FREE TAPATALK APP

Furcifer · 24th April 2012, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Did you even bother to check what the FDA and or USDA define "beef" as?

Yes, did you bother to read what I wrote? I said I've posted it before.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

USDA GlossaryThey don't define "Lean Beef Trimmings", "Beef Trimmings", "Trimmings", "Finely Textured Beef", "Flesh", "Connective Tissue", or "Protein".

Wrong section, you want to check out the section and guidelines on labeling.

eta: not that the labelling guidelines define LBT, but they do outline what can and can't be called beef or meat in products better than the glossary you've cited.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The whole issue of industry lobbyists successfully petitioning Congress to change the FDA definition of ground beef so they could add this product without teling anyone was discussed at length already in the thread. And a university sponsored analysis of the stuff found it contained a considerable amount of connective tissue compared to usual ground beef.

If you think something contradictory besides the company that sells the stuff's claims was cited in either thread, post the citation.

This isn't correct as stated. They probably expanded the definition of "additives" to include whatever is in LBT, not change the definition of ground beef. The definition you've cited has been around for much longer than LBT.

As for connective tissue, yes it's in everything. It's commonly called silver skin and it's what tends to make steaks tough. It's typically what gets "trimmed" off during butchering, so yes it stands to reason it would be in greater concentration in LBT. Tendons and ligaments are another thing altogether (if memory serves)

Regardless, hooves don't meet the definition of beef as it pertains to ground beef. I don't know where you got this idea from?

Furcifer · 24th April 2012, 11:26 AM

I see this is getting confusing, let me simplify this. Everything in LBT, except possibly the "additives", meets the definition of "ground beef". It's fat and meat and connective tissue.
Hooves don't. Any they're specifically excluded from being include in human foods and called "beef" or "meat". I've cited the link before, but I don't know if it was from the USDA or the FDA or what.

Anyhow, who's making the run for the border? I'm starving.

etaa: I forgot to make my point again- your issue isn't with the product, it's with the processing. As far as I know that's never been included on the label. I would support the inclusion of processing methods on the label of products. I don't know how practical that is though.

Skeptic Ginger · 24th April 2012, 01:11 PM

You are just going over the same stuff that's been discussed, Fur. If you want to discuss labeling, address what's already been covered: The people selling this stuff had to lobby Congress to change the food labeling rules and the stuff contains lots of connective tissue and very little 'meat'.

tyr_13 · 24th April 2012, 01:16 PM

Which doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad decision. Oh, and for certain values of 'lots of' and 'very little'.

Furcifer · 24th April 2012, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You are just going over the same stuff that's been discussed, Fur. If you want to discuss labeling, address what's already been covered: The people selling this stuff had to lobby Congress to change the food labeling rules and the stuff contains lots of connective tissue and very little 'meat'.

I did, that's not changing the definition, it's expanding it to include a new form of processing. A process that from my understanding was only used for animal feed at one time, but because it was deemed safe for human consumption it was officially recognized as such. That has nothing to do with the labels.

It's like saying they "redefined" the tomatoe when they started allowing producers to spray them with ethylene gas. That doesn't appear on the ingredients list because it's part of the processing. You can probably taste the difference on treated tomatoes as well (they look red but taste green). None the less a tomatoe is a tomatoe on the label.

Sorry if this has been covered, but these are the answers to the questions you've posed.

slingblade · 24th April 2012, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

I see this is getting confusing, let me simplify this. Everything in LBT, except possibly the "additives", meets the definition of "ground beef". It's fat and meat and connective tissue.
Hooves don't. Any they're specifically excluded from being include in human foods and called "beef" or "meat". I've cited the link before, but I don't know if it was from the USDA or the FDA or what.

Anyhow, who's making the run for the border? I'm starving.

Just got back. *noisily sucks up the last of the soda, then belches*

Sorry.

Skeptic Ginger · 24th April 2012, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

I did, that's not changing the definition, it's expanding it to include a new form of processing. A process that from my understanding was only used for animal feed at one time, but because it was deemed safe for human consumption it was officially recognized as such. That has nothing to do with the labels.

It's like saying they "redefined" the tomatoe when they started allowing producers to spray them with ethylene gas. That doesn't appear on the ingredients list because it's part of the processing. You can probably taste the difference on treated tomatoes as well (they look red but taste green). None the less a tomatoe is a tomatoe on the label.

Sorry if this has been covered, but these are the answers to the questions you've posed.

They are not answers to my issues at all. They are the points which have been discussed ad nauseum and don't address the problem I'm most concerned with. That is adding something to hamburger which noticeably changes the meat all the while denying or hiding that change from consumers by using one's money to influence the labeling law.

The 'stuff' that is recovered is fine. If you want to save 3 cents a pound on your burger, you buy it. I don't like the stuff and want to know by reading the label, not by buying the stuff only to throw it out or return it to the store once I tasted it.

If you would read a few of the posts I've written here you'd find I've said over and over and over, I don't think the stuff is any less safe than other burger which must be thoroughly cooked to kill any bacterial contaminants.

Furcifer · 24th April 2012, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

They are not answers to my issues at all. They are the points which have been discussed ad nauseum and don't address the problem I'm most concerned with. That is adding something to hamburger which noticeably changes the meat all the while denying or hiding that change from consumers by using one's money to influence the labeling law.

Just because you repeat it doesn't make it true. The labeling laws weren't changed, the process was added to the approved list of processes. There's a difference, but some people seem to be ignoring this, or don't understand it.

Could be me

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The 'stuff' that is recovered is fine. If you want to save 3 cents a pound on your burger, you buy it. I don't like the stuff and want to know by reading the label, not by buying the stuff only to throw it out or return it to the store once I tasted it.

Me too, but as I explained it has nothing to do with ingedients and everything to do with processing and that's not on the label of any other food so it's unlikely to happen.
I think the best you could hope for is getting the FDA to include amonia to the label of LBT. Of course there's probably numerous other chemicals used in the processing of meats and vegetables that would also have to be added to the labels of other products. In the end what would it accomplish? Consumer outrage, a change that results in foods that can't be handled as easily, and more outbreaks of salmonella e.coli and the like?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If you would read a few of the posts I've written here you'd find I've said over and over and over, I don't think the stuff is any less safe than other burger which must be thoroughly cooked to kill any bacterial contaminants.

It's supposed to be more safe but human error seems to be the bigger issue when it comes to handling foods.

Skeptic Ginger · 24th April 2012, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Just because you repeat it doesn't make it true.

My complaint?

Are you saying I'm not a valid source of my own complaint?

Originally Posted by Furcifer

The labeling laws weren't changed, the process was added to the approved list of processes. There's a difference, but some people seem to be ignoring this, or don't understand it.

Could be me

It's you. If it were just the processing, why can't you find 100% LBT burger? Why is it an additive?

Your logic is a FAIL.

Not to mention you keep repeatedly ignoring the analysis that has been cited showing the stuff is full of connective tissue and has very little muscle meat.

Joey McGee · 24th April 2012, 07:30 PM

You could answer your own question if you'd just email the USDA and ask them why there is a 15% limit. You assume there is something nefarious about this without evidence. You're so sure it means something you won't even answer your own question.

And you are clearly not qualified to comment on and interpret that study.

Furcifer · 24th April 2012, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's you. ? If it were just the processing, why can't you find 100% LBT burger. Why is it an additive?

Your logic is a FAIL.

That's a complete non sequitur. What does the processing have to do with finding a burger with 100% LBT?
I meant additive as in something that's added during the process, and not "additive" as in the USDA definition. I should be more careful considering the topic. The amonia AFAIK is an "additive" to LBT, in residual amounts as part of the processing. The LBT is then used as an additive to ground beef, meat fillings, hamburgers, sausages etc.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Not to mention you keep repeatedly ignoring the analysis that has been cited showing the stuff is full of connective tissue and has very little muscle meat.

No I haven't

I told you connective tissue is part of any meat product. The amount of connective tissue isn't measured and labelled in any product because it's inherent to meat.

Furcifer · 24th April 2012, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You could answer your own question if you'd just email the USDA and ask them why there is a 15% limit. You assume there is something nefarious about this without evidence. You're so sure it means something you won't even answer your own question.

And you are clearly not qualified to comment on and interpret that study.

The USDA got back to me in less than 48 hours last time. I thought that was pretty cool.

I'm betting the fat content in LBT plays the largest role in what percentage is allowable in certain products, namely ground beef. That's just a guess.

Skeptic Ginger · 24th April 2012, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You could answer your own question if you'd just email the USDA and ask them why there is a 15% limit. You assume there is something nefarious about this without evidence. You're so sure it means something you won't even answer your own question.

And you are clearly not qualified to comment on and interpret that study.

I can taste the difference. I realize for everyone else it's not convincing and it needn't be. But I have been upset about the change in hamburger for years, asking again and again what has changed, are they doing something different? I even suspected it had to do with how the meat was taken off the bone, some new process. The grocery butchers didn't have an answer.

This explains it and fits all the evidence. Other explanations like aging tastes do not.

You want me to email the USDA? Are you serious? That's your answer? I'd say it supports my conclusion, the stuff is different, not your claim it isn't different after the processing.

Skeptic Ginger · 24th April 2012, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

The USDA got back to me in less than 48 hours last time. I thought that was pretty cool.

I'm betting the fat content in LBT plays the largest role in what percentage is allowable in certain products, namely ground beef. That's just a guess.

What did you ask and what did they say?

And why should we believe you?

Furcifer · 24th April 2012, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What did you ask and what did they say?

And why should we believe you?

I forget, it had something to do with seasonings. I could find it, I think it's still in my hotmail.

I think the answers are available on the website, they give you a case number when you submit a question.

I can ask about the 15%, or why they don't make 100% LBT products or if it's prohibited if you want. I just didn't want to mow your grass.

Joey McGee · 24th April 2012, 11:09 PM

You keep asking me a question, essentially, why does the USDA have a 15% limit? I don't know. The USDA does know. If you don't want to ask them, I don't think you actually want to know . That's very simple, right?

I don't even think you know what my claims are anymore.

You don't have any direct evidence that pink slime caused this taste change, so you started grasping at straws. First was the texture study, now it's the question about why there's a limit on the additive. You clearly don't care about what the study really said or what the limit is really for, as long as you have something to latch onto.

No one is saying that your theory is impossible, we're just pointing out that your belief is unjustified, and your reasoning is weak. And on top of that, lots of theories explained or fit evidence that later turned out to be completely false. I thought that was one of the most important lessons the history of science has taught us.

Joey McGee · 24th April 2012, 11:46 PM

I would ask them

a) Why is there a 15% limit on LFTB as an additive?
b) Are there any significant differences at the molecular level in the nutritional and chemical makeup? Does it contain indigestible protein? Harder to digest protein?
c) Is there any reason it would have a significantly deletorious effect on the the taste of a burger?

Yeah Furcifer if you know where to email do it up, someone basically has to at this point.

Yeah I would definitely ask for that information instead of just assuming I could figure it out with the power of my skepdar.

Skeptic Ginger · 25th April 2012, 08:14 AM

Your question dodging isn't helping your case except maybe in your own mind and in the minds of people looking for confirmation bias that LBT doesn't change the hamburger.

It's clear why there's a limit. It was clear from the university analysis of LBT. The percentage of connective tissue (aka fibrous protein^WP) was huge compared to the amount of what most people call 'meat' (aka globular protein^WP).

Since you won't answer the question I'll answer it for you: Your insistence there's no difference between LBT and regular hamburger is unsupportable. If your claim was supportable then 100% LBT should look and taste just like 100% hamburger without it. It doesn't.

The university analysis supports my contention. If you want to email the FDA or the USDA to support your erroneous claims, go for it.

Furcifer · 25th April 2012, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Your question dodging isn't helping your case except maybe in your own mind and in the minds of people looking for confirmation bias that LBT doesn't change the hamburger.

It's clear why there's a limit. It was clear from the university analysis of LBT. The percentage of connective tissue (aka fibrous protein^WP) was huge compared to the amount of what most people call 'meat' (aka globular protein^WP).

Since you won't answer the question I'll answer it for you: Your insistence there's no difference between LBT and regular hamburger is unsupportable. If your claim was supportable then 100% LBT should look and taste just like 100% hamburger without it. It doesn't.

The university analysis supports my contention. If you want to email the FDA or the USDA to support your erroneous claims, go for it.

No, and I've explained why. "Ground beef" isn't uniform in consistency, there are "chunks" and there is paste. It's part of the grinding process, some stuff shoots through the plate and some stuff gets stuck between the cutter and the plate, turning it into what can only be described "pink slime". "Slime" is a bit of a misnomer because the paste usually has a very high fat content, it's waxy.
If you took the slime that forms during the grinding process and compared it to LBT it would be very similar. I'm guessing the LBT would have much more connective tissue though, because in normal ground beef "slime" there's very little. The connective tissue tends to wrap around the grinder shaft and get stuck in the plate holes. When you wash the "head" it tends to be full of white connective tissue. You have to pull it out because it won't wash away.

I strongly suggest next time you're in the shop ask a butcher why they don't grind the ground meat 3 or 4 times. They will confirm it turns the ground into a pink slimey mush.

I think this is a good example of Occam's Razor. You're trying to find some nefarious intentions here, when it's as simple as LBT being too fatty to be called "regular ground beef", which is the minimum standard for it to be called ground beef. It's only purpose is to be a cheap additive to mix into ground beef, which nobody but producers will buy.

eta: I shot off an email to the USDA

Skeptic Ginger · 25th April 2012, 09:11 AM

No matter how you write that apology, Fur, it's full of holes.

No one is saying there is zero connective tissue in ground beef. LBT changes the ratio of hamburger components, noticeably in my case, maybe not so noticeable to others. If 100% LBT is different than hamburger even if some similar product is in the burger, how is adding more of this 'different' stuff not going to change the burger?

There are insect remnants in cereals. Does that mean adding 15% insect parts wouldn't change the cereal?

slingblade · 25th April 2012, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

No matter how you write that apology, Fur, it's full of holes.

No one is saying there is zero connective tissue in ground beef. LBT changes the ratio of hamburger components, noticeably in my case, maybe not so noticeable to others. If 100% LBT is different than hamburger even if some similar product is in the burger, how is adding more of this 'different' stuff not going to change the burger?

There are insect remnants in cereals. Does that mean adding 15% insect parts wouldn't change the cereal?

Jeeebus, Ginger, stop asking the people here and ask the people who can actually answer you!

You're trying to make us complicit in your outrage and speaking for myself, it isn't working. I'm not outraged; you are.

Deal with it in a better way than this one; this way simply isn't cutting it for you, as is evidenced by your posts.

Own your problem and deal with it effectively.

Furcifer · 25th April 2012, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

No matter how you write that apology, Fur, it's full of holes.

No one is saying there is zero connective tissue in ground beef. LBT changes the ratio of hamburger components, noticeably in my case, maybe not so noticeable to others. If 100% LBT is different than hamburger even if some similar product is in the burger, how is adding more of this 'different' stuff not going to change the burger?

As has been explained numerous times ground meat "changes" from day to day, hour to hour even. It especially changes from producer to producer. If the change due to adding LBT is within the natural variation of ground meat it won't be noticed.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There are insect remnants in cereals. Does that mean adding 15% insect parts wouldn't change the cereal?

Very poor analogy. Insect remnants aren't a natural component of Cheerios. LBT, while processed differently, is essentially low quality ground meat.

Since we're talking apples and oranges, it's like adding pulp to orange juice. If you buy regular orange juice it's got pulp in it. If someone took pulp free orange juice and added pulp to it and called it regular orange juice what's the difference? It's the same ingredients, it's just that the pulp is processed and then added.
Sure, most label the orange juice to indicate it's got added pulp, but is it a requirement according to the FDA because some people think it tastes different? I doubt it.

Furcifer · 25th April 2012, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

You're trying to make us complicit in your outrage and speaking for myself, it isn't working. I'm not outraged; you are.

I could be outraged. I was pretty outraged at what Taco Bell is doing calling their product seasoned ground beef. The thing I think I learned is most people don't care. As long as it's cheap and moderately healthy, or maybe just not excessively unhealthy people don't care. They expect what they are buying is being processed and as it becomes more and more the norm there's less indifference to it.
However, this LBT is at least beef. What Taco Bell adds isn't. IMO even though it's processed using chemicals it's even more marginal of a change from good old fashioned ground chuck. In the grand scheme of things I don't think people or the FDA will give a hoot.

tyr_13 · 25th April 2012, 10:06 AM

One plausible explanation I can pull out of the air (as in it's just speculation) is that the 15% is the top that can be put in to still call it ground beef. It isn't that it isn't beef, but that it isn't ground, and thus has to remain below the 'additive' level.

slingblade · 25th April 2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

I could be outraged. I was pretty outraged at what Taco Bell is doing calling their product seasoned ground beef. The thing I think I learned is most people don't care. As long as it's cheap and moderately healthy, or maybe just not excessively unhealthy people don't care. They expect what they are buying is being processed and as it becomes more and more the norm there's less indifference to it.
However, this LBT is at least beef. What Taco Bell adds isn't. IMO even though it's processed using chemicals it's even more marginal of a change from good old fashioned ground chuck. In the grand scheme of things I don't think people or the FDA will give a hoot.

Because I value our friendship, I decline to run back to the border with you at this time. However, point taken, even if not *fully* agreed with.

Skeptic Ginger · 25th April 2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

Jeeebus, Ginger, stop asking the people here and ask the people who can actually answer you!

I'm not asking anything. I've pointed out the fallacy in their logic with a question they cannot answer.

The rest of your post is uncalled for and an incorrect assessment of the situation as well.

Skeptic Ginger · 25th April 2012, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

As has been explained numerous times ground meat "changes" from day to day, hour to hour even. It especially changes from producer to producer. If the change due to adding LBT is within the natural variation of ground meat it won't be noticed.

Very poor analogy. Insect remnants aren't a natural component of Cheerios. LBT, while processed differently, is essentially low quality ground meat.

Since we're talking apples and oranges, it's like adding pulp to orange juice. If you buy regular orange juice it's got pulp in it. If someone took pulp free orange juice and added pulp to it and called it regular orange juice what's the difference? It's the same ingredients, it's just that the pulp is processed and then added.
Sure, most label the orange juice to indicate it's got added pulp, but is it a requirement according to the FDA because some people think it tastes different? I doubt it.

Can you or can you not address the issue: the connective tissue ratio to muscle?

You keep apologizing and dodging.

Is hamburger that is 15% connective tissue the same as burger that is 1% connective tissue?

Skeptic Ginger · 25th April 2012, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

One plausible explanation I can pull out of the air (as in it's just speculation) is that the 15% is the top that can be put in to still call it ground beef. It isn't that it isn't beef, but that it isn't ground, and thus has to remain below the 'additive' level.

That's an interesting hypothesis but they actually grind the LBT into the burger. In addition most burger is ground twice so running the meat through the grinder more than once is the norm. Grinding mush is still grinding.

The answer is in the university analysis. LBT is not what they've named it to mislead consumers: lean beef trimmings. That sounds better than processed connective tissue with a little meat in it which is what LBT really is.

It's not complicated.

slingblade · 25th April 2012, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm not asking anything. I've pointed out the fallacy in their logic with a question they cannot answer.

The rest of your post is uncalled for and an incorrect assessment of the situation as well.

What's the word you constantly use? "Dodge?" Yeah.

Furcifer · 25th April 2012, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

Because I value our friendship, I decline to run back to the border with you at this time. However, point taken, even if not *fully* agreed with.

...and even their passion for ground beef and ground beef products could never tear their friendship asunder. The End.

Furcifer · 25th April 2012, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Can you or can you not address the issue: the connective tissue ratio to muscle?

You keep apologizing and dodging.

Is hamburger that is 15% connective tissue the same as burger that is 1% connective tissue?

I don't believe so. But it's still ground beef, just like ground beef with 15% fat is different than ground beef with 1% fat.

Furcifer · 25th April 2012, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The answer is in the university analysis. LBT is not what they've named it to mislead consumers: lean beef trimmings. That sounds better than processed connective tissue with a little meat in it which is what LBT really is.

It's not complicated.

Lean beef trimmings are silver skin or connective tissue. Probably some veins and arteries as well. The fact that it used to be removed by butchers using knives and now it's processed using some chemical doesn't change the fact that they are the same part of the cow.

I don't understand what the problem is? Some company said "Hey we can turn this trim into an edible product using this process" and someone said "But the FDA won't allow it because the process isn't approved" and then someone said "Well how do we change that?" and someone said "the American way, lobby for it" and someone said "Let's do it, there's money to be made and that too is the American way" and all the kids ate burgers that very afternoon.

tyr_13 · 25th April 2012, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That's an interesting hypothesis but they actually grind the LBT into the burger. In addition most burger is ground twice so running the meat through the grinder more than once is the norm. Grinding mush is still grinding.

The answer is in the university analysis. LBT is not what they've named it to mislead consumers: lean beef trimmings. That sounds better than processed connective tissue with a little meat in it which is what LBT really is.

It's not complicated.

If you've come to that conclusion, by all means, back it up. What is your evidence besides speculation?

Joey McGee · 25th April 2012, 11:54 AM

This is just laugh out loud funny to me now. I'm question dodging by showing you how to answer your own question? I'm in denial because I refuse to make the same leaps in logic that you have? Have you given up on the dog food thing yet or what?

I now think the product doesn't change the burger? lol no. I'm saying it doesn't change it in a nefarious way, it doesn't bring down the nutritional quality, it's a high-quality product. The way we decide if there is a taste difference is with evidence, you've repeated your qualms like a dozen times and... still no one cares. You have no direct evidence for your beliefs about taste and how the limit is nefarious, you've already been shown to have unfairly interpreted the study by the statements of the author of it! But you keep repeating what they said was wrong... like you think you know better than them! lol

Oh well keep telling us what that study means and exposes about the product, the grand conspiracy by BPI and the USDA to put beef into beef, making profit off of you, I'm sure you are outraged

Skeptic Ginger · 25th April 2012, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

I don't believe so. But it's still ground beef, just like ground beef with 15% fat is different than ground beef with 1% fat.

And fat content is labeled now, isn't it?

Skeptic Ginger · 25th April 2012, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Lean beef trimmings are silver skin or connective tissue. Probably some veins and arteries as well. The fact that it used to be removed by butchers using knives and now it's processed using some chemical doesn't change the fact that they are the same part of the cow.

This is false. LBT is part of the cow that was previously not put in human food.

Originally Posted by Furcifer

I don't understand what the problem is? Some company said "Hey we can turn this trim into an edible product using this process" and someone said "But the FDA won't allow it because the process isn't approved" and then someone said "Well how do we change that?" and someone said "the American way, lobby for it" and someone said "Let's do it, there's money to be made and that too is the American way" and all the kids ate burgers that very afternoon.

The problem is consumers who prefer less connective tissue in their ground beef should be able to choose from burger that is labeled just like people choose how much fat they want in their burger by how it is labeled.

It's not complicated.

Skeptic Ginger · 25th April 2012, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

If you've come to that conclusion, by all means, back it up. What is your evidence besides speculation?

Did you miss this part: "The answer is in the university analysis. LBT is not what they've named it to mislead consumers: lean beef trimmings. That sounds better than processed connective tissue with a little meat in it which is what LBT really is."?

Furcifer · 25th April 2012, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And fat content is labeled now, isn't it?

No, but there are guidelines for the manufacturing.

Furcifer · 25th April 2012, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is false. LBT is part of the cow that was previously not put in human food.

Nope, you've showed your hand now. It wasn't in human food in any appreciable amount. The reason being most of it made the trim bucket and let me tell you, the trim bucket is not a savoury place.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The problem is consumers who prefer less connective tissue in their ground beef should be able to choose from burger that is labeled just like people choose how much fat they want in their burger by how it is labeled.

It's not complicated.

Well it is. There's no way of knowing how much connective tissue is in ground beef without testing every single pound of it. If there was I'd never get another tough steak again that's for sure.

tyr_13 · 25th April 2012, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Did you miss this part: "The answer is in the university analysis. LBT is not what they've named it to mislead consumers: lean beef trimmings. That sounds better than processed connective tissue with a little meat in it which is what LBT really is."?

No, I read it. But as has been pointed out, that report doesn't actually conclude the same thing you claim.

Besides, 'processed connective tissue with a little mean in it' is a ridiculous name. PCTWALMIT. You've not shown that LBT is an inaccurate title and more than that, you've been 'hinting at' claims of motive. Provide evidence of that.

24th April 2012, 11:17 AM	#561
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Did you even bother to check what the FDA and or USDA define "beef" as? Yes, did you bother to read what I wrote? I said I've posted it before. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger USDA GlossaryThey don't define "Lean Beef Trimmings", "Beef Trimmings", "Trimmings", "Finely Textured Beef", "Flesh", "Connective Tissue", or "Protein". Wrong section, you want to check out the section and guidelines on labeling. eta: not that the labelling guidelines define LBT, but they do outline what can and can't be called beef or meat in products better than the glossary you've cited. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger The whole issue of industry lobbyists successfully petitioning Congress to change the FDA definition of ground beef so they could add this product without teling anyone was discussed at length already in the thread. And a university sponsored analysis of the stuff found it contained a considerable amount of connective tissue compared to usual ground beef. If you think something contradictory besides the company that sells the stuff's claims was cited in either thread, post the citation. This isn't correct as stated. They probably expanded the definition of "additives" to include whatever is in LBT, not change the definition of ground beef. The definition you've cited has been around for much longer than LBT. As for connective tissue, yes it's in everything. It's commonly called silver skin and it's what tends to make steaks tough. It's typically what gets "trimmed" off during butchering, so yes it stands to reason it would be in greater concentration in LBT. Tendons and ligaments are another thing altogether (if memory serves) Regardless, hooves don't meet the definition of beef as it pertains to ground beef. I don't know where you got this idea from?
	Last edited by Furcifer; 24th April 2012 at 11:19 AM.

24th April 2012, 11:26 AM	#562
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	I see this is getting confusing, let me simplify this. Everything in LBT, except possibly the "additives", meets the definition of "ground beef". It's fat and meat and connective tissue. Hooves don't. Any they're specifically excluded from being include in human foods and called "beef" or "meat". I've cited the link before, but I don't know if it was from the USDA or the FDA or what. Anyhow, who's making the run for the border? I'm starving. etaa: I forgot to make my point again- your issue isn't with the product, it's with the processing. As far as I know that's never been included on the label. I would support the inclusion of processing methods on the label of products. I don't know how practical that is though.
	Last edited by Furcifer; 24th April 2012 at 11:32 AM.

24th April 2012, 01:11 PM	#563
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	You are just going over the same stuff that's been discussed, Fur. If you want to discuss labeling, address what's already been covered: The people selling this stuff had to lobby Congress to change the food labeling rules and the stuff contains lots of connective tissue and very little 'meat'.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

24th April 2012, 01:16 PM	#564
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,786	Which doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad decision. Oh, and for certain values of 'lots of' and 'very little'.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

24th April 2012, 01:56 PM	#566
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Furcifer I see this is getting confusing, let me simplify this. Everything in LBT, except possibly the "additives", meets the definition of "ground beef". It's fat and meat and connective tissue. Hooves don't. Any they're specifically excluded from being include in human foods and called "beef" or "meat". I've cited the link before, but I don't know if it was from the USDA or the FDA or what. Anyhow, who's making the run for the border? I'm starving. Just got back. noisily sucks up the last of the soda, then belches Sorry.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

24th April 2012, 01:49 PM	#565
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You are just going over the same stuff that's been discussed, Fur. If you want to discuss labeling, address what's already been covered: The people selling this stuff had to lobby Congress to change the food labeling rules and the stuff contains lots of connective tissue and very little 'meat'. I did, that's not changing the definition, it's expanding it to include a new form of processing. A process that from my understanding was only used for animal feed at one time, but because it was deemed safe for human consumption it was officially recognized as such. That has nothing to do with the labels. It's like saying they "redefined" the tomatoe when they started allowing producers to spray them with ethylene gas. That doesn't appear on the ingredients list because it's part of the processing. You can probably taste the difference on treated tomatoes as well (they look red but taste green). None the less a tomatoe is a tomatoe on the label. Sorry if this has been covered, but these are the answers to the questions you've posed.

24th April 2012, 02:49 PM	#567
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by Furcifer I did, that's not changing the definition, it's expanding it to include a new form of processing. A process that from my understanding was only used for animal feed at one time, but because it was deemed safe for human consumption it was officially recognized as such. That has nothing to do with the labels. It's like saying they "redefined" the tomatoe when they started allowing producers to spray them with ethylene gas. That doesn't appear on the ingredients list because it's part of the processing. You can probably taste the difference on treated tomatoes as well (they look red but taste green). None the less a tomatoe is a tomatoe on the label. Sorry if this has been covered, but these are the answers to the questions you've posed. They are not answers to my issues at all. They are the points which have been discussed ad nauseum and don't address the problem I'm most concerned with. That is adding something to hamburger which noticeably changes the meat all the while denying or hiding that change from consumers by using one's money to influence the labeling law. The 'stuff' that is recovered is fine. If you want to save 3 cents a pound on your burger, you buy it. I don't like the stuff and want to know by reading the label, not by buying the stuff only to throw it out or return it to the store once I tasted it. If you would read a few of the posts I've written here you'd find I've said over and over and over, I don't think the stuff is any less safe than other burger which must be thoroughly cooked to kill any bacterial contaminants.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

24th April 2012, 04:45 PM	#568
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger They are not answers to my issues at all. They are the points which have been discussed ad nauseum and don't address the problem I'm most concerned with. That is adding something to hamburger which noticeably changes the meat all the while denying or hiding that change from consumers by using one's money to influence the labeling law. Just because you repeat it doesn't make it true. The labeling laws weren't changed, the process was added to the approved list of processes. There's a difference, but some people seem to be ignoring this, or don't understand it. Could be me Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger The 'stuff' that is recovered is fine. If you want to save 3 cents a pound on your burger, you buy it. I don't like the stuff and want to know by reading the label, not by buying the stuff only to throw it out or return it to the store once I tasted it. Me too, but as I explained it has nothing to do with ingedients and everything to do with processing and that's not on the label of any other food so it's unlikely to happen. I think the best you could hope for is getting the FDA to include amonia to the label of LBT. Of course there's probably numerous other chemicals used in the processing of meats and vegetables that would also have to be added to the labels of other products. In the end what would it accomplish? Consumer outrage, a change that results in foods that can't be handled as easily, and more outbreaks of salmonella e.coli and the like? Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger If you would read a few of the posts I've written here you'd find I've said over and over and over, I don't think the stuff is any less safe than other burger which must be thoroughly cooked to kill any bacterial contaminants. It's supposed to be more safe but human error seems to be the bigger issue when it comes to handling foods.

24th April 2012, 06:02 PM	#569
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by Furcifer Just because you repeat it doesn't make it true. My complaint? Are you saying I'm not a valid source of my own complaint? Originally Posted by Furcifer The labeling laws weren't changed, the process was added to the approved list of processes. There's a difference, but some people seem to be ignoring this, or don't understand it. Could be me It's you. If it were just the processing, why can't you find 100% LBT burger? Why is it an additive? Your logic is a FAIL. Not to mention you keep repeatedly ignoring the analysis that has been cited showing the stuff is full of connective tissue and has very little muscle meat.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 24th April 2012 at 06:03 PM.*

24th April 2012, 07:30 PM	#570
Joey McGee Transcendental Naturalist Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,238	You could answer your own question if you'd just email the USDA and ask them why there is a 15% limit. You assume there is something nefarious about this without evidence. You're so sure it means something you won't even answer your own question. And you are clearly not qualified to comment on and interpret that study.
	__________________ How do I know that this is so? By looking! Last edited by Joey McGee; 24th April 2012 at 07:31 PM.

24th April 2012, 07:50 PM	#571
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It's you. ? If it were just the processing, why can't you find 100% LBT burger. Why is it an additive? Your logic is a FAIL. That's a complete non sequitur. What does the processing have to do with finding a burger with 100% LBT? I meant additive as in something that's added during the process, and not "additive" as in the USDA definition. I should be more careful considering the topic. The amonia AFAIK is an "additive" to LBT, in residual amounts as part of the processing. The LBT is then used as an additive to ground beef, meat fillings, hamburgers, sausages etc. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Not to mention you keep repeatedly ignoring the analysis that has been cited showing the stuff is full of connective tissue and has very little muscle meat. No I haven't I told you connective tissue is part of any meat product. The amount of connective tissue isn't measured and labelled in any product because it's inherent to meat.

24th April 2012, 07:53 PM	#572
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Joey McGee You could answer your own question if you'd just email the USDA and ask them why there is a 15% limit. You assume there is something nefarious about this without evidence. You're so sure it means something you won't even answer your own question. And you are clearly not qualified to comment on and interpret that study. The USDA got back to me in less than 48 hours last time. I thought that was pretty cool. I'm betting the fat content in LBT plays the largest role in what percentage is allowable in certain products, namely ground beef. That's just a guess.

24th April 2012, 09:23 PM	#573
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by Joey McGee You could answer your own question if you'd just email the USDA and ask them why there is a 15% limit. You assume there is something nefarious about this without evidence. You're so sure it means something you won't even answer your own question. And you are clearly not qualified to comment on and interpret that study. I can taste the difference. I realize for everyone else it's not convincing and it needn't be. But I have been upset about the change in hamburger for years, asking again and again what has changed, are they doing something different? I even suspected it had to do with how the meat was taken off the bone, some new process. The grocery butchers didn't have an answer. This explains it and fits all the evidence. Other explanations like aging tastes do not. You want me to email the USDA? Are you serious? That's your answer? I'd say it supports my conclusion, the stuff is different, not your claim it isn't different after the processing.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

24th April 2012, 09:25 PM	#574
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by Furcifer The USDA got back to me in less than 48 hours last time. I thought that was pretty cool. I'm betting the fat content in LBT plays the largest role in what percentage is allowable in certain products, namely ground beef. That's just a guess. What did you ask and what did they say? And why should we believe you?
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

24th April 2012, 11:03 PM	#575
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger What did you ask and what did they say? And why should we believe you? I forget, it had something to do with seasonings. I could find it, I think it's still in my hotmail. I think the answers are available on the website, they give you a case number when you submit a question. I can ask about the 15%, or why they don't make 100% LBT products or if it's prohibited if you want. I just didn't want to mow your grass.

24th April 2012, 11:09 PM	#576
Joey McGee Transcendental Naturalist Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,238	You keep asking me a question, essentially, why does the USDA have a 15% limit? I don't know. The USDA does know. If you don't want to ask them, I don't think you actually want to know . That's very simple, right? I don't even think you know what my claims are anymore. You don't have any direct evidence that pink slime caused this taste change, so you started grasping at straws. First was the texture study, now it's the question about why there's a limit on the additive. You clearly don't care about what the study really said or what the limit is really for, as long as you have something to latch onto. No one is saying that your theory is impossible, we're just pointing out that your belief is unjustified, and your reasoning is weak. And on top of that, lots of theories explained or fit evidence that later turned out to be completely false. I thought that was one of the most important lessons the history of science has taught us.
	__________________ How do I know that this is so? By looking! Last edited by Joey McGee; 24th April 2012 at 11:14 PM.

24th April 2012, 11:46 PM	#577
Joey McGee Transcendental Naturalist Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,238	I would ask them a) Why is there a 15% limit on LFTB as an additive? b) Are there any significant differences at the molecular level in the nutritional and chemical makeup? Does it contain indigestible protein? Harder to digest protein? c) Is there any reason it would have a significantly deletorious effect on the the taste of a burger? Yeah Furcifer if you know where to email do it up, someone basically has to at this point. Yeah I would definitely ask for that information instead of just assuming I could figure it out with the power of my skepdar.
	__________________ How do I know that this is so? By looking!

25th April 2012, 08:14 AM	#578
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Your question dodging isn't helping your case except maybe in your own mind and in the minds of people looking for confirmation bias that LBT doesn't change the hamburger. It's clear why there's a limit. It was clear from the university analysis of LBT. The percentage of connective tissue (aka fibrous protein^WP) was huge compared to the amount of what most people call 'meat' (aka globular protein^WP). Since you won't answer the question I'll answer it for you: Your insistence there's no difference between LBT and regular hamburger is unsupportable. If your claim was supportable then 100% LBT should look and taste just like 100% hamburger without it. It doesn't. The university analysis supports my contention. If you want to email the FDA or the USDA to support your erroneous claims, go for it.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 25th April 2012 at 08:16 AM.*

25th April 2012, 08:45 AM	#579
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Your question dodging isn't helping your case except maybe in your own mind and in the minds of people looking for confirmation bias that LBT doesn't change the hamburger. It's clear why there's a limit. It was clear from the university analysis of LBT. The percentage of connective tissue (aka fibrous protein^WP) was huge compared to the amount of what most people call 'meat' (aka globular protein^WP). Since you won't answer the question I'll answer it for you: Your insistence there's no difference between LBT and regular hamburger is unsupportable. If your claim was supportable then 100% LBT should look and taste just like 100% hamburger without it. It doesn't. The university analysis supports my contention. If you want to email the FDA or the USDA to support your erroneous claims, go for it. No, and I've explained why. "Ground beef" isn't uniform in consistency, there are "chunks" and there is paste. It's part of the grinding process, some stuff shoots through the plate and some stuff gets stuck between the cutter and the plate, turning it into what can only be described "pink slime". "Slime" is a bit of a misnomer because the paste usually has a very high fat content, it's waxy. If you took the slime that forms during the grinding process and compared it to LBT it would be very similar. I'm guessing the LBT would have much more connective tissue though, because in normal ground beef "slime" there's very little. The connective tissue tends to wrap around the grinder shaft and get stuck in the plate holes. When you wash the "head" it tends to be full of white connective tissue. You have to pull it out because it won't wash away. I strongly suggest next time you're in the shop ask a butcher why they don't grind the ground meat 3 or 4 times. They will confirm it turns the ground into a pink slimey mush. I think this is a good example of Occam's Razor. You're trying to find some nefarious intentions here, when it's as simple as LBT being too fatty to be called "regular ground beef", which is the minimum standard for it to be called ground beef. It's only purpose is to be a cheap additive to mix into ground beef, which nobody but producers will buy. eta: I shot off an email to the USDA
	Last edited by Furcifer; 25th April 2012 at 08:51 AM.

25th April 2012, 09:11 AM	#580
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	No matter how you write that apology, Fur, it's full of holes. No one is saying there is zero connective tissue in ground beef. LBT changes the ratio of hamburger components, noticeably in my case, maybe not so noticeable to others. If 100% LBT is different than hamburger even if some similar product is in the burger, how is adding more of this 'different' stuff not going to change the burger? There are insect remnants in cereals. Does that mean adding 15% insect parts wouldn't change the cereal?
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

25th April 2012, 09:24 AM	#581
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger No matter how you write that apology, Fur, it's full of holes. No one is saying there is zero connective tissue in ground beef. LBT changes the ratio of hamburger components, noticeably in my case, maybe not so noticeable to others. If 100% LBT is different than hamburger even if some similar product is in the burger, how is adding more of this 'different' stuff not going to change the burger? There are insect remnants in cereals. Does that mean adding 15% insect parts wouldn't change the cereal? Jeeebus, Ginger, stop asking the people here and ask the people who can actually answer you! You're trying to make us complicit in your outrage and speaking for myself, it isn't working. I'm not outraged; you are. Deal with it in a better way than this one; this way simply isn't cutting it for you, as is evidenced by your posts. Own your problem and deal with it effectively.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

25th April 2012, 09:39 AM	#582
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger No matter how you write that apology, Fur, it's full of holes. No one is saying there is zero connective tissue in ground beef. LBT changes the ratio of hamburger components, noticeably in my case, maybe not so noticeable to others. If 100% LBT is different than hamburger even if some similar product is in the burger, how is adding more of this 'different' stuff not going to change the burger? As has been explained numerous times ground meat "changes" from day to day, hour to hour even. It especially changes from producer to producer. If the change due to adding LBT is within the natural variation of ground meat it won't be noticed. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger There are insect remnants in cereals. Does that mean adding 15% insect parts wouldn't change the cereal? Very poor analogy. Insect remnants aren't a natural component of Cheerios. LBT, while processed differently, is essentially low quality ground meat. Since we're talking apples and oranges, it's like adding pulp to orange juice. If you buy regular orange juice it's got pulp in it. If someone took pulp free orange juice and added pulp to it and called it regular orange juice what's the difference? It's the same ingredients, it's just that the pulp is processed and then added. Sure, most label the orange juice to indicate it's got added pulp, but is it a requirement according to the FDA because some people think it tastes different? I doubt it.

25th April 2012, 09:50 AM	#583
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by slingblade You're trying to make us complicit in your outrage and speaking for myself, it isn't working. I'm not outraged; you are. I could be outraged. I was pretty outraged at what Taco Bell is doing calling their product seasoned ground beef. The thing I think I learned is most people don't care. As long as it's cheap and moderately healthy, or maybe just not excessively unhealthy people don't care. They expect what they are buying is being processed and as it becomes more and more the norm there's less indifference to it. However, this LBT is at least beef. What Taco Bell adds isn't. IMO even though it's processed using chemicals it's even more marginal of a change from good old fashioned ground chuck. In the grand scheme of things I don't think people or the FDA will give a hoot.

25th April 2012, 10:06 AM	#584
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,786	One plausible explanation I can pull out of the air (as in it's just speculation) is that the 15% is the top that can be put in to still call it ground beef. It isn't that it isn't beef, but that it isn't ground, and thus has to remain below the 'additive' level.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

25th April 2012, 10:11 AM	#585
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Furcifer I could be outraged. I was pretty outraged at what Taco Bell is doing calling their product seasoned ground beef. The thing I think I learned is most people don't care. As long as it's cheap and moderately healthy, or maybe just not excessively unhealthy people don't care. They expect what they are buying is being processed and as it becomes more and more the norm there's less indifference to it. However, this LBT is at least beef. What Taco Bell adds isn't. IMO even though it's processed using chemicals it's even more marginal of a change from good old fashioned ground chuck. In the grand scheme of things I don't think people or the FDA will give a hoot. Because I value our friendship, I decline to run back to the border with you at this time. However, point taken, even if not fully agreed with.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

25th April 2012, 10:18 AM	#586
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by slingblade Jeeebus, Ginger, stop asking the people here and ask the people who can actually answer you! I'm not asking anything. I've pointed out the fallacy in their logic with a question they cannot answer. The rest of your post is uncalled for and an incorrect assessment of the situation as well.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

25th April 2012, 10:21 AM	#587
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by Furcifer As has been explained numerous times ground meat "changes" from day to day, hour to hour even. It especially changes from producer to producer. If the change due to adding LBT is within the natural variation of ground meat it won't be noticed. Very poor analogy. Insect remnants aren't a natural component of Cheerios. LBT, while processed differently, is essentially low quality ground meat. Since we're talking apples and oranges, it's like adding pulp to orange juice. If you buy regular orange juice it's got pulp in it. If someone took pulp free orange juice and added pulp to it and called it regular orange juice what's the difference? It's the same ingredients, it's just that the pulp is processed and then added. Sure, most label the orange juice to indicate it's got added pulp, but is it a requirement according to the FDA because some people think it tastes different? I doubt it. Can you or can you not address the issue: the connective tissue ratio to muscle? You keep apologizing and dodging. Is hamburger that is 15% connective tissue the same as burger that is 1% connective tissue?
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

25th April 2012, 10:27 AM	#588
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by tyr_13 One plausible explanation I can pull out of the air (as in it's just speculation) is that the 15% is the top that can be put in to still call it ground beef. It isn't that it isn't beef, but that it isn't ground, and thus has to remain below the 'additive' level. That's an interesting hypothesis but they actually grind the LBT into the burger. In addition most burger is ground twice so running the meat through the grinder more than once is the norm. Grinding mush is still grinding. The answer is in the university analysis. LBT is not what they've named it to mislead consumers: lean beef trimmings. That sounds better than processed connective tissue with a little meat in it which is what LBT really is. It's not complicated.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 25th April 2012 at 10:28 AM.*

25th April 2012, 10:28 AM	#589
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I'm not asking anything. I've pointed out the fallacy in their logic with a question they cannot answer. The rest of your post is uncalled for and an incorrect assessment of the situation as well. What's the word you constantly use? "Dodge?" Yeah.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

25th April 2012, 10:58 AM	#590
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by slingblade Because I value our friendship, I decline to run back to the border with you at this time. However, point taken, even if not fully agreed with. ...and even their passion for ground beef and ground beef products could never tear their friendship asunder. The End.

25th April 2012, 11:01 AM	#591
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Can you or can you not address the issue: the connective tissue ratio to muscle? You keep apologizing and dodging. Is hamburger that is 15% connective tissue the same as burger that is 1% connective tissue? I don't believe so. But it's still ground beef, just like ground beef with 15% fat is different than ground beef with 1% fat.

25th April 2012, 11:11 AM	#592
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger The answer is in the university analysis. LBT is not what they've named it to mislead consumers: lean beef trimmings. That sounds better than processed connective tissue with a little meat in it which is what LBT really is. It's not complicated. Lean beef trimmings are silver skin or connective tissue. Probably some veins and arteries as well. The fact that it used to be removed by butchers using knives and now it's processed using some chemical doesn't change the fact that they are the same part of the cow. I don't understand what the problem is? Some company said "Hey we can turn this trim into an edible product using this process" and someone said "But the FDA won't allow it because the process isn't approved" and then someone said "Well how do we change that?" and someone said "the American way, lobby for it" and someone said "Let's do it, there's money to be made and that too is the American way" and all the kids ate burgers that very afternoon.

25th April 2012, 11:52 AM	#593
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,786	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger That's an interesting hypothesis but they actually grind the LBT into the burger. In addition most burger is ground twice so running the meat through the grinder more than once is the norm. Grinding mush is still grinding. The answer is in the university analysis. LBT is not what they've named it to mislead consumers: lean beef trimmings. That sounds better than processed connective tissue with a little meat in it which is what LBT really is. It's not complicated. If you've come to that conclusion, by all means, back it up. What is your evidence besides speculation?
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

25th April 2012, 11:54 AM	#594
Joey McGee Transcendental Naturalist Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,238	This is just laugh out loud funny to me now. I'm question dodging by showing you how to answer your own question? I'm in denial because I refuse to make the same leaps in logic that you have? Have you given up on the dog food thing yet or what? I now think the product doesn't change the burger? lol no. I'm saying it doesn't change it in a nefarious way, it doesn't bring down the nutritional quality, it's a high-quality product. The way we decide if there is a taste difference is with evidence, you've repeated your qualms like a dozen times and... still no one cares. You have no direct evidence for your beliefs about taste and how the limit is nefarious, you've already been shown to have unfairly interpreted the study by the statements of the author of it! But you keep repeating what they said was wrong... like you think you know better than them! lol Oh well keep telling us what that study means and exposes about the product, the grand conspiracy by BPI and the USDA to put beef into beef, making profit off of you, I'm sure you are outraged
	__________________ How do I know that this is so? By looking! Last edited by Joey McGee; 25th April 2012 at 11:59 AM.

25th April 2012, 11:55 AM	#595
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by Furcifer I don't believe so. But it's still ground beef, just like ground beef with 15% fat is different than ground beef with 1% fat. And fat content is labeled now, isn't it?
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)