Pink Slime

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Says the person upset over the company's economic loss, jobs lost to the person who only wanted proper labeling.

[snipped]...

The stuff changes the texture. I don't like the texture of burger with LFTB added. Other people noticed the changed texture.

You would like that true fact not to be true.

That other people like burger with LFTB in it and that certain parts of the cow add to the flavor of various preparations does not change the fact I personally do not like the texture of burger that contains LFTB.

All of your arguments go to safety, nutrition and economic damage to the company. You try to claim it doesn't change the burger, but you cannot answer why one cannot eat the stuff without being mixed with the burger.

The company caused their own woes trying to hide this ingredient. Disclosing the ingredient was not the cause of the damage.

 

[Joey McGee]

Says the person upset over the company's economic loss, jobs lost to the person who only wanted proper labeling.

The USDA did not, and still does not, require different labeling because it is still beef. It does not significantly change the final product in any way, so why would they do that? You can't even coherently argue your case that it should be... I'm sticking with the experts and the USDA and the basic facts of the matter on the labeling...

You have repeated a completely false conspiracy theory that one person at the USDA was paid off to allow this. Read the court document. It is not BPI's fault that there was no labeling required... it is a USDA decision based on the evidence. I suppose this conspiracy theory is how you justify feeling like the company had it coming...

I really don't care what your motivations were, the claims you are making are false and they are part of why this horrible modern travesty took place.

The stuff changes the texture. I don't like the texture of burger with LFTB added. Other people noticed the changed texture.

You would like that true fact not to be true.

I really actually just don't care what your anecdote or opinion is because I highly doubt it is as you say.

That other people like burger with LFTB in it and that certain parts of the cow add to the flavor of various preparations does not change the fact I personally do not like the texture of burger that contains LFTB

There have actually been controlled taste tests, I'm going with those...

You try to claim it doesn't change the burger, but you cannot answer why one cannot eat the stuff without being mixed with the burger.

What I'm saying is that it is the same thing, it's beef, and that if anything it improves the ground beef, and of course I have explained why they don't sell it on it's own a dozen times, oh well.

The company caused their own woes trying to hide this ingredient. Disclosing the ingredient was not the cause of the damage.

Yeah, for that theory to be true, you need the theory that BPI paid off the USDA, Good luck ever finding evidence of that! The one you have put forth is clearly insane. Did you actually ever read the court document on that claim or did you just assume it was true when you heard it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It comes from the cow. That doesn't make it beef by most people's definition. You can declare all you want the USDA said it was beef. That doesn't change the fact that, given they can't sell and/or serve 100% LFTB, it is evidence it is not the same. Adding more than 15-20% was not tolerated in the taste tests.
The market is pressuring meat producers to label their product so the USDA is less relevant at this point. We need a new Congress before labeling regulations are going to change.

How the regulation was manipulated is not a CT, the evidence was posted in the thread. You tried to claim the revolving door job only paid ~$60K a year (or whatever the number was). Then I found out it only required the former regulator who influenced the ruling to work 4 days/year for that money.

The change in texture is well established. I'm not saying they shouldn't sell it. I'm saying I don't like it and want to know that from the label, not from trial and error in my kitchen.

 

[Joey McGee]

It comes from the cow. That doesn't make it beef by most people's definition. You can declare all you want the USDA said it was beef. That doesn't change the fact that, given they can't sell and/or serve 100% LFTB, it is evidence it is not the same. Adding more than 15-20% was not tolerated in the taste tests.

lol you felt the need to bold and highlight your own words?

Uhm, did you ever wonder why it's called lean finely textured beef? It's still lean beef, it's just finely textured, which is why it's different, which is why they can only use so much effectively. Not because it's full of hide and tendons as your asinine claims assume...

The market is pressuring meat producers to label their product so the USDA is less relevant at this point. We need a new Congress before labeling regulations are going to change.

lol that's pretty delusional, they aren't going to be able to lobby the change of reality, and it's a fat chance they are going to reverse a factual decision... but there's always hope!

How the regulation was manipulated is not a CT, the evidence was posted in the thread. You tried to claim the revolving door job only paid ~$60K a year (or whatever the number was). Then I found out it only required the former regulator who influenced the ruling to work 4 days/year for that money.

It's clearly a conspiracy theory. I think it's super funny you won't even read the court document in regards to Smith because then you'd realize how stupid these claims are. Here, I'll give you a tip. Open the file, then hit ctrl+f to "find" type in smith, and then hit next and read each section until no more results are found. Your conspiracy theory is provably wrong...

The change in texture is well established. I'm not saying they shouldn't sell it. I'm saying I don't like it and want to know that from the label, not from trial and error in my kitchen.

lol good luck!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why don't they sell 100% LFTB? I highlighted and bolded it because you keep ignoring it.

Are you seriously claiming the name the manufacturer made up for the product proves it is beef? By your definition tripe and beef tongue are also beef. None of your semantic arguments change what the product actually is: not the same as the product they add it to.

Not sure what I need good luck for, I've switched to organic hamburger.

 

[Joey McGee]

Why don't they sell 100% LFTB? I highlighted and bolded it because you keep ignoring it.

I have answered the question lots of times. You are ignoring the answer. You clearly don't know, and have assumed that it's for some nefarious reason, and actually use this as an argument. I really think that's hilarious.

Are you seriously claiming the name the manufacturer made up for the product proves it is beef? By your definition tripe and beef tongue are also beef. None of your semantic arguments change what the product actually is: not the same as the product they add it to.

No, I'm saying the words "finely textured" are a clue as to why it improves the texture of beef at a certain percentage, and why they don't use it to make hamburger on it's own... Jesus...

No, the USDA does not allow offal and tongue to be included in ground beef, they decided it was allowed to be mixed with ground beef and called the same thing because, *gasp* it comes from the same place in the animal just in places it's hard to cut out with a knife in good time...

Are you really afraid the lawsuit might contain something that's not on the label and are afraid to consume it because you might learn something...

 

[Myriad]

I've switched to organic hamburger.

Whereas, I've stopped eating the stuff altogether. Supermarket or eating out.

There were already plenty of other reasons not to consume it, after all. Environmental costs. Health risks. Angering the Hindu gods.

I don't mind processed foods, if they're honestly labeled. I'd eat re-textured maggot protein if it were available, tasty, and healthy. And honestly labeled.

Not honestly labeled? Stays on the shelves.

 

[Joey McGee]

And honestly labeled.

Not honestly labeled? Stays on the shelves.

When Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) is blended into ground beef, will it be labeled?

Ground beef is a single ingredient product (beef) and LFTB is 100% beef; therefore, it is not required to be listed separately on any label. We believe USDA’s decision to allow companies to voluntarily include information on their packaging regarding LFTB content is an important step in restoring consumer confidence in their ground beef.

BPI has strongly and publicly supported the USDA’s decision to allow companies to voluntarily include information on their packaging regarding LFTB content. Beef Products was the first company to publicly support the USDA’s decision; we were also the first to encourage our customers to exercise this option. We feel by exercising this option, companies can continue to provide a lean, safe, and nutritious lean beef product to an informed customer base. We want all consumers to have confidence in their ground beef choices.

http://beefisbeef.com/lftb-faq

 

[phunk]

So really, what they want on a label is some kind of rating of how finely it's ground?

 

[Myriad]

Allow me to address your confusion. The passage you quoted poses the question "will it be labeled?" and then uses a lot of words to answer "probably not."

Ergo, not honestly labeled, in any reliable way.

On this same thread long ago I made the comparison with labeling of fruit juices when they are "from concentrate." Removing water and putting it back in doesn't do much to the juice, and I can't tell the difference, but when I buy it I might be planning to serve it to people who can. Therefore, I appreciate the ability to choose between reconstituted and (usually more expensive) not-from-concentrate options. Only the reliable labeling makes that informed choice possible.

 

[Joey McGee]

So really, what they want on a label is some kind of rating of how finely it's ground?

Not exactly, they want to know the difference between beef that has been separated from trimmings with a knife or a centrifuge.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not exactly, they want to know the difference between beef that has been separated from trimmings with a knife or a centrifuge.

You left out the ammonia, the fact all the centrifuge removes is melted fat not the tendons and gristle, and that the trimmings are separated initially with a knife. Someone just developed a process to use all the scraps on the floor previously too crappy to include.

Keep it up, you've not made a valid case against honest labeling because you can't. I can tell the difference in burger with and without this stuff. Other people can tell the difference.

All the foot stamping in the world claiming it is beef is not going to change the FACT it is different from regular hamburger, and that difference is not what you claim.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So really, what they want on a label is some kind of rating of how finely it's ground?

Lean finely textured beef is to actual beef what cheese food is to cheese, a made up name by the industry to mislead the consumer.

 

[Joey McGee]

Allow me to address your confusion. The passage you quoted poses the question "will it be labeled?" and then uses a lot of words to answer "probably not."

Ergo, not honestly labeled, in any reliable way.

It is honestly labelled because it is 100% ground beef. Do you have evidence that it is not 100% beef? I am sure that you don't.

My point is that they have gone out of their way to voluntarily have it labelled. Cargill and other companies have announced that they will start labeling it. Will you buy the labelled Cargill products? There is nothing dishonest here in the slightest...

The USDA isn't in the business of labeling for every single aspect of the details of a product. They are in the business of labeling for a what a product physically is.

Here is a response they wrote to someone seeking comment

LFTB—which is meat, not filler—is derived from a process that separates fatty pieces from beef trimmings to reduce the overall fat content.

Although this labeling is not required, some producers provide information on the label on how the animal used to derive the product was raised. Others provide information on the label on whether the product contains LFTB.

As for ingredient labeling, FSIS regulations require that all ingredients be declared in descending order of predominance in the product’s ingredient statement. Furthermore, FSIS regulations require that ground beef “consist of chopped fresh and/or frozen beef with or without seasoning and without the addition of beef fat as such, shall not contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not contain added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders” (Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 319.15(a)). Ground beef product is 100 percent beef that may contain seasonings.

http://jackassletters.com/main/secretary_of_agriculture_tom_vilsack

...

On this same thread long ago I made the comparison with labeling of fruit juices when they are "from concentrate." Removing water and putting it back in doesn't do much to the juice, and I can't tell the difference, but when I buy it I might be planning to serve it to people who can. Therefore, I appreciate the ability to choose between reconstituted and (usually more expensive) not-from-concentrate options. Only the reliable labeling makes that informed choice possible.

Not a proper analogy to the product. If you were talking about the difference between oranges that were separated from the rind by a knife or a centrifuge, I could see your point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Beef tongue is 100% beef, so is tripe. Your argument fails on relevance.

 

[Joey McGee]

You left out the ammonia

Actually the USDA approved LFTB 8 years before they approved the ammonia process. And that has a completely negligible effect on the safety or quality of the product. Except in people's imagination, like Jamie Oliver's, lol

the fact all the centrifuge removes is melted fat not the tendons and gristle

where are you getting this misinformation from? any tendons are removed before it arrives or as backup in the disinewer. Do you think they don't have a disinewer? Do you think disinewers don't exist? Do you think they have one but just don't use it? Do you think they have them and use it but dinsewers are a pseudoscientific product? Are disinewers ineffective or unreliable products? Please you seem to know much more than myself on this matter, you must know.

and that the trimmings are separated initially with a knife. Someone just developed a process to use all the scraps on the floor previously too crappy to include.

As every qualified expert and the USDA has stated, there is nothing "crappy" about trimmings. They weren't too "crappy" to include, do you have evidence for their low-quality? Or fecal contamination? I assume not. No they previously weren't used because it would take more man hours to cut the meat out of the fat than they could make by selling it. Have you ever seen someone cut a cow apart with a knife? These experts move extremely fast and are highly trained and paid...

Keep it up, you've not made a valid case against honest labeling because you can't. I can tell the difference in burger with and without this stuff. Other people can tell the difference.

Uhm, I haven't made an argument that you've agreed with, this much is true! OK SG if all you want is validation I accept that you believe there is a significant negative change in eating experience, I've noted this as an anecdotal belief by a few people.

All the foot stamping in the world claiming it is beef is not going to change the FACT it is different from regular hamburger, and that difference is not what you claim.

Yeah the facts are that it's better in every way! Thanks!

 

[ThunderChunky]

You left out the ammonia, the fact all the centrifuge removes is melted fat not the tendons and gristle, and that the trimmings are separated initially with a knife. Someone just developed a process to use all the scraps on the floor previously too crappy to include.

Keep it up, you've not made a valid case against honest labeling because you can't. I can tell the difference in burger with and without this stuff. Other people can tell the difference.

All the foot stamping in the world claiming it is beef is not going to change the FACT it is different from regular hamburger, and that difference is not what you claim.

There's already different types of hamburger based on the fat percentage, cut of beef used, the type of cattle, and even how the cow was raised. People who know what they want can go for the thing labeled the way they want it. Mandatory labels requiring every type of beef to be individualized is a bit silly. As long as the FDA allows small amounts of ammonia to be used as treatment in foods, there is no reason to single out beef as the one food that must be specifically labeled. Honest labels are what is important, then the consumer can decide. If something just says "ground beef" that can encompass the whole spectrum of ground beef without being misleading or dishonest. If something says "from 100% grassfed angus sirloin," well that better be made from the sirloin cut of 100% grassfed angus cows.

 

[Prometheus]

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?

Since when is tongue not muscle? As for the others, they are delicacies which deserve their own names, but I would have no problem at all with having them added to ground beef. In the case of brains, I'd actually pay extra for the finished product if I knew they were in there. Them's yummy! I don't ask the supermarket butcher which cuts have gone in to the ground beef I normally by, because I don't care. If they sell me product that I don't like the taste or texture of, then I won't buy it again. If I want to have my burgers made out of particular cuts, as I mentioned above I sometimes do, then I'll buy those cuts and either grind them myself or ask the butcher to do it for me (they will do so on request, you know).

 

[Joey McGee]

Beef tongue is 100% beef, so is tripe. Your argument fails on relevance.

Words really can't convey the amount of facepalm I am experiencing at this point. You are either trolling, or something far more depressing.

Subject: Clarification of "Meat" Definition in Chopped Beef, Ground Beef or Hamburger
ISSUE: What ingredients, defined as meat in the regulations (301.2 (tt)), may be utilized in preparing chopped beef, ground beef or hamburger (319.15(a) and (b))?
POLICY: Beef of skeletal origin, or from the diaphragm or esophagus (weasand) may be used in the preparation of chopped beef, ground beef or hamburger. Heart meat and tongue meat, as organ meats, are not acceptable ingredients in chopped beef, ground beef or hamburger.
RATIONALE: Historically organ meats such as heart meat and tongue meat have not been permitted as ingredients in chopped beef, ground beef or hamburger. Heart meat and tongue meat have never been considered as beef or permitted to be declared as beef on labels and are not expected ingredients in chopped beef, ground beef or hamburger.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/larc/Policies/Policy_Memos_082005.pdf

Did you really think that the USDA allows tongue or tendons in what they call "ground beef" and that there was some heinous twisting of words being pulled off on you? That's really ********** up.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's already different types of hamburger based on the fat percentage, cut of beef used, the type of cattle, and even how the cow was raised. People who know what they want can go for the thing labeled the way they want it. Mandatory labels requiring every type of beef to be individualized is a bit silly. As long as the FDA allows small amounts of ammonia to be used as treatment in foods, there is no reason to single out beef as the one food that must be specifically labeled. Honest labels are what is important, then the consumer can decide. If something just says "ground beef" that can encompass the whole spectrum of ground beef without being misleading or dishonest. If something says "from 100% grassfed angus sirloin," well that better be made from the sirloin cut of 100% grassfed angus cows.

Type of beef? Really? No reason to single this stuff out? That's what you think this is about?

Next time you are buying steak in the supermarket, see if you think there should be something on the package that distinguishes between round steak and filet mignon on the label.