Pink Slime

[Joey McGee]

All that you ask evidence of is in the thread.

You made that exact claim about 20 times over the last week and this thread is the size of a large book. And you recently accused someone of a dodge!? Ohhhh that's rich! If such a claim by the company really existed, it would take you about one minute to find it, less time than it took you to read the several requests for that evidence and reply that you're too lazy to look for it. ha! It doesn't exist, I would know, have read the entire thread... you want to send them on a wild goose chase!

Seriously dude, this is a reanimated carcass of a dead discussion.

Seems like you just wish you stayed out of it this time around lol

There's a lawsuit Joey reanimated the thing with, but the debate ran it's course.

Crazy old Joey! Just obsessed with that pink goo! lol it was Puppycow and then you who posted in this thread first!

Joey has resentment the industry he was somehow connected to or interested in suffered.

lol wut? I am first and foremost disgusted by the smug ******** who ran around spreading provably false claims with glee and then patted themselves on the back when these people lost their jobs as if it was proof they were right! It's a sad commentary on media and modern life, this is the kind of thing that makes modern life so pathetic and weak, that people are so easily fooled and everyone has to be paranoid of lies being spread.

 

[Joey McGee]

It's "sort of" true. Production of Desinewed Meat (DSM) was not exactly banned, but in the UK at least was suspended after EU action. DSM, as I understand it, is produced by putting bones - and their attached meat scraps - through a machine that grinds away the meat remains. Google images on desinewing machine will give you an idea how it works.

Another google on eu desinewed meat will return more information, including how the EU differentiates between DSM and MSM (mechanically separated meat). Briefly, MSM is a paste produced in high-pressure processes while DSM is produced in a low-pressure process and retains its fibrous nature.

Not "sort of", there are restrictions on completely different processes for reasons that have nothing to do with the product and it's technology. The statement "LFTB is banned in Europe" is completely false.

And even if it were true, American meat is mostly banned in Europe because they are petrified of the growth hormones used. Best evidence is no threat to human health so really, as has been said in other circles lately, **** the EU.

 

[tyr_13]

It's "sort of" true. Production of Desinewed Meat (DSM) was not exactly banned, but in the UK at least was suspended after EU action. DSM, as I understand it, is produced by putting bones - and their attached meat scraps - through a machine that grinds away the meat remains. Google images on desinewing machine will give you an idea how it works.

Another google on eu desinewed meat will return more information, including how the EU differentiates between DSM and MSM (mechanically separated meat). Briefly, MSM is a paste produced in high-pressure processes while DSM is produced in a low-pressure process and retains its fibrous nature.

Thanks for the information. It however doesn't appear to be the basis for any 'ban' on the pink slime production technique. Maybe it is, but again, I'm having trouble confirming that.

I'm guessing this might be one of those 'no one has thought to try' things, so there is no good answer on how those rules might be applied.

 

[GlennB]

Thanks for the information. It however doesn't appear to be the basis for any 'ban' on the pink slime production technique. Maybe it is, but again, I'm having trouble confirming that.

It isn't quite the same product, basically, as DSM appears to be sourced entirely from fragments of meat left on bones, while LFTB also includes loose scraps plus it goes through other processes. I say "also" because desinewing has been mentioned here re LFTB. But that's just my guess.

 

[Prometheus]

All that you ask evidence of is in the thread. Seriously dude, this is a reanimated carcass of a dead discussion. There's a lawsuit Joey reanimated the thing with, but the debate ran it's course.

I've read this thread from beginning to end and clicked on every link in it. I cannot remember having seen the specific claim I highlighted above made by an actual official industry source. If it's too much bother for you to go back and find a specific citation, then fair enough; I don't want to go searching for it either. I have seen official industry sources make dissimilar claims, so for now I'm going with giving the industry benefit of the doubt. It doesn't really matter one way or another to my position anyway though. I'd be fine if "beef" were legally defined as "anything edible that comes from a cow".

Thank you for putting the effort into running that test BTW. I apologize if my opinions upset you in any way.

 

[GlennB]

I'd be fine if "beef" were legally defined as "anything edible that comes from a cow".

That's a perfectly reasonable stance for an individual to hold, but I'd suggest that most everyday folks wouldn't consider cow lungs/peritoneal membrane/finely macerated hide to be "beef"

 

[Draca]

Small piece of good news. Cargill is going to go ahead and label LFTB.

Still, I would like to see it be a law that it be labeled and it helps your average person at the grocery store very little if it is not. It's just a gamble on what you are buying. A failure by government to protect and inform people. Better to buy organic, grass fed if possible.

http://www.theeagle.com/landandlivestockpost/article_5cb026d1-427d-5d89-aa66-b4773dd80f0e.html

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've read this thread from beginning to end and clicked on every link in it. I cannot remember having seen the specific claim I highlighted above made by an actual official industry source. If it's too much bother for you to go back and find a specific citation, then fair enough; I don't want to go searching for it either. I have seen official industry sources make dissimilar claims, so for now I'm going with giving the industry benefit of the doubt. It doesn't really matter one way or another to my position anyway though. I'd be fine if "beef" were legally defined as "anything edible that comes from a cow".

Thank you for putting the effort into running that test BTW. I apologize if my opinions upset you in any way.

I'm not upset, I'm bored with a debate that has run it's course and someone brought in a bunch of dead horses to beat some more.

I do find your posts at least rational. But is this really a relevant nitpick? The company, like the majority of producers, puts out very misleading information, interchanging the words beef and meat in a very careful way. The product is beef. That cannot be argued. That is where claiming, because it comes from the cow, it is beef, comes in.

If they continually referred to the product as 'meat' there would be more people saying, wait a minute, what 'meat' is in it? Less than 23% is muscle meat. But by focusing on the fact it is beef because it comes from the cow, and limiting the references to meat, less suspicion is aroused.

Going back over the start of this:

It's the argument they made to the USDA to be exempt from having to label the product and it's the argument Joey makes. However, where do you draw the line? Some of that trim is likely all tendon and fat with no muscle meat whatsoever.

Could you please provide a citation. I've not seen anything like that. And some of any given pound of any ground beef is connective tissue and fat. Do you have any idea what percentage of LFTB is such?

Re the last question, the analysis found 77% insoluble protein (connective tissue) compared to 30% ground chuck. The argument trimmed ground chuck has less connective tissue than hamburger made from untrimmed ground chuck was put forth in the industry response to the evidence. If the LFTB industry is so certain, why not analyze some random hamburger from the grocery store and prove it?

Chuck is marbled with connective tissue, that's why cuts of chuck are ground up or roasted. They'd be too tough if not.

For the 'comes from the cow so it's beef', the problem is substituting "meat" for "beef". The USDA has a definition of 'meat' that the makers of LFTB wanted and got their product to be labeled as.

Here's a look at the industry propaganda which makes several false claims (what else is new) in this Beef is beef material.

LEAN FINELY TEXTURED BEEF: 100% BEEF

Lean Finely Textured Beef, or LFTB, is 100% beef.

But is it 100% meat? They aren't claiming it is meat here, they are claiming it comes from the cow.

It is very lean meat, typically 93-97% lean.

They call it 'meat' here. But it is not lean muscle, it is everything next to the muscle minus most of the fat.

trimmings from sirloins, ribeyes and other whole muscle cuts of beef

Like it's high quality meat no less.

LFTB is the same beef that’s always been used to make ground beef. Same beef, different process.

Yet it is part of the cow that has never been used to make burger before, it is further from the actual muscle meat and has very little muscle meat in it. But it comes from the cow so it is beef.

 

[Joey McGee]

Oh so it's what you imagined they were saying, not what they actually said. Here's what they actually say.

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

Here's another one.

LFTB is lean beef, made from muscle meat

Try reading the lawsuit. Open it up and hit ctrl+F, enter the world "muscle" and read all of the sentences there.

You might still think you can read a study from 17 years ago that you don't understand and call them liars but at least you'll have their claims straight.

insoluble protein (connective tissue)

Nope! Have any supporting evidence for that? Hilarious

 

[ThunderChunky]

Thanks for the information. It however doesn't appear to be the basis for any 'ban' on the pink slime production technique. Maybe it is, but again, I'm having trouble confirming that.

I'm guessing this might be one of those 'no one has thought to try' things, so there is no good answer on how those rules might be applied.

That what I gather too. It's a new technique that would have to seek approval like it did here in the USA.

Mechanically separated meat and dinsinewed meat from ruminants are banned in the EU because of BSE risks. MSM is also banned from human consumption here in the USA. LFTB doesn't use the bones as an ingredient, so it wouldn't be automatically banned.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the record, no one in the thread is arguing to ban the stuff, just to label it as an ingredient.

 

[GlennB]

That what I gather too. It's a new technique that would have to seek approval like it did here in the USA.

Mechanically separated meat and dinsinewed meat from ruminants are banned in the EU because of BSE risks. MSM is also banned from human consumption here in the USA. LFTB doesn't use the bones as an ingredient, so it wouldn't be automatically banned.

Two small points - DSM doesn't have bone as an ingredient, it's simply a source for the scraps.

Secondly, LFTB might be implicitly banned in the EU so you'll never see it mentioned in any explicit ban. For example, the warming and ammonia treatment might be illegal in itself, therefore the subject can never arise.

I started grinding through the EU regs but they're bottomless afaics

 

[ThunderChunky]

Two small points - DSM doesn't have bone as an ingredient, it's simply a source for the scraps.

Secondly, LFTB might be implicitly banned in the EU so you'll never see it mentioned in any explicit ban. For example, the warming and ammonia treatment might be illegal in itself, therefore the subject can never arise.

I started grinding through the EU regs but they're bottomless afaics

I only saw explicit banning of mechanically separated meat from ruminant bones. Bone is still an input for DSM as I understand it, so that may fall under the same regulations, but maybe not. As for LFTB, ammonia is approved in the EU so that clearly cannot be a reason for the supposed ban. I would be surprised if heating or centrifuging would be banned. I suspect that the process is simply not allowed because no one has sought approval.

 

[Joey McGee]

For the record, no one in the thread is arguing to ban the stuff, just to label it as an ingredient.

Everyone is for labeling it, even the companies who make it and sell it.

It can't be required because it is 100% beef, which is muscle. That is USDA policy, I posted it. They would have to change their policy to specify that it can't be beef that is separated with a centrifuge, which everyone realizes would be pointless. That's not why you want it labelled, You want it labelled so people can know they are eating 77% connective tissue, which is completely false, doesn't get you off the hook for anything.

What does Cargill think about labeling finely textured beef?
Because finely textured beef is 100-percent beef, labeling is not required. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, however, has approved the use of labels on a voluntary basis. Cargill has obtained approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to label ground beef that includes finely textured beef.
http://www.cargill.com/news/company-statements/cargill-finely-textured-beef/index.jsp

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So what on earth is the big deal? If you're making the argument that people should be made aware of all of this, I have never been against that. What I'm against is people thinking this is like including poop or eyeballs and that ammonia will kill your children. Or that this product is significantly less healthy than prime meat you ground up from a cow you killed with your bare hands 10 minutes ago. Or that "ground chuck" doesn't have any connective tissues in it at all. That's all wrong.

Everyone is for labeling it, even the companies who make it and sell it.

It can't be required because it is 100% beef, which is muscle. That is USDA policy, I posted it. They would have to change their policy to specify that it can't be beef that is separated with a centrifuge, which everyone realizes would be pointless. That's not why you want it labelled, You want it labelled so people can know they are eating 77% connective tissue, which is completely false, doesn't get you off the hook for anything.

If you add 15% of 77% insoluble protein to hamburger that is 30% insoluble protein you don't get an end product with 77% connective tissue. It's not nice to lie about what people have posted.

You can't find a single post of mine in this thread saying the stuff is eyeballs and poop or that the ammonia process is dangerous. It's not nice to lie about what people have posted.

I want it labeled because I don't like the stuff. It's not nice to lie about what people have posted.

And the claim, "everyone is for labeling it", no they are not. Cargill has decided to label the wholesale product but leaves it up to the retailer to label what the consumer buys.

 

[Joey McGee]

If you add 15% of 77% insoluble protein to hamburger that is 30% insoluble protein you don't get an end product with 77% connective tissue. It's not nice to lie about what people have posted.

LFTB is not 77% connective tissue before they add it in, which is what I am saying, you merely misunderstand me. You don't understand what you're talking about. Why do you ignore what Dickson said about that study? Are you equally as qualified as him? Do you have information that he does not? Even in that study you base your entire belief system on, the "collagen in total protein" is only 27.86%!" How in the world can that be if it is 77% connective tissue?

So you're basing your beliefs on a study you don't understand and drawing conclusions from it the author and his colleague say are incorrect. hmmmm

Plus, this study was done 18 years ago, there are statements in the lawsuit that hint the product is of even higher quality than it was 10 years ago...

You can't find a single post of mine in this thread saying the stuff is eyeballs and poop or that the ammonia process is dangerous. It's not nice to lie about what people have posted.

Now you're just acting ridiculous... I never said that YOU said those things, wow you dug out a post from a year ago that didn't even have you quoted in it to make up this accusation... Are you trying to shut me up or knock me off my high horse or something?

.I want it labeled because I don't like the stuff. It's not nice to lie about what people have posted.

Whatever your reasoning, you still want people to believe that the protein in it doesn't come from muscle meat which is false. When you say you don't like it you explain something like "no wonder, it's mostly connective tissue!" lol. Taste tests show that the vast majority of people prefer it. While there may be some people that don't, I tend to use this as evidence it doesn't make the product worse, coupled with the fact the experts say it's just as nutritious, I'm satisfied.

And the claim, "everyone is for labeling it", no they are not. Cargill has decided to label the wholesale product but leaves it up to the retailer to label what the consumer buys.

While they and BPI have encouraged their buyers to label it, they cannot force them. What everyone is against is the reasoning that it should be labelled differently because it's not muscle meat. Pretty simple.

 

[Joey McGee]

Dr James Dickson is a reputable man.

Dickson says he’s confident LFTB will be back. “At the end of the day, it’s still a good product. It’s still lean muscle tissue

http://beefmagazine.com/beef-quality/what-industry-learned-being-pink-slimed?page=2

The trim used for lean finely textured beef does not have a greater risk of carrying harmful bacteria than the trim used to make ground beef.

http://www.bestfoodfacts.org/food-for-thought/truth_about_pink_slime

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

Hey, when you can't find the answers you're looking for from any expert in the world, I guess you can just make it up!!!

 

[Joey McGee]

"'Pink Slime' Is Making A Comeback. Do You Have A Beef With That?"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...aking-a-comeback-do-you-have-a-beef-with-that

Listen to the upset consumers on the audio, Oh yeah, you guys better get on the horn and let everyone know that stuff you think you saw on TV doesn't look good (the infamous incorrect photo probably? (anyone can quickly verify that it looks virtually identical to regular ground lean..) and that imaginary stuff they weren't putting in the meat at your local store but you still decided not to trust them and have them grind steak. Well two examples of the moral geniuses who are against the product. I laugh at everyone who says there's hide in there, this is James Randi's forum and you're spewing unsupported ******** like that.. hilarious

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

NPR is becoming as diluted as the mainstream news. As usual the 'safety issue' straw man dominates the article and the one mention of Cargill labeling the product doesn't make mention that is only at the wholesaler and not at the retail level.

If these people are so sure their product is desirable, they shouldn't be afraid to put the ingredient on the label!

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Tell that to the anti-GMO people who want all GMO produce labeled. Of course, they only care about certain GMO products, otherwise every single bit of produce would bear the label.