Pink Slime

Charlie Wilkes said:
Heh. Your video clip would be more convincing if people couldn't tell the difference between fresh tomato (compare to ground beef) vs. canned tomato (compare to processed pink slime).
Click to expand...

Most people can't tell the difference between fresh ground beef vs. old ground beef. Most people probably can't tell the difference between ground beef with vs. ground beef without lftb. That's not an argument that there is no difference of course. It is an argument about most people's perceptions though. I love my sauce made from tomatoes taken from my pots and my brother's farm (and a bunch of other ingredients), but after I've blended them I don't think most people would be able to tell the difference between those and the canned stuff besides tasting it. Your comparison is very much because they've been processed differently.

In fact a lot of people mistake the lack of adulteration (I'm not trying to attach a negative connotation when I use that word) with not being a fresh product, even if it is more fresh. MAP using carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide gives the meat a pink color for a long time, in addition to the normal benefit of MAP of greatly reducing bacterial growth. This means the meat can set a long time and still look 'fresh' even though it could very well be substantially less fresh than the meat that looks gray. That's the color meat actually is once the blood drains out. So even though MAP is a great technique, it can be over-extended at the cost of the quality of final product.

So your conclusion might very well be correct, but the comparison is faulty.
 
GlennB said:
For once, in this thread, I'll heartily agree with JoeMac. RBF always tries to turn the discussion to the evils of modern beef production methods in general, and in this case misses the point entirely.

RBF - folks get weary of that schtick of yours. Really.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Until I saw this post, I thought I was the only one who saw it/got it.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Heh. Your video clip would be more convincing if people couldn't tell the difference between fresh tomato (compare to ground beef) vs. canned tomato (compare to processed pink slime).
Click to expand...
Actually, to use your canned parlance, your argument would be more convincing if you could prove that lftb is anything like the difference between canned and fresh tomatoes. I predict you any attempt you think can be made will fail horribly. But I am open to being convinced. :p
 
I think the belief that the average person can tell the difference between lftb-infected beef and non-ltfb-infected beef has been disproven. We know this for a fact because of taste tests that the average person prefers burger with it in it. Coupled with the fact that the product on it's own has the exact same nutrient profile and vitamins etc, we can say that this product is equal to or greater to the reputation that ground beef has. Therefore, I am right and you are all wrong. I don't see where you can slip a piece of paper in to a crack in my argument but I am open to being convinced :D
 
Joey McGee said:
I think the belief that the average person can tell the difference between lftb-infected beef and non-ltfb-infected beef has been disproven. We know this for a fact because of taste tests that the average person prefers burger with it in it. Coupled with the fact that the product on it's own has the exact same nutrient profile and vitamins etc, we can say that this product is equal to or greater to the reputation that ground beef has. Therefore, I am right and you are all wrong. I don't see where you can slip a piece of paper in to a crack in my argument but I am open to being convinced :D
Click to expand...

You have the fervor of your conviction, but you're not persuasive.

If it's any consolation to you, I eat this repulsive stuff, or at least I assume I do, because I go wherever food is cheapest. Shovel it in and **** it out, I always say. But I don't kid myself that there's no difference between what I eat vs. good food.
 
Joey McGee said:
I think the belief that the average person can tell the difference between lftb-infected beef and non-ltfb-infected beef has been disproven. We know this for a fact because of taste tests that the average person prefers burger with it in it. Coupled with the fact that the product on it's own has the exact same nutrient profile and vitamins etc, we can say that this product is equal to or greater to the reputation that ground beef has. Therefore, I am right and you are all wrong. I don't see where you can slip a piece of paper in to a crack in my argument but I am open to being convinced :D
Click to expand...

Excuse me for butting in here, mostly a lurker.

It seems to me that since people do have a preference being one way or the other, you can obviously tell that people CAN tell a difference. Only people without a preference would be the ones you could say could not tell a difference.
 
ZiprHead said:
Excuse me for butting in here, mostly a lurker.

It seems to me that since people do have a preference being one way or the other, you can obviously tell that people CAN tell a difference. Only people without a preference would be the ones you could say could not tell a difference.
Click to expand...

I think the point that Joey McGee is making is that while people may self-report a preference, they can often be less convincing at demonstrating their preference in blind-testing which is what Joey McGee's video purports to show.

Joey McGee said:
This argument is nonsensical and ineffective. Perhaps you have missed the point that the vast majority of people find the product to taste better and have a better texture in blinded tests. Therefore it is reasonable to say that it does not affect the taste negatively. I doubt anyone who believes they are tasting a difference negatively is actually doing so in an unbiased way.

Click to expand...

I say purports to show because although I agree that many people do not have as much of a discerning palate as they say they do, I am suspicious of all of Penn and Teller's so-called "tests" most of which I find they stack the deck in advance. In this video, for example, it is not a double-blind test as the administrator of the test knows which one is which and could somehow affect the outcome of the test. Also, I would not put it past Penn and Teller to find the grossest tasting organic apple and the nicest tasting non-organic apple they can find just to demonstrate what they are saying. Not that I put any stock in "organic food".
 
Most people might well "prefer" the burger from a fast food chain to something concocted from prime steak and other fresh ingredients by the world's top chef. Doesn't mean a thing, they're just preferring what they're used to. People are like that.

The true test would be to make a burger from 100% LFTB and see how people like it, but that isn't about to happen unless LFTB gets sold as a standalone product.
 
GlennB said:
...The true test would be to make a burger from 100% LFTB and see how people like it, but that isn't about to happen unless LFTB gets sold as a standalone product.
Click to expand...

In the same way that a true test of peoples' preference for Coke vs. Pepsi would be to have them sit down and eat a bowl of 100% sucrose. :rolleyes:
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
You have the fervor of your conviction, but you're not persuasive.

If it's any consolation to you, I eat this repulsive stuff, or at least I assume I do, because I go wherever food is cheapest. Shovel it in and **** it out, I always say. But I don't kid myself that there's no difference between what I eat vs. good food.
Click to expand...
So you're not interested in debating using facts or logic. That's interesting.
 
ZiprHead said:
Excuse me for butting in here, mostly a lurker.

It seems to me that since people do have a preference being one way or the other, you can obviously tell that people CAN tell a difference. Only people without a preference would be the ones you could say could not tell a difference.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the point. People are claiming there is negative difference. Since we only have evidence that there is a positive difference, their claims are suspect. Perhaps I assumed that everyone understood what page of the text we were on, my apologies.
 
We don't only have evidence that there is a positive change. We have evidence that many people can spot a difference and prefer the LFTB version. Other people claim to be able to spot a difference and choose the one without.
 
Prometheus said:
In the same way that a true test of peoples' preference for Coke vs. Pepsi would be to have them sit down and eat a bowl of 100% sucrose. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, no. The claim being made for LFTB is that it's essentially the same as the rest of the burger. Sucrose is far from the same as the rest of the Coke or Pepsi.

(I'm not sure which way your irony is leaing here)
 
GlennB said:
Well, no. The claim being made for LFTB is that it's essentially the same as the rest of the burger. Sucrose is far from the same as the rest of the Coke or Pepsi.

(I'm not sure which way your irony is leaing here)
Click to expand...

The amount of sucrose is the primary difference between the two, much as the amount of LTFB 0% vs. <15% is the primary difference between hamburger with and without its addition. I'm not responding to the claim that LTFB is the same as the rest of the burger, I thought you were responding to the claim that its presence can be discerned. Sorry if I inadvertently misrepresented you.:)
 
Joey McGee said:
I think you are missing the point. People are claiming there is negative difference. Since we only have evidence that there is a positive difference, their claims are suspect. Perhaps I assumed that everyone understood what page of the text we were on, my apologies.
Click to expand...

My point was that since people had a preference, they obviously could tell a difference. Not that, as you said, they cannot tell the difference.
 
jimbob said:
We don't only have evidence that there is a positive change. We have evidence that many people can spot a difference and prefer the LFTB version.
Click to expand...
No, we have evidence that people think they can.
Other people claim to be able to spot a difference and choose the one without.
Click to expand...
So there are several taste tests out there. And some people on those tests chose the one without. But most did not. In fact, the more of it in it, the more people were likely to choose it. There are no tests showing people can tell which one has this product. This is a wish thinking fantasy some people want to assert because they are emotionally biased.
 
GlennB said:
Well, no. The claim being made for LFTB is that it's essentially the same as the rest of the burger. Sucrose is far from the same as the rest of the Coke or Pepsi.

(I'm not sure which way your irony is leaing here)
Click to expand...
Essentially is the wrong word. In has the exact same nutrient profile and anatomy location. It has a different texture because of processing which alters the texture (in a good way say most). This is an important distinction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom