Pink Slime

Myth 4: Boneless lean beef trimmings are produced from inedible meat.
Fact:

Boneless lean beef trimmings are 100% edible meat.
Click to expand...
http://beefisbeef.com/2012/03/15/top-7-myths-of-pink-slime/

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.
Click to expand...
http://beefmagazine.com/beef-qualit...me-beef-product-made-separating-lean-beef-fat



no connective tissue there
 

Attachments

  • LFTB - PINK SLIME.jpg
    LFTB - PINK SLIME.jpg
    32.7 KB · Views: 14
  • LFTB.jpg
    LFTB.jpg
    116.1 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
After reading a billion articles and such, I write up a summary of everything I had read for my FB debate. Thought it might be helpful here, too, since this doesn't seem to be coming clear for everyone:

Corporate butchers still use knives to cut meat from dead things. You don't just tap a cow and suddenly it falls apart into steaks. When cutting the meat, since a human is doing it, there is going to be some left clinging to the fat - as the sites say, just like when you cut the fat off your steak at home. You will ALWAYS be throwing some meat away. So, corporations see this, and they're like, crap, we're *throwing away* tons of meat. But there wasn't anything that could be done about it for some time; because there simply wasn't a better way to get meat from a cow other than cutting.

So then a process was developed by which that meat would not go to waste - putting the fat and meat in a centrifuge at low heat in order to separate it. Just like if you had a basket of chaff and wheat, and spun in a circle, causing the chaff to fly out.

There's a catch, though - when you heat up meat just a little bit, blammo, suddenly you have bacteria. Because of this, the process includes a step where a puff of ammonia is sprayed on the meat to kill the bacteria. When combined with the water in the meat, the ammonia becomes ammonium hydroxide - a substance that is safe, has been used in food since 1974, occurs naturally in the human body, and is used in other foods you have no problems consuming - other foods that suffer from the same issue (heat making it easier for bacteria to multiply). One of these substances is chocolate.

The stores that are bragging about not using 'pink slime'? It's a ridiculous brag. What they're saying is that they are LESS technologically developed than other companies; that they grind their own meat and have yet to figure out what to do about the fact that they're throwing food away. Think about the terms they are using - a gross-sounding term that is actually meaningless.

And if it's ammonium hydroxide you're worried about for some reason? Please note that the companies (Whole Foods, Target, etc.) never say they're not using that. What they say is that they're not using 'pink slime'.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
http://beefisbeef.com/2012/03/15/top-7-myths-of-pink-slime/

http://beefmagazine.com/beef-qualit...me-beef-product-made-separating-lean-beef-fat

no connective tissue there
Click to expand...
So a propaganda piece by a front group for the American Meat Institute is your reliable source?

Try an actual scientific analysis: Finely Textured Lean Beef as an Ingredient for Processed Meats
Summary
Lean, finely textured beef (LFTB) is a lean product derived from beef-fat trimmings. Characterization of LFTB showed that, while it is high in total protein, the LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins than muscle meat. Because of the protein differences, LFTB has less functionality in processed meats, resulting in lower yields and softer texture. Appropriate use of sodium chloride, sodium tripolyphosphate, k-carrageenan, or isolated soy protein achieved desired stability and yields in frankfurters with FTLB. The softer texture may be used to advantage in high-protein, low-fat meat products where excessive toughness or firmness is often a problem.
Click to expand...
It suggests maybe this additive doesn't explain the gristley burger but I wonder if all the stuff is processed the same so I'm going to keep looking into it. I suspect the hot dog/baloney product differs from the hamburger additive. Nonetheless, both use the parts of the cattle which is not recovered without extra processing for a reason.


Again, I'm not saying the stuff is bad for one's health. I suspect you've tried to paint me with that brush.

I repeat, I don't like the use of newspeak in marketing. If it ain't 'meat' it shouldn't be called 'meat product'. The word 'beef' which can technically mean any part of beef cattle should not be used to describe non-meat parts of beef.

"Cheese product" and "cheese food" are not "cheese". Mom's wouldn't choose "Jif" if they knew lard was added to peanut oil to make it. And "Lean beef trimmings" is not some nice cut of lean meat.


And for the record, I'm against labeling GM foods since almost everything we eat is actually genetically modified from the actual original natural source.
 
Last edited:
RemieV said:
...When cutting the meat, since a human is doing it, there is going to be some left clinging to the fat - as the sites say, just like when you cut the fat off your steak at home. You will ALWAYS be throwing some meat away. So, corporations see this, and they're like, crap, we're *throwing away* tons of meat. But there wasn't anything that could be done about it for some time; because there simply wasn't a better way to get meat from a cow other than cutting.

So then a process was developed by which that meat would not go to waste - putting the fat and meat in a centrifuge at low heat in order to separate it. ....
Click to expand...
Don't they boil the bones and hyde to get the last of the trim off? That's not exactly cutting the meat off with knives. That's rendering.

Rendering was mentioned in one of the articles I just read but I'm not going to search back through them to find it. I'm curious what you have to say about the process you posted about vs rendering the rest of the animal parts. This is all new to me.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Don't they boil the bones and hyde to get the last of the trim off? That's not exactly cutting the meat off with knives. That's rendering.

Rendering was mentioned in one of the articles I just read but I'm not going to search back through them to find it. I'm curious what you have to say about the process you posted about vs rendering the rest of the animal parts. This is all new to me.
Click to expand...

Whilst reading that link I could only find that they chop/cut for edible products. And that the process is basically as RemieV describes.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Don't they boil the bones and hyde to get the last of the trim off? That's not exactly cutting the meat off with knives. That's rendering.

Rendering was mentioned in one of the articles I just read but I'm not going to search back through them to find it. I'm curious what you have to say about the process you posted about vs rendering the rest of the animal parts. This is all new to me.
Click to expand...

The link you provided is at odds with what you are saying. The portion about rendering edible products doesn't even contain information about using bones.

Edible rendering is generally carried out in a continuous process at low temperature (less than the boiling point of water). The process usually consists of finely chopping the edible fat materials (generally fat trimmings from meat cuts), heating them with or without added steam, and then carrying out two or more stages of centrifugal separation. The first stage separates the liquid water and fat mixture from the solids. The second stage further separates the fat from the water. The solids may be used in food products, pet foods, etc., depending on the original materials. The separated fat may be used in food products, or if in surplus, it may be diverted to soap making operations. Most edible rendering is done by meat packing or processing companies.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you got bones from that description, but the answer is no, per this other Wiki article:

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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
RemieV said:
The link you provided is at odds with what you are saying. The portion about rendering edible products doesn't even contain information about using bones.
Click to expand...
I know it is easy to misread this stuff. I said: "Rendering was mentioned in one of the articles I just read but I'm not going to search back through them to find it." I didn't say rendering was mentioned in the article I cited and quoted.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I know it is easy to misread this stuff. I said: "Rendering was mentioned in one of the articles I just read but I'm not going to search back through them to find it." I didn't say rendering was mentioned in the article I cited and quoted.
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that you are correct - it IS rendering. But I don't know why you think that 'rendering' means 'boiled off the bone', because in the article you cited, it very clearly does not.
 
Wanna know the funniest thing about this?

The term 'pink slime' was used in an internal e-mail that some scientist or USDA employee or both, I'm not going to bother looking it up, thought was all private and jokey and whatnot.

I'm pretty sure I know where he picked up the term.

There was an episode of the television show 'Bones' wherein the characters pull a slave ship from the ocean. And when they do, they find a bunch of skeletal bodies in there. They also find sea life attached to the bones, and have to try to figure out a way to get it off so they can determine cause of death. But no one recognizes the organism, and they have a lot of issues throughout the episode trying to get at the bones.

So what do they call the organism throughout the episode since they don't know what it is?


Pink slime.

http://static.wetpaint.me/bones/ROOT/photos/460_340/BONES-606_Sc06_0819.jpg

EDIT: I take it back - I checked the dates. The e-mail predates the 'Bones' episode. Just another one of those awesome coincidences. :)
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Source?
Click to expand...

A conclusion derived mostly from a lack of reliable (in my opinion) sources supporting the claim. The "As far as I can tell" at the start of the statement was intended to convey that I was presenting a personal opinion or conclusion, not a verified fact.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Does it include my two objections, Newspeak labeling and changing the texture of the hamburger?
Click to expand...

Your objection to "Newspeak labeling" isn't an objection to the product. It's a different subject.

But you're right, it doesn't address your point about the changing texture, which appears to be unique to you... as far as I can tell ;). Are you sure that your perceived change in texture is not due to some other cause unrelated to the "pink slime" issue? Such as a specific supplier of meat using low-quality product, or a change in your own memories or perception of the texture of the meat that doesn't reflect any physical change?
 
Last edited:
RemieV said:
But there wasn't anything that could be done about it for some time; because there simply wasn't a better way to get meat from a cow other than cutting.
Click to expand...

There was one economical way to separate small bits of muscle from fat. Just melt the fat off. But since this also cooked the meat, it was only good for cooked meat products (like canned dog food), not fresh meat.
 
arthwollipot said:
It's easy to dismiss something as a "propaganda piece" if you disagree with it.
Click to expand...
And, if the industry has a long reputation of creating front groups, using newspeak marketing, lobbying for legislation that lets them deceive the public and if I also post a scientific analysis (which was also pro-industry, BTW) that provided evidence calling something beef that is really full of connective tissue is misleading, it is easy to dismiss something as a propaganda piece..
 
Brian-M said:
A conclusion derived mostly from a lack of reliable (in my opinion) sources supporting the claim. The "As far as I can tell" at the start of the statement was intended to convey that I was presenting a personal opinion or conclusion, not a verified fact.

Your objection to "Newspeak labeling" isn't an objection to the product. It's a different subject.
Click to expand...
It's both. If I knew the additive was there years ago, I could have avoided it and if it is the problem, I'd have been able to avoid burger that doesn't taste right to me. Instead I kept trying to find decent burger and more often than not, wasted my money.

Brian-M said:
But you're right, it doesn't address your point about the changing texture, which appears to be unique to you... as far as I can tell ;). Are you sure that your perceived change in texture is not due to some other cause unrelated to the "pink slime" issue? Such as a specific supplier of meat using low-quality product, or a change in your own memories or perception of the texture of the meat that doesn't reflect any physical change?
Click to expand...
I don't know if the hamburger texture issue is related to this particular additive. I do know I've been extremely frustrated because I love hamburger and for many years now I cannot find hamburger except for the $10/pound organic burger at Whole Foods that doesn't have that altered texture. I have tried and tried and thrown more than one purchase of hamburger out because the texture was so unappetizing.

I suspected the cause was something to do with processing and my best guess was it had to do with something being included in the burger that wasn't there a decade or so ago. I'm surprised other people are not also complaining. It's an obvious change in burger texture from some point in the past.

The news this additive is ubiquitous makes it a strong candidate for the problem I've had with burger. But, no, I do not know if this is indeed the cause. I do know I've eaten burger all my life and something changed in the product years ago that I find very unappetizing. I've asked the grocery butchers on many occasions and have had no answers so far. This additive could indeed be the problem.


As an aside, I do not appreciate that in this thread my complaints are being conflated with food fear mongering. That is not the case. I also find it disturbing that skeptics are defending misleading marketing practices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom