Pink Slime

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

And I'd be willing to bet that even the best steak would be indistinguishable from 'pink slime,' if it were chopped to a super fine, pate-type consistency.

It would be different if the protein content were analyzed. I'll post it again since it seems to keep being ignored:

Quote:

Characterization of LFTB showed that, while it is high in total protein, the LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins than muscle meat.

Tendons are connective tissue, for example.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I can guess, I was asking if anyone could suggest something more than a guess. I've already asked about the gristle content and haven't found any satisfactory answers one way or the other. If it were just gristle content that would not explain why hamburger texture changed so drastically a decade or so ago.

Well, I asked someone who works in that field. Her answer, if you care to accept it, was surprisingly simple:

'Oh, the grinders are different nowadays; different methods for higher throughput, as demand has risen. The grinding now is more of a shmushing which makes the fattier parts more stringy. The changed structure makes for the beef being cooked faster, but the fat not as much.You would need a leaner meat to achieve the same 'mouth experience' now.
You can check it by using different meatgrinders you can buy in any of the better foodstores'.

Maybe I should have said 'my educated guess'...

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It would be different if the protein content were analyzed. I'll post it again since it seems to keep being ignored:Tendons are connective tissue, for example.

More as in 'a little more' or 'substantially more' or 'frickin heck, we can't call this meat any more'?

I can imagine that any process that tries to get as much as possible will also draw in the fringe tissue (otherwise there would still be waste). But your imagination is as good as mine, I guess.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...th-pink-slime/

Fox News, but still. Seems a shame that this passes for journalism these days.

I hope it hasn't killed BPI.

The hypocrisy of that article is beyond words.

But I digress:

Quote:

“And the American Meat Institute insists pink slime is not an additive, so no label is necessary.”
Most of the ABC stories didn’t mention the company’s argument. You know, the basics of journalism, like the fact that the product is actually meat, not some foreign substance.

Notice all the references to "meat" which is not the case. There is more collagen than muscle in lean beef trimmings compared to other hamburger content. The label, "beef", is effectively being heard as "meat". That is the intention of the label and lobbying Congress for the ability to cover up the fact there is more beef product than meat in the mixture.

Beef Products, Inc., wants the public to hear, "meat" when they say "beef".

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

More as in 'a little more' or 'substantially more' or 'frickin heck, we can't call this meat any more'?

I can imagine that any process that tries to get as much as possible will also draw in the fringe tissue (otherwise there would still be waste). But your imagination is as good as mine, I guess.

See table 2: There's ~28% collagen in the total protein compared to ~6% in beef chuck. In addition ~78% of the protein is insoluble in the stuff compared to 31% in beef chuck.

I'd say that was more than a trifle.

This is one product that usually goes into hotdogs. I don't know the exact numbers for the "lean beef trimmings" that go into hamburger but they start with similar cuts of the cattle for both products.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The hypocrisy of that article is beyond words.

But I digress: Notice all the references to "meat" which is not the case. There is more collagen than muscle in lean beef trimmings compared to other hamburger content. The label, "beef", is effectively being heard as "meat". That is the intention of the label and lobbying Congress for the ability to cover up the fact there is more beef product than meat in the mixture.

Beef Products, Inc., wants the public to hear, "meat" when they say "beef".

If the public cared, the tomatoes would not taste as crappy as they do nowadays... and I include the organically grown but naturally refined varieties.

If you want to be angry at someone for food becoming tasteless heaps of cells, be angry at the public who demand that 'more for less' is a right...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

If the public cared, the tomatoes would not taste as crappy as they do nowadays... and I include the organically grown but naturally refined varieties.

If you want to be angry at someone for food becoming tasteless heaps of cells, be angry at the public who demand that 'more for less' is a right...

Non sequitur^WP

[realpaladin]

That PDF you linked to strengthens my argument: Consumers want characteristc X (being more tender in low fat) but without the extra effort, therefore they buy the value added products...


My personal recommendation: Get a nice old manual meatgrinder, buy a good chunk of meat and grind it yourself.

I promise that it will be the best burger you ever had.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Non sequitur^WP

To you it is, but for some other posts it is a spot on reply :-)

[LTC8K6]

I grew up on the meat extenders that they used to sell. I believe it was soy based stuff that you added to ground beef to "stretch" it if you were poor. So I'm quite used to my ground beef being full of other stuff.

[esquel]

If you object to pink slime in your ground beef, investigate your sources, grind your own, go vegan, whatever floats your boat. I don't care one way or the other.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

To you it is, but for some other posts it is a spot on reply :-)

Let me spell that out for you, your red herring does not follow my post you quoted.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

That PDF you linked to strengthens my argument: Consumers want characteristc X (being more tender in low fat) but without the extra effort, therefore they buy the value added products.......

In the case of this food additive, it is not consumer driven. It is profit driven. If it were consumer driven then the resulting hamburger would be marketed as 'better', 'smoother', or some other terminology. This burger filler is profit driven so it is disguised as "lean beef trimmings" to sound more attractive than honest labeling would sound.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Let me spell that out for you, your red herring does not follow my post you quoted.

I think it rather responded quite nicely to '...wants the public to hear...' where my fish mouthed '...the public wants them to say...'

And where do get the idea that 'profit driven' excludes 'consumer driven'?

Since consumers demand 'more for less' and producers want 'more for less', it seems they feed quite happily of each other.

I am not saying it is the consumers, I am trying to say that it is the interaction between all parties concerned.

If consumers (the number of which, against resources, grows extremely fast) want the same or more for a constant or lower price and producers want to keep the same or higher profit margin, something's got to give.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

I think it rather responded quite nicely to '...wants the public to hear...' where my fish mouthed '...the public wants them to say...'

Originally Posted by realpaladin

And where do get the idea that 'profit driven' excludes 'consumer driven'?

Where did I say that? It doesn't change the fact this product is not something the consumers wanted. You can tell that by the outrage when it became more commonly known.

Originally Posted by realpaladin

Since consumers demand 'more for less' and producers want 'more for less', it seems they feed quite happily of each other.

I am not saying it is the consumers, I am trying to say that it is the interaction between all parties concerned.

If consumers (the number of which, against resources, grows extremely fast) want the same or more for a constant or lower price and producers want to keep the same or higher profit margin, something's got to give.

This is just rationalizing your non sequitur.

This product was developed to increase the return per cow. Period, end of initiating cause for the product.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by MG1962

My only beef (get it beef ha ha ha) is the economics of the situation. I am paying for X amount of ground up beef, but in fact only getting Y amount with the balance being made up of filler.

And the fact the filler is not described or apparently admitted too on the labeling - (I will check this claim on my next shopping trip) is very troubling. Having said all that I can see circumstances where I would purchase the product (knowingly) and use it as intended. A cheap way to fill peoples bellies when the budget is a bit tight

If the filler is safe, I have no problem with it -- as long as it is on the label.

When I buy ground beef, I expect it to be just that.

It's an issue of truth in advertising, not one of safety. And yes, "pink slime" is clearly a rhetorical device being used to poison the well against what is otherwise a perfectly reasonable thing.


It's like that BHT thing with milk a few years ago. On the one hand you might like to know it -- so it should be fine for milk producers to voluntarily put it (or lack of it) on their labels. On the other hand, saying, "BHT-free!" suggests there is something wrong with it, which is also untruthful.

[Draca]

Hotdogs are made with stuff like LFTB. We all know what to expect and few would make hotdogs a regular part of their diet. It is an occasional low quality and low nutrition food. That is not the same expectation when people buy ground beef. Ground beef is considered a part of a healthy nutritious meal that is used often. This is something used as a staple and a regular part of daily meals.

Take this typical weekday meal of Spaghetti and meat balls/sauce I might make.

Organic tomato sauce, whole grain spaghetti, fresh basil, garlic, onion, a little red wine. Side salad with vinaigrette. Beef. Trying to make a nutritious meal there is a choice of 85,90,95% fat content ground beef. I have paid that extra money repeatedly for the more expensive leaner MEAT.

It turns out that unless I bought organic, which I sometimes have, that leaner product instead of having a higher meat to fat ration probably was made leaner by adding LFTB. Instead of getting more fat, the product had more tendon, cartilage and salvage meat. I may have gotten a leaner protein beef product but it would not have been more nutritious. And I paid more for it!

This is completely unethical. There was nothing on the label to say I was eating cartilage and scraps, no mention of ammonia. USDA/BPI says there is nothing to add to the label because it is BEEF. They repeat it over and over. It's beef, beef, beef. Is that really what anyone thinks they are buying? Beef to me means MEAT, the muscle tissue. What else from cattle is considered beef? Tripe, Cartilage, guts, tails, eyeballs? All of that might be edible but it is not what I was buying. I was buying beef meaning ground muscle meat. I paid extra money for leaner ground meat.

I was swindled and betrayed. All USDA approved (with connections to big AG business). I was not informed or given the choice to make the right decision for my health.

LFTB may have it's place, just as hotdogs do, but it should not be passed off as ground meat. It should be labeled. I'm angry that when I made purchases trying to make a healthy meal, the USDA approved this filler to be mixed in with what I was buying. This is a real problem in transparency and respect. All about the cash this decision. Disgust, in the product, government, back room deals, and commercial agriculture.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So if it isn't this additive, then what is it that changed burger texture for about the last decade give or take a few years?

I've not noticed the change that you have described. Maybe it's a local thing?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I ask those defending this unlabeled practice a question, if there is no difference in this burger additive besides the process, shouldn't pure additive look and taste the same as hamburger without the additive? Why not sell burger made from 100% lean beef trimmings?

I'm not sure why you're complaining about the economic issue. It's cheaper to produce a hamburger patty with filling, which basically means you can economically make more patties from a single cow. As any vegan will tell you, meat production is incredibly wasteful in terms of carbon and land consumption. Any method of stretching the existing meat production to feed more people has to be a good thing in my book.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I've not noticed the change that you have described. Maybe it's a local thing?

Agricultural practices and restaurant supply chain management is constantly changing, so the concept of burgers having a different texture than they did 20 years ago doesn't strike me as odd. Whether that might be due to pink slime lean finely textured beef The Goop In Question or not, there's really no way to know.

I suppose, now that grocery stores and restaurants are pulling TGIQ out of their ground beef products, SG could tell us if burgers are returning to their "regular" texture. However, that way lies the path of Confirmation Bias.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Agricultural practices and restaurant supply chain management is constantly changing, so the concept of burgers having a different texture than they did 20 years ago doesn't strike me as odd. Whether that might be due to pink slime lean finely textured beef The Goop In Question or not, there's really no way to know.

I suppose, now that grocery stores and restaurants are pulling TGIQ out of their ground beef products, SG could tell us if burgers are returning to their "regular" texture. However, that way lies the path of Confirmation Bias.

I particularly hate a particular burger texture. It's bothered me for years. I've thrown burger away because I hate that texture. And you are trying to tell me it's confirmation bias?

It is not.

It's one thing when people think they prefer Pepsi over Coke and then can't tell the difference in a blinded taste test. That isn't what is going on here. I hate the texture and I love hamburger. I found some that doesn't have it and a lot that does. It's not like I hate Safeway's burger and like QFC's. When I find that rubbery texture it grosses me out. It's not brand related.

I was sure there was something different about hamburger but those butchers kept denying it.

I will be ecstatic if I can buy burger again without worrying it is going to be the rubber stuff.

[Joey McGee]

This weekend I found out that lean finely textured beef goes really well with whine.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I'm not sure why you're complaining about the economic issue. It's cheaper to produce a hamburger patty with filling, which basically means you can economically make more patties from a single cow. As any vegan will tell you, meat production is incredibly wasteful in terms of carbon and land consumption. Any method of stretching the existing meat production to feed more people has to be a good thing in my book.

That wasn't my point. Re the economic issue, I was just replying to realpaladin's claim this was consumer driven. I have no issue per se with a profit driven decision.

But in this case the profit motive was accompanied by a misleading labeling calling something 'beef' because that means any part of the cow while knowing full well people would hear 'meat' and not connective tissue.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I've not noticed the change that you have described. Maybe it's a local thing?

You are the first person in this thread (I think) that also noticed the texture change in burger. I am very surprised more people haven't noticed the same thing. I can't tell you how striking the change has been to me.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You are the first person in this thread (I think) that also noticed the texture change in burger. I am very surprised more people haven't noticed the same thing. I can't tell you how striking the change has been to me.

You misread me. I said that I'd not noticed the change.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You are the first person in this thread (I think) that also noticed the texture change in burger. I am very surprised more people haven't noticed the same thing. I can't tell you how striking the change has been to me.

I think I mentioned texture back on the first page? But I get it only in the cheap factory made tubes of ground beef and the same brands's of pre-formed patties. 'Moran' is one. I knew it was from too much tendon/connective tissue, as confirmed by a post in the mean time. Many of my relatives don't have clue, and serve the bulk crud at BBQs. But then the worst of them eat very little beef, and put sauce on good steak when they do. Heathens, borderline vegatarians. I don't feed them, or eat at their houses any more. But I haven't had the same texture from locally ground meat.

Hey, just how much gunk do they put in to those plastic tubes anyhow? It must be a pretty high percentage to get that texture, like 40-50%, not just a token amount. And the other half is probably pretty poor quality too.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It doesn't change the fact this product is not something the consumers wanted. You can tell that by the outrage when it became more commonly known.

That is BS. Consumers want one thing and only get into an outrage when someone tells them where it comes from.

I have been taking people along on vacations to countries where the chicken (raised naturally) and pig (more freerange than any livestock most people on this forum ever ate) where slaughtered when there was a customer.

You should have heard the 'outrage' then! 'OMG I am never going to eat an animal again!'.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This product was developed to increase the return per cow. Period, end of initiating cause for the product.

That is what I said. Because of the consumer wanting 'more for less'.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I ask those defending this unlabeled practice a question, if there is no difference in this burger additive besides the process, shouldn't pure additive look and taste the same as hamburger without the additive? Why not sell burger made from 100% lean beef trimmings?

An interesting question. Of course, some burger has cereal filler, and a 100% cereal "burger" would taste nothing like burger. But at least it's listed on the package.

Presumably this allows burger to be cheaper without altering the taste too much. Fair enough, sell it, but tell people it's not standard hamburger.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Beerina

An interesting question. Of course, some burger has cereal filler, and a 100% cereal "burger" would taste nothing like burger. But at least it's listed on the package.

Presumably this allows burger to be cheaper without altering the taste too much. Fair enough, sell it, but tell people it's not standard hamburger.

I can live with that... but don't get your hopes up to high for the consumer...

A lot of vegetarians will happily eat winegums colored with Carmine... and carmine is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal
Both terms are clearly on the packaging...


So labelling is not the 'be all, end all' of the story.

The consumers themselves have to make an effort to get themselves educated... or do you think instead of 'Carmine' the label should say 'crushed parasitic insects blood'?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You misread me. I said that I'd not noticed the change.

Oh. That is so weird. The change is so obvious. Those stores are national chains. You are in the US aren't you? I'm not sure how it could be regional but it's possible. Or do you only buy one brand of burger? Maybe the brand you buy doesn't have it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

That is BS. Consumers want one thing and only get into an outrage when someone tells them where it comes from.

I have been taking people along on vacations to countries where the chicken (raised naturally) and pig (more freerange than any livestock most people on this forum ever ate) where slaughtered when there was a customer.

You should have heard the 'outrage' then! 'OMG I am never going to eat an animal again!'.

So you double down on your non sequitur and add another one.

Let me help you out here. I don't care who is at fault, who benefits, who loses, or what tourists who see what they are eating while it still breathes think. I haven't said anything regarding this side track except to respond to your "consumers are all too blame" comments.

If you want to throw your opinion into the thread mix, that's fine. Next time don't quote me when you do. I don't care about this aspect of the issue.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I particularly hate a particular burger texture. It's bothered me for years. I've thrown burger away because I hate that texture. And you are trying to tell me it's confirmation bias?

No, I'm trying to tell you that there's no way for the rest of us to know whether your subjective opinion represents objective reality.

My subjective experience has been that burger texture varies widely depending on meat quality, where the beef was purchased, how it was stored and for how long, how it was prepared, etc. While it's not inconceivable to me that TGIQ has had an effect on burger texture, I'd like to see some evidence of that beyond your belief that it is so.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So you double down on your non sequitur and add another one.

Let me help you out here. I don't care who is at fault, who benefits, who loses, or what tourists who see what they are eating while it still breathes think. I haven't said anything regarding this side track except to respond to your "consumers are all too blame" comments.

If you want to throw your opinion into the thread mix, that's fine. Next time don't quote me when you do. I don't care about this aspect of the issue.

Just quoting for the fun of it.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Draca

I may have gotten a leaner protein beef product but it would not have been more nutritious. And I paid more for it!

This is completely unethical. There was nothing on the label to say I was eating cartilage and scraps, no mention of ammonia. USDA/BPI says there is nothing to add to the label because it is BEEF. They repeat it over and over. It's beef, beef, beef. Is that really what anyone thinks they are buying? Beef to me means MEAT, the muscle tissue. What else from cattle is considered beef? Tripe, Cartilage, guts, tails, eyeballs?

Poop! What about poop? It's got e.coli in it! "Evil Gubmit allows poop in ground beef!" It's 94% lean beef, 6% pure evil!

Quote:

I paid extra money

Where is the evidence of that?

Quote:

I was swindled and betrayed.

[Joey McGee]

Slacktivists, chemophobes and neo-luddites are celebrating across the globe today.

'Pink slime' maker suspends some plant operations

Quote:

The company that makes "pink slime" suspended operations Monday at three of four plants where the beef ingredient is made, saying officials would work to address recent public concern about the product.

If they could only get people to read Nancy Donley's letter...

Quote:

"We feel like when people can start to understand the truth and reality then our business will come back," Letch said. "It's 100 percent beef."

I'm gonna go request some pink slime containing foods and complain when they don't have any
As evidenced by previous posts, BPI is a good company

Quote:

About 200 employees at each of the three plants will get full salary and benefits for 60 days during the suspension, Letch said.

They are hoping they can hire them all back, nothing would make the slacktivists sadder!

Oh yeah and New York Daily News ran the picture that is not pink slimeground beef. Nice

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Cleon

No, I'm trying to tell you that there's no way for the rest of us to know whether your subjective opinion represents objective reality.

That is a different argument from claiming I can't make a valid assessment for myself because I can't rule out confirmation bias. Yes, in this case, I can.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Oh. That is so weird. The change is so obvious. Those stores are national chains. You are in the US aren't you? I'm not sure how it could be regional but it's possible. Or do you only buy one brand of burger? Maybe the brand you buy doesn't have it.

No, I'm not in the US. But economics is economics in most developed countries - if there's a trend towards rubberisation of burgers over there, it's pretty likely that there's a similar trend here. After all, we do tend to get most of your castoffs under the Free Trade Agreement (also known as the "bend over drop trou and repeat after me: help yourself agreement").

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This might explain what I've been trying to figure out for years now. The hamburger I consume some years back started tasting awful, mostly because of the texture that seemed 'grisley' to me. It got to the point that the only hamburger I found not to have that texture which I found distasteful was the organic stuff at Whole Foods. It costs as much as a good steak from Safeway. Whole Foods grinds their own burger at the store.

It will be interesting to see if indeed this is why hamburger texture has become an issue for me.

You might find this article interesting, the author did a taste test.

'Pink slime' in burgers? A taste test.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/La...s-A-taste-test

Quote:

I'd managed to identify two packages of 85 percent lean ground beef, one with pink slime and one without. Time to taste.

By label alone, it was clear we were talking different beef demographics. The pink slime-free product bragged that it was minimally processed and that the cows had been raised without antibiotics, growth hormones or animal byproducts in their food.

Outwardly, they seemed the same: They smelled the same, and they looked basically the same, though the pink slime sample was slightly lighter in color. Until you touched them. The all-natural sample was slightly fattier to touch. That seemed odd, since both products should have the same fat content.

For the taste test, I kept it simple and pure. I formed a half-pound (quarter-kilogram) of each ground beef into a thick burger patty, adding nothing to the meat. And though I prefer my burgers on the grill, I decided to fry these in a skillet because it's easier to control the cooking, ensuring both would be cooked to the same degree and under the same conditions.

I added nothing to the pan. Meat this fatty generally bleeds out a robust amount of grease, so I wasn't concerned with sticking. That was my second surprise. The pink slime patty released very little fat during cooking. The other patty gave off two or three times as much.

About 5 minutes per side, and I declared them medium-rare. After giving them a few minutes to rest, I seasoned them lightly with salt and pepper, then cut in.

First, the unadulterated burger. The aroma was luscious. The meat was juicy, tender and nicely seared. Where I'd cut, juices slowly dribbled out onto the plate, collecting in a pool. The taste was savory and meaty, with big beefy flavor. The chew had just the right texture, substantial but giving. Basically, everything you would want in a burger.

The pink slime burger also was perfectly seared and drew me in with an equally alluring aroma. But no juices collected on the plate. Or dribbled out. Or were apparent in the meat in really any way. The taste was — OK. I took another taste of the first burger, then back to the pink slime burger.

It was not bad. But nor was it good. It was flat. I added more salt. No. It was simply one-dimensional.

And then there was the texture. Unpleasantly chewy bits of what I can only describe as gristle, though they were not visible, seemed to stud the meat of the pink slime burger. The result was a mealy chew that, while not overtly unpleasant, didn't leave me wanting another bite.

[arthwollipot]

An unblinded, non-scientific, anecdotal test.

[Finn McR]

Originally Posted by Mick Houlahan

This outrage is silly - what did people THINK went into their meat? Upton Sinclair made it pretty clear, and there's no reason to think the meat industry's changed much since "The Jungle." What happened here was that people saw that photo of mechanically separated turkey or chicken parts (that's the stuff that looks like pink toothpaste,) and started screaming about what's in their beef. Or, more precisely, what's in their KIDS' beef, because nothing starts a panic better than a perceived threat to people's precious darlings. That dingbat "chef" Jamie Oliver also helped by creating a huge strawman argument on his cooking show - complete with a locked kitchen cabinet containing a bottle of liquid ammonia among other household poisons, which he poured straight into a container of beef trimmings in a misleading demonstration of how beef is treated at the plant. This was after he made an aside - "this is what I IMAGINE HAPPENING." All this was done with a group of kids in attendance, naturally, to improve the theater.

If you don't think that Jamie Oliver is a chef, you have no credibility at all. He is. It is essentially indisputable

In addition, your reference to, "his cooking show," indicates that you have no idea how many television shows he has contributed to. Presumably you refer to one done about school food in the USA, and, frankly, a for-camera demo of a bottle of aqueous ammonia is probably less upsetting to the public than referring to treating meat with ammonium hydroxide gas as the producers of "lean fine textured beef" own up to.

Look, eat all the chemically treated, scrap, mechanically separated cow meat you want. It does not bother me, as I don't eat that crap. No "ground beef" from the store, no fast-food burgers, no "chicken tenders" on the chicken side of the issue... If you want ground beef from the supermarket try this: grab a pack of actual beef, take it to the butcher counter, and ask them to grind it for you (or better yet grind it yourself). If they won't, don't buy it.

If you make food yourself from vegetables, grains (and processed grains), and actual cuts of meat you will be way ahead of the curve.