Pink Slime

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Not at all, I'm mocking the idea that her acceptance of that job is evidence of conspiracy, especially when it was legal at the time.

I don't have a clue what this is in reference to. I've been talking about a change that was made in the USDA definition of beef to include "lean beef trimmings" without having to put on the burger label that any change had actually occurred.

We must be talking about different things.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Were we "throwing it away" before we started adding LFTB to ground beef, or were we doing something else with it?

It went into pet food.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

The irony is that it is the waste of humanity's resources, IE woo and pseudoscience, that is driving this. It is literally a combination of politicians being apathetic to their voters and scientists being apathetic to the ignorant masses! Leaving the skeptics to wallow in the swamp of feces leftover.

I hope you are leaving the right to know this stuff is in one's burger before buying it out of your rant.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It went into pet food.

Only because the only way to separate the flesh from the fat was by melting the fat away, which also cooked the flesh. You can't sell cooked meat as fresh ground beef, so they had to put it in a product. So why not put it into pet food? After all, it's cheap meat and your everyday pet food needs to be cheap.

Presumably they still put a lot of it into pet food.

But just because they put something into pet food is no reason to believe it wasn't fit for human consumption. After all, my cat's dry food contains "wholegrain cereals", but that doesn't mean that I'd refuse to eat wholegrain cereals because it's "pet food", or claim that its nutritionally harmful when used in human food.

ETA: I know that's not what you were saying in your post, but I thought I may as well address related points that have been bugging me since I've heard them.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Draca

I've been following the Pink Slime story with disgust.

Just to add my pov. I seriously don't give a ****. I don't mind that people have visceral disgust for pink slime and I'm fine that people be informed about what they eat. That said, revulsion of Balut, gefilte fish or pink slime is fine but to form a conclusion about "good" or "bad" is irrational and a fallacy.

I'm fine with pink slime.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Just to add my pov. I seriously don't give a ****. I don't mind that people have visceral disgust for pink slime and I'm fine that people be informed about what they eat. That said, revulsion of Balut, gefilte fish or pink slime is fine but to form a conclusion about "good" or "bad" is irrational and a fallacy.

I'm fine with pink slime.

I'm just as happy to eat a bucket of pink slime as I am to sleep in a haunted house.

[Checkmite]

I do not object to pink slime on health grounds. I'd just rather eat straight beef, for the flavor if nothing else.

I have no problem with the stuff being sold in stores either. I'd just like to be able to choose not to eat it.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm just as happy to eat a bucket of pink slime as I am to sleep in a haunted house.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I do not object to pink slime on health grounds. I'd just rather eat straight beef, for the flavor if nothing else.

I have no problem with the stuff being sold in stores either. I'd just like to be able to choose not to eat it.

Exactly. I can't say I'd enjoy eating a bucket of pink slime.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't have a clue what this is in reference to.

then read the thread. There is a claim being made in regards to a female servant. The claim is hysterical

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I hope you are leaving the right to know this stuff is in one's burger before buying it out of your rant.

Blah blah what? I said the right to know is a legitmate issue in my first post. Ive done nothing in this thread but point out facts and mock slacktivists... Whatever

[Joey McGee]

Hey did anyone notice my post that the author of the 96' study about connective tissue says ur all full of ******? Nah i missed that too

[Joey McGee]

This thread needs a Godwin. Clearly I'm engaged in social Darwinism or socialism by saying beef is beef here

[Draca]

Here's a Timeline provided by the Des Moines Register:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...PI-controversy


1971: Eldon Roth, CEO of BPI, starts Roth Refrigeration and invents the Roller Press Freeze, which reduces freezing time from three to five days down to two minutes.

1974: Food grade ammonium hydroxide (basically ammonia plus water) is declared safe by the Food and Drug Administration. It is used to produce a number of products such as puddings and baked goods.

1981: BPI builds its first plant, in Amarillo, Texas, that uses the Roller Press Freeze technology and begins making frozen beef.

1988: Builds its second plant, in Finney County, Kan.

1992: Opens its third plant, in Waterloo, Ia.

1994: Begins developing its pH Enhancement System, which is later proven to reduce the number of potential pathogens such as E. coli in beef and ultimately leads to the production of lean, finely textured beef. The system relies on slightly increasing the level of ammonium hydroxide already present in beef to elevate its pH. By combining a small amount (measured in parts per million) of ammonia gas with the naturally occurring moisture in beef, the company produces ammonium hydroxide and reduces the level of pathogens in the product.

1998: Opens its fourth plant, in South Sioux City, Neb.

2001: The Federal Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture approve the pH Enhancement System, and BPI begins making pH enhanced lean beef. The process allows beef producers to separate beef fat from meat in a way that would be impossible to do by hand, providing 10 to 12 more pounds of meat per animal.

2002: USDA microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein is credited with first using the term “pink slime” to refer to lean, finely textured beef. Zirnstein uses the term after touring a BPI plant and later emails his peers, saying he doesn’t “consider the stuff to be ground beef,” according to the online news site the Daily.

2007: International Association for Food Protection awards BPI its highest honor, the Black Pearl Award.

Dec. 30, 2009: The New York Times reports that in testing for the school lunch program, E. coli and salmonella pathogens have been found dozens of times in BPI’s meat, challenging claims by the company and the USDA about the effectiveness of the ammonium treatment. Since 2005, E. coli is found three times and salmonella 48 times, including back-to-back incidents in August 2009 in which two 27,000-pound batches are found to be contaminated. The meat was caught before reaching lunch-room trays, the newspaper reports.

January 2012: McDonald’s announces it has stopped using beef treated with ammonium hydroxide in production of its food, a policy the restaurant says started in August 2011.

March 8, 2012: An ABC News investigation finds that 70 percent of the ground beef on store shelves contains lean, finely textured beef, which the report says is often called “pink slime.” The coverage identifies Zirnstein, the former USDA scientist, as a whistle-blower: “It’s not fresh ground beef, it is a substitute,” he says. Social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and an online blog called TheLunchTray.com are soon abuzz about the product, calling for its removal from school lunch programs.

March 15, 2012: The USDA announces it has adjusted requirements so schools can choose whether to order products with or without lean, finely textured beef.

March 26, 2012: BPI announces it is temporarily closing its plants in Texas, Kansas and Iowa, placing 600 people out of work, including 220 in Iowa.

March 28, 2012: Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad announces he has formed a coalition of governors to fight the “baseless media scare.” He also appears in a news conference with former Iowa Gov. and current U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to defend use of the product.

March 29, 2012: Branstad tours the BPI plant in South Sioux City, Neb., with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, Nebraska Lt. Gov. Rick Sheehy and South Dakota Lt. Gov. Matt Michels.


----------------

This timeline say that the FDA and USDA approved the process and BPI begins making pH enhanced lean beef in 2001. That would be only 11 yrs in food chain. I'm confused though because other articles have said that it was approved by the undersecretary of agriculture in 1991. Can anyone help clarify what happened on these different dates? When did LFTB start entering the food chain, 1991 or 2001?

[Skeptic Ginger]

You would need to develop the market after the product was approved. The timeline fits my timeline for complaints.

[RandFan]

Perhaps the question is a bit after the fact but is there any evidence that "pink slime" is harmful? Sorry if I missed that.

FWIW: I like transparency and full disclosure.

[Checkmite]

I don't imagine it's strictly harmful; after all, cuts like rib racks and such which include bone (and connective tissue and cartilage) exist and people buy, cook, and consume them; but in such cases it's often that the gristle is left uneaten, as it has a disagreeable texture and taste.

This is perhaps more clearly demonstrated in the case of chicken, where large bits of cartilage and tendon are left on the bone by those eating them.

It seems rather obvious that by grinding up these unwanted trimmings and mixing them into the ground beef, the meat packers are attempting (and in large part succeeding) in charging consumers for, say, five pounds of product that only contains 4 or 4 and a half pounds of what they actually want, and the remainder is empty filler whose sole function is to serve as a figurative thumb on the scale.

The ground beef doesn't come with the concentrated LFTB already in it; it's added later. But to what point? This isn't an argument like with , say, adding orange flavor packs to orange juice, where not only is it all technically "orange" but there's actually a point behind it (improving or sharpening flavor) for the consumer's benefit. Adding LFTB to ground beef does what exactly for the consumer? It may not be unhealthful, but adding it doesn't add any health or nutritional benefits. Even if it doesn't "really" taste "bad", it's not added to improve or alter flavor. Even if it doesn't "really" have an objectionable texture, improving product texture has never been used as a justification for adding it. It may technically be beef, but...why add it? Especially if consumers obviously don't want it? Why does there have to be a scientifically sound reason to not want to eat something? I am not a big fan of Indian food...but I can't say I based this decision on a scientific study. I just don't want it; I should have the option therefore not to eat it.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I don't imagine it's strictly harmful; after all, cuts like rib racks and such which include bone (and connective tissue and cartilage) exist and people buy, cook, and consume them; but in such cases it's often that the gristle is left uneaten, as it has a disagreeable texture and taste.

This is perhaps more clearly demonstrated in the case of chicken, where large bits of cartilage and tendon are left on the bone by those eating them.

It seems rather obvious that by grinding up these unwanted trimmings and mixing them into the ground beef, the meat packers are attempting (and in large part succeeding) in charging consumers for, say, five pounds of product that only contains 4 or 4 and a half pounds of what they actually want, and the remainder is empty filler whose sole function is to serve as a figurative thumb on the scale.

The ground beef doesn't come with the concentrated LFTB already in it; it's added later. But to what point? This isn't an argument like with , say, adding orange flavor packs to orange juice, where not only is it all technically "orange" but there's actually a point behind it (improving or sharpening flavor) for the consumer's benefit. Adding LFTB to ground beef does what exactly for the consumer? It may not be unhealthful, but adding it doesn't add any health or nutritional benefits. Even if it doesn't "really" taste "bad", it's not added to improve or alter flavor. Even if it doesn't "really" have an objectionable texture, improving product texture has never been used as a justification for adding it. It may technically be beef, but...why add it? Especially if consumers obviously don't want it? Why does there have to be a scientifically sound reason to not want to eat something? I am not a big fan of Indian food...but I can't say I based this decision on a scientific study. I just don't want it; I should have the option therefore not to eat it.

I hold no such position. As I've said so at least twice. I champion full disclosure. People have a right to know what it is they are eating and they have a right to not purchase a product for any reason what so ever. There's a lot of products I don't eat because I don't want to.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Perhaps the question is a bit after the fact but is there any evidence that "pink slime" is harmful? Sorry if I missed that.

FWIW: I like transparency and full disclosure.

No evidence it is harmful that I can see.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It seems rather obvious that by grinding up these unwanted trimmings and mixing them into the ground beef, the meat packers are attempting (and in large part succeeding) in charging consumers for, say, five pounds of product that only contains 4 or 4 and a half pounds of what they actually want, and the remainder is empty filler whose sole function is to serve as a figurative thumb on the scale.

No. It seems people are imagining this. It is the same thing, it is the same nutritional profile, it is a good source of several nutrients.

Quote:

Adding LFTB to ground beef does what exactly for the consumer? It may not be unhealthful, but adding it doesn't add any health or nutritional benefits. Even if it doesn't "really" taste "bad", it's not added to improve or alter flavor. Even if it doesn't "really" have an objectionable texture, improving product texture has never been used as a justification for adding it. It may technically be beef, but...why add it?

You clearly have not done any research into this. start at pinkslimeisamyth.com For one thing this super lean product is added to higher fat meat to create a lower fat product. For another it is actually used to improve burger, as a study posted here proves.

[Verde]

The only beef worth eating is Steak Tartare. The problem is that there are only two restaurants in the Phoenix area that I trust to do it properly. It is wonderful.
I cannot remember the last time I ate a hamburger.
So, I have absolutely nothing to add to the Pink Slime discussion. Sorry.

V.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

No. It seems people are imagining this. It is the same thing, it is the same nutritional profile, it is a good source of several nutrients.

You clearly have not done any research into this. start at pinkslimeisamyth.com For one thing this super lean product is added to higher fat meat to create a lower fat product. For another it is actually used to improve burger, as a study posted here proves.

While the "pink slime" rhetoric didn't bother me I did in fact buy into it without any skepticism other than I thought the claims were simply trying to appeal to disgust which is a fallacy. However, people have a right to know what is in their food and if they are disgusted that is their right. But I didn't realize how badly I failed to be skeptical.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Hey you know that 1996 study that has been waved around here like the smoking gun? I think it's what most people are using to support their "it's inedible" "it's undigestible" "it's not beef" arguments, right?

Quote:

In a statement dated March 23, Iowa State University agriculture professor Joseph Sebranek, Ph.D., wrote that his 1996 study on LFTB in the Journal of Food Sciences had been misconstrued by some media reports.

While Sebranek's study did not compare nutritional differences between ground beef with and without LTFB, some media reports have claimed that LFTB degrades the meat to which it's added.

"Our research is potentially being misinterpreted by some in the media as suggesting that LFTB has a deleterious effect on the nutritional quality of ground beef," Sebranek wrote. "Nothing in our study or what we know about collagen more broadly should lead one to that conclusion."

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/0...americas-beef/

What I would do for a burger containing pink slime right now.

I'm not clear what Sebranek means. Is he saying that the addition of LFTB doesn't have a harmful effect on the real ground beef it's added to? That's how I read it.

There are others involved who make it clear that LFTB is not as nutritious as real ground beef meat.

Quote:

"Pink slime" does provide nutrition, but not as much as ground beef, according to Richard Ludescher, a nutritionist at Rutgers University in New Jersey who, at the request of ABC News, reviewed data from a study on lean finely textured beef from Iowa State University.

Ludescher said that because lean finely textured beef has five times the collagen level as standard ground beef it "will have a lower nutritional value than beef muscle."

Collagen is a protein, he said, that is higher in non-essential amino acids and lower in essential amino acids than meat from an animal's muscle.

"Addition of LFTB would thus lower the nutritional quality of ground beef," Ludescher said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/beef-...6014232&page=2

Quote:

Gerald Zirnstein and his former colleague at the USDA food inspection service, microbiologist Carl Custer, cited a 1996 Iowa State University study on BPI’s treated beef that found the product’s protein composition was different from that of beef chuck. The lean finely textured beef contained higher levels of collagen than chuck, the study showed.

Custer also said there’s another glaring omission when it comes to how “pink slime” ought to be marked in supermarkets.

“If there is residual ammonia,” Custer wrote in an email, “then that is an ingredient that should be on the label.”

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03...ink-slime-1-2/

Quote:

“Not only is this product a potential source of killer pathogens if the ammonia levels are not controlled properly, but that the overall protein quality of the beef hamburger is compromised by the inclusion of LFTB,” former US Department of Agriculture microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein said.

Quote:

“Kit Foshee said. “The finished product is just 6 percent fat, but it’s filled with glands and connective tissue, and is very susceptible to pathogens like listeria, E. coli and salmonella.” Kit Foshee - BPI quality assurance manager for 10 years until 2001

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

No. It seems people are imagining this. It is the same thing, it is the same nutritional profile, it is a good source of several nutrients.

That is NOT correct. It is not the same nutritional profile.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

No. It seems people are imagining this. It is the same thing, it is the same nutritional profile, it is a good source of several nutrients.

You clearly have not done any research into this. start at pinkslimeisamyth.com For one thing this super lean product is added to higher fat meat to create a lower fat product. For another it is actually used to improve burger, as a study posted here proves.

Making something leaner by adding indigestible protein is not the same as simply removing fat content or adding actual meat.

And as for improving the product, it is misleading to leave out by what criteria they measured "improvement". It gave the burger a longer shelf life. And while it took less force to cut the coked burger with an instrument, texture and taste tests were not performed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RandFan

... simply trying to appeal to disgust which is a fallacy. ....

Which can also be applied to "lean beef trimmings" which is trying to appeal to one's perception of a good steak, also a fallacy as you put it. I don't call it a fallacy, I call it marketing newspeak, branding, framing, and propaganda intended to call up a certain narrative.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Which can also be applied to "lean beef trimmings" which is trying to appeal to one's perception of a good steak, also a fallacy as you put it. I don't call it a fallacy, I call it marketing newspeak, branding, framing, and propaganda intended to call up a certain narrative.

You know I agree. In the end the only thing that really matters is the nutritional content and what people want to eat.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Draca

I'm not clear what Sebranek means. Is he saying that the addition that of LFTB doesn't have a harmful effect on the real ground beef it's added to? That's how I read it.

No that wouldn't make any sense for him to say that. No one is saying that in the media. He's clearly saying that you can't use his study to say it has a harmful effect on the total product.

Quote:

There are others involved who make it clear that LFTB is not as nutritious as real ground beef meat.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/beef-...6014232&page=2

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03...ink-slime-1-2/

Pfft these people are all basing this off of that 1996 study, are they not? All you've done is quote the stuff he is taking issue with. This is why the guy made the statement!

Hey look I can find experts saying what I want too.

Quote:

Nutritionists say LFTB is just as healthy, if not more so, than other ground beef because it’s so lean — 95 percent, on average.

“(That’s) an accurate statement,” said Mary Steffensmeier, a registered dietician with Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare in Waterloo.

The nutrition educator said LFTB has the same or more vitamins and minerals than hamburger with out it. For example, vitamin B-6, niacin and iron are greater in 95-percent lean burger than 70
percent. And, Steffensmeier said LFTB is lower in saturated fat.

http://wcfcourier.com/business/local...a4bcf887a.html

Hey did you accept the product is not poison yet?

eta: what is that picture supposed to be influencing me to think? Where is the source?

[Joey McGee]

This is the issue condensed.

Quote:

Theno, who has done consulting for BPI, begins by pointing out that - while difficult - any home cook could separate beef fat from beef muscle with a knife and cutting board, creating the same boneless lean beef trimmings.

But long lines of butchers working with knives on such a difficult task would not be economically feasible. That's why before BPI came up with a mechanized process to do this

This man said it better than me.

Quote:

I’m all for open disclosure of food contents, but not when the labeling effort is aimed at fomenting fear over facts.http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...n-ground-beef/

It's beef muscle. The USDA stands on solid ground for not requiring labeling. I do laugh whenever it is fired back that we must be against disclosure. "What, you're anti-freedom?"

Posting while completely blitzed at four in the morning didn't work out very well, sorry.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Making something leaner by adding indigestible protein is not the same as simply removing fat content or adding actual meat.

Where are you basing this off of? The Sebranek study?

Quote:

And as for improving the product, it is misleading to leave out by what criteria they measured "improvement". It gave the burger a longer shelf life. And while it took less force to cut the coked burger with an instrument, texture and taste tests were not performed.

That study said it improved tenderness. We're splitting hairs on definitions I suppose.

It also hints at why BPI is claiming meat will actually be less safe from now on! Holy crap the irony here people!

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Perhaps the question is a bit after the fact but is there any evidence that "pink slime" is harmful? Sorry if I missed that.

FWIW: I like transparency and full disclosure.

No. Any "danger" is purely imaginary, as near as I can tell. If there is hard evidence of the "danger" of this stuff, I'd like to see it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

...
It's beef muscle. ...

Sorry, that's a fail. It's tendons, connective tissue, fat and a significantly smaller proportion of "muscle" than is in ground chuck.

I'm always amazed when people conveniently forget evidence we covered in the thread and revert back to their original misconceptions.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Sorry, that's a fail. It's tendons, connective tissue, fat and a significantly smaller proportion of "muscle" than is in ground chuck.

What is the ratio of muscle to non-muscle? What are the nutritive value of the non-muscle constituents?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Where are you basing this off of? The Sebranek study?

What is it about "LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins than muscle meat" that you don't understand?

Let's see, are you dismissing an A.S. Leaflet as something less than a peer reviewed paper? Did you even make any effort to see what it was?

I did: Iowa State University, Department of Animal Science, Animal Industry Report -Annual Reports

Quote:

It is with great pleasure that we at Iowa State University bring you this annual report of the research activities that relate to the animal agriculture industries. This report combines research reports from faculty associated with various departments on campus. We have attempted to bring you all of the research as it relates to the Beef, Dairy, Equine, Poultry, Sheep, Swine and companion animal industries in the state of Iowa. This research is conducted to support the viability of each of these industries in Iowa. The research reported here is supported by the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station.

So what's your beef with this paper?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

That study said it improved tenderness. We're splitting hairs on definitions I suppose.

I'm not splitting hairs. I have no opinion about tenderness as measured by the pressure of cutting a burger in half. The stuff has a horrible texture that I describe as rubbery or gristly.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

It also hints at why BPI is claiming meat will actually be less safe from now on! Holy crap the irony here people!

It's a BS claim. The meat will be just as unsafe as it has always been. The problem is contamination with fecal material during slaughter. If people aren't cooking their burger thoroughly, all the ammonia processing of additives in the world isn't going to take that risk away.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RandFan

What is the ratio of muscle to non-muscle? What are the nutritive value of the non-muscle constituents?

It's been posted a dozen times in this thread now. Must I post it again? See the tables in this paper.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's been posted a dozen times in this thread now. Must I post it again? See the tables in this paper.

I didn't know it had. I was simply asking a question. Next time tell me that the data was posted thread and I'll thank you and go look for it. Or ask someone else.

In any event. Thank you.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Sorry, that's a fail. It's tendons, connective tissue, fat and a significantly smaller proportion of "muscle" than is in ground chuck.

I'm always amazed when people conveniently forget evidence we covered in the thread and revert back to their original misconceptions.

Sorry, please educate me by referencing the facts that prove this

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What is it about "LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins than muscle meat" that you don't understand?

Let's see, are you dismissing an A.S. Leaflet as something less than a peer reviewed paper? Did you even make any effort to see what it was?

I did: Iowa State University, Department of Animal Science, Animal Industry Report -Annual ReportsSo what's your beef with this paper?

That the author has issued a statement that says the conclusions from from it in the media are wrong? I think you messed up on that link it takes me to a table of contents.

Quote:

I'm not splitting hairs. I have no opinion about tenderness as measured by the pressure of cutting a burger in half. The stuff has a horrible texture that I describe as rubbery or gristly.

Pfft we're not acknowledging your experience as fact here, it's not part of the debate. Interesting and appreciated as a contribution to the conversation sure. But you're using it as an argument here.

Quote:

It's a BS claim. The meat will be just as unsafe as it has always been. The problem is contamination with fecal material during slaughter. If people aren't cooking their burger thoroughly, all the ammonia processing of additives in the world isn't going to take that risk away.

Prove this! The product is safe! You're making this up

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's been posted a dozen times in this thread now. Must I post it again? See the tables in this paper.

The paper isn't very helpful. I'll try to find other sources. Thanks.

[Joey McGee]

Well the majority of the reasons people are against the product have been proved wrong. We'll have a residual amount of slacktivists poisoned with cognitive dissonance trying to justify their outrage for awhile. Mostly due to paranoia and a hyper-vigilant attitude against corporations that leads to delusions and a persecution complex. Unless new evidence is presented the thread is dead. The product is safe and nutritious, the company didn't do anything wrong, and we can all sleep soundly at night knowing that the USDA doesn't give itself away to the highest bidder. FFS this thread almost belongs in CT

[RandFan]

Okay, I can't find information that I feel comfortable with. There doesn't seem to be anything from a neutral third party or skeptical organization. I'll wait on the issue.

[Joey McGee]

Word! Cheers to that! I made my decisions on the weight of evidence and expert opinion but I do feel the same way at the end of the day.

There are neutral experts being quoted throughout all the articles, such as my slew of Canadian scientists that say what I'm saying. I just think we need something really well done and comprehensive in order to put it to rest.