Pink Slime

My thoughts on pink slime.

yodawgm.jpg
 
I did a small experiment with 3 adults and 5 children.

I showed them images of the pink slime and images of various animal parts, including liver, intestine (for sausage skin) and brain.

I did not tell them what is what and asked them which they would eat rather, put in order from most likely to least likely (or from yucky to grossest for the kids).

The pink slime was in the first 2 spots with all of them...
 
realpaladin said:
I did a small experiment with 3 adults and 5 children.

I showed them images of the pink slime and images of various animal parts, including liver, intestine (for sausage skin) and brain.

I did not tell them what is what and asked them which they would eat rather, put in order from most likely to least likely (or from yucky to grossest for the kids).

The pink slime was in the first 2 spots with all of them...
Click to expand...

Did you use the real photo or the fake one? See above comments.
 
ddt said:
From an earlier post by Skeptic Ginger, the USDA definition says:
Click to expand...

Quite. And I wasn't suggesting that mechanically-recovered beef contains bone etc (though it appears it might), just that bone and hoof would not be called "beef" by a reasonable person. "Bovine connective tissue" maybe ...

My point in this discussion is that if we collected a vat of cow ligament, cartilage and similar and asked "is this beef" then the answer would have to be no.

So if a certain product contains (say) 80% actual meat (muscle tissue) and 20% connective tissue it should say so on the label.

Incidentally I eat this stuff quite happily in hot dogs, mortadella and other spam-like products.
 
When Ron Howard was like five years old he was on the Red Skelton TV show. During a break Red saw Ron chowing down on some fried chicken. "Do you like chicken? asked Red. Ron replied that he did. As a joke, Red said "That's not chicken, that's rat!" Without missing a beat, Ron replied "Well, I guess I like fried rat then."

I guess I like pink slime, then. It may not be the most appetizing of names, but neither is ratatoiulle or shiitake!
 
During the winter, the most popular soup in the Netherlands is 'Snert' which translates somewhat to 'Phlegm' or 'Boogers'...
 
Brian-M said:
Great link. It debunks every objection to "pink slime" raised so far in this thread, and many more.
Click to expand...
Does it include my two objections, Newspeak labeling and changing the texture of the hamburger?

For the record, I don't believe the stuff is necessarily harmful. We make a lot of ammonia internally every day. And while one can die from ingesting a large quantity, ammonia itself is something the body is well equipped to detoxify. I'm not making an argument of pink slime being bad for us.
 
GlennB said:
...

Incidentally I eat this stuff quite happily in hot dogs, mortadella and other spam-like products.
Click to expand...
I hate hot dogs but baloney is tasty and sausages are a treat. I also am not arguing the product is some kind of Frankenfood. I think it is deceptive food.
 
People with limited sources of meat and/or low incomes have been eating fattier, older and less pure (more gristle etc.) cuts of meats since forever. If you want prime cuts of meat - pay for them. That is the only issue for me; are you getting what you're paying for?

If something is advertised as mince/ground beef being of a particular cut and it isn't, that's a problem. But if something says 100% beef and contains "pink slime" or whatever, that isn't imo. You're still getting beef. If it contained some other product - soya or something - then that would be problem.

Even if pink slime contains fat, connective tissues etc. so what? It's still 100% beef. If you order a steak and it has a lot of fat on it, you might send it back for not getting your money's worth of the best bit - the bit you thought you paid for - but you wouldn't send it back and say it isn't 100% beef.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
So if a certain product contains (say) 80% actual meat (muscle tissue) and 20% connective tissue it should say so on the label.
Click to expand...
and if a product contains (say) 100% meat (muscle/fat tissue) and negligible amount of anything else, it would require no special labeling, correct?

Skeptic Ginger said:
Source?
Click to expand...
you made the claim that it contains too much connective tissue to be called beef, you source it

Skeptic Ginger said:
Does it include my two objections, Newspeak labeling and changing the texture of the hamburger?
Click to expand...
well the "newspeak" labeling isnt "newspeak" if its actually beef, so lets see your source that its not. and i still maintain your textur issue is a personal problem as i (and no one else in this thread apparently) have noticed significant changes in the texture of beef
 
GlennB said:
Quite. And I wasn't suggesting that mechanically-recovered beef contains bone etc (though it appears it might), just that bone and hoof would not be called "beef" by a reasonable person. "Bovine connective tissue" maybe ...
Click to expand...
Sorry, it seemed like you were suggesting just that.

GlennB said:
My point in this discussion is that if we collected a vat of cow ligament, cartilage and similar and asked "is this beef" then the answer would have to be no.

So if a certain product contains (say) 80% actual meat (muscle tissue) and 20% connective tissue it should say so on the label.

Incidentally I eat this stuff quite happily in hot dogs, mortadella and other spam-like products.
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
Connective tissue and tendons are not bone, they also aren't meat.
Click to expand...
I don't see any evidence that this "pink slime" would contain connective tissue and tendons rather than meat - or at least, that it would contain them excessively so. Mind, your average steak also contains tendons, so a certain percentage seems acceptable to me.

Skeptic Ginger said:
I ask again, if this was what we all think lean beef trimmings should be, why is special processing rather than just grinding required?
Click to expand...
The special process is to remove the last traces of meat from the bones. Grinding up the bone would inadvertently mix in serious quantities of bone into the product.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
...
you made the claim that it contains too much connective tissue to be called beef, you source it
Click to expand...
I did. That's why I asked Brian-M for a source of the counterclaim.


defaultdotxbe said:
...well the "newspeak" labeling isnt "newspeak" if its actually beef, so lets see your source that its not. and i still maintain your textur issue is a personal problem as i (and no one else in this thread apparently) have noticed significant changes in the texture of beef
Click to expand...
Goodness. Are you a defender of marketing mislead? Or do you have an interest in this product?

Beef is intended to imply muscle while technically it is anything on the cattle. They don't say meat for a reason. That is marketing newspeak.

Look at the cheese next time you are in the store. Notice how many items are labeled "cheese product" or "cheese food" and how many are labeled "cheese". Why do you suppose that is?

"Lean beef trimmings" are also called "lean meat product" in this pro-industry puff piece. Everything in the article is intended to mislead one as to what the stuff actually is. Meat product is newspeak for 'not quite meat'.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
"Lean beef trimmings" are also called "lean meat product" in this pro-industry puff piece. Everything in the article is intended to mislead one as to what the stuff actually is. Meat product is newspeak for 'not quite meat'.
Click to expand...
the USDA terminology you quoted yesterday called the traditional hand-deboned beef a "meat product" so was that newspeak too? is hand-deboned meat "not quite meat" also?
 
I rather think it is the laziness of consumers that makes the advertising purple pants get away with it.

If, as a consumer, you really care about what goes into your food, then look into it.

On various occasions I either called a company and twice I went there to look.

Sometimes the results are funny, both to the consumer as well as the producer:

One product, fruity sprinkles, claimed it only used fruit for flavour and coloring. So I called them and asked how much I needed to consume to get my daily 'two pieces of fruit'...

Well, after the lady on the phone finally managed to stop laughing she could tell me it was about 18 kilo's of fruity sprinkles. It also meant my sugar intake would be approximately 14 kilo's...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom