Pink Slime

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

. In the case of the LBT, there so far has been nothing else added to the differential that meets all the observations.

How do you know this?

Quote:

One does not just toss out the only thing on the dif list because something you aren't aware of might be the actual diagnosis. You test the hypothesis and if it fails you continue looking.

You don't seem to allow for even the remotest possibility that anything else might be on the dif list. Some have been suggested, grind types, times ground, different cuts from the cow, cooking types, length of time under the warmer--that's only a small sample of the innumerable factors that can affect ground beef from source to ingestion. LBT might even be the cause of the problem you noticed----but at this time you don't have the evidence to conclude that.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Maybe to you, but not to me. I think the competency and reliability of an observer is an important factor to consider.

That is remarkably unskeptical.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Belz...

That is remarkably unskeptical.

Especially when speaking about oneself...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Especially when speaking about oneself...

I find nothing unskeptical in knowing one's observational skills. What is silly is assuming we can never observe anything objectively or we can never trust our observations. When you understand how the brain filters observations you can actually make accurate evaluations of the evidence. If you stereotype every single observation as unreliable, how do you get through the day?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

How do you know this?


You don't seem to allow for even the remotest possibility that anything else might be on the dif list.

You are misinterpreting what I said. I said no alternative hypotheses that fit ALL the evidence have been presented, not that no such alternative explanations could possibly exist.

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Some have been suggested, grind types, times ground, different cuts from the cow, cooking types, length of time under the warmer--that's only a small sample of the innumerable factors that can affect ground beef from source to ingestion. LBT might even be the cause of the problem you noticed----but at this time you don't have the evidence to conclude that.

And I have addressed these alternative hypotheses. That people ignore the reasons these hypotheses don't fit all the evidence does not make the hypotheses fit the evidence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I ask again, have any of you people arguing so vociferously that I couldn't possibly have noticed a difference in the texture in hamburger with LBT added tried yourselves to taste test two samples, one with, one without?

No, or at least no one has said they tried it themselves, just that they haven't noticed a change. Yet you call me unskeptical while arguing something you also only hypothesize yourselves: that there's no effect on burger texture when LBT is added.

I challenge you to test it. Go to Walmart, buy some of each and try it. Test your own hypotheses that there is no difference.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Walmart claims to be selling burger with and without and if so that should solve the sample problem.

As for the rest, the study will be randomized and blinded, I know how to do that. I can understand you don't know that I know that, but it'll be done right and I'll describe the methodology when the details are worked out.


However, don't expect this to be a master's thesis here. It'll be enough to show LBT changes the texture. If people want to nitpick the test they are going to reject the results regardless of how well the test is done.

Okay, I'll wait for the details then.

I don't think you should ignore preference though. If you yourself were able to detect a texture difference, but liked one just as well as another, not of this would have come up. You would be happily buying whatever was available and not caring which was which.

ETA: labeling food based on texture really seems like a non-starter to me. There wouldn't be room on package labels to describe all the production processes.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Okay, I'll wait for the details then.

I don't think you should ignore preference though. If you yourself were able to detect a texture difference, but liked one just as well as another, not of this would have come up. You would be happily buying whatever was available and not caring which was which.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. I don't doubt some people could like the LBT burger. The texture in question disgusts me and I don't trust an industry ad that says some people preferred it. But I have no reason to think it's impossible that anyone could prefer it.

But if someone prefers one or the other, what will that tell us about whether the LBT is indeed the cause of the disgusting texture I've been complaining about?

Originally Posted by Marcus

ETA: labeling food based on texture really seems like a non-starter to me. There wouldn't be room on package labels to describe all the production processes.

While the industry might claim LBT is merely a differently processed meat, a number of things suggest that isn't true. In particular, as I've noted over and over, if the stuff is within the parameters of other cuts of meat made into hamburger, why don't you see 100% LBT hamburger? Why did they find that beyond 15% the stuff was unacceptable in their marketing studies?

Given the above is evidence LBT is not the same as hamburger, shouldn't consumers have a right to know it's been added to their hamburger?

[Draca]

A Handy, Disgusting Guide to Pink Slime and Other Mechanically Processed Meats

http://www.propublica.org/special/an...ust-pink-slime

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by Draca

A Handy, Disgusting Guide to Pink Slime and Other Mechanically Processed Meats

http://www.propublica.org/special/an...ust-pink-slime

I'll be in my bunk.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. I don't doubt some people could like the LBT burger. The texture in question disgusts me and I don't trust an industry ad that says some people preferred it. But I have no reason to think it's impossible that anyone could prefer it.

But if someone prefers one or the other, what will that tell us about whether the LBT is indeed the cause of the disgusting texture I've been complaining about?

I suppose it's because I'm not solely interested in finding out if you were right about the LFTB being the cause of your perceived texture difference.

Quote:

While the industry might claim LBT is merely a differently processed meat, a number of things suggest that isn't true. In particular, as I've noted over and over, if the stuff is within the parameters of other cuts of meat made into hamburger, why don't you see 100% LBT hamburger? Why did they find that beyond 15% the stuff was unacceptable in their marketing studies?

That seems pretty obvious. The stuff has no fat, it would make terrible hamburger. It also has a fine texture, it's right there in the name, the industry calls it lean finely textured beef. The question, at least the one you are interested in, is whether it is easily detectable in 15% concentration.

Quote:

Given the above is evidence LBT is not the same as hamburger, shouldn't consumers have a right to know it's been added to their hamburger?

I don't think we need new rules for this. It opens the door for an avalanche of new labeling requirements. If companies want to take advantage of the "pink slime" meme, they can advertise "our meat has no pink slime!", Otherwise people like you can find a brand they like.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Draca

A Handy, Disgusting Guide to Pink Slime and Other Mechanically Processed Meats

http://www.propublica.org/special/an...ust-pink-slime

Why is it disgusting? I would have no problems eating any of that. In fact, I know I have and that I will again. I think it's great that we have found methods to use more of the animal. Less waste. It's ethical and it's environmental.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Marcus

I suppose it's because I'm not solely interested in finding out if you were right about the LFTB being the cause of your perceived texture difference.

I'll include a preference question out of curiosity.

Originally Posted by Marcus

That seems pretty obvious. The stuff has no fat, it would make terrible hamburger. It also has a fine texture, it's right there in the name, the industry calls it lean finely textured beef.

"Finely textured" is market speak. The scientists who saw it called it slime.

Are you a Dilbert fan? Do you recall the "The Name" episode?

Quote:

Dilmom: Why don't you call your product the Gruntmaster 6000?
Dilbert: What kind of product do you see when you imagine a Gruntmaster 6000?
Dilmom: Well it's a stripped-down version of the Gruntmaster 9000 of course. But it's software-upgradeable.

Why do you think product naming is such a huge business? Framing, branding, naming, if you haven't noticed the 'trending' I suggest you take a look. Ever wonder why they named a bill in the US Congress, "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"?

So they could call it the USA Patriot Act.

I could fill pages with examples of market-speak intended to deceive. I can't believe I have to in a forum of otherwise well informed individuals.

Are you as well ignoring the actual analysis of LBT compared to ground chuck on the basis of Furcifer's pure speculation? Do you see anything other than Furcifer's assertion in this thread that the range of usual hamburger can have anything like the LBT analysis revealed? Because all I see is an unsupported assertion.

Originally Posted by Marcus

The question, at least the one you are interested in, is whether it is easily detectable in 15% concentration.I don't think we need new rules for this. It opens the door for an avalanche of new labeling requirements. If companies want to take advantage of the "pink slime" meme, they can advertise "our meat has no pink slime!", Otherwise people like you can find a brand they like.

I'd like the option of finding that brand based on labeling thank you. Who are you to decide it shouldn't matter to me if I indeed confirm LBT ruins burger for me? Do I have to keep eliminating brands only after wasting my time and money trying them?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Why is it disgusting? I would have no problems eating any of that. In fact, I know I have and that I will again. I think it's great that we have found methods to use more of the animal. Less waste. It's ethical and it's environmental.

I wouldn't care either if I didn't find the texture of burger it's been added to disgusting. If it turns out LBT is not the cause then I'll keep buying Whole Foods fresh ground, but if I do confirm what the evidence supports, I have a legitimate reason to expect the stuff to be on the label.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Draca

A Handy, Disgusting Guide to Pink Slime and Other Mechanically Processed Meats

http://www.propublica.org/special/an...ust-pink-slime

I think I'll see if support of the bill is on change.org and add a petition if it is not:

Introducing REAL Beef Act to require pink slime labeling

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I think I'll see if support of the bill is on change.org and add a petition if it is not:

Introducing REAL Beef Act to require pink slime labeling

I think a petition supporting the REAL BEEF act or demanding the USDA make labeling required would be a great idea.

It's not likely it would get the same attention as Bettina Siegel's petition. From what I understand Change.org selects certain petitions to feature and email their members to sign. With out that selection it wouldn't get nearly as many signatures. I wonder if Bettina Siegel would be interested in starting a second petition.......

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Why is it disgusting? I would have no problems eating any of that. In fact, I know I have and that I will again. I think it's great that we have found methods to use more of the animal. Less waste. It's ethical and it's environmental.

Disgusting was actually from the title of the article:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkin...dy_disgust.php

I really just want it labeled. It was very hurtful to me that this was snuck into my food without my knowledge. I'm still about that. I think the Beef industry is missing the point by hammering on about it being 100% beef. It is processed completely differently and should be labeled.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I find nothing unskeptical in knowing one's observational skills.

What's unskeptical about it is that humans are notoriously bad at determining that.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'll include a preference question out of curiosity.

"Finely textured" is market speak. The scientists who saw it called it slime.

Are you a Dilbert fan? Do you recall the "The Name" episode? Why do you think

Calling it "slime" is the exact same process in reverse.


Also, soap is slime. You are bathing by rubbing slime all over yourself every morning. My chemistry professor, a scientist, called it slime.


Evil people at Dial and Irish Spring! Evil liars!

[Silly Green Monkey]

ahhhhh, that fresh slime scent in the morning.

[Furcifer]

I know this is a slipper slope fallacy, but I think it's appropriate with something like food, where does it end? If producers are forced to label the LBT content in their ground meat, and sales drop off, BPI is going have a good case at this point for claiming the losses are due to scare and not rational, logical, skeptical thinking on the part of the consumer. I can honestly see them saying "Why not label the amount of excrement in every pound of ground beef?" How much pig face is in your sausage, you have the constitutional right to know exactly what's in your food.
So what does this accomplish? Nothing IMO. If people knew exactly what's in their food and exactly how it's processed there would be an initial reaction while people desensitize themselves and then it's pretty much back to usual because at the end of the day what people really want to know is is it safe and how much does it cost per pound.
And what else is going to happen? The people who can afford to are going to know their food is "better" because it does have slime in it, and the people who can't afford it are just going to be reminded that if they had more money they could buy something "better" that really isn't.
I'm reminded of ribs and chicken wings. Both were at one time pretty much scrap meat. No self respecting person would eat those cuts of meat, they were garbage for the lower classes. Why? Well because someone who could afford to buy what they like decided one was "good" and one was "bad". The fact is you throw some spices and some sauce on them and they taste just fine. Now chicken wings, at least the meat, is worth more per pound than sirloin steak.
I've said I don't mind the idea of labeling the LBT content, but I honestly wonder if this just isn't another reincarnation of that sensless classism we've seen in the past.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What's unskeptical about it is that humans are notoriously bad at determining that.

It's even more unskeptical to stereotype all humans.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Calling it "slime" is the exact same process in reverse.

Also, soap is slime. You are bathing by rubbing slime all over yourself every morning. My chemistry professor, a scientist, called it slime.

Evil people at Dial and Irish Spring! Evil liars!

So because both names have misleading connotations no valid name exists?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Framing worth noting:

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

As for Irish Spring, that's the brand name, not the product name. You are confusing the two. The product name is soap.


It fascinates me that after an argument is made and isn't refuted, (the name "beef" is being used here to imply 'meat' when the analysis shows there is very little 'meat' as in muscle meat in the product), one waits a certain amount of time and then just repeats the original false claim, that the name LBT is not misleading because it is actually 'meat'.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

I know this is a slipper slope fallacy, but I think it's appropriate with something like food, where does it end? If producers are forced to label the LBT content in their ground meat, and sales drop off, BPI is going have a good case at this point for claiming the losses are due to scare and not rational, logical, skeptical thinking on the part of the consumer. I can honestly see them saying "Why not label the amount of excrement in every pound of ground beef?" How much pig face is in your sausage, you have the constitutional right to know exactly what's in your food.
So what does this accomplish? Nothing IMO. If people knew exactly what's in their food and exactly how it's processed there would be an initial reaction while people desensitize themselves and then it's pretty much back to usual because at the end of the day what people really want to know is is it safe and how much does it cost per pound.
And what else is going to happen? The people who can afford to are going to know their food is "better" because it does have slime in it, and the people who can't afford it are just going to be reminded that if they had more money they could buy something "better" that really isn't.
I'm reminded of ribs and chicken wings. Both were at one time pretty much scrap meat. No self respecting person would eat those cuts of meat, they were garbage for the lower classes. Why? Well because someone who could afford to buy what they like decided one was "good" and one was "bad". The fact is you throw some spices and some sauce on them and they taste just fine. Now chicken wings, at least the meat, is worth more per pound than sirloin steak.
I've said I don't mind the idea of labeling the LBT content, but I honestly wonder if this just isn't another reincarnation of that sensless classism we've seen in the past.

Are you in favor then of grinding up hooves and calling that a "beef" additive?

[IDB87]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Are you in favor then of grinding up hooves and calling that a "beef" additive?

Boil them until the gelatin comes out and put that in beef - sure, why not. Whole hooves? As long as they're edible. Grind away baby.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by IDB87

Boil them until the gelatin comes out and put that in beef - sure, why not. Whole hooves? As long as they're edible. Grind away baby.

I was going to say, I think it's already marketed as Jello.

If the hooves could be processed into some edible nutrious product I don't have any problem with it. Heck even as a filler with no nutritional value I don't see the problem. I honestly fear stigmatizing a product, simpy because some people are grossed out by it, more.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nice way to purposefully miss the point. Where on the continuum would you draw the line? How about grinding in some hyde? It is beef after all. How about sterilized bowel contents, is that also 'beef'?

[Ron_Tomkins]

I like cake.

[Howie Felterbush]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Nice way to purposefully miss the point. Where on the continuum would you draw the line? How about grinding in some hyde? It is beef after all. How about sterilized bowel contents, is that also 'beef'?

Or maybe some Jekyll?

[IDB87]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Nice way to purposefully miss the point. Where on the continuum would you draw the line? How about grinding in some hyde? It is beef after all. How about sterilized bowel contents, is that also 'beef'?

What's with the axe grinding? Are you looking to squabble over personal opinion? If I told you I wouldn't mind ground hide in my ground chuck, would you take issue with that?

Where does Skeptic Ginger draw the line? That seems a like more interesting(?) conversation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by IDB87

What's with the axe grinding? Are you looking to squabble over personal opinion? If I told you I wouldn't mind ground hide in my ground chuck, would you take issue with that? ...

That wasn't the point they purposefully ignored. It's not about whether you like something or not, the issue is at what point is a product altered enough it should be labeled as such. You might love hamburger laced with sugar but you'd expect it to be labeled as having sugar added.

The analysis of LBT showed it differed significantly from hamburger with >70% proteins that come from something other than muscle meat vs <30% non muscle meat protein in ground chuck. Furcifer insists without any actual evidence that LBT is no different than some other cuts of meat hamburger is made from, it merely differed from the ground chuck it was compared to. That's not true. No other cuts of meat make hamburger that would match the LBT analysis. And it's obvious no one would like something called hamburger that was 100% LBT.

So how much filler do you think is OK to add to hamburger without noting it on the label? Would you think hamburger that was 15% gelatin should be labeled as having an additive? Or would labeling such a product, "100% pure beef", seem just a tad dishonest?

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Nice way to purposefully miss the point. Where on the continuum would you draw the line? How about grinding in some hyde? It is beef after all. How about sterilized bowel contents, is that also 'beef'?

Well no, you could stick your head inside of a cows ass and you wouldn't be "beef". At a minimum I'd say moved through the intestinal walls and into the blood stream would be "beef".

As for hide no it's an already excluded part of the cow. The thing is LBT isn't specifically excluded from being called beef because it's a normal component of what's already in ground beef, it's just been seperated and recovered.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

...The thing is LBT isn't specifically excluded from being called beef because it's a normal component of what's already in ground beef, it's just been seperated and recovered.

Still just your assertion Fur, no evidence posted that any cut of regular meat ground into hamburger would match the LBT analysis you keep ignoring.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Still just your assertion Fur, no evidence posted that any cut of regular meat ground into hamburger would match the LBT analysis you keep ignoring.

Nonsense. I expained in my very first post in this thread how I could make "pink slime". I just wouldn't be able to match the exact texture, because from how it's explained at least the ammonia does breakdown some of the connective tissue. It's pretty easy, all you need is trim. But it would be pink and it would match the analysis you think I'm ignoring.

Nobody in their right mind though is going to sort through the bone bucket and pick out the right bits to process into a "pink slime". Plus you would have to be processing it as fast as the butchers cut the trim, and keep the room temperature at an uncomfortablly low temperature to prevent bacteria growth. A huge hassle for little or no return, you're better off selling it as dog food.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Nonsense. I expained in my very first post in this thread how I could make "pink slime". I just wouldn't be able to match the exact texture, because from how it's explained at least the ammonia does breakdown some of the connective tissue. It's pretty easy, all you need is trim. But it would be pink and it would match the analysis you think I'm ignoring.

Just an assertion, Fur, no evidence. You got nothing.

LBT is NOT the same as the rest of the hamburger. LBT has more than twice as much fibrous protein as any cut of meat that hamburger is going to be made out of and you have no evidence to the contrary. The ammonia does nothing to change the fibrous (connective tissue) protein ratio.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Just an assertion, Fur, no evidence. You got nothing.

No, all that's been explained in the articles you've cited, it's just that you obviously don't fully understand what you're reading. It's not an assertion, it's a very well known fact within the industry. There's plenty of "good meat" that gets thrown into the bone bucket. It's just that the bone bucket has always been the point of diminishing returns.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Explaining in your case is just making unsupported assertions. You can call it something else, but it changes nothing and nothing really is all you got.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

LBT is NOT the same as the rest of the hamburger. LBT has more than twice as much fibrous protein as any cut of meat that hamburger is going to be made out of and you have no evidence to the contrary. The ammonia does nothing to change the fibrous (connective tissue) protein ratio.

See you don't exactly know what a "cut of meat" is, or what the difference between wholesale and retail cuts are.

Trim is what's left over once you prepare a "cut of meat", usually for retail. Some trim, like the tail off of a strip loin, is meat and fat. The trim off of a flank is pretty much connective tissue and meat. Some trim like that off the neck is almost 100% muscle. Some trim is almost 100% connective tissue, when you peel it off it should come off in one piece, although sometimes you tear off some muscle with it. Some trim has cartilage or tendon in it because you fillet it off the bone.

Trim is what ground beef is traditionally made from. I explained how the growing demand for ground beef does mean that wholesale cuts like the round and the chuck are going to ground beef, but that doesn't mean the trim doesn't go into the hopper anymore.

[Skeptic Ginger]

More assertions, Fur.

Where is an analysis of any cut of meat ground into burger without LBT that has anywhere close to the composition of hamburger with 15% LBT in it? You keep saying it is true but all you have is your assertion it must be true, it makes sense to you. Where's an analysis that confirms your claim?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here, let me help you:

"Chuck" is very high in connective tissue. That's why it is often used in hamburger. Grinding it up helps tenderize it.

Quote:

The chuck contains a lot of connective tissue, including collagen, which partially melts during cooking. Meat from the chuck is usually used for stewing, slow cooking, braising, or pot roasting.

In the analysis they used ground chuck. That was the stuff with <30% connective tissue. 30% is considered high. LBT had >70% connective tissue.

If you add 15% of 70% connective tissue to a 30% connective tissue mix it's like adding a full 10% more connective tissue to the mix. And that's without even addressing how the LBT differs in other ways from the hamburger it's being added to.

So how many cuts of meat are going to give you 40% connective tissue if ground chuck gives you 30%?