Pink Slime

[phunk]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

My crock pot cooks stuff at a low temperature after enough time. But upon reconsidering, if it were cooked there would be no need for the extra effort to kill bacteria. So it must not be cooked.

It's not. The extra effort is only because it is raised above refrigeration temperatures.

ETA: I'd be amazed if there was a crock pot with a 100f setting. It would be a recipe for food poisioning.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by phunk

100f is no where near simmering. It's barely above your body temperature, and you aren't cooked, are you?

Sure to make a lovely lukewarm pathogen soup.

[Cleon]

Is anyone against the idea of labeling meat with the stuff in it?
Does anyone thing it should be banned?

If the answer to both of these questions is "no," then I don't see what the problem is. The people who actually think it's harmful are a minority (and virtually nonexistent here). So let's just slap some labels on beef indicating which packages have it and which don't, and everybody goes home happy. The folks who prioritize saving money can get what they want, and the folks who want (what they feel is) higher quality beef get what they want. Everybody wins.

It seems deceptively simple enough that I wonder if I'm not completely off-base. I mean, there has to be some good reason for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Right?

Right?

[Daald]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Is anyone against the idea of labeling meat with the stuff in it?
Does anyone thing it should be banned?

If the answer to both of these questions is "no," then I don't see what the problem is. The people who actually think it's harmful are a minority (and virtually nonexistent here). So let's just slap some labels on beef indicating which packages have it and which don't, and everybody goes home happy. The folks who prioritize saving money can get what they want, and the folks who want (what they feel is) higher quality beef get what they want. Everybody wins.

It seems deceptively simple enough that I wonder if I'm not completely off-base. I mean, there has to be some good reason for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Right?

Right?

That's the conclusion I came to after reading a few pages of this thread when it first started. I was surprised when it got this long.

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

My crock pot cooks stuff at a low temperature after enough time. But upon reconsidering, if it were cooked there would be no need for the extra effort to kill bacteria. So it must not be cooked.

Nope, it's not. Maintaining meat at 100°F for any length of time will not 'cook' it, as the term is commonly used in culinary circles. When making salami, I incubate it a similar temperature for about 24 hours, depending on the bacterial culture used, and it is still essentially (if not technically) raw. I can get away with this because of the preservative effects of salt, nitrite, nitrate, and the lower pH brought about by the aforementioned bacteria. Meat lacking those additives must by protected by other means if it is going to spend a significant amount of time above 40°F.

On low, your crock pot probably cooks at a temperature somewhere in the neighborhood of 200°F. 'Low and slow' cooking techniques work by breaking down connective tissue (collagen) over a long period of time to make tough cuts tender. This doesn't really begin to happen until the internal temperature reaches at least ~165°F and in the case of whole meats, typically isn't considered 'done' until 185–195°F.

[Skeptic Ginger]

In Japan you put thin slices of pork in hot water that is at your table to cook the meat. I wonder how hot that water is. I don't recall that it is boiling. Anyone from Japan know? I'm just curious.

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

In Japan you put thin slices of pork in hot water that is at your table to cook the meat. I wonder how hot that water is. I don't recall that it is boiling. Anyone from Japan know? I'm just curious.

I've heard of that technique but know nothing about it. If I were to guess, I'd say that it's not too far below boiling. When cooking lean pork on the grill, I pull it off as it reaches an internal temp of 145–148°F and residual heat ('carryover') takes it up to 150–155ish.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Cleon

So let's just slap some labels on beef indicating which packages have it and which don't, and everybody goes home happy. The folks who prioritize saving money can get what they want, and the folks who want (what they feel is) higher quality beef get what they want. Everybody wins.

It seems deceptively simple enough that I wonder if I'm not completely off-base.

Why wasn't it labeled in the FIRST PLACE! Why isn't it mandatory? The USDA/BPI deceptively snuck LFTB into ground beef (assumed to be ground beef muscle meat) without giving people the knowledge or choice.

Now the USDA has said they will allow stores to label LFTB. Doesn't that mean that if grocers wanted to label it before they would NOT have been allowed to? Not allowed to upset the applecart with truthful labeling maybe?

'Pink slime' in your meat? Labels to tell you, USDA says
http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...-you-usda-says

Quote:

As consumers clamor for more transparency about the beef product dubbed “pink slime,” federal agriculture officials have agreed to allow several meat producers to list the stuff on package labels.

Dirk Fillpot, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food safety branch, said Tuesday he could not identify the firms that sought labeling changes, or even say how many were involved. He only confirmed that the agency has received voluntary requests from beef firms to change their labels to indicate it contains lean finely textured beef, or LFTB.

“We’ve determined that such requests will be approved,” Fillpot said.

Others have urged that labeling products with LFTB should be mandatory. It's not clear whether voluntary measures would provide consumers with adequate information, because some companies might choose to label their products while others would not, some experts suggested. The USDA agreement was first reported on the meat industry online site Meatingplace.com.

Fillpot, of the USDA, said he couldn’t discuss whether the agency was considering making it a requirement. Beef producers who received USDA approval could start changing the labels immediately, agency officials said.

So what of this quote also from the USDA?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...nk-slime-beef/
"A USDA source told ABC news it’s up to the grocery stores to disclose what’s in their ground beef and the Agriculture Department has no jurisdiction."

In one quote the USDA is allowing labeling or not, in another they are pushing responsibilty for labeling onto the grocery stores. Can't have it both ways USDA. This is a black mark on the USDA and the trust of the public. The labels need to be required; voluntary labels are not good enough imo.

Short answer to why it isn't just labeled - Money.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

In Japan you put thin slices of pork in hot water that is at your table to cook the meat. I wonder how hot that water is. I don't recall that it is boiling. Anyone from Japan know? I'm just curious.

It's common in Vietnamese pho noodle soups. The water is boiling before brought to the table and the just added steak slices finish cooking in the bowl.

[Montag451]

I actually agree with Ginger Skeptic. I also think burgers taste different since I was a kid. I don't agree with why though. I think burgers taste different simply because they are too lean because fat is suddenly really 'bad'. Try adding a bit if extra fat, to your grind see if that makes a difference. Even better try a blind test. Take 2 identical steaks with some nice fat on the edge. Cut the fat off one, grind both. Get someone to make identical burgers to your favorite recipe. Et and decide without knowing which is which.

As to pink slime... No problem with it it is just the beef. Perhaps the removal process does effect texture, maybe even change the nutritional vales a bit, even the flavor but we live in a world with such nutritional poverty anything which gets food into bellies is a good thing.

The simple answer is above. If you really don't want to eat it grind your own or don't expect to pay pennies for burgers.

Calling it pink slime is emotive and therefore should be avoided in a discussion such as this. Filler is simply wrong. It is beef meat. Simple question. If it was cut off by butchers with knives would it bother you?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Draca

Short answer to why it isn't just labeled - Money.

The short answer is, it's beef. Putting beef in ground beef doesn't require any further labeling based on the method it was separated from the fat and bone.

Although it would now be advantageous from a marketing standpoint to label ground beef without beef separated without knives at a premium.

It's not mandatory because it would only be a marketing label, not a health one.

[Montag451]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

The short answer is, it's beef. Putting beef in ground beef doesn't require any further labeling based on the method it was separated from the fat and bone.

Although it would now be advantageous from a marketing standpoint to label ground beef without beef separated without knives at a premium.

It's not mandatory because it would only be a marketing label, not a health one.

I like the cut of your jib. What if all the beef intended for ground beef was extracted this way? Would we have 'knife cut' beef and 'mechanically cut' beef labeling.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Montag451

I like the cut of your jib. What if all the beef intended for ground beef was extracted this way? Would we have 'knife cut' beef and 'mechanically cut' beef labeling.

Sounds like a good idea.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Draca

Why wasn't it labeled in the FIRST PLACE!

Maybe it was an oversight; **** happens. Maybe the USDA decided it was a consumer issue, not a health issue. Hell, maybe it was political; it was approved for consumption during a period when the when the government was being run by a party generally opposed to government regulation of business. Either way, I'm not buying the conspiracy angle.

But again...This is an extremely minor problem with a fairly simply solution. It's not hurting anyone; it's the equivalent of finding out that Starbucks has been mixing Maxwell House into its blend in order to keep costs down. So what's the big deal?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

The short answer is, it's beef. Putting beef in ground beef doesn't require any further labeling based on the method it was separated from the fat and bone.

Although it would now be advantageous from a marketing standpoint to label ground beef without beef separated without knives at a premium.

It's not mandatory because it would only be a marketing label, not a health one.

Define "beef".

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Draca

Why wasn't it labeled in the FIRST PLACE!

Because no one in their wildest dreams thought anyone would get their panties in a bunch over people discovering how to get the meat from the entire animal, thus wasting less - which is both ethical and good for the environment.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Define "beef".

Meat from domesticated bovines.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Because no one in their wildest dreams thought anyone would get their panties in a bunch over people discovering how to get the meat from the entire animal, thus wasting less - which is both ethical and good for the environment.

Actually, the owner was given advise by a food lawyer that he should label it.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

The short answer is, it's beef. Putting beef in ground beef doesn't require any further labeling based on the method it was separated from the fat and bone.

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Meat from domesticated bovines.

It is only a small part meat. It has a high percentage of insoluable protein. It is a filler in other words.

Summary
Lean, finely textured beef (LFTB) is a lean product
derived from beef-fat trimmings. Characterization
of LFTB showed that, while it is high in total
protein, the LFTB contains more serum and
connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar
proteins than muscle meat.

http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/a...s/asl-1361.pdf

-----

Kit Foshee, who was a quality assurance manager at Beef Products Inc., said “The finished product is just 6 percent fat, but it’s filled with glands and connective tissue, and is very susceptible to pathogens like listeria, E. coli, and salmonella.”

http://foodwhistleblower.org/blog/23...-on-network-tv

------

Carl Custer, a retired microbiologist who spent 35 years in the USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service, toured a BPI factory in 2002 while investigating salmonella in ground beef. "We originally called it soylent pink," Custer told The Daily. "We looked at the product and we objected to it because it used connective tissues instead of muscle. It was simply not nutritionally equivalent [to ground beef]. My main objection was that it was not meat."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...re-Pink-Slime-

------

Overall the quality of the product is poor, Gerald Zirnstein USDA microbiologist said. “It has a higher level of insoluble protein,” he said. “That’s basically because of the high level of connective tissue. It’s tested for rancidity and there is literature saying that there is six to seven percent of fat remaining in the LBT. It’s lean but it’s not fat free. Because it goes through a low temperature rendering process, that fat has a higher rancidity level ... It has a higher level of spoilage bacteria. It has a higher level of rancidity in the remaining fat. A higher level of connective tissue. It is not as usable as a protein, as the soluble proteins in red meat. We’ve got a list of things, just quality issues.”

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2...rm-pink-slime/

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Cleon

So what's the big deal?

This attitude honestly blows my mind. Who cares?! They snuck a bunch of low quality filler into Amercian ground beef and it's no big deal? It is a huge deal! People have the right to know what they are eating. You think you are buying ground beef meat and they serve up a collagen, gland, blood slurry. It's an incredibly deceptive practice approved of by the USDA, which is suppose to working for us. It's absolutely outrageous and this is just one example. This lack of transparency and disclosure is a huge problem.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Draca

This attitude honestly blows my mind. Who cares?! They snuck a bunch of low quality filler into Amercian ground beef and it's no big deal? It is a huge deal! People have the right to know what they are eating. You think you are buying ground beef meat and they serve up a collagen, gland, blood slurry. It's an incredibly deceptive practice approved of by the USDA, which is suppose to working for us. It's absolutely outrageous and this is just one example. This lack of transparency and disclosure is a huge problem.

So label it. Problem solved.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Cleon

So label it. Problem solved.

I agree. Just label it, and the USDA/FDA needs to make it mandatory that it is labeled.

[Ryokan]

Personally, I think this whole deal is a storm in a teacup. I think it's great that we have developed methods to exploit more of an animal, which as I said I think is both more ethical and more friendly to the environment (More meat from each animal means we can keep and slaughter less animals.).

However, I don't really mind labeling the products. More information for the consumers about products they buy and consume is never wrong.

If that's the whole argument, then we're in agreement. What we won't agree on is that there's something sinister about it, and arguing about aspects beyond labeling.

ETA: A Norwegian newspaper did a taste test a few days ago, serving products using 'pink slime' of varying degrees, from 0% to 40%, to a panel of experts and asked if they could sort out which ones used it and which ones didn't. They couldn't. Their feedback was all over the place, from giving thumbs up to meat that contained it, to giving thumbs down and certainty that it did contain it to a product that was free of it.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Personally, I think this whole deal is a storm in a teacup. I think it's great that we have developed methods to exploit more of an animal, which as I said I think is both more ethical and more friendly to the environment (More meat from each animal means we can keep and slaughter less animals.).

As consumer scandals go, it's not all that big a deal to me. I'm more concerned about things like homeopathic "remedies" masquerading as actual medicine in drug stores.

Quote:

However, I don't really mind labeling the products. More information for the consumers about products they buy and consume is never wrong.

That doesn't seem to be a contentious point, so the continued acrimony confuses me.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

If it still looks and taste like porterhouse? Sure, it's still porterhouse. The bit about spinning and flattening makes me think of meat tenderization processes.

It will definitely not look or taste the same. I included a photo of the LTFB during rolling. It is neither steak or burger, it's LFTB. LFTB is highly processed and I would say the processing alone makes it into another product that should be labeled. There are other reasons as well though.

Quote:

What's the part about being soaked supposed to represent? And the bit about "sprayed with ammonia" isn't accurate, as spraying involves liquid, and no liquid ammonia is used in the process.

I should have said gassed. There is still ammonia left after processing so it wasn't all used up in processing. There are many reports that the frozen boxes of smell of ammonia.

Quote:

But this isn't really relevant. You were claiming that the process makes it into something else, but even ground beef without LTFB goes through a process of being squished to mush.

The only differences with LTFB process are:

1. It's warmed up to soften it (to make #2 effective)
2. The squishing process is altered to remove the fat
3. Exposed to ammonia gas (to counteract health risks of #1)

Number #1 doesn't do anything to the meat as it doesn't get warm enough to cook or change chemically.
Number #2 isn't anything special, since the regular meat gets squished to mush in a grinder, what does it matter if LTFB gets squished to mush in a centrifuge?
Number #3 is a non-issue. Trace amounts of ammonia to increase the acidity of the surface of the meat to make it inhospitable to bacteria? Hell, they routinely spray sides of beef with acetic acid for the same reason. Big deal.

I don't see any fundamental differences here to what happens to regular meat. So how does this process make it not ground beef?

1. The heating at low heat leads to a higher rate of pathogens and rancidity. The ammonia is used for both problems.
2. The centrifuge, rolling and freezing make it a completely different texture than ground beef. Ground beef is ground which is a much less intensive processing than LFTB.
3. It has left over ammonia in the final product.

Quote:

If you want to argue that it's the ingredient which is different, due to having much higher levels of collagen and connective tissue, then that's a completely separate issue.

But if you look closely at a steak (preferably before it's cooked) you'll notice that the meat isn't homogenous. There's areas of fat, and evidence of ligaments and other connective tissue. And if beef trimmings has a much higher proportion of these things, so what? It's still beef. Very low quality beef, but still beef regardless.

It's still BEEF, as the beef industry keeps repeating, but it is not the same as ground meat. It is lower in safety, nutrition and texture. My problem with it is that it wasn't disclosed or labeled. The choice was taken away from everyone. I would have chosen not to eat LFTB if given the choice.

Quote:

(And if you have a problem with low quality beef, why would you be buying ground beef in the first place? Does anyone actually believe that they'd put the good stuff in the factory grinders?)

Yes, it was foolish of me to have any trust in industrial agriculture or the USDA. I'm glad for the places I shopped that respected their shoppers enough not to sneak a bunch of low quality filler into their ground beef. Thank you Costco, PCC, Organic. Safeway, I will never buy meat from you again.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Is anyone against the idea of labeling meat with the stuff in it?
Does anyone thing it should be banned?

If the answer to both of these questions is "no," then I don't see what the problem is. The people who actually think it's harmful are a minority (and virtually nonexistent here). So let's just slap some labels on beef indicating which packages have it and which don't, and everybody goes home happy. The folks who prioritize saving money can get what they want, and the folks who want (what they feel is) higher quality beef get what they want. Everybody wins.

It seems deceptively simple enough that I wonder if I'm not completely off-base. I mean, there has to be some good reason for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

You hit the problem that GM has in the UK. Shop won't want to be labled as the ones that don't sell entirely "pink slime free products" so no one will be able to buy cheaper products containing "pink slime". Instead other fillers will have to be used.

[Draca]

Video
You are what you eat?‎
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/up-with-c...3030/#46983030

New York Times food columnist Mark Bittman joins the conversation on “pink slime,” a chemically infused product of processed meat, and the deeper issues ...

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Cleon

As consumer scandals go, it's not all that big a deal to me. I'm more concerned about things like homeopathic "remedies" masquerading as actual medicine in drug stores.



That doesn't seem to be a contentious point, so the continued acrimony confuses me.

It's the entire 'food scare not really food not really beef echos of GE foods' fear mongering that raises some ire. The irrational hatred of 'evil industry' complete with pictures of a manufacturing process as if it's supposed to scare us.

Plus, it's still beef. Even after reading those links.

Today I bought a chicken labeled 'gluten free'. I'm not for more nonsense required labeling based on irrational fears where industry is more than happy to label whatever to cater to irrational fears.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You continue to repeat this lie. The evidence has been provided. You are conflating "as nutritious" with "meat" and "all beef" with "all meat".

Where is the evidence that it is not meat? Sorry?

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Is anyone against the idea of labeling meat with the stuff in it?
Does anyone thing it should be banned?

If the answer to both of these questions is "no," then I don't see what the problem is. The people who actually think it's harmful are a minority (and virtually nonexistent here). So let's just slap some labels on beef indicating which packages have it and which don't, and everybody goes home happy. The folks who prioritize saving money can get what they want, and the folks who want (what they feel is) higher quality beef get what they want. Everybody wins.

It seems deceptively simple enough that I wonder if I'm not completely off-base. I mean, there has to be some good reason for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Right?

Right?

+1 WIN

The USDA approved new processes for the manufacturers who voluntarily wanted to show they had pink slime. They did not make it mandatory. Win for... some people. Some stores have vowed to make both kinds available, with and without. Wow I wonder why they would do that?

[Joey McGee]

Draca

Quote:

It is lower in safety, nutrition and texture.

You are a conspiracy theorist

[Joey McGee]

reposted from From jamieoliver.com/forum

Quote:

the start of this thread I have a feeling/doubt that the person named Joey McGee is real/genuine...being that the person is paid to last as long as possible on one thread in any forum... http://www.google.fr/#hl=fr&sugexp=f...v=on.2,or.r_gc

Conspiracy theory central these people

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Dipayan

Who is the 'they'?<snip to save space, click arrow on poster name for whole post>

Awesome post, I can't be sure about why no one responded to it, or why my numerous questions along the same lines weren't answered, but I can only imagine it's because it's easier to back away and move the goal posts than to defend a position you took up in order to defend a separate ideology

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Draca

One thing I don't understand in the process of making LFTB is how the 'beef' remains raw? It is simmered at 100
degrees to soften the fat so it can be rendered from 'the rest of it' in the centrifuge. How long is it simmered? Wouldn't it take a while for the fat to soften enough? If you simmered meat on the stove it will become cooked meat, only slow cooked. How does the beef remain raw? Wouldn't it at least be par cooked?

Can anyone explain?

Can you provide a source for the figure of 100 degrees?

I suspect the confusion comes from a mix-up between Celsius and Fahrenheit.

Simmering takes place at temperatures just below 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit). I assume the LFBT would be heated to 100 degrees Fahrenheit, which is only 37.8 degrees Celsius. Not enough to cook something. Hell, in summer 100 degrees Fahrenheit is sometimes room temperature.

Given that this debate primarily occurring in the USA, it would make sense that the temperature would be given in Fahrenheit.

[Joey McGee]

Yeah it's without a doubt F. Hell, it reaches +100F in freakin' Canada from time to time in summer. Simmering indeed.

As with the ppm of ammonia in the finished product it is literally amazing to me that I can find anything i want with a few quick keystrokes in google but people are STILL claiming they can't find that info. The statement from the author on the 1996 study? Ya I knew the crap I was reading in the media wasn't right (seemed to deviate from the norm) so I googled around and SHOCK AND AWE the guy had issued a statement refuting the slacktivists.

The nutritional quality of the product, the safety, the records, SHOCK AND AWE keystrokes away in google. Why am I the only one capable of this?

eta: honestly, no offense to people just asking questions (JAQ'ing off excluded) why aren't you using google and doing your own research? The work the JREF completes is posted on their blog this here is a community effort! Aw whatever

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Draca

You are a conspiracy theorist

Politicians and government officials being influenced by money is a pretty weak conspiracy imo.

Now here's a real conspiracy theory for you:
Iowa Gov Branstad calls for congressional investigation on 'Pink Slime' smear:

-------
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad called Monday for a congressional investigation into how what he called "a smear campaign" against the meat product commonly called "pink slime" got started.

On Monday, he called the outcry against the meat product a misinformation conspiracy by “people who don’t like meat” that has been abetted by “Hollywood,” “media elites” and “celebrity chefs” and disseminated via social networks.

“We need to expose this,” Branstad said. “And, more importantly, I’ve asked the congressman to work to see if we can get a congressional investigation as to who’s behind this smear campaign.”

“We need to get to the bottom of this,” he said. “We need to find who’s behind it and why they’re doing it.”

Branstad said. "there is a spurious attack being levied against it by some groups. You can suspect who they might be. They are people who do not like meat."

He also called on students at agricultural colleges in Iowa to use their social media skills "to counter what Hollywood and the media elites and the people who are spreading this misinformation are doing." ()

------

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/b...slime-16056095
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/d...-beef-product/


There is an AUDIO link in this article:
http://www.radioiowa.com/2012/04/02/...product-audio/

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Draca

How would you feel if your porterhouse was soaked, spun intensley, sprayed with ammonia and flattened? If it was then brought to you at the steak house would you accept that it's still a porterhouse? LTFB is not ground beef, it's LFTB. In reality it also isn't the same meat compositon as real ground meat.

LTFB isn't "sprayed with ammonia". That is a gross mis-characterization of the process used to sterilize LTFB, but one that too many people are evoking as a way of increasing the ewwwwwwwwwwww factor.

So, back to something I wrote about pages ago: does anyone have any actual scientifically verified evidence that LTFB is dangerous? I have yet to see any...

*crickets chirping*

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Haldur

So people have been eating chopped beef that includes 'pink slime' now for years. My question is what has been the health impact, vs. eating pure beef?

IF its impact so far is too small to have been actually measured or noticed, then I see this as nothing more but a battle for consumer's money. Forget the 'theoretical', what has been the actual impact? I'm not saying there isn't one, but until someone points it out, I'm very happy to continue to eat my pink slime (well actually, I haven't eaten ground beef in ages, but still, I sometimes do get a hankering for it).

Yup, this is the point I've been making all along, too. Even those here against "pink slime", like Skeptic Ginger, admit that it's safe to eat, because there is no evidence at all that it is dangerous (at least, none that I've seen).

I can understand if you don't want to eat it out of a question of taste, texture, whatever; but that, to me, isn't the central issue to this whole debate. The central issue is that this whole thing started to gain a lot of attention and whip people up into a froth of hysteria because of the implication that the stuff was dangerous (hence the repeated references to "soaking your meat in ammonia" and similar nonsense).

[MattusMaximus]

So it seems like most of this thread has boiled down to the following argument:

"Tastes great!"

"Less filling!"

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Daald

Sceptic Ginger,

Why don't you conduct a double-blind test for yourself to pinpoint if this stuff is the reason why the hamburger taste changed for you?

I would be interested to know the results if you could blind yourself sufficiently.

I would be very interested to see an actual double-blind test performed to see if people can even tell the difference. My guess is that most people will be able to tell the difference no better than mere chance. I say that because before this whole thing became a media sensation, no one was really making a big fuss because they never noticed a difference!

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

As for a blinded test, I'm sorry but not everything is subject to placebo and subjective taste. This stuff is gross to me. I hate it. I've thrown the stuff out before. It's not my imagination, it is very distinct. I don't have to do a blinded test to be sure. The fact the stuff was in all the burger brands I stopped buying and not in the one that currently tastes normal to me was a blinded test.

Because your faith that it's bad/gross is all you need to identify it? Sorry, most of us are skeptics here in more than just name, SG, and we can recognize the difference between anecdote and evidence.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Is anyone against the idea of labeling meat with the stuff in it?
Does anyone thing it should be banned?

If the answer to both of these questions is "no," then I don't see what the problem is. The people who actually think it's harmful are a minority (and virtually nonexistent here). So let's just slap some labels on beef indicating which packages have it and which don't, and everybody goes home happy. The folks who prioritize saving money can get what they want, and the folks who want (what they feel is) higher quality beef get what they want. Everybody wins.

It seems deceptively simple enough that I wonder if I'm not completely off-base. I mean, there has to be some good reason for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Right?

Right?

I would normally agree with you, Cleon. But the issue goes much further than that when people are clamoring for public schools not to use the stuff and go with a much more expensive alternative, at a time when public school budgets are being squeezed more and more. Now if those people screaming about getting "pink slime" out of schools are willing to step forward and make up the difference in cost to the taxpayers, fine by me; otherwise, we're going to have a problem.