trim...because the USDA says so. I've explained exactly how the USDA came to this conclusion and it doesn't have anything to do with BPI conspiring with USDA officials like SG claims.

The taste and texture of ground beef is determined by numerous factors including the amount of LFBT. You don't need a taste test to prove that, just a little common sense and logic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As predicted....

Where's your evidence, Fur? The study, even as small as it was, does not support your assertions.

 

[Furcifer]

As predicted....

Where's your evidence, Fur? The study, even as small as it was, does not support your assertions.

lol, you obviously don't understand, let me try to explain this...again, using an analogy.

You- "These aren't grass clippings, grass clippings are long"
Me- "It depends on how often you cut your grass, how fast the grass grows, your mower height, how sharp the blade is etc. Grass clippings can be any length"
You- "Where your peer reviewed scientific study confirming this?"
Me- "There is none, it stands to reason you can cut your grass how you like and the clippings will be different lengths from very short to very long.
You- "Nuh uh, these are not grass clippings, this is green slime"
Me- "It's just grass that has been chopped up into a paste, it's the same thing it's just very short"
You- "Nuh uh, it's got a completely different texture"
Me- "Yah, so what, it's called mulch"
You- "So it's got a different texture and a different name, it's not the same thing then"
Me- "Yes it is, it's the exact same thing."
You- "Where's your scientific study proving it then hmmmm?"
Me- ""

If there isn't a formal fallacy about begging for scientific evidence where none is needed there should be.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is it about "further from the muscle" do you not understand?

 

[Joey McGee]

If there isn't a formal fallacy about begging for scientific evidence where none is needed there should be.

We could call it begging the answer.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Story On Swift

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1880-the-ethical-case-for-pink-slime.html

 

[Joey McGee]

Well, clearly the JREF has been compromised, paid off by Big Pink.

Kyle's articles are always deliciously well-written and inspiring.

I wondered why we're only hearing of this now. Then realized, it's probably stayed in the news cycle. Then discovered, one month ago BFI filed a 1.2 billion dollar lawsuit against ABC and some of the characters we've visited earlier here such as Zirnstein and Foshee. SWEET.

Read the lawsuit guys! It's only 257 pages, and then we can have a logical, coherent discussion about who should pay how much for destroying these people's business purposefully and maliciously in a self-aggrandizing manner.

 

[Throckmorton]

huh?

Whatever you do, don't think about how many maggots are allowed by the FDA to be in a jar of mayonaise.

Why? How many are allowed? I would like a primary reference, not conventional wisdom, or a secondary news report...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why? How many are allowed? I would like a primary reference, not conventional wisdom, or a secondary news report...

I don't know about mayo but there is an acceptable threshold for insect parts in your cereal.

Food Defect Action Levels

Though insect fragments are classified as an aesthetic problem, trace amounts of insect parts may have adverse effects for people with allergies and asthma.[2] The Food Defect Action Levels states that these contaminants "pose no inherent hazard to health."[1]

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I replied to the Swift article before the board went Malware last night.

Again the points:
Pink Slime isn't a health risk as long as people cook burger thoroughly. Some lots had more bacteria.

The texture seriously bothers me and at least a fair number of other people.

All they had to do was label it, but pretending it was no different when analyses show otherwise, was wrong.

 

[Joey McGee]

Pink Slime isn't a health risk as long as people cook burger thoroughly. Some lots had more bacteria.

Which lots? The ones that they caught before they left the factory or what?

The texture seriously bothers me and at least a fair number of other people.

You have no direct evidence for this. I do. Independent lab tests where people rated the texture and taste higher than non-lftb. Oh right you handwaved this away because it conflicted with your belief and even invented a conspiracy theory that BFI paid off the labs to fake the results.

All they had to do was label it, but pretending it was no different when analyses show otherwise, was wrong.

Do you forget that it was shown that you don't understand the studies that you use to support this statement?

Now people know that people sometimes use a centrifuge to rip all of the extra meat out of the cow. I'd say that's a good thing in this age of conservation and rationalism but apparently there is some fearmongering going on that prevents them from appreciating this fact.

 

[OMGturt1es]

You have no direct evidence for this. I do. Independent lab tests where people rated the texture and taste higher than non-lftb. Oh right you handwaved this away because it conflicted with your belief and even invented a conspiracy theory that BFI paid off the labs to fake the results.

I haven't read the studies to which you are referring, nor have I read SG's responses.

That being said, industry has an absolutely horrible track record when it comes to science. Industry has been caught faking data, creating fake journals, hiding results, constructing tests specifically to not find potential problems, and so on, so forth. These aren't isolated, rare incidents. They are common place. So-called "product defense" firms exist because demand for this "science" is very high. Their ability to delay regulation has resulted in enormous wealth for industry and sickness and death for innocent people. Numerous books have been written on this subject. I recommend "Doubt is their Product" by OSHA-head David Michaels.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Pink Slime isn't a health risk as long as people cook burger thoroughly. Some lots had more bacteria.

Since when was that not a potential problem with any meat or other perishable food ?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which lots? The ones that they caught before they left the factory or what?

You have no direct evidence for this. I do. Independent lab tests where people rated the texture and taste higher than non-lftb. Oh right you handwaved this away because it conflicted with your belief and even invented a conspiracy theory that BFI paid off the labs to fake the results.

Do you forget that it was shown that you don't understand the studies that you use to support this statement?

Now people know that people sometimes use a centrifuge to rip all of the extra meat out of the cow. I'd say that's a good thing in this age of conservation and rationalism but apparently there is some fearmongering going on that prevents them from appreciating this fact.

Good grief! Do you really want to revisit all this?

Evidence the texture differs: LFTB has 70% fibrous connective tissue vs 30% in the rest of the trim. That was in a cited analysis.

The results of the blinded test, while the sample size was small, was a significant texture difference. There were ~40 Seattle Skeptics there.

Putting more than 20% LFTB caused people to dislike the resulting hamburger. That was also in a cited marketing report in this thread.

And the failure of the ammonia to adequately treat the bacterial contamination was found by the USDA or the FDA (I forget which). It was not found and reported by the producers themselves. That was also in a cited article in this thread.

It would seem you hand waved away a lot of evidence in this thread. Also, stop lying about what I've posted, in particular, this OUTRIGHT LIE: "even invented a conspiracy theory that BFI paid off the labs to fake the results." I don't know that anyone posted any such thing but I sure as hell didn't.

All I said that is remotely related was, the person most responsible for allowing LFTB to be added to burger without labeling went on to get over a million dollars from the company that benefitted the most from it. It was then pointed out, that sum amounted to an annual salary that wasn't particularly high. And I replied that the paid position was on the board of directors and likely amounted to working a couple days a year for that annual salary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since when was that not a potential problem with any meat or other perishable food ?

For all hamburger, bacteria is a potential problem, thus I wasn't very bothered by the finding. I have said repeatedly in this thread, I don't believe LFTB to be a health problem. My gripe has always been about the lack of labeling because I dislike the texture and have had to return and throw away burger because there was no way to know it would have the bad texture from the packaging.

Despite the fact burger needs to be thoroughly cooked, the FDA still recalls any batches found to have significant bacterial contamination.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here is the NYTs article cited earlier in the thread re the bacterial contamination of LFTB:

Safety of Beef Processing Method Is Questioned

Officials at the United States Department of Agriculture endorsed the company’s ammonia treatment, and have said it destroys E. coli “to an undetectable level.” They decided it was so effective that in 2007, when the department began routine testing of meat used in hamburger sold to the general public, they exempted Beef Products.....

...But government and industry records obtained by The New York Times show that in testing for the school lunch program, E. coli and salmonella pathogens have been found dozens of times in Beef Products meat, challenging claims by the company and the U.S.D.A. about the effectiveness of the treatment. Since 2005, E. coli has been found 3 times and salmonella 48 times, including back-to-back incidents in August in which two 27,000-pound batches were found to be contaminated. The meat was caught before reaching lunch-rooms trays...

So the USDA gave the meat producers a pass on testing and the schools found the contamination in their back up testing programs.


But go ahead, Joey McGee, hand wave these facts away.

 

[Joey McGee]

I haven't read the studies to which you are referring, nor have I read SG's responses.

That being said, industry has an absolutely horrible track record when it comes to science. Industry has been caught faking data, creating fake journals, hiding results, constructing tests specifically to not find potential problems, and so on, so forth. These aren't isolated, rare incidents. They are common place. So-called "product defense" firms exist because demand for this "science" is very high. Their ability to delay regulation has resulted in enormous wealth for industry and sickness and death for innocent people. Numerous books have been written on this subject. I recommend "Doubt is their Product" by OSHA-head David Michaels.

Sure, this was brought up. I maintain that if you read the four studies and inquire as to the trustworthiness of the companies you will find it hard to believe that all four risked their reputation to fake studies way before this crap theory was thought up by Jamie Oliver and a new age mom blog.