Pink Slime [Archive] - Page 4

Furcifer

3rd May 2012, 10:15 AM

Where's your analysis of other cuts of ground beef? You don't have any. You only have your claim that there must be cuts that match LBT because you believe it to make sense.

That's not true, the studies have been cited in this thread. The change in fat content as it affects flavor, texture and of course "chewiness" has been cited. It's just a matter of critical thinking to see how it applies to cuts of meat. A round steak has very little fat, and very little connective tissue. Ground round is less flavorful and drier than regular ground by comparison. The studies support this, despite many people feeling ground round is better because it's higher quality.

All the information is here, it just hasn't been spoonfed to you as per your demand.

As for the wheat/corn claim, I've now compared grass fed with corn fed and neither had the texture problem. Where's your evidence that a different diet change in SOME cattle that happens to coincide with prepackaged grocery burger and not with in store ground burger is a fact? I posted links to the fact LBT was ubiquitous in the store burger I found distasteful and not in the store ground stuff I'd been buying that was OK.

Chicken eggs, I was talking about chicken eggs.

I don't know how corn or wheat fed beef changes the ground specifically, but I know how milk fed changes it. It's bland.

Marcus

3rd May 2012, 10:42 AM

Yeah, but that's not what I'm claiming here. Of course if people just categorize any suggested hypothesis as 'must be making the causation/correlation fallacy' without actually looking at the observations and hypothesis and the lack of alternative hypotheses and the fact a test is planned to confirm or refute the hypothesis.... well maybe you see where I'm going here with a poorly thought out dismissal of an analysis.
A key element of your hypothesis is that LFTB came into use at the same time as you started noticing a texture difference, the two were linked. I don't see any compelling reason to believe that the two events are linked, especially since it appears that there could actually be a decade seperating the two.

I'm not at all surprised you are planning a test, I already know you are a skeptic . I just think you might have made some hasty assumptions on this one with regards to correlation and the value of your own anecdotes.

Since this seems to be a skeptics thread, not a woo in sight, I also believe that everyone here, including yourself, will accept the results of a properly designed test.

Silly Green Monkey

3rd May 2012, 10:48 AM

My mistake, it's not necessarily confirmation bias at play here. It's correlation and causation.

You have correlated bad texture with LBTB, but that's as far as you can take it-----causation is not something you can claim.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 11:14 AM

That's not true, the studies have been cited in this thread. The change in fat content as it affects flavor, texture and of course "chewiness" has been cited. It's just a matter of critical thinking to see how it applies to cuts of meat. A round steak has very little fat, and very little connective tissue. Ground round is less flavorful and drier than regular ground by comparison. The studies support this, despite many people feeling ground round is better because it's higher quality.You are not addressing what I said.

Where is an analysis comparing LBT to other ground cuts of burger? Where is an analysis of any other cut of burger at all showing something similar to LBT?

All you are doing is claiming because some things differ from ground burger to ground burger they therefore also include some ground cuts that are the same or close to LBT. But you only have your insistence. You have no analysis.

Both your 'burger just differs' and 'it's a cattle diet change' are not hypotheses supported with anything but your declarations. In addition, neither hypothesis explains the timing of the texture change nor the fact burgers known to be without LBT tastes fine.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 11:16 AM

Daald

3rd May 2012, 11:22 AM

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 11:24 AM

A key element of your hypothesis is that LFTB came into use at the same time as you started noticing a texture difference, the two were linked. I don't see any compelling reason to believe that the two events are linked, especially since it appears that there could actually be a decade seperating the two.

I'm not at all surprised you are planning a test, I already know you are a skeptic . I just think you might have made some hasty assumptions on this one with regards to correlation and the value of your own anecdotes.

Since this seems to be a skeptics thread, not a woo in sight, I also believe that everyone here, including yourself, will accept the results of a properly designed test.After hearing about the LBT I looked at the timeline and history of its introduction into the hamburger market as well as which stores were using it.

Over time, after getting burger that had the bad texture (believe me the stuff unmistakably grosses me out and was noticeable) I would buy a different brand and avoid buying what had previously had the bad texture. Then another brand would have it and another until I found over a period of time that only fresh ground burger at Whole Foods was left that reliably did not have the awful texture.

In this thread there are links to the stores, like Safeway and QFC, where I shop disclosing they had been using LBT in their meat but would move to stop using it. In addition, Beef, Inc., which was responsible for more than half the LBT produced, had news reports of their growing industry. All of that coincided with which burger I had found with the texture.

The point is, there is no hasty assumption here.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 11:33 AM

SG,

Sorry but I don't want to read any more of this discussion and I would just like to ask if you ran the test and what the results were. As a matter of fact if you have not run the test yet, I would like to see a new thread or at least a PM since I will try to avoid this thread.

To the other participants in the thread:

She is going to test her hypothesis which is head and shoulders above what anyone else is doing. Let her test and then we can bicker when the results come in.....okay?The leader of our Skeptic's at the Pub group agreed we could do the test at our meeting. But I am trying to work out the details.

None of the burger with LBT is labeled. I do now have a source of prepackaged burger without LBT. Someone said it might be labeled at Walmart and I've not been there yet.

Then we have the food handling issue. We meet in a pub that serves food. They'll have to agree it doesn't violate any food handling laws. I may have to serve the burger cooked but cold rather than hot since it's easier to keep food cold than hot. I'm pretty sure I can't cook it at the pub itself. But cold or hot it will still be comparable samples. I'm working on those issues.

We couldn't get it done by the April meeting. The May meeting is the 17th so I'm aiming for that date.

Furcifer

3rd May 2012, 11:49 AM

You are not addressing what I said.

Where is an analysis comparing LBT to other ground cuts of burger? Where is an analysis of any other cut of burger at all showing something similar to LBT?

Where's your data showing arsenic added to ground beef makes it bad? Are you saying because I can't cite a study showing conclusively the addition of arsenic is bad it's possible it might be good?

That's not skepticism, that's poor critical thinking.

All you are doing is claiming because some things differ from ground burger to ground burger they therefore also include some ground cuts that are the same or close to LBT. But you only have your insistence. You have no analysis.

Likewise I don't have any studies on the addition of Borax to ground beef. And yet I'm 100% certain it's not a good thing.

Both your 'burger just differs' and 'it's a cattle diet change' are not hypotheses supported with anything but your declarations. In addition, neither hypothesis explains the timing of the texture change nor the fact burgers known to be without LBT tastes fine.

The declarations are supported in logic. LBT contains high concentrations of connective tissue and fat, when mixed with lean beef and ground the product is no different than "regular" ground beef with high concentrations of fat and connective tissue, aside from the connective tissue being processed in LBT to me more tender.

Your hypothesis is accounted for in the above "observation". The above observation suggests that not only LBT can account for your own "observation".

"taste" means very little IMO because it is a highly subjective term. That being said all the studies cited clearly suggest fat is more of a determination in "taste" and increased fat, as found in LBT products, "tastes" better, contrary to your claim.

Furcifer

3rd May 2012, 11:58 AM

To the other participants in the thread:

She is going to test her hypothesis which is head and shoulders above what anyone else is doing. Let her test and then we can bicker when the results come in.....okay?

I think it's going to take some bickering to get SG to conduct the most objective test possible. I'm geniuinely interested in her test or I wouldn't bother. Despite her objections I know SG is going to take away some positives from this discussion and apply it to her test.

(I was going to say something about women not being able to grill a good burger with or without LBT, but I decided not to) :boxedin:

Marcus

3rd May 2012, 11:59 AM

The leader of our Skeptic's at the Pub group agreed we could do the test at our meeting. But I am trying to work out the details.

It won't be easy. The samples w and w/o LFTB should have the same fat content, otherwise you are just proving that fat tastes good, which we already know. Then there are variations between brands and batches of ground beef. Perhaps you could get several different brands of each type and mix them together to try to minimize the variations.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 12:17 PM

It won't be easy. The samples w and w/o LFTB should have the same fat content, otherwise you are just proving that fat tastes good, which we already know. Then there are variations between brands and batches of ground beef. Perhaps you could get several different brands of each type and mix them together to try to minimize the variations.Fat content is the easiest thing to match. The biggest problem is getting beef we know for sure has LBT in it.

The thing about this particular texture is it is very distinct. It's not about the cut of meat ground or fat content. I keep trying to tell people if that was the issue it wouldn't have started and spread a few years ago. It would have been something that I experienced off and on over the years.

So I plan to ask about texture but in a way that doesn't call attention to that specific observation.

BTW now there are 6 people total (me plus 5 others) that have noticed the texture change in burger according to the poll thread. There are also 3 people who may have noticed the change depending on if the burger they buy which is fresh ground has the additive mixed in. It could. There was nothing that would have prevented a store from doing that. Or, it could be the three people represent a baseline of people who would notice a change not from LBT.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 12:21 PM

I think it's going to take some bickering to get SG to conduct the most objective test possible. I'm geniuinely interested in her test or I wouldn't bother. Despite her objections I know SG is going to take away some positives from this discussion and apply it to her test.

(I was going to say something about women not being able to grill a good burger with or without LBT, but I decided not to) :boxedin:Let's see, the positives?

I'm happy with myself not caving to the badgering and I'm confident I am applying the scientific process despite the false assumptions being applied to my comments.

I'm happy there are a couple people in the thread who actually aren't responding to that slew of imagined assumptions.

:D

Furcifer

3rd May 2012, 12:59 PM

Let's see, the positives?

I'm happy with myself not caving to the badgering and I'm confident I am applying the scientific process despite the false assumptions being applied to my comments.

I'm happy there are a couple people in the thread who actually aren't responding to that slew of imagined assumptions.

:D

"Mmm, you can actually taste the persecution in the LBT burgers" :p

There are a lot of good suggestions coming out of this and I thnk if you take them into account you could prove your hypothesis. I just don't think you realize you've got to prove the FDA wrong, because essentially what they said was "Meh, close enough" and you're saying "Not even close". That's no small feat.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 01:01 PM

If I take them into account? :rolleyes:

Found any analyses yet of those different burger grinds?

As for proving the FDA wrong? Are you serious? They haven't made any claims that the texture wouldn't be affected by the additive. If that's your rationale here for claiming LBT doesn't affect texture you might want to watch out for bridges for sale.

Howie Felterbush

3rd May 2012, 01:35 PM

Around 9 years ago I started noticing increased bloating and gassiness whenever I indulged in spicy tuna roll, which often led to increased pukiness whenever I hammered the sake. I chalked it up to getting older and falling apart at the time, but now I know there was a more nefarious reason... RED SLIME...

Don't you hate it when you eat a bunch of sushi and get drunk on sake and then when you puke, the seaweed wrapper comes back up and it looks like you ate a roll of electrical tape?

I know I do.

Furcifer

3rd May 2012, 02:25 PM

If I take them into account? :rolleyes:
We will see, we will see.

Found any analyses yet of those different burger grinds?

It's all been cited upthread, what do you mean exactly?

As for proving the FDA wrong? Are you serious? They haven't made any claims that the texture wouldn't be affected by the additive. If that's your rationale here for claiming LBT doesn't affect texture you might want to watch out for bridges for sale.

The FDA has basically said your "observation" is all in your head. I concur, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility. Geesh, I'm basically giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm putting you in the top 97th percentile of people that might notice if it's even remotely possible.

Do you acknowledge that most people wouldn't notice the change in a side by side comparison?

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 03:19 PM

...It's all been cited upthread, what do you mean exactly?All you've cited is your opinion why burger varies. You haven't produced any analysis of burger showing any of it, no matter how variable, has a fibrous protein composition anything like the analysis of LBT.

..The FDA has basically said your "observation" is all in your head. .. Assumes facts not in evidence. Allowing a process or a filler to be added to hamburger without labeling was the result of industry lobbying, not as a result of any FDA determination LBT was indistinguishable from hamburger. All the FDA determined was LBT was probably safe. If the FDA determined LBT was the same, producers should be able to sell 100% LBT labeled as burger.

.Do you acknowledge that most people wouldn't notice the change in a side by side comparison?No. Why would I do that before the test?

tyr_13

3rd May 2012, 03:23 PM

tyr_13 claims that my taste in burgers changing with age explains all the observations, but it doesn't explain why the burger that happened not to have LBT in it still tastes fine. And now I've compared prepackaged corn-fed with fresh ground grass-fed both without LBT in it and both tasted fine.

Rustypouch complains shouting wasn't necessary while the point, "all" observations, continues to go unaddressed with the exception of tyr_13 whose hypothesis didn't really address all the observations.

What observation doesn't my hypothesis explain? It does explain why the other burger happened to still taste fine and it's in your own summery. Happened. You have zero evidence that it was because of the LBT besides current confirmation bias which of course isn't evidence of anything besides your own view.

You got more picky in burgers and now that you've decided you 'know' why, the effect will manifest. It is a plausible explanation even if you don't like it. So again, what observation doesn't it (along with the standard confirmation bias, placebo effect, etc) explain?

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 03:34 PM

What observation doesn't my hypothesis explain? It does explain why the other burger happened to still taste fine and it's in your own summery. Happened. You have zero evidence that it was because of the LBT besides current confirmation bias which of course isn't evidence of anything besides your own view.

You got more picky in burgers and now that you've decided you 'know' why, the effect will manifest. It is a plausible explanation even if you don't like it. So again, what observation doesn't it (along with the standard confirmation bias, placebo effect, etc) explain?I have zero evidence and your hypothesis fits all the observations? Let's see.

Observation 1: burger texture changed a number of years ago.

Observation 2: the timing of LBT introduction into the market coincides with the texture change observation.

Observation 3: in all my decades of eating hamburger, until LBT was added to burger, I never tasted the disagreeable texture.

Observation 4: there is still burger that I find OK, again, before I ever heard of LBT. It turns out not to have LBT in it.

Observation 5: the university analysis provides a mechanism explaining the changed texture.

My hypothesis: LBT explains all 5 of these observations.

Your Hypothesis: Taste changes with aging explains these observations. Your hypothesis does not explain #4, especially since I've now found prepackaged burger without LBT that tasted fine to me.

Marcus

3rd May 2012, 03:42 PM

Fat content is the easiest thing to match. The biggest problem is getting beef we know for sure has LBT in it.

The thing about this particular texture is it is very distinct. It's not about the cut of meat ground or fat content. I keep trying to tell people if that was the issue it wouldn't have started and spread a few years ago. It would have been something that I experienced off and on over the years.

So I plan to ask about texture but in a way that doesn't call attention to that specific observation.

BTW now there are 6 people total (me plus 5 others) that have noticed the texture change in burger according to the poll thread. There are also 3 people who may have noticed the change depending on if the burger they buy which is fresh ground has the additive mixed in. It could. There was nothing that would have prevented a store from doing that. Or, it could be the three people represent a baseline of people who would notice a change not from LBT.
A lot will depend on the questions you ask too. Fat will be very important for the question "Which burger tastes better?".

It will be interesting to see which property (if any) correlates with the LFTB burger, "more tender" or "more gristley". I don't see these as compatible.

I suppose you could also ask which burger contains Pink Slime. With the negative connotation intact, will they be able to pick the correct one?

I have much more confidence in a blind test than I do in any number of anecdotes, even those given by skeptics.

ETA: Since LFTB is sometimes used to lower the overall fat content of the meat, perhaps it's percentage is much higher in, say, 6% fat ground beef than in 20%. Just speculating here, but you will need to know the percentage in the meat you use for the test.

tyr_13

3rd May 2012, 03:58 PM

I have zero evidence and your hypothesis fits all the observations? Let's see.

Observation 1: burger texture changed a number of years ago.

Observation 2: the timing of LBT introduction into the market coincides with the texture change observation.

Observation 3: in all my decades of eating hamburger, until LBT was added to burger, I never tasted the disagreeable texture.

Observation 4: there is still burger that I find OK, again, before I ever heard of LBT. It turns out not to have LBT in it.

Observation 5: the university analysis provides a mechanism explaining the changed texture.

My hypothesis: LBT explains all 5 of these observations.

Your Hypothesis: Taste changes with aging explains these observations. Your hypothesis does not explain #4, especially since I've now found prepackaged burger without LBT that tasted fine to me.

Wait, why do you believe my hypothesis doesn't explain the fourth of the listed observations? My idea wasn't that you stopped like burgers at all, but that you stopped like some burgers, and were more selective. The fact that you now like the burger you know doesn't have LBT doesn't need anything more than human bias to explain it.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 04:08 PM

A lot will depend on the questions you ask too. Fat will be very important for the question "Which burger tastes better?".

It will be interesting to see which property (if any) correlates with the LFTB burger, "more tender" or "more gristley". I don't see these as compatible.

I suppose you could also ask which burger contains Pink Slime. With the negative connotation intact, will they be able to pick the correct one?

I have much more confidence in a blind test than I do in any number of anecdotes, even those given by skeptics.

ETA: Since LFTB is sometimes used to lower the overall fat content of the meat, perhaps it's percentage is much higher in, say, 6% fat ground beef than in 20%. Just speculating here, but you will need to know the percentage in the meat you use for the test.I don't know if "tastes better" tells us anything except preference. The company that makes the stuff claimed some people preferred burger with LBT. I plan to have samples with the same fat content.

Re the "more tender" vs "gristly" the claim of tenderness is based on the pressure to cut a patty in half and the gristly is based on the texture chewing. They are two different things. People can draw their own conclusions but they cannot say one is the same as the other.

Of course a blind test is better than an uncontrolled observation. A controlled observation is better than an uncontrolled one. All anecdotes are not equal but a lot of skeptics don't understand that fact.

As far as observing this texture issue, I've been asking the butchers, what's wrong with this stuff?, long before I ever heard of LBT. I've returned burger to the store and I've thrown it out. So I don't have any doubt I've been observing something real and not just imagined.

That doesn't clinch the deal without the test, but LBT has in no way been ruled out by the citations and arguments presented in this thread.

BTW, I welcome suggested test questions.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 04:28 PM

Wait, why do you believe my hypothesis doesn't explain the fourth of the listed observations? My idea wasn't that you stopped like burgers at all, but that you stopped like some burgers, and were more selective. The fact that you now like the burger you know doesn't have LBT doesn't need anything more than human bias to explain it.You haven't cited what is this thing that combined with age changing tastes differs besides the LBT. You only speculate something could differ. That's not a complete hypothesis. Your hypothesis is, age changed my tastes. Age plus what? What differs that coincidentally started showing up in some and then later more and more prepackaged chain store burger?

What, besides LBT, differs between the stuff that is OK and the stuff that isn't? You got nothing. If age explains timing (a number of years ago) it doesn't explain what differs between the burger that is OK and the burger that isn't.

Now that LBT has become more widely known the butchers are able to say their stuff has it or doesn't. So far I've tried corn fed, grass fed, fresh ground, and prepackaged, all without LBT and all were OK. As for fat content, I always buy low fat burger and have as long as I can remember. So what does that leave? Your hypothesis is missing a difference besides LBT.

Professor Yaffle

3rd May 2012, 04:31 PM

I've just been googling about the shear test and it seems it is strongly correlated to a number of more human-based measures of tenderness like "trained sensory panel tenderness", consumer panel evaluation and the number of chews a person takes before swallowing.

Furcifer

3rd May 2012, 04:35 PM

All you've cited is your opinion why burger varies. You haven't produced any analysis of burger showing any of it, no matter how variable, has a fibrous protein composition anything like the analysis of LBT.

I don't have any analysis to support my claim that the pages of books aren't the same size. I've googled it, not 1 single study in the history of mankind has ever sought to determine if the pages of books are different sizes.

I guess I can claim the pages of books are all the same size. :rolleyes:

Assumes facts not in evidence. Allowing a process or a filler to be added to hamburger without labeling was the result of industry lobbying, not as a result of any FDA determination LBT was indistinguishable from hamburger. All the FDA determined was LBT was probably safe. If the FDA determined LBT was the same, producers should be able to sell 100% LBT labeled as burger.

:i:

The FDA clearly states that LBT is beef, and therefore a normal component of ground "beef". What makes you believe they didn't think about this before coming to some determination? Mind read much?

No. Why would I do that before the test?

Maybe your 3 subjects don't have their olfactory senses intact. Did that occur to you? You do know how important smell, and the ability to smell, is when it comes to taste don't you? Your not installing confidence in your ability to carry out a taste test, not one bit. Especially since allergy season is getting into full swing.

I'm going to use the visually impaired or blind to prove LCD TV's are harder to see than traditional TV's. That's OK right? ;)

tyr_13

3rd May 2012, 04:50 PM

You haven't cited what is this thing that combined with age changing tastes differs besides the LBT. You only speculate something could differ. That's not a complete hypothesis. Your hypothesis is, age changed my tastes. Age plus what? What differs that coincidentally started showing up in some and then later more and more prepackaged chain store burger?

What, besides LBT, differs between the stuff that is OK and the stuff that isn't? You got nothing. If age explains timing (a number of years ago) it doesn't explain what differs between the burger that is OK and the burger that isn't.

Now that LBT has become more widely known the butchers are able to say their stuff has it or doesn't. So far I've tried corn fed, grass fed, fresh ground, and prepackaged, all without LBT and all were OK. As for fat content, I always buy low fat burger and have as long as I can remember. So what does that leave? Your hypothesis is missing a difference besides LBT.

Fat content, age of beef, age of the cow the beef came from, hot spots on the grill, fat content, time setting after cooking, cooking technique, distribution of fat, etc can all be expected to vary from producer to producer and from cow to cow. These factors, along with others that I'm probably not thinking of, were of course uncontrolled. These burgers, by your own premise, were different from each other and would vary.

You're also making the correlation/causation fallacy.

Your subsequent looking is invalidated by human biases, the entire reason for controlled testing.

Latch onto the LBT thing all you'd like, but you've done a very poor job of supporting it as the cause of your dislike of these burgers.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 05:00 PM

I swear I don't know this guy: ;) J.M. Hirsch is The Associated Press' food editor, jhirsch@ap.org. Freelance food writer Michele Kayal in Washington contributed to this report.

A taste-tester's beef with "pink slime"? Its texture (http://www.denverpost.com/food/ci_20209300/taste-testers-beef-pink-slime-its-texture)The taste was — OK. I took another taste of the first burger, then back to the pink slime burger.
It was not bad. But nor was it good. It was flat. I added more salt. No. It was simply one-dimensional.
And then there was the texture. Unpleasantly chewy bits of what I can only describe as gristle, though they were not visible, seemed to stud the meat of the pink slime burger. The result was a mealy chew that, while not overtly unpleasant, didn't leave me wanting another bite.

I rest my case until the test!

You heel dug in folks may want to reassess your positions about now. My heels are just fine, thank you. :)

Marcus

3rd May 2012, 06:20 PM

BTW, I welcome suggested test questions.

Snipping for brevity, your post is close by.

"Tastes better" is relevant, if people don't think that the burger without the stuff tastes better (while blinded) than there is really no complaint, we've already established that it's healthy.

Double blinding would be nice, you could have someone do the labeling after you cook the burgers who is not present at the test. Theoretically you could tell the difference between burgers you cooked, but I'm sure you will do your best to keep them uniform. It's important that you participate in the tasting because you are very sure you can tell the difference.

Perhaps the food critic in that link is right, who knows, but he knew exactly what he was eating, his "test" doesn't inspire confidence.

Furcifer

3rd May 2012, 06:30 PM

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 06:38 PM

Snipping for brevity, your post is close by.

"Tastes better" is relevant, if people don't think that the burger without the stuff tastes better (while blinded) than there is really no complaint, we've already established that it's healthy.

Double blinding would be nice, you could have someone do the labeling after you cook the burgers who is not present at the test. Theoretically you could tell the difference between burgers you cooked, but I'm sure you will do your best to keep them uniform. It's important that you participate in the tasting because you are very sure you can tell the difference.

Perhaps the food critic in that link is right, who knows, but he knew exactly what he was eating, his "test" doesn't inspire confidence.Where do you see the food critic was expecting a 'texture' difference? Do you think he lurked in this thread and specifically noticed my posts? Can you explain why he used the adjectives, "gristly" and "mealy" based solely on confirmation bias? There aren't exactly dozens of people noting texture is an issue.

I think that's because some of us have noticed and some people haven't looked, haven't had burger with LBT in it, or simply aren't bothered by the texture like I and this food critic are.

For my test, double blinding is planned. I planned to make my samples look the same and they will all be in matching plastic cups. Our skeptic group leader can hand out the samples so I won't know which is which.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 06:40 PM

I hope you're citing this as an example of what not to do SG. :boggled:
What a surprise. You simply dismiss this food critic's coincidentally similar descriptions of the texture issue. :rolleyes:

Check those heels, they could be a problem with your critical thinking.

Marcus

3rd May 2012, 07:06 PM

Where do you see the food critic was expecting a 'texture' difference? Do you think he lurked in this thread and specifically noticed my posts? Can you explain why he used the adjectives, "gristly" and "mealy" based solely on confirmation bias? There aren't exactly dozens of people noting texture is an issue.

I think that's because some of us have noticed and some people haven't looked, haven't had burger with LBT in it, or simply aren't bothered by the texture like I and this food critic are.

For my test, double blinding is planned. I planned to make my samples look the same and they will all be in matching plastic cups. Our skeptic group leader can hand out the samples so I won't know which is which.
The food critic was fully aware which burger contained the dreaded Pink Slime, this could have influenced his perceptions. I don't think that his using one of the adjectives you used proves anything.

If your test group successfully identifies the LFTB burgers as gristly (by all means make this one of the test questions) then I would be convinced, I'm just saying that you haven't proved it yet.

How large is your test group going to be?

I'm assuming the person who knows which sample is which will not be at the test, the skeptic group leader can't have this information if he is handing out the samples.

Joey McGee

3rd May 2012, 07:12 PM

I swear I don't know this guy: ;)

A taste-tester's beef with "pink slime"? Its texture (http://www.denverpost.com/food/ci_20209300/taste-testers-beef-pink-slime-its-texture)

I rest my case until the test!

You heel dug in folks may want to reassess your positions about now. My heels are just fine, thank you. :)I'm pretty sure everyone remembers this from page 5 of the thread, so I have no idea why you think anyone would reassess their positions. I remember distinctly someone saying "An unblinded, non-scientific, anecdotal test." in regards to it.

We actually do have real taste tests done by independent groups that you have hand-waved away in a bizzare manner.

http://beefproductsinc.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/tastepanelsummaries-v3-for-pdf.pdf

Yeah diggin' in ma heels! Yee-HAW!

Joey McGee

3rd May 2012, 07:14 PM

Don't you hate it when you eat a bunch of sushi and get drunk on sake and then when you puke, the seaweed wrapper comes back up and it looks like you ate a roll of electrical tape?

I know I do.I do!

What I love about it is that the wasabi makes it still taste good! :D

Furcifer

3rd May 2012, 07:31 PM

What a surprise. You simply dismiss this food critic's coincidentally similar descriptions of the texture issue. :rolleyes:

Check those heels, they could be a problem with your critical thinking.

Yah, it has nothing to do with the fact that this isn't even a blind experiment. :rolleyes:

nm

Furcifer

3rd May 2012, 07:34 PM

For my test, double blinding is planned. I planned to make my samples look the same and they will all be in matching plastic cups. Our skeptic group leader can hand out the samples so I won't know which is which.

Sorry, I read this after my last post. I see you get it.

Marcus

3rd May 2012, 07:34 PM

Marcus

3rd May 2012, 07:42 PM

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 08:43 PM

The food critic was fully aware which burger contained the dreaded Pink Slime, this could have influenced his perceptions. I don't think that his using one of the adjectives you used proves anything.

If your test group successfully identifies the LFTB burgers as gristly (by all means make this one of the test questions) then I would be convinced, I'm just saying that you haven't proved it yet.

How large is your test group going to be?

I'm assuming the person who knows which sample is which will not be at the test, the skeptic group leader can't have this information if he is handing out the samples.Oh for pity's sake. Yeah, "texture" is such a common way to describe taste. :rolleyes:

Furcifer

3rd May 2012, 08:55 PM

Oh for pity's sake. Yeah, "texture" is such a common way to describe taste. :rolleyes:

Describe? No. An extremely essential component of "taste"? Yes. Otherwise, why would anyone put stale chunks of bread in their Ceasar salad? ;)

Joey McGee

3rd May 2012, 09:22 PM

If you go through all of the tests that were done, you'll find that this whole taste/texture thing is not going to save anyone any face, since everything conceivable was run.

I'm guessing what we'll see next will look something like this

bwAioN2mtsA

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 09:26 PM

I'm pretty sure everyone remembers this from page 5 of the thread, so I have no idea why you think anyone would reassess their positions. I remember distinctly someone saying "An unblinded, non-scientific, anecdotal test." in regards to it.

We actually do have real taste tests done by independent groups that you have hand-waved away in a bizzare manner.

http://beefproductsinc.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/tastepanelsummaries-v3-for-pdf.pdf

Yeah diggin' in ma heels! Yee-HAW!And just how exactly do these links, cherry picked by the industry selling the stuff, mean a food critic in Denver did not indeed find LBT gave ground beef a disagreeable texture?

The student's study has been addressed: Study Shows 'Lean Finely Textured Beef' Improves Burger Quality (http://newswire.uark.edu/Article.aspx?id=17999) - "Quality" was measured by, improved fresh color, reduced spoilage and increased tenderness. ... The patties were frozen and then thawed and placed in a simulated retail display for five days before cooking....So LBT makes burger last longer in the grocer's case. Great. And:Tenderness was rated by a measurement of the force required to cut a patty.Did anyone taste the stuff in this study? If so I can't find it.there was no difference in the cooked color of any of the burgers in the study.

Then we have 4 studies paid for directly by Beef Products Inc., the company that makes the stuff. The findings are very curious considering the food critic in my link.

So, in summary, we have 4 studies paid for directly by a company with a financial interest in the outcome, a single study done by a student that measured color, the pressure to cut a patty and how the product held up after 5 days in the grocery fridge, a food critic that found the texture of burger with LBT to be nearly identical to how I described it, "gristly" and "mealy" while I called it gristly and rubbery.

And you all want to keep digging in your heels? Be my guest.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 09:30 PM

Some of those tests Joey linked to are far more elaborate than what you could hope to achieve, SG. Hundreds of subjects, many test variations, private rooms, even red lights to disguise any visual differences.In medical research the conflict of interests are disclosed by the researchers. See anything like that here?

If you go through the thread you'll find a number of documented instances of the same company lying about the bacterial growth in the treated product. Gee, a company that lies about its product, I'm shocked. :rolleyes:

Joey McGee

3rd May 2012, 09:41 PM

Then we have 4 studies paid for directly by Beef Products Inc., the company that makes the stuff. The findings are very curious considering the food critic in my link.lol

So, in summary, we have 4 studies paid for directly by a company with a financial interest in the outcome,Who should pay for taste tests of a product if not the company? Ludicrous. You appear to think that all independent laboratories are for hire and corrupt. Wow, I'm shocked that you're using a conspiracy theory to handwave away independent studies. :rolleyes: These would all need to be completely fabricated. Which would be easy for you to prove. Holy **** you could become famous! (not to mention destroy the reputations of all the companies)

And you all want to keep digging in your heels? Be my guest.lol

Joey McGee

3rd May 2012, 09:42 PM

In medical research the conflict of interests are disclosed by the researchers. See anything like that here?

If you go through the thread you'll find a number of documented instances of the same company lying about the bacterial growth in the treated product. Gee, a company that lies about its product, I'm shocked. :rolleyes:BPI caught in a lie? News to me and I've read every post. Maybe you should back yourself up here with clarity.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 10:02 PM

BPI caught in a lie? News to me and I've read every post. Maybe you should back yourself up here with clarity.Riiight, because a manufacturer lying about their product is sooo unheard of. :rolleyes:

From post #488 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8185531#post8185531), the link: Safety of Beef Processing Method Is Questioned (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1)Eight years ago, federal officials were struggling to remove potentially deadly E. coli from hamburgers when an entrepreneurial company from South Dakota came up with a novel idea: injecting beef with ammonia.

The company, Beef Products Inc., had been looking to expand into the hamburger business with a product made from beef that included fatty trimmings the industry once relegated to pet food and cooking oil. The trimmings were particularly susceptible to contamination, but a study commissioned by the company showed that the ammonia process would kill E. coli as well as salmonella.

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 article goes on for 4 pages documenting evidence discrediting the company's own self serving study.

Forgot to add, lol. :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 10:07 PM

BTW, I didn't emphasize that NYT article when I initially posted it because I don't think the ammonia process is unsafe and I didn't want to get into the safety can of worms. I consider all burger, LBT or not, potentially contaminated with bacteria and in need of thorough cooking.

Furcifer

3rd May 2012, 10:43 PM

"Quality" was measured by, So LBT makes burger last longer in the grocer's case. Great.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion but it does speak volumes about your potential prejudice.

Furcifer

3rd May 2012, 10:59 PM

Riiight, because a manufacturer lying about their product is sooo unheard of. :rolleyes:

From post #488 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8185531#post8185531), the link: Safety of Beef Processing Method Is Questioned (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1)The article goes on for 4 pages documenting evidence discrediting the company's own self serving study.

Forgot to add, lol. :rolleyes:

Whoah, whoah. The article doesn't say where the salmonella or E.coli was found.
If it was found on the premises of Beef Products Inc. that's one thing, if it was found in the Roosevelt High cafeteria it's another.

If you sell me ground beef and I leave it in the back seat of my car all afternoon and it goes bad, whose fault is it? Beef Products Inc. because it has LBT in it? Nope, it's my fault because I'm an idiot and mishandled my beef. (I'm allowed to say that, you can't :p)

Joey McGee

3rd May 2012, 11:12 PM

There are no lies in that post, or that article. Maybe you're under another impression of what a lie is than me. To me, a lie is "to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth, intentionally." Now, I'm sure you'll try and invent some convoluted way to say that they were lying, I just want to hear in plain english what you think that is.

And if you think that BPI is lying than the USDA is certainly lying too, funny how you thought not to bold that part of the quote because it makes your conspiracy theory fall apart. Under your logic, everything the USDA commissioned as a study is probably fraud too!

No one has ever gotten sick from their product. Funny that the NYT had to print a correction, maybe you've never read it.

Correction: January 12, 2010

An editorial on Sunday mischaracterized the safety record of ground meat produced by Beef Products Inc. The editorial said incorrectly that two 27,000-pound batches of processed beef had been recalled. The contamination of the meat was discovered by the company in its plant before the beef was shipped. No meat produced by Beef Products Inc. has been linked to any illnesses or outbreaks.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 11:48 PM

Whoah, whoah. The article doesn't say where the salmonella or E.coli was found.
If it was found on the premises of Beef Products Inc. that's one thing, if it was found in the Roosevelt High cafeteria it's another.

If you sell me ground beef and I leave it in the back seat of my car all afternoon and it goes bad, whose fault is it? Beef Products Inc. because it has LBT in it? Nope, it's my fault because I'm an idiot and mishandled my beef. (I'm allowed to say that, you can't :p)This is your argument? Seriously?

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.

the agriculture department said it was revoking Beef Products’ exemption from routine testing and conducting a review of the company’s operations and research.Now why would they need to review the COMPANY'S RESEARCH?

Thank your for the opportunity to post more about the dishonest claims of Beef Products Inc.Within the U.S.D.A., the treated beef has been a source of friction for years. The department accepted the company’s own study as evidence that the treatment was effective. School lunch officials, who had some doubts about its effectiveness, required that Beef Products meat be tested, as they do all beef used by the program.

School lunch officials said that in some years Beef Products testing results were worse than many of the program’s two dozen other suppliers, which use traditional meat processing methods.

Now the same company that submitted its own clean bill of health to the USDA then turned around and saidBeef Products had a rate of 36 positive results for salmonella per 1,000 tests, compared to a rate of nine positive results per 1,000 tests for the other suppliers, according to statistics from the program. Beef Products said its testing regime was more likely to detect contamination.Guess it depends who they were talking to. :rolleyes:

That coincides with their variable use of ammonia levels depending on who was looking at the outcome.Since introducing the treated meat, Beef Products has faced the challenge of balancing safety with taste, records and interviews show.

Pathogens died when enough ammonia was used to raise the alkalinity of the beef to a high level, company research found. But early on, school lunch officials and other customers complained about the taste and smell of the beef. Samples of the processed beef obtained by The Times revealed lower levels of alkalinity, suggesting less ammonia was used.

Beef Products acknowledged lowering the alkalinity, and the U.S.D.A. said it had determined that “at least some of B.P.I.’s product was no longer receiving the full lethality treatment.”

Seems they like to do their own research.Beef Products already had one study showing its treatment would do that; another company-sponsored study..This led to the infamous USDA "Pink Slime" internal e-mail.Carl S. Custer, a former U.S.D.A. microbiologist, said he and other scientists were concerned that the department had approved the treated beef for sale without obtaining independent validation of the potential safety risk. Another department microbiologist, Gerald Zirnstein, called the processed beef "pink slime" in a 2002 e-mail message to colleagues and said, “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.”Why should the USDA need independent validation of the company's own research? Hmmm, maybe this can tell us something:Mr. Roth’s initial prediction that his treated beef could kill E. coli in any meat it was mixed with. The company acknowledges that its subsequent study found no evidence to back that up, although it says it is now trying with an enhanced treatment.

First you use more ammonia that customers will tolerate, you show it kills bacteria and you get USDA approval. Then you use less ammonia and don't tell the USDA, because after all, why should you be honest if no one is checking?Soon after getting initial approval from the agriculture department, the company devised a plan to make a less alkaline version of the beef, internal company documents show. Beef Products acknowledged in an e-mail exchange that it was making a lower pH version, but did not specify the level or when it began selling it. ...

... The agriculture department said it did not learn that Beef Products was using lower levels until October, after inquiries by The Times, and that it was studying the company’s research.

Let's see, where was I going with this? Oh yeah, your claim the contamination wasn't found in LBT at the plant but only after it was at the school:At 6:36 a.m. on Aug. 10, the Beef Products plant in South Sioux City, Neb., started up its production line for the school lunch program. In 60 minutes, the plant produced a batch of 26,880 pounds of processed beef that tested positive for E. coli.

Six days later at the same plant, another 26,880-pound lot was found to have salmonella, government records and interviews show.

Any more evidence of dishonesty by the company? Actually, yes.“The system was stopped for two minutes in order to install a new valve,” the company said. “When the system was restarted, there was product flow for approximately one minute without NH3 flow.”

After the school lunch officials replied that the glitch might explain only one of the two episodes, Beef Products shifted focus to its suppliers, saying it would more closely scrutinize them for contamination.

But go ahead, dig in those heels. After all the company itself submitted 4 studies it paid for that just happened to praise the product's taste and texture. :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger

3rd May 2012, 11:53 PM

Joey McGee

4th May 2012, 12:30 AM

You said they lied. You have provided no evidence of that. The reason you need them to be liars is that you need to justify your belief that these independent studies are fraud. Like everything else, you're reading what you want to in that article, stretching statements beyond their meaning.

Like anyone is going to give a flying **** about any research you do when you dismiss research they independently contracted (on the basis of the reputation of those companies! one bit of fraud and they are done!). What were their other options? You and BPI have something in common, you won't be able to get the most prestigious universities and journals to publish something that is of sole benefit to you personally. At least they did it the best way they could... They didn't rely on anecdotal reports, like you do

Complaints and issues are not evidence of incompetence and lying. The company enjoys the highest reputation from foodbourne illness experts at prestigious academic institutions and by hardcore activists like Nancy Donley, but to you, they are liars who make unsafe products and try to hide it.

It's a huge difference. If it was found after it shipped that means they are danger to the public.

And you accuse the USDA of corruption based on nothing. If you actually had proof of that, I believe that's against the law and many regulations, and you should be reporting it instead of wasting time trying to save face here.

Beerina

4th May 2012, 05:21 AM

Isn't the ammonia a separate issue from the pink slime per se?

Issue 1: Icky pink slime and its effect w.r.t. the palate

Issue 2: Ammonia used in processing

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 06:08 AM

Isn't the ammonia a separate issue from the pink slime per se?

Issue 1: Icky pink slime and its effect w.r.t. the palate

Issue 2: Ammonia used in processingThe ammonia is a separate issue. I cite the NYT's article to demonstrate that research presented by Beef Products Inc was shown to be unreliable. Joey cites what amounts to marketing promotion as "studies" that found the stuff has a 'wonderful' texture.

BTW, the ammonia acts as a preservative adding shelf life which is what the one independent study by the student found. Note the student's study involved no tasting.

Dipayan

4th May 2012, 06:13 AM

Observation 1: burger texture changed a number of years ago.

Observation 2: the timing of LBT introduction into the market coincides with the texture change observation.

Observation 3: in all my decades of eating hamburger, until LBT was added to burger, I never tasted the disagreeable texture.

Observation 4: there is still burger that I find OK, again, before I ever heard of LBT. It turns out not to have LBT in it.

Observation 5: the university analysis provides a mechanism explaining the changed texture.

2. You have no idea that this is true. Please do let me know how you came to this conclusion, since LFTB started production in 1991 and apparently you started to find the odd texture around 2002.

3. Since you don't know when LFTB was added, how in the world can you make this claim? As it is, this claim is the same as the above claim - you are just repeating it to make it look like there are more 'observations' :rolleyes:

5. What is this mechanism exactly? Especially since the study claims that adding LFTB makes beef more 'tender' and 'soft'?

Now you are going to claim that the study talks about 'cutting' (a scientific test for checking meat tenderness) and not 'chewing'. But as soon as you open the gates to 'chewing' being the test, it makes the whole thing absolutely subjective, and open to your confirmation bias.

Eg. While you are using the 7% people from the poll who agreed 'the texture was different' as supporting evidence (even those who said it was 'mushy' - the opposite of 'gristly'), you wave away the majority who have not noticed a change in the poll thread with 'They probably don't recall'. (Quote below)

.... It doesn't surprise me people have various descriptions for what's different about the texture or taste. As a health care provider I am all too aware how differently people describe the same physical symptom. It also doesn't surprise me some people haven't noticed. We don't know what burger they eat and if they recall burger tasting differently in the past.

Dipayan

4th May 2012, 06:28 AM

BTW, the ammonia acts as a preservative adding shelf life which is what the one independent study by the student found.

Your bias is making me feel a little icky. You read 'improved fresh colour, reduced spoilage and increased tenderness' and all you get from that is 'Oh, it adds shelf life!'

Belz...

4th May 2012, 06:48 AM

When confronted with this, you dismiss an industry standard test in favour of your observations. Hardly the behaviour of a sceptic.

Indeed. Skeptigirl, your posting history suggests that you put far too much weight on your own observations, which was the point of my previous post here.

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 07:42 AM

Indeed. Skeptigirl, your posting history suggests that you put far too much weight on your own observations, which was the point of my previous post here.I posted a food critic using the same adjective I used, "gristly" and the university analysis showing a significant difference in "fibrous" protein in LBT compared to ground chuck. And despite Furcifer's insistence other cuts of meat have fibrous protein in the same quantity as the LBT, he has yet to post any analyses backing that claim up.

All observations are not equally subjective. I have every reason to trust my observations here especially since I made most of them before ever hearing about LBT.

You are more than welcome to ignore the food critic, dismiss the university analysis and to also wait for the test.

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 07:47 AM

Your bias is making me feel a little icky. You read 'improved fresh colour, reduced spoilage and increased tenderness' and all you get from that is 'Oh, it adds shelf life!'What does this even mean? :boggled:

There were 5 studies Joey linked to. Four were paid for and/or done directly by BPI. Don't skeptics think conflict of interests matter in research reliability?

The fifth was a study done by a student who found the LBT added shelf life but didn't test taste or chewing texture. I merely commented that her shelf life observation made sense given the effects of the ammonia.

Whatever you are on about here, I suspect you misread something.

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 08:12 AM

2. You have no idea that this is true. Please do let me know how you came to this conclusion, since LFTB started production in 1991 and apparently you started to find the odd texture around 2002.

3. Since you don't know when LFTB was added, how in the world can you make this claim? As it is, this claim is the same as the above claim - you are just repeating it to make it look like there are more 'observations' :rolleyes:

5. What is this mechanism exactly? Especially since the study claims that adding LFTB makes beef more 'tender' and 'soft'?

Now you are going to claim that the study talks about 'cutting' (a scientific test for checking meat tenderness) and not 'chewing'. But as soon as you open the gates to 'chewing' being the test, it makes the whole thing absolutely subjective, and open to your confirmation bias.

Eg. While you are using the 7% people from the poll who agreed 'the texture was different' as supporting evidence (even those who said it was 'mushy' - the opposite of 'gristly'), you wave away the majority who have not noticed a change in the poll thread with 'They probably don't recall'. (Quote below)I've answered all this numerous times and it's getting very tiring.

Re timing: There are citations in this thread that refer to when production started. Approval in 1991 was not when actual production and marketing started. I'm not going to hunt for the cites for you, they are in here. It was about 10 years ago that BPI's business began to take off. By a few years ago they claim their product was in 70% of the ground beef in this country. There are a couple citations listing the specific stores and product lines like Kroger Foods that do and do not have LBT.

Re texture: It was brought up earlier that 15% LBT was a USDA limit. It wasn't. 15% was the amount of LBT in the school lunch hamburger because they didn't tolerate the burger with 20% LBT. That was in the NYT's article.

People selling LBT, (i.e. with a reason to make such a claim other than actual evidence), claim it makes burger tender and a student found that you can slice an LBT mixed patty with less pressure than a patty with out it.

None of that discredits the hypothesis that LBT can still be expected to change the texture of hamburger given the analysis showed that the stuff is >70% fibrous protein compared to burger that is <30% fibrous protein. The fact 20% LBT burger is not tolerated is also evidence LBT and hamburger are significantly different.

Look up fibrous and globular protein to understand the difference if you don't get the picture from the names.

Re corroborating evidence: I cited the food critic's using the same description as I did. It was an independent opinion, subjective or not. He called the texture gristly and mealy. I called it gristly and rubbery.

The poll wasn't supposed to measure the likelihood of a texture change. It was only intended to find other people who also noticed. I was being accused in this thread of being the only person who had noticed.

As I've said dozens of times now, you can't have confirmation bias with something you never heard of.

I've never said my observations were proof of cause. That's what the planned test is for. I said and continue to say my observations support my hypothesis. That's how the scientific process proceeds. Observe, hypothesize, test.

Furcifer

4th May 2012, 08:40 AM

But go ahead, dig in those heels. After all the company itself submitted 4 studies it paid for that just happened to praise the product's taste and texture. :rolleyes:

Yes, my argument is seriously that it depends on where the beef was tested and found to contain e.coli or salmonella. If it's found in the plant then Beef Products Inc. has a problem, if it's found in grocery stores or schools it suggests a problem with handling.

The studies happen to jive with other independent studies that show the increase in fat content, which is high in LBT, makes ground beef taste better and have a more palatable texture. The real problem is that it doesn't jive with your own claims.

Furcifer

4th May 2012, 08:46 AM

Correction: January 12, 2010

An editorial on Sunday mischaracterized the safety record of ground meat produced by Beef Products Inc. The editorial said incorrectly that two 27,000-pound batches of processed beef had been recalled. The contamination of the meat was discovered by the company in its plant before the beef was shipped. No meat produced by Beef Products Inc. has been linked to any illnesses or outbreaks.

Oh, so there was no problem at all :rolleyes:

That was found and caught at the plant like it was supposed to and all of the other claims of "tainted meat" seem to be due to handling and not BPI's processing. Go figure.

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 09:11 AM

... Complaints and issues are not evidence of incompetence and lying. The company enjoys the highest reputation from foodbourne illness experts at prestigious academic institutions and by hardcore activists like Nancy Donley, but to you, they are liars who make unsafe products and try to hide it.

It's a huge difference. If it was found after it shipped that means they are danger to the public.

And you accuse the USDA of corruption based on nothing. If you actually had proof of that, I believe that's against the law and many regulations, and you should be reporting it instead of wasting time trying to save face here.

Straw man: I have not and am not currently arguing the safety issues. I've said that numerous times (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8141178#post8141178) including saying ammonia is a byproduct of metabolism in every cell in your body and our bodies are well equipped to handle it. In addition, I expect hamburger to have dangerous bacteria and it is the cooking that reliably protects the public. Efforts to keep bacteria contamination to a minimum prior to cooking supplement the protection but it is the cooking that matters more.

As I said above, I cited the NYT's article to show how unreliable Beef Products Inc sponsored or conducted research is. What a concept, a company that lies about its products. :rolleyes: But I digress....

As to the "inbed with the industry" charge I did actually make, and, that you are trying to dismiss over semantics and foot stamping, I will elaborate.

In the NYT's article the author specifically notes that the USDA accepted BPI's bacterial safety research unchallenged and then went on to exempt BPI, not just from testing requirements of its LBT, but also exempted BPI from any recalls when aggregated hamburger was found to be contaminated and the individual source was unknown.

I have to laugh at your "against the law" assertion. The write-a-regulation/work-in-a-regulatory-field-in-the-federal-government - get-a-lucrative-job-in-the-industry revolving door is well established including a specific case discussed in this thread earlier. Dipayan dismissed the charge noting that over 17 years the 1.2 million the regulator-turned-private-board-member earned wasn't an unusual annual amount.

Looks like a legit post-government job until you consider a board member could work as few as 1 or 2 days the entire year. $70,000 a year for a couple days work, not bad. I think Tyson Food's board meets about 4 times a year.

From post #83 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8140532#post8140532) When Smith stepped down from the USDA in 1993, BPI’s principal major supplier appointed her to its board of directors, where she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years.

Post #97 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8140699#post8140699)Accordin g to Custer, the USDA ruled that "pink slime" was safe, despite concerns, because a George H.W. Bush appointee who had been president of both the Florida Cattlemen’s Association and the of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association -- undersecretary JoAnn Smith -- pushed it through. Smith now serves on the board of directors of Tyson Foods, the largest chicken, beef and pork processing company in the world.

Oh, that's right, you don't think there's anything wrong with taking 1.2 million dollars from the industry you previously regulated. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8172341#post8172341)

Dipayan weighed in with post #423 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8176046#post8176046) with the math for the annual payoff of Smith's job.

And unfortunately I can't see that I replied to his post. I had a reply, maybe I got sidetracked. Anyway, yeah $70,000 a year sounds like a real job, not a payoff. Until you look and find the job was just being a board member and while it is difficult to easily find it appears the board meets 4 times a year (http://ir.tyson.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=65476&p=irol-govBoard). So if the math is right, Smith got $70,000 a year for working 4 days. At the most the board would meet once a month making that $70,000 for 12 days work. Not bad.

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 09:15 AM

Belz...

4th May 2012, 09:44 AM

I posted a food critic using the same adjective I used, "gristly" and the university analysis showing a significant difference in "fibrous" protein in LBT compared to ground chuck. And despite Furcifer's insistence other cuts of meat have fibrous protein in the same quantity as the LBT, he has yet to post any analyses backing that claim up.

All observations are not equally subjective. I have every reason to trust my observations here especially since I made most of them before ever hearing about LBT.

You are more than welcome to ignore the food critic, dismiss the university analysis and to also wait for the test.

I was merely making an observation about a behaviour of yours that I find makes me a bit wary of any of your claims. Unfortunate, but true.

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 10:07 AM

I was merely making an observation about a behaviour of yours that I find makes me a bit wary of any of your claims. Unfortunate, but true.And you have some evidence I'm not a competent observer? Care to share?

Joey McGee

4th May 2012, 10:36 AM

There were 5 studies Joey linked to. Four were paid for and/or done directly by BPI.No, three separate companies were asked to do an independent study. The companies have an interest to be impartial because if there is any proof of fraud, their company will die. They all found basically the same thing. You handwave this away, it's funny to watch.

Furcifer

4th May 2012, 10:44 AM

Furcifer, you again skip the point and go off with a straw man. The issue here is BPI providing studies to the USDA showing BPI LBT was safe then lowering the amount of ammonia while conveniently not telling the USDA. It suggests honestly is not one of BPI's strong points.

I don't care about the bacteria or the ammonia, remember?

Again you're suggesting there was something nefarious, but without knowing what the "rules" were I don't see the problem. As long as BPI continues to provide pathogen free meat what does the FDA care about how much ammonium is used or what the resulting alkalinity is? Or what it smells like.

eta: i keep using FDA and USDA synonymously, please bear with me.

Joey McGee

4th May 2012, 10:47 AM

As I said above, I cited the NYT's article to show how unreliable Beef Products Inc sponsored or conducted research is. What a concept, a company that lies about its products. :rolleyes: But I digress....You have no evidence they lied! What a joke...

In the NYT's article the author specifically notes that the USDA accepted BPI's bacterial safety research unchallengedWhere does it say that? :rolleyes:

I have to laugh at your "against the law" assertion.So it's not against the law for companies and the usda to conspire to defraud and lie to the public? WOW REALLY? I DOUBT THAT!!!

Looks like a legit post-government job until you consider a board member could work as few as 1 or 2 days the entire year. $70,000 a year for a couple days work, not bad. I think Tyson Food's board meets about 4 times a year.Looks like? Great detective work!

You're telling us your beliefs about things, connecting dots that have alternative explanations, accusing everyone involved of criminal corruption and defrauding the public intentionally... this is CT country and has been for pages and pages..

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 11:32 AM

No, three separate companies were asked to do an independent study. The companies have an interest to be impartial because if there is any proof of fraud, their company will die. They all found basically the same thing. You handwave this away, it's funny to watch.Hey, if you want to trust industry sponsored research and discount the AP reporter food critic, be my guest. But I'm pretty sure conflict of interest issues exist in those studies.

How do you know there weren't 10 studies paid for and 5 of them with inconvenient results were quashed?

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 11:37 AM

Again you're suggesting there was something nefarious, but without knowing what the "rules" were I don't see the problem. As long as BPI continues to provide pathogen free meat what does the FDA care about how much ammonium is used or what the resulting alkalinity is? Or what it smells like.

eta: i keep using FDA and USDA synonymously, please bear with me.Even though you chose the word, nefarious, I didn't, your definition of "nefarious" seems to be "illegal". That differs from mine which is "obviously corrupt". Bribes are typically considered to be corrupt even if the money is laundered behind a fake job, sweetheart real estate deal or a lucrative lobbying position.

From Google:ne·far·i·ous/niˈfe(ə)rēəs/
Adjective: (of an action or activity) Wicked OR criminal...

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 11:39 AM

Seems this background information is appropriate here. I tend to forget not everyone knows this stuff. The revolving door on K St: (http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/)Although the influence powerhouses that line Washington's K Street are just a few miles from the U.S. Capitol building, the most direct path between the two doesn't necessarily involve public transportation. Instead, it's through a door—a revolving door that shuffles former federal employees into jobs as lobbyists, consultants and strategists just as the door pulls former hired guns into government careers. While officials in the executive branch, Congress and senior congressional staffers spin in and out of the private and public sectors, so too does privilege, power, access and, of course, money.

Joey McGee

4th May 2012, 11:57 AM

Hey, if you want to trust industry sponsored research and discount the AP reporter food critic, be my guest.This is pretty transparent as to why you're so out in left field in this issue. But I'm pretty sure conflict of interest issues exist in those studies.No, it doesn't. Any conflict of interest is more than outweighed by the risk of them being discovered as fraud. Think about how all of the results were in their favor, completely, in three separate companies, who would all have to be creating total fraud, inventing results wholecloth, in a huge conspiracy. That's three companies risking all of their wealth on one stupid taste test, that no one really even knows about and BPI hasn't even been pushing hard except for one post on their blog where I found it! Ridiculous conspiracist beliefs.

How do you know there weren't 10 studies paid for and 5 of them with inconvenient results were quashed?I don't know that. How do you know that they aren't good, honest people?

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 01:16 PM

Because I recognize that an ad claiming 9 doctors out of 10 prefer Tylenol for their patients is fake, that makes me "out in left field"?

Got it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising)

BPI lowered the ammonia level in their product after using studies on the higher level to convince the USDA that BPI didn't need to monitor bacterial contaminants in their LBT. Do you consider that honest?

Marcus

4th May 2012, 02:25 PM

What does this even mean? :boggled:

There were 5 studies Joey linked to. Four were paid for and/or done directly by BPI. Don't skeptics think conflict of interests matter in research reliability?

The fifth was a study done by a student who found the LBT added shelf life but didn't test taste or chewing texture. I merely commented that her shelf life observation made sense given the effects of the ammonia.

Whatever you are on about here, I suspect you misread something.
I skimmed the first study Joey linked and it appears far more thorough and methodical than any test you could hope to carry out. Perhaps instead of simply dismissing it, you could point out flaws in the methodology, or places you think they could have cheated.

If we must dismiss any study financed by one side or the other, then we must dismiss yours as well.

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 03:08 PM

I skimmed the first study Joey linked and it appears far more thorough and methodical than any test you could hope to carry out. Perhaps instead of simply dismissing it, you could point out flaws in the methodology, or places you think they could have cheated.

If we must dismiss any study financed by one side or the other, then we must dismiss yours as well.Again, I a bit taken aback that no one is questioning an industry's own self serving study. I would have thought that was a given. Do you believe ads when they say "studies show" or even "clinical studies show"? How often would you say you heard that in an ad? More than once a day at least I'd think. And you believe those claims?

I'm at a loss for words here that skeptics who know better when they see a supposed homeopathy study don't approach a meat product study with the same level of skepticism.

It's up to you if you want to dismiss my study. There will be other skeptics there, however, that are members of the JREF.

Marcus

4th May 2012, 05:54 PM

Again, I a bit taken aback that no one is questioning an industry's own self serving study. I would have thought that was a given. Do you believe ads when they say "studies show" or even "clinical studies show"? How often would you say you heard that in an ad? More than once a day at least I'd think. And you believe those claims?

I'm at a loss for words here that skeptics who know better when they see a supposed homeopathy study don't approach a meat product study with the same level of skepticism.

It's up to you if you want to dismiss my study. There will be other skeptics there, however, that are members of the JREF.
That's your response? You can't even be bothered to analyze the study ? You think that the skeptic position would be to throw it out without even attempting to find the flaws? If you can't find anything wrong with the methodology and think that the data was falsified, say so.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I don't know if you are correct or not, but this idea that we should automatically throw out data you don't like but keep the data you do just grates.

I've read a number of homeopathy threads, the studies cited by believers as evidence invariably have holes in the methodology or statistical analysis you could drive a truck through.

As for your test, it's hard to say, you have shared very little of the protocol with us.

Skeptic Ginger

4th May 2012, 06:21 PM

That's your response? You can't even be bothered to analyze the study ? You think that the skeptic position would be to throw it out without even attempting to find the flaws? If you can't find anything wrong with the methodology and think that the data was falsified, say so.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I don't know if you are correct or not, but this idea that we should automatically throw out data you don't like but keep the data you do just grates.

I've read a number of homeopathy threads, the studies cited by believers as evidence invariably have holes in the methodology or statistical analysis you could drive a truck through.

As for your test, it's hard to say, you have shared very little of the protocol with us.

Actually I started to analyze the studies. I realized none of you naysayers was going to give a rat what I said and I decided not to invest the time.

Basically the student's study I already commented on a half dozen times. No one tasted the stuff in that study.

The 2 ABC Research studies actually did find a texture difference. It was hard to compare since they used "15 cm" as their measure which I would have had to look up and didn't bother. I don't see they used some 1-10 scale as all the 8 and 9 scores suggest. Texture differed. The outcome was their 99 test subjects seemed to like all the samples about the same as far as I can see. That doesn't say the texture was affected, only that the 99 liked it. I'm not arguing personal preference here. I'm arguing it was noticeable and the label should have said the product differed. At that point I decided to quit wasting my time.

But do feel free to tell us how honest this company is and how the position that people selling things lie is the wrong default position. Surely we have no evidence of that. :rolleyes:

Just what in the protocol is it you think I have not shared? All the details are just not worked out yet.

Joey McGee

4th May 2012, 09:12 PM

Because I recognize that an ad claiming 9 doctors out of 10 prefer Tylenol for their patients is fake, that makes me "out in left field"? No, your belief system against "industry" or "corporate" and "corrupt regulators" obviously comes from some kind of weird belief system and emotional fixation. Which is causing you to make up crazy conspiracy theories about 3 independent labs totally fabricating taste tests.

Got it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising)Bizarre...

BPI lowered the ammonia level in their product after using studies on the higher level to convince the USDA that BPI didn't need to monitor bacterial contaminants in their LBT. Do you consider that honest?You read whatever you want into old articles... I just read them.

"Beef Products said it had submitted new research to the agriculture department showing that its treatment remained effective with lower alkalinity. Agriculture officials said Beef Products’ latest study is under review."

Doesn't sound dishonest to me. Doesn't sound like they had anything to hide. What did the USDA find? Again, this company has the highest possible reputation amongst virtually all foodbourne illness experts... because there is no evidence of them being dishonest or lying. There is only you and your opinion, which everyone is ignoring in favor of the statements of the qualified experts in regards to this company's reputation. Statements I have put in the earlier thread, statements that anyone can find if they go looking for the qualified experts themselves.

Marcus

7th May 2012, 08:09 AM

Just what in the protocol is it you think I have not shared? All the details are just not worked out yet.

I understand that you have not worked out the details yet, it would be good to known them before the test though. Things like the number of participants, how it will be double blinded(your previous response was that the skeptic leader would be passing out the samples, so of course he can't know what is in them. You'll need some type of labeling scheme, you can't just assign each type of meat one color.

How you get ground beef whose only difference is the presence of LFTB. This sounds like the hard part to me. After reading the first study( I know, you don't believe it, I'll leave it at that) I'm wondering if there are visual cues that could be used to tell the difference between the two meats, since they used red lights to prevent this.

Will the participants be exposed to each other, or will they be isolated?

The questions have to be decided, and what constitutes a hit and how many hits would be considered a win. If you want to include something about a texture difference, you can use whatever adjectives you want, the key would be if the participants successfully identify the LFTB burger as gristly, slimey, or whatever description you choose.

Belz...

7th May 2012, 08:42 AM

And you have some evidence I'm not a competent observer? Care to share?

Whether you are is irrelevant.

Skeptic Ginger

7th May 2012, 09:16 AM

....
How you get ground beef whose only difference is the presence of LFTB. This sounds like the hard part to me. After reading the first study( I know, you don't believe it, I'll leave it at that) I'm wondering if there are visual cues that could be used to tell the difference between the two meats, since they used red lights to prevent this.Walmart claims to be selling burger with and without and if so that should solve the sample problem.

As for the rest, the study will be randomized and blinded, I know how to do that. I can understand you don't know that I know that, but it'll be done right and I'll describe the methodology when the details are worked out.

However, don't expect this to be a master's thesis here. It'll be enough to show LBT changes the texture. If people want to nitpick the test they are going to reject the results regardless of how well the test is done.

Skeptic Ginger

7th May 2012, 09:17 AM

Whether you are is irrelevant.Maybe to you, but not to me. I think the competency and reliability of an observer is an important factor to consider.

Silly Green Monkey

7th May 2012, 10:08 AM

Skeptic Ginger

7th May 2012, 10:21 AM

Not when the observer literally cannot know precisely what is being observed.

When did the stuff first reach you? You don't and can't know.

What else changed (added, subtracted, altered) over that time? You don't and can't know.

Nor do you seem to care.This has been addressed. You are not addressing the evidence but rather just denying it.

The timeline of LBT's introduction into the market and its increased use all coincide with the timing of my finding the texture problem in the burger. It coincides with the stores I was buying burger in. It was not in the burger I found reliably OK. All these things were documented in this thread, the stores, the timeline and the lack of LBT in the Whole Foods fresh ground burger.

Nothing else fits the timeline and where LBT was and wasn't.

Denying this evidence doesn't make it go away.

Silly Green Monkey

7th May 2012, 10:25 AM

Skeptic Ginger

7th May 2012, 10:45 AM

How can you be sure that you're not altering your timeline to fit the LBT timeline? Were you keeping careful notes over the years (Kroger burger from 2/2/02 was chewy)?

When you talk to patients (if nurse practitioners do patient histories) and you ask how long a patient has been experiencing a symptom, what fudge factor do you apply to their answer to account for the human inability to accurately remember the passage of time?That's the whole point of testing the hypothesis. You use the evidence (patient's history in your example) to form an hypothesis (establish a differential diagnosis) then you test.

Sometimes you can make a diagnosis based on the history alone even given patient histories can be unreliable. In the case of the LBT, there so far has been nothing else added to the differential that meets all the observations. If you have something else that has not already been offered as an equally likely hypothesis, feel free.

One does not just toss out the only thing on the dif list because something you aren't aware of might be the actual diagnosis. You test the hypothesis and if it fails you continue looking.

Your premise is asking for evidence no one would be expected to have in establishing an hypothesis. You are suggesting we develop hypotheses based on the results of a study. That's absurd. You develop the hypothesis first then test it. You don't establish proof first then hypothesize.

Silly Green Monkey

7th May 2012, 11:05 AM

. In the case of the LBT, there so far has been nothing else added to the differential that meets all the observations.
How do you know this?

One does not just toss out the only thing on the dif list because something you aren't aware of might be the actual diagnosis. You test the hypothesis and if it fails you continue looking.

You don't seem to allow for even the remotest possibility that anything else might be on the dif list. Some have been suggested, grind types, times ground, different cuts from the cow, cooking types, length of time under the warmer--that's only a small sample of the innumerable factors that can affect ground beef from source to ingestion. LBT might even be the cause of the problem you noticed----but at this time you don't have the evidence to conclude that.

Belz...

7th May 2012, 11:27 AM

Maybe to you, but not to me. I think the competency and reliability of an observer is an important factor to consider.

That is remarkably unskeptical.

Ryokan

7th May 2012, 11:29 AM

That is remarkably unskeptical.

Especially when speaking about oneself...

Skeptic Ginger

7th May 2012, 12:25 PM

Especially when speaking about oneself...I find nothing unskeptical in knowing one's observational skills. What is silly is assuming we can never observe anything objectively or we can never trust our observations. When you understand how the brain filters observations you can actually make accurate evaluations of the evidence. If you stereotype every single observation as unreliable, how do you get through the day?

Skeptic Ginger

7th May 2012, 12:29 PM

How do you know this?

You don't seem to allow for even the remotest possibility that anything else might be on the dif list. You are misinterpreting what I said. I said no alternative hypotheses that fit ALL the evidence have been presented, not that no such alternative explanations could possibly exist.

Some have been suggested, grind types, times ground, different cuts from the cow, cooking types, length of time under the warmer--that's only a small sample of the innumerable factors that can affect ground beef from source to ingestion. LBT might even be the cause of the problem you noticed----but at this time you don't have the evidence to conclude that.And I have addressed these alternative hypotheses. That people ignore the reasons these hypotheses don't fit all the evidence does not make the hypotheses fit the evidence.

Skeptic Ginger

7th May 2012, 12:35 PM

I ask again, have any of you people arguing so vociferously that I couldn't possibly have noticed a difference in the texture in hamburger with LBT added tried yourselves to taste test two samples, one with, one without?

No, or at least no one has said they tried it themselves, just that they haven't noticed a change. Yet you call me unskeptical while arguing something you also only hypothesize yourselves: that there's no effect on burger texture when LBT is added.

I challenge you to test it. Go to Walmart, buy some of each and try it. Test your own hypotheses that there is no difference.

Marcus

7th May 2012, 12:57 PM

Walmart claims to be selling burger with and without and if so that should solve the sample problem.

As for the rest, the study will be randomized and blinded, I know how to do that. I can understand you don't know that I know that, but it'll be done right and I'll describe the methodology when the details are worked out.

However, don't expect this to be a master's thesis here. It'll be enough to show LBT changes the texture. If people want to nitpick the test they are going to reject the results regardless of how well the test is done.
Okay, I'll wait for the details then.

I don't think you should ignore preference though. If you yourself were able to detect a texture difference, but liked one just as well as another, not of this would have come up. You would be happily buying whatever was available and not caring which was which.

ETA: labeling food based on texture really seems like a non-starter to me. There wouldn't be room on package labels to describe all the production processes.

Skeptic Ginger

7th May 2012, 02:25 PM

Okay, I'll wait for the details then.

I don't think you should ignore preference though. If you yourself were able to detect a texture difference, but liked one just as well as another, not of this would have come up. You would be happily buying whatever was available and not caring which was which.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. I don't doubt some people could like the LBT burger. The texture in question disgusts me and I don't trust an industry ad that says some people preferred it. But I have no reason to think it's impossible that anyone could prefer it.

But if someone prefers one or the other, what will that tell us about whether the LBT is indeed the cause of the disgusting texture I've been complaining about?

ETA: labeling food based on texture really seems like a non-starter to me. There wouldn't be room on package labels to describe all the production processes.While the industry might claim LBT is merely a differently processed meat, a number of things suggest that isn't true. In particular, as I've noted over and over, if the stuff is within the parameters of other cuts of meat made into hamburger, why don't you see 100% LBT hamburger? Why did they find that beyond 15% the stuff was unacceptable in their marketing studies?

Given the above is evidence LBT is not the same as hamburger, shouldn't consumers have a right to know it's been added to their hamburger?

Draca

7th May 2012, 05:02 PM

A Handy, Disgusting Guide to Pink Slime and Other Mechanically Processed Meats

http://www.propublica.org/special/and-you-thought-it-was-just-pink-slime

rustypouch

7th May 2012, 05:24 PM

A Handy, Disgusting Guide to Pink Slime and Other Mechanically Processed Meats

http://www.propublica.org/special/and-you-thought-it-was-just-pink-slime

I'll be in my bunk.

Marcus

7th May 2012, 05:41 PM

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. I don't doubt some people could like the LBT burger. The texture in question disgusts me and I don't trust an industry ad that says some people preferred it. But I have no reason to think it's impossible that anyone could prefer it.

But if someone prefers one or the other, what will that tell us about whether the LBT is indeed the cause of the disgusting texture I've been complaining about?
I suppose it's because I'm not solely interested in finding out if you were right about the LFTB being the cause of your perceived texture difference.

While the industry might claim LBT is merely a differently processed meat, a number of things suggest that isn't true. In particular, as I've noted over and over, if the stuff is within the parameters of other cuts of meat made into hamburger, why don't you see 100% LBT hamburger? Why did they find that beyond 15% the stuff was unacceptable in their marketing studies?That seems pretty obvious. The stuff has no fat, it would make terrible hamburger. It also has a fine texture, it's right there in the name, the industry calls it lean finely textured beef. The question, at least the one you are interested in, is whether it is easily detectable in 15% concentration.

Given the above is evidence LBT is not the same as hamburger, shouldn't consumers have a right to know it's been added to their hamburger?I don't think we need new rules for this. It opens the door for an avalanche of new labeling requirements. If companies want to take advantage of the "pink slime" meme, they can advertise "our meat has no pink slime!", Otherwise people like you can find a brand they like.

Ryokan

7th May 2012, 05:41 PM

A Handy, Disgusting Guide to Pink Slime and Other Mechanically Processed Meats

http://www.propublica.org/special/and-you-thought-it-was-just-pink-slime

Why is it disgusting? I would have no problems eating any of that. In fact, I know I have and that I will again. I think it's great that we have found methods to use more of the animal. Less waste. It's ethical and it's environmental.

Skeptic Ginger

7th May 2012, 06:23 PM

I suppose it's because I'm not solely interested in finding out if you were right about the LFTB being the cause of your perceived texture difference.I'll include a preference question out of curiosity.

That seems pretty obvious. The stuff has no fat, it would make terrible hamburger. It also has a fine texture, it's right there in the name, the industry calls it lean finely textured beef."Finely textured" is market speak. The scientists who saw it called it slime.

Are you a Dilbert fan? Do you recall the "The Name" (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dilbert_(TV_series)#The_Name_.5B1.01.5D) episode? Dilmom: Why don't you call your product the Gruntmaster 6000?
Dilbert: What kind of product do you see when you imagine a Gruntmaster 6000?
Dilmom: Well it's a stripped-down version of the Gruntmaster 9000 of course. But it's software-upgradeable.Why do you think product naming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_naming) is such a huge business? Framing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)), branding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand), naming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_naming), if you haven't noticed the 'trending' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_Trending) I suggest you take a look. Ever wonder why they named a bill in the US Congress, "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"?So they could call it the USA Patriot Act.I could fill pages with examples of market-speak intended to deceive. I can't believe I have to in a forum of otherwise well informed individuals.

Are you as well ignoring the actual analysis of LBT compared to ground chuck on the basis of Furcifer's pure speculation? Do you see anything other than Furcifer's assertion in this thread that the range of usual hamburger can have anything like the LBT analysis revealed? Because all I see is an unsupported assertion.

The question, at least the one you are interested in, is whether it is easily detectable in 15% concentration.I don't think we need new rules for this. It opens the door for an avalanche of new labeling requirements. If companies want to take advantage of the "pink slime" meme, they can advertise "our meat has no pink slime!", Otherwise people like you can find a brand they like.I'd like the option of finding that brand based on labeling thank you. Who are you to decide it shouldn't matter to me if I indeed confirm LBT ruins burger for me? Do I have to keep eliminating brands only after wasting my time and money trying them?

Skeptic Ginger

7th May 2012, 06:26 PM

Why is it disgusting? I would have no problems eating any of that. In fact, I know I have and that I will again. I think it's great that we have found methods to use more of the animal. Less waste. It's ethical and it's environmental.I wouldn't care either if I didn't find the texture of burger it's been added to disgusting. If it turns out LBT is not the cause then I'll keep buying Whole Foods fresh ground, but if I do confirm what the evidence supports, I have a legitimate reason to expect the stuff to be on the label.

Skeptic Ginger

7th May 2012, 06:31 PM

A Handy, Disgusting Guide to Pink Slime and Other Mechanically Processed Meats

http://www.propublica.org/special/and-you-thought-it-was-just-pink-slime
I think I'll see if support of the bill is on change.org and add a petition if it is not:

Introducing REAL Beef Act to require pink slime labeling (http://pingree.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=776:introducing-real-beef-act-to-require-pink-slime-labeling&catid=8:breaking-news&Itemid=)

Draca

7th May 2012, 09:46 PM

I think I'll see if support of the bill is on change.org and add a petition if it is not:

Introducing REAL Beef Act to require pink slime labeling (http://pingree.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=776:introducing-real-beef-act-to-require-pink-slime-labeling&catid=8:breaking-news&Itemid=)

I think a petition supporting the REAL BEEF act or demanding the USDA make labeling required would be a great idea. :)

It's not likely it would get the same attention as Bettina Siegel's petition. From what I understand Change.org selects certain petitions to feature and email their members to sign. With out that selection it wouldn't get nearly as many signatures. I wonder if Bettina Siegel would be interested in starting a second petition.......

Draca

7th May 2012, 11:57 PM

Why is it disgusting? I would have no problems eating any of that. In fact, I know I have and that I will again. I think it's great that we have found methods to use more of the animal. Less waste. It's ethical and it's environmental.

Disgusting was actually from the title of the article:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/2012/05/a_handy_disgust.php

I really just want it labeled. It was very hurtful to me that this was snuck into my food without my knowledge. I'm still :( about that. I think the Beef industry is missing the point by hammering on about it being 100% beef. It is processed completely differently and should be labeled.

Belz...

8th May 2012, 04:42 AM

I find nothing unskeptical in knowing one's observational skills.

What's unskeptical about it is that humans are notoriously bad at determining that.

Beerina

8th May 2012, 04:51 AM

I'll include a preference question out of curiosity.

"Finely textured" is market speak. The scientists who saw it called it slime.

Are you a Dilbert fan? Do you recall the "The Name" (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dilbert_(TV_series)#The_Name_.5B1.01.5D) episode? Why do you think

Calling it "slime" is the exact same process in reverse.

Also, soap is slime. You are bathing by rubbing slime all over yourself every morning. My chemistry professor, a scientist, called it slime.

Evil people at Dial and Irish Spring! Evil liars! :mad:

:)

Silly Green Monkey

8th May 2012, 09:44 AM

ahhhhh, that fresh slime scent in the morning.

Furcifer

8th May 2012, 11:00 AM

I know this is a slipper slope fallacy, but I think it's appropriate with something like food, where does it end? If producers are forced to label the LBT content in their ground meat, and sales drop off, BPI is going have a good case at this point for claiming the losses are due to scare and not rational, logical, skeptical thinking on the part of the consumer. I can honestly see them saying "Why not label the amount of excrement in every pound of ground beef?" How much pig face is in your sausage, you have the constitutional right to know exactly what's in your food.
So what does this accomplish? Nothing IMO. If people knew exactly what's in their food and exactly how it's processed there would be an initial reaction while people desensitize themselves and then it's pretty much back to usual because at the end of the day what people really want to know is is it safe and how much does it cost per pound.
And what else is going to happen? The people who can afford to are going to know their food is "better" because it does have slime in it, and the people who can't afford it are just going to be reminded that if they had more money they could buy something "better" that really isn't.
I'm reminded of ribs and chicken wings. Both were at one time pretty much scrap meat. No self respecting person would eat those cuts of meat, they were garbage for the lower classes. Why? Well because someone who could afford to buy what they like decided one was "good" and one was "bad". The fact is you throw some spices and some sauce on them and they taste just fine. Now chicken wings, at least the meat, is worth more per pound than sirloin steak.
I've said I don't mind the idea of labeling the LBT content, but I honestly wonder if this just isn't another reincarnation of that sensless classism we've seen in the past.

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 11:09 AM

What's unskeptical about it is that humans are notoriously bad at determining that.It's even more unskeptical to stereotype all humans.

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 11:17 AM

Calling it "slime" is the exact same process in reverse.

Also, soap is slime. You are bathing by rubbing slime all over yourself every morning. My chemistry professor, a scientist, called it slime.

Evil people at Dial and Irish Spring! Evil liars! :mad:

:)So because both names have misleading connotations no valid name exists?

Framing worth noting:

Anti-corporate activists name for the stuff: Pink Slime
Commercial producers name for the product: Lean Beef Trimmings

As for Irish Spring, that's the brand name, not the product name. You are confusing the two. The product name is soap.

It fascinates me that after an argument is made and isn't refuted, (the name "beef" is being used here to imply 'meat' when the analysis shows there is very little 'meat' as in muscle meat in the product), one waits a certain amount of time and then just repeats the original false claim, that the name LBT is not misleading because it is actually 'meat'.

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 11:19 AM

IDB87

8th May 2012, 11:51 AM

Are you in favor then of grinding up hooves and calling that a "beef" additive?

Boil them until the gelatin comes out and put that in beef - sure, why not. Whole hooves? As long as they're edible. Grind away baby.

Furcifer

8th May 2012, 12:05 PM

Boil them until the gelatin comes out and put that in beef - sure, why not. Whole hooves? As long as they're edible. Grind away baby.

I was going to say, I think it's already marketed as Jello. :D

If the hooves could be processed into some edible nutrious product I don't have any problem with it. Heck even as a filler with no nutritional value I don't see the problem. I honestly fear stigmatizing a product, simpy because some people are grossed out by it, more.

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 12:19 PM

Ron_Tomkins

8th May 2012, 12:23 PM

I like cake.

Howie Felterbush

8th May 2012, 12:25 PM

IDB87

8th May 2012, 12:40 PM

Nice way to purposefully miss the point. Where on the continuum would you draw the line? How about grinding in some hyde? It is beef after all. How about sterilized bowel contents, is that also 'beef'?

What's with the axe grinding? Are you looking to squabble over personal opinion? If I told you I wouldn't mind ground hide in my ground chuck, would you take issue with that?

Where does Skeptic Ginger draw the line? That seems a like more interesting(?) conversation.

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 01:10 PM

What's with the axe grinding? Are you looking to squabble over personal opinion? If I told you I wouldn't mind ground hide in my ground chuck, would you take issue with that? ...

That wasn't the point they purposefully ignored. It's not about whether you like something or not, the issue is at what point is a product altered enough it should be labeled as such. You might love hamburger laced with sugar but you'd expect it to be labeled as having sugar added.

The analysis of LBT showed it differed significantly from hamburger with >70% proteins that come from something other than muscle meat vs <30% non muscle meat protein in ground chuck. Furcifer insists without any actual evidence that LBT is no different than some other cuts of meat hamburger is made from, it merely differed from the ground chuck it was compared to. That's not true. No other cuts of meat make hamburger that would match the LBT analysis. And it's obvious no one would like something called hamburger that was 100% LBT.

So how much filler do you think is OK to add to hamburger without noting it on the label? Would you think hamburger that was 15% gelatin should be labeled as having an additive? Or would labeling such a product, "100% pure beef", seem just a tad dishonest?

Furcifer

8th May 2012, 01:55 PM

Nice way to purposefully miss the point. Where on the continuum would you draw the line? How about grinding in some hyde? It is beef after all. How about sterilized bowel contents, is that also 'beef'?

Well no, you could stick your head inside of a cows ass and you wouldn't be "beef". At a minimum I'd say moved through the intestinal walls and into the blood stream would be "beef".

As for hide no it's an already excluded part of the cow. The thing is LBT isn't specifically excluded from being called beef because it's a normal component of what's already in ground beef, it's just been seperated and recovered.

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 03:29 PM

...The thing is LBT isn't specifically excluded from being called beef because it's a normal component of what's already in ground beef, it's just been seperated and recovered.Still just your assertion Fur, no evidence posted that any cut of regular meat ground into hamburger would match the LBT analysis you keep ignoring.

Furcifer

8th May 2012, 04:55 PM

Still just your assertion Fur, no evidence posted that any cut of regular meat ground into hamburger would match the LBT analysis you keep ignoring.

Nonsense. I expained in my very first post in this thread how I could make "pink slime". I just wouldn't be able to match the exact texture, because from how it's explained at least the ammonia does breakdown some of the connective tissue. It's pretty easy, all you need is trim. But it would be pink and it would match the analysis you think I'm ignoring. ;)

Nobody in their right mind though is going to sort through the bone bucket and pick out the right bits to process into a "pink slime". Plus you would have to be processing it as fast as the butchers cut the trim, and keep the room temperature at an uncomfortablly low temperature to prevent bacteria growth. A huge hassle for little or no return, you're better off selling it as dog food.

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 05:03 PM

Nonsense. I expained in my very first post in this thread how I could make "pink slime". I just wouldn't be able to match the exact texture, because from how it's explained at least the ammonia does breakdown some of the connective tissue. It's pretty easy, all you need is trim. But it would be pink and it would match the analysis you think I'm ignoring. ;)Just an assertion, Fur, no evidence. You got nothing.

LBT is NOT the same as the rest of the hamburger. LBT has more than twice as much fibrous protein as any cut of meat that hamburger is going to be made out of and you have no evidence to the contrary. The ammonia does nothing to change the fibrous (connective tissue) protein ratio.

Furcifer

8th May 2012, 05:18 PM

Just an assertion, Fur, no evidence. You got nothing.

No, all that's been explained in the articles you've cited, it's just that you obviously don't fully understand what you're reading. It's not an assertion, it's a very well known fact within the industry. There's plenty of "good meat" that gets thrown into the bone bucket. It's just that the bone bucket has always been the point of diminishing returns.

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 05:21 PM

Explaining in your case is just making unsupported assertions. You can call it something else, but it changes nothing and nothing really is all you got.

Furcifer

8th May 2012, 05:57 PM

LBT is NOT the same as the rest of the hamburger. LBT has more than twice as much fibrous protein as any cut of meat that hamburger is going to be made out of and you have no evidence to the contrary. The ammonia does nothing to change the fibrous (connective tissue) protein ratio.

See you don't exactly know what a "cut of meat" is, or what the difference between wholesale and retail cuts are.

Trim is what's left over once you prepare a "cut of meat", usually for retail. Some trim, like the tail off of a strip loin, is meat and fat. The trim off of a flank is pretty much connective tissue and meat. Some trim like that off the neck is almost 100% muscle. Some trim is almost 100% connective tissue, when you peel it off it should come off in one piece, although sometimes you tear off some muscle with it. Some trim has cartilage or tendon in it because you fillet it off the bone.

Trim is what ground beef is traditionally made from. I explained how the growing demand for ground beef does mean that wholesale cuts like the round and the chuck are going to ground beef, but that doesn't mean the trim doesn't go into the hopper anymore.

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 06:00 PM

More assertions, Fur.

Where is an analysis of any cut of meat ground into burger without LBT that has anywhere close to the composition of hamburger with 15% LBT in it? You keep saying it is true but all you have is your assertion it must be true, it makes sense to you. Where's an analysis that confirms your claim?

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 06:10 PM

Here, let me help you:

"Chuck" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_steak) is very high in connective tissue. That's why it is often used in hamburger. Grinding it up helps tenderize it.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.

In the analysis they used ground chuck. That was the stuff with <30% connective tissue. 30% is considered high. LBT had >70% connective tissue.

If you add 15% of 70% connective tissue to a 30% connective tissue mix it's like adding a full 10% more connective tissue to the mix. And that's without even addressing how the LBT differs in other ways from the hamburger it's being added to.

So how many cuts of meat are going to give you 40% connective tissue if ground chuck gives you 30%?

Furcifer

8th May 2012, 06:39 PM

Explaining in your case is just making unsupported assertions. You can call it something else, but it changes nothing and nothing really is all you got.

Well I could teach you how to butcher a cow. Here's a video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MRuCLXxqjs&feature=related

All of the stuff he throws is going into a bone bucket. There's plenty of "good meat" on those bones but typically it goes to dog food. At 59 seconds he's deboned and removed the leg. It takes him 12 minutes to process the entire cow, it would take you 5 just to remove the bit of flesh from that bone and you'd get maybe a few ounces. There's more on the blade and on the shoulder bone, all good meat that goes to dog food because it's more feasible to butcher 600 pounds in 15 minutes rather than a few ounces in 5.

I bet most people couldn't recognize a "cut of meat" from the pile he's got after he says done. Most of that white is connective tissue, not fat. Once he starts to trim all of that goes into the trim bucket and gets ground. Some of the trim is all white and connective tissue and some is all meat.

What do you think I'm asserting here? :confused:

Furcifer

8th May 2012, 06:43 PM

So how many cuts of meat are going to give you 40% connective tissue if ground chuck gives you 30%?

None, as I said it's trim. :rolleyes:

Furcifer

8th May 2012, 06:52 PM

Where is an analysis of any cut of meat ground into burger without LBT that has anywhere close to the composition of hamburger with 15% LBT in it?

You just don't seem to get that ground beef is a mixture of "cuts of meat" and "trim". The "T" in LBT is "trimmings", LBT is like "trim" not like CUTS OF MEAT.

I yield. :p

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 07:19 PM

I get it Fur, you got nothing except an assertion that hamburger is so sloppily made that lots of batches are going to have 40% connective tissue in them. 40%, as in almost half that isn't actually meat. I see no reason to believe that hamburger frequently fluctuates from 30 to 40% connective tissue based just on your assertion.

Furcifer

8th May 2012, 07:21 PM

Furcifer

8th May 2012, 07:31 PM

It just dawned on me that you may be being deliberately obtuse. You've been complaining about the use of "lean beef trimmings" because you think it somehow means "lean cuts of beef". Your whole failed argument relies on this and now that you've been shown the very obvious difference between a "cut" and "trim" you're just refusing to accept it. I'm not "asserting" the difference between a "cut" and "trim", it's known to anyone familiar with meat or willing to learn.

I suggest you go ask a butcher for some beef trimmings and see what you get. It's not a cut of meat, not by a long shot. It's scrap.

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 07:33 PM

It's a fact hamburger with LBT is likely the cause of the bad texture I've found in the past several years.

Why is your assertion any more believable? Because you claim hamburger is often made with only 60% meat in it? :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 07:36 PM

I see the problem. You are assuming LBT actually is no different from "trim".

Just because they call it lean beef trimmings does not make it the same as the 'trim' you are referring to.

You have no analysis, no evidence.

rustypouch

8th May 2012, 08:21 PM

Keep going. This is fun to watch.

Furcifer

8th May 2012, 09:28 PM

Just because they call it lean beef trimmings does not make it the same as the 'trim' you are referring to.

:boggled:

It's not really, it's the trim left over from the trim I'm referring to.

Analogy time.
A man walks into a barber shop with a long beard and says to the barber- "Can you trim my beard?"
and the barber says-
"Certainly"
So the barber "trims" his beard with a pair of scissors.
There's a big pile of beard trimmings on the floor and the guy looks in the mirror and says-
"You know what, I want a shave instead"
and the barber says-
"Certainly"
So the barber lathers the man up and shaves his face with a straight razor.
There's a big pile of beard trimmings in the sink now
Just then the man's wife bursts in, looks at the floor and looks at the sink and says-
"Those are trimmings on the floor, but those are shavings in the sink, they're not the same thing."
And that's when the man and the barber look at each other kinda funny :cool:

Skeptic Ginger

8th May 2012, 09:44 PM

Still no analysis, just assertion.

Furcifer

9th May 2012, 02:14 AM

Still no analysis, just assertion.

The irony. The USDA "analyzed" the product and determined it to be "trimmings". See: Lean Beef Trimmings, it's right there in the name.

You are the one "asserting" otherwise.

The fact that you don't like how they process the trim in LBT is really irrelevant. It's still trim (see analogy below for clarification). Trim has always been added to ground beef.

Belz...

9th May 2012, 02:48 AM

It's even more unskeptical to stereotype all humans.

Special pleading.

Silly Green Monkey

9th May 2012, 08:04 AM

It's a fact hamburger with LBT is likely the cause of the bad texture I've found in the past several years.

Saying it's ''likely'' doesn't make up for using the word "fact" where it doesn't belong. It might be the cause, it might not be, you have no evidence either way.

Skeptic Ginger

9th May 2012, 08:22 AM

The irony. The USDA "analyzed" the product and determined it to be "trimmings". See: Lean Beef Trimmings, it's right there in the name.

You are the one "asserting" otherwise.

The fact that you don't like how they process the trim in LBT is really irrelevant. It's still trim (see analogy below for clarification). Trim has always been added to ground beef.

Round and around, the USDA regulator also got 1.2 million dollars for a do nothing job sitting on the board of Tyco Foods (the biggest customer of Beef Products Inc) just after the change in labeling rules. Forgive me if I don't think the labeling rules mean LBT isn't really 70% connective tissue or that any cut of meat ground into hamburger is.

But you go ahead, repeat your arguments for another 10 pages.

Skeptic Ginger

9th May 2012, 08:26 AM

Special pleading.
Recognizing when someone is inappropriately lumping all of humanity into a single category other than human is not called special pleading, Belz.

Skeptic Ginger

9th May 2012, 08:27 AM

Saying it's ''likely'' doesn't make up for using the word "fact" where it doesn't belong. It might be the cause, it might not be, you have no evidence either way.

Look up the definition of hypothesis, Silly. Maybe that will help you with this straw man.

Furcifer

9th May 2012, 09:02 AM

. Forgive me if I don't think the labeling rules mean LBT isn't really 70% connective tissue or that any cut of meat ground into hamburger is.

Maybe I forgot to mention we're not talking about "cuts of meat" we're talking about trim?

Oh yah I did :rolleyes:

The fact that you don't know what a cut of meat by this point in the argument speaks volumes to your obvious bias. You're not objective, you're just out to prove yourself and your own convoluted ideas true.

You're comparing cuts of meat to trim instead of lean beef trimmings to trim, you're wrong.

Skeptic Ginger

9th May 2012, 02:57 PM

Maybe I forgot to mention we're not talking about "cuts of meat" we're talking about trim?

Oh yah I did :rolleyes:

The fact that you don't know what a cut of meat by this point in the argument speaks volumes to your obvious bias. You're not objective, you're just out to prove yourself and your own convoluted ideas true.

You're comparing cuts of meat to trim instead of lean beef trimmings to trim, you're wrong.I can read, Fur. You still have an assertion and no evidence.

It LBT was indeed the same as the rest of the 'trim', why does it require special treatment? Why not just grind the stuff up, add the ammonia which does not change globular protein into fibrous protein and add it to the hamburger?

And if ground chuck hamburger has 30% 'trim' as you seem to be implying (if the ground chuck had 30% connective tissue and ignoring for the moment any connective tissue within the meat itself) then why not produce an analysis showing some ground beef has 40% connective tissue in it. Show us a citation that notes the variability of connective tissue proportions in hamburger.

Ryokan

9th May 2012, 03:03 PM

It LBT was indeed the same as the rest of the 'trim', why does it require special treatment? Why not just grind the stuff up, add the ammonia which does not change globular protein into fibrous protein and add it to the hamburger?

Because the process that gets it off the bones heats the meat up. Surely you knew this?

Beerina

9th May 2012, 03:21 PM

Eh, if Popular Science had had an article about a natural additive that cut fat content and cost, we wpuldn't be here.

Skeptic Ginger

9th May 2012, 03:48 PM

Because the process that gets it off the bones heats the meat up. Surely you knew this?That's not correct. It isn't heated until after it is removed from the bones. There's a different product that bones are involved in the process.

The 'trim' in LBT is heated to melt the fat, then centrifuged to get the solids which are then low fat while 'trim' that is simply ground up to make hamburger has enough actual meat within the fat that no special treatment is needed.

If the two kinds of 'trim' were the same, as Furcifer asserts without evidence, then regular trim could be processed the same to make it have less fat or LBT trim could just be ground up. Neither thing is done. LBT 'trim' and the rest of the 'trim' are not identical.

Skeptic Ginger

9th May 2012, 03:52 PM

Eh, if Popular Science had had an article about a natural additive that cut fat content and cost, we wpuldn't be here.LBT isn't used primarily to make the hamburger low fat, LBT is used primarily to utilize more parts of the cow.

Furcifer

9th May 2012, 04:08 PM

I can read, Fur. You still have an assertion and no evidence.

Then why are you repeating the same mistakes? See below.

It LBT was indeed the same as the rest of the 'trim', why does it require special treatment? Why not just grind the stuff up, add the ammonia which does not change globular protein into fibrous protein and add it to the hamburger?

I already told you, using a knife is too time consuming. I showed you a video of a butcher processing an entire side of beef in 12 minutes and you still don't understand why scraping the bones with knife for a few ounces of meat is why LBT requires "special treatment"?

(I could go on here about surface area being the determining factor in bacterial growth but I don't think you'd understand. That's why it goes bad so fast and that's why it's usually sold as dog food)

Just grinding it up creates too much calcium in the resulting product and is therefore excluded by the USDA. The resulting bone chips and tendon also render it useless.

You know this of course because you claim to have read the thread.

Show us a citation that notes the variability of connective tissue proportions in hamburger.

If I do your homework for you will you finally admit you're wrong?

Furcifer

9th May 2012, 04:13 PM

If the two kinds of 'trim' were the same, as Furcifer asserts without evidence, then regular trim could be processed the same to make it have less fat or LBT trim could just be ground up. Neither thing is done. LBT 'trim' and the rest of the 'trim' are not identical.

See you don't have any clue what you're talking about. You aren't learning anything here.

Why would you take trim ready to go into the hopper and be mixed with fat and made into ground beef, out of the hopper to be processed and then back into the hopper? :boggled:

You do not understand how ground beef is processed.

Skeptic Ginger

9th May 2012, 07:50 PM

...
Why would you take trim ready to go into the hopper and be mixed with fat and made into ground beef, out of the hopper to be processed and then back into the hopper?Your arguments don't make your case, Fur. The reason for processing the 'trim' you keep insisting is the same as the LBT trim would be to lower the fat content. And yet it is not processed like the LBT. The 'trim' you think you know is the same is not the same.

I had an interesting discussion with the Safeway meat guy tonight. He said a lot of the LBT was added to the 4% fat hamburger. IOW LBT was used to create the lowest low fat burger. (I get it some consumers would choose that, but I am only saying the stuff should be labeled so consumers have a choice.)

OK, so if I've been buying very low fat burger, which I have, that might explain why I've had texture problems others have not encountered. The most LBT would be in the lowest low fat burger.

And if LBT has been used specifically for lowering the fat content I find that even more deceitful. They lowered the fat content by adding connective tissue, not by adding actual meat.

Furcifer

10th May 2012, 07:13 AM

Your arguments don't make your case, Fur. The reason for processing the 'trim' you keep insisting is the same as the LBT trim would be to lower the fat content. And yet it is not processed like the LBT. The 'trim' you think you know is the same is not the same.

No your observations don't make sense. Trim is mixed with fat to make ground beef. Why would you "lower the fat content" of trim if you're going mix it with fat to make ground beef with it? :boggled:

Face it, your preconcieved notions are so strong they are blinding you to reason.

And if LBT has been used specifically for lowering the fat content I find that even more deceitful. They lowered the fat content by adding connective tissue, not by adding actual meat.

If you've been buying 4% extra lean burger for the last 20 years no wonder you think it tastes like crap. Read the studies, fat and yes connective tissue, are what give the burger flavor and tenderness. You've been eating beef hockey pucks.
(I see some of your comprehension problem might come from buying extra lean meat. There wouldn't very much, if any trim in extra lean ground beef. The trim usually has more than 4% fat if I had to guess.)

So the net result of Jamie Oliver's not so skeptical scare mongering is; a company out of business, 3 plants shut down, numerous people out of work, higher prices and more fat being added to the American diet. Awesome. :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2012, 08:11 AM

...Trim is mixed with fat to make ground beef. Why would you "lower the fat content" of trim if you're going mix it with fat to make ground beef with it? :boggled:What are you talking about? This claim is off the wall bizarre. Why would you lower the fat content of trim? Ask BPI. :rolleyes:

...If you've been buying 4% extra lean burger for the last 20 years no wonder you think it tastes like crap. Read the studies, fat and yes connective tissue, are what give the burger flavor and tenderness. You've been eating beef hockey pucks.
(I see some of your comprehension problem might come from buying extra lean meat. There wouldn't very much, if any trim in extra lean ground beef. The trim usually has more than 4% fat if I had to guess.)The bad texture is not in all "leanest" ground beef. In addition I have found the bad texture in 7% fat hamburger as well. I've been eating "leanest" ground beef long before this texture problem began. Your hypothesis is a fail.

Also, if hamburger producers started adding cheaper LBT instead of more expensive red meat to the mix to lower the fat %, that to me is even more misleading.

... So the net result of Jamie Oliver's not so skeptical scare mongering is; a company out of business, 3 plants shut down, numerous people out of work, higher prices and more fat being added to the American diet. Awesome. :rolleyes:What a tangled web Beef Products, Inc did weave, when first they practiced to deceive.

You cannot blame the consumers. Had the producers just been honest in the first place, and if their claims that LBT really did do nothing to the flavor or texture of the hamburger, or improved it as the companies that make it claim, then the problems they are having today would not be happening.

Dipayan

10th May 2012, 08:55 AM

"Finely textured" is market speak. The scientists who saw it called it slime.

'Slime' is a term that one scientist used when he was chatting in a non-professional setting over mail, and so should not be regarded as a personal opinion, but rather a scientific consensus. Right. :rolleyes:

Ever wonder why they named a bill in the US Congress, "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"?So they could call it the USA Patriot Act.I could fill pages with examples of market-speak intended to deceive.

The US government had to create currency for the bill among people. Among individuals. Hence the name - to create salience for the bill and immediately connect it to a strong emotion. When selling to the common public, naming is very important. Your error is in connecting this to a B2B product.

BPI never expected the public to ever care about LFBT. It had a product that it was supplying to corporations. Corporations or regulatory agencies such as the USDA do not have the liberty of being swayed by the 'name'. They have to do due diligence before getting into a contract or approving a product. Unless it is your contention that BPI foresaw the fact that LFTB was going to become a talking point among the American public and therefore created a misleading name for its product 20 years back, I'm not sure why you think that LFTB is 'marketing-speak'.

Dipayan

10th May 2012, 09:11 AM

Had the producers just been honest in the first place, and if their claims that LBT really did do nothing to the flavor or texture of the hamburger, or improved it as the companies that make it claim, then the problems they are having today would not be happening.

10% of the people in your poll said that the texture of ground beef has changed (no idea if it is for the better or worse). 90% of the sample public don't think it has.

So do you really think it is about the flavour/texture of LFTB or just a case of mass media hype and the gullibility of the common public?

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2012, 09:42 AM

'Slime' is a term that one scientist used when he was chatting in a non-professional setting over mail, and so should not be regarded as a personal opinion, but rather a scientific consensus. Right. :rolleyes:The point wasn't that it was slime. In one of my first posts in this thread I said Pink Slime was essentially an equally misleading name.

The point is there is an entire industry that has been built on the concept of the marketing advantage of portraying hidden meanings in names. I repeat for the gazzilionth time, calling something that is 70% not-muscle-meat by the name "beef" is specifically intended to imply the product is mostly muscle meat. Is a beef heart beef? Yes. Would you think the label was honest on a package of an unrecognizable ground up red stuff if it only said "100% beef" but it was actually "beef heart"? Technically it is beef.

The US government had to create currency for the bill among people. Among individuals. Hence the name - to create salience for the bill and immediately connect it to a strong emotion. When selling to the common public, naming is very important. Your error is in connecting this to a B2B product.No error, see below. As to, naming is important, d'uh! The government has made a habit of giving misleading names to bills in order to sell the public a load of lipsticked pigs.

BPI never expected the public to ever care about LFBT. It had a product that it was supplying to corporations. Corporations or regulatory agencies such as the USDA do not have the liberty of being swayed by the 'name'. They have to do due diligence before getting into a contract or approving a product. Unless it is your contention that BPI foresaw the fact that LFTB was going to become a talking point among the American public and therefore created a misleading name for its product 20 years back, I'm not sure why you think that LFTB is 'marketing-speak'.If BPI didn't think the public would mind, why not advertise LBT to the public the same way they advertised it to meat producers as a wholesome nutritious means of lowering the fat content in hamburger?

There are 2 separate issues here, BTW. One is the typical market-mislead name for the product. The second issue is getting the stuff into hamburger with no labeling at all. I expect the former, I find the latter to be over the line in reasonable food product labeling. At least if something is called cheese product I know it differs from cheese.

So about that labeling, why go to the expense of lobbying (including the cost of 1.2 million to pay off a regulator laundered under the guise of a 4 day a year job) if you are so sure the product is desirable? It wasn't like GMO with a pre-established fear reaction. Heck, they named it lean beef.

You can't possibly believe that a consumer reading "ground beef, lean beef trimmings, etc." on a hamburger label would be all that concerned? It sounds like an additive that added muscle meat and lowered the fat %. This would also be a misleading label but it would be the kind of market-mislead that is the norm.

I get it that "beef" does not mean "meat" in this case. I also know that "cheese product" does not mean "cheese". We've all come to expect that. Some people care, some don't. If it says cheese product, however, I have the option of finding out what that means. I have the option of buying it or the more expensive real cheese. And if I thought cheese product was fine nutrition-wise and the kids preferred it I would buy it.

Cheese product has mostly cheese in it. Why not call it cheese? Why inform the consumer at all? You could claim adding emulsifiers is just a different processing technique. People are attenuated to the list of chemical emulsifiers and preservatives in food. I know I am. But the people who care have the option of buying it or not when they are informed.

If hamburger had LBT listed on the label and I found that was the stuff with the awful texture, I could choose to buy it or not.

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2012, 09:48 AM

10% of the people in your poll said that the texture of ground beef has changed (no idea if it is for the better or worse). 90% of the sample public don't think it has.

So do you really think it is about the flavour/texture of LFTB or just a case of mass media hype and the gullibility of the common public?You are completely misstating the outcome of the poll.

The purpose of the poll was just to find people besides myself that noticed the change. I found 5 of them.

The purpose of the poll was not to measure the proportion of people who noticed the difference.

As for the media hype, I'm against the ignorant way the media handles any scientific information. The fact the news sells scandal and controversy rather than information is a different topic and you and I probably would be arguing on the same side in such a thread.

Furcifer

10th May 2012, 09:53 AM

What are you talking about? This claim is off the wall bizarre. Why would you lower the fat content of trim? Ask BPI. :rolleyes:

You're not even following your own claims anymore, you're just kind of flailing around making nonsensical comparisons.

Doesn't that bother you? It's certainly not for lack of people trying to explain things to you.

The bad texture is not in all "leanest" ground beef.

That's your assertion, no proof no evidence yad yad yad :rolleyes:

In addition I have found the bad texture in 7% fat hamburger as well. I've been eating "leanest" ground beef long before this texture problem began. Your hypothesis is a fail.

So you can taste a 3% difference in fat content now as well? Or they have that much control over the fat content to begin with? lol. :rolleyes:

Also, if hamburger producers started adding cheaper LBT instead of more expensive red meat to the mix to lower the fat %, that to me is even more misleading.

No it isn't, you just think it is because you don't understand how ground beef is processed and you're convinced "slime" is bad. That's been made very clear by now.

What a tangled web Beef Products, Inc did weave, when first they practiced to deceive.

Because people are idiots.

You cannot blame the consumers. Had the producers just been honest in the first place, and if their claims that LBT really did do nothing to the flavor or texture of the hamburger, or improved it as the companies that make it claim, then the problems they are having today would not be happening.

Nonsense. The same Americans reacting like idiots to this are the ones going to Fenway and paying $8 for a hotdog this weekend and sending their kids to school on Monday with baloney sandwhiches. They'll probably stop at MacDonald's for a hamburger and some chicken nugets as well.

But "OH NOES THE TEXTURE OF MY BURGER IS FUNNY!" puh leeez. :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2012, 11:05 AM

Flailing Fur, try again:

LBT is made from taking the trim that was previously too contaminated to use. It also happens to be trim that has very little actual meat in it. The LBT is heated and centrifuged TO REMOVE THE FAT.

The ammonia is a separate issue to kill the more heavily concentrated bacterial contamination.

The remaining substance is mostly fibrous protein from connective tissue (70%) which is then added to hamburger to decrease the fat proportion.

Why not do the same thing to reduce the fat content of the 'trim' that the original hamburger was made from?

Why not just grind up the additionally recovered trim and only add the ammonia processing step?

If what you claim is true, the 'trim' they make LBT out of is the same 'trim' they make hamburger out of, why are the two not interchangeable?

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2012, 11:07 AM

...
So you can taste a 3% difference in fat content now as well? Or they have that much control over the fat content to begin with? lol. :rolleyes: Where did I say this and why is it relevant?

Draca

10th May 2012, 11:12 AM

Big Agriculture's Big Secrets: 9 Things You Need to Know About the Food You Eat
Food scandals are so costly to Big Food that it has repeatedly tried to kill the messenger rather than clean up its act.

http://www.alternet.org/health/155340/big_agriculture's_big_secrets%3A_9_things_you_need _to_know_about_the_food_you_eat

This article brings up the point that Big Ag has responded to critics by trying to kill the messenger instead of cleaning up it's act and by introducing Ag-gag laws to silence critics.

The articles defending BPI that I've read consistently miss the point that consumers are upset that LFTB was added to ground beef without informing them. Many consumers feel tricked and deceived both financially and for health reasons. The response given by the beef industry is that there is nothing wrong with LFTB. It does not answer why this extender was unlabeled and added without the consumers knowledge. The USDA/FDA failed to require labeling in the first place and have chosen to protect BPI over the citizen's reasonable desire to know what is in their food.

The 1997 Texas Cattlemen's suit against Oprah is a good example.

Oprah said she would never eat a hamburger again after a show showing cattle being fed to other cattle.

They attempted to silence criticism and used Oprah as an example. Oprah won the suit. The practice of cow cannibalism later became illegal after it was associated with Mad Cow disease.

I think it was a ridiculous suit in the first place. Why wouldn't Oprah have the right to say she thought cows eating cows was so gross she never wanted to eat another burger? It was her opinion.

The larger concern is that cattle are herbivores. It is going against their own biology to feed them meat. It's a disgusting and dangerous practice and should be questioned. Suits and laws designed to silence people who question food safety and practices is not the response I would like to see.

There are a lot meat issues currently in the news. It will be interesting if any changes will be made on how they are dealt with. How will the USDA/FDA respond?

Meat Glue - The USDA has also not required labeling of this product. Way to protect the public. :rolleyes: Why would they approve not labeling a product that was designed to deceive people? A heath issue is that many people cook steaks to rare or medium rare, which is generally safe because any pathogens will more likely be on the outside of the steak. When meat glue is used the outside portion is now glued together with other pieces making the outside the inside of the steak and should be cooked to fully. How will consumers know to do this if it isn't labeled?

Human Growth Hormone - Scary. There are girls in the USA who are starting to menstruate at ever earlier ages. 7-9 yrs old. Could growth hormone be to blame? Idk. I've been buying organic milk for a long time and since LFTB have been buying all organic meat.

Anti-biotics - Is overuse of anti-biotics in the AG industry endangering all of us with resistant strands?

Chickens on drugs - Taking uppers and downers to try and calm them down from horrible living conditions.

I think these are all important issues. How are we going to treat the animals that become our food? How will the consumer be safe and informed?

Ron_Tomkins

10th May 2012, 11:22 AM

Draca

10th May 2012, 11:50 AM

I recently found out about the pink slime stuff. I was glad I rarely ever eat red meat.

Then I found out there were mutated shrimp affected by the oil spill. I was aware I had to cut down the shrimp.

Then I found out there's some problem with the chickens. I was glad I don't eat chicken that much.

Then I found out there's also a problem with fish... at this point I said **** it. Every single food item is messed up in some way. I'm just gonna keep eating what I want.

I understand how you feel. People are busy and don't have time to do lots of research. I would have made some changes earlier if I had bothered to inform myself.

There are some easy changes that can be made though.

Buy organic if possible. Buying organic will get rid of the drugs and chemicals. If you have space for frozen food, you can buy directly from a family farmer. Buy a 1/4 or 1/2 of a steer. You can also go in on it with friends and family. The same with chicken, lamb, turkeys. You can buy much better quality and support family farms at the same time. Seafood is similar with a bit of research.

Since Pink Slime came out I've only had beef a few times. I bought organic burger at PCC to see if I could tell the difference. It was really good. Organic ground beef is expensive so I've been buying organic ground turkey more often. I can't control what meat I'm served when I eat out so, don't worry about it too much and am more careful about what I buy for groceries.

Organic milk and cage free chickens are also easy to find in many stores.

http://www.eatwild.com/
http://www.localharvest.org/store/meats.jsp

Ron_Tomkins

10th May 2012, 12:14 PM

I understand how you feel. People are busy and don't have time to do lots of research. I would have made some changes earlier if I had bothered to inform myself.

There are some easy changes that can be made though.

Buy organic if possible. Buying organic will get rid of the drugs and chemicals. If you have space for frozen food, you can buy directly from a family farmer. Buy a 1/4 or 1/2 of a steer. You can also go in on it with friends and family. The same with chicken, lamb, turkeys. You can buy much better quality and support family farms at the same time. Seafood is similar with a bit of research.

Since Pink Slime came out I've only had beef a few times. I bought organic burger at PCC to see if I could tell the difference. It was really good. Organic ground beef is expensive so I've been buying organic ground turkey more often. I can't control what meat I'm served when I eat out so, don't worry about it too much and am more careful about what I buy for groceries.

Organic milk and cage free chickens are also easy to find in many stores.

http://www.eatwild.com/
http://www.localharvest.org/store/meats.jsp

Thank you. I do buy organic stuff when there's such label. But so far, only the chicken I buy has the labeled distinction between regular chicken and organic chicken. But the pork chops or the shrimp don't have that. Neither does the fish I buy at the fish market. I can only trust that it is safe to eat.

Furcifer

10th May 2012, 01:43 PM

Flailing Fur, try again:

LBT is made from taking the trim that was previously too contaminated to use.

This is a misrepresentation and probably a lie. The trim isn't "contaminated", it's just that it is usually thrown into a bucket and then sits. It was then sold for dog food. Instead it's being collected to be processed, just like any other trim.

I realize you don't understand this, but none the less it needs to be explained because I'm sure some people understand. If you threw striploin steaks into a bucket and let them sit, because they were thought to be "waste", they would become "contaminated" and be sold for dog food.

It also happens to be trim that has very little actual meat in it.

No, and I've explained this numerous times to you, it depends on where it's cut from and who is doing the cutting and the physical characteristics of the cow. It's the bits that are removed to make a retail cut of meat. Sometimes it's fat, sometimes it's connective tissue and sometimes it's meat, but it's almost always all three. You keep saying "But LBT is 70% connctive tissue, unlike "trim" why is that? Hmm" and I've told you it's random, sometimes it's 100% meat and sometimes it's 70% connective tissue.

Why not do the same thing to reduce the fat content of the 'trim' that the original hamburger was made from?

Because you have to add fat to ground beef

Why not just grind up the additionally recovered trim and only add the ammonia processing step?

Because you have to add fat to ground beef

If what you claim is true, the 'trim' they make LBT out of is the same 'trim' they make hamburger out of, why are the two not interchangeable?

You're just trolling arent' you?

For the 4th time, the manual recovery of the trim used in LBT isn't feasible.

Furcifer

10th May 2012, 02:15 PM

The response given by the beef industry is that there is nothing wrong with LFTB. It does not answer why this extender was unlabeled and added without the consumers knowledge. The USDA/FDA failed to require labeling in the first place and have chosen to protect BPI over the citizen's reasonable desire to know what is in their food.

It does though. The beef used to make LBT was unrecoverable because it cost too much to recover it manually ie; with a knife. BPI's process was new and they (USDA) had to decide; is it more like a knife or more like mechanical seperation. Because BPI's process doesn't introduce the "impurities" to the beef mechanical seperation does it was essentially more "knife like".

The real concern here isn't labeling at all, it's whether or not it's safe to use ammonium in the processing of meat. Canada and other countries say no, but they allow it in the US.

Incidentally, they also use CO2 pellets in the processing of ground beef (some processors do, or did at least), which doesn't appear on the label either. It's just that pouring soda water on a pile of ground beef doesn't get the reaction pouring Ajax on a pile of ground beef does.

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2012, 04:27 PM

...The real concern here isn't labeling at all, Maybe to you it isn't, but it is the real concern I have.

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2012, 04:58 PM

This is a misrepresentation and probably a lie. The trim isn't "contaminated", it's just that it is usually thrown into a bucket and then sitsDo you not know what the definition of contaminated it? It's contaminated!!! Who cares how it got that way?

Instead it's being collected to be processed, just like any other trim.NO IT ISN'T. If it were processed like the rest of the trim we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Your post is bizarre. But from the next part I think I see what your problem is. You are still arguing your lie.

For the 4th time, the manual recovery of the trim used in LBT isn't feasible.Stop repeating yourself and try replying to what I post.

You claim that all the 'trim' is the same except some sits in a dirty bucket and has to be decontaminated and some doesn't.

If that is true then why does this stuff need to be heated, centrifuged and then decontaminated with the ammonia? Got that?
heating.... centrifuging.....heating.... centrifuging.....heating.... centrifuging

“We originally called it soylent pink,” Carl Custer, another microbiologist with the Food Safety Inspection Service, told The Daily. “We looked at the product, and we objected to it because it used connective tissue instead of muscle. It was simply not nutrionally equivalent (to ground beef). My main objection was that it was not meat.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/03/08/pink-slime-combo-connective-tissue-scraps-hidden-in-your-kids-lunch/#ixzz1uVtIwYWN

But do go ahead repeating your unsupported claim that the stuff is just trim that was put n a bucket. :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2012, 05:34 PM

OK, the test has been approved. We are going to try to get the tavern staff to cook the burgers. I'll post the outcome of that plan when it is confirmed.

Ron_Tomkins

10th May 2012, 05:39 PM

This discussion is fun :D

rustypouch

10th May 2012, 06:30 PM

OK, the test has been approved. We are going to try to get the tavern staff to cook the burgers. I'll post the outcome of that plan when it is confirmed.

Take plenty of pics!

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2012, 07:28 PM

Take plenty of pics!I'll ask the group to.

Here's the write up, (not sure if non-members can see it but it's free to sign up), as always the night is crammed with stuff: The Seattle Skeptics May Meetup (http://www.meetup.com/seattleskeptics/events/50238202/)Can you tell the difference between a hamburger with the controversial beef additive LBT (aka 'pink slime') and not? While the science largely proves that LBT is safe, there is an open question on if there's a difference in taste. Our very own Ginger will be conducting a live double-blind taste test and will reveal the results.

rustypouch

10th May 2012, 07:46 PM

Why can't you take pics?

And sorry, I don't care to give out my info to be able to read your ranting.

Furcifer

10th May 2012, 08:50 PM

Maybe to you it isn't, but it is the real concern I have.

Some things are better left to regulation as opposed to putting it on the label and letting people, who don't have the resources or the knowledge a body like the FDA or the USDA have, decide.

IMO the real issue in the US with food today is consumption, not labeling. And the facts seem to indicate LBT is an effective way to lower calories and reduce cost.

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2012, 08:52 PM

Why can't you take pics?

And sorry, I don't care to give out my info to be able to read your ranting.What ranting? I quoted the only relevant part. It's just a description of our upcoming meeting and what is planned for the evening.

I'll be busy with the burger but someone usually brings a camera.

Skeptic Ginger

10th May 2012, 08:55 PM

Some things are better left to regulation as opposed to putting it on the label and letting people, who don't have the resources or the knowledge a body like the FDA or the USDA have, decide.

IMO the real issue in the US with food today is consumption, not labeling. And the facts seem to indicate LBT is an effective way to lower calories and reduce cost.Is your sentiment also going to hold if people can tell the difference?

Furcifer

10th May 2012, 09:50 PM

Do you not know what the definition of contaminated it? It's contaminated!!! Who cares how it got that way?

Well I'll tell you why, if it's handled like garbage it's going to be garbage, but if it's handled properly it isn't. The fact is it starts out perfectly edible, it's only through improper handling that it becomes contaminated.

For instance, I used to throw my cigarette butts in the bone bucket. If BPI was puchasing the bone bucket to process I wouldn't do that. I also used to throw wood shavings into the bone bucket, but if it was going to BPI I wouldn't do that anymore.

It's very easy to change "how it got that way". You simply tell your staff to treat the bone bucket going to BPI like it was the trim bucket.

NO IT ISN'T. If it were processed like the rest of the trim we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Try reading for comprehension, I said "collected" not "processed". :rolleyes:

You claim that all the 'trim' is the same except some sits in a dirty bucket and has to be decontaminated and some doesn't.

Correct. Some of the buckets had a recycle symbol on them and some of them had "not for human consumption". I have every reason to believe the beef going to BPI would have been treated better because it wasn't garbage anymore, it was money.

(most places use color code bins to differentiate the scrap or garbage from the trim or otherwise edible meat)

If that is true then why does this stuff need to be heated, centrifuged and then decontaminated with the ammonia? Got that?
heating.... centrifuging.....heating.... centrifuging.....heating.... centrifuging

Because that's the processing they use to get more of it from the bones and scraps. :boggled:

You dont' seem to understand biology at all, but because of the increased surface area the chance of bacterial growth is also increased. Most of this is controlled by regulating the temperature and exposure time during and after processing. In the case of the trim used in LBT the increased surface area, combined with exposure to higher temperatures over longer time periods necessitates chemical treatment to stop bacterial growth. Cargill uses citric acid and BPI uses amonium. I mentioned this before but you don't seem to understand.

Face it, you're utterly clueless how beef is processed and you're arguing from complete ignorance.

But do go ahead repeating your unsupported claim that the stuff is just trim that was put n a bucket. :rolleyes:

No, you probably didn't look at the video or read what I wrote, but I showed you how a cow was processed and I showed you the pieces being used by BPI to collect the trim used in LBT. I then explained to you why it's infeasible to manually collect the trim. Now I've explained exactly why a chemical processing like the ones used by Cargill and BPI is necessary.

It's all been supported.

Dipayan

10th May 2012, 11:12 PM

If BPI didn't think the public would mind, why not advertise LBT to the public the same way they advertised it to meat producers as a wholesome nutritious means of lowering the fat content in hamburger?

Because they are a B2B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business-to-business) company. They sell their product to companies - why would they be advertising to the consumers? That is not their target audience!

BPI's responsibility is to be transparent with the various companies it supplies to and show that its produce is healthy, safe and nutritious. From then on, it is the responsibility of those companies to pass on any relevant information to the public that they serve.

BPI had fulfilled its side of the deal by informing the various companies about LFBT. This is obvious from the fact that some companies have come forward in this debacle to state that they have never used LFBT meat because they did not feel that it met their standards (how would they know of it unless they were informed?). So there does not seem to be any deceit from BPI's side. Yet they are the ones getting screwed in this deal.

There are 2 separate issues here, BTW. One is the typical market-mislead name for the product. The second issue is getting the stuff into hamburger with no labeling at all.

A 'marketing' name would be useless for a B2B company for the above mentioned reasons. And with regard to the second issue, again, as mentioned above, BPI had informed the companies about LFTB (after USDA approval), and it was the responsibility of the various companies to inform the public. They failed to do so - it is their fault, not BPI's. But the general public (including you) is vilifying BPI and ignoring the primary role of these other companies.

So about that labeling, why go to the expense of lobbying (including the cost of 1.2 million to pay off a regulator laundered under the guise of a 4 day a year job) if you are so sure the product is desirable?

Firstly, I take exception to your snide use of the word 'laundered'. You don't understand what a Board member does. Yes, they do not meet every day. But what they do is oversee key decisions taken by the company, keep a check on the CEO, work towards building the image of the company, lobby for the company within the industry and of course, protect the interests of shareholders. These functions do not require a regular 9-5 office visit. Your claim seems to be that board members get paid a lot to not do anything - which would mean that 90% of all large businesses worldwide are stupid and want to spend money without any benefits. Is that your claim?

With regards to lobbying, it is a perfectly legal and acceptable process to inform and educate organizations to lead to policy change. Keeping in mind that this act is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, what is your beef with it exactly?

If hamburger had LBT listed on the label and I found that was the stuff with the awful texture, I could choose to buy it or not.

Sure, but the point remains that BPI has been perfectly open about its processes. If you have a problem, rail against corporations such as Wendy's, McDonalds, Safeway etc. Why in the world are you vilifying BPI?

Dipayan

10th May 2012, 11:18 PM

The real concern here isn't labeling at all, it's whether or not it's safe to use ammonium in the processing of meat. Canada and other countries say no, but they allow it in the US.

Small clarification. Canada specifically does not say 'No' to ammonia. It's just that no organization has yet asked to use it. Hence, it has not been considered yet to be added to the approved list of additives.

But according to Health Canada, which regulates food additives, it is not allowed in this country. “Ammonia is not permitted in Canada to be used in ground beef or meats during their production,” the agency said in a statement.

The reason is apparently that no one has asked to use it. “Health Canada requires that all food additives undergo a pre-market safety evaluation,” the agency said. “Ammonium hydroxide added to meat … would be regulated in Canada as a food additive. Therefore, Health Canada would need to receive a submission requesting a specific use of ammonium hydroxide in meat products before the substance could be considered for approval.”

Health Canada also says that any imported meat must adhere to Canadian rules and standards, meaning LFTB cannot be brought into the country.

So it’s not a matter of LFTB being banned in Canada, it’s just never been on the list of approved additives for meat. And we do allow ammonium hydroxide in the processing of cocoa products and gelatin.

Link here (http://www.thespec.com/news/article/692432--pink-slime-stops-at-the-49th-parallel)

Furcifer

10th May 2012, 11:25 PM

Small clarification. Canada specifically does not say 'No' to ammonia. It's just that no organization has yet asked to use it. Hence, it has not been considered yet to be added to the approved list of additives.
Link here (http://www.thespec.com/news/article/692432--pink-slime-stops-at-the-49th-parallel)

True, it's a de facto "no" for processing in Canada, but it's an outright "no" for import.

eta: excellent point about B2B. They're really taking a beating for what their customers did, not what they did. They couldn't force their customers to label the product if they wanted to.

Dipayan

10th May 2012, 11:27 PM

The purpose of the poll was just to find people besides myself that noticed the change. I found 5 of them.

The purpose of the poll was not to measure the proportion of people who noticed the difference.

The fact that your purpose was different does not mean that we cannot make an extrapolation.

You made a claim that the current situation with BPI has arisen because the addition of LFBT changed the texture or taste of ground beef. Your poll suggests that 90% of the our small sample does not think that the texture of taste of ground beef has changed. So what evidence are you basing your claim on?

As for the media hype, I'm against the ignorant way the media handles any scientific information. The fact the news sells scandal and controversy rather than information is a different topic and you and I probably would be arguing on the same side in such a thread.

I have seen your posts, and I think you and I would be arguing on the same side in most threads :)

Alas, this is not one of them! :boxedin:

Dipayan

10th May 2012, 11:28 PM

True, it's a de facto "no" for processing in Canada, but it's an outright "no" for import.

Correct, but that is because all imports need to match domestic standards. If the domestic standard changes, the import standard would also.

Drs_Res

10th May 2012, 11:33 PM

OK, the test has been approved. We are going to try to get the tavern staff to cook the burgers. I'll post the outcome of that plan when it is confirmed.

I am looking forward to the test and your results. Maybe the time between confirmation and the test could be used to discuss the protocol for your test.

Skeptic Ginger

11th May 2012, 08:20 AM

I am looking forward to the test and your results. Maybe the time between confirmation and the test could be used to discuss the protocol for your test.Yeah, I think I'll start a new thread asking for that very input. This one is getting tiring with all the repetition of unsupported arguments without offering anything more than the same assertions. Seems I'm the only one willing to actually test my hypothesis.

Skeptic Ginger

11th May 2012, 08:51 AM

Test design thread started. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8276246#post8276246) Test is scheduled for Tues, 05-15-2012.

Belz...

11th May 2012, 09:04 AM

Recognizing when someone is inappropriately lumping all of humanity into a single category other than human is not called special pleading, Belz.

Claiming that despite the proven fact that humans are notoriously bad at determining how good they are at something, it somehow doesn't apply to you, is, however.

Belz...

11th May 2012, 09:06 AM

If you've been buying 4% extra lean burger for the last 20 years no wonder you think it tastes like crap. Read the studies, fat and yes connective tissue, are what give the burger flavor and tenderness. You've been eating beef hockey pucks.

Might still be confirmation bias. I've switched to extra-lean ground beef years ago and it tastes as good as ever.

Belz...

11th May 2012, 09:13 AM

rustypouch

11th May 2012, 12:50 PM

What ranting? I quoted the only relevant part. It's just a description of our upcoming meeting and what is planned for the evening.

I'll be busy with the burger but someone usually brings a camera.

I look forward to seeing your pretty face!

Furcifer

11th May 2012, 01:20 PM

Might still be confirmation bias. I've switched to extra-lean ground beef years ago and it tastes as good as ever.

No doubt, there are so many variables in play here the tests are almost useless. They're really only good for commercial producers and maybe restaurants. I prefer a nice chopped round steak with some pink in the middle for my burgers. Not many restaurants are going to serve you a pink burger even if they wanted to, the board of health frowns on that. I just got a feeling SG liked hers a little more well done and with extra lean of course it's gonna get chewy.

Skeptic Ginger

11th May 2012, 01:32 PM

So you are dismissing the results ahead of time, Fur? :rolleyes:

Ryokan

11th May 2012, 02:12 PM

So you are dismissing the results ahead of time, Fur? :rolleyes:

You've already made your mind up, so why can't he? ;)

Skeptic Ginger

11th May 2012, 05:03 PM

You've already made your mind up, so why can't he? ;)

Should I point out your false equivalency for you?

The difference is I'm testing my conclusion.
Fur's telling us what the result of the test will be before the test has been done.

Furcifer

11th May 2012, 07:55 PM

Should I point out your false equivalency for you?

The difference is I'm testing my conclusion.
Fur's telling us what the result of the test will be before the test has been done.

I'm telling you you can get whatever results you'd like, not what they will be.

Skeptic Ginger

11th May 2012, 09:55 PM

I'm telling you you can get whatever results you'd like, not what they will be.What does that mean? There are forum members in our Seattle group. Do you need a witness because you think I'll just lie?

Silly Green Monkey

12th May 2012, 07:53 AM

Conclusions come AFTER tests, that's the whole point. Why do tests after you've finished and concluded?

Skeptic Ginger

13th May 2012, 08:17 AM

"Putting Pink Slime to the Test"

nbD3rIXw0n4

Most found the texture better without LFBT.

That makes two specific chewing/eating texture testing supporting citations that are not direct company sponsored studies.

What are the double downers going to do with this? I'm guessing more doubling down. But I digress...

Furcifer

13th May 2012, 05:21 PM

Conclusions come AFTER tests, that's the whole point. Why do tests after you've finished and concluded?

This. I think it's possible to conduct a test to determine if LBT has a positive or negative effect on the taste and texture of ground beef, but at this point I'm not convinced SG can do so.

I also think all things being equal LBT does change ground beef, but I also know and have shown all things are far from being equal when it comes to ground beef. I'm quite confident I could, using the normally used "ingredients" in ground beef, create something that would mimic LBT. It would be virtually indistinguishable from LBT in a blind taste test.

Long story short, LBT may make ground beef taste "different", but it still tastes very much like ground beef. Proving it tastes "different" does not prove what she thinks it does.

Proving ground beef with LBT doesn't taste anything like ground beef IMO is much much more difficult than she's capable of doing with her limited understanding of how ground beef and cows for that matter are processed.

I've tried to lend my experience to her but she's been decidedly "unskeptical". If anyone else reading this has had the misfortune of having made tons of ground beef I wish they'd chip in.

Skeptic Ginger

13th May 2012, 05:30 PM

Ignoring the video I see, Fur. It's a TV station record of their doing a double blind test at a community college and the majority of the participants said the texture differed.

Notice also the summary in the video of how LBT is made. It is but one more source that confirms it is you who does not know how beef is processed.

Your experience is laughable given you don't seem to get the centrifuge part. Also you've claimed sitting in the bucket is the source of excessive bacterial contamination while more than one cited source in this thread noted it was because the trim in question was closer to the hide and other anatomical problems not sitting in the trim bucket.

Furcifer

14th May 2012, 04:28 AM

Skeptic Ginger

14th May 2012, 08:53 AM

The video won't play on my phone.

The hide is stripped and removed, it's not processed to make LBT. What's left over could make it's way into normal ground beef or LBT. Or your pot roast for that matter.

So the beef takes a ride on the Tilt a Whirl before being made into LBT, what's your point? The centrafuge isn't the evil weapon you think it is.My point is you don't know what you are talking about.

You don't know how LBT is processed and you don't know how it differs from the rest of the trim. You cannot explain why the LBT isn't just ground up and treated with the ammonia or why the rest of the trim isn't centrifuged to remove the fat.

If LBT is no more than the same stuff with more bacteria why is it not interchangeable with 'trim' and just treated for the bacterial contamination?

In all your condescending babbling you have yet to make your case.

Dipayan

14th May 2012, 09:33 AM

Most found the texture better without LFBT.

That makes two specific chewing/eating texture testing supporting citations that are not direct company sponsored studies.

I just saw the video. Most of the people preferred the texture of the first, but the flavour and taste of the second. Most of them seemed to say that unless they were specifically looking for a difference, they would not be able to find one. The study ends with the statement that it seems to just boil down to personal taste.

How exactly is this evidence of your position? :confused:

Furcifer

14th May 2012, 11:20 AM

My point is you don't know what you are talking about.

You don't know how LBT is processed and you don't know how it differs from the rest of the trim. You cannot explain why the LBT isn't just ground up and treated with the ammonia or why the rest of the trim isn't centrifuged to remove the fat.

If LBT is no more than the same stuff with more bacteria why is it not interchangeable with 'trim' and just treated for the bacterial contamination?

In all your condescending babbling you have yet to make your case.

You're lying. I clearly stated why the trim was collected using the centrifuge and not by manual or mechanical methods ie. grinding.

The fact that you don't understand what this implies is very telling. You're not fooling anyone but yourself I'm afraid.

Skeptic Ginger

14th May 2012, 11:35 AM

I just saw the video. Most of the people preferred the texture of the first, but the flavour and taste of the second. Most of them seemed to say that unless they were specifically looking for a difference, they would not be able to find one. The study ends with the statement that it seems to just boil down to personal taste.
A, I have never said it didn't boil down to just personal taste, & B, watch again, most said the flavor and texture of the non LBT was better and the ones with LBT were "juicier" and only 2 people preferred the stuff with LBT, not most people.

The video on YouTube: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbD3rIXw0n4&feature=player_embedded)Narrator: "All but 2 found the burger without LFBT better."
Chef participant: "Well the texture was better"
Narrator: "Texture and taste were a common theme. When it came to a juicy burger, burger B, with LFTB won."

But it's all beside the point since all I've ever complained about was, it is noticeable, and it is not labeled. It should be labeled and it was dishonest not to do so.

How exactly is this evidence of your position? :confused:You can't be serious.

I said texture was noticeably different and the majority of participants in this double blind test found the texture noticeably different.

Skeptic Ginger

14th May 2012, 11:41 AM

You're lying. I clearly stated why the trim was collected using the centrifuge and not by manual or mechanical methods ie. grinding.

The fact that you don't understand what this implies is very telling. You're not fooling anyone but yourself I'm afraid.Trim is not "collected using the centrifuge". It is collected, heated to melt the fat and centrifuged to remove the fat and recover the bits of protein that are high in fibrous protein and low in muscle protein.

You really should re-read just what LBT is, you seem to think it is something it is not.

I'll keep spoon feeding you here, maybe you will eventually answer the question you keep dodging, why aren't 'trim' and LBT interchangeable with the exception of the bacteria?

The centrifuge removes the fat. Why not lower the fat of burger without adding LBT by heating the 'trim' and centrifuging it to remove the fat?

Dipayan

14th May 2012, 12:10 PM

A, I have never said it didn't boil down to just personal taste, & B, watch again, most said the flavor and texture of the non LBT was better and the ones with LBT were "juicier" and only 2 people preferred the stuff with LBT, not most people.

My point is that the study claims that:
a) it seems to be a matter of personal taste - not objectively 'good' or 'bad'
b) they imply that given non-test conditions, people would not be able to make out a difference

But it's all beside the point since all I've ever complained about was, it is noticeable, and it is not labeled. It should be labeled and it was dishonest not to do so.

1) This is the leap that I don't understand. Even if I agree with you that some people might be able to notice the textural difference, why does that automatically mean it needs to be labeled? Hell, people are finding it juicier, and even saying that they would not be able to find any difference unless they were prompted to look for some. I don't think procedural changes are made to appease a tiny minority - people who notice textural difference, and therefore find ground beef inedible.

2) That's not all you ever complained about. You started with that, then went all over the place. Your latest complaint was that BPI named its product misleadingly to fool the common public (which it doesn't even serve).

I said texture was noticeably different and the majority of participants in this double blind test found the texture noticeably different.

You said texture was noticeably different to the point that you could no longer eat the burger. You claimed LFTB made the meat mealy and gristly. The one respondent who commented on the texture (beyond 'I like this better') said that the burger with LFTB was a bit more spongy. Are you aligning this comment with your perspective?

The respondents were reacting to percentage differences in texture. And the study even ends with saying that 'Even though overall the burger without LFTB won the day, it seems like a matter of personal taste'.

It's a pretty large step from saying - 'The texture is different' to saying 'The texture is different. Those corporate thieves at BPI deliberately gave their product a misleading name and chose not to label it so that they can pay off USDA and fool the American public'.

Dipayan

14th May 2012, 12:20 PM

Ron_Tomkins

14th May 2012, 12:37 PM

Just wanted to point out, I had some burgers I made from meat I bought from the store. It had 20% fat. And they were deeee licious.

Ryokan

14th May 2012, 12:38 PM

What this test tells me is that in the test that you will be running, you should be mixing up the samples. If A=regular ground beef & B=ground beef with LFTB, some people should get AA, some should get AB, and some should get BB. That way you will know if people are finding differences simply because they are looking for them.

This is a good idea.

I did a similar thing with a friend who claimed to taste the difference between Pepsi and Coca Cola. I got some Pepsi, Coca Cola and a locally made variant and put three glasses on the table, and had him taste them without knowing which was in the glass. Of course he assumed that all three varieties were present, but in truth I had put the same one in all the glasses. He still identified three different colas.. :)

Furcifer

14th May 2012, 06:03 PM

Trim is not "collected using the centrifuge". It is collected, heated to melt the fat and centrifuged to remove the fat and recover the bits of protein that are high in fibrous protein and low in muscle protein.

You really should re-read just what LBT is, you seem to think it is something it is not.

I'll keep spoon feeding you here, maybe you will eventually answer the question you keep dodging, why aren't 'trim' and LBT interchangeable with the exception of the bacteria?

The centrifuge removes the fat. Why not lower the fat of burger without adding LBT by heating the 'trim' and centrifuging it to remove the fat?

It's not heated to remove the fat, it's heated to facillitate the seperation of meat and connective tissue from the bone and tendons etc. it's connected to. The fact that the fat seperates first is a bonus, a bonus without which LBT probably wouldn't be viable product.
I made the mistake earlier of assuming LBT was higher in fat than it is. Of course a pink product high in fat would be almost worthless, it needs to be lean.

In other words LBT is a rather ingenius (sp?) product, or rather the process is. And despite you claims to the contrary I fully understand why they use a centrafuge, in fact I find it kinda cool.

theprestige

14th May 2012, 07:41 PM

This is a good idea.

I did a similar thing with a friend who claimed to taste the difference between Pepsi and Coca Cola. I got some Pepsi, Coca Cola and a locally made variant and put three glasses on the table, and had him taste them without knowing which was in the glass. Of course he assumed that all three varieties were present, but in truth I had put the same one in all the glasses. He still identified three different colas.. :)

NPR ran a story recently where the same thing was done with wine: Four different decanters of wine were offered, but only three different wines were present.

Needless to say, the tasters found plenty of differences between all "four" wines.

Skeptic Ginger

14th May 2012, 08:00 PM

It's not heated to remove the fat, it's heated to facillitate the seperation of meat and connective tissue from the bone and tendons etc. it's connected to. The fact that the fat seperates first is a bonus, a bonus without which LBT probably wouldn't be viable product.
I made the mistake earlier of assuming LBT was higher in fat than it is. Of course a pink product high in fat would be almost worthless, it needs to be lean.

In other words LBT is a rather ingenius (sp?) product, or rather the process is. And despite you claims to the contrary I fully understand why they use a centrafuge, in fact I find it kinda cool.For someone who has posted so many condescending comments about how superior your knowledge of beef processing is, you have one big fat foot in your mouth.

Reuter's report on the governor's tour of the plant (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-food-slime-idUSBRE82S1I520120329)The company showed the governors and reporters how the product is made.

First, a conveyer belt brought in scraps left over from a plant next door that produces steaks, roasts and other cuts of meat. The scraps were heated to around 100 degrees Fahrenheit to facilitate separation of the fat, then dumped into a huge meat grinder to pull out fat, cartilage, bone and connective tissue.

A centrifuge spinning 3,000 times a minute continued the separation process. Inside a third machine the material was treated with ammonia hydroxide gas to eliminate bacteria.

Other meat recovery systems:

Mechanically Recovered Meat (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1482140.stm)MRM is meat residue which is left on the carcass after all the prime cuts have been removed.

It is pressure-blasted off the bones by machinery and forms a reddish slurry which resembles mince.

Some companies then use it to bulk up their meat products.

Experts say it is likely that bits of spinal cord - the part of a cow most likely to be contaminated with BSE - could be found in mechanically recovered meat.

Mechanically separated meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanically_separated_meat)Mechanically separated meat (MSM), mechanically recovered/reclaimed meat (MRM), mechanically deboned meat (MDM), lean fresh pork trim[1], or pink slime when made from beef, and white slime when made from chicken[2] is a paste-like meat product produced by forcing beef, pork, turkey or chicken, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue. For the production of chicken and turkey MSM, most of the time, breast carcasses are used as they still contain parts of breast meat.

Mechanically separated meat has been used in certain meat and meat products since the late 1960s. This product can be contrasted with meat extracted by advanced meat recovery systems. The product is used in the manufacture of hot dog and bologna.[3][4] It has been reported that white slime has a "not-so-appetizing meat production process",[3] because "Pink slime solves a serious food safety problem and is nutritious, but it violates many cultural norms here in the U.S."[2]

Advanced Meat Recovery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_meat_recovery)Advanced meat recovery (AMR) is a slaughterhouse deboning process by which the last traces of skeletal muscle meat are removed from animal bones after the primal cuts have been carved off manually.

The machinery used in this process separates meat from bone by scraping, shaving, or pressing the meat from the bone without breaking or grinding the bone. Products produced by advanced meat recovery machinery can be labeled using terms associated with hand-deboned product (i.e., "beef", "pork", "beef trimmings", etc.). AMR meat typically is used as an ingredient in products requiring further processing, such as hot dogs.

This meat is comparable in appearance, texture, and composition to meat trimmings and similar meat products derived by hand.

USDA regulations for procurement of frozen fresh ground beef products state that "Beef that is mechanically separated from bone with automatic deboning systems, advanced lean (meat) recovery (AMR) systems or powered knives, will not be allowed".[1]

In none of these cases is meat heated to facilitate removing it from the bone. If you've ever cooked meat on the bone, you'd know the sign the meat is done, i.e. fully cooked, is when the meat separates from the bone. It does not separate from the bone by mere heating and LFTB is not a cooked product.

But go ahead, pretend you meant something else. I have more links.

Skeptic Ginger

14th May 2012, 08:06 PM

NPR ran a story recently where the same thing was done with wine: Four different decanters of wine were offered, but only three different wines were present.

Needless to say, the tasters found plenty of differences between all "four" wines.This has been addressed already.

Furcifer

15th May 2012, 03:59 AM

Skeptic Ginger

15th May 2012, 11:14 AM

*sigh

It's heated to facillitate the removal of meat, connective tisssue AND fat from the bone.
How exactly do you think the bone that gets removed in the centrafuge gets there? :boggled:
Please don't tell me you think they add it after the heating.

You have to read for comprehension.I knew you'd try to double down, and fail to support your argument.

Claiming "removal of meat, connective tissue AND fat from the bone" is the purpose of the heating says you don't understand how a centrifuge works or you don't know the density of meat, connective tissue and bone, vs the density of fat.

Also, the trim is only heated to 100o F. That only melts the fat, it does not result in any separation of anything except the fat. Separation of meat from bone and connective tissue only happens when the protein is denatured and that means cooked. LBT is an uncooked product. If it were cooked no ammonia would be needed.

The bone is not removed it is ground up. There's very little bone in the trim in the first place. That was discussed along with the difference between this LBT which is still manually removed from the bone and the product which is mechanically removed from the bone. The latter has a limited amount of calcium allowed in the final product. That's not an issue with manually removed trim.

Mechanically removed meat and manually removed meat have different regulations. Pink Slime LBT is manually removed.

You're just putting more foot in your mouth here, Fur.

theprestige

15th May 2012, 12:58 PM

This has been addressed already.

I'm sorry; I thought I was exchanging thematically-related anecdotes with fellow members, in a thread on the same general topic.

I didn't realize that I was falling afoul of the Queen of the Thread, by whose will alone may we discuss whatever topic meets with Her approval.

If it please Your Highness, may I give and take whatever contributions in this thread best suit myself, without having to worry whether or not you think it's "been addressed already"?

Skeptic Ginger

15th May 2012, 01:03 PM

I'm sorry; I thought I was exchanging thematically-related anecdotes with fellow members, in a thread on the same general topic.

I didn't realize that I was falling afoul of the Queen of the Thread, by whose will alone may we discuss whatever topic meets with Her approval.

If it please Your Highness, may I give and take whatever contributions in this thread best suit myself, without having to worry whether or not you think it's "been addressed already"?Seeing this reaction, I wonder what you would have thought about the orignal post I deleted?

The point is this is not an analogous case and I didn't feel like going over that for the 'n'th time. I was merely noting that arguments supporting the lack of analogy have been posted already.

Furcifer

15th May 2012, 03:40 PM

I knew you'd try to double down, and fail to support your argument.

Claiming "removal of meat, connective tissue AND fat from the bone" is the purpose of the heating says you don't understand how a centrifuge works or you don't know the density of meat, connective tissue and bone, vs the density of fat.

Also, the trim is only heated to 100o F. That only melts the fat, it does not result in any separation of anything except the fat. Separation of meat from bone and connective tissue only happens when the protein is denatured and that means cooked. LBT is an uncooked product. If it were cooked no ammonia would be needed.

The bone is not removed it is ground up. There's very little bone in the trim in the first place. That was discussed along with the difference between this LBT which is still manually removed from the bone and the product which is mechanically removed from the bone. The latter has a limited amount of calcium allowed in the final product. That's not an issue with manually removed trim.

Mechanically removed meat and manually removed meat have different regulations. Pink Slime LBT is manually removed.

You're just putting more foot in your mouth here, Fur.

*sigh

The bone isn't ground up, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes the fat is rendered, that's exactly why it facillitates the removal of meat and connective tissue. I don't suppose you know what soap is do you? :rolleyes:

Again, the trim used in LBT is the same trim found in ground beef. It's just not feasible to remove it manually. The processing removes some of the fat, so what? Trim itself is the result of processing steaks and other cuts of meat by removing the fat and connective tissues.

theprestige

15th May 2012, 05:43 PM

The point is this is not an analogous case and I didn't feel like going over that for the 'n'th time. I was merely noting that arguments supporting the lack of analogy have been posted already.

Have you considered the possibility that not all posts in this thread are about you and the points and arguments that you're trying to make?

Skeptic Ginger

15th May 2012, 10:42 PM

Have you considered the possibility that not all posts in this thread are about you and the points and arguments that you're trying to make?Have you considered the issue you brought up has been discussed and that's all I said?

theprestige

15th May 2012, 11:27 PM

Have you considered the issue you brought up has been discussed and that's all I said?

Have you considered the possibility that I wasn't bringing up an issue, I was recounting an anecdote, and that clearly my anecdote can't possibly have been discussed before I even recounted it? You're still assuming that somehow my anecdote must have something to do with whatever issue you're trying to discuss. May I suggest you'd get further in your discussion, if you didn't stop to remark on every anecdote that covers points you don't want to discuss anymore?

CosCos

25th May 2012, 09:08 AM

Wasn't there supposed to be a test conducted last week? Did I miss something?

Skeptic Ginger

25th May 2012, 10:00 AM

Wasn't there supposed to be a test conducted last week? Did I miss something?Yeah, it was postponed again until June. Our group leader thought he had arranged for the tavern to cook the burger but they only agreed to re-heat it so I'll be bringing cooked burger to the next meet-up instead. This time, however, all the plans are in place including arrangements with the tavern directly.

Furcifer

30th May 2012, 10:45 PM

So I finally got an email from the FSIS. It's a signed .pdf, unlike my last inquiry which was just an email.
Unfortunately I can't get it off my phone and post it here. I could forward it to someone via email if they would like, just PM me an address.
To summarize there's no safety concerns with LFTB so there are no limits as to how much can be used. The national lunch program adheres to federal nutrional requirements and that's why they limit the amount to 15%.
It closes with her urging people to take a look a science based studies on LFTB.

Skeptic Ginger

30th May 2012, 10:50 PM

Furcifer

30th May 2012, 11:19 PM

It sounds like it doesn't say any more than we already know except clarifying the limits.

Begs the question again, Fur, why not sell 100% LFTB if it's the same as the rest of the ground beef?

If you want to buy it and make 100% LFTB burgers there's nothing stopping you from doing so but common sense.
You keep stating this like it means something. "Why not make 100% fat burgers? Why can't I buy them at my grocery store? What are they hiding?" There's a difference from being prevented from buying something and there simply being no market for it.

Skeptic Ginger

31st May 2012, 12:01 AM

If you want to buy it and make 100% LFTB burgers there's nothing stopping you from doing so but common sense.
You keep stating this like it means something. "Why not make 100% fat burgers? Why can't I buy them at my grocery store? What are they hiding?" There's a difference from being prevented from buying something and there simply being no market for it.You keep dodging the obvious. You aren't fooling many people. You seem to be fooling yourself.

Do you or do you not claim LFBT is the same as the rest of the hamburger?

Furcifer

31st May 2012, 02:04 PM

You keep dodging the obvious. You aren't fooling many people. You seem to be fooling yourself.

Do you or do you not claim LFBT is the same as the rest of the hamburger?

Dodging? lnfao, I'm reiterating what the USDA has said; it's made from trim which is exactly what ground beef is made from.

You're the one dancing around this obvious and proven fact. It's only the uniformed public who don't have any clue how ground beef is made that are even questioning this.

It's the same stuff, it wasn't practical to salvage it before because it was too labour intensive to recover. That made it suitable for dog food and oil etc. Then someone figured out how to recover the bits and make it into a safe and saleable product and LFBT was born.

This isn't unusual, there are probably 100's of products on the shelf in your grocery store that were once garbage, fed to the pigs or burned for fuel. Then some industrious person said "Hey, I can make this into such and such" and the rest is history.

Skeptic Ginger

31st May 2012, 02:36 PM

Furcifer

31st May 2012, 03:06 PM

You are dodging the questions, Fur:

If LFTB is so similar to other ground beef made from trim, why does no one sell 100% LFTB? Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests?

You can pretend all you want that you are not dodging that question, but I doubt you're fooling anyone but yourself.

lol, if ground beef is made from trim why can't you buy trim? Hmmm? Oh noes!

You can buy trim, just go a butcher and ask for trim. The fact that it isn't normally sold means nothing, and it certainly does mean they don't use trim to make ground beef.

The fact that in some taste test people preferred ground beef with 5% or 10% or 15% LFBT to that of 20% means absolutely nothing. There's a ton of taste tests that show people prefer ground beef with 22% fat to that of 5% fat. And by your faulty logic that implies they should sell burgers with 100% fat.

Seriously, think about this for a second. Becuase you make it even worse for yourself. By extending the same analogy you're infering fat couldn't be in ground beef because well shucks, they don't sell 100% fat burgers :boggled:

The USDA Assistant Director of Something Policy or Something has confirmed in a hand signed letter LFBT is beef trim that has been processed to remove the fat, as such does not meet the definition of a binder or extender, but is in fact 100% beef.

It's processed trim. Trim is what ground beef is made of. Processed trim is ground beef. That's an irrefutable fact. I'm afraid you're the one dodging this, not me.

Skeptic Ginger

31st May 2012, 05:53 PM

Furcifer

31st May 2012, 06:35 PM

Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests? It wasn't that "some people" preferred a different taste. It was that no one could stand the burger with so much connective tissue in it.

Your denial is clear.

Aside from denying you're making any sense what have I denied? :boggled:

People in some taste test you cherry picked didn't prefer a burger with 20% LFBT, so what? They wouldn't prefer a burger with 30% fat either. That doesn't say sweet FA about fat and whether or not it's a normal part of ground beef. Why for FSM do you think it says anything about LFBT?
I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from and what point you're trying to make but it still eludes me.
The USDA will allow you to make and sell a 100% LFBT burger if you want to. I have it in writing on USDA letterhead. You've answered your own question though, the reason you can't buy a 100% LFBT burger is becuase nobody wants it.
None of this changes the fact that LFBT is the exact same stuff you find in any other burger, it's just in different proportions. If you add too little fat people don't like it, if you add too much fat people don't like it, if you add too much connective tissue people don't like it, if you add too little connective tissue people don't like it.

The fact is what people like or dislike has NO relevance on the quality of the product. I really don't care if your taste test proves otherwise. The fact is there are hundreds of more reliable studies that say the exact opposite.

Of course that's all within reason and I don't think you get this. People prefer some fat in their burger, that doesn't mean they want 100% fat burger. People seem to prefer burger with some LFBT, but that doesn't mean they want a 100% LFBT burger.

Skeptic Ginger

31st May 2012, 06:54 PM

Furcifer

31st May 2012, 07:41 PM

"People in some taste test you cherry picked didn't prefer a burger with 20% LFBT"

I highlighted a lie you've told there.

A) The test was not cherry picked, it was a marketing test the company selling the stuff did which found if they added more than 15% LFTB to hamburger people could tell and didn't like it.

B) If I cherry picked the study, where are the studies that I didn't cherry pick which showed different results?

So you didn't cherry pick it, it's just the only taste test you have that you keep going on about as if it means something? :rolleyes:

All of the taste tests cited in this thread take into account the varying amounts of connective tissue. The fact that you can't see the forest for the trees is very telling.

So what if LFBT allows the producer to control the amount of connective tissue in the hamburger without the addition of fat? Connective tissue has been and will always be a part of ground beef. The fact is it's a blessing, because as numerous studies have shown people PREFER some connective tissue in their ground beef. Up until LFBT it always came by way of adding fat, which the USDA actually limits.

Despite the numerous pages and explanations given to you it's very clear my very first assessment still stands. You clearly don't understand all of the variables in this equation. It doesn't come as much surprise to me, as I mentioned before I worked in a butcher shop long enough to know the vast majority of consumers are totally clueless when it comes to buying meat.
In the immortal but some what convoluted words of Chris Farley, you can get a good pound of ground beef by sticking your head up a cows ass, but you could just take my word for it ;)

Skeptic Ginger

31st May 2012, 09:03 PM

Despite the fact the questions are simple, you still cannot give a simple answer. The fact you continue to post these gyrations and your repeating ad hom that [x] has been explained, you still don't answer the very simple question.

Here's another straw man:So what if LFBT allows the producer to control the amount of connective tissue in the hamburger without the addition of fat? Connective tissue has been and will always be a part of ground beef. No one has said there is no CT in hamburger. The argument is LFTB is 70% connective tissue and that proportion, even when only added at 15% to hamburger, makes the TEXTURE of the burger SIGNIFICANTLY different.

You keep claiming LFTB doesn't change the burger.

I'll ask you again: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

Skeptic Ginger

31st May 2012, 09:05 PM

I'll ask you again: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

Just answer that. Don't clutter your post with rationalizations.

Furcifer

31st May 2012, 10:51 PM

I'll ask you again: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

Just answer that. Don't clutter your post with rationalizations.

I bet, the rationalizations just expose your absurd logic.

There is no "problem" with adding more than 15% LFBT. You know this, I've got SIGNED government documents that prove this. :D

The "problem" is clearly in your head. That's been proven conclusively. In fact the whole "problem" with LFBT is in the heads of consumers without the knowledge of how beef is processed, and the willful ignorance of the scientific studies behind LFBT. That again has been supported, in writing, by the USDA at your request.

I'm sorry, but you're falling into this conspiracy theorist territory, where you make outrageous claims about the faceless "gubmint", but when you get a direct answer from the "gubmint" you just ignore it.

You asked why the USDA limits the amount of LFBT to 15%. You were shown to be mistaken, they do not limit the amount of LFBT to 15%. The national lunch program limits the amount of LFBT to 15% in the product they buy because of nutritional concerns. Your claim has nothing to do with nutritional concerns, it has to do with taste. It's obvious this does not support your claim.

Your whole premise is wrong, as I said there is no "problem" with the adddition of LFBT to ground beef. It's seen going on for years without issue until some British clown poured a bunch of Ajax on some meat and made the erroneous and misleading equation. Unfortunately that wasn't based in science but science fiction.
What I find most disturbing about this SG is you're being mislead by a cook. You're supposedto be skeptical and looking to science. If you don't understand the science as I've explained it you should at least be looking to other scientists. But even when the scientists fromt the USDA get back to you directly you still continue to deny the obvious. Don't you find that a little bit strange?

Skeptic Ginger

31st May 2012, 11:18 PM

Still a bunch of rationalizations. You did not answer the simple question:

If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

Furcifer

31st May 2012, 11:50 PM

Still a bunch of rationalizations. You did not answer the simple question:

If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

No. By this point you're just lying when you ask "rhetorically" If it doesn't change the burger...

As has been explained numerous times, using countless examples and analogies, it does "change the burger".

It does so you can stop saying otherwise.

It doesn't "change the burger" as you put it outside of how changes to any other component ie. trim, would change it. (because most of us know burger changes every time you make it)

Very simple put, adding 30% LFBT is the same as adding 10% fat and 30% low quality trim. If there was such thing as low quality trim. Unfortunately, low quality trim isn't economically feasible and gets made into dog food. :rolleyes:

But if some "magic" process made that trim feasible, well then it would be the exact same thing. At least according to the USDA. Can you possibly begin to think of a way to recover than trim? Hmmm? ;)

I'm almost 100% certain I've explained this to such an extent that even children or the mentally challenged could understand it without issue.

Skeptic Ginger

1st June 2012, 12:08 AM

Still unable to answer? Of course you are. Because you are trying to defend a disproved position.

If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

Dipayan

1st June 2012, 08:24 AM

Sorry, have to jump in! :)

SG, what do you mean by 'change the burger'?

Skeptic Ginger

1st June 2012, 08:31 AM

Sorry, have to jump in! :)

SG, what do you mean by 'change the burger'?Since LFTB is mostly connective tissue and not 'meat' it changes the texture of the burger.

Skeptic Ginger

1st June 2012, 09:12 AM

Furcifer

1st June 2012, 05:10 PM

Still unable to answer? Of course you are. Because you are trying to defend a disproved position.

If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

There is no "problem". You're just making this up. You're fabricating this "problem" in order to confirm your own bias. The USDA says quite clearly there is no problem.

At least with the ground beef. There is a problem with reactionary people, who are utterly clueless as to how ground beef is processed, and who refuse to look at the science, making up stories about "problems".

Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

Furcifer

1st June 2012, 05:41 PM

To summarize, so people don't need to reread a 25 page thread:

Fur continues to argue that since there is connective tissue of varying amounts in hamburger, LFBT does not change the texture of the burger beyond the normal range of variability.

Fur incorrectly argued that heat was used to separate the 'trim' from the bone. It is not. Heat is used to liquify the fat of the waste trim then a centrifuge is used to separate the fat from the trim used to make LFTB. When showed the error, he shifted his argument to claim it didn't matter.

Incorrectly believing the heat was used to remove LFTB from the bone, Fur initially argued that the trim needed additional processing simply because it was close to the bone, but was otherwise the same as the rest of the trim used to make hamburger. The two kinds of trim are not the same. The trim used to make LFTB is waste trim (previously used only in pet food), not because it was on the floor or dirty or needed additional processing to remove it from the bone, but rather it was waste trim because it was of such poor quality with very little red meat in it and a whole lot of other tissues.

The analysis of the LFTB showed it had ~70% fibrous protein compared to ~30% fibrous protein in ground chuck. This waste trim comes from tissues that are further from the muscle, not simply closer to the bones. Actually, a good portion of the waste trim is closer to the hide, not just closer to the bone.

Connective tissue is also protein, but it is not meat which is a very different protein. An obvious illustration of this is comparing eating ground up tendons to eating a ground up steak. Obviously they are not the same but both are proteins.

The beef industry has been taking the waste trim that is of very poor quality because it has so little meat in it, removing the fat with low heat and a centrifuge, then using it as an additive to hamburger to lower the overall fat content. Rather than grinding up a leaner cut of meat, the processer simply adds more protein but not more meat. That connective tissue protein is not the same texture as muscle meat protein. And no matter what the range of connective tissue volume in regular hamburger, adding LFTB which is almost all connective tissue, noticeably changes the hamburger well beyond the range of connective tissue proportions before the industry started using LFTB.

This is of course incorrect and yet another gross misrepresentation of fact.

I said the product is heated to facillitate the "mechanical" seperation of meat and connective tissue from the fat,bone, cartilage tendons etc. It wouldn't seperate without being heated, and without seperation the process would be useless. Again this was in response to your nefarious assumptions about the process deeply rooted in your misunderstanding of some basic scientific principles.

The key point in all of this being that LFBT could be made by hand from normal "beef trimmings", the kind that all ground beef is made from, but the time it would take to do so would make it infeasible.
This is why the USDA is 100% correct in saying LFBT is basically the same as anything else you would find in normal ground beef, it's just processed differently.
And, because labeling laws do not require manufacturers to label every single method used in their processing there's no reason for LFBT to be specifically labelled when added to ground beef.
You can come up with all the conspiracy theories you want, Beef Products Inc., the USDA and the stores using LFBT have done nothing wrong. It's clearly a case of the uninformed public overeacting to what they have no clue about. Not surprising really, what is surprising is a member of the JREF doing this, and continuing to do this for 25 pages.

Shameful really. But even the best skeptics get suckered in once and a while.