Pink Slime

[defaultdotxbe]

Quote:

Myth 4: Boneless lean beef trimmings are produced from inedible meat.
Fact:

Boneless lean beef trimmings are 100% edible meat.

http://beefisbeef.com/2012/03/15/top...of-pink-slime/

Quote:

To make the product, beef companies use beef trimmings, the small cuts of beef that remain when larger cuts are trimmed down. These trimmings are USDA inspected, wholesome cuts of beef that contain both fat and lean and are nearly impossible to separate using a knife.

http://beefmagazine.com/beef-quality...-lean-beef-fat



no connective tissue there

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Originally Posted by RemieV

Apparently even the photo being circulated isn't true.

http://beefisbeef.com/2012/03/15/top...of-pink-slime/

Great link. It debunks every objection to "pink slime" raised so far in this thread, and many more.

Here's a photo of LFTB released by Beef Products, Inc. The photo in the link above is after they take LFTB and run it through a grinder to give the appearance of ground beef.

[RemieV]

After reading a billion articles and such, I write up a summary of everything I had read for my FB debate. Thought it might be helpful here, too, since this doesn't seem to be coming clear for everyone:

Corporate butchers still use knives to cut meat from dead things. You don't just tap a cow and suddenly it falls apart into steaks. When cutting the meat, since a human is doing it, there is going to be some left clinging to the fat - as the sites say, just like when you cut the fat off your steak at home. You will ALWAYS be throwing some meat away. So, corporations see this, and they're like, crap, we're *throwing away* tons of meat. But there wasn't anything that could be done about it for some time; because there simply wasn't a better way to get meat from a cow other than cutting.

So then a process was developed by which that meat would not go to waste - putting the fat and meat in a centrifuge at low heat in order to separate it. Just like if you had a basket of chaff and wheat, and spun in a circle, causing the chaff to fly out.

There's a catch, though - when you heat up meat just a little bit, blammo, suddenly you have bacteria. Because of this, the process includes a step where a puff of ammonia is sprayed on the meat to kill the bacteria. When combined with the water in the meat, the ammonia becomes ammonium hydroxide - a substance that is safe, has been used in food since 1974, occurs naturally in the human body, and is used in other foods you have no problems consuming - other foods that suffer from the same issue (heat making it easier for bacteria to multiply). One of these substances is chocolate.

The stores that are bragging about not using 'pink slime'? It's a ridiculous brag. What they're saying is that they are LESS technologically developed than other companies; that they grind their own meat and have yet to figure out what to do about the fact that they're throwing food away. Think about the terms they are using - a gross-sounding term that is actually meaningless.

And if it's ammonium hydroxide you're worried about for some reason? Please note that the companies (Whole Foods, Target, etc.) never say they're not using that. What they say is that they're not using 'pink slime'.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

http://beefisbeef.com/2012/03/15/top...of-pink-slime/

http://beefmagazine.com/beef-quality...-lean-beef-fat

no connective tissue there

So a propaganda piece by a front group for the American Meat Institute is your reliable source?

Try an actual scientific analysis: Finely Textured Lean Beef as an Ingredient for Processed Meats

Quote:

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. Because of the protein differences, LFTB has less functionality in processed meats, resulting in lower yields and softer texture. Appropriate use of sodium chloride, sodium tripolyphosphate, k-carrageenan, or isolated soy protein achieved desired stability and yields in frankfurters with FTLB. The softer texture may be used to advantage in high-protein, low-fat meat products where excessive toughness or firmness is often a problem.

It suggests maybe this additive doesn't explain the gristley burger but I wonder if all the stuff is processed the same so I'm going to keep looking into it. I suspect the hot dog/baloney product differs from the hamburger additive. Nonetheless, both use the parts of the cattle which is not recovered without extra processing for a reason.


Again, I'm not saying the stuff is bad for one's health. I suspect you've tried to paint me with that brush.

I repeat, I don't like the use of newspeak in marketing. If it ain't 'meat' it shouldn't be called 'meat product'. The word 'beef' which can technically mean any part of beef cattle should not be used to describe non-meat parts of beef.

"Cheese product" and "cheese food" are not "cheese". Mom's wouldn't choose "Jif" if they knew lard was added to peanut oil to make it. And "Lean beef trimmings" is not some nice cut of lean meat.


And for the record, I'm against labeling GM foods since almost everything we eat is actually genetically modified from the actual original natural source.

[realpaladin]

thanks @ RemieV

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RemieV

...When cutting the meat, since a human is doing it, there is going to be some left clinging to the fat - as the sites say, just like when you cut the fat off your steak at home. You will ALWAYS be throwing some meat away. So, corporations see this, and they're like, crap, we're *throwing away* tons of meat. But there wasn't anything that could be done about it for some time; because there simply wasn't a better way to get meat from a cow other than cutting.

So then a process was developed by which that meat would not go to waste - putting the fat and meat in a centrifuge at low heat in order to separate it. ....

Don't they boil the bones and hyde to get the last of the trim off? That's not exactly cutting the meat off with knives. That's rendering.

Rendering was mentioned in one of the articles I just read but I'm not going to search back through them to find it. I'm curious what you have to say about the process you posted about vs rendering the rest of the animal parts. This is all new to me.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Don't they boil the bones and hyde to get the last of the trim off? That's not exactly cutting the meat off with knives. That's rendering.

Rendering was mentioned in one of the articles I just read but I'm not going to search back through them to find it. I'm curious what you have to say about the process you posted about vs rendering the rest of the animal parts. This is all new to me.

Whilst reading that link I could only find that they chop/cut for edible products. And that the process is basically as RemieV describes.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Don't they boil the bones and hyde to get the last of the trim off? That's not exactly cutting the meat off with knives. That's rendering.

Rendering was mentioned in one of the articles I just read but I'm not going to search back through them to find it. I'm curious what you have to say about the process you posted about vs rendering the rest of the animal parts. This is all new to me.

The link you provided is at odds with what you are saying. The portion about rendering edible products doesn't even contain information about using bones.

Quote:

Edible rendering is generally carried out in a continuous process at low temperature (less than the boiling point of water). The process usually consists of finely chopping the edible fat materials (generally fat trimmings from meat cuts), heating them with or without added steam, and then carrying out two or more stages of centrifugal separation. The first stage separates the liquid water and fat mixture from the solids. The second stage further separates the fat from the water. The solids may be used in food products, pet foods, etc., depending on the original materials. The separated fat may be used in food products, or if in surplus, it may be diverted to soap making operations. Most edible rendering is done by meat packing or processing companies.

I don't see how you got bones from that description, but the answer is no, per this other Wiki article:

Quote:

Advanced meat recovery (AMR) is a slaughterhouse process by which the last traces of usable meat are removed from bones and other carcass materials 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. Product produced by advanced meat recovery machinery can be labeled using terms associated with hand-deboned product (e.g., "beef trimmings" and "ground beef"). AMR meat typically is used as an ingredient in products requiring further processing, such as hot dogs.... USDA regulations for procurement of frozen fresh ground beef products, however, 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".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_meat_recovery

To be clear - the confusion arises from the fact that 'lean beef trimmings' is a term that can be applied to meat that is mechanically separated from the bone - unless that meat is ground beef, in which case it means something else.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RemieV

The link you provided is at odds with what you are saying. The portion about rendering edible products doesn't even contain information about using bones.

I know it is easy to misread this stuff. I said: "Rendering was mentioned in one of the articles I just read but I'm not going to search back through them to find it." I didn't say rendering was mentioned in the article I cited and quoted.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I know it is easy to misread this stuff. I said: "Rendering was mentioned in one of the articles I just read but I'm not going to search back through them to find it." I didn't say rendering was mentioned in the article I cited and quoted.

No, what I'm saying is that you are correct - it IS rendering. But I don't know why you think that 'rendering' means 'boiled off the bone', because in the article you cited, it very clearly does not.

[RemieV]

Wanna know the funniest thing about this?

The term 'pink slime' was used in an internal e-mail that some scientist or USDA employee or both, I'm not going to bother looking it up, thought was all private and jokey and whatnot.

I'm pretty sure I know where he picked up the term.

There was an episode of the television show 'Bones' wherein the characters pull a slave ship from the ocean. And when they do, they find a bunch of skeletal bodies in there. They also find sea life attached to the bones, and have to try to figure out a way to get it off so they can determine cause of death. But no one recognizes the organism, and they have a lot of issues throughout the episode trying to get at the bones.

So what do they call the organism throughout the episode since they don't know what it is?


Pink slime.

http://static.wetpaint.me/bones/ROOT..._Sc06_0819.jpg

EDIT: I take it back - I checked the dates. The e-mail predates the 'Bones' episode. Just another one of those awesome coincidences.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So a propaganda piece by a front group for the American Meat Institute is your reliable source?

It's easy to dismiss something as a "propaganda piece" if you disagree with it.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Source?

A conclusion derived mostly from a lack of reliable (in my opinion) sources supporting the claim. The "As far as I can tell" at the start of the statement was intended to convey that I was presenting a personal opinion or conclusion, not a verified fact.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Does it include my two objections, Newspeak labeling and changing the texture of the hamburger?

Your objection to "Newspeak labeling" isn't an objection to the product. It's a different subject.

But you're right, it doesn't address your point about the changing texture, which appears to be unique to you... as far as I can tell . Are you sure that your perceived change in texture is not due to some other cause unrelated to the "pink slime" issue? Such as a specific supplier of meat using low-quality product, or a change in your own memories or perception of the texture of the meat that doesn't reflect any physical change?

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by RemieV

But there wasn't anything that could be done about it for some time; because there simply wasn't a better way to get meat from a cow other than cutting.

There was one economical way to separate small bits of muscle from fat. Just melt the fat off. But since this also cooked the meat, it was only good for cooked meat products (like canned dog food), not fresh meat.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It's easy to dismiss something as a "propaganda piece" if you disagree with it.

And, if the industry has a long reputation of creating front groups, using newspeak marketing, lobbying for legislation that lets them deceive the public and if I also post a scientific analysis (which was also pro-industry, BTW) that provided evidence calling something beef that is really full of connective tissue is misleading, it is easy to dismiss something as a propaganda piece..

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

A conclusion derived mostly from a lack of reliable (in my opinion) sources supporting the claim. The "As far as I can tell" at the start of the statement was intended to convey that I was presenting a personal opinion or conclusion, not a verified fact.

Your objection to "Newspeak labeling" isn't an objection to the product. It's a different subject.

It's both. If I knew the additive was there years ago, I could have avoided it and if it is the problem, I'd have been able to avoid burger that doesn't taste right to me. Instead I kept trying to find decent burger and more often than not, wasted my money.

Originally Posted by Brian-M

But you're right, it doesn't address your point about the changing texture, which appears to be unique to you... as far as I can tell . Are you sure that your perceived change in texture is not due to some other cause unrelated to the "pink slime" issue? Such as a specific supplier of meat using low-quality product, or a change in your own memories or perception of the texture of the meat that doesn't reflect any physical change?

I don't know if the hamburger texture issue is related to this particular additive. I do know I've been extremely frustrated because I love hamburger and for many years now I cannot find hamburger except for the $10/pound organic burger at Whole Foods that doesn't have that altered texture. I have tried and tried and thrown more than one purchase of hamburger out because the texture was so unappetizing.

I suspected the cause was something to do with processing and my best guess was it had to do with something being included in the burger that wasn't there a decade or so ago. I'm surprised other people are not also complaining. It's an obvious change in burger texture from some point in the past.

The news this additive is ubiquitous makes it a strong candidate for the problem I've had with burger. But, no, I do not know if this is indeed the cause. I do know I've eaten burger all my life and something changed in the product years ago that I find very unappetizing. I've asked the grocery butchers on many occasions and have had no answers so far. This additive could indeed be the problem.


As an aside, I do not appreciate that in this thread my complaints are being conflated with food fear mongering. That is not the case. I also find it disturbing that skeptics are defending misleading marketing practices.

[Ryokan]

How is calling it Pink Slime not newspeak itself?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

How is calling it Pink Slime not newspeak itself?

It is and I said so in my first post in this thread.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Framing worth noting:

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

Like I said, my complaints are being stereotyped incorrectly.

[Ryokan]

Sorry, I missed that..

[Skeptic Ginger]

No worries.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Oliver

That's news to you? Did you see the Food, Inc. documentary yet?

Part of the movie is on youtube. I need to watch the full movie soon. Thanks.

Food, Inc.
Where Your Beef Burger Comes From
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHQHPNoyO7c

Food, Inc. documentary play list
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEB124A6E471EFAB5

[Joey McGee]

I've been having a go at jamieoliver.com/forum on their stickied "Pink Slime" thread for a few days now.

http://www.jamieoliver.com/forum/vie...p?id=76821&p=1

If I keep imbibing all of this vodka and inhaling all of this fine seafood, I'll be producing some pink slime pretty soon so I'm out for a few days. Thanks for a good debate.

Cheers.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And for the record, I'm against labeling GM foods since almost everything we eat is actually genetically modified from the actual original natural source.

this seems somewhat contradictory. you oppose GM labeling because most everything is already genetically modified, but think lean fine beef trimmings should be labeled, even though they, too, are already in almost all the ground beef we eat

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Its like soylent green only betterer - Only FDA approved pensioners where used in the production.

Have you SEEN the guys they make soylent green from? Yuck.

[arthwollipot]

Honestly, I can't see any objection to this stuff that doesn't, in the end, boil down to the yuck factor. Even the so-called "deceptive" practices described seem to be aimed at merely avoiding peoples' yuck responses. It's not like they were trying to push something that was actually dangerous. Just something that was kinda yucky. We eat yucky things all the time. I don't see why this is any different.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

this seems somewhat contradictory. you oppose GM labeling because most everything is already genetically modified, but think lean fine beef trimmings should be labeled, even though they, too, are already in almost all the ground beef we eat

Perhaps it seems contradictory to you because your confirmation bias about me is so far off base. The differences are rather obvious.

The foods human eat have been genetically modified for more than 10,000 years, sometime before farming became common. It's a joke to talk about genetically modified corn. Have you ever seen what the original plant looked like? How do you think your bananas reproduce without any seeds inside? How do you suppose they got that way?

There are other issues with currently GM'ed foods and how patents are handled. If one wanted to require labeling GMFs as containing "patented genes" so we could choose to boycott a practice that affects consumers and farmers, I would support that as a valid reason to inform a consumer. But I've yet to see a logical reason to inform consumers about an arbitrary type of selective breeding while ignoring all the other ways our food is GM'ed. Demonstrate a reason and I'll consider it.

As for this hamburger additive, the paper I cited and quoted clearly identifies how this additive is not just getting more out of the cow, as the industry would like us to believe. Their use of carefully chosen 'names', complete with lobbying for a change in the food regulation law in order to use those 'names' is typical of marketing mislead.

Quote:

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.

Just because something is 'protein' does not make it 'meat', nor does it make it nutritious.

An extreme example to illustrate that not all proteins are equal can be seen in recent scandals of protein adulteration in the People's Republic of China. I'm not saying "lean beef trimmings" are toxic, but I post this link to show you the same industry motive: "to inflate the apparent protein content of products, so that inexpensive ingredients can pass for more expensive, concentrated proteins."

I'm all for using every part of the cattle. But that shouldn't be done while misleading consumers about which parts of the animal are ground into the hamburger.


-

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Honestly, I can't see any objection to this stuff that doesn't, in the end, boil down to the yuck factor. Even the so-called "deceptive" practices described seem to be aimed at merely avoiding peoples' yuck responses. It's not like they were trying to push something that was actually dangerous. Just something that was kinda yucky. We eat yucky things all the time. I don't see why this is any different.

If it is not the cause of changing burger to an unappetizing texture, I might reconsider my objections.

But I'm then left with, what was changed about burger to make the texture gristley or rubbery? It never used to be that way. Years ago it all started tasting that way. I would have preferred to avoid it based on the labeling but instead had to try brand after brand often wasting my money because some of the stuff is so bad I tossed it out.

I've asked grocery butchers what was different about the burger and they all claimed ignorance of any change. Not one said there was an additive and perhaps they too were unaware, I don't know. Then I did find a brand that wasn't that way proving, to me anyway, that it wasn't my tastes that had changed.

So if it isn't this additive, then what is it that changed burger texture for about the last decade give or take a few years?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

I've never heard of "Pink Slime" before. After looking at the first link and the Wikipedia article, I'm left with one question...

What's wrong with using beef trimmings in ground meat?

Seriously, I don't see the problem.

ETA: Or is it the ammonia gas that's disturbing people for some reason?

That would not disturb me, except for the fact that you are lied on what you are buying, aren't you ? When i buy ground beef at my local butcher, it isn't trimming or whatever in it. It is beef steaks of lower quality put into a mincing machine.

Furthermore if none indicate it on the "content", how do you differentiate a 100% portion minced beef at say, 10$ against another portion at the SAME price but with trimming to cut cost ?

The problem is that as a consumer , you need to be informed. That is actually I would wager how our whole consumer society works so that we can make informed choice. Maybe that choice will be rational, maybe it will be irrational (see genetically changed plant) But if that choice is not reported , you CANNOT make an informed choice and do consume as you WISH.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by MatildaGage

It seems there is a substantial number of meat eaters who are grossed out by the entire concept of meat production.

I was one of those--I had to push the very idea (raising, slaughter, butchering, processing) out of my head. I got to the point where I wouldn't even touch it. I had to just slip it into the pan directly from the package and had to deliberately distract myself from thinking about how gross it is.

My advice is, if it bothers you that much, a very simple solution is to not eat it. There are plenty of alternatives that are healthy and much less gross--and cheaper too.

Now I don't spend so much effort trying to avoid being disgusted by what's on my plate and in my fridge. Life's too short for all that self-imposed angst.

Maybe some meat consummer are grossed, but as a meat consummer and as an ex-hutner and as somebody which slaughtered animals on a farm, I am MUCH more concerned that informed choice is removed from me, and grossed out that sub par product might be given to me under the guise of a 100% normal product.

Maybe the quality between that "enhanced" meat with trimming and normal minced meat is identical, but that choice should be left to the consumer. Especially if the saving of money , is NOT given to the consumer by having lower meat price : you can then decide for the same price to buy a brand which do not use trimming.

But if you are not informed.... Rational or not, you are unable to make a choice.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I ask those defending this unlabeled practice a question, if there is no difference in this burger additive besides the process, shouldn't pure additive look and taste the same as hamburger without the additive? Why not sell burger made from 100% lean beef trimmings?

[Skeptic Ginger]

For anyone who knows about the behind the scenes hamburger production, which of these products might be the cause of rubbery hamburger?

Advanced Meat Recovery Products, from Wiki

Quote:

Edible beef products derived from beef-fat trimmings include Finely Textured Beef (FTB), Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB), Premium Black Angus Finely Textured Beef (PBAFTB), Angus Finely Textured Beef (AFTB), Beef Trimmings, Finely Textured (BTFT) and Partially Defatted Chopped Beef (PDCB).[2][3][4]

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I ask those defending this unlabeled practice a question, if there is no difference in this burger additive besides the process, shouldn't pure additive look and taste the same as hamburger without the additive? Why not sell burger made from 100% lean beef trimmings?

Nope. A tree is not the same look and feel as a plank which in turn has a diferent look and feel as sawdust. All three are essentially the same thing.

The rubberiness and taste... well you have to take into account different methods of preparation here... types of fat (butter, lard, plant oil) the temperatures in transport (freezing changes textures)...

It is, alas, not so easy to point at just one thing here...

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

For anyone who knows about the behind the scenes hamburger production, which of these products might be the cause of rubbery hamburger?

Advanced Meat Recovery Products, from Wiki

My guess would be production process rather than ingredients...

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Quote:

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.

Their use of carefully chosen 'names', complete with lobbying for a change in the food regulation law in order to use those 'names' is typical of marketing mislead.Just because something is 'protein' does not make it 'meat', nor does it make it nutritious.

My bolding.

Aye. Mashed intestine would be high in protein. Mashed worm would be high in protein. Mashed hair, skin and toenail clippings would be high in protein.

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

Nope. A tree is not the same look and feel as a plank which in turn has a diferent look and feel as sawdust. All three are essentially the same thing.

The rubberiness and taste... well you have to take into account different methods of preparation here... types of fat (butter, lard, plant oil) the temperatures in transport (freezing changes textures)...

It is, alas, not so easy to point at just one thing here...

And I'd be willing to bet that even the best steak would be indistinguishable from 'pink slime,' if it were chopped to a super fine, pate-type consistency.

[daenku32]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It's easy to dismiss something as a "propaganda piece" if you disagree with it.

I usually call something being released by industry to defend their profits as "propaganda". They aren't doing it for the common good.

[phunk]

Originally Posted by daenku32

I usually call something being released by industry to defend their profits as "propaganda". They aren't doing it for the common good.

Is there something between "propaganda" and "sitting quietly while people lie about them" that you'd accept?

[LTC8K6]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...th-pink-slime/

Fox News, but still. Seems a shame that this passes for journalism these days.

I hope it hasn't killed BPI.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by daenku32

I usually call something being released by industry to defend their profits as "propaganda". They aren't doing it for the common good.

Propaganda it may be (or not), but it does not mean it is necessarily bad for you.

Propaganda just means 'changing the lighting so the subject looks good, without caring what the subject is', and once in a while, it may even be truth.

Or differently put: the method of communication does not invalidate the subject.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

My guess would be production process rather than ingredients...

I can guess, I was asking if anyone could suggest something more than a guess. I've already asked about the gristle content and haven't found any satisfactory answers one way or the other. If it were just gristle content that would not explain why hamburger texture changed so drastically a decade or so ago.