Pink Slime - Page 25

Dipayan · 14th May 2012, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

A, I have never said it didn't boil down to just personal taste, & B, watch again, most said the flavor and texture of the non LBT was better and the ones with LBT were "juicier" and only 2 people preferred the stuff with LBT, not most people.

My point is that the study claims that:
a) it seems to be a matter of personal taste - not objectively 'good' or 'bad'
b) they imply that given non-test conditions, people would not be able to make out a difference

Quote:

But it's all beside the point since all I've ever complained about was, it is noticeable, and it is not labeled. It should be labeled and it was dishonest not to do so.

1) This is the leap that I don't understand. Even if I agree with you that some people might be able to notice the textural difference, why does that automatically mean it needs to be labeled? Hell, people are finding it juicier, and even saying that they would not be able to find any difference unless they were prompted to look for some. I don't think procedural changes are made to appease a tiny minority - people who notice textural difference, and therefore find ground beef inedible.

2) That's not all you ever complained about. You started with that, then went all over the place. Your latest complaint was that BPI named its product misleadingly to fool the common public (which it doesn't even serve).

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I said texture was noticeably different and the majority of participants in this double blind test found the texture noticeably different.

You said texture was noticeably different to the point that you could no longer eat the burger. You claimed LFTB made the meat mealy and gristly. The one respondent who commented on the texture (beyond 'I like this better') said that the burger with LFTB was a bit more spongy. Are you aligning this comment with your perspective?

The respondents were reacting to percentage differences in texture. And the study even ends with saying that 'Even though overall the burger without LFTB won the day, it seems like a matter of personal taste'.

It's a pretty large step from saying - 'The texture is different' to saying 'The texture is different. Those corporate thieves at BPI deliberately gave their product a misleading name and chose not to label it so that they can pay off USDA and fool the American public'.

Dipayan · 14th May 2012, 12:20 PM

What this test tells me is that in the test that you will be running, you should be mixing up the samples. If A=regular ground beef & B=ground beef with LFTB, some people should get AA, some should get AB, and some should get BB. That way you will know if people are finding differences simply because they are looking for them.

Ron_Tomkins · 14th May 2012, 12:37 PM

Just wanted to point out, I had some burgers I made from meat I bought from the store. It had 20% fat. And they were deeee licious.

Ryokan · 14th May 2012, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Dipayan

What this test tells me is that in the test that you will be running, you should be mixing up the samples. If A=regular ground beef & B=ground beef with LFTB, some people should get AA, some should get AB, and some should get BB. That way you will know if people are finding differences simply because they are looking for them.

This is a good idea.

I did a similar thing with a friend who claimed to taste the difference between Pepsi and Coca Cola. I got some Pepsi, Coca Cola and a locally made variant and put three glasses on the table, and had him taste them without knowing which was in the glass. Of course he assumed that all three varieties were present, but in truth I had put the same one in all the glasses. He still identified three different colas..

Furcifer · 14th May 2012, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Trim is not "collected using the centrifuge". It is collected, heated to melt the fat and centrifuged to remove the fat and recover the bits of protein that are high in fibrous protein and low in muscle protein.

You really should re-read just what LBT is, you seem to think it is something it is not.

I'll keep spoon feeding you here, maybe you will eventually answer the question you keep dodging, why aren't 'trim' and LBT interchangeable with the exception of the bacteria?

The centrifuge removes the fat. Why not lower the fat of burger without adding LBT by heating the 'trim' and centrifuging it to remove the fat?

It's not heated to remove the fat, it's heated to facillitate the seperation of meat and connective tissue from the bone and tendons etc. it's connected to. The fact that the fat seperates first is a bonus, a bonus without which LBT probably wouldn't be viable product.
I made the mistake earlier of assuming LBT was higher in fat than it is. Of course a pink product high in fat would be almost worthless, it needs to be lean.

In other words LBT is a rather ingenius (sp?) product, or rather the process is. And despite you claims to the contrary I fully understand why they use a centrafuge, in fact I find it kinda cool.

theprestige · 14th May 2012, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

This is a good idea.

I did a similar thing with a friend who claimed to taste the difference between Pepsi and Coca Cola. I got some Pepsi, Coca Cola and a locally made variant and put three glasses on the table, and had him taste them without knowing which was in the glass. Of course he assumed that all three varieties were present, but in truth I had put the same one in all the glasses. He still identified three different colas..

NPR ran a story recently where the same thing was done with wine: Four different decanters of wine were offered, but only three different wines were present.

Needless to say, the tasters found plenty of differences between all "four" wines.

Skeptic Ginger · 14th May 2012, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

It's not heated to remove the fat, it's heated to facillitate the seperation of meat and connective tissue from the bone and tendons etc. it's connected to. The fact that the fat seperates first is a bonus, a bonus without which LBT probably wouldn't be viable product.
I made the mistake earlier of assuming LBT was higher in fat than it is. Of course a pink product high in fat would be almost worthless, it needs to be lean.

In other words LBT is a rather ingenius (sp?) product, or rather the process is. And despite you claims to the contrary I fully understand why they use a centrafuge, in fact I find it kinda cool.

For someone who has posted so many condescending comments about how superior your knowledge of beef processing is, you have one big fat foot in your mouth.

Reuter's report on the governor's tour of the plant

Quote:

The company showed the governors and reporters how the product is made.

First, a conveyer belt brought in scraps left over from a plant next door that produces steaks, roasts and other cuts of meat. The scraps were heated to around 100 degrees Fahrenheit to facilitate separation of the fat, then dumped into a huge meat grinder to pull out fat, cartilage, bone and connective tissue.

A centrifuge spinning 3,000 times a minute continued the separation process. Inside a third machine the material was treated with ammonia hydroxide gas to eliminate bacteria.

Other meat recovery systems:

Mechanically Recovered Meat

Quote:

MRM is meat residue which is left on the carcass after all the prime cuts have been removed.

It is pressure-blasted off the bones by machinery and forms a reddish slurry which resembles mince.

Some companies then use it to bulk up their meat products.

Experts say it is likely that bits of spinal cord - the part of a cow most likely to be contaminated with BSE - could be found in mechanically recovered meat.

Mechanically separated meat

Quote:

Mechanically separated meat (MSM), mechanically recovered/reclaimed meat (MRM), mechanically deboned meat (MDM), lean fresh pork trim[1], or pink slime when made from beef, and white slime when made from chicken[2] is a paste-like meat product produced by forcing beef, pork, turkey or chicken, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue. For the production of chicken and turkey MSM, most of the time, breast carcasses are used as they still contain parts of breast meat.

Mechanically separated meat has been used in certain meat and meat products since the late 1960s. This product can be contrasted with meat extracted by advanced meat recovery systems. The product is used in the manufacture of hot dog and bologna.[3][4] It has been reported that white slime has a "not-so-appetizing meat production process",[3] because "Pink slime solves a serious food safety problem and is nutritious, but it violates many cultural norms here in the U.S."[2]

Advanced Meat Recovery

Quote:

Advanced meat recovery (AMR) is a slaughterhouse deboning process by which the last traces of skeletal muscle meat are removed from animal bones after the primal cuts have been carved off manually.

The machinery used in this process separates meat from bone by scraping, shaving, or pressing the meat from the bone without breaking or grinding the bone. Products produced by advanced meat recovery machinery can be labeled using terms associated with hand-deboned product (i.e., "beef", "pork", "beef trimmings", etc.). AMR meat typically is used as an ingredient in products requiring further processing, such as hot dogs.

This meat is comparable in appearance, texture, and composition to meat trimmings and similar meat products derived by hand.

USDA regulations for procurement of frozen fresh ground beef products state that "Beef that is mechanically separated from bone with automatic deboning systems, advanced lean (meat) recovery (AMR) systems or powered knives, will not be allowed".[1]

In none of these cases is meat heated to facilitate removing it from the bone. If you've ever cooked meat on the bone, you'd know the sign the meat is done, i.e. fully cooked, is when the meat separates from the bone. It does not separate from the bone by mere heating and LFTB is not a cooked product.

But go ahead, pretend you meant something else. I have more links.

Skeptic Ginger · 14th May 2012, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

NPR ran a story recently where the same thing was done with wine: Four different decanters of wine were offered, but only three different wines were present.

Needless to say, the tasters found plenty of differences between all "four" wines.

This has been addressed already.

Furcifer · 15th May 2012, 03:59 AM

*sigh

It's heated to facillitate the removal of meat, connective tisssue AND fat from the bone.
How exactly do you think the bone that gets removed in the centrafuge gets there?

Please don't tell me you think they add it after the heating.

You have to read for comprehension.

Skeptic Ginger · 15th May 2012, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

*sigh

It's heated to facillitate the removal of meat, connective tisssue AND fat from the bone.
How exactly do you think the bone that gets removed in the centrafuge gets there?

Please don't tell me you think they add it after the heating.

You have to read for comprehension.

I knew you'd try to double down, and fail to support your argument.

Claiming "removal of meat, connective tissue AND fat from the bone" is the purpose of the heating says you don't understand how a centrifuge works or you don't know the density of meat, connective tissue and bone, vs the density of fat.

Also, the trim is only heated to 100^o F. That only melts the fat, it does not result in any separation of anything except the fat. Separation of meat from bone and connective tissue only happens when the protein is denatured and that means cooked. LBT is an uncooked product. If it were cooked no ammonia would be needed.

The bone is not removed it is ground up. There's very little bone in the trim in the first place. That was discussed along with the difference between this LBT which is still manually removed from the bone and the product which is mechanically removed from the bone. The latter has a limited amount of calcium allowed in the final product. That's not an issue with manually removed trim.

Mechanically removed meat and manually removed meat have different regulations. Pink Slime LBT is manually removed.

You're just putting more foot in your mouth here, Fur.

theprestige · 15th May 2012, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This has been addressed already.

I'm sorry; I thought I was exchanging thematically-related anecdotes with fellow members, in a thread on the same general topic.

I didn't realize that I was falling afoul of the Queen of the Thread, by whose will alone may we discuss whatever topic meets with Her approval.

If it please Your Highness, may I give and take whatever contributions in this thread best suit myself, without having to worry whether or not you think it's "been addressed already"?

Skeptic Ginger · 15th May 2012, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm sorry; I thought I was exchanging thematically-related anecdotes with fellow members, in a thread on the same general topic.

I didn't realize that I was falling afoul of the Queen of the Thread, by whose will alone may we discuss whatever topic meets with Her approval.

If it please Your Highness, may I give and take whatever contributions in this thread best suit myself, without having to worry whether or not you think it's "been addressed already"?

Seeing this reaction, I wonder what you would have thought about the orignal post I deleted?

The point is this is not an analogous case and I didn't feel like going over that for the 'n'th time. I was merely noting that arguments supporting the lack of analogy have been posted already.

Furcifer · 15th May 2012, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I knew you'd try to double down, and fail to support your argument.

Claiming "removal of meat, connective tissue AND fat from the bone" is the purpose of the heating says you don't understand how a centrifuge works or you don't know the density of meat, connective tissue and bone, vs the density of fat.

Also, the trim is only heated to 100^o F. That only melts the fat, it does not result in any separation of anything except the fat. Separation of meat from bone and connective tissue only happens when the protein is denatured and that means cooked. LBT is an uncooked product. If it were cooked no ammonia would be needed.

The bone is not removed it is ground up. There's very little bone in the trim in the first place. That was discussed along with the difference between this LBT which is still manually removed from the bone and the product which is mechanically removed from the bone. The latter has a limited amount of calcium allowed in the final product. That's not an issue with manually removed trim.

Mechanically removed meat and manually removed meat have different regulations. Pink Slime LBT is manually removed.

You're just putting more foot in your mouth here, Fur.

*sigh

The bone isn't ground up, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes the fat is rendered, that's exactly why it facillitates the removal of meat and connective tissue. I don't suppose you know what soap is do you?

Again, the trim used in LBT is the same trim found in ground beef. It's just not feasible to remove it manually. The processing removes some of the fat, so what? Trim itself is the result of processing steaks and other cuts of meat by removing the fat and connective tissues.

theprestige · 15th May 2012, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The point is this is not an analogous case and I didn't feel like going over that for the 'n'th time. I was merely noting that arguments supporting the lack of analogy have been posted already.

Have you considered the possibility that not all posts in this thread are about you and the points and arguments that you're trying to make?

Skeptic Ginger · 15th May 2012, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Have you considered the possibility that not all posts in this thread are about you and the points and arguments that you're trying to make?

Have you considered the issue you brought up has been discussed and that's all I said?

theprestige · 15th May 2012, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Have you considered the issue you brought up has been discussed and that's all I said?

Have you considered the possibility that I wasn't bringing up an issue, I was recounting an anecdote, and that clearly my anecdote can't possibly have been discussed before I even recounted it? You're still assuming that somehow my anecdote must have something to do with whatever issue you're trying to discuss. May I suggest you'd get further in your discussion, if you didn't stop to remark on every anecdote that covers points you don't want to discuss anymore?

CosCos · 25th May 2012, 09:08 AM

Wasn't there supposed to be a test conducted last week? Did I miss something?

Skeptic Ginger · 25th May 2012, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by CosCos

Wasn't there supposed to be a test conducted last week? Did I miss something?

Yeah, it was postponed again until June. Our group leader thought he had arranged for the tavern to cook the burger but they only agreed to re-heat it so I'll be bringing cooked burger to the next meet-up instead. This time, however, all the plans are in place including arrangements with the tavern directly.

Furcifer · 30th May 2012, 10:45 PM

So I finally got an email from the FSIS. It's a signed .pdf, unlike my last inquiry which was just an email.
Unfortunately I can't get it off my phone and post it here. I could forward it to someone via email if they would like, just PM me an address.
To summarize there's no safety concerns with LFTB so there are no limits as to how much can be used. The national lunch program adheres to federal nutrional requirements and that's why they limit the amount to 15%.
It closes with her urging people to take a look a science based studies on LFTB.

Skeptic Ginger · 30th May 2012, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

So I finally got an email from the FSIS. It's a signed .pdf, unlike my last inquiry which was just an email.
Unfortunately I can't get it off my phone and post it here. I could forward it to someone via email if they would like, just PM me an address.
To summarize there's no safety concerns with LFTB so there are no limits as to how much can be used. The national lunch program adheres to federal nutrional requirements and that's why they limit the amount to 15%.
It closes with her urging people to take a look a science based studies on LFTB.

It sounds like it doesn't say any more than we already know except clarifying the limits.

Begs the question again, Fur, why not sell 100% LFTB if it's the same as the rest of the ground beef?

Furcifer · 30th May 2012, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It sounds like it doesn't say any more than we already know except clarifying the limits.

Begs the question again, Fur, why not sell 100% LFTB if it's the same as the rest of the ground beef?

If you want to buy it and make 100% LFTB burgers there's nothing stopping you from doing so but common sense.
You keep stating this like it means something. "Why not make 100% fat burgers? Why can't I buy them at my grocery store? What are they hiding?" There's a difference from being prevented from buying something and there simply being no market for it.

Skeptic Ginger · 31st May 2012, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

If you want to buy it and make 100% LFTB burgers there's nothing stopping you from doing so but common sense.
You keep stating this like it means something. "Why not make 100% fat burgers? Why can't I buy them at my grocery store? What are they hiding?" There's a difference from being prevented from buying something and there simply being no market for it.

You keep dodging the obvious. You aren't fooling many people. You seem to be fooling yourself.

Do you or do you not claim LFBT is the same as the rest of the hamburger?

Furcifer · 31st May 2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You keep dodging the obvious. You aren't fooling many people. You seem to be fooling yourself.

Do you or do you not claim LFBT is the same as the rest of the hamburger?

Dodging? lnfao, I'm reiterating what the USDA has said; it's made from trim which is exactly what ground beef is made from.

You're the one dancing around this obvious and proven fact. It's only the uniformed public who don't have any clue how ground beef is made that are even questioning this.

It's the same stuff, it wasn't practical to salvage it before because it was too labour intensive to recover. That made it suitable for dog food and oil etc. Then someone figured out how to recover the bits and make it into a safe and saleable product and LFBT was born.

This isn't unusual, there are probably 100's of products on the shelf in your grocery store that were once garbage, fed to the pigs or burned for fuel. Then some industrious person said "Hey, I can make this into such and such" and the rest is history.

Skeptic Ginger · 31st May 2012, 02:36 PM

You are dodging the questions, Fur:

If LFTB is so similar to other ground beef made from trim, why does no one sell 100% LFTB? Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests?

You can pretend all you want that you are not dodging that question, but I doubt you're fooling anyone but yourself.

Furcifer · 31st May 2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You are dodging the questions, Fur:

If LFTB is so similar to other ground beef made from trim, why does no one sell 100% LFTB? Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests?

You can pretend all you want that you are not dodging that question, but I doubt you're fooling anyone but yourself.

lol, if ground beef is made from trim why can't you buy trim? Hmmm? Oh noes!

You can buy trim, just go a butcher and ask for trim. The fact that it isn't normally sold means nothing, and it certainly does mean they don't use trim to make ground beef.

The fact that in some taste test people preferred ground beef with 5% or 10% or 15% LFBT to that of 20% means absolutely nothing. There's a ton of taste tests that show people prefer ground beef with 22% fat to that of 5% fat. And by your faulty logic that implies they should sell burgers with 100% fat.

Seriously, think about this for a second. Becuase you make it even worse for yourself. By extending the same analogy you're infering fat couldn't be in ground beef because well shucks, they don't sell 100% fat burgers

The USDA Assistant Director of Something Policy or Something has confirmed in a hand signed letter LFBT is beef trim that has been processed to remove the fat, as such does not meet the definition of a binder or extender, but is in fact 100% beef.

It's processed trim. Trim is what ground beef is made of. Processed trim is ground beef. That's an irrefutable fact. I'm afraid you're the one dodging this, not me.

Skeptic Ginger · 31st May 2012, 05:53 PM

Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests? It wasn't that "some people" preferred a different taste. It was that no one could stand the burger with so much connective tissue in it.

Your denial is clear.

Furcifer · 31st May 2012, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests? It wasn't that "some people" preferred a different taste. It was that no one could stand the burger with so much connective tissue in it.

Your denial is clear.

Aside from denying you're making any sense what have I denied?

People in some taste test you cherry picked didn't prefer a burger with 20% LFBT, so what? They wouldn't prefer a burger with 30% fat either. That doesn't say sweet FA about fat and whether or not it's a normal part of ground beef. Why for FSM do you think it says anything about LFBT?
I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from and what point you're trying to make but it still eludes me.
The USDA will allow you to make and sell a 100% LFBT burger if you want to. I have it in writing on USDA letterhead. You've answered your own question though, the reason you can't buy a 100% LFBT burger is becuase nobody wants it.
None of this changes the fact that LFBT is the exact same stuff you find in any other burger, it's just in different proportions. If you add too little fat people don't like it, if you add too much fat people don't like it, if you add too much connective tissue people don't like it, if you add too little connective tissue people don't like it.

The fact is what people like or dislike has NO relevance on the quality of the product. I really don't care if your taste test proves otherwise. The fact is there are hundreds of more reliable studies that say the exact opposite.

Of course that's all within reason and I don't think you get this. People prefer some fat in their burger, that doesn't mean they want 100% fat burger. People seem to prefer burger with some LFBT, but that doesn't mean they want a 100% LFBT burger.

Skeptic Ginger · 31st May 2012, 06:54 PM

"People in some taste test you cherry picked didn't prefer a burger with 20% LFBT"

I highlighted a lie you've told there.

A) The test was not cherry picked, it was a marketing test the company selling the stuff did which found if they added more than 15% LFTB to hamburger people could tell and didn't like it.

B) If I cherry picked the study, where are the studies that I didn't cherry pick which showed different results?

Furcifer · 31st May 2012, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

"People in some taste test you cherry picked didn't prefer a burger with 20% LFBT"

I highlighted a lie you've told there.

A) The test was not cherry picked, it was a marketing test the company selling the stuff did which found if they added more than 15% LFTB to hamburger people could tell and didn't like it.

B) If I cherry picked the study, where are the studies that I didn't cherry pick which showed different results?

So you didn't cherry pick it, it's just the only taste test you have that you keep going on about as if it means something?

All of the taste tests cited in this thread take into account the varying amounts of connective tissue. The fact that you can't see the forest for the trees is very telling.

So what if LFBT allows the producer to control the amount of connective tissue in the hamburger without the addition of fat? Connective tissue has been and will always be a part of ground beef. The fact is it's a blessing, because as numerous studies have shown people PREFER some connective tissue in their ground beef. Up until LFBT it always came by way of adding fat, which the USDA actually limits.

Despite the numerous pages and explanations given to you it's very clear my very first assessment still stands. You clearly don't understand all of the variables in this equation. It doesn't come as much surprise to me, as I mentioned before I worked in a butcher shop long enough to know the vast majority of consumers are totally clueless when it comes to buying meat.
In the immortal but some what convoluted words of Chris Farley, you can get a good pound of ground beef by sticking your head up a cows ass, but you could just take my word for it

Skeptic Ginger · 31st May 2012, 09:03 PM

Despite the fact the questions are simple, you still cannot give a simple answer. The fact you continue to post these gyrations and your repeating ad hom that [x] has been explained, you still don't answer the very simple question.

Here's another straw man:

Originally Posted by Fur

So what if LFBT allows the producer to control the amount of connective tissue in the hamburger without the addition of fat? Connective tissue has been and will always be a part of ground beef.

No one has said there is no CT in hamburger. The argument is LFTB is 70% connective tissue and that proportion, even when only added at 15% to hamburger, makes the TEXTURE of the burger SIGNIFICANTLY different.

You keep claiming LFTB doesn't change the burger.

I'll ask you again: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

Skeptic Ginger · 31st May 2012, 09:05 PM

I'll ask you again: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

Just answer that. Don't clutter your post with rationalizations.

Furcifer · 31st May 2012, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'll ask you again: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?

Just answer that. Don't clutter your post with rationalizations.

I bet, the rationalizations just expose your absurd logic.

There is no "problem" with adding more than 15% LFBT. You know this, I've got SIGNED government documents that prove this.

The "problem" is clearly in your head. That's been proven conclusively. In fact the whole "problem" with LFBT is in the heads of consumers without the knowledge of how beef is processed, and the willful ignorance of the scientific studies behind LFBT. That again has been supported, in writing, by the USDA at your request.

I'm sorry, but you're falling into this conspiracy theorist territory, where you make outrageous claims about the faceless "gubmint", but when you get a direct answer from the "gubmint" you just ignore it.

You asked why the USDA limits the amount of LFBT to 15%. You were shown to be mistaken, they do not limit the amount of LFBT to 15%. The national lunch program limits the amount of LFBT to 15% in the product they buy because of nutritional concerns. Your claim has nothing to do with nutritional concerns, it has to do with taste. It's obvious this does not support your claim.

Your whole premise is wrong, as I said there is no "problem" with the adddition of LFBT to ground beef. It's seen going on for years without issue until some British clown poured a bunch of Ajax on some meat and made the erroneous and misleading equation. Unfortunately that wasn't based in science but science fiction.
What I find most disturbing about this SG is you're being mislead by a cook. You're supposedto be skeptical and looking to science. If you don't understand the science as I've explained it you should at least be looking to other scientists. But even when the scientists fromt the USDA get back to you directly you still continue to deny the obvious. Don't you find that a little bit strange?

Skeptic Ginger · 31st May 2012, 11:18 PM

Still a bunch of rationalizations. You did not answer the simple question:

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

Furcifer · 31st May 2012, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Still a bunch of rationalizations. You did not answer the simple question:

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

No. By this point you're just lying when you ask "rhetorically" If it doesn't change the burger...

As has been explained numerous times, using countless examples and analogies, it does "change the burger".

It does so you can stop saying otherwise.

It doesn't "change the burger" as you put it outside of how changes to any other component ie. trim, would change it. (because most of us know burger changes every time you make it)

Very simple put, adding 30% LFBT is the same as adding 10% fat and 30% low quality trim. If there was such thing as low quality trim. Unfortunately, low quality trim isn't economically feasible and gets made into dog food.

But if some "magic" process made that trim feasible, well then it would be the exact same thing. At least according to the USDA. Can you possibly begin to think of a way to recover than trim? Hmmm?

I'm almost 100% certain I've explained this to such an extent that even children or the mentally challenged could understand it without issue.

Skeptic Ginger · 1st June 2012, 12:08 AM

Still unable to answer? Of course you are. Because you are trying to defend a disproved position.

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

Dipayan · 1st June 2012, 08:24 AM

Sorry, have to jump in!

SG, what do you mean by 'change the burger'?

Skeptic Ginger · 1st June 2012, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Dipayan

Sorry, have to jump in!

SG, what do you mean by 'change the burger'?

Since LFTB is mostly connective tissue and not 'meat' it changes the texture of the burger.

Skeptic Ginger · 1st June 2012, 09:12 AM

To summarize, so people don't need to reread a 25 page thread:

Fur continues to argue that since there is connective tissue of varying amounts in hamburger, LFBT does not change the texture of the burger beyond the normal range of variability.

Fur incorrectly argued that heat was used to separate the 'trim' from the bone. It is not. Heat is used to liquify the fat of the waste trim then a centrifuge is used to separate the fat from the trim used to make LFTB. When showed the error, he shifted his argument to claim it didn't matter.

Incorrectly believing the heat was used to remove LFTB from the bone, Fur initially argued that the trim needed additional processing simply because it was close to the bone, but was otherwise the same as the rest of the trim used to make hamburger. The two kinds of trim are not the same. The trim used to make LFTB is waste trim (previously used only in pet food), not because it was on the floor or dirty or needed additional processing to remove it from the bone, but rather it was waste trim because it was of such poor quality with very little red meat in it and a whole lot of other tissues.

The analysis of the LFTB showed it had ~70% fibrous protein compared to ~30% fibrous protein in ground chuck. This waste trim comes from tissues that are further from the muscle, not simply closer to the bones. Actually, a good portion of the waste trim is closer to the hide, not just closer to the bone.

Connective tissue is also protein, but it is not meat which is a very different protein. An obvious illustration of this is comparing eating ground up tendons to eating a ground up steak. Obviously they are not the same but both are proteins.

The beef industry has been taking the waste trim that is of very poor quality because it has so little meat in it, removing the fat with low heat and a centrifuge, then using it as an additive to hamburger to lower the overall fat content. Rather than grinding up a leaner cut of meat, the processer simply adds more protein but not more meat. That connective tissue protein is not the same texture as muscle meat protein. And no matter what the range of connective tissue volume in regular hamburger, adding LFTB which is almost all connective tissue, noticeably changes the hamburger well beyond the range of connective tissue proportions before the industry started using LFTB.

Furcifer · 1st June 2012, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Still unable to answer? Of course you are. Because you are trying to defend a disproved position.

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

There is no "problem". You're just making this up. You're fabricating this "problem" in order to confirm your own bias. The USDA says quite clearly there is no problem.

At least with the ground beef. There is a problem with reactionary people, who are utterly clueless as to how ground beef is processed, and who refuse to look at the science, making up stories about "problems".

Sound familiar?

Furcifer · 1st June 2012, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

To summarize, so people don't need to reread a 25 page thread:

Fur continues to argue that since there is connective tissue of varying amounts in hamburger, LFBT does not change the texture of the burger beyond the normal range of variability.

Fur incorrectly argued that heat was used to separate the 'trim' from the bone. It is not. Heat is used to liquify the fat of the waste trim then a centrifuge is used to separate the fat from the trim used to make LFTB. When showed the error, he shifted his argument to claim it didn't matter.

Incorrectly believing the heat was used to remove LFTB from the bone, Fur initially argued that the trim needed additional processing simply because it was close to the bone, but was otherwise the same as the rest of the trim used to make hamburger. The two kinds of trim are not the same. The trim used to make LFTB is waste trim (previously used only in pet food), not because it was on the floor or dirty or needed additional processing to remove it from the bone, but rather it was waste trim because it was of such poor quality with very little red meat in it and a whole lot of other tissues.

The analysis of the LFTB showed it had ~70% fibrous protein compared to ~30% fibrous protein in ground chuck. This waste trim comes from tissues that are further from the muscle, not simply closer to the bones. Actually, a good portion of the waste trim is closer to the hide, not just closer to the bone.

Connective tissue is also protein, but it is not meat which is a very different protein. An obvious illustration of this is comparing eating ground up tendons to eating a ground up steak. Obviously they are not the same but both are proteins.

The beef industry has been taking the waste trim that is of very poor quality because it has so little meat in it, removing the fat with low heat and a centrifuge, then using it as an additive to hamburger to lower the overall fat content. Rather than grinding up a leaner cut of meat, the processer simply adds more protein but not more meat. That connective tissue protein is not the same texture as muscle meat protein. And no matter what the range of connective tissue volume in regular hamburger, adding LFTB which is almost all connective tissue, noticeably changes the hamburger well beyond the range of connective tissue proportions before the industry started using LFTB.

This is of course incorrect and yet another gross misrepresentation of fact.

I said the product is heated to facillitate the "mechanical" seperation of meat and connective tissue from the fat,bone, cartilage tendons etc. It wouldn't seperate without being heated, and without seperation the process would be useless. Again this was in response to your nefarious assumptions about the process deeply rooted in your misunderstanding of some basic scientific principles.

The key point in all of this being that LFBT could be made by hand from normal "beef trimmings", the kind that all ground beef is made from, but the time it would take to do so would make it infeasible.
This is why the USDA is 100% correct in saying LFBT is basically the same as anything else you would find in normal ground beef, it's just processed differently.
And, because labeling laws do not require manufacturers to label every single method used in their processing there's no reason for LFBT to be specifically labelled when added to ground beef.
You can come up with all the conspiracy theories you want, Beef Products Inc., the USDA and the stores using LFBT have done nothing wrong. It's clearly a case of the uninformed public overeacting to what they have no clue about. Not surprising really, what is surprising is a member of the JREF doing this, and continuing to do this for 25 pages.

Shameful really. But even the best skeptics get suckered in once and a while.

14th May 2012, 12:10 PM	#961
Dipayan Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 151	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger A, I have never said it didn't boil down to just personal taste, & B, watch again, most said the flavor and texture of the non LBT was better and the ones with LBT were "juicier" and only 2 people preferred the stuff with LBT, not most people. My point is that the study claims that: a) it seems to be a matter of personal taste - not objectively 'good' or 'bad' b) they imply that given non-test conditions, people would not be able to make out a difference Quote: But it's all beside the point since all I've ever complained about was, it is noticeable, and it is not labeled. It should be labeled and it was dishonest not to do so. 1) This is the leap that I don't understand. Even if I agree with you that some people might be able to notice the textural difference, why does that automatically mean it needs to be labeled? Hell, people are finding it juicier, and even saying that they would not be able to find any difference unless they were prompted to look for some. I don't think procedural changes are made to appease a tiny minority - people who notice textural difference, and therefore find ground beef inedible. 2) That's not all you ever complained about. You started with that, then went all over the place. Your latest complaint was that BPI named its product misleadingly to fool the common public (which it doesn't even serve). Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I said texture was noticeably different and the majority of participants in this double blind test found the texture noticeably different. You said texture was noticeably different to the point that you could no longer eat the burger. You claimed LFTB made the meat mealy and gristly. The one respondent who commented on the texture (beyond 'I like this better') said that the burger with LFTB was a bit more spongy. Are you aligning this comment with your perspective? The respondents were reacting to percentage differences in texture. And the study even ends with saying that 'Even though overall the burger without LFTB won the day, it seems like a matter of personal taste'. It's a pretty large step from saying - 'The texture is different' to saying 'The texture is different. Those corporate thieves at BPI deliberately gave their product a misleading name and chose not to label it so that they can pay off USDA and fool the American public'.
Dipayan Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 151

14th May 2012, 12:20 PM	#962
Dipayan Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 151	What this test tells me is that in the test that you will be running, you should be mixing up the samples. If A=regular ground beef & B=ground beef with LFTB, some people should get AA, some should get AB, and some should get BB. That way you will know if people are finding differences simply because they are looking for them.
Dipayan Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 151

14th May 2012, 12:37 PM	#963
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 31,990	Just wanted to point out, I had some burgers I made from meat I bought from the store. It had 20% fat. And they were deeee licious.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

14th May 2012, 12:38 PM	#964
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,171	Originally Posted by Dipayan What this test tells me is that in the test that you will be running, you should be mixing up the samples. If A=regular ground beef & B=ground beef with LFTB, some people should get AA, some should get AB, and some should get BB. That way you will know if people are finding differences simply because they are looking for them. This is a good idea. I did a similar thing with a friend who claimed to taste the difference between Pepsi and Coca Cola. I got some Pepsi, Coca Cola and a locally made variant and put three glasses on the table, and had him taste them without knowing which was in the glass. Of course he assumed that all three varieties were present, but in truth I had put the same one in all the glasses. He still identified three different colas..
	Last edited by Ryokan; 14th May 2012 at 12:39 PM.

14th May 2012, 07:41 PM	#966
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568	Originally Posted by Ryokan This is a good idea. I did a similar thing with a friend who claimed to taste the difference between Pepsi and Coca Cola. I got some Pepsi, Coca Cola and a locally made variant and put three glasses on the table, and had him taste them without knowing which was in the glass. Of course he assumed that all three varieties were present, but in truth I had put the same one in all the glasses. He still identified three different colas.. NPR ran a story recently where the same thing was done with wine: Four different decanters of wine were offered, but only three different wines were present. Needless to say, the tasters found plenty of differences between all "four" wines.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568

14th May 2012, 06:03 PM	#965
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Trim is not "collected using the centrifuge". It is collected, heated to melt the fat and centrifuged to remove the fat and recover the bits of protein that are high in fibrous protein and low in muscle protein. You really should re-read just what LBT is, you seem to think it is something it is not. I'll keep spoon feeding you here, maybe you will eventually answer the question you keep dodging, why aren't 'trim' and LBT interchangeable with the exception of the bacteria? The centrifuge removes the fat. Why not lower the fat of burger without adding LBT by heating the 'trim' and centrifuging it to remove the fat? It's not heated to remove the fat, it's heated to facillitate the seperation of meat and connective tissue from the bone and tendons etc. it's connected to. The fact that the fat seperates first is a bonus, a bonus without which LBT probably wouldn't be viable product. I made the mistake earlier of assuming LBT was higher in fat than it is. Of course a pink product high in fat would be almost worthless, it needs to be lean. In other words LBT is a rather ingenius (sp?) product, or rather the process is. And despite you claims to the contrary I fully understand why they use a centrafuge, in fact I find it kinda cool.

14th May 2012, 08:00 PM	#967
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	Originally Posted by Furcifer It's not heated to remove the fat, it's heated to facillitate the seperation of meat and connective tissue from the bone and tendons etc. it's connected to. The fact that the fat seperates first is a bonus, a bonus without which LBT probably wouldn't be viable product. I made the mistake earlier of assuming LBT was higher in fat than it is. Of course a pink product high in fat would be almost worthless, it needs to be lean. In other words LBT is a rather ingenius (sp?) product, or rather the process is. And despite you claims to the contrary I fully understand why they use a centrafuge, in fact I find it kinda cool. For someone who has posted so many condescending comments about how superior your knowledge of beef processing is, you have one big fat foot in your mouth. Reuter's report on the governor's tour of the plant Quote: The company showed the governors and reporters how the product is made. First, a conveyer belt brought in scraps left over from a plant next door that produces steaks, roasts and other cuts of meat. The scraps were heated to around 100 degrees Fahrenheit to facilitate separation of the fat, then dumped into a huge meat grinder to pull out fat, cartilage, bone and connective tissue. A centrifuge spinning 3,000 times a minute continued the separation process. Inside a third machine the material was treated with ammonia hydroxide gas to eliminate bacteria. Other meat recovery systems: Mechanically Recovered Meat Quote: MRM is meat residue which is left on the carcass after all the prime cuts have been removed. It is pressure-blasted off the bones by machinery and forms a reddish slurry which resembles mince. Some companies then use it to bulk up their meat products. Experts say it is likely that bits of spinal cord - the part of a cow most likely to be contaminated with BSE - could be found in mechanically recovered meat. Mechanically separated meat Quote: Mechanically separated meat (MSM), mechanically recovered/reclaimed meat (MRM), mechanically deboned meat (MDM), lean fresh pork trim[1], or pink slime when made from beef, and white slime when made from chicken[2] is a paste-like meat product produced by forcing beef, pork, turkey or chicken, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue. For the production of chicken and turkey MSM, most of the time, breast carcasses are used as they still contain parts of breast meat. Mechanically separated meat has been used in certain meat and meat products since the late 1960s. This product can be contrasted with meat extracted by advanced meat recovery systems. The product is used in the manufacture of hot dog and bologna.[3][4] It has been reported that white slime has a "not-so-appetizing meat production process",[3] because "Pink slime solves a serious food safety problem and is nutritious, but it violates many cultural norms here in the U.S."[2] Advanced Meat Recovery Quote: Advanced meat recovery (AMR) is a slaughterhouse deboning process by which the last traces of skeletal muscle meat are removed from animal bones after the primal cuts have been carved off manually. The machinery used in this process separates meat from bone by scraping, shaving, or pressing the meat from the bone without breaking or grinding the bone. Products produced by advanced meat recovery machinery can be labeled using terms associated with hand-deboned product (i.e., "beef", "pork", "beef trimmings", etc.). AMR meat typically is used as an ingredient in products requiring further processing, such as hot dogs. This meat is comparable in appearance, texture, and composition to meat trimmings and similar meat products derived by hand. USDA regulations for procurement of frozen fresh ground beef products state that "Beef that is mechanically separated from bone with automatic deboning systems, advanced lean (meat) recovery (AMR) systems or powered knives, will not be allowed".[1] In none of these cases is meat heated to facilitate removing it from the bone. If you've ever cooked meat on the bone, you'd know the sign the meat is done, i.e. fully cooked, is when the meat separates from the bone. It does not separate from the bone by mere heating and LFTB is not a cooked product. But go ahead, pretend you meant something else. I have more links.
	__________________ (*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.)

14th May 2012, 08:06 PM	#968
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	Originally Posted by theprestige NPR ran a story recently where the same thing was done with wine: Four different decanters of wine were offered, but only three different wines were present. Needless to say, the tasters found plenty of differences between all "four" wines. This has been addressed already.
	__________________ (*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.)

15th May 2012, 03:59 AM	#969
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	*sigh It's heated to facillitate the removal of meat, connective tisssue AND fat from the bone. How exactly do you think the bone that gets removed in the centrafuge gets there? Please don't tell me you think they add it after the heating. You have to read for comprehension.

15th May 2012, 11:14 AM	#970
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	Originally Posted by Furcifer sigh It's heated to facillitate the removal of meat, connective tisssue AND fat from the bone. How exactly do you think the bone that gets removed in the centrafuge gets there? Please don't tell me you think they add it after the heating. You have to read for comprehension. I knew you'd try to double down, and fail to support your argument. Claiming "removal of meat, connective tissue AND fat from the bone" is the purpose of the heating says you don't understand how a centrifuge works or you don't know the density of meat, connective tissue and bone, vs the density of fat. Also, the trim is only heated to 100^o F. That only melts the fat, it does not result in any separation of anything except the fat. Separation of meat from bone and connective tissue only happens when the protein is denatured and that means cooked.* LBT is an uncooked product. If it were cooked no ammonia would be needed. The bone is not removed it is ground up. There's very little bone in the trim in the first place. That was discussed along with the difference between this LBT which is still manually removed from the bone and the product which is mechanically removed from the bone. The latter has a limited amount of calcium allowed in the final product. That's not an issue with manually removed trim. Mechanically removed meat and manually removed meat have different regulations. Pink Slime LBT is manually removed. You're just putting more foot in your mouth here, Fur.
	__________________ (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; 15th May 2012 at 11:19 AM.*

15th May 2012, 12:58 PM	#971
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger This has been addressed already. I'm sorry; I thought I was exchanging thematically-related anecdotes with fellow members, in a thread on the same general topic. I didn't realize that I was falling afoul of the Queen of the Thread, by whose will alone may we discuss whatever topic meets with Her approval. If it please Your Highness, may I give and take whatever contributions in this thread best suit myself, without having to worry whether or not you think it's "been addressed already"?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568

15th May 2012, 01:03 PM	#972
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	Originally Posted by theprestige I'm sorry; I thought I was exchanging thematically-related anecdotes with fellow members, in a thread on the same general topic. I didn't realize that I was falling afoul of the Queen of the Thread, by whose will alone may we discuss whatever topic meets with Her approval. If it please Your Highness, may I give and take whatever contributions in this thread best suit myself, without having to worry whether or not you think it's "been addressed already"? Seeing this reaction, I wonder what you would have thought about the orignal post I deleted? The point is this is not an analogous case and I didn't feel like going over that for the 'n'th time. I was merely noting that arguments supporting the lack of analogy have been posted already.
	__________________ (*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.)

15th May 2012, 03:40 PM	#973
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I knew you'd try to double down, and fail to support your argument. Claiming "removal of meat, connective tissue AND fat from the bone" is the purpose of the heating says you don't understand how a centrifuge works or you don't know the density of meat, connective tissue and bone, vs the density of fat. Also, the trim is only heated to 100^o F. That only melts the fat, it does not result in any separation of anything except the fat. Separation of meat from bone and connective tissue only happens when the protein is denatured and that means cooked. LBT is an uncooked product. If it were cooked no ammonia would be needed. The bone is not removed it is ground up. There's very little bone in the trim in the first place. That was discussed along with the difference between this LBT which is still manually removed from the bone and the product which is mechanically removed from the bone. The latter has a limited amount of calcium allowed in the final product. That's not an issue with manually removed trim. Mechanically removed meat and manually removed meat have different regulations. Pink Slime LBT is manually removed. You're just putting more foot in your mouth here, Fur. *sigh The bone isn't ground up, you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes the fat is rendered, that's exactly why it facillitates the removal of meat and connective tissue. I don't suppose you know what soap is do you? Again, the trim used in LBT is the same trim found in ground beef. It's just not feasible to remove it manually. The processing removes some of the fat, so what? Trim itself is the result of processing steaks and other cuts of meat by removing the fat and connective tissues.

15th May 2012, 05:43 PM	#974
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger The point is this is not an analogous case and I didn't feel like going over that for the 'n'th time. I was merely noting that arguments supporting the lack of analogy have been posted already. Have you considered the possibility that not all posts in this thread are about you and the points and arguments that you're trying to make?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568

15th May 2012, 10:42 PM	#975
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	Originally Posted by theprestige Have you considered the possibility that not all posts in this thread are about you and the points and arguments that you're trying to make? Have you considered the issue you brought up has been discussed and that's all I said?
	__________________ (*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.)

15th May 2012, 11:27 PM	#976
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Have you considered the issue you brought up has been discussed and that's all I said? Have you considered the possibility that I wasn't bringing up an issue, I was recounting an anecdote, and that clearly my anecdote can't possibly have been discussed before I even recounted it? You're still assuming that somehow my anecdote must have something to do with whatever issue you're trying to discuss. May I suggest you'd get further in your discussion, if you didn't stop to remark on every anecdote that covers points you don't want to discuss anymore?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568

25th May 2012, 09:08 AM	#977
CosCos Scholar Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 96	Wasn't there supposed to be a test conducted last week? Did I miss something?
CosCos Scholar Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 96

25th May 2012, 10:00 AM	#978
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	Originally Posted by CosCos Wasn't there supposed to be a test conducted last week? Did I miss something? Yeah, it was postponed again until June. Our group leader thought he had arranged for the tavern to cook the burger but they only agreed to re-heat it so I'll be bringing cooked burger to the next meet-up instead. This time, however, all the plans are in place including arrangements with the tavern directly.
	__________________ (*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.)

30th May 2012, 10:45 PM	#979
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	So I finally got an email from the FSIS. It's a signed .pdf, unlike my last inquiry which was just an email. Unfortunately I can't get it off my phone and post it here. I could forward it to someone via email if they would like, just PM me an address. To summarize there's no safety concerns with LFTB so there are no limits as to how much can be used. The national lunch program adheres to federal nutrional requirements and that's why they limit the amount to 15%. It closes with her urging people to take a look a science based studies on LFTB.
	Last edited by Furcifer; 30th May 2012 at 10:49 PM. Reason: lbft lbtf tlbf whatever...

30th May 2012, 10:50 PM	#980
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	Originally Posted by Furcifer So I finally got an email from the FSIS. It's a signed .pdf, unlike my last inquiry which was just an email. Unfortunately I can't get it off my phone and post it here. I could forward it to someone via email if they would like, just PM me an address. To summarize there's no safety concerns with LFTB so there are no limits as to how much can be used. The national lunch program adheres to federal nutrional requirements and that's why they limit the amount to 15%. It closes with her urging people to take a look a science based studies on LFTB. It sounds like it doesn't say any more than we already know except clarifying the limits. Begs the question again, Fur, why not sell 100% LFTB if it's the same as the rest of the ground beef?
	__________________ (*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.)

30th May 2012, 11:19 PM	#981
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It sounds like it doesn't say any more than we already know except clarifying the limits. Begs the question again, Fur, why not sell 100% LFTB if it's the same as the rest of the ground beef? If you want to buy it and make 100% LFTB burgers there's nothing stopping you from doing so but common sense. You keep stating this like it means something. "Why not make 100% fat burgers? Why can't I buy them at my grocery store? What are they hiding?" There's a difference from being prevented from buying something and there simply being no market for it.

31st May 2012, 12:01 AM	#982
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	Originally Posted by Furcifer If you want to buy it and make 100% LFTB burgers there's nothing stopping you from doing so but common sense. You keep stating this like it means something. "Why not make 100% fat burgers? Why can't I buy them at my grocery store? What are they hiding?" There's a difference from being prevented from buying something and there simply being no market for it. You keep dodging the obvious. You aren't fooling many people. You seem to be fooling yourself. Do you or do you not claim LFBT is the same as the rest of the 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.)

31st May 2012, 02:04 PM	#983
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You keep dodging the obvious. You aren't fooling many people. You seem to be fooling yourself. Do you or do you not claim LFBT is the same as the rest of the hamburger? Dodging? lnfao, I'm reiterating what the USDA has said; it's made from trim which is exactly what ground beef is made from. You're the one dancing around this obvious and proven fact. It's only the uniformed public who don't have any clue how ground beef is made that are even questioning this. It's the same stuff, it wasn't practical to salvage it before because it was too labour intensive to recover. That made it suitable for dog food and oil etc. Then someone figured out how to recover the bits and make it into a safe and saleable product and LFBT was born. This isn't unusual, there are probably 100's of products on the shelf in your grocery store that were once garbage, fed to the pigs or burned for fuel. Then some industrious person said "Hey, I can make this into such and such" and the rest is history.

31st May 2012, 02:36 PM	#984
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	You are dodging the questions, Fur: If LFTB is so similar to other ground beef made from trim, why does no one sell 100% LFTB? Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests? You can pretend all you want that you are not dodging that question, but I doubt you're fooling anyone but yourself.
	__________________ (*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.)

31st May 2012, 03:06 PM	#985
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You are dodging the questions, Fur: If LFTB is so similar to other ground beef made from trim, why does no one sell 100% LFTB? Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests? You can pretend all you want that you are not dodging that question, but I doubt you're fooling anyone but yourself. lol, if ground beef is made from trim why can't you buy trim? Hmmm? Oh noes! You can buy trim, just go a butcher and ask for trim. The fact that it isn't normally sold means nothing, and it certainly does mean they don't use trim to make ground beef. The fact that in some taste test people preferred ground beef with 5% or 10% or 15% LFBT to that of 20% means absolutely nothing. There's a ton of taste tests that show people prefer ground beef with 22% fat to that of 5% fat. And by your faulty logic that implies they should sell burgers with 100% fat. Seriously, think about this for a second. Becuase you make it even worse for yourself. By extending the same analogy you're infering fat couldn't be in ground beef because well shucks, they don't sell 100% fat burgers The USDA Assistant Director of Something Policy or Something has confirmed in a hand signed letter LFBT is beef trim that has been processed to remove the fat, as such does not meet the definition of a binder or extender, but is in fact 100% beef. It's processed trim. Trim is what ground beef is made of. Processed trim is ground beef. That's an irrefutable fact. I'm afraid you're the one dodging this, not me.

31st May 2012, 05:53 PM	#986
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests? It wasn't that "some people" preferred a different taste. It was that no one could stand the burger with so much connective tissue in it. Your denial is clear.
	__________________ (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; 31st May 2012 at 05:54 PM.*

31st May 2012, 06:35 PM	#987
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Why was 20% or more LFTB in hamburger so poorly received in the marketing tests? It wasn't that "some people" preferred a different taste. It was that no one could stand the burger with so much connective tissue in it. Your denial is clear. Aside from denying you're making any sense what have I denied? People in some taste test you cherry picked didn't prefer a burger with 20% LFBT, so what? They wouldn't prefer a burger with 30% fat either. That doesn't say sweet FA about fat and whether or not it's a normal part of ground beef. Why for FSM do you think it says anything about LFBT? I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from and what point you're trying to make but it still eludes me. The USDA will allow you to make and sell a 100% LFBT burger if you want to. I have it in writing on USDA letterhead. You've answered your own question though, the reason you can't buy a 100% LFBT burger is becuase nobody wants it. None of this changes the fact that LFBT is the exact same stuff you find in any other burger, it's just in different proportions. If you add too little fat people don't like it, if you add too much fat people don't like it, if you add too much connective tissue people don't like it, if you add too little connective tissue people don't like it. The fact is what people like or dislike has NO relevance on the quality of the product. I really don't care if your taste test proves otherwise. The fact is there are hundreds of more reliable studies that say the exact opposite. Of course that's all within reason and I don't think you get this. People prefer some fat in their burger, that doesn't mean they want 100% fat burger. People seem to prefer burger with some LFBT, but that doesn't mean they want a 100% LFBT burger.

31st May 2012, 06:54 PM	#988
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	"People in some taste test you cherry picked didn't prefer a burger with 20% LFBT" I highlighted a lie you've told there. A) The test was not cherry picked, it was a marketing test the company selling the stuff did which found if they added more than 15% LFTB to hamburger people could tell and didn't like it. B) If I cherry picked the study, where are the studies that I didn't cherry pick which showed different results?
	__________________ (*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.)

31st May 2012, 07:41 PM	#989
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger "People in some taste test you cherry picked didn't prefer a burger with 20% LFBT" I highlighted a lie you've told there. A) The test was not cherry picked, it was a marketing test the company selling the stuff did which found if they added more than 15% LFTB to hamburger people could tell and didn't like it. B) If I cherry picked the study, where are the studies that I didn't cherry pick which showed different results? So you didn't cherry pick it, it's just the only taste test you have that you keep going on about as if it means something? All of the taste tests cited in this thread take into account the varying amounts of connective tissue. The fact that you can't see the forest for the trees is very telling. So what if LFBT allows the producer to control the amount of connective tissue in the hamburger without the addition of fat? Connective tissue has been and will always be a part of ground beef. The fact is it's a blessing, because as numerous studies have shown people PREFER some connective tissue in their ground beef. Up until LFBT it always came by way of adding fat, which the USDA actually limits. Despite the numerous pages and explanations given to you it's very clear my very first assessment still stands. You clearly don't understand all of the variables in this equation. It doesn't come as much surprise to me, as I mentioned before I worked in a butcher shop long enough to know the vast majority of consumers are totally clueless when it comes to buying meat. In the immortal but some what convoluted words of Chris Farley, you can get a good pound of ground beef by sticking your head up a cows ass, but you could just take my word for it

31st May 2012, 09:03 PM	#990
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	Despite the fact the questions are simple, you still cannot give a simple answer. The fact you continue to post these gyrations and your repeating ad hom that [x] has been explained, you still don't answer the very simple question. Here's another straw man: Originally Posted by Fur So what if LFBT allows the producer to control the amount of connective tissue in the hamburger without the addition of fat? Connective tissue has been and will always be a part of ground beef. No one has said there is no CT in hamburger. The argument is LFTB is 70% connective tissue and that proportion, even when only added at 15% to hamburger, makes the TEXTURE of the burger SIGNIFICANTLY different. You keep claiming LFTB doesn't change the burger. I'll ask you again: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?
	__________________ (*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.)

31st May 2012, 09:05 PM	#991
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	I'll ask you again: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%? Just answer that. Don't clutter your post with rationalizations.
	__________________ (*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.)

31st May 2012, 10:51 PM	#992
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I'll ask you again: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%? Just answer that. Don't clutter your post with rationalizations. I bet, the rationalizations just expose your absurd logic. There is no "problem" with adding more than 15% LFBT. You know this, I've got SIGNED government documents that prove this. The "problem" is clearly in your head. That's been proven conclusively. In fact the whole "problem" with LFBT is in the heads of consumers without the knowledge of how beef is processed, and the willful ignorance of the scientific studies behind LFBT. That again has been supported, in writing, by the USDA at your request. I'm sorry, but you're falling into this conspiracy theorist territory, where you make outrageous claims about the faceless "gubmint", but when you get a direct answer from the "gubmint" you just ignore it. You asked why the USDA limits the amount of LFBT to 15%. You were shown to be mistaken, they do not limit the amount of LFBT to 15%. The national lunch program limits the amount of LFBT to 15% in the product they buy because of nutritional concerns. Your claim has nothing to do with nutritional concerns, it has to do with taste. It's obvious this does not support your claim. Your whole premise is wrong, as I said there is no "problem" with the adddition of LFBT to ground beef. It's seen going on for years without issue until some British clown poured a bunch of Ajax on some meat and made the erroneous and misleading equation. Unfortunately that wasn't based in science but science fiction. What I find most disturbing about this SG is you're being mislead by a cook. You're supposedto be skeptical and looking to science. If you don't understand the science as I've explained it you should at least be looking to other scientists. But even when the scientists fromt the USDA get back to you directly you still continue to deny the obvious. Don't you find that a little bit strange?

31st May 2012, 11:18 PM	#993
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	Still a bunch of rationalizations. You did not answer the simple question: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?
	__________________ (*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.)

31st May 2012, 11:50 PM	#994
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Still a bunch of rationalizations. You did not answer the simple question: If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%? No. By this point you're just lying when you ask "rhetorically" If it doesn't change the burger... As has been explained numerous times, using countless examples and analogies, it does "change the burger". It does so you can stop saying otherwise. It doesn't "change the burger" as you put it outside of how changes to any other component ie. trim, would change it. (because most of us know burger changes every time you make it) Very simple put, adding 30% LFBT is the same as adding 10% fat and 30% low quality trim. If there was such thing as low quality trim. Unfortunately, low quality trim isn't economically feasible and gets made into dog food. But if some "magic" process made that trim feasible, well then it would be the exact same thing. At least according to the USDA. Can you possibly begin to think of a way to recover than trim? Hmmm? I'm almost 100% certain I've explained this to such an extent that even children or the mentally challenged could understand it without issue.

1st June 2012, 12:08 AM	#995
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,505	Still unable to answer? Of course you are. Because you are trying to defend a disproved position. If it doesn't change the burger, why is it a problem to add more than 15%?
	__________________ (*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.)