Pink Slime - Page 23

Furcifer · 8th May 2012, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

Well I could teach you how to butcher a cow. Here's a video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MRuC...eature=related

All of the stuff he throws is going into a bone bucket. There's plenty of "good meat" on those bones but typically it goes to dog food. At 59 seconds he's deboned and removed the leg. It takes him 12 minutes to process the entire cow, it would take you 5 just to remove the bit of flesh from that bone and you'd get maybe a few ounces. There's more on the blade and on the shoulder bone, all good meat that goes to dog food because it's more feasible to butcher 600 pounds in 15 minutes rather than a few ounces in 5.

I bet most people couldn't recognize a "cut of meat" from the pile he's got after he says done. Most of that white is connective tissue, not fat. Once he starts to trim all of that goes into the trim bucket and gets ground. Some of the trim is all white and connective tissue and some is all meat.

What do you think I'm asserting here?

Furcifer · 8th May 2012, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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

None, as I said it's trim.

Furcifer · 8th May 2012, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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 just don't seem to get that ground beef is a mixture of "cuts of meat" and "trim". The "T" in LBT is "trimmings", LBT is like "trim" not like CUTS OF MEAT.

I yield.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th May 2012, 07:19 PM

I get it Fur, you got nothing except an assertion that hamburger is so sloppily made that lots of batches are going to have 40% connective tissue in them. 40%, as in almost half that isn't actually meat. I see no reason to believe that hamburger frequently fluctuates from 30 to 40% connective tissue based just on your assertion.

Furcifer · 8th May 2012, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I get it Fur, you got nothing except an assertion that hamburger is so sloppily made that lots of batches are going to have 40% connective tissue in them. 40%, as in almost half that isn't actually meat. I see no reason to believe that hamburger frequently fluctuates from 30 to 40% connective tissue based just on your assertion.

Nope, just the trim.

eta: that's not an assertion, it's a very obvious fact.

Furcifer · 8th May 2012, 07:31 PM

It just dawned on me that you may be being deliberately obtuse. You've been complaining about the use of "lean beef trimmings" because you think it somehow means "lean cuts of beef". Your whole failed argument relies on this and now that you've been shown the very obvious difference between a "cut" and "trim" you're just refusing to accept it. I'm not "asserting" the difference between a "cut" and "trim", it's known to anyone familiar with meat or willing to learn.

I suggest you go ask a butcher for some beef trimmings and see what you get. It's not a cut of meat, not by a long shot. It's scrap.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th May 2012, 07:33 PM

It's a fact hamburger with LBT is likely the cause of the bad texture I've found in the past several years.

Why is your assertion any more believable? Because you claim hamburger is often made with only 60% meat in it?

Skeptic Ginger · 8th May 2012, 07:36 PM

I see the problem. You are assuming LBT actually is no different from "trim".

Just because they call it lean beef trimmings does not make it the same as the 'trim' you are referring to.

You have no analysis, no evidence.

rustypouch · 8th May 2012, 08:21 PM

Keep going. This is fun to watch.

Furcifer · 8th May 2012, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Just because they call it lean beef trimmings does not make it the same as the 'trim' you are referring to.

It's not really, it's the trim left over from the trim I'm referring to.

Analogy time.
A man walks into a barber shop with a long beard and says to the barber- "Can you trim my beard?"
and the barber says-
"Certainly"
So the barber "trims" his beard with a pair of scissors.
There's a big pile of beard trimmings on the floor and the guy looks in the mirror and says-
"You know what, I want a shave instead"
and the barber says-
"Certainly"
So the barber lathers the man up and shaves his face with a straight razor.
There's a big pile of beard trimmings in the sink now
Just then the man's wife bursts in, looks at the floor and looks at the sink and says-
"Those are trimmings on the floor, but those are shavings in the sink, they're not the same thing."
And that's when the man and the barber look at each other kinda funny

Skeptic Ginger · 8th May 2012, 09:44 PM

Still no analysis, just assertion.

Furcifer · 9th May 2012, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Still no analysis, just assertion.

The irony. The USDA "analyzed" the product and determined it to be "trimmings". See: Lean Beef Trimmings, it's right there in the name.

You are the one "asserting" otherwise.

The fact that you don't like how they process the trim in LBT is really irrelevant. It's still trim (see analogy below for clarification). Trim has always been added to ground beef.

Belz... · 9th May 2012, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's even more unskeptical to stereotype all humans.

Special pleading.

Silly Green Monkey · 9th May 2012, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's a fact hamburger with LBT is likely the cause of the bad texture I've found in the past several years.

Saying it's ''likely'' doesn't make up for using the word "fact" where it doesn't belong. It might be the cause, it might not be, you have no evidence either way.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th May 2012, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

The irony. The USDA "analyzed" the product and determined it to be "trimmings". See: Lean Beef Trimmings, it's right there in the name.

You are the one "asserting" otherwise.

The fact that you don't like how they process the trim in LBT is really irrelevant. It's still trim (see analogy below for clarification). Trim has always been added to ground beef.

Round and around, the USDA regulator also got 1.2 million dollars for a do nothing job sitting on the board of Tyco Foods (the biggest customer of Beef Products Inc) just after the change in labeling rules. Forgive me if I don't think the labeling rules mean LBT isn't really 70% connective tissue or that any cut of meat ground into hamburger is.

But you go ahead, repeat your arguments for another 10 pages.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th May 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Special pleading.

Recognizing when someone is inappropriately lumping all of humanity into a single category other than human is not called special pleading, Belz.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th May 2012, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Saying it's ''likely'' doesn't make up for using the word "fact" where it doesn't belong. It might be the cause, it might not be, you have no evidence either way.

Look up the definition of hypothesis, Silly. Maybe that will help you with this straw man.

Furcifer · 9th May 2012, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

. Forgive me if I don't think the labeling rules mean LBT isn't really 70% connective tissue or that any cut of meat ground into hamburger is.

Maybe I forgot to mention we're not talking about "cuts of meat" we're talking about trim?

Oh yah I did

The fact that you don't know what a cut of meat by this point in the argument speaks volumes to your obvious bias. You're not objective, you're just out to prove yourself and your own convoluted ideas true.

You're comparing cuts of meat to trim instead of lean beef trimmings to trim, you're wrong.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th May 2012, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Maybe I forgot to mention we're not talking about "cuts of meat" we're talking about trim?

Oh yah I did

The fact that you don't know what a cut of meat by this point in the argument speaks volumes to your obvious bias. You're not objective, you're just out to prove yourself and your own convoluted ideas true.

You're comparing cuts of meat to trim instead of lean beef trimmings to trim, you're wrong.

I can read, Fur. You still have an assertion and no evidence.

It LBT was indeed the same as the rest of the 'trim', why does it require special treatment? Why not just grind the stuff up, add the ammonia which does not change globular protein into fibrous protein and add it to the hamburger?

And if ground chuck hamburger has 30% 'trim' as you seem to be implying (if the ground chuck had 30% connective tissue and ignoring for the moment any connective tissue within the meat itself) then why not produce an analysis showing some ground beef has 40% connective tissue in it. Show us a citation that notes the variability of connective tissue proportions in hamburger.

Ryokan · 9th May 2012, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It LBT was indeed the same as the rest of the 'trim', why does it require special treatment? Why not just grind the stuff up, add the ammonia which does not change globular protein into fibrous protein and add it to the hamburger?

Because the process that gets it off the bones heats the meat up. Surely you knew this?

Beerina · 9th May 2012, 03:21 PM

Eh, if Popular Science had had an article about a natural additive that cut fat content and cost, we wpuldn't be here.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th May 2012, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Because the process that gets it off the bones heats the meat up. Surely you knew this?

That's not correct. It isn't heated until after it is removed from the bones. There's a different product that bones are involved in the process.

The 'trim' in LBT is heated to melt the fat, then centrifuged to get the solids which are then low fat while 'trim' that is simply ground up to make hamburger has enough actual meat within the fat that no special treatment is needed.

If the two kinds of 'trim' were the same, as Furcifer asserts without evidence, then regular trim could be processed the same to make it have less fat or LBT trim could just be ground up. Neither thing is done. LBT 'trim' and the rest of the 'trim' are not identical.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th May 2012, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Eh, if Popular Science had had an article about a natural additive that cut fat content and cost, we wpuldn't be here.

LBT isn't used primarily to make the hamburger low fat, LBT is used primarily to utilize more parts of the cow.

Furcifer · 9th May 2012, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I can read, Fur. You still have an assertion and no evidence.

Then why are you repeating the same mistakes? See below.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It LBT was indeed the same as the rest of the 'trim', why does it require special treatment? Why not just grind the stuff up, add the ammonia which does not change globular protein into fibrous protein and add it to the hamburger?

I already told you, using a knife is too time consuming. I showed you a video of a butcher processing an entire side of beef in 12 minutes and you still don't understand why scraping the bones with knife for a few ounces of meat is why LBT requires "special treatment"?

(I could go on here about surface area being the determining factor in bacterial growth but I don't think you'd understand. That's why it goes bad so fast and that's why it's usually sold as dog food)

Just grinding it up creates too much calcium in the resulting product and is therefore excluded by the USDA. The resulting bone chips and tendon also render it useless.

You know this of course because you claim to have read the thread.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Show us a citation that notes the variability of connective tissue proportions in hamburger.

If I do your homework for you will you finally admit you're wrong?

Furcifer · 9th May 2012, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If the two kinds of 'trim' were the same, as Furcifer asserts without evidence, then regular trim could be processed the same to make it have less fat or LBT trim could just be ground up. Neither thing is done. LBT 'trim' and the rest of the 'trim' are not identical.

See you don't have any clue what you're talking about. You aren't learning anything here.

Why would you take trim ready to go into the hopper and be mixed with fat and made into ground beef, out of the hopper to be processed and then back into the hopper?

You do not understand how ground beef is processed.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th May 2012, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

...
Why would you take trim ready to go into the hopper and be mixed with fat and made into ground beef, out of the hopper to be processed and then back into the hopper?

Your arguments don't make your case, Fur. The reason for processing the 'trim' you keep insisting is the same as the LBT trim would be to lower the fat content. And yet it is not processed like the LBT. The 'trim' you think you know is the same is not the same.

I had an interesting discussion with the Safeway meat guy tonight. He said a lot of the LBT was added to the 4% fat hamburger. IOW LBT was used to create the lowest low fat burger. (I get it some consumers would choose that, but I am only saying the stuff should be labeled so consumers have a choice.)

OK, so if I've been buying very low fat burger, which I have, that might explain why I've had texture problems others have not encountered. The most LBT would be in the lowest low fat burger.

And if LBT has been used specifically for lowering the fat content I find that even more deceitful. They lowered the fat content by adding connective tissue, not by adding actual meat.

Furcifer · 10th May 2012, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Your arguments don't make your case, Fur. The reason for processing the 'trim' you keep insisting is the same as the LBT trim would be to lower the fat content. And yet it is not processed like the LBT. The 'trim' you think you know is the same is not the same.

No your observations don't make sense. Trim is mixed with fat to make ground beef. Why would you "lower the fat content" of trim if you're going mix it with fat to make ground beef with it?

Face it, your preconcieved notions are so strong they are blinding you to reason.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And if LBT has been used specifically for lowering the fat content I find that even more deceitful. They lowered the fat content by adding connective tissue, not by adding actual meat.

If you've been buying 4% extra lean burger for the last 20 years no wonder you think it tastes like crap. Read the studies, fat and yes connective tissue, are what give the burger flavor and tenderness. You've been eating beef hockey pucks.
(I see some of your comprehension problem might come from buying extra lean meat. There wouldn't very much, if any trim in extra lean ground beef. The trim usually has more than 4% fat if I had to guess.)

So the net result of Jamie Oliver's not so skeptical scare mongering is; a company out of business, 3 plants shut down, numerous people out of work, higher prices and more fat being added to the American diet. Awesome.

Skeptic Ginger · 10th May 2012, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

...Trim is mixed with fat to make ground beef. Why would you "lower the fat content" of trim if you're going mix it with fat to make ground beef with it?

What are you talking about? This claim is off the wall bizarre. Why would you lower the fat content of trim? Ask BPI.

Originally Posted by Furcifer

...If you've been buying 4% extra lean burger for the last 20 years no wonder you think it tastes like crap. Read the studies, fat and yes connective tissue, are what give the burger flavor and tenderness. You've been eating beef hockey pucks.
(I see some of your comprehension problem might come from buying extra lean meat. There wouldn't very much, if any trim in extra lean ground beef. The trim usually has more than 4% fat if I had to guess.)

The bad texture is not in all "leanest" ground beef. In addition I have found the bad texture in 7% fat hamburger as well. I've been eating "leanest" ground beef long before this texture problem began. Your hypothesis is a fail.

Also, if hamburger producers started adding cheaper LBT instead of more expensive red meat to the mix to lower the fat %, that to me is even more misleading.

Originally Posted by Furcifer

... So the net result of Jamie Oliver's not so skeptical scare mongering is; a company out of business, 3 plants shut down, numerous people out of work, higher prices and more fat being added to the American diet. Awesome.

What a tangled web Beef Products, Inc did weave, when first they practiced to deceive.

You cannot blame the consumers. Had the producers just been honest in the first place, and if their claims that LBT really did do nothing to the flavor or texture of the hamburger, or improved it as the companies that make it claim, then the problems they are having today would not be happening.

Dipayan · 10th May 2012, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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

'Slime' is a term that one scientist used when he was chatting in a non-professional setting over mail, and so should not be regarded as a personal opinion, but rather a scientific consensus. Right.

Quote:

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"?

I could fill pages with examples of market-speak intended to deceive.

The US government had to create currency for the bill among people. Among individuals. Hence the name - to create salience for the bill and immediately connect it to a strong emotion. When selling to the common public, naming is very important. Your error is in connecting this to a B2B product.

BPI never expected the public to ever care about LFBT. It had a product that it was supplying to corporations. Corporations or regulatory agencies such as the USDA do not have the liberty of being swayed by the 'name'. They have to do due diligence before getting into a contract or approving a product. Unless it is your contention that BPI foresaw the fact that LFTB was going to become a talking point among the American public and therefore created a misleading name for its product 20 years back, I'm not sure why you think that LFTB is 'marketing-speak'.

Dipayan · 10th May 2012, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Had the producers just been honest in the first place, and if their claims that LBT really did do nothing to the flavor or texture of the hamburger, or improved it as the companies that make it claim, then the problems they are having today would not be happening.

10% of the people in your poll said that the texture of ground beef has changed (no idea if it is for the better or worse). 90% of the sample public don't think it has.

So do you really think it is about the flavour/texture of LFTB or just a case of mass media hype and the gullibility of the common public?

Skeptic Ginger · 10th May 2012, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dipayan

'Slime' is a term that one scientist used when he was chatting in a non-professional setting over mail, and so should not be regarded as a personal opinion, but rather a scientific consensus. Right.

The point wasn't that it was slime. In one of my first posts in this thread I said Pink Slime was essentially an equally misleading name.

The point is there is an entire industry that has been built on the concept of the marketing advantage of portraying hidden meanings in names. I repeat for the gazzilionth time, calling something that is 70% not-muscle-meat by the name "beef" is specifically intended to imply the product is mostly muscle meat. Is a beef heart beef? Yes. Would you think the label was honest on a package of an unrecognizable ground up red stuff if it only said "100% beef" but it was actually "beef heart"? Technically it is beef.

Originally Posted by Dipayan

The US government had to create currency for the bill among people. Among individuals. Hence the name - to create salience for the bill and immediately connect it to a strong emotion. When selling to the common public, naming is very important. Your error is in connecting this to a B2B product.

No error, see below. As to, naming is important, d'uh! The government has made a habit of giving misleading names to bills in order to sell the public a load of lipsticked pigs.

Originally Posted by Dipayan

BPI never expected the public to ever care about LFBT. It had a product that it was supplying to corporations. Corporations or regulatory agencies such as the USDA do not have the liberty of being swayed by the 'name'. They have to do due diligence before getting into a contract or approving a product. Unless it is your contention that BPI foresaw the fact that LFTB was going to become a talking point among the American public and therefore created a misleading name for its product 20 years back, I'm not sure why you think that LFTB is 'marketing-speak'.

If BPI didn't think the public would mind, why not advertise LBT to the public the same way they advertised it to meat producers as a wholesome nutritious means of lowering the fat content in hamburger?

There are 2 separate issues here, BTW. One is the typical market-mislead name for the product. The second issue is getting the stuff into hamburger with no labeling at all. I expect the former, I find the latter to be over the line in reasonable food product labeling. At least if something is called cheese product I know it differs from cheese.

So about that labeling, why go to the expense of lobbying (including the cost of 1.2 million to pay off a regulator laundered under the guise of a 4 day a year job) if you are so sure the product is desirable? It wasn't like GMO with a pre-established fear reaction. Heck, they named it lean beef.

You can't possibly believe that a consumer reading "ground beef, lean beef trimmings, etc." on a hamburger label would be all that concerned? It sounds like an additive that added muscle meat and lowered the fat %. This would also be a misleading label but it would be the kind of market-mislead that is the norm.

I get it that "beef" does not mean "meat" in this case. I also know that "cheese product" does not mean "cheese". We've all come to expect that. Some people care, some don't. If it says cheese product, however, I have the option of finding out what that means. I have the option of buying it or the more expensive real cheese. And if I thought cheese product was fine nutrition-wise and the kids preferred it I would buy it.

Cheese product has mostly cheese in it. Why not call it cheese? Why inform the consumer at all? You could claim adding emulsifiers is just a different processing technique. People are attenuated to the list of chemical emulsifiers and preservatives in food. I know I am. But the people who care have the option of buying it or not when they are informed.

If hamburger had LBT listed on the label and I found that was the stuff with the awful texture, I could choose to buy it or not.

Skeptic Ginger · 10th May 2012, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dipayan

10% of the people in your poll said that the texture of ground beef has changed (no idea if it is for the better or worse). 90% of the sample public don't think it has.

So do you really think it is about the flavour/texture of LFTB or just a case of mass media hype and the gullibility of the common public?

You are completely misstating the outcome of the poll.

The purpose of the poll was just to find people besides myself that noticed the change. I found 5 of them.

The purpose of the poll was not to measure the proportion of people who noticed the difference.

As for the media hype, I'm against the ignorant way the media handles any scientific information. The fact the news sells scandal and controversy rather than information is a different topic and you and I probably would be arguing on the same side in such a thread.

Furcifer · 10th May 2012, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What are you talking about? This claim is off the wall bizarre. Why would you lower the fat content of trim? Ask BPI.

You're not even following your own claims anymore, you're just kind of flailing around making nonsensical comparisons.

Doesn't that bother you? It's certainly not for lack of people trying to explain things to you.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The bad texture is not in all "leanest" ground beef.

That's your assertion, no proof no evidence yad yad yad

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

In addition I have found the bad texture in 7% fat hamburger as well. I've been eating "leanest" ground beef long before this texture problem began. Your hypothesis is a fail.

So you can taste a 3% difference in fat content now as well? Or they have that much control over the fat content to begin with? lol.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Also, if hamburger producers started adding cheaper LBT instead of more expensive red meat to the mix to lower the fat %, that to me is even more misleading.

No it isn't, you just think it is because you don't understand how ground beef is processed and you're convinced "slime" is bad. That's been made very clear by now.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What a tangled web Beef Products, Inc did weave, when first they practiced to deceive.

Because people are idiots.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You cannot blame the consumers. Had the producers just been honest in the first place, and if their claims that LBT really did do nothing to the flavor or texture of the hamburger, or improved it as the companies that make it claim, then the problems they are having today would not be happening.

Nonsense. The same Americans reacting like idiots to this are the ones going to Fenway and paying $8 for a hotdog this weekend and sending their kids to school on Monday with baloney sandwhiches. They'll probably stop at MacDonald's for a hamburger and some chicken nugets as well.

But "OH NOES THE TEXTURE OF MY BURGER IS FUNNY!" puh leeez.

Skeptic Ginger · 10th May 2012, 11:05 AM

Flailing Fur, try again:

LBT is made from taking the trim that was previously too contaminated to use. It also happens to be trim that has very little actual meat in it. The LBT is heated and centrifuged TO REMOVE THE FAT.

The ammonia is a separate issue to kill the more heavily concentrated bacterial contamination.

The remaining substance is mostly fibrous protein from connective tissue (70%) which is then added to hamburger to decrease the fat proportion.

Why not do the same thing to reduce the fat content of the 'trim' that the original hamburger was made from?

Why not just grind up the additionally recovered trim and only add the ammonia processing step?

If what you claim is true, the 'trim' they make LBT out of is the same 'trim' they make hamburger out of, why are the two not interchangeable?

Skeptic Ginger · 10th May 2012, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

...
So you can taste a 3% difference in fat content now as well? Or they have that much control over the fat content to begin with? lol.

Where did I say this and why is it relevant?

Draca · 10th May 2012, 11:12 AM

Big Agriculture's Big Secrets: 9 Things You Need to Know About the Food You Eat
Food scandals are so costly to Big Food that it has repeatedly tried to kill the messenger rather than clean up its act.

http://www.alternet.org/health/15534...e_food_you_eat

This article brings up the point that Big Ag has responded to critics by trying to kill the messenger instead of cleaning up it's act and by introducing Ag-gag laws to silence critics.

The articles defending BPI that I've read consistently miss the point that consumers are upset that LFTB was added to ground beef without informing them. Many consumers feel tricked and deceived both financially and for health reasons. The response given by the beef industry is that there is nothing wrong with LFTB. It does not answer why this extender was unlabeled and added without the consumers knowledge. The USDA/FDA failed to require labeling in the first place and have chosen to protect BPI over the citizen's reasonable desire to know what is in their food.

The 1997 Texas Cattlemen's suit against Oprah is a good example.

Oprah said she would never eat a hamburger again after a show showing cattle being fed to other cattle.

They attempted to silence criticism and used Oprah as an example. Oprah won the suit. The practice of cow cannibalism later became illegal after it was associated with Mad Cow disease.

I think it was a ridiculous suit in the first place. Why wouldn't Oprah have the right to say she thought cows eating cows was so gross she never wanted to eat another burger? It was her opinion.

The larger concern is that cattle are herbivores. It is going against their own biology to feed them meat. It's a disgusting and dangerous practice and should be questioned. Suits and laws designed to silence people who question food safety and practices is not the response I would like to see.

There are a lot meat issues currently in the news. It will be interesting if any changes will be made on how they are dealt with. How will the USDA/FDA respond?

Meat Glue - The USDA has also not required labeling of this product. Way to protect the public.

Why would they approve not labeling a product that was designed to deceive people? A heath issue is that many people cook steaks to rare or medium rare, which is generally safe because any pathogens will more likely be on the outside of the steak. When meat glue is used the outside portion is now glued together with other pieces making the outside the inside of the steak and should be cooked to fully. How will consumers know to do this if it isn't labeled?

Human Growth Hormone - Scary. There are girls in the USA who are starting to menstruate at ever earlier ages. 7-9 yrs old. Could growth hormone be to blame? Idk. I've been buying organic milk for a long time and since LFTB have been buying all organic meat.

Anti-biotics - Is overuse of anti-biotics in the AG industry endangering all of us with resistant strands?

Chickens on drugs - Taking uppers and downers to try and calm them down from horrible living conditions.

I think these are all important issues. How are we going to treat the animals that become our food? How will the consumer be safe and informed?

Ron_Tomkins · 10th May 2012, 11:22 AM

I recently found out about the pink slime stuff. I was glad I rarely ever eat red meat.

Then I found out there were mutated shrimp affected by the oil spill. I was aware I had to cut down the shrimp.

Then I found out there's some problem with the chickens. I was glad I don't eat chicken that much.

Then I found out there's also a problem with fish... at this point I said **** it. Every single food item is messed up in some way. I'm just gonna keep eating what I want.

Draca · 10th May 2012, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I recently found out about the pink slime stuff. I was glad I rarely ever eat red meat.

Then I found out there were mutated shrimp affected by the oil spill. I was aware I had to cut down the shrimp.

Then I found out there's some problem with the chickens. I was glad I don't eat chicken that much.

Then I found out there's also a problem with fish... at this point I said **** it. Every single food item is messed up in some way. I'm just gonna keep eating what I want.

I understand how you feel. People are busy and don't have time to do lots of research. I would have made some changes earlier if I had bothered to inform myself.

There are some easy changes that can be made though.

Buy organic if possible. Buying organic will get rid of the drugs and chemicals. If you have space for frozen food, you can buy directly from a family farmer. Buy a 1/4 or 1/2 of a steer. You can also go in on it with friends and family. The same with chicken, lamb, turkeys. You can buy much better quality and support family farms at the same time. Seafood is similar with a bit of research.

Since Pink Slime came out I've only had beef a few times. I bought organic burger at PCC to see if I could tell the difference. It was really good. Organic ground beef is expensive so I've been buying organic ground turkey more often. I can't control what meat I'm served when I eat out so, don't worry about it too much and am more careful about what I buy for groceries.

Organic milk and cage free chickens are also easy to find in many stores.

http://www.eatwild.com/
http://www.localharvest.org/store/meats.jsp

Ron_Tomkins · 10th May 2012, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Draca

I understand how you feel. People are busy and don't have time to do lots of research. I would have made some changes earlier if I had bothered to inform myself.

There are some easy changes that can be made though.

Buy organic if possible. Buying organic will get rid of the drugs and chemicals. If you have space for frozen food, you can buy directly from a family farmer. Buy a 1/4 or 1/2 of a steer. You can also go in on it with friends and family. The same with chicken, lamb, turkeys. You can buy much better quality and support family farms at the same time. Seafood is similar with a bit of research.

Since Pink Slime came out I've only had beef a few times. I bought organic burger at PCC to see if I could tell the difference. It was really good. Organic ground beef is expensive so I've been buying organic ground turkey more often. I can't control what meat I'm served when I eat out so, don't worry about it too much and am more careful about what I buy for groceries.

Organic milk and cage free chickens are also easy to find in many stores.

http://www.eatwild.com/
http://www.localharvest.org/store/meats.jsp

Thank you. I do buy organic stuff when there's such label. But so far, only the chicken I buy has the labeled distinction between regular chicken and organic chicken. But the pork chops or the shrimp don't have that. Neither does the fish I buy at the fish market. I can only trust that it is safe to eat.

Furcifer · 10th May 2012, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Flailing Fur, try again:

LBT is made from taking the trim that was previously too contaminated to use.

This is a misrepresentation and probably a lie. The trim isn't "contaminated", it's just that it is usually thrown into a bucket and then sits. It was then sold for dog food. Instead it's being collected to be processed, just like any other trim.

I realize you don't understand this, but none the less it needs to be explained because I'm sure some people understand. If you threw striploin steaks into a bucket and let them sit, because they were thought to be "waste", they would become "contaminated" and be sold for dog food.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It also happens to be trim that has very little actual meat in it.

No, and I've explained this numerous times to you, it depends on where it's cut from and who is doing the cutting and the physical characteristics of the cow. It's the bits that are removed to make a retail cut of meat. Sometimes it's fat, sometimes it's connective tissue and sometimes it's meat, but it's almost always all three. You keep saying "But LBT is 70% connctive tissue, unlike "trim" why is that? Hmm" and I've told you it's random, sometimes it's 100% meat and sometimes it's 70% connective tissue.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Why not do the same thing to reduce the fat content of the 'trim' that the original hamburger was made from?

Because you have to add fat to ground beef

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Why not just grind up the additionally recovered trim and only add the ammonia processing step?

Because you have to add fat to ground beef

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If what you claim is true, the 'trim' they make LBT out of is the same 'trim' they make hamburger out of, why are the two not interchangeable?

You're just trolling arent' you?

For the 4th time, the manual recovery of the trim used in LBT isn't feasible.

8th May 2012, 07:19 PM	#884
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	I get it Fur, you got nothing except an assertion that hamburger is so sloppily made that lots of batches are going to have 40% connective tissue in them. 40%, as in almost half that isn't actually meat. I see no reason to believe that hamburger frequently fluctuates from 30 to 40% connective tissue based just on your assertion.
	__________________ (*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.)

8th May 2012, 07:21 PM	#885
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I get it Fur, you got nothing except an assertion that hamburger is so sloppily made that lots of batches are going to have 40% connective tissue in them. 40%, as in almost half that isn't actually meat. I see no reason to believe that hamburger frequently fluctuates from 30 to 40% connective tissue based just on your assertion. Nope, just the trim. eta: that's not an assertion, it's a very obvious fact.
	Last edited by Furcifer; 8th May 2012 at 07:24 PM.

8th May 2012, 07:33 PM	#887
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	It's a fact hamburger with LBT is likely the cause of the bad texture I've found in the past several years. Why is your assertion any more believable? Because you claim hamburger is often made with only 60% meat in 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.)

8th May 2012, 07:36 PM	#888
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	I see the problem. You are assuming LBT actually is no different from "trim". Just because they call it lean beef trimmings does not make it the same as the 'trim' you are referring to. You have no analysis, no evidence.
	__________________ (*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.)

8th May 2012, 09:44 PM	#891
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Still no analysis, just assertion.
	__________________ (*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.)

8th May 2012, 06:39 PM	#881
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by 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. Well I could teach you how to butcher a cow. Here's a video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MRuC...eature=related All of the stuff he throws is going into a bone bucket. There's plenty of "good meat" on those bones but typically it goes to dog food. At 59 seconds he's deboned and removed the leg. It takes him 12 minutes to process the entire cow, it would take you 5 just to remove the bit of flesh from that bone and you'd get maybe a few ounces. There's more on the blade and on the shoulder bone, all good meat that goes to dog food because it's more feasible to butcher 600 pounds in 15 minutes rather than a few ounces in 5. I bet most people couldn't recognize a "cut of meat" from the pile he's got after he says done. Most of that white is connective tissue, not fat. Once he starts to trim all of that goes into the trim bucket and gets ground. Some of the trim is all white and connective tissue and some is all meat. What do you think I'm asserting here?

8th May 2012, 06:43 PM	#882
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger So how many cuts of meat are going to give you 40% connective tissue if ground chuck gives you 30%? None, as I said it's trim.

8th May 2012, 06:52 PM	#883
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger 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 just don't seem to get that ground beef is a mixture of "cuts of meat" and "trim". The "T" in LBT is "trimmings", LBT is like "trim" not like CUTS OF MEAT. I yield.

8th May 2012, 07:31 PM	#886
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	It just dawned on me that you may be being deliberately obtuse. You've been complaining about the use of "lean beef trimmings" because you think it somehow means "lean cuts of beef". Your whole failed argument relies on this and now that you've been shown the very obvious difference between a "cut" and "trim" you're just refusing to accept it. I'm not "asserting" the difference between a "cut" and "trim", it's known to anyone familiar with meat or willing to learn. I suggest you go ask a butcher for some beef trimmings and see what you get. It's not a cut of meat, not by a long shot. It's scrap.

8th May 2012, 08:21 PM	#889
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Belfort Posts: 5,113	Keep going. This is fun to watch.

8th May 2012, 09:28 PM	#890
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Just because they call it lean beef trimmings does not make it the same as the 'trim' you are referring to. It's not really, it's the trim left over from the trim I'm referring to. Analogy time. A man walks into a barber shop with a long beard and says to the barber- "Can you trim my beard?" and the barber says- "Certainly" So the barber "trims" his beard with a pair of scissors. There's a big pile of beard trimmings on the floor and the guy looks in the mirror and says- "You know what, I want a shave instead" and the barber says- "Certainly" So the barber lathers the man up and shaves his face with a straight razor. There's a big pile of beard trimmings in the sink now Just then the man's wife bursts in, looks at the floor and looks at the sink and says- "Those are trimmings on the floor, but those are shavings in the sink, they're not the same thing." And that's when the man and the barber look at each other kinda funny

9th May 2012, 02:14 AM	#892
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Still no analysis, just assertion. The irony. The USDA "analyzed" the product and determined it to be "trimmings". See: Lean Beef Trimmings, it's right there in the name. You are the one "asserting" otherwise. The fact that you don't like how they process the trim in LBT is really irrelevant. It's still trim (see analogy below for clarification). Trim has always been added to ground beef.

9th May 2012, 02:48 AM	#893
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,421	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It's even more unskeptical to stereotype all humans. Special pleading.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

9th May 2012, 08:04 AM	#894
Silly Green Monkey Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,043	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It's a fact hamburger with LBT is likely the cause of the bad texture I've found in the past several years. Saying it's ''likely'' doesn't make up for using the word "fact" where it doesn't belong. It might be the cause, it might not be, you have no evidence either way.

9th May 2012, 08:22 AM	#895
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Originally Posted by Furcifer The irony. The USDA "analyzed" the product and determined it to be "trimmings". See: Lean Beef Trimmings, it's right there in the name. You are the one "asserting" otherwise. The fact that you don't like how they process the trim in LBT is really irrelevant. It's still trim (see analogy below for clarification). Trim has always been added to ground beef. Round and around, the USDA regulator also got 1.2 million dollars for a do nothing job sitting on the board of Tyco Foods (the biggest customer of Beef Products Inc) just after the change in labeling rules. Forgive me if I don't think the labeling rules mean LBT isn't really 70% connective tissue or that any cut of meat ground into hamburger is. But you go ahead, repeat your arguments for another 10 pages.
	__________________ (*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.)

9th May 2012, 08:26 AM	#896
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Originally Posted by Belz... Special pleading. Recognizing when someone is inappropriately lumping all of humanity into a single category other than human is not called special pleading, Belz.
	__________________ (*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.)

9th May 2012, 08:27 AM	#897
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey Saying it's ''likely'' doesn't make up for using the word "fact" where it doesn't belong. It might be the cause, it might not be, you have no evidence either way. Look up the definition of hypothesis, Silly. Maybe that will help you with this straw man.
	__________________ (*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.)

9th May 2012, 09:02 AM	#898
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger . Forgive me if I don't think the labeling rules mean LBT isn't really 70% connective tissue or that any cut of meat ground into hamburger is. Maybe I forgot to mention we're not talking about "cuts of meat" we're talking about trim? Oh yah I did The fact that you don't know what a cut of meat by this point in the argument speaks volumes to your obvious bias. You're not objective, you're just out to prove yourself and your own convoluted ideas true. You're comparing cuts of meat to trim instead of lean beef trimmings to trim, you're wrong.

9th May 2012, 02:57 PM	#899
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Originally Posted by Furcifer Maybe I forgot to mention we're not talking about "cuts of meat" we're talking about trim? Oh yah I did The fact that you don't know what a cut of meat by this point in the argument speaks volumes to your obvious bias. You're not objective, you're just out to prove yourself and your own convoluted ideas true. You're comparing cuts of meat to trim instead of lean beef trimmings to trim, you're wrong. I can read, Fur. You still have an assertion and no evidence. It LBT was indeed the same as the rest of the 'trim', why does it require special treatment? Why not just grind the stuff up, add the ammonia which does not change globular protein into fibrous protein and add it to the hamburger? And if ground chuck hamburger has 30% 'trim' as you seem to be implying (if the ground chuck had 30% connective tissue and ignoring for the moment any connective tissue within the meat itself) then why not produce an analysis showing some ground beef has 40% connective tissue in it. Show us a citation that notes the variability of connective tissue proportions in hamburger.
	__________________ (*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.)

9th May 2012, 03:03 PM	#900
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,171	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It LBT was indeed the same as the rest of the 'trim', why does it require special treatment? Why not just grind the stuff up, add the ammonia which does not change globular protein into fibrous protein and add it to the hamburger? Because the process that gets it off the bones heats the meat up. Surely you knew this?

9th May 2012, 03:21 PM	#901
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Eh, if Popular Science had had an article about a natural additive that cut fat content and cost, we wpuldn't be here.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

9th May 2012, 03:48 PM	#902
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Originally Posted by Ryokan Because the process that gets it off the bones heats the meat up. Surely you knew this? That's not correct. It isn't heated until after it is removed from the bones. There's a different product that bones are involved in the process. The 'trim' in LBT is heated to melt the fat, then centrifuged to get the solids which are then low fat while 'trim' that is simply ground up to make hamburger has enough actual meat within the fat that no special treatment is needed. If the two kinds of 'trim' were the same, as Furcifer asserts without evidence, then regular trim could be processed the same to make it have less fat or LBT trim could just be ground up. Neither thing is done. LBT 'trim' and the rest of the 'trim' are not identical.
	__________________ (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; 9th May 2012 at 03:49 PM.*

9th May 2012, 03:52 PM	#903
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Originally Posted by Beerina Eh, if Popular Science had had an article about a natural additive that cut fat content and cost, we wpuldn't be here. LBT isn't used primarily to make the hamburger low fat, LBT is used primarily to utilize more parts of the cow.
	__________________ (*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.)

9th May 2012, 04:08 PM	#904
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I can read, Fur. You still have an assertion and no evidence. Then why are you repeating the same mistakes? See below. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It LBT was indeed the same as the rest of the 'trim', why does it require special treatment? Why not just grind the stuff up, add the ammonia which does not change globular protein into fibrous protein and add it to the hamburger? I already told you, using a knife is too time consuming. I showed you a video of a butcher processing an entire side of beef in 12 minutes and you still don't understand why scraping the bones with knife for a few ounces of meat is why LBT requires "special treatment"? (I could go on here about surface area being the determining factor in bacterial growth but I don't think you'd understand. That's why it goes bad so fast and that's why it's usually sold as dog food) Just grinding it up creates too much calcium in the resulting product and is therefore excluded by the USDA. The resulting bone chips and tendon also render it useless. You know this of course because you claim to have read the thread. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Show us a citation that notes the variability of connective tissue proportions in hamburger. If I do your homework for you will you finally admit you're wrong?

9th May 2012, 04:13 PM	#905
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger If the two kinds of 'trim' were the same, as Furcifer asserts without evidence, then regular trim could be processed the same to make it have less fat or LBT trim could just be ground up. Neither thing is done. LBT 'trim' and the rest of the 'trim' are not identical. See you don't have any clue what you're talking about. You aren't learning anything here. Why would you take trim ready to go into the hopper and be mixed with fat and made into ground beef, out of the hopper to be processed and then back into the hopper? You do not understand how ground beef is processed.

9th May 2012, 07:50 PM	#906
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Originally Posted by Furcifer ... Why would you take trim ready to go into the hopper and be mixed with fat and made into ground beef, out of the hopper to be processed and then back into the hopper? Your arguments don't make your case, Fur. The reason for processing the 'trim' you keep insisting is the same as the LBT trim would be to lower the fat content. And yet it is not processed like the LBT. The 'trim' you think you know is the same is not the same. I had an interesting discussion with the Safeway meat guy tonight. He said a lot of the LBT was added to the 4% fat hamburger. IOW LBT was used to create the lowest low fat burger. (I get it some consumers would choose that, but I am only saying the stuff should be labeled so consumers have a choice.) OK, so if I've been buying very low fat burger, which I have, that might explain why I've had texture problems others have not encountered. The most LBT would be in the lowest low fat burger. And if LBT has been used specifically for lowering the fat content I find that even more deceitful. They lowered the fat content by adding connective tissue, not by adding actual 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; 9th May 2012 at 07:51 PM.*

10th May 2012, 07:13 AM	#907
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Your arguments don't make your case, Fur. The reason for processing the 'trim' you keep insisting is the same as the LBT trim would be to lower the fat content. And yet it is not processed like the LBT. The 'trim' you think you know is the same is not the same. No your observations don't make sense. Trim is mixed with fat to make ground beef. Why would you "lower the fat content" of trim if you're going mix it with fat to make ground beef with it? Face it, your preconcieved notions are so strong they are blinding you to reason. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger And if LBT has been used specifically for lowering the fat content I find that even more deceitful. They lowered the fat content by adding connective tissue, not by adding actual meat. If you've been buying 4% extra lean burger for the last 20 years no wonder you think it tastes like crap. Read the studies, fat and yes connective tissue, are what give the burger flavor and tenderness. You've been eating beef hockey pucks. (I see some of your comprehension problem might come from buying extra lean meat. There wouldn't very much, if any trim in extra lean ground beef. The trim usually has more than 4% fat if I had to guess.) So the net result of Jamie Oliver's not so skeptical scare mongering is; a company out of business, 3 plants shut down, numerous people out of work, higher prices and more fat being added to the American diet. Awesome.

10th May 2012, 08:11 AM	#908
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Originally Posted by Furcifer ...Trim is mixed with fat to make ground beef. Why would you "lower the fat content" of trim if you're going mix it with fat to make ground beef with it? What are you talking about? This claim is off the wall bizarre. Why would you lower the fat content of trim? Ask BPI. Originally Posted by Furcifer ...If you've been buying 4% extra lean burger for the last 20 years no wonder you think it tastes like crap. Read the studies, fat and yes connective tissue, are what give the burger flavor and tenderness. You've been eating beef hockey pucks. (I see some of your comprehension problem might come from buying extra lean meat. There wouldn't very much, if any trim in extra lean ground beef. The trim usually has more than 4% fat if I had to guess.) The bad texture is not in all "leanest" ground beef. In addition I have found the bad texture in 7% fat hamburger as well. I've been eating "leanest" ground beef long before this texture problem began. Your hypothesis is a fail. Also, if hamburger producers started adding cheaper LBT instead of more expensive red meat to the mix to lower the fat %, that to me is even more misleading. Originally Posted by Furcifer ... So the net result of Jamie Oliver's not so skeptical scare mongering is; a company out of business, 3 plants shut down, numerous people out of work, higher prices and more fat being added to the American diet. Awesome. What a tangled web Beef Products, Inc did weave, when first they practiced to deceive. You cannot blame the consumers. Had the producers just been honest in the first place, and if their claims that LBT really did do nothing to the flavor or texture of the hamburger, or improved it as the companies that make it claim, then the problems they are having today would not be happening.
	__________________ (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; 10th May 2012 at 08:13 AM.*

10th May 2012, 08:55 AM	#909
Dipayan Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 151	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger "Finely textured" is market speak. The scientists who saw it called it slime. 'Slime' is a term that one scientist used when he was chatting in a non-professional setting over mail, and so should not be regarded as a personal opinion, but rather a scientific consensus. Right. Quote: 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. The US government had to create currency for the bill among people. Among individuals. Hence the name - to create salience for the bill and immediately connect it to a strong emotion. When selling to the common public, naming is very important. Your error is in connecting this to a B2B product. BPI never expected the public to ever care about LFBT. It had a product that it was supplying to corporations. Corporations or regulatory agencies such as the USDA do not have the liberty of being swayed by the 'name'. They have to do due diligence before getting into a contract or approving a product. Unless it is your contention that BPI foresaw the fact that LFTB was going to become a talking point among the American public and therefore created a misleading name for its product 20 years back, I'm not sure why you think that LFTB is 'marketing-speak'.
Dipayan Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 151

10th May 2012, 09:11 AM	#910
Dipayan Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 151	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Had the producers just been honest in the first place, and if their claims that LBT really did do nothing to the flavor or texture of the hamburger, or improved it as the companies that make it claim, then the problems they are having today would not be happening. 10% of the people in your poll said that the texture of ground beef has changed (no idea if it is for the better or worse). 90% of the sample public don't think it has. So do you really think it is about the flavour/texture of LFTB or just a case of mass media hype and the gullibility of the common public?
Dipayan Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 151	Last edited by Dipayan; 10th May 2012 at 09:12 AM.

10th May 2012, 09:42 AM	#911
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Originally Posted by Dipayan 'Slime' is a term that one scientist used when he was chatting in a non-professional setting over mail, and so should not be regarded as a personal opinion, but rather a scientific consensus. Right. The point wasn't that it was slime. In one of my first posts in this thread I said Pink Slime was essentially an equally misleading name. The point is there is an entire industry that has been built on the concept of the marketing advantage of portraying hidden meanings in names. I repeat for the gazzilionth time, calling something that is 70% not-muscle-meat by the name "beef" is specifically intended to imply the product is mostly muscle meat. Is a beef heart beef? Yes. Would you think the label was honest on a package of an unrecognizable ground up red stuff if it only said "100% beef" but it was actually "beef heart"? Technically it is beef. Originally Posted by Dipayan The US government had to create currency for the bill among people. Among individuals. Hence the name - to create salience for the bill and immediately connect it to a strong emotion. When selling to the common public, naming is very important. Your error is in connecting this to a B2B product. No error, see below. As to, naming is important, d'uh! The government has made a habit of giving misleading names to bills in order to sell the public a load of lipsticked pigs. Originally Posted by Dipayan BPI never expected the public to ever care about LFBT. It had a product that it was supplying to corporations. Corporations or regulatory agencies such as the USDA do not have the liberty of being swayed by the 'name'. They have to do due diligence before getting into a contract or approving a product. Unless it is your contention that BPI foresaw the fact that LFTB was going to become a talking point among the American public and therefore created a misleading name for its product 20 years back, I'm not sure why you think that LFTB is 'marketing-speak'. If BPI didn't think the public would mind, why not advertise LBT to the public the same way they advertised it to meat producers as a wholesome nutritious means of lowering the fat content in hamburger? There are 2 separate issues here, BTW. One is the typical market-mislead name for the product. The second issue is getting the stuff into hamburger with no labeling at all. I expect the former, I find the latter to be over the line in reasonable food product labeling. At least if something is called cheese product I know it differs from cheese. So about that labeling, why go to the expense of lobbying (including the cost of 1.2 million to pay off a regulator laundered under the guise of a 4 day a year job) if you are so sure the product is desirable? It wasn't like GMO with a pre-established fear reaction. Heck, they named it lean beef. You can't possibly believe that a consumer reading "ground beef, lean beef trimmings, etc." on a hamburger label would be all that concerned? It sounds like an additive that added muscle meat and lowered the fat %. This would also be a misleading label but it would be the kind of market-mislead that is the norm. I get it that "beef" does not mean "meat" in this case. I also know that "cheese product" does not mean "cheese". We've all come to expect that. Some people care, some don't. If it says cheese product, however, I have the option of finding out what that means. I have the option of buying it or the more expensive real cheese. And if I thought cheese product was fine nutrition-wise and the kids preferred it I would buy it. Cheese product has mostly cheese in it. Why not call it cheese? Why inform the consumer at all? You could claim adding emulsifiers is just a different processing technique. People are attenuated to the list of chemical emulsifiers and preservatives in food. I know I am. But the people who care have the option of buying it or not when they are informed. If hamburger had LBT listed on the label and I found that was the stuff with the awful texture, I could choose to buy it or not.
	__________________ (*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.)

10th May 2012, 09:48 AM	#912
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Originally Posted by Dipayan 10% of the people in your poll said that the texture of ground beef has changed (no idea if it is for the better or worse). 90% of the sample public don't think it has. So do you really think it is about the flavour/texture of LFTB or just a case of mass media hype and the gullibility of the common public? You are completely misstating the outcome of the poll. The purpose of the poll was just to find people besides myself that noticed the change. I found 5 of them. The purpose of the poll was not to measure the proportion of people who noticed the difference. As for the media hype, I'm against the ignorant way the media handles any scientific information. The fact the news sells scandal and controversy rather than information is a different topic and you and I probably would be arguing on the same side in such a thread.
	__________________ (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; 10th May 2012 at 09:51 AM.*

10th May 2012, 09:53 AM	#913
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger What are you talking about? This claim is off the wall bizarre. Why would you lower the fat content of trim? Ask BPI. You're not even following your own claims anymore, you're just kind of flailing around making nonsensical comparisons. Doesn't that bother you? It's certainly not for lack of people trying to explain things to you. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger The bad texture is not in all "leanest" ground beef. That's your assertion, no proof no evidence yad yad yad Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger In addition I have found the bad texture in 7% fat hamburger as well. I've been eating "leanest" ground beef long before this texture problem began. Your hypothesis is a fail. So you can taste a 3% difference in fat content now as well? Or they have that much control over the fat content to begin with? lol. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Also, if hamburger producers started adding cheaper LBT instead of more expensive red meat to the mix to lower the fat %, that to me is even more misleading. No it isn't, you just think it is because you don't understand how ground beef is processed and you're convinced "slime" is bad. That's been made very clear by now. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger What a tangled web Beef Products, Inc did weave, when first they practiced to deceive. Because people are idiots. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You cannot blame the consumers. Had the producers just been honest in the first place, and if their claims that LBT really did do nothing to the flavor or texture of the hamburger, or improved it as the companies that make it claim, then the problems they are having today would not be happening. Nonsense. The same Americans reacting like idiots to this are the ones going to Fenway and paying $8 for a hotdog this weekend and sending their kids to school on Monday with baloney sandwhiches. They'll probably stop at MacDonald's for a hamburger and some chicken nugets as well. But "OH NOES THE TEXTURE OF MY BURGER IS FUNNY!" puh leeez.
	Last edited by Furcifer; 10th May 2012 at 09:54 AM.

10th May 2012, 11:05 AM	#914
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Flailing Fur, try again: LBT is made from taking the trim that was previously too contaminated to use. It also happens to be trim that has very little actual meat in it. The LBT is heated and centrifuged TO REMOVE THE FAT. The ammonia is a separate issue to kill the more heavily concentrated bacterial contamination. The remaining substance is mostly fibrous protein from connective tissue (70%) which is then added to hamburger to decrease the fat proportion. Why not do the same thing to reduce the fat content of the 'trim' that the original hamburger was made from? Why not just grind up the additionally recovered trim and only add the ammonia processing step? If what you claim is true, the 'trim' they make LBT out of is the same 'trim' they make hamburger out of, why are the two not interchangeable?
	__________________ (*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.)

10th May 2012, 11:07 AM	#915
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Originally Posted by Furcifer ... So you can taste a 3% difference in fat content now as well? Or they have that much control over the fat content to begin with? lol. Where did I say this and why is it relevant?
	__________________ (*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.)