Pink Slime

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush

Right now, neither of you would admit that inhaling water causes drowning.

You're at a standstill.

The immovable object has encountered the irresistible force.

nw redacted. But I hope I'm the irresistible force

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush

Right now, neither of you would admit that inhaling water causes drowning.

You're at a standstill.

The immovable object has encountered the irresistible force.

I'll stand on the evidence in this discussion any day.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'll stand on the evidence in this discussion any day.

So far your "evidence" is a funny taste and the lack of scientific study on the composition of garbage.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I realize you've not read every post in the thread but I addressed this. After being burned numerous times I eventually migrated to the $10/pound fresh ground at Whole Foods as the only consistently OK burger. Your scolding is confirmation bias based.

At that price, why don't you grind your own?

You could be 100% sure a disgruntled employee didn't go postal in your ground meat ...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

So far your "evidence" is a funny taste and the lack of scientific study on the composition of garbage.

The composition of garbage? You've added some new straw there, Fur.

You got the process wrong, the correct LFTB process has been cited.
The amount of connective tissue in LFTB was cited, you have yet to cite anything supporting your assertion that the trim used in LFTB is no different than the trim which does not need the extra processing.

To review yet again evidence posted in the thread: The trim used in LFTB is "closer to the hide", i.e. further from the muscle. It is not, as you assert, just trim that fell on the ground or was tossed into a bucket and therefore more contaminated.

The trim used in LFTB is >70% connective tissue, and has very little meat in it.
Ground beef is <30% connective tissue.

Your argument: adding connective tissue to lower the fat ratio doesn't change hamburger because hamburger has connective tissue in it.
You claim the range of connective tissue in regular ground beef extends to the amount that adding connective tissue would result in.

You not only haven't posted any evidence of what the normal range of connective tissue is in ground beef, you can't say at what point adding 70% connective tissue would change the burger's texture.

And, you have yet to support your assertion the trim used in LFTB is the same as the rest of the trim. Initially you claimed heat was used to facilitate removal of the trim from the bone. That was false but instead of admitting your blatant mistake, you backtracked and claimed the heat was used to separate the meat and connective tissue. That's not true either but you now just ignore your mistake as if you never made it. False memory maybe?

The heat is used to separate the fat. It is not used to do anything else. The evidence of that has been cited.

Given your explanations for why LFTB requires special treatment turned out to be incorrect, you nonetheless continue to assert the unsupported claim that the trim used to make LFTB is no different from the trim that is just ground into burger without it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

At that price, why don't you grind your own?

You could be 100% sure a disgruntled employee didn't go postal in your ground meat ...

I don't need to now, they've taken the stuff out of most of the prepackaged burger.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The composition of garbage? You've added some new straw there, Fur.

You got the process wrong, the correct LFTB process has been cited.
The amount of connective tissue in LFTB was cited, you have yet to cite anything supporting your assertion that the trim used in LFTB is no different than the trim which does not need the extra processing.

To review yet again evidence posted in the thread: The trim used in LFTB is "closer to the hide", i.e. further from the muscle. It is not, as you assert, just trim that fell on the ground or was tossed into a bucket and therefore more contaminated.

The trim used in LFTB is >70% connective tissue, and has very little meat in it.
Ground beef is <30% connective tissue.

Your argument: adding connective tissue to lower the fat ratio doesn't change hamburger because hamburger has connective tissue in it.
You claim the range of connective tissue in regular ground beef extends to the amount that adding connective tissue would result in.

You not only haven't posted any evidence of what the normal range of connective tissue is in ground beef, you can't say at what point adding 70% connective tissue would change the burger's texture.

And, you have yet to support your assertion the trim used in LFTB is the same as the rest of the trim. Initially you claimed heat was used to facilitate removal of the trim from the bone. That was false but instead of admitting your blatant mistake, you backtracked and claimed the heat was used to separate the meat and connective tissue. That's not true either but you now just ignore your mistake as if you never made it. False memory maybe?

The heat is used to separate the fat. It is not used to do anything else. The evidence of that has been cited.

Given your explanations for why LFTB requires special treatment turned out to be incorrect, you nonetheless continue to assert the unsupported claim that the trim used to make LFTB is no different from the trim that is just ground into burger without it.

You've got this burden of proof thing all backwards. You're the one claiming the USDA is wrong in it's assessment of LFBT and was bought off by BPI. The burden of proof is on you.
I'm just explaining the process and how it's very easy to see why the USDA, the "authority", has no problem with LFBT.
"Closer to the hide" is your white whale. The fat is "closer to the hide" than the muscle. Look at any anatomy book.

And no, I'm not going to chase down a study showing that "trim" is "trim". You're the one saying otherwise, it's ridiculous, you prove how it isn't. The USDA disagrees with you, I'm just trying to help you understand why. Don't shoot the messenger.

I've explained the process and the fact is you refuse to understand it because it conflicts with your preconcieved notions. You don't want to believe the USDA because you believe there is something nefarious going on. The reality here is, in the case of BPI, one man's garbage is another man's treasure. It's really just as simple as that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Answer the question, Fur: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Had a burger the other day. It was dee-licious.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Answer the question, Fur: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

lmao

sg why are you still asking people this instead of writing an email to the usda asking them...

fun times dropping back by the thread, keep up the good work! Comedic genius, all of you, lol as if anyone actually cares what the facts are when we have THE MAN vs. THE COMMON MAN going on here?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

lmao

sg why are you still asking people this instead of writing an email to the usda asking them...

fun times dropping back by the thread, keep up the good work! Comedic genius, all of you, lol as if anyone actually cares what the facts are when we have THE MAN vs. THE COMMON MAN going on here?

If you had been paying attention, the 15% is based on the producer of LFTB doing a market survey. Beyond 15% mix, the consumers couldn't tolerate the stuff.

Try again.

[Joey McGee]

Oh cool update, thanks.

Kind of conflicts with the 4 lab studies saying even more than 15% was better but at this point, at least we know it wasn't because they were putting dog food in it or poisoning us or stealing from us.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The test was done. Only 9 skeptics in a room of almost 40 were willing to participate. Here are the results and the procedure:

People got an answer sheet with the order to eat the samples in, randomized at the top of the sheet. I cooked 3 samples of burger in three pans at the same time on my stove. They all got the same amount of light salt and pepper. They were all cooked for the same length of time over the same heat. All were cooked as chopped burger the way I cook burger for tacos or spaghetti rather than patties. I then put the samples into cups designated for hot drinks and put those cups into an insulated box. I went straight to the meetup and the samples did not need reheating. I did not participate because it didn't work out that I was blinded. And while it was not technically double blinded, the participants had an answer sheet, I was not an interviewer adding any kind of subjective influence to the answers.

It is possible the samples with LFTB had different amounts of LFTB as they were purchased after the controversy was in full swing. So it cannot be assumed that the burger with 4% fat had more LFTB than the sample with 7% fat. It can be said both had LFTB, just not how much.

The questionnaire asked for 3 possible ratings of texture, flavor, juiciness and preference to disguise the fact texture was the main quality being investigated. The other answers added interest to the findings but I was looking for texture evaluations.

I used 'tender', 'chewy' and 'gristly' as options knowing people describe texture in different ways. The main idea was, did the texture differ, not how did people describe the difference.

Sample 1 was 7% fat with LFTB.
1 person found it tender, 6 found it chewy and 2 found it gristly.
Sample 3 was 4% fat with LFBT.
4 people found it tender and 5 found it chewy.

Sample 2 was 7% fat and contained no LFTB.
6 people found it tender and 3 found it chewy.

So with LFTB: 28% tender; 61% chewy; 11% gristly.
Without LFBT: 67% tender; 33% chewy; 0% gristly.

If you just compare the 7% with to the 7% without:

With LFTB: 11% tender; 67% chewy; 22% gristly.
Without LFBT: 67% tender; 33% chewy; 0% gristly.

It can be concluded that in this pilot study, the hamburger texture without the LFTB had a significantly different texture than the hamburger with LFTB.

If you add my unblinded assessment I found both samples 1 & 3 gristly and 2 tender.


As for preference, some people preferred the burger with LFTB and that did not surprise me nor affect my issue, that labeling should have included information that LFTB was added.

Sample 1: 1 person rated as "best", 3 as "middle" and 5 as "worst".
Sample 3: 2 people rated as "best", 6 as "middle" and 1 as "worst".

Sample 2: 4 people rated as "best", 3 as "middle" and 2 as "worst".

While there were 9 assessments of best, middle, worst for each sample, some people gave equal ratings to some of the samples. I.e. best has 7 votes, middle has 12 and worst has 8 total votes.

The flavor options were 'good', 'fair', & 'bad'.

Sample 1: 0 good; 6 fair; 3 bad.
Sample 3: 5 good, 4 fair; 0 bad.

Sample 2: 3 good, 5 fair and 1 bad.

Some people preferred the burger with LFTB. The people selling it shouldn't be afraid of labeling it.

Juiciness options were 'good', 'fair', & 'bad'.

Sample 1: 1 good; 3 fair; 5 bad.
Sample 3: 2 good, 4 fair; 3 bad.

Sample 2: 1 good, 5 fair and 3 bad.

The method of preparation may have resulted in extra dryness of all the samples.

[Marcus]

That's disappointing that only 9 people participated. It's still interesting, but it's hard to have confidence in any conclusions with such a small sample.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Marcus

That's disappointing that only 9 people participated. It's still interesting, but it's hard to have confidence in any conclusions with such a small sample.

Yes, of course, because the people in this thread who are invested in the claim there is no effect on texture are sure to discount anything that supports the opposite conclusion.

The participants were unaware of which burger was which. There was a clear detection of a difference in texture.

If anyone wants to continue with their unsupported conclusion, there is no difference, they should conduct their own test.

I'll wait for all the denials before recapping the evidence.

[Daald]

Interesting.

Thanks for doing the test SG.

[Marcus]

It's disappointing because of the people on this thread? I know you were already confident of your conclusions, but wouldn't you rather have had a study with more than 9 participants?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Marcus

It's disappointing because of the people on this thread? I know you were already confident of your conclusions, but wouldn't you rather have had a study with more than 9 participants?

Sure. I had enough burger to test at least 20. But it wasn't a total loss. I donated the leftovers to someone for their cat. The skeptic's group enjoyed the test and the results, and we all learned a little about the test procedure and the Pink Slime controversy.


As for convincing evidence I was right, I already have that evidence. I've been buying LFTB free burger now and haven't found any of it with the gristly texture that was grossing me out. I found a mechanism for the texture problem, the analysis showing the greater amount of connective tissue protein over muscle protein in LFTB. Despite Fur's insistence trim is trim, the trim they make the LFTB from is further from the muscle and closer to the hide and he's not been able to counter that with anything but foot stamping. One of the main producer's own study found consumers did not like burger if more than 15% LFTB was added to it. That's evidence it does change the burger. And at least one food critic, who had no obvious reason to be biased about the outcome, did an analysis and also found LFTB changed the texture of hamburger.


I don't see any evidence against LFTB being the cause of the hamburger texture change except Fur's assertion hamburger has connective tissue in it. That doesn't mean adding more would have little effect. In addition, a blood vessel made of connective tissue is softer than a tendon made of connective tissue, so not all connective tissue is equally fibrous. And, Fur was grossly misinformed about how LFTB is processed and he was misinformed about which trim was used to make LFTB. He said trim was used that had fallen on the floor or was put in a dirty bucket. In reality, trim that is closer to the hide and further from the muscle is used.


It is extremely rare for people in this forum to admit they were wrong. I could have done the test with 100 people and it would still be very unlikely that those who don't believe LFTB affects the texture of hamburger would change their mind. Just look at the overwhelming evidence that was available before the test and you can see people are filtering the evidence to fit their confirmation bias. One conclusion is true, either the stuff affects burger texture or it doesn't. So people on one side of this debate are looking at the evidence objectively and the others aren't.

For people on the fence, I would think that the small study plus the other evidence is enough. If not, meh, my hamburger tastes good again. For people doubling down in this thread and arguing LFTB doesn't change the texture, evidence is not likely to change their beliefs.

[Skeptic Ginger]

On a separate note, I don't eat very often at McDonalds but my recollection is the burger was rather rubbery. I'm wondering if people who frequent McD's have noticed a change in the hamburger now that McD's has quit using LFTB in the burger.

[Marcus]

We do have your small study, and the study you quoted, we also have double blind studies with hundreds of people which you have dismissed because of their funding. The problem is that you weren't able to point to any defects in the studies, but covered them with a blanket "they must be cheating" allegation.

I won't mind at all if you are right, I've never made any claim that "15% LFTB doesn't change the texture of hamburger". As a skeptic though, I need more evidence before I decide. I would think that you would too. For one thing, unless I missed something, you have never tested yourself, you talked about having a friend help you do so but never did it.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

On a separate note, I don't eat very often at McDonalds but my recollection is the burger was rather rubbery. I'm wondering if people who frequent McD's have noticed a change in the hamburger now that McD's has quit using LFTB in the burger.

I don't eat there, but I can tell you that I haven't noticed any change in Whataburger meat, but then again I have no idea if they have ever used LFTB.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Marcus

... we also have double blind studies with hundreds of people which you have dismissed because of their funding. The problem is that you weren't able to point to any defects in the studies, but covered them with a blanket "they must be cheating" allegation.

The studies you cite do not say what you claim they say and you are mischaracterizing my response. But go ahead, believe what you want and dismiss the test I did. No surprise there.

Originally Posted by Marcus

...I won't mind at all if you are right, I've never made any claim that "15% LFTB doesn't change the texture of hamburger". As a skeptic though, I need more evidence before I decide. I would think that you would too. For one thing, unless I missed something, you have never tested yourself, you talked about having a friend help you do so but never did it.

It was difficult enough as it was to do the testing at the meetup. It just wasn't possible to do everything I wanted to do.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Marcus

I don't eat there, but I can tell you that I haven't noticed any change in Whataburger meat, but then again I have no idea if they have ever used LFTB.

You only need to look at their web page. They do not use LFTB.

Here's a quote from the full statement.

Quote:

In light of the recent concerns regarding beef products that contain 'pink slime,' we want our customers to rest assured that when they visit Whataburger they can expect to receive only 100 percent, USDA-inspected fresh, never frozen beef. Our beef does not contain pink slime nor does it undergo an ammonia-treated process.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Sure. I had enough burger to test at least 20. But it wasn't a total loss. I donated the leftovers to someone for their cat. The skeptic's group enjoyed the test and the results, and we all learned a little about the test procedure and the Pink Slime controversy.


As for convincing evidence I was right, I already have that evidence. I've been buying LFTB free burger now and haven't found any of it with the gristly texture that was grossing me out. I found a mechanism for the texture problem, the analysis showing the greater amount of connective tissue protein over muscle protein in LFTB. Despite Fur's insistence trim is trim, the trim they make the LFTB from is further from the muscle and closer to the hide and he's not been able to counter that with anything but foot stamping. One of the main producer's own study found consumers did not like burger if more than 15% LFTB was added to it. That's evidence it does change the burger. And at least one food critic, who had no obvious reason to be biased about the outcome, did an analysis and also found LFTB changed the texture of hamburger.


I don't see any evidence against LFTB being the cause of the hamburger texture change except Fur's assertion hamburger has connective tissue in it. That doesn't mean adding more would have little effect. In addition, a blood vessel made of connective tissue is softer than a tendon made of connective tissue, so not all connective tissue is equally fibrous. And, Fur was grossly misinformed about how LFTB is processed and he was misinformed about which trim was used to make LFTB. He said trim was used that had fallen on the floor or was put in a dirty bucket. In reality, trim that is closer to the hide and further from the muscle is used.


It is extremely rare for people in this forum to admit they were wrong. I could have done the test with 100 people and it would still be very unlikely that those who don't believe LFTB affects the texture of hamburger would change their mind. Just look at the overwhelming evidence that was available before the test and you can see people are filtering the evidence to fit their confirmation bias. One conclusion is true, either the stuff affects burger texture or it doesn't. So people on one side of this debate are looking at the evidence objectively and the others aren't.

For people on the fence, I would think that the small study plus the other evidence is enough. If not, meh, my hamburger tastes good again. For people doubling down in this thread and arguing LFTB doesn't change the texture, evidence is not likely to change their beliefs.

Utter nonsense. You don't need a study to know fat is "closer to the hide" than muscle. It's basic anatomy.

It follows logically that ground beef with higher fat content, which has been proven in numerous studies already cited in this thread, to be, for lack of a better term "more appealing" to tasters.

Your premise is therefore flawed. You're trying to extend what you misunderstand to fit your own biased opinion. This is obvious.

Again, the USDA rightfully calls the product "lean beef trimmings" because that's exactly what it is. Your continued pleading for evidence that "lean beef trimmings" are "trimmings" is ridiculous. The burden of proof is still on you to show otherwise. I think it's obvious to everyone reading this, and even SG, pursuing such evidence is a fools errand.

Trim is trim...because the USDA says so. I've explained exactly how the USDA came to this conclusion and it doesn't have anything to do with BPI conspiring with USDA officials like SG claims.

The taste and texture of ground beef is determined by numerous factors including the amount of LFBT. You don't need a taste test to prove that, just a little common sense and logic.

[Skeptic Ginger]

As predicted....

Where's your evidence, Fur? The study, even as small as it was, does not support your assertions.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

As predicted....

Where's your evidence, Fur? The study, even as small as it was, does not support your assertions.

lol, you obviously don't understand, let me try to explain this...again, using an analogy.

You- "These aren't grass clippings, grass clippings are long"
Me- "It depends on how often you cut your grass, how fast the grass grows, your mower height, how sharp the blade is etc. Grass clippings can be any length"
You- "Where your peer reviewed scientific study confirming this?"
Me- "There is none, it stands to reason you can cut your grass how you like and the clippings will be different lengths from very short to very long.
You- "Nuh uh, these are not grass clippings, this is green slime"
Me- "It's just grass that has been chopped up into a paste, it's the same thing it's just very short"
You- "Nuh uh, it's got a completely different texture"
Me- "Yah, so what, it's called mulch"
You- "So it's got a different texture and a different name, it's not the same thing then"
Me- "Yes it is, it's the exact same thing."
You- "Where's your scientific study proving it then hmmmm?"
Me- ""

If there isn't a formal fallacy about begging for scientific evidence where none is needed there should be.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is it about "further from the muscle" do you not understand?

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

If there isn't a formal fallacy about begging for scientific evidence where none is needed there should be.

We could call it begging the answer.

[Skeptical Greg]

Story On Swift

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...ink-slime.html

[Joey McGee]

Well, clearly the JREF has been compromised, paid off by Big Pink.

Kyle's articles are always deliciously well-written and inspiring.

I wondered why we're only hearing of this now. Then realized, it's probably stayed in the news cycle. Then discovered, one month ago BFI filed a 1.2 billion dollar lawsuit against ABC and some of the characters we've visited earlier here such as Zirnstein and Foshee. SWEET.

Read the lawsuit guys! It's only 257 pages, and then we can have a logical, coherent discussion about who should pay how much for destroying these people's business purposefully and maliciously in a self-aggrandizing manner.

[Throckmorton]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Whatever you do, don't think about how many maggots are allowed by the FDA to be in a jar of mayonaise.

Why? How many are allowed? I would like a primary reference, not conventional wisdom, or a secondary news report...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Throckmorton

Why? How many are allowed? I would like a primary reference, not conventional wisdom, or a secondary news report...

I don't know about mayo but there is an acceptable threshold for insect parts in your cereal.

Food Defect Action Levels

Quote:

Though insect fragments are classified as an aesthetic problem, trace amounts of insect parts may have adverse effects for people with allergies and asthma.[2] The Food Defect Action Levels states that these contaminants "pose no inherent hazard to health."[1]

[Skeptic Ginger]

I replied to the Swift article before the board went Malware last night.

Again the points:
Pink Slime isn't a health risk as long as people cook burger thoroughly. Some lots had more bacteria.

The texture seriously bothers me and at least a fair number of other people.

All they had to do was label it, but pretending it was no different when analyses show otherwise, was wrong.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Pink Slime isn't a health risk as long as people cook burger thoroughly. Some lots had more bacteria.

Which lots? The ones that they caught before they left the factory or what?

Quote:

The texture seriously bothers me and at least a fair number of other people.

You have no direct evidence for this. I do. Independent lab tests where people rated the texture and taste higher than non-lftb. Oh right you handwaved this away because it conflicted with your belief and even invented a conspiracy theory that BFI paid off the labs to fake the results.

Quote:

All they had to do was label it, but pretending it was no different when analyses show otherwise, was wrong.

Do you forget that it was shown that you don't understand the studies that you use to support this statement?

Now people know that people sometimes use a centrifuge to rip all of the extra meat out of the cow. I'd say that's a good thing in this age of conservation and rationalism but apparently there is some fearmongering going on that prevents them from appreciating this fact.

[OMGturt1es]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You have no direct evidence for this. I do. Independent lab tests where people rated the texture and taste higher than non-lftb. Oh right you handwaved this away because it conflicted with your belief and even invented a conspiracy theory that BFI paid off the labs to fake the results.

I haven't read the studies to which you are referring, nor have I read SG's responses.

That being said, industry has an absolutely horrible track record when it comes to science. Industry has been caught faking data, creating fake journals, hiding results, constructing tests specifically to not find potential problems, and so on, so forth. These aren't isolated, rare incidents. They are common place. So-called "product defense" firms exist because demand for this "science" is very high. Their ability to delay regulation has resulted in enormous wealth for industry and sickness and death for innocent people. Numerous books have been written on this subject. I recommend "Doubt is their Product" by OSHA-head David Michaels.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Pink Slime isn't a health risk as long as people cook burger thoroughly. Some lots had more bacteria.

Since when was that not a potential problem with any meat or other perishable food ?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Which lots? The ones that they caught before they left the factory or what?

You have no direct evidence for this. I do. Independent lab tests where people rated the texture and taste higher than non-lftb. Oh right you handwaved this away because it conflicted with your belief and even invented a conspiracy theory that BFI paid off the labs to fake the results.

Do you forget that it was shown that you don't understand the studies that you use to support this statement?

Now people know that people sometimes use a centrifuge to rip all of the extra meat out of the cow. I'd say that's a good thing in this age of conservation and rationalism but apparently there is some fearmongering going on that prevents them from appreciating this fact.

Good grief! Do you really want to revisit all this?

Evidence the texture differs: LFTB has 70% fibrous connective tissue vs 30% in the rest of the trim. That was in a cited analysis.

The results of the blinded test, while the sample size was small, was a significant texture difference. There were ~40 Seattle Skeptics there.

Putting more than 20% LFTB caused people to dislike the resulting hamburger. That was also in a cited marketing report in this thread.

And the failure of the ammonia to adequately treat the bacterial contamination was found by the USDA or the FDA (I forget which). It was not found and reported by the producers themselves. That was also in a cited article in this thread.

It would seem you hand waved away a lot of evidence in this thread. Also, stop lying about what I've posted, in particular, this OUTRIGHT LIE: "even invented a conspiracy theory that BFI paid off the labs to fake the results." I don't know that anyone posted any such thing but I sure as hell didn't.

All I said that is remotely related was, the person most responsible for allowing LFTB to be added to burger without labeling went on to get over a million dollars from the company that benefitted the most from it. It was then pointed out, that sum amounted to an annual salary that wasn't particularly high. And I replied that the paid position was on the board of directors and likely amounted to working a couple days a year for that annual salary.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Since when was that not a potential problem with any meat or other perishable food ?

For all hamburger, bacteria is a potential problem, thus I wasn't very bothered by the finding. I have said repeatedly in this thread, I don't believe LFTB to be a health problem. My gripe has always been about the lack of labeling because I dislike the texture and have had to return and throw away burger because there was no way to know it would have the bad texture from the packaging.

Despite the fact burger needs to be thoroughly cooked, the FDA still recalls any batches found to have significant bacterial contamination.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here is the NYTs article cited earlier in the thread re the bacterial contamination of LFTB:

Safety of Beef Processing Method Is Questioned

Quote:

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 meat was caught before reaching lunch-rooms trays...

So the USDA gave the meat producers a pass on testing and the schools found the contamination in their back up testing programs.


But go ahead, Joey McGee, hand wave these facts away.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

I haven't read the studies to which you are referring, nor have I read SG's responses.

That being said, industry has an absolutely horrible track record when it comes to science. Industry has been caught faking data, creating fake journals, hiding results, constructing tests specifically to not find potential problems, and so on, so forth. These aren't isolated, rare incidents. They are common place. So-called "product defense" firms exist because demand for this "science" is very high. Their ability to delay regulation has resulted in enormous wealth for industry and sickness and death for innocent people. Numerous books have been written on this subject. I recommend "Doubt is their Product" by OSHA-head David Michaels.

Sure, this was brought up. I maintain that if you read the four studies and inquire as to the trustworthiness of the companies you will find it hard to believe that all four risked their reputation to fake studies way before this crap theory was thought up by Jamie Oliver and a new age mom blog.