Pink Slime

[Joey McGee]

p.s. I'm extremely skeptical of anyone questioning my skeptical credentials. When you open with that accusation, 99.9% of the time it's a gaslighting technique. Cheers

[Joey McGee]

Quote:

Those sick freaks feeding our children dog food! Wow I would be so ashamed of myself if I was Jamie Oliver. Until he apologizes for the household ammonia poured on a tub of beef stunt I won't be able to enjoy watching his show or reading his books. Come on Jamie answer for this criticism. Hundreds of people lost their jobs because of your ignorant negligence.

Some genius on the Jamie Oliver forums. (me). It occurs to me that the only benefit this campaign can possibly have on humanity is a) teaching slacktivist hipsters to stfu and have some patience and respect for real science, b) teaching companies that they are at the whim of a rabidly delusional populace. Cheers

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Let's see, are you dismissing an A.S. Leaflet as something less than a peer reviewed paper? Did you even make any effort to see what it was?

I did: Iowa State University, Department of Animal Science, Animal Industry Report -Annual ReportsSo what's your beef with this paper?

I just searched the contents of all those reports from every single year for the words "lean" and "lftb", but couldn't find any mention of the article.

But with a the help of Google, I think I found the problem. You linked to the Animal Science Reports, but the report you're referring to is in the Beef Research Reports.

This is the correct link: http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/ansci/beefreports/

Specifically, this part: http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/a...s/meats96.html

What I'd like to know is whether or not the process of extracting FTLB was the same back in 1996 as it is now. All the PDF says is "a unique, low-temperature rendering and separation procedure" with no mention of how it was done. I can't find details on the development of the processes. Any attempt to find information via a search engine produces a flood of hits concerning the current controversy.

Even the Wikipedia article on Pink Slime is a useless mess. It's clearly heavily slanted and the History section doesn't even provide any information on the history of FTLB itself, just the ammonia-gas sterilization process.

[Joey McGee]

Oh god you should have seen the wiki article on pink slime a few nights ago. Claimed brains, spinal fluid. etc were in the product! It made me laugh +1 trolls

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I didn't know it had. I was simply asking a question. Next time tell me that the data was posted thread and I'll thank you and go look for it. Or ask someone else.

In any event. Thank you.

Sorry, not your fault, Rand. It's just that in this thread and in the Trayvon thread, the evidence I've posted keeps being 'forgotten'. I should know that's par for the confirmation bias course and not get annoyed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

I just searched the contents of all those reports from every single year for the words "lean" and "lftb", but couldn't find any mention of the article.

Well if you would have looked more closely you'd have seen the A.S. Leaflet R1361 was from 1996 and the university pages don't go back far enough.

Originally Posted by Brian-M

But with a the help of Google, I think I found the problem. You linked to the Animal Science Reports, but the report you're referring to is in the Beef Research Reports.

This is the correct link: http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/ansci/beefreports/

Thank you for finding the older archives. Do you know what the A.S. stands for?

Originally Posted by Brian-M

What I'd like to know is whether or not the process of extracting FTLB was the same back in 1996 as it is now. All the PDF says is "a unique, low-temperature rendering and separation procedure" with no mention of how it was done. I can't find details on the development of the processes. Any attempt to find information via a search engine produces a flood of hits concerning the current controversy.

Even the Wikipedia article on Pink Slime is a useless mess. It's clearly heavily slanted and the History section doesn't even provide any information on the history of FTLB itself, just the ammonia-gas sterilization process.

If you want to find contradictory evidence, go for it. In the meantime this analysis looks relevant.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Personal anecdote: I bought burger at Fred Meyer, the meat counter fresh stuff. The counter people said it had no lean beef trimmings additive. I just ate some and it did not have the rubbery texture.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Well the majority of the reasons people are against the product have been proved wrong. We'll have a residual amount of slacktivists poisoned with cognitive dissonance trying to justify their outrage for awhile. Mostly due to paranoia and a hyper-vigilant attitude against corporations that leads to delusions and a persecution complex. Unless new evidence is presented the thread is dead. The product is safe and nutritious, the company didn't do anything wrong, and we can all sleep soundly at night knowing that the USDA doesn't give itself away to the highest bidder. FFS this thread almost belongs in CT

BPI and the USDA absolutely have done something wrong! They put this product in ground beef without labeling it. Whether it is beef meat or not, nutritious or not, it in not ground beef. The beef has gone through a process where it has become something else - LFTB. It has been heated, spun in a centrifuged, sprayed with ammonia, rolled flat. It looks nothing like ground beef! It is not ground beef! If they took a fresh porterhouse steak and put it through the same process it would no longer be a porterhouse. Beef is NOT just Beef, it differs depending on cut and processing.

Applesauce is not an apple
Guacamole is not an avocado
Grits are not whole corn
Ground Beef is not a T-Bone Steak
LFTB is not Ground Beef

Beyond that, four different sources have said that LFTB does not have the same makeup of as ground beef meat: Kit Foshee, Gerald Zirnstein, Carl Custer and the University of Iowa study all say it is made up of a lot more cartilage and connective tissue. 1) It is not pure beef meat. 2) It has gone through extreme processing that ground beef does not.

What they have found with ground beef is a product where unfortunately it is easy to hide other products in it; and the beef industry has taken full advantage of that. Whether it is soy protein, oatmeal or LFTB. LFTB is not a stand alone product. BPI said in their news conference that they can not make burgers out of LFTB alone because the texture from the processing is not the same. If it can't be used alone that makes it an additive or filler. BPI and USDA have been in collusion to sneak this into the food chain unlabeled. It's reprehensible what they have done.

USDA microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein -- “It’s economic fraud,” “It’s not fresh ground beef.… It’s a cheap substitute being added in.”

[Draca]

http://consumerist.com/2012/03/beef-...ound-beef.html

Quote:

It all starts when BPI warms the meat scraps enough so they don't cook but can be easily separated in a centrifuge, says Gerald Zirnstein, the former USDA microbiologist and father of the phrase "pink slime."

"At that temperature, you increase the level of pathogens and the level of spoilage bacteria," Zirnstein told ABC News. "In order to turn this into a product they can potentially sell as 'meat,' and that's, [in] quotations, 'meat,' they add ammonia."

The ammonia kills pathogens, but it also keeps the meat pink — hence, pink slime, instead of the gray slime you'd see otherwise. That color-fixing keeps the public thinking it's red meat, solely because of the color, but he says they've been tricked.

Another former USDA microbiologist, Carl Custer, agrees with his colleague that pink stuff that looks like meat, isn't exactly meat.

"Microbiologically safe and nutritionally complete are two different issues," Custer said. "It may be pink [but], nutritionally, it is not equivalent to whole-muscle tissue."

BPI won't label their product because it's just innocent ground beef. Nothing to see here, move along!

BPI's vice-president and the wife of the owner responded in her press conference Monday: "What should we label it? It's 100 percent beef. What do you want us to label it?"

Well, Mrs BPI, I would suggest you label it LFTB since that is what you call your product.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Draca

BPI and the USDA absolutely have done something wrong! They put this product in ground beef without labeling it. Whether it is beef meat or not, nutritious or not, it in not ground beef. The beef has gone through a process where it has become something else - LFTB. It has been heated, spun in a centrifuged, sprayed with ammonia, rolled flat. It looks nothing like ground beef! It is not ground beef! If they took a fresh porterhouse steak and put it through the same process it would no longer be a porterhouse. Beef is NOT just Beef, it differs depending on cut and processing.

Are you saying that if they took the exact same meat they make non-LFTB ground beef from and put it through the centrifuge and all the rest that they do to LFTB, you wouldn't call it ground beef?

Exactly how would it be different? Harmless traces of ammonia and possibly more finely ground? Would you honestly argue that it isn't really ground beef?

[Draca]

Here's the press conference after the three governors toured BPI

Governors Stand Behind BPI's Products
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcJ8cUayOSo


It was a BPI friendly conference. The exception being Jim Avila from ABC News. There were some heated words exchanged starting at 37:50.

"Avila asked Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, who spearheaded the joint appearance, if his support had "anything to do" with $150,000 in campaign contributions he has received from BPI founders."

"Absolutely not," Branstad shot back angrily. "I will always fight for my constituents, and fight for what's right."

He also asked Nancy Donley, founder of STOP Foodborne Illness, if her organization had removed from its website the $250,000 contribution it has received from BPI. Donley said she removed the donor names because they asked to remain anonymous.

Quote:

Jim Avila's presence at Thursday's news conference created a few fireworks.

"It's beef, but it's leaner beef, which is better for you. You don't get it," said Terry Branstad, Iowa Governor.

That was Terry Branstad's fiery response when ABC News National Correspondent Jim Avila posed a question about why LFTB isn't considered an additive.

Avila has reported a number of times on BPI's Lean Finely Textured Beef. The stories questioned the product's nutrition. Avila stands by his coverage.

"We've reported that this product is not being disclosed to the American public. They don't know what they're buying at the grocery store, when they buy ground beef. No one's saying it's gonna kill you. No one's been saying it's unsafe. All they're saying is it's not as nutritious as regular ground beef by itself, and we ought to know if it's in our beef supply," said Avila.

“Here would be some good advise, is those questions get asked before you run your stories” Rick Perry said.

http://www.kcautv.com/story/17290820...ess-conference


Rick Perry never answered Avila's question though. Only answer given to lack of labeling during the conference was the very lame meme "It's beef". No admittance of fault of any kind.

Terry Branstad was very hypocritical in my opinion when he lectured about showing respect to others. Where was BPI and the USDA's respect when they didn't let the American public know what was in their food?

[Dipayan]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Adding LFTB to ground beef does what exactly for the consumer?

I believe other than volume, it is added to reduce the fat percentage. It helps in making the ground beef much leaner.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Are you saying that if they took the exact same meat they make non-LFTB ground beef from and put it through the centrifuge and all the rest that they do to LFTB, you wouldn't call it ground beef?

Exactly how would it be different? Harmless traces of ammonia and possibly more finely ground? Would you honestly argue that it isn't really ground beef?

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.

[Draca]

Beef product maker gave $500,000 to Republicans over decade
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...ns-over-decade

Quote:

The maker of lean beef trimmings — on whose behalf Gov. Terry Branstad crusaded last week — donated more than $500,000 to Iowa Republican candidates over the past decade and was the top agricultural contributor to the governor’s latest re-election bid, records show.

The company’s top executives and employees have contributed at least $546,500 to candidates for state office in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota and Texas, where it has plants or other operations.

Quote:

U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, introduced legislation March 30 that would require products containing the finely textured beef to be listed on product labels. Pingree told the Register that the issue reflects the concerns that consumers have about where their food comes from and what they’re truly eating.

Pingree doesn’t fault a governor for fighting for jobs. “I have plenty of respect for a governor concerned about a job loss,” she said.

But she said she believes food politics and food policy are very much at play.

Sonia Ashe of the Iowa Public Interest Research Group said the political connection between campaign donations and actions can be debated, but the main point is people should have information about what’s in their food.

“We deserve to know what our children are being fed,” Ashe said. “Governor Branstad should take steps to ensure that parents and children in Iowa know what is going into our school lunches and that as consumers we have the opportunity to make an informed choice.”

Money Talks, Pink Slime Walks
http://governorsjournal.com/2012/04/...k-slime-walks/

[Brian-M]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

(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?)

[Joey McGee]

Wow we have a half dozen nitpicking scientists, a bunch of a spineless apologists for the JAQ'ing off system, and a slew of fearmongerers petitioning for irrational laws based on pseudoscience.

Popcorn is getting warm

[Draca]

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

Quote:

The United States Department of Agriculture microbiologist who coined the term “Pink Slime,” Gerald Zirnstein, grew up in Emporia and got his start working with food processing at the former Iowa Beef Products plant, which is now owned by Tyson.

The 1976 Emporia High School graduate said back when he started working as a meat-cutter and quality control inspector at IBP, immediately after high school, no fillers were used.

“I was around meat,” Zirnstein said. “I used to work in the ground meat department there and they never had this. This rendered product was never added back in back then.”

The rendered product he is referring to is an unlabeled ingredient made up of bits of cartilage and treated with ammonium hydroxide. Pink Slime has been a big topic in the national news media after an email to a fellow scientist was released to the public in 2009. Zirnstein said the rendered product is being added and labeled as ground beef.

“It’s ridiculous,” he said. “They’re going, ‘ah it’s safe. It’s 100 percent beef.’ Okay great, it’s 100 percent beef. It’s just not as wholesome and nutritious as fresh ground beef. And then they don’t label it and people are paying nearly full price for whatever percentage of additive they are getting. They sell it for almost the same price as good, fresh ground beef.”

Zirnstein also said the process of producing the rendered pink slime product makes it unstable and poses some risks.

“Because it is low temperature rendered, it does increase the amount of spoilage bacteria and the level of pathogens,” Zirnstein said. “The citric acid and the ammonia in the BPI product are added in to kill the pathogens that are actually aggravated by their process.”

Overall the quality of the product is poor, Zirnstein 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.”

Zirnstein also considers “pink slime” a high-risk product.

“It’s called high risk simply because that’s a product, if not treated properly, you will get the possibility of contamination,” he said.

[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.

I love this Brian-M, you would do well working for pr. Good spin - they are just tenderizing our meat for us. It's doing us a favor really.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Draca

http://consumerist.com/2012/03/beef-...ound-beef.html

Quote:

[snip] BPI's vice-president and the wife of the owner responded in her press conference Monday: "What should we label it? It's 100 percent beef. What do you want us to label it?"

Well, Mrs BPI, I would suggest you label it LFTB since that is what you call your product.

Notice the truth-is-a-lie Newspeak. It is "beef", it just isn't "meat".

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Are you saying that if they took the exact same meat they make non-LFTB ground beef from and put it through the centrifuge and all the rest that they do to LFTB, you wouldn't call it ground beef?

Exactly how would it be different? Harmless traces of ammonia and possibly more finely ground? Would you honestly argue that it isn't really ground beef?

Note to Randfan: this kind of comment which continues to be repeated in this thread despite the presented facts and citations is why my annoyance showed through when I answered your post.

"Exactly how it is different" has been addressed ad nauseum. Why do you keep asking, Brian? It's full of indigestible connective tissue and has very little muscle "meat" in it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Wow we have a half dozen nitpicking scientists, a bunch of a spineless apologists for the JAQ'ing off system, and a slew of fearmongerers petitioning for irrational laws based on pseudoscience.

Popcorn is getting warm

Yes because it is a nitpick to note tendons are not very edible.

[Joey McGee]

Pink slime is tendons? I thought it was muscle meat and we're not sure about any possible differing ingredients effects on nutrition to a lack of data especially when the author of the 96 study is calling all of the people commenting on his study into question.

Well we'll take everything the provably disgruntled former employees say, they are obviously in the right because, you know, WE'RE STICKIN IT TO THE MAN

BC one of the tenets of skepticism is, if an expert is complaining about it, it must be true...

Foshee is disgruntled and pink slime buddy is nitpicking on the term "ground beef" big deal. We still have people claiming this is an empty product on the thread, this company is screwed. This product actually makes beef safer and we have a movement that is destroying the company based on misinformation about safety, This is a *********** travesty

[Joey McGee]

Let's say I bend to all of your arguments.

SG says the taste is different

Draca says the labelling of the product is an issue

Fine, that doesn't justify the outrage though does it. It's a joke. Everyone knows that the power of this campaign is based on MISINFORMATION, not the actually legitimate issues that me and every apologist for this company has acknowledged!

Clearly we are watching mental illness at work here. They are killing our children ffs

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have no basis to dismiss the University of Iowa analysis of lean beef trimmings, Joey. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. There is a lot more 'other' tissue besides muscle in the stuff. If there was not then one could use it as burger by itself rather than having to add it to actual burger.


As for the outrage, I'm outraged I've been asking what is wrong with the burger for years now and no one at the stores knew or would tell me. I should have at least been able to find out when I asked even if the label didn't require telling people.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You have no basis to dismiss the University of Iowa analysis of lean beef trimmings, Joey. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. There is a lot more 'other' tissue besides muscle in the stuff. If there was not then one could use it as burger by itself rather than having to add it to actual burger.

This, quite simply.

When I ask for 1/2kg of minced (ground) beef at our local butcher's shop he hauls out a slab of actual beef muscle, chops a lump off and puts it through the mincer twice.

If he brought out 1/2kg of tendons and cartilage and put that through the mincer ... hmmm ... wait now ... would I think "Well, it's cow produce, to be sure. It's well minced and digestible. It's bug-free ... so burgers/spag. bol./chili/cottage pie here we come! Whoopee! Here darling, see the nice meat I bought for our dinner tonight" ???

Nope. And nor would anybody else.

[Joey McGee]

Pfft all im saying is that the author of the study seems to be saying that the way you're using the data is wrong. Take it up with him his contact information is easy to find.

Its muscle meat, not crappy pieces mixed in, fearmonger all you want

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Pfft all im saying is that the author of the study seems to be saying that they way you're using the data is wrong. Take it up with him his contact information is easy to find.

Its muscle meat, not crappy pieces mixed in, fearmonger all you want

I fail to see how you can interpret "LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins than muscle meat" as "it's muscle meat".

Care to support your contradiction? Do you not know what myofibers are perhaps?

[Joey McGee]

U think they grind up cartilage and tendons to make this product? Ya those ppl need to find new jobs this company is **********

[Joey McGee]

Does normal ground beef have no connective tissue in it? This is ct country im out

[Joey McGee]

Its indigestable. Lmao. Add that to "its poisonous" and "it's dog food" and "it's dangerous" on the list of stupid lies about this product

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Note to Randfan: this kind of comment which continues to be repeated in this thread despite the presented facts and citations is why my annoyance showed through when I answered your post.

"Exactly how it is different" has been addressed ad nauseum. Why do you keep asking, Brian? It's full of indigestible connective tissue and has very little muscle "meat" in it.

You should have read my entire post before responding. Sure, other people have asked how the product is different before, but my question was referring to the process, not the product.

This is a distinction I made very clear in my post.

Originally Posted by Brian-M

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.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess you just can't believe the facts, Joey. I can't make sense of your posts any other way.

Yes, regular ground beef has a small amount of connective tissue like that found in blood vessels.

Yes they grind up tendons and other connective tissue to make this stuff. There is a tiny amount of muscle left in the scraps but mostly this product is made from the scraps. If there was meat in it, it would have been cut off the cattle with the rest of the meat.

Yes, it used to go into pet food until they started adding it to people food.

I'm not one arguing it is poisonous or dangerous. I've made that clear more than once.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

You should have read my entire post before responding. Sure, other people have asked how the product is different before, but my question was referring to the process, not the product.

This is a distinction I made very clear in my post.

You said:

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Originally Posted by Brian-M
Are you saying that if they took the exact same meat they make non-LFTB ground beef from and put it through the centrifuge and all the rest that they do to LFTB, you wouldn't call it ground beef?

Exactly how would it be different? Harmless traces of ammonia and possibly more finely ground? Would you honestly argue that it isn't really ground beef?

It isn't "ground beef" by the common definition of that term. I wouldn't call it "ground beef".

Of course if I wanted to mislead the consumer I would call it 'beef' because I know they would hear 'meat' and technically I would not be lying. But in reality I would be lying because I know full well I am technically saying 'beef' because it comes from cattle.

Everyone else thinks ground beef means ground up muscle meat, not ground up tendons and connective tissue.

[Draca]

A new term is hitting the discussion:

Slimegate

Slimegate: Should USDA Require Labeling for LFTB?
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/0...ling-for-lftb/


The USDA in BPI and the beef industries pocket? Yes.

Quote:

So if LFTB contains added ammonia, is 100 times more alkaline, and has both a different texture and sometimes smell, why isn't it labeled as a component when it's thawed and mixed in ground beef? Because both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have decided that ammonia is not an additive, but a processing aid.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Let's say I bend to all of your arguments.

SG says the taste is different

Draca says the labelling of the product is an issue

Fine, that doesn't justify the outrage though does it. It's a joke. Everyone knows that the power of this campaign is based on MISINFORMATION, not the actually legitimate issues that me and every apologist for this company has acknowledged!

It DOES justify the outrage, absolutely it does! The USDA and BPI, etc. have put a product in my food that I didn't know was there! I ate it, digested it. How much more personally and intimately involved can a person get involved in something? They betrayed my personal trust as well as everyone elses who consumed their product without knowing what they were getting. It was done purposefully and unethically imo because they didn't want the product questioned by having it on the label and for financial gain. They should have labeled it in the first place. They could have clearly explained the product on their website and been transparent about its values and drawbacks. There still would have been an honest market for their product. Even now they are not supplying the public with the nutritional or composition breakdowns of LFTB. Why not?

Now they dare turn it back on the customer. How dare you NOT continue accepting a product in your food, that we have snuck into your food the last 10-20 yrs without your consent or knowledge. No one died or anything. If you don't continue eating something you never agreed to eat in the first place people will lose their jobs! And we'll lose a lot of money. And it will be all your fault!

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Personal anecdote: I bought burger at Fred Meyer, the meat counter fresh stuff. The counter people said it had no lean beef trimmings additive. I just ate some and it did not have the rubbery texture.

And you complain of others indulging in confirmation bias?

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It isn't "ground beef" by the common definition of that term. I wouldn't call it "ground beef".

Of course if I wanted to mislead the consumer I would call it 'beef' because I know they would hear 'meat' and technically I would not be lying. But in reality I would be lying because I know full well I am technically saying 'beef' because it comes from cattle.

Everyone else thinks ground beef means ground up muscle meat, not ground up tendons and connective tissue.

Wait... so even in the hypothetical scenario where they use the ordinary meat they'd normally put in the grinder, you still think it'd somehow be transformed into ground up tendons and connective tissue?

I'm not sure what to make of this. Either you're making some kind of radical new claim, or you're having problems with reading comprehension.

Try re-reading the text you quoted...

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Originally Posted by Brian-M
Are you saying that if they took the exact same meat they make non-LFTB ground beef from and put it through the centrifuge and all the rest that they do to LFTB, you wouldn't call it ground beef?

Exactly how would it be different? Harmless traces of ammonia and possibly more finely ground? Would you honestly argue that it isn't really ground beef?

And I'm not sure how a post responding to Draca suddenly turns into an argument with you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

And you complain of others indulging in confirmation bias?

I realize the thread is too long to read but I addressed personal observations earlier.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I disagree with your analogy. It's akin to saying not a single observation is ever valid. Lots of observations are accepted as evidence in science. The people you are trying to compare me to didn't just make an observation, many of them drew an unsupportable conclusion about what they were observing. People make repeating observations in some areas, (ghosts, bigfoot, UFOs, homeopathy and so on) and with those specific observations we've looked and repeatedly failed to find supporting evidence. In addition a lot of evidence cannot be found where we should expect to find that evidence

There is a thing called lack of or the existence of corroborating evidence. There are trained observers and observations that are more reliable than others. There are observations which are less reliable such as an eyewitness to a crime committed by strangers. But if that same eyewitness sees their close friend commit a crime, that observation is more reliable.

You make a foolish mistake if you treat all observations equally.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Wait... so even in the hypothetical scenario where they use the ordinary meat they'd normally put in the grinder, you still think it'd somehow be transformed into ground up tendons and connective tissue?

I'm not sure what to make of this. Either you're making some kind of radical new claim, or you're having problems with reading comprehension.

Try re-reading the text you quoted......

So now you're complaining that any interpretation of your post except your own is the reader's fault? Try restating your point in a way that clarifies your meaning.

A lot of people in this thread have claimed the stuff is the same as hamburger. That's how I interpreted your post.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yes they grind up tendons and other connective tissue to make this stuff. There is a tiny amount of muscle left in the scraps but mostly this product is made from the scraps. If there was meat in it, it would have been cut off the cattle with the rest of the meat.

Are you just making this up or do you have a source for this? What you imagine and what you imagine studies to say aren't evidence.

Quote:

Yes, it used to go into pet food until they started adding it to people food.

Lies! What used to go into petfood was the entire trimming before they invented a product to separate the meat. This is you getting busted. This statement is 100% misleading. How did the product go into pet food before they invented it?

Funny you took issue with my claim it's used to improve texture. This 1996 study says it's used to improve texture right in the first paragraph how did you miss that?

Quote:

The softer texture may be used to advantage in high-protein, low-fat meat products where excessive toughness or firmness is often a problem.

then

Quote:

Texture evaluation of the frankfurters showed the products with LFTB to be softer and more tender, a desirable characteristic for low-fat products.

It's not meat?

Quote:

is a lean meat ingredient

Crap, the study you're using to support your theories is refuting your positions. And the author says the way you're using the study is wrong.

Now let's requote the author

Quote:

Our research is potentially being misinterpreted by some in the media as suggesting that LFTB has a deleterious effect on the nutritional quality of ground beef. Nothing in our study or what we know about collagen more broadly should lead one to that conclusion

Nowhere in the study does it mention digestibility or nutritional accessibility. That bit has been added on by people who are not qualified or knowledgeable, and he's having none of it.