Pink Slime

Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...
this seems somewhat contradictory. you oppose GM labeling because most everything is already genetically modified, but think lean fine beef trimmings should be labeled, even though they, too, are already in almost all the ground beef we eat
 
Honestly, I can't see any objection to this stuff that doesn't, in the end, boil down to the yuck factor. Even the so-called "deceptive" practices described seem to be aimed at merely avoiding peoples' yuck responses. It's not like they were trying to push something that was actually dangerous. Just something that was kinda yucky. We eat yucky things all the time. I don't see why this is any different.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
this seems somewhat contradictory. you oppose GM labeling because most everything is already genetically modified, but think lean fine beef trimmings should be labeled, even though they, too, are already in almost all the ground beef we eat
Click to expand...
Perhaps it seems contradictory to you because your confirmation bias about me is so far off base. The differences are rather obvious.

The foods human eat have been genetically modified for more than 10,000 years, sometime before farming became common. It's a joke to talk about genetically modified corn. Have you ever seen what the original plant looked like? How do you think your bananas reproduce without any seeds inside? How do you suppose they got that way?

There are other issues with currently GM'ed foods and how patents are handled. If one wanted to require labeling GMFs as containing "patented genes" so we could choose to boycott a practice that affects consumers and farmers, I would support that as a valid reason to inform a consumer. But I've yet to see a logical reason to inform consumers about an arbitrary type of selective breeding while ignoring all the other ways our food is GM'ed. Demonstrate a reason and I'll consider it.

As for this hamburger additive, the paper I cited and quoted clearly identifies how this additive is not just getting more out of the cow, as the industry would like us to believe. Their use of carefully chosen 'names', complete with lobbying for a change in the food regulation law in order to use those 'names' is typical of marketing mislead.
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.
Click to expand...
Just because something is 'protein' does not make it 'meat', nor does it make it nutritious.

An extreme example to illustrate that not all proteins are equal can be seen in recent scandals of protein adulteration in the People's Republic of China. I'm not saying "lean beef trimmings" are toxic, but I post this link to show you the same industry motive: "to inflate the apparent protein content of products, so that inexpensive ingredients can pass for more expensive, concentrated proteins."

I'm all for using every part of the cattle. But that shouldn't be done while misleading consumers about which parts of the animal are ground into the hamburger.


-
 
arthwollipot said:
Honestly, I can't see any objection to this stuff that doesn't, in the end, boil down to the yuck factor. Even the so-called "deceptive" practices described seem to be aimed at merely avoiding peoples' yuck responses. It's not like they were trying to push something that was actually dangerous. Just something that was kinda yucky. We eat yucky things all the time. I don't see why this is any different.
Click to expand...
If it is not the cause of changing burger to an unappetizing texture, I might reconsider my objections.

But I'm then left with, what was changed about burger to make the texture gristley or rubbery? It never used to be that way. Years ago it all started tasting that way. I would have preferred to avoid it based on the labeling but instead had to try brand after brand often wasting my money because some of the stuff is so bad I tossed it out.

I've asked grocery butchers what was different about the burger and they all claimed ignorance of any change. Not one said there was an additive and perhaps they too were unaware, I don't know. Then I did find a brand that wasn't that way proving, to me anyway, that it wasn't my tastes that had changed.

So if it isn't this additive, then what is it that changed burger texture for about the last decade give or take a few years?
 
Brian-M said:
I've never heard of "Pink Slime" before. After looking at the first link and the Wikipedia article, I'm left with one question...

What's wrong with using beef trimmings in ground meat?

Seriously, I don't see the problem.

ETA: Or is it the ammonia gas that's disturbing people for some reason?
Click to expand...

That would not disturb me, except for the fact that you are lied on what you are buying, aren't you ? When i buy ground beef at my local butcher, it isn't trimming or whatever in it. It is beef steaks of lower quality put into a mincing machine.

Furthermore if none indicate it on the "content", how do you differentiate a 100% portion minced beef at say, 10$ against another portion at the SAME price but with trimming to cut cost ?

The problem is that as a consumer , you need to be informed. That is actually I would wager how our whole consumer society works so that we can make informed choice. Maybe that choice will be rational, maybe it will be irrational (see genetically changed plant) But if that choice is not reported , you CANNOT make an informed choice and do consume as you WISH.
 
MatildaGage said:
It seems there is a substantial number of meat eaters who are grossed out by the entire concept of meat production.

I was one of those--I had to push the very idea (raising, slaughter, butchering, processing) out of my head. I got to the point where I wouldn't even touch it. I had to just slip it into the pan directly from the package and had to deliberately distract myself from thinking about how gross it is.

My advice is, if it bothers you that much, a very simple solution is to not eat it. There are plenty of alternatives that are healthy and much less gross--and cheaper too.

Now I don't spend so much effort trying to avoid being disgusted by what's on my plate and in my fridge. Life's too short for all that self-imposed angst. :)
Click to expand...

Maybe some meat consummer are grossed, but as a meat consummer and as an ex-hutner and as somebody which slaughtered animals on a farm, I am MUCH more concerned that informed choice is removed from me, and grossed out that sub par product might be given to me under the guise of a 100% normal product.

Maybe the quality between that "enhanced" meat with trimming and normal minced meat is identical, but that choice should be left to the consumer. Especially if the saving of money , is NOT given to the consumer by having lower meat price : you can then decide for the same price to buy a brand which do not use trimming.

But if you are not informed.... Rational or not, you are unable to make a choice.
 
I ask those defending this unlabeled practice a question, if there is no difference in this burger additive besides the process, shouldn't pure additive look and taste the same as hamburger without the additive? Why not sell burger made from 100% lean beef trimmings?
 
For anyone who knows about the behind the scenes hamburger production, which of these products might be the cause of rubbery hamburger?

Advanced Meat Recovery Products, from Wiki
Edible beef products derived from beef-fat trimmings include Finely Textured Beef (FTB), Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB), Premium Black Angus Finely Textured Beef (PBAFTB), Angus Finely Textured Beef (AFTB), Beef Trimmings, Finely Textured (BTFT) and Partially Defatted Chopped Beef (PDCB).[2][3][4]
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I ask those defending this unlabeled practice a question, if there is no difference in this burger additive besides the process, shouldn't pure additive look and taste the same as hamburger without the additive? Why not sell burger made from 100% lean beef trimmings?
Click to expand...

Nope. A tree is not the same look and feel as a plank which in turn has a diferent look and feel as sawdust. All three are essentially the same thing.

The rubberiness and taste... well you have to take into account different methods of preparation here... types of fat (butter, lard, plant oil) the temperatures in transport (freezing changes textures)...

It is, alas, not so easy to point at just one thing here...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...


 Their use of carefully chosen 'names', complete with lobbying for a change in the food regulation law in order to use those 'names' is typical of marketing mislead.Just because something is 'protein' does not make it 'meat', nor does it make it nutritious.
Click to expand...

My bolding.

Aye. Mashed intestine would be high in protein. Mashed worm would be high in protein. Mashed hair, skin and toenail clippings would be high in protein.
 
realpaladin said:
Nope. A tree is not the same look and feel as a plank which in turn has a diferent look and feel as sawdust. All three are essentially the same thing.

The rubberiness and taste... well you have to take into account different methods of preparation here... types of fat (butter, lard, plant oil) the temperatures in transport (freezing changes textures)...

It is, alas, not so easy to point at just one thing here...
Click to expand...

And I'd be willing to bet that even the best steak would be indistinguishable from 'pink slime,' if it were chopped to a super fine, pate-type consistency.
 
daenku32 said:
I usually call something being released by industry to defend their profits as "propaganda". They aren't doing it for the common good.
Click to expand...

Is there something between "propaganda" and "sitting quietly while people lie about them" that you'd accept?
 
daenku32 said:
I usually call something being released by industry to defend their profits as "propaganda". They aren't doing it for the common good.
Click to expand...

Propaganda it may be (or not), but it does not mean it is necessarily bad for you.

Propaganda just means 'changing the lighting so the subject looks good, without caring what the subject is', and once in a while, it may even be truth.

Or differently put: the method of communication does not invalidate the subject.
 
realpaladin said:
My guess would be production process rather than ingredients...
Click to expand...
I can guess, I was asking if anyone could suggest something more than a guess. I've already asked about the gristle content and haven't found any satisfactory answers one way or the other. If it were just gristle content that would not explain why hamburger texture changed so drastically a decade or so ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom