ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags food regulations , usda

Reply
Old 29th March 2012, 10:38 PM   #281
Draca
Graduate Poster
 
Draca's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,181
Originally Posted by shadron
Originally Posted by Draca View Post
The big deal is it was unlabeled, undisclosed, snuck into the American diet. The USDA allowed it not to be labeled separately because it is made out of cattle, this is despite the expectation by the consumer that ground beef contains ground meat.
And all this time I thought you were saying

Originally Posted by Draca
Being fed what is meant to be dog food is being nutritionally poisoned in my opinion. Not to mention the ammonia added to kill off all of the ecoli. Beyond gross.
That it isn't labeled "nutritionally poisonous"? or " beyond gross"?

Here is what I wrote in the starting op:
Originally Posted by Draca View Post
I've been following the Pink Slime story with disgust. Obviously we can not count on the government to provide protection or honesty on what is being sold as food. Absolutely outraged that major stores have gotten away with selling this. Our food supply is poisoned.

What I'm most outraged at is that it isn't even labeled to give people a choice, and there are no plans to require it to be labeled in the future. The USDA has utterly betrayed the American people in favor of big business.

Quote from ABC News "A USDA source told ABC news it’s up to the grocery stores to disclose what’s in their ground beef and the Agriculture Department has no jurisdiction."

Lack of labeling and disclosure has been my main issue with this from the start. Especially that the USDA pushed it through and they are suppose to be working for us. The hidden nature of the product being put in the food supply without it being known I find extremely disturbing.

Give people a choice. Hotdogs are a great example. It would be as if the public thinks that hotdogs are made out of pure ground pork meat when in reality it isn't. That isn't the case, the package lists what could be in a hotdog. LTFB has been passed off as pure ground beef meat.

When I used the word poisonous I meant in the way it would be to eat nutritionally empty junk food laden with chemicals everyday instead of high quality food. It's like a real potato vs. potato chips. When 15-20% of a food that is bought for nutrition is not what is expected - that is a problem. And yes, I do think LFTB is gross.


"That it isn't labeled "nutritionally poisonous"? or " beyond gross"?"
- labeling it LFTB would be enough to cover that.
__________________
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
― Malcolm X - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org - http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org

Last edited by Draca; 29th March 2012 at 10:53 PM.
Draca is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2012, 11:15 PM   #282
Dipayan
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Sure. I'm more than willing to take a blinded test. It would be interesting if anyone in the Seattle/Bellevue area was game.
I wonder if anybody has actually tried this. Will check it out.

The main reason I'm interested in this is that quite a few people such as yourself, Draca etc are suggesting that the texture of the beef is made worse (rubbery, gristly) by the LFTB because of its higher percentage content of connective tissues, cartilage etc. I'm trying to reconcile the stated texture of the LFTB (slimy, gooey) with this observation.
Dipayan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 06:05 AM   #283
casebro
Philosopher
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,663
There is nor reason to suspect that (slimy,gooey) when raw equals (slimy,gooey) after cooking. Nearly all foods change texture when cooked. Even good hamburger toughens up some when cooked.

This afternoon, I will be cooking a plastic tube of Ground Chicken. It says "100% pure" right on it, and no 'ingredients' frame anywhere. No where does it list "mechanically separated chicken".

I make 'dirty rice' out of it, to feed to the dogs. I think my dog food is better than some people's hamburgers.
__________________
Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts.

Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them.

It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 08:10 AM   #284
Dipayan
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
There is nor reason to suspect that (slimy,gooey) when raw equals (slimy,gooey) after cooking. Nearly all foods change texture when cooked. Even good hamburger toughens up some when cooked.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't necessarily agree if this 'toughening' of meat is what 'gristly' refers to - of course would prefer if one of the original posters could clarify. To my mind, the picture is somewhat different when I hear 'gristly'.
Dipayan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 09:03 AM   #285
23_Tauri
Illuminator
 
23_Tauri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,927
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
Wanna know the funniest thing about this?

The term 'pink slime' was used in an internal e-mail that some scientist or USDA employee or both, I'm not going to bother looking it up, thought was all private and jokey and whatnot.
Yes, it was first coined by Gerald Zirnstein, a USDA microbiologist, in a private email. Then popularised by that idiot Jamie Oliver.

I'm late to this discussion, but my tuppence'worth is that it seems to me that inventing a way to make use of valuable animal protein rather than having to throw it away as pet food is a winning situation for everyone.

Labelling another's matter. I'm all for labelling, and the individual consumer doing their own research so they can decipher the labels. But again, it would seem that labelling of LFTB is only an issue because so many health faddists get a bee in their bonnet about made-up health scares that they don't understand. Honestly, as long as it's safe (and LFTB has been demonstrated to be as safe as any other ground beef) people should be glad they have any meat to eat at all.
__________________
Little Miss Witchcraft, she's not made of straw.

Last edited by 23_Tauri; 30th March 2012 at 09:15 AM.
23_Tauri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 10:02 AM   #286
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by Dipayan View Post
I understand what you are saying, but I don't necessarily agree if this 'toughening' of meat is what 'gristly' refers to - of course would prefer if one of the original posters could clarify. To my mind, the picture is somewhat different when I hear 'gristly'.
The texture of most burger in my area changed a number of years ago. At first I thought that somehow more gristle was beng used. As it became more common, I suspected maybe it was some new way of processing meat, a new method of taking the meat off the bone. And while I won't know for sure if this is the cause until more people take it out of their products, 'lean beef trimmings' fits the bill for the change I've observed.

But if I had to describe the texture without guessing more gristle was the cause, I would describe it as rubbery.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 10:16 AM   #287
Draca
Graduate Poster
 
Draca's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,181
The Democrats respond:

Quote:
Congresswoman Chellie Pingree’s bill, which she called “Requiring Easy and Accurate Labeling of Beef Act (REAL Beef Act)” would require any beef containing ‘finely textured beef’ to have a label at the final point of sale.

“Consumers have made it pretty clear they don’t want this stuff in their food,” Pingree said. “If a product contains connective tissue and beef scraps and has been treated with ammonia, you ought to be able to know that when you pick it up in the grocery store.”

Pingree said her bill has ten democratic co-sponsors
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/d...eef-additives/
__________________
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
― Malcolm X - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org - http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org
Draca is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 10:17 AM   #288
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 18,593
I, too, once a couple of years ago had to throw out frozen burgers that I suspect had more than a token amount of "pink slime" in them. But I have to say that my experience differs from those here markedly. When I tried cooking a couple, what I found was that they had no "bite" whatsoever - rubbery or otherwise. On the contrary, they seemed mealy, mushy, and insubstantial. I was not aware at the time of any sort of "pink slime" component, I simply thought it was extremely low-quality meat and I didn't buy that brand any more. But now as I think on it, I'd suspect the loosely-bound "finely-textured trimmings" made up largely of grated connective tissue to end up tasting that way when cooked, rather than rubbery, firm, or tough.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 11:28 AM   #289
Dipayan
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The texture of most burger in my area changed a number of years ago.
I might be wrong, but I got the impression that LFTB has been around since 1975...?

Quote:
And while I won't know for sure if this is the cause until more people take it out of their products, 'lean beef trimmings' fits the bill for the change I've observed.
This is the part that I'm trying to understand. How can we know what fits the bill if we have no way of know whether it was the tasty meat that had LFTB, or the crappy meat, or both? We are starting off by assuming that LFTB must taste a certain unpleasant way, and then assigning blame to LFTB for all the times we have had that certain unpleasant taste in any meat.
Dipayan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 11:32 AM   #290
Oliver
~The Rascal~
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,361
Originally Posted by Draca View Post
Just put a ****** LABEL on it so the consumer has a choice on if they want to consume it or not.

That's how it should be. Unfortunately, you don't count and political capitalism rocks.
__________________

Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 11:34 AM   #291
Dipayan
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I, too, once a couple of years ago had to throw out frozen burgers that I suspect had more than a token amount of "pink slime" in them. But I have to say that my experience differs from those here markedly. When I tried cooking a couple, what I found was that they had no "bite" whatsoever - rubbery or otherwise. On the contrary, they seemed mealy, mushy, and insubstantial. I was not aware at the time of any sort of "pink slime" component, I simply thought it was extremely low-quality meat and I didn't buy that brand any more. But now as I think on it, I'd suspect the loosely-bound "finely-textured trimmings" made up largely of grated connective tissue to end up tasting that way when cooked, rather than rubbery, firm, or tough.
This is what I mean. While another poster has had bad experiences with 'rubbery' meat, this poster has had a bad experience with 'mushy' meat. Two separate issues, but both posters somehow seem pretty sure that LFTB had something to do with it.

The reasoning seems somewhat circular.
Dipayan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 12:49 PM   #292
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
 
RenaissanceBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,088
I cooked venison burgers for dinner last night. I am always pleased to see how red it is when I open the package. There's almost no fat and absolutely no pink slime.
__________________
"Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine
"Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker
RenaissanceBiker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 02:18 PM   #293
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by Dipayan View Post
I might be wrong, but I got the impression that LFTB has been around since 1975...?



This is the part that I'm trying to understand. How can we know what fits the bill if we have no way of know whether it was the tasty meat that had LFTB, or the crappy meat, or both? We are starting off by assuming that LFTB must taste a certain unpleasant way, and then assigning blame to LFTB for all the times we have had that certain unpleasant taste in any meat.
History of Beef Products, Inc
Quote:
1991 - BPI begins production of "lean" beef and becomes a key ingredient in low fat or lean ground beef.

First, I don't know other than it has been years I've been getting hamburger that had this unpleasant texture. I estimated a decade, give or take.

The company making the stuff started making this particular product in the early 90s not the 70s. So if the stuff was invented in the 70s doesn't mean it was used then and even in the 90s the market may have started out small. I believe the company's history page is consistent with when I started having complaints.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 02:27 PM   #294
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
My only observation in this whole discussion to add at this point is this: how many of the people here complaining about so-called "pink slime" would be willing to pay the inevitable higher prices for "more pure" beef? And we aren't talking chump change here, either. This is a big potentially unintended consequence of banning beef with "pink slime" in it that I don't think most people are thinking about.

For example, much noise has been made on this issue concerning beef which goes to public schools, mostly with freaked out parents complaining that they don't want their children eating "pink slime". Okay, fine, but are those same people willing to pay higher taxes to support the increased costs that public schools would have to pay for the "better" beef?

It's one thing to complain and make noise about "pink slime", but entirely another thing to step up and pay more out of your own pocketbook when confronted with the economic fallout. If people expect to get something for nothing (an all-too-common sentiment among people), then they're being idiots.

ETA: The best analogy I can think of is to think about gas prices. People want cleaner burning gas so that air quality is getter and fewer greenhouse gases are emitted (all good things), so there must be a more complicated refining process on the gasoline, and there are likely a number of additives to be mixed in, etc. All of this costs money, which translates into higher prices at the pump (which was true even before the most recent run-up in gas prices). And then people complain about having to pay higher gas prices as a result
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 30th March 2012 at 02:32 PM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 04:08 PM   #295
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
My only observation in this whole discussion to add at this point is this: how many of the people here complaining about so-called "pink slime" would be willing to pay the inevitable higher prices for "more pure" beef? ...
Me, and I've been doing it now for at least a year. The organic burger at Whole Foods is $9-10/pound.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 04:14 PM   #296
Joey McGee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,719
But they were lying and defrauding and stealing from us with this poisonous product weren't they? So poor people paying more money for burgers is just the money that the companies used to be stealing. Wait, no, I've confused myself.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 04:18 PM   #297
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Me, and I've been doing it now for at least a year. The organic burger at Whole Foods is $9-10/pound.
Good on ya, SG. Now if everyone who is complaining about "pink slime" would be willing to step up and pay more for beef, as well as paying increased taxes to support the "pure" beef in their public schools, that would be just hunky-dory by me.

This also goes for all the idiots who signed the Internet petition without thinking it through first. How much you want to bet the majority of them would turn around and complain about increased costs/taxes for "pure" beef?
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 04:19 PM   #298
Joey McGee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,719
I feel like I'm missing out, it's time to bring pink slime to Canada.

‘Pink slime’: Is Canada really better off without it?

Quote:
Richard Holley, a food science professor at the University of Manitoba, not only thinks "pink slime" is fine, he thinks it's a better alternative to what is typically done in Canada.

"I see this as not an unreasonable process from a scientific perspective," he says. "It enables the recovery of high-quality protein from meat that otherwise would more than likely end up as mechanically separated."
Evidence-enough that he is employed by the nefarious "beef industry".

Quote:
According to McGill chemistry professor Joe Schwarcz, the process is nothing to worry about.

"Neither the dissolved ammonia, nor the ammonium hydroxide it forms, presents a health concern," Schwarcz wrote in a recent Montreal Gazette article."Ammonia is a product of protein metabolism and therefore routinely forms in the human body. It ends up being converted into urea which is then excreted in the urine."
But, how can Joe be so sure about that?
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 04:33 PM   #299
Joey McGee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,719
Quote:
"This isn't a situation where somebody was doing something wrong and they got caught and now there's this need to pay the consequences," Mills said. "This is a company with a long reputation of doing things right, working with regulatory agencies and food safety people. From a technical or logical standpoint, these are the folks you'd hold up and say this is the way you do it."

Edward Mills, associate professor of dairy and animal science at Penn State University

source
They lied to us! They stole from us! They don't even care about our children!!!

No evidence that this product is not safe and nutritious yet. That it doesn't have virtually the same nutritional profile as ground beef. Oh wait we don't trust the company and the usda anymore, got it.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 30th March 2012 at 04:37 PM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 04:37 PM   #300
casebro
Philosopher
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,663
It ain't a healthy component if it is 70% undigestible.

It's not doing the poor any favors is it? "Have some! It's CHEAP! But has only a fraction of the absorb-able protein and essential amino acids you expect! You can starve to death by eating your fill! But it is CHEAP!"

I don't eat much hamburger. I buy Rib Eye roast for $3.79/lb at the Vietnamese grocer. Slice my own steaks, or slice and dice for Fajitas tacos. Costco sells good ground beef, but it cost about $3/lb. I'd rather have steak.
__________________
Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts.

Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them.

It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 04:46 PM   #301
Joey McGee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,719
Originally Posted by Draca View Post
It's fine that you like Spam, hotdogs, etc. I don't care if the product exists. Just put a ****** LABEL on it so the consumer has a choice on if they want to consume it or not.
What hope does the product have when people who supposedly just want the labeling changed are doing it for faulty reasons? Chemophobes, neo-luddites, and life-meaning-starved slacktivists don't have a good record for making intelligent, fact-based food choices.

Quote:
My choice would be NOT, but if it was in a product like a beef sausage I would probably still eat it if served at a BBQ. I think what is in hotdogs is gross but still have one occasionally. The choice should be the consumers though.
What kind of choice do they have when people are making choices based on misinformation and fearmongering such as

Quote:
"Being fed what is meant to be dog food is being nutritionally poisoned"
Which is your quote by the way... You'll eat nutritionally poisoned dog food as long as it's in a sausage? Hell even I wouldn't do that.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 30th March 2012 at 05:00 PM. Reason: typo
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 04:56 PM   #302
Joey McGee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,719
Hey you know that 1996 study that has been waved around here like the smoking gun? I think it's what most people are using to support their "it's inedible" "it's undigestible" "it's not beef" arguments, right?
Quote:
In a statement dated March 23, Iowa State University agriculture professor Joseph Sebranek, Ph.D., wrote that his 1996 study on LFTB in the Journal of Food Sciences had been misconstrued by some media reports.

While Sebranek's study did not compare nutritional differences between ground beef with and without LTFB, some media reports have claimed that LFTB degrades the meat to which it's added.

"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," Sebranek wrote. "Nothing in our study or what we know about collagen more broadly should lead one to that conclusion."

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/0...americas-beef/
What I would do for a burger containing pink slime right now.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 30th March 2012 at 04:58 PM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 06:45 PM   #303
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Good on ya, SG. Now if everyone who is complaining about "pink slime" would be willing to step up and pay more for beef, as well as paying increased taxes to support the "pure" beef in their public schools, that would be just hunky-dory by me.

This also goes for all the idiots who signed the Internet petition without thinking it through first. How much you want to bet the majority of them would turn around and complain about increased costs/taxes for "pure" beef?
Of course this assumes the pink slime used lowered the price of burger and/or kept the price from rising.

If instead, the pink slime was added to the product and the profit margin was increased instead, your argument fails.

I do not know the answer to this, but suggest it is an equally valid hypothesis.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 06:58 PM   #304
Joey McGee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,719
The increase on the price of beef has already happened, it's been in the news for days. The demand for beef staying the same there will be about 1.5 million cows worth of meat missing from the market.

Quote:
We are at the lowest cattle inventory numbers in the United States since 1952,” Moore says. “Our population has basically doubled since 1952, so sure, we‘re going to see a lot of pressure beef prices at the retail and the food service end.”

Moore says there will be more price pressure now because LFTB made up 15-percent of the nation‘s ground beef production.

“There is no replacement for 15 percent of that product in our country right now,” he says. “We‘ve seen ground beef prices increase 20- to 25-percent over the last 12 months. We‘re going to see more increases especially as we go into summer grilling season.”

source
Yeah we won! Stickin' it to the man! That'll teach 'em from messing with our children's lunch meat!

Last edited by Joey McGee; 30th March 2012 at 06:59 PM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 08:24 PM   #305
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 18,593
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
What hope does the product have when people who supposedly just want the labeling changed are doing it for faulty reasons? Chemophobes, neo-luddites, and life-meaning-starved slacktivists don't have a good record for making intelligent, fact-based food choices.

Doesn't impact their right to know.

People have the right to make choices about their diet; the fact that they may choose based on "bad data" really doesn't matter.

Honestly, I don't understand how someone can argue against informing consumers just because there's a chance they may misinterpret the information. The solution is to educate, not "hide" things from them.

Beef already is labeled with a fat content ratio. Have sales of heavier-fat beef suffered due to the general public impression that "fat is bad"?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 11:24 PM   #306
Dipayan
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
First, I don't know other than it has been years I've been getting hamburger that had this unpleasant texture. I estimated a decade, give or take.
Thanks for the link.

Quote:
I believe the company's history page is consistent with when I started having complaints.
I do not dispute your experience, or rather I cannot dispute your experience. But given that there might be x number of reasons why the quality of cheaper beef is not that good, how can one state that it is most probably because of LFBT?

Do keep in mind that I actually don't have a position on this yet.
Dipayan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2012, 11:38 PM   #307
Dipayan
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 161
Came across an interesting bit of commentary.

Quote:
BPI's product is a raw material. It is not the finished product. It was meant to be mixed into ground beef to enhance/control it's lean percentages. BPI came up with a process to safely and efficiently do this and to what end? It's not their responsibility to inform the consumer, that would fall on the end seller's shoulders. BPI makes a product that is an ingredient to a finshed product. So if you want a place to place blame for not "disclosing" what's was in their product, you should look towards the people actually distributing the product to the public. Ever see a Wendy's or McDonald's advertisement for 100% beef patties? Now let's think for a minute. Do you think these conglomerates knew exactly what they were buying and mixing into their ground beef? Don't you think they would tour the plants and understand the process before spending millions on the product? How about the supermarkets or packing houses that used lftb in there ground beef. Does their label state it? Yet all these former BPI customers are now on the other side of the fence when it was infact their negligence that kept consumers from being "fully" informed. Here's an anology for you: Would you place blame on the corn farmer because he grew genetically engineered corn (try to find some that isn't a genetically altered hybrid..you won't find many.) and it wasn't "disclosed" on your can of Cambells soup? Cambells didn't grow the corn after all right? So it's the farmer's responsibility to ensure that his corn's proper name goes on the soup can right? Give me a break.
Dipayan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 12:07 PM   #308
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
The increase on the price of beef has already happened, it's been in the news for days. The demand for beef staying the same there will be about 1.5 million cows worth of meat missing from the market.

Yeah we won! Stickin' it to the man! That'll teach 'em from messing with our children's lunch meat!
Yup... what idiots.

ETA: What amazes me is how stupid this whole thing is from an environmental standpoint. We are going to be wasting a huge amount of beef, simply throwing it away. What happened to using all of our resources for maximum efficiency?
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 31st March 2012 at 12:09 PM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 12:08 PM   #309
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Of course this assumes the pink slime used lowered the price of burger and/or kept the price from rising.

If instead, the pink slime was added to the product and the profit margin was increased instead, your argument fails.

I do not know the answer to this, but suggest it is an equally valid hypothesis.
Do you have any reason to support this hypothesis, beyond baseless speculation?

And, I believe, the question of higher beef prices has just been addressed with the links provided a couple of posts ago.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 01:10 PM   #310
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Do you have any reason to support this hypothesis, beyond baseless speculation?

And, I believe, the question of higher beef prices has just been addressed with the links provided a couple of posts ago.
Without looking up the specific industry, yes, it does appear to be a widespread corporate trend to keep increasing profit margins.

You cite Joey's link, no doubt. But that just says the beef industry is going to charge the public for this. It doesn't say whether the initial benefit of the product was collected as a greater profit margin or as lower cost of burger. I know a lot of people believe the price of beef is strictly controlled by supply and demand however our economic system is not so pure. It will take a bit of looking to answer your question.

But consider that someone is selling a product that wasn't previously sold. That doesn't mean the consumer saved any money. It could mean they just spent more.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 31st March 2012 at 01:15 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 01:28 PM   #311
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
OK, looking at one scenario: say burger prices were high because less cattle existed. Lean beef trimmings provide more supply. But if the supply was already so low that prices were maxed out, adding more product could simply bring more buyers rather than significantly lowering the cost. So some people who skipped the burger return to the demand side. I now pay almost the same but get a crappier product. More people get burger but I don't pay enough less to actually be getting the full benefit of the lowered price. The beef industry, OTOH, increased supply without only a small increase in production costs.


Anyway, the bottom line is still, give me the choice, don't slip it in with a misleading name, all the while lobbying the legislature to change regulations so you don't have to tell the consumer.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 01:55 PM   #312
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,808
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Me, and I've been doing it now for at least a year. The organic burger at Whole Foods is $9-10/pound.
At that price I would grind my own.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 01:58 PM   #313
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,808
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
It ain't a healthy component if it is 70% undigestible.
So many vegetables are not healthy?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 02:06 PM   #314
Draca
Graduate Poster
 
Draca's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,181
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-201...-sec319-15.xml
Quote:
Title 9 - Animals and Animal Products Volume: 2

Date: 2010-01-01
Original Date: 2010-01-01
Title: Section 319.15 - Miscellaneous beef products.
Context: Title 9 - Animals and Animal Products. CHAPTER III - FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. SUBCHAPTER A - AGENCY ORGANIZATION AND TERMINOLOGY; MANDATORY MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION AND VOLUNTARY INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION. PART 319 - DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS OF IDENTITY OR COMPOSITION. Subpart B - Raw Meat Products.

319.15 Miscellaneous beef products.

(a) Chopped beef, ground beef. “Chopped Beef” or “Ground Beef” shall consist of chopped fresh and/or frozen beef with or without seasoning and without the addition of beef fat as such, shall not contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not contain added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders. When beef cheek meat (trimmed beef cheeks) is used in the preparation of chopped or ground beef, the amount of such cheek meat shall be limited to 25 percent; and if in excess of natural proportions, its presence shall be declared on the label, in the ingredient statement required by § 317.2 of this subchapter, if any, and otherwise contiguous to the name of the product.

(b) Hamburger. “Hamburger” shall consist of chopped fresh and/or frozen beef with or without the addition of beef fat as such and/or seasoning, shall not contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not contain added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders. Beef cheek meat (trimmed beef cheeks) may be used in the preparation of hamburger only in accordance with the conditions prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) Beef patties. “Beef Patties” shall consist of chopped fresh and/or frozen beef with or without the addition of beef fat as such and/or seasonings. Binders or extenders, Mechanically Separated (Species) used in accordance with § 319.6, and/or partially defatted beef fatty tissue may be used without added water or with added water only in amounts such that the product characteristics are essentially that of a meat pattie.

(d) Fabricated steak. Fabricated beef steaks, veal steaks, beef and veal steaks, or veal and beef steaks, and similar products, such as those labeled “Beef Steak, Chopped, Shaped, Frozen,” “Minute Steak, Formed, Wafer Sliced, Frozen,” “Veal Steaks, Beef Added, Chopped—Molded—Cubed—Frozen, Hydrolyzed Plant Protein, and Flavoring” shall be prepared by comminuting and forming the product from fresh and/or frozen meat, with or without added fat, of the species indicated on the label. Such products shall not contain more than 30 percent fat and shall not contain added water or extenders. Transglutaminase enzyme at levels of up to 65 ppm may be used as a binder. Beef cheek meat (trimmed beef cheeks) may be used in the preparation of fabricated beef steaks only in accordance with the conditions prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section.

(e) Partially defatted beef fatty tissue. “Partially Defatted Beef Fatty Tissue” is a beef byproduct derived from the low temperature rendering (not exceeding 120 °F.) of fresh beef fatty tissue. Such product shall have a pinkish color and a fresh odor and appearance.

[35 FR 15597, Oct. 3, 1970, as amended at 38 FR 29215, Oct. 23, 1973; 43 FR 26424, June 20, 1978; 47 FR 10784, Mar. 12, 1982; 47 FR 28257, June 29, 1982; 66 FR 54916, Oct. 31, 2001]

LFTB is not listed as things that can be found in 'Ground Beef' or 'Hamburger' in the Federal Regulation. (e) Partially defatted beef fatty tissue - seems to be LTFB?
__________________
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
― Malcolm X - http://www.injustice-anywhere.org - http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org

Last edited by Draca; 31st March 2012 at 02:27 PM.
Draca is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 04:53 PM   #315
Joey McGee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,719
It's clearly evidence of a grand conspiracy. I think that the USDA official who took a board job at somewhereorother should answer for her treason of humanity.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 31st March 2012 at 04:54 PM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 04:57 PM   #316
Joey McGee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,719
The grand conspiracy to sneak beef into beef! One of the few proven conspiracy theories.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 05:18 PM   #317
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
It's clearly evidence of a grand conspiracy. I think that the USDA official who took a board job at somewhereorother should answer for her treason of humanity.
So you dismiss the reality of the influence of lobbyists as CT woo?
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 05:23 PM   #318
Joey McGee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,719
Not at all, I'm mocking the idea that her acceptance of that job is evidence of conspiracy, especially when it was legal at the time.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 05:36 PM   #319
Joey McGee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,719
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Yup... what idiots.

ETA: What amazes me is how stupid this whole thing is from an environmental standpoint. We are going to be wasting a huge amount of beef, simply throwing it away. What happened to using all of our resources for maximum efficiency?
The irony is that it is the waste of humanity's resources, IE woo and pseudoscience, that is driving this. It is literally a combination of politicians being apathetic to their voters and scientists being apathetic to the ignorant masses! Leaving the skeptics to wallow in the swamp of feces leftover.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 31st March 2012 at 05:37 PM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2012, 06:24 PM   #320
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 18,593
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Yup... what idiots.

ETA: What amazes me is how stupid this whole thing is from an environmental standpoint. We are going to be wasting a huge amount of beef, simply throwing it away. What happened to using all of our resources for maximum efficiency?
Were we "throwing it away" before we started adding LFTB to ground beef, or were we doing something else with it?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.