Pink Slime

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

This has all been covered at least 7 times each questions further up the thread....

No one has answered Aepervius' questions. You only imagine they have.

I've asked the same thing a number of times and there has not been an answer, because the answer is the stuff is not just more trim like the rest of the trim. It's trim that is closer to the hide and the bone, i.e. further away from the muscles.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Sorry what are you talking about and what are your resources?

That's all well and good but it is an industry propaganda piece from Beef products, Inc that is not supported by the analysis of the stuff.

Nor is that advertising lie (you seem to think advertisers don't lie ) consistent with the elephant in the room, if it's just like the rest of the burger why can't they just sell it as burger?

[Joey McGee]

An industry propaganda piece? Wow that's incredibly delusional. Those quotes are from the lawsuit they filed. You really think they lied in their lawsuit? Ha!

And every expert in the field agrees with them.

We've been over it all before have fun with your delusions.

This is really funny.

[Joey McGee]

I mean, to lie in your lawsuit about all of that, wow you'd really have to be an idiot. Since the point of the lawsuit is to prove those facts, you're actually guaranteeing that you'll be publicly exposed as a fraudster. Since all the experts say the same thing, since all we have as evidence from the opposition is people demonstrably misreading studies they are not qualified to interpret, yeah this is really funny.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I mean, to lie in your lawsuit about all of that, wow you'd really have to be an idiot. Since the point of the lawsuit is to prove those facts, you're actually guaranteeing that you'll be publicly exposed as a fraudster. Since all the experts say the same thing, since all we have as evidence from the opposition is people demonstrably misreading studies they are not qualified to interpret, yeah this is really funny.

Idiot lie in lawsuit from time to time. See Dover for compelte utter idiot. For a corporate example see SCO, that one went over what ? 10 years ? Heck see MS and their various sheenanigan and lies when got caught. The trick is not to "lie" outright, the trick is to present the lie in small part and hinge them together with truth as if it represented the whole truth, all the while not telling the small bit which would clearly show it for a lie.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Sorry what are you talking about and what are your resources?

"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"
.....
"Financial support and materials used for this
project were provided by Beef Products, Inc. (Dakota
Dunes, SD)."

from this research paper , just for example. The collagen fraction in LFTB is reported and is double that of beef chuck. They used BPI LFTB, incidentally. There are many more such studies and they're easy enough to find.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Joey McGee, if it's just like the rest of the burger why can't they just sell it as burger?

No matter how many times you dismiss this question claiming it has been addressed, it just doesn't make it so.

In the industry's own marketing studies they found adding 20% LFTB to the school lunch hamburger made the burger unacceptable to the tasters. They had to limit the additive to 15% or less.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

If it is truly lean beef by 97% like the industry says, care to explain :
1) why it cannot be sold directly to consumer ? If the USDA consider it meat, why not?

Have you provided evidence for this? Maybe I missed it.

Originally Posted by Aepervius

2) related to 1 why it is not made a 100% patty of the stuff ? After all it is cheap so why stop at 15% in the beef patty ? Why not say 45%... ?

Lack of demand? Who knows? Does it matter?

Originally Posted by Aepervius

3) ETA about the emat patty being too fat : nonsense. the meat patty are not exclusive 100% lean beef grounded, at least here (germany) the producer are allowed to add fat to the process, and they do it. If the producer were really concerned they would simply reduce the fat content they add.

So?

[Joey McGee]

Whoa guys the fact is that it is limited at 15% due to texture. I mean I was pretty sure there was no boogy men under my bed by age 5. All your "qualms" have been defeated by USDA personnel I don't feel the need to respond.

[Joey McGee]

Hey we'll see it all in court, be patient.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Whoa guys the fact is that it is limited at 15% due to texture. .....

Really?

Gee, funny thing that, texture is the whole problem as far as my dislike of the stuff goes. You really need to review the thread.

[Joey McGee]

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader:

Edited for Rule 0

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here, let me help you:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

"Lean beef trimmings" does not mean meat which would be muscle tissue. Instead using the term, "lean beef", is carefully calculated to imply healthy meat. In reality the name is typical of Corporate Newspeak:Cartilage and connective tissue explains the rubbery gristley texture I've been disgusted by and trying to figure out.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I wouldn't care so much if I hadn't been trying for years to find hamburger that didn't taste rubbery to me and wondering what was different about it.

I'd rather they just made dog food out of the 'lean beef trimmings'. My dogs don't care.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

My point was the industry label of 'lean beef trimmings' is a marketing lie. My concern is I've been bothered by hamburger texture for years and I think this may be the reason.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by GlennB

from this research paper , just for example. The collagen fraction in LFTB is reported and is double that of beef chuck. They used BPI LFTB, incidentally. There are many more such studies and they're easy enough to find.

You must have missed where the author of that paper issued a statement saying that anyone saying that his paper means it is less nutritious is reading the paper wrong. You must have missed the many experts who have said that the nutritional quality is equal or above normal beef for this product.


No wait you didn't miss it, you willfully ignored it.

[Joey McGee]

Hey, look, the delusional people won. The buyers of the product, the schools, even though they knew there was nothing wrong with it, they opted out to avoid controversy. Pat yourselves on the back. But the reason certain people such as myself care about this is that in the future we will need even more radical alterations to our food supply and fearmongering pseudoscientific incompetents will make things worse

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Idiot lie in lawsuit from time to time. See Dover for compelte utter idiot.

Oh yes, for sure they might have lied in their court filing! But if they did, that will be exposed like the lies in the dover trial were. I don't even know where you get this from

[Joey McGee]

So i guess the only evidence against the product comes from a study where the author of it says you're totally wrong about it! I mean... holy smokes jokes!

[Joey McGee]

Quote:

“Our research is potentially being misinterpreted by some in the media as suggesting that LFTB has a deleterious effect on the nutritional quality of ground beef,” he writes. “Nothing in our study or what we know about collagen more broadly should lead one to that conclusion.”

You know what, I'm going to believe SG and Glenn over the actual author of the study. That's what I'm actually going to do.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I've asked the same thing a number of times and there has not been an answer, because the answer is the stuff is not just more trim like the rest of the trim. It's trim that is closer to the hide and the bone, i.e. further away from the muscles.

This is a problem? Why?

[Joey McGee]

The reason they need ammonia is because they need to heat the meat to help it separate in the centrifuge. Increased heat leads to increased bacterial activity, the perfectly safe treatment prevents that.

Lets revisit the lies SG believes

1. A USDA offcial was bribed to let this go
2. This product was only approved as dog food before this..
3. Sorry I have more but I can't stop laughing

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Connective tissue is mainly protein (collagen and elastin iirc), so what you say here is technically true.

Whether anybody wants to eat it or believes it's reasonable to call it "lean beef" is another matter.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Sorry what are you talking about and what are your resources?

Here I provided a very clear source, and one that was funded by BPI themselves.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

“Our research is potentially being misinterpreted by some in the media as suggesting that LFTB has a deleterious effect on the nutritional quality of ground beef,” he writes.

You know what, I'm going to believe SG and Glenn over the actual author of the study. That's what I'm actually going to do.

Our little exchange wasn't about nutritional content, so your rebuttal fails.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by mortimer

This is a problem? Why?

Would you object if I served you up a plate of pulverised tendon and cartilage (cooked ) saying "Here, tuck into your beef" ?

Obviously I exaggerate hugely here, but the problem is one of terminology and deception.

"Low-fat tissue of cow origin" <> "Lean beef" in my book.

Let me throw the question back to you - if a meat patty or sausage contained minced earthworm while being marketed as "100% lean meat" would that be a problem?

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Would you object if I served you up a plate of pulverised tendon and cartilage (cooked ) saying "Here, tuck into your beef" ?

Obviously I exaggerate hugely here, but the problem is one of terminology and deception.

If it was safe, and tasted OK, why would I object?

Originally Posted by GlennB

"Low-fat tissue of cow origin" <> "Lean beef" in my book.

Why not?

Originally Posted by GlennB

Let me throw the question back to you - if a meat patty or sausage contained minced earthworm while being marketed as "100% lean meat" would that be a problem?

I'm hoping you're not being serious.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Here I provided a very clear source, and one that was funded by BPI themselves.



Our little exchange wasn't about nutritional content, so your rebuttal fails.

Then what it is about? I thought it was about how connective tissue was being used as filler. Since this is a lie, I have no idea what you are talking about. It doesn't say they are using connective tissue. Try again.

Quote:

Would you object if I served you up a plate of pulverised tendon and cartilage (cooked ) saying "Here, tuck into your beef" ?

Why do you keep making stuff up?

Yes, the sentence you have lost your collective **** over is "the LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins." Ok. Does that not imply that there are connective tissue proteins in regular ground beef, just less? Do you see where you have gone wrong yet...

I need to stop posting in this thread, sorry.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Yes, the sentence you have lost your collective **** over is "the LFTB contains more serum and connective tissue proteins and less myofibrillar proteins." Ok.

Excellent, as this is a point you have strenuously denied before. For example:

".....you should simply be made to eat a burger containing LFTB. Don't worry, it's a scientific fact there is no connective tissue in it."

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Does that not imply that there are connective tissue proteins in regular ground beef, just less? Do you see where you have gone wrong yet...

I know full well that muscle meat includes connective tissue. Just ~50% less (according to the study under discussion), as you now accept.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by mortimer

Why not?

Because we typically leave parts that are normally considered indedible on the side. Powdered cow bone would be 'lean bovine tissue', but could hardly be considered "lean beef", could it? And nobody I know gnaws at the cartilage or tendon tissue.

Originally Posted by mortimer

I'm hoping you're not being serious.

Semi serious, but only to make a point (one you've ignored). Earthworm 'meat' is perfectly nutritious, just that I have no plans to eat any. And if it were present in a food product I'd like to have the information in order to make that choice myself.

[Joey McGee]

I thought it was obvious that we were talking about tendons and the stuff that is around the muscle meat, not the connective tissue that is within muscle meat. It is ALL muscle meat, right?

And in regards to the post that was edited, I should have said, anecdotes aren't interesting at this point, evidence is, I didn't mean to be mean.

[Joey McGee]

Right? With that non-issue out of the way, now you can explain where you are getting this ridiculous nonsense about cartilage and tendons. Got a link there?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Right? With that non-issue out of the way, now you can explain where you are getting this ridiculous nonsense about cartilage and tendons. Got a link there?

First of all, do you now accept that FTLB contains ~2x the connective tissue of beef chuck^WP (which itself is rather higher in connective tissue than the edible portion of prime cuts)? The study in question compared FTLB to chuck.

"The chuck contains a lot of connective tissue, including collagen, which partially melts during cooking. Meat from the chuck is usually used for stewing, slow cooking, braising, or pot roasting."

I hope we have established that point.

As for your question, I don't know what it means. What "ridiculous nonsense" are you referring to? But if it's the fact that butchers remove the more prime meat by hand, leaving the more difficult tissue to the machines, then I'd say it's self evident that the scraps will be higher in connective tissue, and the results of the process confirm this.

But please feel free to enlarge.

[Joey McGee]

I never didn't accept that study, pat yourself on the back much? Besides it's 17 years old the product has evolved since then.

Younger animals have a much higher amount of connective tissue in their muscle meat. Are the evil corporations sneaking connective tissue into veal? Does this point make you realize why I think this is funny?

Do you not realize it is being claimed that tendons or anything other than muscle meat are in this product?

Originally Posted by GlennB

Would you object if I served you up a plate of pulverised tendon and cartilage (cooked ) saying "Here, tuck into your beef" ?

Were you just talking out of your ass here?

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

...I didn't really notice added ground up tendons in my burger changed the texture...

WTF?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I never didn't accept that study, pat yourself on the back much? Besides it's 17 years old the product has evolved since then.

Then why have you been denying the presence of connective tissue in FTLB, let alone its high proportion?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Younger animals have a much higher amount of connective tissue in their muscle meat. Are the evil corporations sneaking connective tissue into veal? Does this point make you realize why I think this is funny?

I have no idea why you're introducing this point, as we don't usually eat the gristle from veal.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Do you not realize it is being claimed that tendons or anything other than muscle meat are in this product?

I can't even understand this sentence. Are you drunk again?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Were you just talking out of your ass here?

No. I was illustrating - in an extreme manner - why it isn't reasonable to describe bovine products high in CT as 'lean beef'. I asked a similar question earlier ... would ground cow bone, skin, hoof or horn reasonably qualify for the description 'lean beef' ? After all, they're from a cow and are low in fat and (variably) high in protein

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mortimer

This is a problem? Why?

Because it changes the texture of the burger. Some people don't mind, I do. But when they hid the fact the stuff was added to the burger people like myself who didn't like the texture had no way of knowing which burger would taste normal. Even the people behind the meat counter couldn't say.

If they would have labeled it properly instead of trying to hide it from consumers by calling it "beef" when in reality it had very little meat, there wouldn't be an issue today.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Lets revisit the lies SG believes

OK, let's.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

The reason they need ammonia is because they need to heat the meat to help it separate in the centrifuge. Increased heat leads to increased bacterial activity, the perfectly safe treatment prevents that.

SG has said repeatedly she is not in the, 'it's bad for you', camp.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

1. A USDA offcial was bribed to let this go

One of the key regulators responsible for the decision to approve adding LFTB to hamburger without informing the consumer left her government position shortly after and was paid 1.4 million dollars (spread out over a number of years) to sit on the board of one of the main beneficiaries of the decision. While it was argued it only amounted to $40K a year, what was ignored was that $40K was for working a couple days a year.

This revolving door of government is well known, a recognized problem, and certainly not something SG imagined.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

2. This product was only approved as dog food before this.

And you have evidence that isn't a true statement? (Except I believe the trim was sold to be put in animal feed, not necessarily just dog food.)

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

3. Sorry I have more but I can't stop laughing

I lieu of actual arguments no doubt.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by GlennB

... it isn't reasonable to describe bovine products high in CT as 'lean beef'. I asked a similar question earlier ... would ground cow bone, skin, hoof or horn reasonably qualify for the description 'lean beef' ? After all, they're from a cow and are low in fat and (variably) high in protein

Another good question not answered in this thread.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let's clarify the tendon thing.

The beef industry websites and some university websites associated with the beef industry say there are no tendons in the LFTB. This is a moot point since the issue is the connective tissue proteins, not which body part they come from.

From Scientific American guest blogger, See Arr Oh:

Quote:

regarding LFTB’s content: there’s less overall “functional” protein than that found in other meat products. An analysis conducted at Iowa State University (A.S. Leaflet R1361) found two-and-a-half times more insoluble protein (77% vs. 30%) relative to soluble proteins in ordinary ground chuck. Nutritionally, our gut bacteria digest much of what we cannot, but there’s a good bet that we can’t get as much value from insoluble proteins (collagen and elastin, found largely in tendons, ligaments, and cartilage) as from their soluble siblings (myosin and actin, usually associated with muscle tissues). While these proteins may be hard to digest, on the plus side, there’s less fat in LFTB (~5%) than standard ground chuck (15-20%).

Note the author cites the same analysis I and others have been citing throughout the thread, Finely Textured Lean Beef as an Ingredient for Processed Meats - A.S. Leaflet R1361

If there are no tendons in the LFTB, then where does the fibrous protein fibers come from? Something other than tendons, ligaments, and cartilage? If it's the same kind of tissue, who cares? It's still fibrous CT protein, not globular muscle meat protein.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Finely Textured Lean Beef as an Ingredient for Processed Meats - A.S. Leaflet R1361

It's interesting revisiting this document. The point of the analysis was to find out why LFTB was an unsuitable ingredient in hot dogs.

Quote:

Despite the low fat content, there has been concern that this material does not function well in processed meats such as frankfurters. This study was initiated to determine the cause of the lower functionality in LFTB and to develop processing treatments to improve the functionality of LFTB. As an ingredient, LFTB represents a high valueadded material and provides an excellent means of utilizing high-fat beef trimmings. Improved functionality of LFTB will add to the total value of beef carcasses.

I repeat that I have no issue with using as much of the cow as possible, and I have no issue with the safety of the stuff (though there has been more breakthrough bacteria in the product, I advocate cooking all burger thoroughly anyway).

In the discussion part of the paper, it was noted:

Quote:

composition
analysis showed protein concentration of LFTB to be very similar to beef chucks.

However, re the quality of that protein:

Quote:

Fractionation of proteins showed the LFTB to be relatively high in insoluble proteins and collagen compared to beef chuck. The highly functional highionic-strength proteins were present in low concentrations. Thus, the lower functionality is not surprising...

Like I said, if they would have just labeled it and been honest regardless if consumers accepted the product or not, there wouldn't be a problem now. But the industry decided to slip it in and not inform consumers.

Why would they do that? Because they were afraid consumers would reject the product. Well, in this country, that is supposed to be our right to do.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Finely Textured Lean Beef as an Ingredient for Processed Meats - A.S. Leaflet R1361

It's interesting revisiting this document. The point of the analysis was to find out why LFTB was an unsuitable ingredient in hot dogs.


I repeat that I have no issue with using as much of the cow as possible, and I have no issue with the safety of the stuff (though there has been more breakthrough bacteria in the product, I advocate cooking all burger thoroughly anyway).

In the discussion part of the paper, it was noted:

However, re the quality of that protein:

Like I said, if they would have just labeled it and been honest regardless if consumers accepted the product or not, there wouldn't be a problem now. But the industry decided to slip it in and not inform consumers.

Why would they do that? Because they were afraid consumers would reject the product. Well, in this country, that is supposed to be our right to do.

I'm beginning to think that the Kosher labeling example should be a litmus test for pro-nanny-staters.

Anybody who looks at food labeling questions of personal preference (or religious prohibitions) and instead of saying "no problem, we'll just emulate the success of the kosher community", says "no problem, we'll just get the government to criminalize something" is clearly having a gay crush on the Nanny State, Solver Of All Life's Problems.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm beginning to think that the Kosher labeling example should be a litmus test for pro-nanny-staters.

Anybody who looks at food labeling questions of personal preference (or religious prohibitions) and instead of saying "no problem, we'll just emulate the success of the kosher community", says "no problem, we'll just get the government to criminalize something" is clearly having a gay crush on the Nanny State, Solver Of All Life's Problems.

What crap to claim that simply wanting to know which burger was going to have distasteful texture and which would not, means one wants a nanny state.

[Joey McGee]

I'm sorry you really just repeated what has been called out as ******** before. There are higher amounts of connective tissue in a study from 1995. The author said that people seeing this as having a negative effect on nutrition were wrong. We have seen that it is actually more tender when we look at the majority of taste tests. We also see that despite the higher amount of connective tissue in veal that no one would ever call that product tough or not-tender. So the presence of higher amounts of connective tissue would never insinuate a lesser quality product.

We have people far out of their depth reading what they want into studies that actually don't say anything of the kind. It is ALL muscle meat. Yes, there are connective tissues throughout the body, not just in muscle meat, just fantasist ranting.