Pink Slime

[Draca]

Originally Posted by shadron

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.

It was more literal. I don't know this sledge hammer clue. Now you have me thinking of Russia or Norway, which would make me way off base. I'll stick with beets on the burgers.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by shadron

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.

Originally Posted by Draca

It was more literal. I don't know this sledge hammer clue. Now you have me thinking of Russia or Norway, which would make me way off base. I'll stick with beets on the burgers.

We put beetroot, not beets, on our hamburgers. Beetroot is sliced, lightly pickled, and tinned, and delicious on a hamburger with lettuce, tomato, fried onion, cheese and bacon. No egg.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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.

Okay, forget the analogy. It was a bad one. I think you're overreacting to what I'm trying to say. I'm just saying that here in Australia, I haven't noticed any difference in hamburger meat over the past decade or so, and certainly not the rubberiness or gristliness you've described, and nor has anyone else I know. And I'd be very surprised if the meat we get wasn't padded out with mechanically separated trimmings or whatever they choose to call it. Stuff.

All I was saying was that your experience is local to your area. Your experience has caused you to dislike the Stuff even though there seems to me to be more evidence that the Stuff doesn't affect the taste or texture of the meat. Maybe your local providers use more Stuff than mine. I don't know. It may be something else that has caused the change in texture, and the Stuff is entirely innocent. I don't know. All I know is that I have no compelling reason to treat your anecdotal experience any more seriously than my own.

[OMGturt1es]

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.

As of the time of your post, here is a list of the links posted in this thread that you are suggesting demonstrate a consensus that the product is safe and "qualifies as beef":

1.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

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

This advertisement appeared in the WSJ yesterday. I think that what Nancy Donley has to say there is extremely important.

2.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

http://beefisbeef.com/2012/03/15/top...of-pink-slime/

3.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

re: ammonia, for perspective.

Quote:

Furthermore, small traces of either are not a health concern (indeed, in Europe some forms of liquorice have ammonium chloride added to give it a salty taste).
...
Also notice how dramatic he is in showing how “dangerous” the ammonia solution is. I wonder if he realizes that in a chemistry lab, his kitchen grade vinegar would be considered just as hazardous – I don’t see him calling for a ban on vinaigrettes.

source

lol

4.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Well, in this case

Quote:

When you compare the http://beefisbeef.com/2012/03/10/lean-beef-trimmings-have-similar-nutrition-to-90-lean-ground-beef/ of this lean beef with 90% lean/10% fat ground beef, they are virtually identical. That’s because boneless lean beef trim is beef – period.

5.

Originally Posted by RemieV

Apparently even the photo being circulated isn't true.

http://beefisbeef.com/2012/03/15/top...of-pink-slime/

6.

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

Quote:

To make the product, beef companies use beef trimmings, the small cuts of beef that remain when larger cuts are trimmed down. These trimmings are USDA inspected, wholesome cuts of beef that contain both fat and lean and are nearly impossible to separate using a knife.

http://beefmagazine.com/beef-quality...-lean-beef-fat

no connective tissue there

7.

Originally Posted by RemieV

Quote:

Advanced meat recovery (AMR) is a slaughterhouse process by which the last traces of usable meat are removed from bones and other carcass materials 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. Product produced by advanced meat recovery machinery can be labeled using terms associated with hand-deboned product (e.g., "beef trimmings" and "ground beef"). AMR meat typically is used as an ingredient in products requiring further processing, such as hot dogs.... USDA regulations for procurement of frozen fresh ground beef products, however, 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".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_meat_recovery

To be clear - the confusion arises from the fact that 'lean beef trimmings' is a term that can be applied to meat that is mechanically separated from the bone - unless that meat is ground beef, in which case it means something else.

8.

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.

And here is a list of links provided after your post:

9.

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.

10.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

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

11.

Originally Posted by 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

The potential issues with this product concern chronic exposure hazards and nutritional value. It seems to me pointless to argue that this product does or does not legally qualify as beef. The legal definition of beef is meaningless if the product increases exposure hazards and/or provides inferior nutrition. So let's please agree to discuss potential topics of consequence rather than semantics.

With these two general concerns in mind, let's run through the list of references provided in this thread.

1. This is an industry-funded advertisement. The advertisement argues that because food-borne illness can be fatal, it is best to tread cautiously by treating meat with ammonia. Now, you must agree that this is somewhat misleading. As I understand it, the concern isn't that food shouldn't be treated with ammonia when risks of food borne illness are elevated; the concern is that industry is choosing to use food that is inherently more prone to food borne illness risk. Regarding chronic exposure safety and nutritional quality, this industry-funded advertisement offers no evidence.

2. This is an industry-funded site. And now it appears that the blog is inaccessible. I briefly skimmed it last night, and I do not recall any scientific data.

3. This is a blog. The author claims that ammonia exposure is safe. The evidence? It's used in some European licorice. The author correctly explains why Jamie Oliver's explanation was incorrect, but that doesn't mean the author has demonstrated the safety of chronic exposure to levels of ammonia related to this product.

4. This is from the same industry-funded site that is not inaccessible.

5. This is from the same industry-funded site that is not inaccessible.

6. This is an article from an industry magazine. The author is the president of the American Meat Institute. The article claims the product is safe and nutritious, but no data are presented. The article refers readers to either http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/ (An obviously industry-funded site) or http://www.foodinsight.org (a not-so-obvious industry-funded site: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...mation_Council). The foodinsight article correctly indicates that when determined safe by the FDA in 1974, the FDA, "concludes that: There is no evidence in the available information on…. ammonium hydroxide….. that demonstrates, or suggests reasonable grounds to suspect, a hazard to the public when [it is] used at levels that are now current or that might reasonably be expected in the future.” But that's the problem. Chronic exposure data are scarce. For most potential hazards, they do not exist.

7. This is just a wiki article describing this product.

8. This is just mainstream media garbage.

9. This is just mainstream media garbage. The article lists various other foods that contain ammonia. I think this is meant to suggest that chronic ammonia exposure hazards must not exist, but just because the chemical is used in other products doesn't mean it is safe. Nor does it necessarily indicate that concentrations are the same. Nor does it indicate that it is digested the same.

10. This says nothing about chronic exposure or nutrition.

11. This is another blog. It seems to make the same argument regarding safety that we've seen already: Other foods contain ammonia, so it must be safe. Concerning nutrition, it cites the same data Skeptic Ginger already cited. These data certainly indicate the product is not as nutritious as ordinary ground beef.

So, where does this leave us?

First, at least so far as I can gather-- and I could be wrong, because I just don't have the time to really research this-- there's not really any empirical data concerning chronic exposure to foods treated with ammonia. We don't really have any reason to suspect that there's a hazard associated with chronic exposure, so it's not a priority to study. And that's fine and reasonable. But that doesn't mean we should thump on our chests and declare it safe-- at least not those of us posting in this thread thus far, because none of us have managed to find any empirical data concerning chronic exposure.

Second, of the sources we collectively cited in our attempt to find objective data regarding this product's safety and nutrition, roughly half are obviously industry funded. Three sources were articles from mainstream media that contain information that sounds awfully similar to that provided by industry-funded groups. Two sources were blogs. Only one source (the blog from Scientific American) provided actual scientific data.

So there you have it. That's how we decide what to believe. That's how we seek information to form opinions on subjects about which we know essentially nothing. And we feel good enough about it to suggest that the information we've gathered indicates a consensus.

Quote:

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.

Not my point at all. Systematically, I'm not sure why we (as in consumers) should chose risk when we (again, as in consumers) have little to gain. Sure, the risk may be small. But, systematically, the more often we wager, the sooner we'll lose.

[OMGturt1es]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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

I didn't mean to criticize you. I meant to point out just how pervasive industry-funded information really is.

Quote:

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

You're far more knowledgeable about human biology than I, so I'll defer to your conclusion that there is no theoretical reason to expect chronic ammonia exposure hazard. But I also understand that reality has fooled us many times before. At the end of the day, I'm not willing to thump my chest until both empirical data and theory allow me to do so.

That being said, I honestly don't have an opinion about potential chronic ammonia hazards. I have no reason to believe that chronic exposure to these levels is anything but safe. And I don't even really care. I almost never eat ground beef. But I do care that so many posters here quickly formed conclusions based on industry-funded information. And I do care that while so many folks here have developed strong opinions regarding the nutritional, biological, and epidemological aspects of this product, you seem to be the only one with the necessary background to draw any real conclusion.

[OMGturt1es]

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.

Great question, but I don't care about the economics. I do care about safety and nutrition. And I don't know where to find those data. All I know is I haven't found them in this thread-- even though I've found a wealth of confident opinions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Okay, forget the analogy. It was a bad one. I think you're overreacting to what I'm trying to say. I'm just saying that here in Australia, I haven't noticed any difference in hamburger meat over the past decade or so, and certainly not the rubberiness or gristliness you've described, and nor has anyone else I know. And I'd be very surprised if the meat we get wasn't padded out with mechanically separated trimmings or whatever they choose to call it. Stuff.

All I was saying was that your experience is local to your area. Your experience has caused you to dislike the Stuff even though there seems to me to be more evidence that the Stuff doesn't affect the taste or texture of the meat. Maybe your local providers use more Stuff than mine. I don't know. It may be something else that has caused the change in texture, and the Stuff is entirely innocent. I don't know. All I know is that I have no compelling reason to treat your anecdotal experience any more seriously than my own.

Have you inquired whether they are using the stuff in Oz before comparing my observations to those of UFO and Bigfoot believers?

What evidence do you have that this additive doesn't affect texture? The way I see it your confirmation bias is not very skeptical.

I said the texture of burger has been grossing me out for years, long before I heard of this stuff. I've been asking grocer butchers again and again only to be told there was nothing different in the processing. But there has been a difference.

This explains what I've suspected long before I heard of this stuff. I didn't hear about it and start believing I could tell.

An analysis shows there's more connective tissue in the stuff like tendons. That explains the texture that's been grossing me out.

Someone else described the texture as gristly in a comparison test. It wasn't a blinded test.

One study found it was more tender as measured by cutting force. That is not the same as testing for the texture change I'm disgusted by.

So where's your friggen evidence? You haven't noticed a burger change in Oz. Have you even inquired as to the use of the stuff there? No, you just dismissed my observations as unreliable.

So yeah, forget your false analogy. I already did. This stuff changes burger texture and that's my complaint.

Stop conflating my complaint with the claims ammonia is an issue. It is not. There is ammonia in every cell in your body, a byproduct of metabolism. That suggests there is ammonia in meat anyway, since meat consists of cells. I'm not the one complaining this stuff is dangerous or bad for anyone. I think it's equivalent to adding cardboard to food, but that's my opinion about the food quality of ground tendons.

[/rant] Sorry, I'm annoyed, I admit it.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Okay, forget the analogy. It was a bad one. I think you're overreacting to what I'm trying to say. I'm just saying that here in Australia, I haven't noticed any difference in hamburger meat over the past decade or so, and certainly not the rubberiness or gristliness you've described, and nor has anyone else I know. And I'd be very surprised if the meat we get wasn't padded out with mechanically separated trimmings or whatever they choose to call it. Stuff.

All I was saying was that your experience is local to your area. Your experience has caused you to dislike the Stuff even though there seems to me to be more evidence that the Stuff doesn't affect the taste or texture of the meat. Maybe your local providers use more Stuff than mine. I don't know. It may be something else that has caused the change in texture, and the Stuff is entirely innocent. I don't know. All I know is that I have no compelling reason to treat your anecdotal experience any more seriously than my own.

BPI created the process and equipment to separate the meat from the fat. I haven't read any reports that LFTB is sold in other countries. It would take a law approving sale of LFTB additive in the countries that purchase the beef. It's unlikely that most countries would approve this for sale. From what I've read it got through approval in the USA because the head of the USDA had connections to the beef industry. The approval went against the USDA's own scientists concerns. Plus, AUS ships beef to the USA, no need to import a lesser product.


Here's an article from the UK. It isn't allowed there:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...e-7593484.html

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

I didn't mean to criticize you. I meant to point out just how pervasive industry-funded information really is.

Preacher, meet the choir.

Originally Posted by OMGturt1es

You're far more knowledgeable about human biology than I, so I'll defer to your conclusion that there is no theoretical reason to expect chronic ammonia exposure hazard. But I also understand that reality has fooled us many times before. At the end of the day, I'm not willing to thump my chest until both empirical data and theory allow me to do so.

That being said, I honestly don't have an opinion about potential chronic ammonia hazards. I have no reason to believe that chronic exposure to these levels is anything but safe. And I don't even really care. I almost never eat ground beef. But I do care that so many posters here quickly formed conclusions based on industry-funded information. And I do care that while so many folks here have developed strong opinions regarding the nutritional, biological, and epidemological aspects of this product, you seem to be the only one with the necessary background to draw any real conclusion.

I can guarantee you the ammonia is not something you should be concerned about. Every cell in your body uses the same metabolism to make energy for cellular processes and ammonia is a byproduct. In addition there is going to be ammonia in the cells of just about everything you eat that is animal origin.

We should be accurate in our criticisms.

[Draca]

Scientific American looks at the nutrition in this article:

Pink Slime, Deconstructed

Quote:

But, is it nutritious? Consumers can certainly make valid arguments regarding LFTB’s content: there’s less overall “functional” protein than that found in other meat products. 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%).

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...deconstructed/

The article uses some percentages from this Iowa State study:
http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/a...s/asl-1361.pdf


Interestingly, Iowa State got sued by BPI:
http://www.marlerblog.com/uploads/fi...%20Request.pdf

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Sorry, I'm annoyed, I admit it.

Yeah, okay, whatever.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yeah, okay, whatever.

Hey, you haven't had this stuff slipped into your burger without your knowledge down there in Oz as far as we can tell. So lighten up. I'm allowed to be annoyed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Draca

Scientific American looks at the nutrition in this article:

Pink Slime, Deconstructed....


Interestingly, Iowa State got sued by BPI:
http://www.marlerblog.com/uploads/fi...%20Request.pdf

Joey McGee beat you to the SA blog and I posted the Iowa analysis earlier.

However, WOW! That company tried very hard to cover up the real content of their product.

[Draca]

The politics in this is immense.

3 Republican governors are touring BPI today.

The politicians who plan to tour the plant — including Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, Nebraska Lt. Gov. Rick Sheehy and South Dakota Lt. Gov. Matt Michels — all agree with the industry view that pink slime has been unfairly maligned and mislabeled.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74646.html

Quote:

“Our governor had mentioned that he already eats this product and certainly continues to eat it.”

Governors Speak After Beef Plant Tour
http://www.ketv.com/video/30795016/detail.html


http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...ee-pink-slime/

Quote:

"It's beef, but it's leaner beef, which is better for you," Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad said after watching a presentation of how the textured beef product is made and taking a walking tour of the plant.

Also connections to Mitt:

Romney donor at center of 'pink slime' controversy
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-...sy-119087.html

Quote:

Beef Products Inc., which has suspended operations at several plants due to criticism of its products, was founded by Eldon Roth – a prominent Midwestern businessman who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to pro-Romney groups.

We’ve asked the Romney campaign if they intend to weigh in on the “pink slime” issue – as far as I’m aware, Romney has not yet done so – or comment on the donations. A number of Republican governors, including Rick Perry and Sam Brownback, issued a statement this week defending beef manufacturers and the treated meat under fire as a “safe, nutritious product that is backed by sound science.”

[Draca]

The governors are fighting the comedy of Jon Stewart though.

The Daily Show
Wednesday March 28, 2012

The Hunger Shame

A whistleblower reveals that 70% of ground beef contains "pink slime," which is the last thing Jon wants in his mulched-up cow corpse.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...--2012---pt--1

Even though most ground beef contains "pink slime," Jon just can't seem to quit the mechanically separated all-beef delicious meat pulp.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...--2012---pt--2

[Draca]

The Lunch Tray posted a new photo of LFTB

http://www.thelunchtray.com/new-phot...point-of-view/

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Draca

The Lunch Tray posted a new photo of LFTB

http://www.thelunchtray.com/new-phot...point-of-view/

Now I get where they got "slime" from. Eeewww.

For the record, before I get attacked again by the thread pigeonholers, I'm not really concerned the stuff looks bad before it is turned into fake food.

[Draca]

Hy-Vee reverses decision on ground beef additive
http://journalstar.com/business/loca...56d7d6888.html

Quote:

Hy-Vee, the Iowa-based grocery chain, has changed its mind on lean finely textured beef, and will offer consumers the choice of buying product in some ground beef, but with labels that disclose its presence.

"Both products will be identified so customers can determine for themselves which type of ground beef they want to buy. This transition is underway and will be implemented in our retail stores as quickly as possible. We thank our customers for sharing their views on this issue, and encourage them to continue telling us what we can do to improve their shopping experience at Hy-Vee."

This is good to see. I hope more independent grocers label the product for customers. This should have always been done and I would expect the USDA to make it a requirement.

[PetersCreek]

This thread brings to mind the old joke, there are two things most people don't want to see made: sausage and legislation.

I make sausage...but I wouldn't become a legislator on a bet.

As for connective tissue, regular ground beef has it, too. It's practically impossible to remove all fascia ('silverskin') from the muscle. The same goes for cartilage, glands, veins, and the like. In large commercial operations, some of it is likely wind up in the mix. Even though LFTB appears to contain a higher proportion of connective tisse, leaving it out won't eliminate it altogether.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

This thread brings to mind the old joke, there are two things most people don't want to see made: sausage and legislation.

I make sausage...but I wouldn't become a legislator on a bet.

As for connective tissue, regular ground beef has it, too. It's practically impossible to remove all fascia ('silverskin') from the muscle. The same goes for cartilage, glands, veins, and the like. In large commercial operations, some of it is likely wind up in the mix. Even though LFTB appears to contain a higher proportion of connective tisse, leaving it out won't eliminate it altogether.

No one in the thread is complaining about connective tissue being harmful or completely indigestible. My complaint is that the texture of the majority of grocery store hamburger changed some years back and the people selling it kept denying anything was different about it.

My personal taste preference is burger the way it used to be made and the more I've read the more convinced I am this additive is the reason for the texture change. If they label it so I have a choice instead of trial and error buying with no guarantee the next time I buy the same brand it won't have changed, that's all I ask for.

[PetersCreek]

Sorry...I thought I read complaints upthread about gristle and other connective tissue in the LFTB-modified GB.


ETA: I wasn't addressing my comment to the question of LFTB being harmful or indigestible. I don't think it is. I agree it's largely a texture issue. If glands are involved in sufficient quantity, it's also an issue of flavor.

[Dipayan]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

My personal taste preference is burger the way it used to be made and the more I've read the more convinced I am this additive is the reason for the texture change. If they label it so I have a choice instead of trial and error buying with no guarantee the next time I buy the same brand it won't have changed, that's all I ask for.

Is this falsifiable?

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by casebro

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.

You know, if you care so strongly about what goes into your burger, you can always buy your own grinder. Little hand cranked ones that clamp onto your kitchen bench are pretty cheap, I think my local Aldi store is selling them for about $15. You can put whatever meat you want into it, and it'll probably come out slightly more tender than the exact same meat run through industrial grinders used in factories. My dad's been doing this for himself for years, and I'm willing to bet he's never even heard of pink slime.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

You know, if you care so strongly about what goes into your burger, you can always buy your own grinder. Little hand cranked ones that clamp onto your kitchen bench are pretty cheap, I think my local Aldi store is selling them for about $15. You can put whatever meat you want into it, and it'll probably come out slightly more tender than the exact same meat run through industrial grinders used in factories. My dad's been doing this for himself for years, and I'm willing to bet he's never even heard of pink slime.

I guess you didn't read the whole thread. I mentioned that I do exactly that, back about page one.

But nobody has answered the query that you responded to: How much pink slime do they typically put into that cheap stuff?

According to the university study mentioned up thread, PS has about 3x the non-meat stuff then usual ground beef. And sine it is enough to change the texture, those cheap tubes of ground 'beef' must be about half PS?

[shadron]

Originally Posted by Draca

The politics in this is immense.

3 Republican governors are touring BPI today.

The politicians who plan to tour the plant — including Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, Nebraska Lt. Gov. Rick Sheehy and South Dakota Lt. Gov. Matt Michels — all agree with the industry view that pink slime has been unfairly maligned and mislabeled.

Interesting. the first non-election issue coming down the pike this year to split the GOP.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by casebro

I guess you didn't read the whole thread. I mentioned that I do exactly that, back about page one.

But nobody has answered the query that you responded to: How much pink slime do they typically put into that cheap stuff?

According to the university study mentioned up thread, PS has about 3x the non-meat stuff then usual ground beef. And sine it is enough to change the texture, those cheap tubes of ground 'beef' must be about half PS?

but is that whats changing the texture? most of what i read indicate the LFTB has the same texture as ground beef, and neither i nor anyone else ive personally spoken to have noticed much difference between the 2 products. mcdonalds burgers taste/feel the same as they did a year ago

[uruk]

Don't know what the big stink is. Beef is beef no matter what the texture is.
But then I love spam and I think that barely qualifies as a food product.

Now where gelatin comes from will really gross you out.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by uruk

Now where gelatin comes from will really gross you out.

and now i have a craving for marshmallows and gummi worms

[Draca]

Originally Posted by uruk

Don't know what the big stink is. Beef is beef no matter what the texture is.
But then I love spam and I think that barely qualifies as a food product.

Now where gelatin comes from will really gross you out.

The big deal is it was unlabeled, undisclosed, snuck into the American diet. The USDA allowed it not to be labeled separately because it is made out of cattle, this is despite the expectation by the consumer that ground beef contains ground meat. LFTB is not the same thing as ground beef. Ground Beef use to be called ground round or ground chuck, for the pieces of meat the burger was made out of. It has always in the past been known as ground meat. The Iowa State paper shows that LFTB is largely connective tissue. It's 36.77 collagen, 77.25 insoluble protein. It is not the same nutrition profile as meat. It was deceptively included unlabeled in ground beef and the deception was approved by the USDA, with connections to the beef industry. Even if LFTB was 100% beef meat I still think it should be labeled because it is processed so differently.

This is something that IMO we should all be greatly concerned about and protest against. If no one protests this dirty move by the USDA what will they approve of next? I really think arguments that it is still part of cattle really misses the mark. It is not what the consumer expected when purchasing ground beef and it wasn't labeled.

It's fine that you like Spam, hotdogs, etc. I don't care if the product exists. Just put a ****** LABEL on it so the consumer has a choice on if they want to consume it or not. My choice would be NOT, but if it was in a product like a beef sausage I would probably still eat it if served at a BBQ. I think what is in hotdogs is gross but still have one occasionally. The choice should be the consumers though.

Gelatin is labeled. If a package of ground beef was labeled - products contains ground beef meat and processed LFTB - then people would be aware of what they are buying. If they didn't know what LFTB was they would know what to ask and or look up. Since it is not a separate item on the label then people will understandably believe the label ground beef means ground beef meat processed normally, which has been the past meaning.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by Draca

Ground Beef use to be called ground round or ground chuck, for the pieces of meat the burger was made out of.

you can still get ground round, ground chuck (and ground sirloin) and for as long as i can remember, ground beef has coexisted with them all, with ground beef being the low end cost-wise since it didnt come from any specific cut (so i assumed it was made of scraps too small to used in the premium products)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

Sorry...I thought I read complaints upthread about gristle and other connective tissue in the LFTB-modified GB.

You did. But it was quantity not the mere fact it existed in the burger.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dipayan

Is this falsifiable?

Sure. I'm more than willing to take a blinded test. It would be interesting if anyone in the Seattle/Bellevue area was game.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

but is that whats changing the texture? most of what i read indicate the LFTB has the same texture as ground beef, and neither i nor anyone else ive personally spoken to have noticed much difference between the 2 products. mcdonalds burgers taste/feel the same as they did a year ago

Mcdonald's burgers are not a very good example:

McDonald's 4 Year Old Cheeseburger Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGtDPG4UfI

Even BPI doesn't claim it is the same texture as regular beef though. That is why they call in Finely Textured.

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

you can still get ground round, ground chuck (and ground sirloin) and for as long as i can remember, ground beef has coexisted with them all, with ground beef being the low end cost-wise since it didnt come from any specific cut (so i assumed it was made of scraps too small to used in the premium products)

I think it has been degrading for some time, going from ground whole cuts to meat scraps. This LFTB is a whole different thing though. The processing alone is so different it should call for labeling.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by casebro

I guess you didn't read the whole thread. I mentioned that I do exactly that, back about page one.

But nobody has answered the query that you responded to: How much pink slime do they typically put into that cheap stuff?

According to the university study mentioned up thread, PS has about 3x the non-meat stuff then usual ground beef. And sine it is enough to change the texture, those cheap tubes of ground 'beef' must be about half PS?

I don't know where to find that info since the USDA does not require it to be listed. I would agree that the percentage is probably high.

I remember a few years ago bringing home a bag of left-over frozen beef patties from a work BBQ. When I cooked the pre-formed patties the color and texture were incredibly different than most beef. I ended up throwing the package away because it tasted and looked strange. It was probably a higher percentage of LFTB that made it that way.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Draca

Mcdonald's burgers are not a very good example:

McDonald's 4 Year Old Cheeseburger Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGtDPG4UfI

McDonald's does not use LFTB in its beef.

And the fate of any hamburger of similar size and weight would be the same as the "four year old McDonald's cheeseburger" - namely, desiccation before bacteria has a chance to decompose much of the food.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

This thread brings to mind the old joke, there are two things most people don't want to see made: sausage and legislation.

I make sausage...but I wouldn't become a legislator on a bet.

As for connective tissue, regular ground beef has it, too. It's practically impossible to remove all fascia ('silverskin') from the muscle. The same goes for cartilage, glands, veins, and the like. In large commercial operations, some of it is likely wind up in the mix. Even though LFTB appears to contain a higher proportion of connective tisse, leaving it out won't eliminate it altogether.

It's NOT sausage though. The joke refers to a product that it is well known uses undesirable parts. Ground beef is expected to be ground meat. LFTB is described by Foshee “The finished product is just 6 percent fat, but it’s filled with glands and connective tissue."

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

Sorry...I thought I read complaints upthread about gristle and other connective tissue in the LFTB-modified GB.

ETA: I wasn't addressing my comment to the question of LFTB being harmful or indigestible. I don't think it is. I agree it's largely a texture issue. If glands are involved in sufficient quantity, it's also an issue of flavor.

For me it is mostly a disclosure issue. I don't think it is honest or ethical for the USDA to allow this to be called ground beef. The processing alone makes it a different product, without even getting into the different makeup of the final product. Texture is one issue for me, but it's even more a distrust in the process, product and nutrition.

Originally Posted by shadron

Interesting. the first non-election issue coming down the pike this year to split the GOP.

I'm finding the politics in this VERY interesting. Especially the role of USDA Joann Smith who approved the mix and allowed it to be called ground beef in the first place.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

McDonald's does not use LFTB in its beef.

And the fate of any hamburger of similar size and weight would be the same as the "four year old McDonald's cheeseburger" - namely, desiccation before bacteria has a chance to decompose much of the food.

Mcdonald's removed LFTB in August 2011 according to an article I read. So it hasn't been that long, but I'm happy they have removed it.

I don't know about the 4yr old burger, sounds weird to me. I don't plan on keeping a burger around that long to test it though.

[shadron]

Originally Posted by Draca

The big deal is it was unlabeled, undisclosed, snuck into the American diet. The USDA allowed it not to be labeled separately because it is made out of cattle, this is despite the expectation by the consumer that ground beef contains ground meat.

And all this time I thought you were saying

Originally Posted by Draca

Being fed what is meant to be dog food is being nutritionally poisoned in my opinion. Not to mention the ammonia added to kill off all of the ecoli. Beyond gross.

That it isn't labeled "nutritionally poisonous"? or " beyond gross"?

[Draca]

Here are some comments by ranchers. Beef magazine, Mar 12, 2012

Quote:

Doesn't sound like it's a myth at all -- it's pink, it's slimy, it's treated with ammonia. Frankly, it sounds pretty bad to almost everyone who doesn't make money off of it. Instead of trying to convince the public that this product is good, and not "pink, slimy, and treated with ammonia", when it is just that, wouldn't it be better to just go back to putting the pink slime in dog food?

Whether it's healthy or nutritious is irrelevant. If it's offensive and unappealing, maybe we should just stop?

We kill a steer every year for our family freezer-- we never put pink slime in it before we wrap it. Do any of you?

Finally, do farmers and anchors make money ff of the slime product? I doubt it. Why can't we recognize that this is just another example of a situation in which meat processors and cattle producers interests are in conflict, and stop carrying water for those folks?

Quote:

I don't doubt that the USDA has approved this process as safe just as the government regulators approve many unsafe practices, not only in the food industry but mining, oil drilling, timber, fishing, etc. because as we all know the regulators end up working for the big industry intrests and not the "people" due to the revolving door that allows regulators to cash in by eventually going to work for the industry they regulated. I raise and sell locker beef that is healthy and unadulterated and yet I am constrained by an abundance of laws designed to make it difficult and insinuate that there is a real danger to the public if they go outside the mainstream industry for their beef. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is all designed to limit peoples' choices so they have no choice but to eat the adulterated food that comes from big industry. Another thing that should concern everyone is that big business funds most of the research done in universities. But the big point is that no one wants this stuff added to the food we eat but it is there anyway and we eat it anyway. How does that happen except that the system has been manipulated in favor of the industry?

Quote:

Why are we defending this product?

Safety issues aside it is anything but a quality product that is suitable for anything but dog food.

This is a packer issue; my family stopped buying prepackaged ground beef years ago because of the questionable quality and poor flavor.

Beef producers should not be defending this product. We should be leading the charge to provide the best quality product and practices if we want the public to look to us as for guidance and expertise.

Quote:

Correct, I am a cattle veterinarian and beef rancher, I have yet to have a need to add BLBT to any of the beef I sell to my customers. The packers don't care about anything but short sighted profit.

The consumer got it right on this one for a change.

Quote:

End the hysteria. Just put it on the label and let consumers make their own choices.

Quote:

I am tired of being told that certain ill -begotten food production practices and processes are safe, healthy, or necessary. When In fact, many such practices are a crummy idea. Otherwise healthy foods are being tainted. I am a lifetime rancher that says, "Ick! Stop it already."
China insists on poisoning their people's food supply for whatever economic or ignorant reasons that can be conjured up. Still, that doesn't make it right that nearly 2/3 of the products on their grocery shelves are not fit for human consumption
As far as this pink product being in dog food, dogs have a much short life expectation than we humans. They are less likely to suffer from the crappy consequences of this ammoniated process but there is no guarantee.

Quote:

This is the Beef industries version of the TRUTH. IE what they want us to know and what they don't want us to know.
I wouldn't trust the beef industry as far as I could throw em.

Quote:

I have no doubt that this "pink slime" is safe to eat and it may even be healthy. But it clearly is not necessary and consumers dispise this kind of thing. I don't want to eat it and I can't imagine that anyone would knowingly choose to eat it. Why are farmers & ranchers defending this practice? It does nothing to help us.

Quote:

I support the use of everthing we can of an animal that we have slaughtered. Its saying that we respected you and not just going to eat your good parts and throw the rest away.

However, the errors have been in not telling the consumers what they are buying! It also sounds like some collusion between the USDA and and BPI. Not of this is good for the food industry.

Quote:

And I thought that the law was that any product that was adulterated and processed and then reintroduced into the final product needed to be labeled as a separate ingredient if not actually produced during processing.such as meat grinding.

Based upon my suspicions many years ago, I have always ground my own beef. My suspicions have been true.

Quote:

What I don't understand and what the majority of public doesn't understand why this is not labled. People deserve the opportunity to make choices and to be allowed to spend more for making those choices.

The beef industy just shot themselves in the foot. They need to decide where they are going in the future. Or are they going to stand around and shoot themselves in the other foot and loose all credibilty in the public eye to stand up for your products.

The USDA almost effectly banned (regulated) potatoes out of the school lunch program last month. (Congress had to override them)

A couple of more blunders like this and meat will be next on the chopping block. Please!!! move this product back to dog food use only.

Quote:

It is a cheap shot to discount the opinions being expressed here by referring to the heartfelt “ammoniating” objections as a folding to the media hype. On our ranch we produce a pure and healthy product. It takes forethought and dedication to do so. Yet other entities have taken control before our beef reaches the consumer. I believe that our ranching future is dependent on listening to the consumer and responding in all ways that are reasonable. There may have been a time in history when every part of an animal, except the hide and hair, had to go into the stew pot. Is that still necessary or desirable when the dinner plate is so far from the field?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

McDonald's does not use LFTB in its beef....

Yes but since when? They used to and only after the controversy went public did they announce they would quit using it. You make it sound like they never used it.

I see Draca addressed this. The when is Aug 2011, not so long ago.