Pink Slime

[Skeptic Ginger]

Except in the case of lftb, it's not reconstituted, and no one is pretending it's something it isn't. It's just ground beef.

It's ground tendons. If it were ground beef, why don't the producers sell 100% LFTB?

All I want is it labeled.

 

[Joey McGee]

The trouble with that statement is central to this whole debate. It assumes that anything other than fat is "lean beef", but connective tissue is not something most people would class as beef.

"Fractionation of proteins showed the LFTB to be relatively high in insoluble proteins and collagen compared to beef chuck." link

The trick the LFTB producers have pulled off is to get a definition that paints the product in a favourable light and allows them infinite wriggle-room to parrot "But it's lean beef!".

Wow Glenn it's all suddenly so clear to me now.

Oh wait you're just talking about the same study we wasted hundreds of posts on already!

When I look at that study, I see that normal ground beef has about half the collagen that LFTB does in the study. Does that mean they are sneaking connective tissue into normal ground beef too? Good heavens!

Maybe download the lawsuit and search for the words "connective" and "Sebranek". These claims are central to the lawsuit, literally BPI is saying that LFTB comes "mostly from" muscle meat and has the same nutritional value, which is the opposite of what was claimed in the news...

They have processes to remove "connective tissue" from the meat, it's all in the lawsuit...

 

[GlennB]

Except in the case of lftb, it's not reconstituted, and no one is pretending it's something it isn't. It's just ground beef.

From wiki:

"The product is used as a filler or to reduce the overall fat content of ground beef. It is produced by processing low-grade beef trimmings and other meat by-products such as cartilage, connective tissue and sinew, which contain fat and small amounts of lean beef, and mechanically separating the lean beef from the fat through the use of a centrifuge at about 100°F (38°C)"

Here, "lean beef" includes a higher % of connective tissue (confirmed by analysis), but it's that part of the beef you wouldn't serve up on a dinner plate, and if you were trimming your own beef to put through a grinder you'd omit it. But, to repeat for about the 10th time, "lean beef" has now been defined to include this material. Thus, to be consistent, beef skin, horn, hoof and bone should now be considered "lean beef", right? Because it's derived from cattle and it's low fat.

 

[Joey McGee]

You are the one which keep ignoring what I keep writing.

AGAIN.

This is a similar process that ham producer and chicken producer use to get more "scraps" and *form* it into ham and chicken. And it has long been recognized as an inferior products compared to "noble" meat slice and must be labelled as such when sold. Protest as much as you want. I am glad that kind of shenanigan (labelling reformed meat as normal) is frowned upon here.

Hey that's why we have courts where you can sue people for making up lies about your products, these claims get to be tested in court eventually isn't it exciting!?

 

[Joey McGee]

From wiki:

LOL!!! From the reference to that statement...

Pink slime is a mash of anything and everything that’s left after a cow is butchered, including cartilage, connective tissue, and low-grade beef trimmings. These bits get washed in ammonium hydroxide, which kills bacteria and gives them a rosy hue. Then they are liquefied, frozen, cut into cubes, and shipped off to meat processors where they are mixed it into ground beef, ground pork, and veal.

Wow that's complete ********!

Your "from wiki" sources use Fox News with no references and ABC and their sources! Did you forget that ABC and their sources are being sued for over a billion dollars on these exact claims or are you convinced their reporting is accurate?

 

[Prometheus]

From wiki:

"The product is used as a filler or to reduce the overall fat content of ground beef. It is produced by processing low-grade beef trimmings and other meat by-products such as cartilage, connective tissue and sinew, which contain fat and small amounts of lean beef, and mechanically separating the lean beef from the fat through the use of a centrifuge at about 100°F (38°C)"

Here, "lean beef" includes a higher % of connective tissue (confirmed by analysis), but it's that part of the beef you wouldn't serve up on a dinner plate, and if you were trimming your own beef to put through a grinder you'd omit it. But, to repeat for about the 10th time, "lean beef" has now been defined to include this material. Thus, to be consistent, beef skin, horn, hoof and bone should now be considered "lean beef", right? Because it's derived from cattle and it's low fat.

You keep ignoring that the unwanted bits are separated out by centrifuge. But if you still want to quibble, cartilage, connective tissue and collagen are all nutritious and tasty in their own right. They can't be served normally because they are very tough and have an unpleasant texture--until they're ground into "finely textured" form. Any decent chef knows this, these are the bits that are slowly simmered to give high-end stock, aspic or demi glace their superior flavour. Pink slime should absolutely be sold directly to the consumer. If I could buy it retail at all, I'd be sure to never run out.

 

[GlennB]

You keep ignoring that the unwanted bits are separated out by centrifuge.

I'm not ignoring anything. The fat is separated by centrifuge, as I understand it. If I'm wrong and the pulped gristle is also thrown away then I'll shut up, but analysis suggests otherwise.

But if you still want to quibble, cartilage, connective tissue and collagen are all nutritious and tasty in their own right. They can't be served normally because they are very tough and have an unpleasant texture--until they're ground into "finely textured" form. Any decent chef knows this, these are the bits that are slowly simmered to give high-end stock, aspic or demi glace their superior flavour. Pink slime should absolutely be sold directly to the consumer. If I could buy it retail at all, I'd be sure to never run out.

Yes, the juices. Jellied eels jellify because of the simmering, but you don't eat the bones that create the jellification, eh? Those chefs you mention don't serve the very gristle that created those stocks, do they? Actually sometimes they do, but the customer picks the meat away from the gristle. In LFTB we get the gristle.

I don't mind that, let me repeat, and I'll happily eat it in frankfurters or whatever. Just don't tell me it's "lean beef" according to any reasonable definition of "beef".

Meanwhile animal skin contains plenty of collagen. Why not mince it fine and serve it in LFTB? Or why not just produce minced-skin burgers while calling it "lean beef"?

This is my beef

 

[Prometheus]

I'm not ignoring anything. The fat is separated by centrifuge, as I understand it. If I'm wrong and the pulped gristle is also thrown away then I'll shut up, but analysis suggests otherwise.



Yes, the juices. Jellied eels jellify because of the simmering, but you don't eat the bones that create the jellification, eh? Those chefs you mention don't serve the very gristle that created those stocks, do they? Actually sometimes they do, but the customer picks the meat away from the gristle. In LFTB we get the gristle.

I don't mind that, let me repeat, and I'll happily eat it in frankfurters or whatever. Just don't tell me it's "lean beef" according to any reasonable definition of "beef".

Meanwhile animal skin contains plenty of collagen. Why not mince it fine and serve it in LFTB? Or why not just produce minced-skin burgers while calling it "lean beef"?

This is my beef

I'm all for truth in labeling.

To my mind, a reasonable definition of "beef" is, "edible and comes from a cow". Various subsets of that have their own informative, though often somewhat arcane, names--porterhouse, skirt, etc. At least "finely-textured lean ground beef is, in fact, finely-textured, not too fatty, edible and from a cow. Sounds to me like it's the meat snobs who have a problem being truthful in their labeling. How many regular folks would still think filet mignon was so special if they knew that particular muscle's primary function in a live cow?

All that connective tissue is mostly tasty, nutritious, protein. The only reason not to eat it is that when it isn't finely ground, our teeth and jaws aren't strong enough. Animals that can consume it, do. Same with skin. I, and many others, eat skin from a variety of animals all the time. But leather is a bit tough. You sound just like Zeus and all those pesky ingrates that call themselves "gods". I send them a nice tasty present of skin, fat and gristle and wind up chained to a mountainside for my trouble.

​

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You keep ignoring that the unwanted bits are separated out by centrifuge. But if you still want to quibble, cartilage, connective tissue and collagen are all nutritious and tasty in their own right. They can't be served normally because they are very tough and have an unpleasant texture--until they're ground into "finely textured" form. Any decent chef knows this, these are the bits that are slowly simmered to give high-end stock, aspic or demi glace their superior flavour. Pink slime should absolutely be sold directly to the consumer. If I could buy it retail at all, I'd be sure to never run out.

GlennB is right, only the fat is separated out. It is melted and as a liquid removed in the centrifuge.

The reason it's not sold directly is marketing tests found the consumers didn't like it when there was more than 15% of it in ground beef.

As for the unpleasant texture it is not removed because the cow parts are finely ground. It makes burger rubbery.

The product is used to raise the low fat percentage of the burger. You get less fat but you also get more tendon. If you want that, go for it. If I don't I'd like to see it on the label so I can avoid it because I don't like the texture.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm all for truth in labeling.

To my mind, a reasonable definition of "beef" is, "edible and comes from a cow"....

Does that include tripe, brains and tongue? Most people think beef is muscle meat. Yes, there is fat and connective tissue in it. But you wouldn't expect intestine, tongue and brains to be labeled "beef" without the organ name modifier would you?

 

[Joey McGee]

I'm not ignoring anything. The fat is separated by centrifuge, as I understand it. If I'm wrong and the pulped gristle is also thrown away then I'll shut up

From the lawsuit

Once they arrive at a BPI facility, the beef trimmings enter a de-sinewer in which cartilage, connective tissue, and other pieces that may incidentally accompany the trimmings are removed, leaving only the muscle tissue and fat. This process, combined with the process used by beef processing plants before the beef trimmings are sent to BPI, helps ensure that the final product produced by BPI does not contain cartilage and connective tissues.

but analysis suggests otherwise.

Even the author of the study disagrees but oh well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then where does the 70% connective tissue come from when burger has 30%. Your industry propaganda piece is contradicted by the university analysis of the product.

 

[Joey McGee]

Then where does the 70% connective tissue come from when burger has 30%. Your industry propaganda piece is contradicted by the university analysis of the product.

Why are you acting like we haven't been over this before? Insoluble protein does not equal connective tissue. Your reasoning for saying it has 70% connective tissue is completely bunk. So regular beef has 30% connective tissue? Why aren't you up in arms about that? You're not making any sense or explaining what the study means because you don't understand it.

There is collagen and in all kinds of meat, obviously.

I found an interesting statement from a Dr. James Dickson

I doubt that there are any meaningful differences in nutritional value between ground beef and lean finely textured beef. Both have approximately equal amounts of protein, roughly 17-18% of total weight. There was one report that showed that lean finely textured beef had more collagen than beef chuck, but the lean finely textured beef was not compared to ground beef or even ground chuck, but was compared to whole muscle chuck which was trimmed on all fat and connective tissue, which would have eliminated the collagen. It is hard to find data on how much collagen might be present in ground beef, and not surprisingly, the numbers vary considerably based on the composition of the ground beef and what it is made from. On the high end, the percent collagen as percent of total protein is roughly the same between lean finely textured beef and ground beef.

http://www.bestfoodfacts.org/food-for-thought/poll_pinkslime
http://www.ans.iastate.edu/faculty/index.php?id=jdickson

 

[GlennB]

You sound just like Zeus and all those pesky ingrates that call themselves "gods". I send them a nice tasty present of skin, fat and gristle and wind up chained to a mountainside for my trouble.

Stop whining. Me, my ancient teeth are getting too fragile to chomp on the pure joy of pork crackling without fear of an expensive visit to the dentist.

Crispy, fatty skin from a leg of lamb is a different beastie however. Chicken skin too. Mmmmm. I'm a huge fan of liver, btw.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why are you acting like we haven't been over this before? Insoluble protein does not equal connective tissue. Your reasoning for saying it has 70% connective tissue is completely bunk. So regular beef has 30% connective tissue? Why aren't you up in arms about that? You're not making any sense or explaining what the study means because you don't understand it.

There is collagen and in all kinds of meat, obviously.

I found an interesting statement from a Dr. James Dickson

Company propaganda is not valid evidence and your link does not go to the analysis. One way to show if the claim is true the comparison was not to real burger, is to look at the fat content of the ground chuck.

 

[Joey McGee]

Collagen is present in all meat, still has nutritional value, etc etc, all in all, Sebranek (Dickson is his colleague at the University) is in the lawsuit saying that the conclusions that are being drawn from his study aren't true so, hey, try and make hay alllll you want

 

[Joey McGee]

Company propaganda is not valid evidence and your link does not go to the analysis. One way to show if the claim is true the comparison was not to real burger, is to look at the fat content of the ground chuck.

What? The comment is the public opinion of the colleage of the author of the study, the links go to where he made the comment, and who he is... oh my lord....

Hey OK this is epically stupid and pointless, see you all when the case is over! (I hope they don't settle too early and spoil the fun )

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sigh, why I bother is beyond me. If it was the same as burger why don't they sell LFTB alone? Here's an example of why that stuff from the company is propaganda:

According to the company in your link, "the beef trimmings enter a de-sinewer in which cartilage, connective tissue, and other pieces that may incidentally accompany the trimmings are removed.

So, that conveniently sounds like just the muscle was left.


But when that little distortion is inconvenient, suddenly the analysis of their product was unfairly compared to "ground chuck muscle."
The analysis.

Ground chuck doesn't need the trim around it to be hamburger. Ground chuck is very commonly what hamburger is made from. You can't trim the fat and connective tissue out from within the meat.
The chuck contains a lot of connective tissue, including collagen, which partially melts during cooking. Meat from the chuck is usually used for stewing, slow cooking, braising, or pot roasting.

 

[Joey McGee]

Sigh, why I bother is beyond me.

Probably because you're heavily emotionally invested in your belief that they ripped you off and now ties into your identity.

If it was the same as burger why don't they sell LFTB alone?

Because it's "finely textured", extremely lean, so the same aspect that makes it improve texture and quality when mixed with fatty burger would make it not stick together and be too different from standard burger to be useful. The economics and practicality is that it is added to fattier burger meat. Of course, you already know this, and that it would be my answer, you just really like this line in your argument!

Here's an example of why that stuff from the company is propaganda:

LOL, what you call their "propaganda" is literally what they are basing their entire court case on, this exact claim! What they will be doing in order to recover a billion dollars is proving that this claim is wrong in court, so they are lying or bluffing in court documents and planning on basing their entire court case on a lie... hmmmm since they are backed up by the majority of experts and the USDA on this claim I am going with "not propaganda"

According to the company in your link, "the beef trimmings enter a de-sinewer in which cartilage, connective tissue, and other pieces that may incidentally accompany the trimmings are removed.

So, that conveniently sounds like just the muscle was left.


But when that little distortion is inconvenient, suddenly the analysis of their product was unfairly compared to "ground chuck muscle."
The analysis.

Ground chuck doesn't need the trim around it to be hamburger. Ground chuck is very commonly what hamburger is made from. You can't trim the fat and connective tissue out from within the meat.
The chuck contains a lot of connective tissue, including collagen, which partially melts during cooking. Meat from the chuck is usually used for stewing, slow cooking, braising, or pot roasting.

Wow! You are trying to pull a "Gotcha!" here because you're incredibly out of your depth, have no experts on your side to explain things, and the expert who wrote the study (and his colleague from the same university) you are trying to use to prove your point disagree with you!

It seems pretty obvious to me that when they say "connective tissues" are removed by the desinewers and other processes, they are not claiming to remove the collagen from within the meat... the are instead referring to tendons etc.

When BPI wins when this central claim is proven in court and we have the documents here, I wonder what you'll claim then?

 

[Beerina]

You keep ignoring that the unwanted bits are separated out by centrifuge. But if you still want to quibble, cartilage, connective tissue and collagen are all nutritious and tasty in their own right. They can't be served normally because they are very tough and have an unpleasant texture--until they're ground into "finely textured" form. Any decent chef knows this, these are the bits that are slowly simmered to give high-end stock, aspic or demi glace their superior flavour. Pink slime should absolutely be sold directly to the consumer. If I could buy it retail at all, I'd be sure to never run out.

I've read recipes for chili that swear up and down it's the connective tissue that gives a big umami kick, and that you want to cook it all day, if not overnight or 24 hours, to break it down. They claim you want to get lots of joints with tissue and boil them forever.