Pink Slime

[Finn McR]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

An unblinded, non-scientific, anecdotal test.

Agree. The known good stuff tastes good, the know bad stuff tastes bad. This is an example of why journalism majors should take science classes before reporting on science matters.

[Joey McGee]

I'm reminded of the Penn and Teller organics episode. They presented people at a market with two half bananas. One organic, one "conventional" Of course the organic got rave reviews and the NWO-supported banana was met with disdain.

Then the truth was revealed, it was the same banana cut in half.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

BEHOLD! And laugh your ass off

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Draca

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

Aha! At least someone has noticed besides me!

Thanks for the link.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

An unblinded, non-scientific, anecdotal test.

Yeah, except why would he mention texture differed and not just taste?

Quote:

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.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm just happy I can now find hamburger that tastes normal again now that I know what to look for.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Finn McR

Agree. The known good stuff tastes good, the know bad stuff tastes bad. This is an example of why journalism majors should take science classes before reporting on science matters.

Again, why does he mention texture?

I get it that Pepsi, Coke and New Coke taste the same and I get it that the placebo pain pill has some effects.

But you guys are dismissing the rubbery hamburger thing and it is unmistakeable! It's not something I made up.

Remember, I didn't know a thing about pink slime until now. I've asked grocery butcher after butcher, what is different about this stuff? I've taken it back and thrown it out. I quit buying burger anywhere but Whole Foods organic burger.

How did I know? How was my observation not blinded?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I'm reminded of the Penn and Teller organics episode. They presented people at a market with two half bananas. One organic, one "conventional" Of course the organic got rave reviews and the NWO-supported banana was met with disdain.

Then the truth was revealed, it was the same banana cut in half.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

BEHOLD! And laugh your ass off

I like the organic bananas better than non-organic but I chalked it up to Dole vs Chiquita brands. I buy both brands depending on what is available.

[Joey McGee]

Quote:

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.

I'll join in the meaningless anecdote conversation and add that I've had similar experiences with different qualities of ground beef myself. But I live in Canada where pink slime doesn't exist. FWIW, which is pretty much nothing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I'll join in the meaningless anecdote conversation and add that I've had similar experiences with different qualities of ground beef myself. But I live in Canada where pink slime doesn't exist. FWIW, which is pretty much nothing.

Are you sure this additive doesn't have a Canadian version?

While a Google search finds a denial it is in Canadian burger it is not clear if it is in imported burger sold in Canada.

If I had any definitive links I'd cite them but nothing I found was definitive.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I like the organic bananas better than non-organic but I chalked it up to Dole vs Chiquita brands. I buy both brands depending on what is available.

Ya there's just so many factors that go into the taste! With soil, other ecological factors, transport conditions, etc. I've seen blind taste tests where organic wins, and others where conventional wins, on a variety of products. At this point I'm skeptical that the "organic vs conventional" is ever the major factor in these studies that show a difference. We do need to nail down what any differences are in the name of having awesome tasting stuff though.

As wiki puts it "The weight of the available scientific evidence has not shown a significant difference between organic and more conventionally grown food in terms of safety, nutritional value, or taste." But that just means we need to look elsewhere to figure out how to make our foods taste as awesome as possible.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Are you sure this additive doesn't have a Canadian version?

While a Google search finds a denial it is in Canadian burger it is not clear if it is in imported burger sold in Canada.

If I had any definitive links I'd cite them but nothing I found was definitive.

‘Pink slime’ stops at the 49th parallel

Quote:

“Ammonia is not permitted in Canada to be used in ground beef or meats during their production,” the agency said in a statement.

The reason is apparently that no one has asked to use it. “Health Canada requires that all food additives undergo a pre-market safety evaluation,” the agency said. “Ammonium hydroxide added to meat … would be regulated in Canada as a food additive. Therefore, Health Canada would need to receive a submission requesting a specific use of ammonium hydroxide in meat products before the substance could be considered for approval.”

Health Canada also says that any imported meat must adhere to Canadian rules and standards, meaning LFTB cannot be brought into the country.

So it’s not a matter of LFTB being banned in Canada, it’s just never been on the list of approved additives for meat. And we do allow ammonium hydroxide in the processing of cocoa products and gelatin.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Again, why does he mention texture?

Because he was looking for differences. Of course he found them.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I get it that Pepsi, Coke and New Coke taste the same...

They don't. I've differentiated Pepsi and Coca-Cola in a blind taste test (we don't have New Coke here).

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

...and I get it that the placebo pain pill has some effects.

But you guys are dismissing the rubbery hamburger thing and it is unmistakeable! It's not something I made up.

Remember, I didn't know a thing about pink slime until now. I've asked grocery butcher after butcher, what is different about this stuff? I've taken it back and thrown it out. I quit buying burger anywhere but Whole Foods organic burger.

How did I know? How was my observation not blinded?

None of us can deny your observation. There is lots of really crappy ground beef on the market. I very much doubt that all crappy beef contains pink slime - after all, I've had some really awful gristly steaks too. But over the course of the thread it seems to me that you have looked for reasons to object to the stuff. I don't recall you mentioning rubbery hamburger at the beginning. Back at the top of the thread it was all about what went into it. Then you complained about lack of labelling. Now you're talking about texture and quality.

[OMGturt1es]

I can't believe how readily self-identified skeptics posted links to industry-funded information sources. Industry has a long, well documented history of attacking science in defense of its products. Its bias is legendary. If skeptics want to support science, scientific journals and textbooks should always be primary sources of information. Where these sources provide insufficient data, conclusions should provide insufficient certainty. Conclusions should be held in proportion to the weight of scientific evidence.

In the debate over potential nutritional differences, I can't believe that only one poster (Ginger) tried to provide scientific data. Sadly, the study to which she linked does not appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and the research was industry funded.

I think skeptics are often far too quick to rule out potential chronic exposure implications. For some reason, it seems we mistake concern over potential scientific unknowns with unsupported hype. I think this is a big mistake. Where scientific data are lacking-- and they usually are for chronic exposure-- we have little data from which to conclude.

Chronic exposure hazards are exceedingly difficult to gauge. Our ability to detect chronic exposure hazards has been woefully inept. Our conclusions generally grow only with body counts. Chronic hazards may present decades after exposure and may even require decades of exposure, which makes them very, very difficult to detect in any meaningful timescale-- by the time the science is in, it's too late.

Regarding ammonia, yes, I understand it's common knowledge that ammonia has been used in similar processes for a couple decades now, but so had countless other chemicals until evidence slowly accumulated to implicate real chronic hazard. Yes, I understand it's common knowledge that ammonia is produced by the human body, but so is stomach acid, which, if chronically in the esophagus due to acid reflux, increases esophageal cancer hazards. I understand common knowledge. We all do. The problem with common knowledge is that it's all too common. When we rely on common knowledge, everyone has an equally unqualified opinion bolstered by biased worldview. The more I learn about science, the more complex I understand the world to be, and the less useful I find common knowledge.

I don't have an opinion on whether ammonia-treatment poses chronic hazards. And neither should other posters here, unless they are epidemologists who have studied ammonia-treatment or are actually familiar with relevant non-industry-funded scientific research published in reputable journals. The only opinion I can muster is that most posters here seem perfectly fine with accepting some uncertainty in exchange for economic efficiency. And I guess that's fine. I don't care. I rarely eat beef.

[Halfcentaur]

I am very picky about ground beef texture. Much of it is hard for me to believe that people happily eat it. Walmart for instance has their ground beef in long strings which do not break apart when ground easily, you have to actually grind it again and again to get rid of the stringy texture, well, actually I never managed to get rid of it.

As I said on the first page, I am happy to learn the only place I bought ground beef does not use pink slime and never has used it. But I think I am just lucky, and I would be willing to accept that there is ground beef in America with pink slime I would probably find palatable.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

I can't believe how readily self-identified skeptics posted links to industry-funded information sources.

Actually a wide variety of links pointing to a wide variety of experts shows that there is essentially a consensus position that the product is safe and qualifies as beef. Obviously with some exceptions. Is the expert I referenced that made the comment about vinaigrettes a paid industry stooge too? Sure there are a few experts in the news that disagree about whether to call it beef or the ethics of labeling, but AFAIK none claim it's poison. To claim that only the industry's side has been presented here is quite far from the truth.

I did point to their blog and their letter in the WSJ, giving them a chance to defend themselves. Their evidence and reason isn't disqualified because of their vested interest, that's not being skeptical.

Quote:

In the debate over potential nutritional differences, I can't believe that only one poster (Ginger) tried to provide scientific data. Sadly, the study to which she linked does not appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and the research was industry funded.

You have missed this then, the source being usda.gov eta: I screwed up, there are two references on that pic, one is industry the other is usda. I'm dyslexic or something, I've typed in "pink smile" too many times to google recently (the first result is nsfw lol)

Quote:

I think skeptics are often far too quick to rule out potential chronic exposure implications. For some reason, it seems we mistake concern over potential scientific unknowns with unsupported hype. I think this is a big mistake. Where scientific data are lacking-- and they usually are for chronic exposure-- we have little data from which to conclude.

I don't think we ruled it out in this thread, I think we pointed out there is no evidence of it and reason to believe there won't be. I'm not saying that research should stop, I'm saying that the job-killing chemophobia is offensive and insane.

Quote:

The only opinion I can muster is that most posters here seem perfectly fine with accepting some uncertainty in exchange for economic efficiency.

I'm not a hundred percent sure that there isn't a black widow spider inside this banana I'm about to eat either. Life's a little short for that level of concern.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Because he was looking for differences. Of course he found them.

They don't. I've differentiated Pepsi and Coca-Cola in a blind taste test (we don't have New Coke here).

None of us can deny your observation. There is lots of really crappy ground beef on the market. I very much doubt that all crappy beef contains pink slime - after all, I've had some really awful gristly steaks too. But over the course of the thread it seems to me that you have looked for reasons to object to the stuff. I don't recall you mentioning rubbery hamburger at the beginning. Back at the top of the thread it was all about what went into it. Then you complained about lack of labelling. Now you're talking about texture and quality.

My first post:

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.

QFC meat department claimed they also ground their own hamburger but it turns out the Kroger brand contained the 'product'. They are now reporting they will quit using it.

I was talking to the Whole Foods butcher about this just a couple days ago. I asked him if it was possible there was some new way the meat was taken off the bone or some other processing thing that would account for the grisley texture of all the commercial hamburger. The butcher didn't know of anything.

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

I misspelled gristle as grisle and corrected my posts mid thread.

As for your dismissals, you admit you don't live in the US. It would appear the additive is not used in Canada. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss my complaint. The texture is so unmistakably different ...well it is not mistakable.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

I can't believe how readily self-identified skeptics posted links to industry-funded information sources. Industry has a long, well documented history of attacking science in defense of its products. Its bias is legendary. If skeptics want to support science, scientific journals and textbooks should always be primary sources of information. Where these sources provide insufficient data, conclusions should provide insufficient certainty. Conclusions should be held in proportion to the weight of scientific evidence.

I too am surprised by this and by how often skeptics cite studies when it is exposed that industry funding backs the scientific conclusions which also go against the majority of scientists' conclusions.

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

In the debate over potential nutritional differences, I can't believe that only one poster (Ginger) tried to provide scientific data. Sadly, the study to which she linked does not appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and the research was industry funded.

Because it was pro-industry and inadvertently supported an essentially anti-industry conclusion I suggested that lent it some cred.

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

Chronic exposure hazards are exceedingly difficult to gauge. ...

Regarding ammonia, yes, I understand it's common knowledge that ammonia has been used in similar processes for a couple decades now, but so had countless other chemicals until evidence slowly accumulated to implicate real chronic hazard. Yes, I understand it's common knowledge that ammonia is produced by the human body, but so is stomach acid, which, if chronically in the esophagus due to acid reflux, increases esophageal cancer hazards. I understand common knowledge. We all do. The problem with common knowledge is that it's all too common. When we rely on common knowledge, everyone has an equally unqualified opinion bolstered by biased worldview. The more I learn about science, the more complex I understand the world to be, and the less useful I find common knowledge.

I don't have an opinion on whether ammonia-treatment poses chronic hazards. And neither should other posters here, unless they are epidemologists who have studied ammonia-treatment or are actually familiar with relevant non-industry-funded scientific research published in reputable journals. The only opinion I can muster is that most posters here seem perfectly fine with accepting some uncertainty in exchange for economic efficiency. And I guess that's fine. I don't care. I rarely eat beef.

Ammonia is a byproduct of metabolism and your body processes lots of it in every tissue every single day. It's only when a person has liver failure that toxic levels of ammonia build up in the tissues harming a person.

Amino Acid Transamination/Deamination Contributes to the TCA Cycle

Quote:

The second kind of reaction, deamination, removes the amino group of the amino acid in the form of ammonia. In the liver, the oxidative deamination of glutamate results in α-keto-glutarate (a TCA cycle intermediate) and ammonia, which is converted into urea and excreted. Deamination reactions in other organs form ammonia that is generally incorporated into glutamate to generate glutamine, which is the main transporter of amino groups in blood.

[Joey McGee]

Responsible journalists doing their job today in droves

http://bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/hea...SjM/story.html

Quote:

Many people may be breathing a giant sigh of relief after hearing that Beef Products Inc., the manufacturer of “pink slime” used in some ground beef products, has decided to drastically cut back on its production due to falling sales.

While no doubt, the beef product -- which is made from discarded fat and connective tissue trimmings -- is cheap to produce and makes those burgers less costly, there’s no evidence it makes beef less safe, or even less nutritious.

Like I said, the only thing making anyone sick over this product is the amount of crazy people fighting it.

[Joey McGee]

reposted from the jamie oliver forum...

Quote:

texasbluedarter: Thank you Jamie. Your crusade against pink slime has shut down an industry that has been in business since 1981 here in the Texas Panhandle. This has cost some 200+ people their jobs. I want to thank you for this special effort to put people out of work. BTW, the FDA had approved this "pink slime", as you called it, for use for years. The OFFICIAL name for the beef product is "lean finely textured beef". This a beef product that has been deemed safe for human consumption. I hope you choke on your "victory". Do you want to pay these workers their lost wages and support for their familes? I doubt it. you can't muster enough money to pay them since you severely damaged a company and their employees. You can guess where I am from by my screen name. This is BEEF country and you and your crusade has caued immeasurably damage. Again, a great big Texas THANK YOU.

/thread

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I too am surprised by this and by how often skeptics cite studies when it is exposed that industry funding backs the scientific conclusions which also go against the majority of scientists' conclusions.

That is true for this situation? Where is the evidence that the majority of scientists think that this product is unsafe or not nutritious?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Actually a wide variety of links pointing to a wide variety of experts shows that there is essentially a consensus position that the product is safe and qualifies as beef.

Safe, yes I agree. Qualifies as 'beef'? Only IF you define 'beef' as any part of cattle, or if you use the USDA definition which was changed by lobby driven legislation when this product was introduced so that the product could be included in the definition of consumable part of the 'beef'. The chemical analysis shows it contains more connective tissue such as tendons than typical hamburger does.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Obviously with some exceptions. Is the expert I referenced that made the comment about vinaigrettes a paid industry stooge too? Sure there are a few experts in the news that disagree about whether to call it beef or the ethics of labeling, but AFAIK none claim it's poison. To claim that only the industry's side has been presented here is quite far from the truth.

Who was that, I'll check.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I did point to their blog and their letter in the WSJ, giving them a chance to defend themselves. Their evidence and reason isn't disqualified because of their vested interest, that's not being skeptical.

No, but conflicts of interest need to be disclosed in scientific research and the reader can then evaluate whether the conflict influenced the study or not.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You have missed this then, the source being usda.gov

That source is the company that makes the additive and the label includes nothing that actually discloses the stuff is nutritionally different from hamburger. THAT'S THE MISLEADING I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!

The company is hiding the fact the stuff has less available protein by what is not said in that label. The company is hiding the fact the stuff has more connective tissue than muscle fiber by lobbying Congress to change the definition the USDA had been using to now use a definition that includes this product without disclosing it differs from the rest of the burger.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

That is true for this situation? Where is the evidence that the majority of scientists think that this product is unsafe or not nutritious?

OMGTurt1es was talking about citing industry sources of information and I was speaking generally about the science of a number of products/issues where industry has paid for million dollar campaigns aimed specifically at discrediting valid science. The subjects range from the tobacco companies trying to discredit science supporting the dangers of smoking and later the dangers of second hand smoke. The oil companies have paid millions to discredit valid global climate change science. The Discovery Institute spends millions to discredit evolution theory science and promote the pseudoscience of intelligent design. There are others areas where industry markets a 'discredit valid science' message.

As far as this issue goes, I'm not claiming the stuff is unhealthy. And evidence has been presented in this thread that the USDA changed its definition of consumable beef to include this stuff without disclosing it wasn't the same as hamburger and the company that makes and distributes it has made an effort to hide the fact it was being used.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Responsible journalists doing their job today in droves

http://bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/hea...SjM/story.html


Like I said, the only thing making anyone sick over this product is the amount of crazy people fighting it.

I will buy more hamburger if it is removed and if it was the cause of the burger texture I don't like and it's looking more and more like it is.

I will bet you that company will take a brief hiatus until the news dies down then it will find some other use for "lean beef trimmings". They can put it in hotdogs or make some new deli meat with it. Or, look out Canada, perhaps they'll just find a foreign market for it. Mexico is a possibility. They aren't necessarily going out of business. If they would have disclosed the use of the product more widely before, perhaps they wouldn't look like they've been hiding something now.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Safe, yes I agree. Qualifies as 'beef'? Only IF you define 'beef' as any part of cattle, or if you use the USDA definition which was changed by lobby driven legislation when this product was introduced so that the product could be included in the definition of consumable part of the 'beef'. The chemical analysis shows it contains more connective tissue such as tendons than typical hamburger does.

It's muscle meat. There's nothing refuting that. Let's assume there is a slightly higher concentration of connective tissues. Does that mean there is none in normal ground beef? No!. "LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins than muscle meat." If there was NONE of that in there, why would they use that wording?

Study Shows 'Lean Finely Textured Beef' Improves Burger Quality ... THE HORROR

Quote:

No, but conflicts of interest need to be disclosed in scientific research and the reader can then evaluate whether the conflict influenced the study or not.

How? "Connected to corporations, must be evil?"

Quote:

That source is the company that makes the additive

You've got me there, there are two sources given on that gif and I thought the usda one was for both.

Quote:

and the label includes nothing that actually discloses the stuff is nutritionally different from hamburger. THAT'S THE MISLEADING I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!

No evidence it's not muscle meat or beef yet. No evidence it's nutritionally different. Other than not trusting their sources.

Quote:

The company is hiding the fact the stuff has less available protein by what is not said in that label. The company is hiding the fact the stuff has more connective tissue than muscle fiber by lobbying Congress to change the definition the USDA had been using to now use a definition that includes this product without disclosing it differs from the rest of the burger.

They aren't hiding anything, they could have been more upfront about, that's the only issue. It's muscle meat. End of story. Cheers

[Joey McGee]

Quote:

it wasn't the same as hamburger

It is the same stuff as hamburger. This is a new process that was developed relatively recently. I can understand the fact that there is no reason to alarm everyone when it's purely a technical and not reasonable change. The only thing BPI screwed up on is underestimating how irrational and crazy people get about their food processing. I'm sure other companies are going to be more pre-emptive about this from now on.

The people who have hollow lives and get a big kick out of "sticking it to the man" over past offenses of "the corporations" are literally the only people in the world benefiting from this.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

It's muscle meat. There's nothing refuting that. Let's assume there is a slightly higher concentration of connective tissues. Does that mean there is none in normal ground beef? NO. "LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins than muscle meat." If there was NONE of that in there, why would they use that wording?

...No evidence it's not muscle meat or beef yet.

The aren't hiding anything, they could have been more upfront about, that's the only issue. It's muscle meat. End of story. Cheers

I'm sorry, do you not know what myofibers are? That's muscle. If you then go to the body of the report you'll see the percentages are significant different between "lean beef trimmings" and "ground chuck".

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Study Shows 'Lean Finely Textured Beef' Improves Burger QualityTHE HORROR

From the news report:

Quote:

added at levels up to 20 percent in ground beef improved fresh color, reduced spoilage and increased tenderness....

...The study design included ground beef patties formulated in six replicated treatments. Patties were either 82 percent or 93 percent lean. A control group with no lean beef trim was compared to ground beef that contained 10 or 20 percent lean beef trim. The patties were frozen and then thawed and placed in a simulated retail display for five days before cooking.

Color and spoilage are not measures that matter to everyone. They do matter to industry because keeping something on the shelf longer is beneficial.

I don't usually eat burger that's been sitting around 5 days. I don't know if fresh or frozen and thawed matter that much because I don't know if the pre-packaged burger at the grocer has been frozen.

As for the "tenderness":

Quote:

"I also expected the LBT burgers to be tougher, but they were more tender," Apple said. Tenderness was rated by a measurement of the force required to cut a patty.

I don't know that force to cut something equals texture.

From what I see, the additive makes burger last longer on the shelf. That's nice. Label the burger as having the additive and I'll choose the non-rubbery stuff without it. People who don't notice the difference will eventually migrate back to the cheaper stuff. As it is now, I'm paying $9-10/pound for burger just to avoid the distasteful texture.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

How? "Connected to corporations, must be evil?"

Straw man. Any good scientist discloses conflicts of interest in a study write up.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You've got me there, there are two sources given on that gif and I thought the usda one was for both.

You ignored or missed the point. If you compare vitamins and total calories or even total protein, but you leave out the fact more tendons are ground up in the mix, the two labels are misleadingly implying the products are the same. They are not.


-

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

It is the same stuff as hamburger. This is a new process that was developed relatively recently. I can understand the fact that there is no reason to alarm everyone when it's purely a technical and not reasonable change. The only thing BPI screwed up on is underestimating how irrational and crazy people get about their food processing. I'm sure other companies are going to be more pre-emptive about this from now on.

The people who have hollow lives and get a big kick out of "sticking it to the man" over past offenses of "the corporations" are literally the only people in the world benefiting from this.

If it were the same as burger, why not sell it as burger? Why mix it at all?

[Joey McGee]

Quote:

An analysis conducted at Iowa State University (A.S. Leaflet R1361) found two-and-a-half times more insoluble protein (77% vs. 30%) relative to soluble proteins in ordinary ground chuck. Nutritionally, our gut bacteria digest much of what we cannot, but there’s a good bet that we can’t get as much value from insoluble proteins (collagen and elastin, found largely in tendons, ligaments, and cartilage) as from their soluble siblings (myosin and actin, usually associated with muscle tissues). While these proteins may be hard to digest, on the plus side, there’s less fat in LFTB (~5%) than standard ground chuck (15-20%).

So what on earth is the big deal? If you're making the argument that people should be made aware of all of this, I have never been against that. What I'm against is people thinking this is like including poop or eyeballs and that ammonia will kill your children. Or that this product is significantly less healthy than prime meat you ground up from a cow you killed with your bare hands 10 minutes ago. Or that "ground chuck" doesn't have any connective tissues in it at all. That's all wrong.

Pink Slime, Deconstructed

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If it were the same as burger, why not sell it as burger? Why mix it at all?

Actually I'd love to head over to BPI and get some pink slime and cook it in a pan and do some taste tests with it. It's because it's too different from what people are used to, it doesn't automatically mean that it's because it's not nutritious.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Responsible journalists doing their job today in droves

http://bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/hea...SjM/story.html


Like I said, the only thing making anyone sick over this product is the amount of crazy people fighting it.

Look, it's not all that complicated:

If they make meat out of what used to be for the garbage can or the dogs a decade ago ... fine.

But if they're doing it - tell the customers what's in the product and how it's produced. Then everybody is happy - and your heroes at the garbage-factory can make a fortune with their products, for sure!

[Joey McGee]

It's garbage. It's dog food. Blah blah blah

[Joey McGee]

Garbage means it has no use. Dog food means unfit for human consumption. Both are wrong. cya

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Actually I'd love to head over to BPI and get some pink slime and cook it in a pan and do some taste tests with it. It's because it's too different from what people are used to, it doesn't automatically mean that it's because it's not nutritious.

As I said in my PM: People keep conflating my position with everyone else's in the thread.

See my very first post on page one. I think it's about #27 give or take.

I have been bummed out for years that my beloved hamburger began tasting rubbery or gristly years ago. I hate it. It's a personal preference. I am not worried the burger is bad for me and I'm especially not concerned they use ammonia in the processing.

Ginger

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

So what on earth is the big deal? If you're making the argument that people should be made aware of all of this, I have never been against that. What I'm against is people thinking this is like including poop or eyeballs and that ammonia will kill your children. Or that this product is significantly less healthy than prime meat you ground up from a cow you killed with your bare hands 10 minutes ago. Or that "ground chuck" doesn't have any connective tissues in it at all. That's all wrong.

Pink Slime, Deconstructed

Not only does this say exactly what I posted earlier, they are citing the same source, the one OMGturt1es complained earlier wasn't a peer reviewed paper. Sometimes a scientific analysis is not testing an hypothesis. Everything reputably scientific is not necessarily peer review destined.

Taking regular hamburger everyone is used to and tossing in a 20% (maybe more?) mix of processed burger, tendons and cartilage, without labeling it is not what I consider truth in labeling. The USDA and the FDA are supposed to protect the consumer from misleading food labeling. That our legislators capitulated to the interests of monied lobbyists and allowed this product to enter the food chain unannounced is a concern to me. Just because something is safe doesn't mean people don't have a right to know.

Yes, you can make an argument that some consumer labeling caters to woo beliefs and can give something an unfair market disadvantage. In those special cases I agree certain labeling might do more harm than good. Since all agricultural products are essentially genetically modified, I don't agree with some arbitrary decision which products should have additional labels.

But in this case, the texture of the meat was most definitely affected and it pisses me off no one would tell me what the difference was when I inquired about the problem in the stores I was buying the burger in. I want a class action suit to pay me back for the dozens of pounds of burger I threw away () because this stuff wasn't labeled. I figure Safeway and QFC owe me about $50 each. They don't owe me because I had to pay more for burger without the stuff.

[shadron]

Originally Posted by OMGTurt1es

Industry has a long, well documented history of attacking science in defense of its products. Its bias is legendary. If skeptics want to support science, scientific journals and textbooks should always be primary sources of information. Where these sources provide insufficient data, conclusions should provide insufficient certainty. Conclusions should be held in proportion to the weight of scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Not only does this say exactly what I posted earlier, they are citing the same source, the one OMGturt1es complained earlier wasn't a peer reviewed paper. Sometimes a scientific analysis is not testing an hypothesis. Everything reputably scientific is not necessarily peer review destined.

Incidentally, what journal would you expect to find peer-reviewed papers on beef production economics and techniques in, which would not have that industrial taint of ammonia? I happen (long story) to get the Pet Food Industry, but AFAIK there aren't any peer-reviewed articles in it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by shadron

Incidentally, what journal would you expect to find peer-reviewed papers on beef production economics and techniques in, which would not have that industrial taint of ammonia? I happen (long story) to get the Pet Food Industry, but AFAIK there aren't any peer-reviewed articles in it.

You're asking the wrong person. I cited a technical analysis paper and someone else said it wasn't peer reviewed. I pointed out every technical paper is not an hypothesis research or review paper. Sometimes citations are just to a technical source.

However, there are food safety research journals:

The IAFP which as far as I can tell is not an industry front group publishes the Journal of Food Production.

Quote:

First published in 1937, the Journal of Food Protection® is a refereed monthly publication.

Each issue contains scientific research and authoritative review articles reporting on a variety of topics in food science pertaining to food safety and quality. The journal is internationally recognized as the leading publication in the field of food microbiology with a readership exceeding 11,000 scientists from 69 countries. The Journal of Food Protection® is indexed in Index Medicus, Current Contents, BIOSIS, PubMed, Medline, and many others.

The American Meat Science Association has a mix of industry and academic members on its board. They publish the journal: Meat Science which looks legitimate and not necessarily a front group publication. I'm not familiar with the organization or the journal though so I'm not endorsing it outright. I don't find a search of "lean beef trimmings" returns any hits in the journal itself but it does gets some results on the association website.

I have to go to work but maybe someone is interested in looking at these papers for things pertinent to the thread.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

As for your dismissals, you admit you don't live in the US. It would appear the additive is not used in Canada. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss my complaint. The texture is so unmistakably different ...well it is not mistakable.

I'm not from Canada either. And I did mention in my last post that "no-one can deny your observations". It's just that, like a UFO or Bigfoot sighting, your experience is personal, local and subjective, and may not generalise well to the rest of the world. I'm sorry that your hamburger tastes like crap.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I'm not from Canada either. And I did mention in my last post that "no-one can deny your observations". It's just that, like a UFO or Bigfoot sighting, your experience is personal, local and subjective, and may not generalise well to the rest of the world. I'm sorry that your hamburger tastes like crap.

I'm glad the only strange things found in your burgers are the BEETS found on top of them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I'm not from Canada either. And I did mention in my last post that "no-one can deny your observations". It's just that, like a UFO or Bigfoot sighting, your experience is personal, local and subjective, and may not generalise well to the rest of the world. I'm sorry that your hamburger tastes like crap.

I disagree with your analogy. It's akin to saying not a single observation is ever valid. Lots of observations are accepted as evidence in science. The people you are trying to compare me to didn't just make an observation, many of them drew an unsupportable conclusion about what they were observing. People make repeating observations in some areas, (ghosts, bigfoot, UFOs, homeopathy and so on) and with those specific observations we've looked and repeatedly failed to find supporting evidence. In addition a lot of evidence cannot be found where we should expect to find that evidence

There is a thing called lack of or the existence of corroborating evidence. There are trained observers and observations that are more reliable than others. There are observations which are less reliable such as an eyewitness to a crime committed by strangers. But if that same eyewitness sees their close friend commit a crime, that observation is more reliable.

You make a foolish mistake if you treat all observations equally.

[shadron]

Originally Posted by Draca

I'm glad the only strange things found in your burgers are the BEETS found on top of them.

A borscht belt joke? Guess again. Not NA, not asia. He lives in the land of the sledge hammer, and knows how to wield it.