Pink Slime

rustypouch said:
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.
Click to expand...
It would be different if the protein content were analyzed. I'll post it again since it seems to keep being ignored:
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...
Tendons are connective tissue, for example.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, I asked someone who works in that field. Her answer, if you care to accept it, was surprisingly simple:

'Oh, the grinders are different nowadays; different methods for higher throughput, as demand has risen. The grinding now is more of a shmushing which makes the fattier parts more stringy. The changed structure makes for the beef being cooked faster, but the fat not as much.You would need a leaner meat to achieve the same 'mouth experience' now.
You can check it by using different meatgrinders you can buy in any of the better foodstores'.

Maybe I should have said 'my educated guess'...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It would be different if the protein content were analyzed. I'll post it again since it seems to keep being ignored:Tendons are connective tissue, for example.
Click to expand...

More as in 'a little more' or 'substantially more' or 'frickin heck, we can't call this meat any more'?

I can imagine that any process that tries to get as much as possible will also draw in the fringe tissue (otherwise there would still be waste). But your imagination is as good as mine, I guess.
 
LTC8K6 said:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/23/how-abc-news-smeared-stellar-company-with-pink-slime/

Fox News, but still. Seems a shame that this passes for journalism these days.

I hope it hasn't killed BPI.
Click to expand...
The hypocrisy of that article is beyond words.

But I digress:
“And the American Meat Institute insists pink slime is not an additive, so no label is necessary.”
Most of the ABC stories didn’t mention the company’s argument. You know, the basics of journalism, like the fact that the product is actually meat, not some foreign substance.
Click to expand...
Notice all the references to "meat" which is not the case. There is more collagen than muscle in lean beef trimmings compared to other hamburger content. The label, "beef", is effectively being heard as "meat". That is the intention of the label and lobbying Congress for the ability to cover up the fact there is more beef product than meat in the mixture.

Beef Products, Inc., wants the public to hear, "meat" when they say "beef".
 
realpaladin said:
More as in 'a little more' or 'substantially more' or 'frickin heck, we can't call this meat any more'?

I can imagine that any process that tries to get as much as possible will also draw in the fringe tissue (otherwise there would still be waste). But your imagination is as good as mine, I guess.
Click to expand...
See table 2: There's ~28% collagen in the total protein compared to ~6% in beef chuck. In addition ~78% of the protein is insoluble in the stuff compared to 31% in beef chuck.

I'd say that was more than a trifle.

This is one product that usually goes into hotdogs. I don't know the exact numbers for the "lean beef trimmings" that go into hamburger but they start with similar cuts of the cattle for both products.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The hypocrisy of that article is beyond words.

But I digress: Notice all the references to "meat" which is not the case. There is more collagen than muscle in lean beef trimmings compared to other hamburger content. The label, "beef", is effectively being heard as "meat". That is the intention of the label and lobbying Congress for the ability to cover up the fact there is more beef product than meat in the mixture.

Beef Products, Inc., wants the public to hear, "meat" when they say "beef".
Click to expand...

If the public cared, the tomatoes would not taste as crappy as they do nowadays... and I include the organically grown but naturally refined varieties.

If you want to be angry at someone for food becoming tasteless heaps of cells, be angry at the public who demand that 'more for less' is a right...
 
realpaladin said:
If the public cared, the tomatoes would not taste as crappy as they do nowadays... and I include the organically grown but naturally refined varieties.

If you want to be angry at someone for food becoming tasteless heaps of cells, be angry at the public who demand that 'more for less' is a right...
Click to expand...
Non sequiturWP
 
That PDF you linked to strengthens my argument: Consumers want characteristc X (being more tender in low fat) but without the extra effort, therefore they buy the value added products...


My personal recommendation: Get a nice old manual meatgrinder, buy a good chunk of meat and grind it yourself.

I promise that it will be the best burger you ever had.
 
I grew up on the meat extenders that they used to sell. I believe it was soy based stuff that you added to ground beef to "stretch" it if you were poor. So I'm quite used to my ground beef being full of other stuff.
 
If you object to pink slime in your ground beef, investigate your sources, grind your own, go vegan, whatever floats your boat. I don't care one way or the other.
 
realpaladin said:
That PDF you linked to strengthens my argument: Consumers want characteristc X (being more tender in low fat) but without the extra effort, therefore they buy the value added products.......
Click to expand...
In the case of this food additive, it is not consumer driven. It is profit driven. If it were consumer driven then the resulting hamburger would be marketed as 'better', 'smoother', or some other terminology. This burger filler is profit driven so it is disguised as "lean beef trimmings" to sound more attractive than honest labeling would sound.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Let me spell that out for you, your red herring does not follow my post you quoted.
Click to expand...

I think it rather responded quite nicely to '...wants the public to hear...' where my fish mouthed '...the public wants them to say...'

And where do get the idea that 'profit driven' excludes 'consumer driven'?

Since consumers demand 'more for less' and producers want 'more for less', it seems they feed quite happily of each other.

I am not saying it is the consumers, I am trying to say that it is the interaction between all parties concerned.

If consumers (the number of which, against resources, grows extremely fast) want the same or more for a constant or lower price and producers want to keep the same or higher profit margin, something's got to give.
 
realpaladin said:
I think it rather responded quite nicely to '...wants the public to hear...' where my fish mouthed '...the public wants them to say...'
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

realpaladin said:
And where do get the idea that 'profit driven' excludes 'consumer driven'?
Click to expand...
Where did I say that? It doesn't change the fact this product is not something the consumers wanted. You can tell that by the outrage when it became more commonly known.

realpaladin said:
Since consumers demand 'more for less' and producers want 'more for less', it seems they feed quite happily of each other.

I am not saying it is the consumers, I am trying to say that it is the interaction between all parties concerned.

If consumers (the number of which, against resources, grows extremely fast) want the same or more for a constant or lower price and producers want to keep the same or higher profit margin, something's got to give.
Click to expand...
This is just rationalizing your non sequitur.

This product was developed to increase the return per cow. Period, end of initiating cause for the product.
 
MG1962 said:
My only beef (get it beef ha ha ha) is the economics of the situation. I am paying for X amount of ground up beef, but in fact only getting Y amount with the balance being made up of filler.

And the fact the filler is not described or apparently admitted too on the labeling - (I will check this claim on my next shopping trip) is very troubling. Having said all that I can see circumstances where I would purchase the product (knowingly) and use it as intended. A cheap way to fill peoples bellies when the budget is a bit tight
Click to expand...

If the filler is safe, I have no problem with it -- as long as it is on the label.

When I buy ground beef, I expect it to be just that.

It's an issue of truth in advertising, not one of safety. And yes, "pink slime" is clearly a rhetorical device being used to poison the well against what is otherwise a perfectly reasonable thing.


It's like that BHT thing with milk a few years ago. On the one hand you might like to know it -- so it should be fine for milk producers to voluntarily put it (or lack of it) on their labels. On the other hand, saying, "BHT-free!" suggests there is something wrong with it, which is also untruthful.
 
What is BEEF?

Hotdogs are made with stuff like LFTB. We all know what to expect and few would make hotdogs a regular part of their diet. It is an occasional low quality and low nutrition food. That is not the same expectation when people buy ground beef. Ground beef is considered a part of a healthy nutritious meal that is used often. This is something used as a staple and a regular part of daily meals.

Take this typical weekday meal of Spaghetti and meat balls/sauce I might make.

Organic tomato sauce, whole grain spaghetti, fresh basil, garlic, onion, a little red wine. Side salad with vinaigrette. Beef. Trying to make a nutritious meal there is a choice of 85,90,95% fat content ground beef. I have paid that extra money repeatedly for the more expensive leaner MEAT.

It turns out that unless I bought organic, which I sometimes have, that leaner product instead of having a higher meat to fat ration probably was made leaner by adding LFTB. Instead of getting more fat, the product had more tendon, cartilage and salvage meat. I may have gotten a leaner protein beef product but it would not have been more nutritious. And I paid more for it!

This is completely unethical. There was nothing on the label to say I was eating cartilage and scraps, no mention of ammonia. USDA/BPI says there is nothing to add to the label because it is BEEF. They repeat it over and over. It's beef, beef, beef. Is that really what anyone thinks they are buying? Beef to me means MEAT, the muscle tissue. What else from cattle is considered beef? Tripe, Cartilage, guts, tails, eyeballs? All of that might be edible but it is not what I was buying. I was buying beef meaning ground muscle meat. I paid extra money for leaner ground meat.

I was swindled and betrayed. All USDA approved (with connections to big AG business). I was not informed or given the choice to make the right decision for my health.

LFTB may have it's place, just as hotdogs do, but it should not be passed off as ground meat. It should be labeled. I'm angry that when I made purchases trying to make a healthy meal, the USDA approved this filler to be mixed in with what I was buying. This is a real problem in transparency and respect. All about the cash this decision. Disgust, in the product, government, back room deals, and commercial agriculture.
 
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...
I'm not sure why you're complaining about the economic issue. It's cheaper to produce a hamburger patty with filling, which basically means you can economically make more patties from a single cow. As any vegan will tell you, meat production is incredibly wasteful in terms of carbon and land consumption. Any method of stretching the existing meat production to feed more people has to be a good thing in my book.
 
arthwollipot said:
I've not noticed the change that you have described. Maybe it's a local thing?
Click to expand...

Agricultural practices and restaurant supply chain management is constantly changing, so the concept of burgers having a different texture than they did 20 years ago doesn't strike me as odd. Whether that might be due to pink slime lean finely textured beef The Goop In Question or not, there's really no way to know.

I suppose, now that grocery stores and restaurants are pulling TGIQ out of their ground beef products, SG could tell us if burgers are returning to their "regular" texture. However, that way lies the path of Confirmation Bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom