 In cooking, the process of clarification entails straining out extraneous muck from liquids so that they might be pure, clear and ideal for consumption. With this series on food terminology and issues we're attempting to do the same. A new phrase has oozed into the news cycle: "pink slime." While one might expect such terminology to deal with a "Double Dare" or "Ghostbusters" reboot, instead, it refers to something that many Americans are consuming without even knowing it. The pink goo first gained mainstream attention when British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver focused an episode of his show, "Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution," on the product that is used as a ground beef filler.
During the episode, Oliver reported 70 percent of ground beef in the United States contains the ammonium hydroxide-treated ground meat that bears a striking resemblance to strawberry fro-yo. Beef Products, Inc., are the makers of the so-called "pink slime." They describe themselves as the "world's leading producer of lean beef processed from fresh beef trimmings." BPI makes the product by grinding together beef scraps and connective tissue. The company then uses a mixture of ammonia and water (ammonium hydroxide) to prevent the risk for E. coli or salmonella contamination. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) both consider ammonium hydroxide as GRAS (an acronym for "generally recognized as safe"), McDonald’s has since announced that it discontinued the use of, what the corporation calls, select beef trimmings (SLBT). The fast food chain came under fire after the episode for using the filler in its hamburger patties. "For a number of years prior to 2011, to assist with supply, McDonald’s USA used some lean beef trimmings treated with ammonia in our burgers. We were among other food retailers who used this safe product," the fast food chain released in a statement. "At the beginning of last year, we made a decision to stop using this ingredient. It has been out of the McDonald’s USA supply chain since last August." Taco Bell and Burger King have reportedly also discontinued use of BPI's product. However, a new report in the tablet-only newspaper The Daily suggests the USDA plans to buy 7 million pounds of lean beef trimmings from BPI this spring for the national school lunch program. Change.org has since started a petition against the USDA and its use of BPI's products in school lunches. At present, the USDA does not require labeling that would let consumers know if the beef they're buying contains the mixture. "The only solution I can give you is: The only way you can use ground beef is by watching the butcher grind it in front of you - which they can do, but that's a real pain in the backside," said Oliver. |
  Recent Posts
 |
 |
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
l am vacuuming the floor now and have several shirts to iron.I think I've caught a cold.She hired a car by the hour.Yet all these things, different as they seem, have one thing in common.How's it going? The doctor examined the soldier's wound carefully.The doctor examined the soldier's wound carefully.He is physically mature.It's a fine day.I bought it the day it was released.
North Face Ski Pants http://northfaceskipantssale.webs.com/
If you watch the Documentary Food Inc. , it all makes sense.
pink slime is no worse than the rest of the cafo beef. and thats not a good thing.
Tim,
Your uninformed diatribe is getting really old. You want to knock this stuff for the ammonia they use, have at it. Making the statement that it has "no nutritional value" is an out-and-out lie, and either you know that, or you're too dumb to know that it's not true.
The "connective tissue" that's present will consist largely of collagen – that's the stuff of which tendons and ligaments are made. Ever hear of "gelatin"? Do you eat Jell-O(R)? Guess what, dumba@@, you're eating hydrolyzed collagen. And do you know what collagen is? – of course you don't. It's pure protein, and since you probably can't infer this from the information given – that means it has real nutritional value. Your BS is really old, and you are living proof of the old saying that "Ignorance can be overcome with education, but there's no cure for stupid".
By the way, "hydrolyzed" simply means 'reacted with water' (broken/split with water, if you want to be technical). That's what happens when you cook "connective tissue" with MOIST heat, it converts into gelatin. Dry heat won't do it, because there's not enough water there to allow the conversion to occur.
What's really old is how you meat industry shills will grasp at anything to alleviate your pain.
Although gelatin is 98-99% protein by dry weight, it has less nutritional value than many other protein sources. Gelatin is unusually high in the non-essential amino acids glycine and proline (i.e., those produced by the human body), while lacking certain essential amino acids (i.e., those not produced by the human body). It contains no tryptophan and is deficient in isoleucine, threonine, and methionine. The approximate amino acid composition of gelatin is: glycine 21%, proline 12%, hydroxyproline 12%, glutamic acid 10%, alanine 9%, arginine 8%, aspartic acid 6%, lysine 4%, serine 4%, leucine 3%, valine 2%, phenylalanine 2%, threonine 2%, isoleucine 1%, hydroxylysine 1%, methionine and histidine <1% and tyrosine <0.5%. These values vary, especially the minor constituents, depending on the source of the raw material and processing technique.
Keep swinging and I'll keep drilling.
Protein Quality
Collagen is not a complete protein because it is lacking in the amino acid tryptophan. A Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAA) of a complete protein is 1.0. Collagen's PDCAA score is 0.08.
From: http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0562E/T0562E02.htm
Collagen differs from most other proteins in containing the amino acids, hydroxylysine and hydroxyproline and no cysteine or tryptophan. Elastin, also present in connective tissue, has less hydroxylysine and hydroxyproline. Hence cuts of meat that are richer in connective tissue have lower protein quality (see Chapter 3). Their content of connective tissue makes them tough and in many regions these cuts of meat bring a lower price.
From: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=s0103-90162004000200018&script=sci_arttext
Collagen content
High contents of collagen in any meat can negatively influence its technological and nutritional characteristics, since collagen is a protein with inferior functionality and low nutritional value because of its poor balance of amino acids.
One last thing: Gelatin is an excellent diet food because it takes more calories to digest than it contains.
Nice job,What?
The meat industry is better off without your "help."
Well, I see somebody was goaded into action. Cut-and-paste on steroids. I don't recall ever stating that collagen was a "complete protein" – probably because I know better. There are very few "complete proteins" out there – but then, you already knew this, too, didn't you? – so this whole thing isn't just a smokescreen. Bottom line is – and your own google research proves – that you've been spouting misinformation.
By the way, I'm curious as the to the source of your last posted comment here. In fact, I call BS on that statement until you can provide a RELIABLE source to verify it. (You may be busy for a while.)
Oh, and your source (Widipedia?) for the amino acid composition of collagen is wrong.
Hold on... While I'm on your side, how is the composition of collagen different from what Tim posted? Those are comparable to the values I've seen for humans, though I don't know bovine collagen composition other than to assume it is fairly conserved. I'm simply curious.
By the by, however, he's right about it not having three amino acids, but who really cares, neither do beans and we still eat those. If we're relying on lunchrooms to provide complete nutrition, not only are we deceiving ourselves, but we are in big trouble.
Collagen is a very unique protein, and a quite dense one, too. It's structure is somewhat unique, in that it consists of multiple "strands" – prevailing theory used to be 3 – somewhat twisted together, much like a rope. Each strand consists of a very regular, and essentially unprecedented, repeating sequence of amino acids. This sequence is glycine, proline/hydroxyproline, and "various". You can see from this that fully 33% of the amino acid content – by count – is glycine, and the combination of proline and hydroxyproline account for another 33%. The remaining third is composed of the other A.A.'s that are present in various concentrations. This is what was published in the meat science textbooks and taught to every college meat science student 30 years ago. I am not aware of any changes to that information, but I don't check on it every day ;) .
Clarification: The 'last comment' I was referring to is "One last thing: Gelatin is an excellent diet food because it takes more calories to digest than it contains."
It wouldn't matter to you what I posted or where it came from - you're too hung up on defending crap and it's making you have conniptions every time you fail.
Do your own research and prove me wrong on any of those statements.
Personally, I believe your latest attack is nothing more than an easy way to move the link to the Petition to the USDA farther down the page. I wouldn't put it past someone who defends crap.
But then, you already knew that didn't you;. Ta-ta Mr. Self-Proclaimed "food scientist." LOL
For those who don't know about the petition, here it is again:
http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-usda-to-stop-using-pink-slime-in-school-food
I have both the degrees (that's plural) and the credentials to back up my "claim". What 'credentials' do you have? You've got nothing – nothing – other than your cherry-picked cut-and-paste junk that you have posted. It's good to be 'passionate' about a cause – it's even better when you really know what is involved and what you're actually passionate about.
I'm not defending crap. I'm not defending anything. I'm trying to introject a little truth in the middle of all the misinformation that's on here – of which you seem to be the primary author. I will restate – You are absolutely misrepresenting the truth here, and I'm becoming more convinced that you're doing it on purpose.
Unless the rules have changed, it is MANDATED than any visible fecal contamination on the surface of a carcass is trimmed off and discarded. That's not knocked off, or swept off, or rinsed off, but physically excised (cut out) and placed in INEDIBLE OFFAL. This "inedible offal" cannot, under any circumstances, be used to make any product that will be used for human consumption. Of course, you knew this, too, didn't you? Oh (snap), no you didn't, or you would have known that "contaminated floor sweepings" – which are also INEDIBLE OFFAL – weren't really used to make BPI's product, or any other product for human consumption for that matter. (And I didn't have to google this and cut-and-paste it.) Go find it on USDA's website for yourself, if you can. There won't be any cherry-picking on this one.
It's always easier to evade the question than to answer it, too, especially when you have no answer. (It takes more energy to digest collagen than you get out of it.) You can't provide the PROOF of this because it isn't out there. I told you your source was incorrect on the amino acid make-up of collagen, and it is. And I know this because of my "credentials".
Now, I'll be real plain. Your lies have been exposed, so you just keep on spouting the same junk over and over, Mr. Whatever-you-are – because it surely isn't "food scientist", or any kind of 'scientist', I'm guessing. You're living in your own bitter, uninformed, and intransigent delusion, so carry on. Must really "nurse" to be you.
Sounds like you spit your pacifier again.
I give you verifiable facts and this is your reply? Must be running out of ammunition trying to defend that indefensible position you've taken there, eh? If "ignorance is bliss", then you must be one of the happiest people on the planet.
Sometimes one has to realize that their efforts are completely wasted on people who are either unable or UNWILLING to accept the truth. I've put up with you long enough. My work's though here.
For your edification:
Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) = Beef Industry's silken description.
Pink Slime/Crap/Floor-Sweep/non-nutritional filler = consumer's common sense pejorative description for the same thing. I cannot speak for all consumers, but I'd dare say that most of them do NOT think of big hunks of connective tissue (gristle and whatnot) and compromised tissues to be the constituents of "ground beef." The key word is: Beef. Why? Because we believe ground beef to be made largely from muscle meat and some fat which has not been technologically reconstituted into something befitting the statement by a USDA rep as, "It's pink, therefore it's meat." At what point do we say, "Enough double-talk" and stop loathsome practices such as this which are nothing more than a means to more profit and not really "nutritious" (as you claim)?
You can't have it in all of the ways you've described. Is it collagen? Is it gelatin? Is it the good, wholesome material you seem to want everyone to believe it is?
Is "risky product" (as it is described by two USDA scientists) something you >really< want children to be eating?
The product is out-and-out fraud all the way around. Period.
If you desire to continue defending "it" here then be my guest. The battle is taking place elsewhere and will be won by those of us who believe it's time for food corporations to stop the constant deceptions which are nothing more than a means to expand their bottom line.
My pejoratives will never stop just as I expect your own gelatinous mass of decorative hoo-hah will continue unabated. I suppose your brand of propaganda might well be labeled as "Lean Finely Textured Misdirection." I'm just here to be certain that it's sanitized with my own verbal "ammonia." You're an industry shill and it makes no difference if you're a food scientist or not. You're whizzing into the wind for all the good it will do you. :)
if you want the truth about what big corperations are doing to your food and real news that our government never tells you
go to http://www.freespeech.org
or linktv.org
both are paid for by the people of the people and for the people- not owned by government........
To all the parents reading this page –
Please sign the petition against the USDA using this connective tissue filler (no nutritional value) in the school lunch program. There are nearly 200,000 signatures as I write this and we need everyone who values the health of children to sign.
http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-usda-to-stop-using-pink-slime-in-school-food
Don't let the beef industry get away with putting their collective "thumbs on the scale" by forcing school children to eat stuff that is about as nutritious as sawdust and potentially dangerous.
Tell your friends, tell your neighbors, tell your enemies - tell everyone to sign the petition and to NOT buy or (god forbid) eat "pink slime" burgers. But let's stop them from endangering our kids first by signing the petition!
All they do is sanitize previously unsafe meat by-products using ammonia processing. There is probably only trace amounts of residue left in the product. Not too appealing, but I assure you there is more free ammonia in an ounce of Camembert cheese than exists in a pound of this "slime" and it gets imported and consumed by the ton every day and nobody gets sick. If you want to get mad at the FDA, it should be about their approval and turning a blind eye to the devastation hydrogenated oils/trans fats have caused and are causing. That poison has caused more death and suffering through coronary artery disease than this pink slime ever will.
Ammonia simply isn't good for you. Adulterating product and not telling your customers is immoral and dishonest.
That's all there is to it. HFCS, "Pink Slime", Aspartame, Bisyphenol-A (sic), the list goes on and on as to the cheap, toxic things those who produce this food include as adulterants to stretch and/or cheapen the supply, so as to positively affect the bottom line – and they don't care who it affects negatively in regards to health.
These people need to be held accountable first – the ones who allowed it to happen, the very people in charge of said food production – and then, "follow the money" to find the dirtbag pieces of garbage that pay these people to do so, the suppliers of these materials, the legislators and lawmakers allowing them to do this to us, the USDA, again, the list goes on – but rest assured, there are many dirty hands here, and it's no "conspiracy theory", it's a plain and simple conspiracy to not care one bit about people and only care about lining one's pockets – and it should be pretty easy to see.
Steve, thanks for the information. I have been a food scientist for nearly 30 years now, and I never knew until reading your comments that "Bisyphenol-A" was used as an 'additive' in foods. That is a revelation for me.
Would you also happen to know exactly what functional purpose it serves in the food? No? I didn't think so. That's probably because there isn't one. You see, bisphenol-A isn't used as a food additive, and never has been. Thank you for your addition to the heap of misinformation here.
BPA is not an additive to food in the same manner that the USDA is claiming that the ammonium hydroxide is not an additive to "pink slime," but rather, a process.
The BPA gets into humans in the same way that the ammonium hydroxide gets into humans. We eat it or drink it as it is corroded off of the container which has BPA present.
See – this is the very same thing although just different vehicles.
Nice job, once again Mr. Food Scientist who likes to have tantrums and call people names. :)
I'm perfectly well aware of how BPA gets into foods. The poster make the declaration that it was "added" to foods intentionally by the food manufacturers, and this is dead wrong. But don't let the facts get in your way.
You are correct. Ammonia is not good for you. It is also not bad for you (well, unless you are exposed to large amounts of ammonia gas, but then it is bad in the same way that hydrochloric acid is bad for you: too much is bad, less is just fine...). Your body simply cannot utilize it. Otherwise it is sorta like having sand in food: unappealing perhaps but harmless.
There is more naturally-occuring Ammonia in the bun (and let's not get started on the cheese if you decide to have a cheese burger) than in a patty made with the products in question.
I am so discouranged with the FDA that they don;t seem to be there for us, How culd they turn around and send this to markets that seli hamburger and not to the dog food companies like be for. The government has apparently over millions pounds of this pink slim and but it in our childrens food. The is the most dispicable thing that this government/
Ms. Rowe rants, "The is the most dispicable thing that this government"
But why? Why is this dispicable?
Is it toxic? Is it linked to cancer, disorders, hair loss, or weight gain? 70% of beef contains it, but how much of each pound of beef is actually ammonium hydroxide? The much ado of this article is that it's in the food, without explaining why it's allegedly bad, other than the mental idea of sharing a component with dog food. I prefer more facts before I panic.
I am astounded at your reply. The fact that 50 years ago no such product existed in this country should be enough information to make us demand that it stop. We have so adulterated our food products that you actually have the audacity to question whether it causes bodily harm and then just totally accept it since no one has given you the scientific proof otherwise? It's not REAL UNADULTERATED food. It's tainted with chemicals (and not in trace amounts if you bother to actually do the research). And it's done in the name of making a buck for meat companies. How blase can you be?
Hey Vintage274! You are very critical, except in your thinking. Do you want to get rid of all chemically treated food? OK, well traditional corn tortillas are treated with lye, so get rid of those. All charcuterie, bacon, salami, etc must also go (nitrites and nitrates) as well as table salt (NaCl), olives (lye again), and many many more. And what does the "50 years" point have to do with anything? Anything newer than 50 years is no good? But everything was within your "50 year" qualification at some point. Ohhh... the lack of logic. Makes me sad...
@vintage274: 50 years ago many of the drugs we use were not around (like HIV, antibiotics, high cholesterol, anti-cancer, etc, etc, etc). The fact that they didn't exist 50 years ago means we should take them off the market? Huh? Or is this "rule" only arbitrarily applied to food?
@crazypete...I was thinking the same thing about the 50 years comment. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. However, I do think the manufactures ought to state anything that is in our ground beef besides ground beef and what approximate percentage. And when they fail to do so voluntarily, the government should step in and force them to.
A box of cereal must list its ingredients, so why not beef? Well, the thought is that it WAS because the only thing in beef is beef. Since that is not true, they should have to list the ingredients.
Agreed.
My family eats nothing but *whole cuts* of meat. A chicken breast. A steak. Leg of lamb.
Never in a million years will I feed my kids something that has been ground up and reconsituted such as deli meat, hamburger, hot dogs, etc.
Ground meat is not 'reconstituted' any more than are chopped onions, minced garlic, or grated cheese. If you are concerned about what's in it, pick a fresh cut of meat and have the butcher grind it in front of you or grind it yourself at home.
Stop with the weird, fetishistic food behavior. Your children aren't got to become sick or die from occasionally eating spaghetti and meatballs, a hamburger, or a kabob. Concentrate on giving them a balanced diet and teaching them about nutrition, not coming up with some list of foods to deny them, foods that all their friends eat with no ill effects.
@ Fred: Agreed.
But where do you get your "whole cuts of meat" from? The supermarket? Or do you care if your meat is from factory farms? That, to me, is just as dangerous as ground beef.
Who cares? It all turns into brown slime anyway.
does anyone remember reading The Jungle by Upton Sinclair?
or how about the movie Soylent Green?
who can even afford ground beef? makes me kinda glad I can't afford the garbage –
by the way, does anyone remember when Oprah Winfrey got all that flack from the beef industry when she said that she wasn't going to eat any more ground beef?
The reason there's pink slime in our beef is due to the meat industry buying off the pink slimes in our congress.
Exactly!
Probably the smartest and truest comment here yet. Thank you!
As long as they don't put that crap in my bologna, sausage, or hot dogs...
you are kidding, right????
What did you think bologna and hot dogs were...?
arthurrrr & oldguy, sorry to see your humorectomy was a complete success.
How about skipping GROUND beef altogether ?. Unless they pump this stuff into a steak, rump roast, etc. to make them look fatter that should be the way to go for beef. I realize in a school lunch menu this isn't a solution but most school districts publish their lunch menu, so pack your child a lunch on those days which gives your total control over the food your child eats.
A turkey and cheese sandwhich is a very healthy alternative to hamburger and chicken nuggest.
...except if it's re-assembled turkey meat. Then it's white slime...
Clap your hands if you believe McDonald's is not still using pink slime (what is the sound of one hand clapping?).
Wife (via email): Another reason to buy only organic beef.
Reply:
I have to say the the organic beef I twice bought was more tasty than the usual stuff I buy. Also, it had a better mouth-feel. The stuff looked and felt so good, I could have eaten it raw. No kidding.
Also on the plus side, you had no problem eating it.
J. Oliver concluded that the only way you can be sure of the hamburger you are buying is to watch the butcher grind your selection in front of you. (Be sure he cleans out his meat-grinder first.)
Hell, am I on my way to becoming a vegetarian?
P.Burton
San Francisco
05/11/12
If it is not harmful and its not, and if one cannot detect it and one can't, and if it is 100% beef and it is (except for the ammonium hydroxide) ... what's the problem? Connective tissue is tissue, just like muscles. After a hearty meal we give leftovers off our plates to our pets as scraps, right?
another reason not to buy ANY beef!!!
Boy, there sure are a lot of experts on this issue who know or seem to know more about something the rest of us don't !
Bottom line is, this stuff is and looks NASTY !
Anyone who tries to rationalize that this stuff that's said to be SAFE and COST EFFECTIVE to consume is not going to force their own children to eat this stuff ! Just because we had consumed this in the past doesn't make it mean it's OK to consume it today !
WHY DON'T WE ASK THE OBAMA'S IF THEY CONDONE THEIR CHILDREN EATING THIS NASTY STUFF !
If the USDA get's away with this, What's next ? They sure can't Guarantee that a Low Wage Worker at a Meat Plant is not tossing RATS or anything else in the vat, now can they ?
Reality Matters. Meat trimmings are just littler pieces folks. Much like the difference between riblets and ribs or using a hammock with your bean soup to get those small pieces of ham versus buying the whole ham. Eat lox and bagels? Many folks actually prefer the lox pieces or "trimmings". Not at all nasty unless you think ground beef is all nasty in which case, I really can't help you. Ammonia is used in all sorts of healthy products like bread. It has been since 1979 and all it really does is change the Ph just enough to lower the bacterial count. E. Coli is nasty stuff so protecting folks from it with GRAS ingredients works for bread and meat. We could list all the things in your pantry that use the same process for your protection!
obviously you work in the food industry, probably for a meat processing plant. There have been plenty of things the FDA has reversed themselves on, and this should be one of them. The final comment says it all. it is not a pain, or an inconvenience to have the butcher ground meat for you. if they balk, shop somewhere else. Any supermarket or shop will do it free and fast.
I notice that you neglected to mention the other ingredient, connective tissue. That's not just little bits of regular beef.
Jim,
Meat is full of connective tissue, I bet you could not remove all the connective tissue from a piece of meat if I hand you a knife and a lifetime to do it. What do you thing keeps it all together???? If you didn't have connective tissue, all you would have is loose myofibrils.
All ground beef contains connective tissue. Tough muscles that get a lot of exercise tend to be full of it; that's why it's ground in the first place. It is also some of the most flavorful meat on the animal. When you braise meat with a lot of connective tissue, the low heat breaks it down into gelatine, which also lends excellent mouth feel to the result.
Rats would probably be cleaner than the crap they put in intentionally.
No, it would not!!!
Several years ago I stopped eating a lot of meat because I couldn't afford to. Now, I rarely eat it and stopped going to fast food places because the meat stopped tasting like meat. Didn't lose anything by doing that...well except for about 30 lbs that comes from eating more fresh vegetables.
Good for you! Think of all the money you will be saving in the future by losing 30 lbs. and by decreasing your need for future health cost. I am gradually reducing my meat intake. After reading the article on this, I will be moving a bit faster to not eat any meat and get my protein from other sources.
wise idea - I can't afford the beef so I've been doing fish and chicken - however, I'm worried about the garbage the industry is feeding the chickens and from where that fish really comes....
makes me want to become vegetarian - if not vegan...
Don't know where people shop that fish and chicken is cheap and beef is expensive. Per pound beef is usually the same or cheaper than chicken or fish unless you are buying expensive cuts. Even a whole chicken runs $3 – 4 lb while 80/20 ground beef runs around $2 – 3 and a top roast around $4. FISH?? By pound, most fish is the most expensive protein next to crab and beef filet.
Thank you for posting this! It’s a FACT that it is about time we all “Live BEYOND Organic!” It is wonderful of you to share this information with the world! I really love what Jordan Rubin is doing with his new food company called “Beyond Organic.” See it here: http://www.EatBeyondHealthy.com.
Jordan Rubin is a scam artist. I wouldn't trust anything that fake "Christian" says and/or produces. Don't believe me, look him up. You can read all about his fraudulent activities online... Also check out all his fake degrees. You can get a quick rundown on him at Quackwatch: http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/rubin.html
I'd rather eat that pink goo thank you!!
Eating swallowing animals is so BC 300
Most of the time I dodge issue by eating venison. Two deer cost about $200 to process into all the steaks, roasts, chops and burger my family eats in a year. The deer are hardly chemical-free considering the pesticide and herbicide-treated corn they take from farmers' fields and the likely state of the water they drink, but the butcher prepares them just as I want them. I control as much of the additive process as I can. If I could buy in on a steer and have it processed by the same butcher, at even close to the same cost, I'd do that as well.
For those times when I can't have meat my way, I eat up anyway. Pink slime is hardly the worst thing I've eaten, and I'm sure that's the case for most people. I think it's important for people to educate themselves about how their food -animal and vegetable- is processed. It would be nice if labels declared exactly how food is prepared, but it would also be nice if people did a little research on their own instead of waiting for the next media frenzy to alert them to some practice that's been going on for decades.
You control what you put in your mouth. If you don't like ammonia treated beef, or high fructose corn syrup, or whatever food additive bothers you so much, then don't eat it. Don't know what's in your food? Maybe you should find out. Companies don't care about your outrage, they care about your dollars. They'll put synthetic compounds and fillers in food for as long as it's profitable to do so. Complaining might change a specific additive, but it won't change the business model. That's why individual consumers need to quit crying out for more regulation and start looking after themselves.
Well said.
good comment.... thanks
Other cultures have no problem eating connective tissue and fats from meat. I often eat tendon in my Pho, as well as tripe. This whole thing just seems like another way to attack the American way of life. It's fine to eat natural and go to Whole Foods, etc. but most of your lugheads watching and reading CNN don't understand that a lot of people can't afford it.
agreed. however one should note the difference between being INFORMED you are eating tendons and whatnot, versus it simply being passed off as something else (example: pure ground beef). Informed consumers aren't fooled. Nutrition comes in many forms... but if i buy a burger, i'd like it made with what i like.
It has nothing to do with the fact that it's connective tissue– it's the ammonia.
Tendons and connective tissue *are* 100% beef. It's only not-beef when they start adding bread or corn filler, or another kind of meat. If the whole thing came from a cow – even the less desirable cuts – it's 100% beef.
if there is no issue why hide it? why not tell us all the ingredients? If the Mfr wants to hide it, I hardly think it is 100% safe. It is cheap, that's the main reason.
To see what goes into "pink slime" just go here and select the video "Outside Skirt Trim:
http://bovine.unl.edu/bovine3D/eng/fab.jsp
Everything you see getting pushed to the side is what goes into so-called "Lean Finely Textured Beef" (Pink Slime).
Bon apetite!
Hey there Tim,
Lets address that video, This video was filmed at the University of Nebraska, and just like most academic institutions the beef used in this video was dry aged. With dry aging, you have darkening and drying of the most exterior surface of the meat. This dried beef and connective tissue is rendered and disposed of and NOT used in finely textured beef.
This IS NOT how it happens at Cargill, Tyson, JBS and any other beef processor, they only use fresh trimmings from primal and subprimal fabrication. Oh and while you are on this website you can look up what primal and subprimals are, and learn something about beef. Please Tim just stop!!!!!
I know PRECISELY what primal and sub-primal cuts are. That's part of your problem - you insist on using weasel-word terms to define something in the most general way possible. BPI's own study produced this statement: According to a 2003 study financed by Beef Products, the trimmings “typically includes most of the material from the outer surfaces of the carcass” and contains “larger microbiological populations.” Beef Products said it also used trimmings from inside cuts of meat.
Also, the ingredients of pink slime are those things which are impossible to remove by hand (this is from a link on this page from some other meat industry shill). They "recover meat which would otherwise be wasted." Remember now, the undersecretary of the USDA said, "It's pink, therefore it's meat." This is all about money to be made from an otherwise undesirable material (fat and connective tissues) and nothing more. That same link says the use of pink slime saves them from having to slaughter an additional 1.5 million head of cattle annually to make up the difference.
There is primal, sub-primal and then there's the sub-sub-sub-primal that makes your glorious pink slime. You're just masturbating with those words when you try to make it seem as if the pink slime is made from select cuts of muscle meat when clearly it is not and it is stated as such by BPI and the USDA. "A rose by any other name..." if you get my drift.
As for the safety and efficacy of BPI's ammonia process here's an interesting article from the New York Times which should give anyone with children eating at school lunch programs pause:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
It's from 2009 but it doesn't remain any less valid since the process is still the same.
An excerpt from the article:
===
Within the U.S.D.A., the treated beef has been a source of friction for years. The department accepted the company’s own study as evidence that the treatment was effective. School lunch officials, who had some doubts about its effectiveness, required that Beef Products meat be tested, as they do all beef used by the program.
School lunch officials said that in some years Beef Products testing results were worse than many of the program’s two dozen other suppliers, which use traditional meat processing methods. From 2005 to 2009, Beef Products had a rate of 36 positive results for salmonella per 1,000 tests, compared to a rate of nine positive results per 1,000 tests for the other suppliers, according to statistics from the program.
===
Eat up kids!
Good Morning Tim,
I must commend your efforts, you have finally composed (or should I say copied and pasted Michael Moss's article) something that is a slightly better than incoherent, inaccurate sentences. I guess you finally took my advice and started looking a little deeper, good on you Tim. But once again lets dissect your replies:
Just to set the record straight Primal cuts are those big chunks of meat (remember meat comes from animal muscle) that make up a carcass, such as a Round, Loin, Rib, Chuck and Plate. Sub-primal are the cuts that are generated from primal cuts, such as top butt, shortloin, short plate, clod, and cuts of that nature. Judging from you response "There is primal, sub-primal and then there's the sub-sub-sub-primal that makes your glorious pink slime." Tim et al 2012. You think that primal and sub-primal cuts is based on a hierarchical system, in the sense that primal is the best, sub-primal is the next best and so on an so forth. Once again Tim, YOU ARE INCORRECT.
Next, "According to a 2003 study financed by Beef Products, the trimmings "typically includes most of the material from the outer surfaces of the carcass" and contains "larger microbiological populations. Beef Products said it also used trimmings from inside cuts of meat." Tim et al 2012
This is very true Tim, Gold star for you. What you conveniently forgot to mention is that the comparison was made with intact muscle, and as the study said (as well as most scientific research) intact muscle meat is presumed STERILE. When you compare anything that has been exposed to the outside environment versus a sterile product, I would expect the STERILE intact muscle to out perform the product that has been exposed to the outside environment. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out, only you Tim.
Within that very article the Iowa State University researchers noted that there exists considerable research on organic acids for microbial interventions. Guess what???? The beef industry has came through once again, on average the outer most exterior of a beef carcass is treated with a combination of steam pasteurization and organic lactic acid applications between 5-7 times to help reduced bacterial counts.
Furthermore, "They recover meat which would otherwise be wasted." What exactly is wrong with recovering meat that would be otherwise wasted???? Are you a wasteful person? It kind of sounds like it.
Finally, I am not masturbating with my terms, these terms are what they are and it is not my fault you do not know what they mean. To correct another one of your inaccuracies, lean finely textured beef does come from select cut trimmings, USDA Select that is (if you know the difference) as well as USDA Prime, USDA Choice and USDA Standard. Do you know why? That is because a vast majority of cattle harvested in the U.S. fall in to these grades, so trim generated from these cattle is used to make both ground beef and lean finely textured beef as well.
I see you're still masturbating with terms. Nothing I've said is incorrect. You even reject statements from your own industry publications. I have not used any analogy to hierarchical terms when it comes to primal or sub-primal. You interpret it that way because you wish to obfuscate the issues involved. If you don't like my "copy and paste" job to refute you then please point out where it's wrong. You conveniently overlooked the whole point that the material from BP, Inc was contaminated with salmonella far more than from all of the other sources which the school lunch program purchases from. Do you have kids? If so, would you like them to be eating a product which is inherently contaminated and then contaminated again with ammonium hydroxide to make it "GRAS." Why not just feed them from the garbage can after you spray it with Windex? Makes as much sense and once again demonstrates how little anyone cares about the kids in this country by allowing them to eat this offal.
But you just keep on doing your thing - this microscopic corner of the Internet is not going to stop this practice. There is a ground-swell of opposition gathering momentum each and every day and we're not going to be eating your crap at all. You see, if you treat the consumer like crap by feeding them crap without their knowledge they're going to revolt. All of the money that BP, Inc. gained will be lost and then some. This is the very same kind of thing (albeit in a different guise) which created the Occupy movement. You might get away with screwing us in the backside for a time while we're unconscious (deceived by industry and the USDA) but we're wide awake now and we're going to be drilling your backsides instead.
How much does the Beef Council pay shills like you to conduct damage control like this?
I am with you Tim on the Whole thing!!! Janet Riley a claim filed on her and so does Joan Smith and the USDA, also BP, INC they all should be ashame of theirselve what type of people whould do something like this I mean I have children and they mean to tell me that my children been eating this crap for the longest and so have we all at home I am so upset right now but I dont care how long it is going to take they are going to stop this.. you know when they say that there is nothing they can do aww yea there is..with all them roast and beef steak they need to grind some of those up and quit using filler because its Nasty..thats like death slowly foreal..I mean what if they miss something and it be a E coli break out in the school they are out their minds..but I am going to do what ever it take to stop this..
Anyone else agree with this?
In the 1970's, I found had spaghetti/meatballs at The Old Spaghetti Factory, Big Macs at McDonalds, and other hamburger products quite regularly. In the mid-80's, I noticed within the time of about 2 years that the texture of prepared hamburger changed completely at most restaurants. Instead of that dense, 'made-at-home' type of ground beef, it became this mushier, tasteless kind. McDonald's, for all the critiques they get, still weren't too bad, but it was still different. I don't even go to Spaghetti Factory anyone...cannot stand the meatballs. Subway's meatball sandwhich is the worst of them all, in my hamburger-eating opinion. The only way I can make a decent meatball is buy higher-grade "ground round" from the store, just as the article says, and make it myself.
Anyone else remember hamburger of the old days? Was it just me being a kid, still new to the world of taste and smell??
I stopped eating McDonald's years ago but have been eating Wendy's and Burger King on occasion. i have noticed that around autumn last year the burgers from Wendy's seem thicker and meatier than I last recall. Maybe they too have made the switch. Burger King looks bigger with respect to its diameter which could suggest they have more real meat only spread it a s bigger patty.
Just a few weeks ago (before the pink slime discussions began) my mother was commenting on how meat cooks much differently now then when we were kids. Now we know why!
I have stopped eating at fast food places but you are right. When I did eat there I remember distinctly when the meat stopped tasting like meat.
I don't think the actual cuts of beef are unsuitable for human consumption. Cultures around the world, including our own in recent historical times, have made use of as much of a slaughtered animal as possible to minimize waste. Tripe, tongue, tendon ("connective tissue") are all standard features in world cuisines. The bigger concern to me is the ammonia treatment. And I have to say it must all be taken with a huge grain of salt since it is apparently yet another wave of media hysteria (check out some of the recent writings by John Stossel of 20/20 regarding media perpetrated hysteria, from someone who knows!).
You are missing the point here, it is the CHEMICALS they use that have people upset.....
That's what he just said. And as far as ammonia goes: there is more ammonia in most cheese than you'll find in the same amount of beef processed this way. Brie, in particular, is so loaded with ammonia you can distinctly smell it.
With over 7 billion mouths to feed the food processing industry loves the profit model that Henry Ford built. Mass production with economies of scale driving profit. It works great with steel and wood as the raw materials cuz consumers get cheaper cars and furniture. When the raw materials are food we can get tummy aches and deadly disease, not a good trade off for a cheap meal. Eat up everyone!!
Not rocket science people reading is fundamental, if you cant pronounce it, or understand it,dont buy it let alone eat it !!!
Wow! You must tell us where you shop for your clichès.
I support this dietary restriction as it weeds out the ignorant by starving them to death.
Then again, instead of writing off ingredients because of their strange names, why not do yourselves a favor and actually educate yourselves on what these ingredients are? Chemophobia is about as dangerous as dihydrogen monoxide.
My guess is that you don't understand how your computer works (maybe you do, but in that case I would just use a different example), but you still use it.
I had read that the trimmings include flesh removed from bone by machines. This process was found to sometimes result in spinal cord tissue in the ground meat. Should the processed animal have BSE (mad cow disease), this is a route for infection of humans. I question whether the chemical treatment destroys the prion proteins. Cooking doesn't.
That was my first thought when I read this as well. If they're putting odd trimmings in there, I can definitely see this happening. I usually buy ground round at the supermarket. It's not expensive for only a little bit. But I think it might be a good idea to cut way down on my consumption or grind my own.
Given that all beef is processed by first splitting the carcass in half by running a band saw straight down the middle of the spine and spraying whatever is in there everywhere, I'd hardly be worried about high pressure extraction.
"The only way you can use ground beef is by watching the butcher grind it in front of you." I beg to differ. You can also buy locally raised meat that is processed by a trusted local butcher. The beef my family is currently eating ("Sven") was raised by a friend. She took him to a local butcher who processed him, and the beef was purchased by me at a fair cost. Although my initial financial layout was high (because I was buying a quarter of the cow at once), the per pound cost was no more than the meat at my local supermarket. The quality is also superior. Just a thought for those of you who want to avoid "goo."
Right, because driving from the inner city out to the countryside to purchase a quarter cow and have a butcher grind it for me over there before hauling it back and storing it all who-knows-where in my apartment is so much more feasible than picking up some beef in the supermarket and walking 15 feet to my left to have the supermarket butcher grind it. Trust me, "local" and "cows" are two contradictory terms for many people.
And a good quality meat grinder can be had for about $90. I have been waffling on buying one.
If you live in any real, major city, you have a butcher that's better than the supermarkets. At least, maybe a whole foods. And if you are truly in an inner city without access to a nicer part of the city, then you should definitely be avoiding meat until you can save up for a treat.
Although.. it seems that everyone's missing a big point of this article. Since McDs and Tacobell are no longer purchasing this product, our own government is forcing it on our children in public schools. Small amounts of Ammonia might be OK, but we simply don't know how chemical laden food, and highly perishable food that's being treated in this manner, is going to affect our growing children.
The amount of additives in the food we consume in this country is highly alarming. Ammonia occurs naturally in a lot of food, but I have a huge problem with adding more. I also have a problem with the fact that this is just now being made common knowledge. Maybe I've just never looked at the ingredients on a package of ground beef, as I pretty much have always assumed the only ingredient to be, you know... beef...
I know, you expect "beef" to be the only ingredient in ground beef. Crazy, right? :-)
Try reading the ingredients on a carton of milk.
But ammonia., Come on..
What about it? A good brie cheese has so much ammonia you can distinctly smell it. Same with camembert. Many other cheese also contain huge amounts of ammonia, far more than what you'll find in a comparable amount of beef processed as described.
If ammonia is the problem, there is no problem. Although I agree with the proposal to accurately label beef and all other foods.
My God I am not eating anymore Hamburger or meals that contain hamburger. I may go to a butcher and have some ground fresh though. Thats the only way to go, fresh ground.
You can easily chop cuts of beef in a good food processor as well.
We stopped eating ground beef many years ago after a recall, and haven't looked back. Now with the pink slime, many more should stop eating it!
And people wonder why cancer scyrocketed since the 50's
The thing about this so-called "pink slime" is not merely the use of ammonia, but rather, the parts of the cow that are being processed. We're talking about CONTAMINATED FLOOR SWEEP that was once only fit for use as dog food. E. Coli and Salmonella are handled by a dog's stomach in a much different manner than a human's stomach. The problem with "pink slime" is that the contamination from things like E Coli is that it comes from the fecal material (usually) present in the gut of an animal. Sure, you can kill the E Coli but the FECAL MATERIAL IS STILL THERE! The meat industry wants to do the same sort of thing via irradiation - using these devious processes may make the product "GRAS" (Generally Recognized As Safe) according to the USDA - but the CRAP IS STILL THERE!
Personally, I don't want to be eating "crap" that should not be there in the first place. Do you really want to eat "crap" just because it is deemed "safe" as it has been irradiated or ammonia treated? Let's leave the cow flops in the pastures where they belong and NOT in our food! Feeding this "filler" to our kids in school lunches just to save some money shows that we have no respect for our children as a nation "Feed 'em crap - it's nutritious and pink; therefore it must be meat" is what the USDA claims. Incredible!
What is incredible is how you how NO idea where and how this beef in produced. IT IS NOT FLOOR SWEEP!!!!!! The beef trimmings used comes from the primal and subprimals cuts that are fabricated in beef processing facilities. Please check your "facts", If you need some reading to material just let me know.
Here are your FACTS Henry:
“Pink slime” is beef trimmings. Once only used in dog food and cooking oil, the trimmings are now sprayed with ammonia so they are safe to eat and added to most ground beef as a cheaper filler." - This quote is from Gerald Zirnstein, a former United States Department of Agriculture scientist. He is also the originator of the term "pink slime" - what BPI likes to call "Lean Finely Textured Beef." If you like to eat dog food, then be my guest. What I call "floor sweep" is what you like to call something else - you can eat all of it you like, but I will pass, thank you!
Carl Custer, a colleague of Zirnstein also said it (pink slime), "... is not really beef, but “a salvage product … fat that had been heated at a low temperature and the excess fat spun out.” Mmmm-mmm! I'm glad you're an expert on "primals and subprimals" because someone has to eat this crap, right? Again, not me or my family!
Are you one of those beef people from Texas who tried to sue Oprah Winfrey for her comments against beef? You sound like one. The facts are right under your nose Henry and have been printed and reported nearly everywhere. The USDA even agrees with my characterization of the stuff as what used to only be fit for dog food. The beef people used to have to actually PAY to get rid of it before Eldon Roth invented his process for sterilizing the crap-smeared, contaminated slaughterhouse floor droppings that could not be sold for human consumption.
There are your facts and you cannot dispute them - you can weasel-word it all you want but it won't change anything.
The stuff is loaded with boiled, ammonium-sterilized dead E. Coli which comes from fecal contamination (crap). You can call it safe to eat but it doesn't change the fact that E. Coli is associated with crap and that's a fact! The entire purpose of the ammonium hydroxide is to KILL THE E. COLI and other pathogens in the product.
Your sirloin steak does not need ammonium hydroxide. Your filet mignon does not need ammonium hydroxide. Only ground beef mixed with BPI's "pink slime" has to have it! Why is that, Henry? Could it be because it has crap in it which must be sterilized before it can be sold? I think so Henry. And that's a fact.
Tim,
I bet you have seen Food inc, and Fast Food Nation huh???? And I'm sure you recommended to all your friends. Well I am from Texas (about the only thing you have been able to figure out on your own), born and raised in the city. But I have been educated and know what I am talking about. Gerald Zirnstein and Carl Custer sound like a couple of disgruntled employees who are out for pay back. You keep talking about facts, but I have yet to see any of them in your responses. This topic is clearly over your head and you have no Idea what is going on, or even when it might be taking place. And to answer your question: BPI's product does not necessarily need to "have" the ammonium hydroxide but it does need a form of intervention. Ammonium hydroxide is the intervention that BPI has chose to use, test and to get approved. All trimmings, and meat products are treated with a kind of intervention, and that is a fact. If my industry wouldn't take these precautions, we would not be doing our job. Once again Tim, if you want some (more) real facts just let me know, I would love too.
P.S. I have a PDF file that has many meat industry terms that might help you out....If you want it you are more than welcome to it.
Henry,
I posted a reply replete with facts which CNN moderated off the board.
The fact remains that the "pink slime" is the only so-called beef product to be sold with ammonium hydroxide in it - it is the only meat to be processed this way. Your porterhouse, sirloin, t-bone and other cuts do not require this treatment. The sole purpose of the ammonium hydroxide is to kill E. Coli, Salmonella and other pathogens in this so-called "nutritious beef. Why only the "pink slime" product? Because it is inherently contaminated with those pathogens. Yes, it is sterilized, but it still contains the source of the contamination. I personally do not wish to eat "primal and subprimal" trimmings that were once only suitable as dog food due to contamination reasons prior to the invention of the "pink slime" ammonia process. If CNN wishes to kowtow to the meat industry line by censoring my reply, then that is their prerogative. The facts are easy to find elsewhere and they are perfectly in line with what I have already stated here. As long as you're not getting your "facts" from representatives of the beef industry who don't want you to realize the entire truth of just why the processed product contains ammonia. But then, I suppose CNN will choose to censor this factual reply also.
Tim,
First, let me 2nd what Henry said – in two words, "You're clueless". Now, since you know so much, maybe you can tell us what 'cuts' are used to make ground beef? As for the statement (quote) Your porterhouse, sirloin, t-bone and other cuts do not require this treatment. (quote), you're right . . . in some respects. No, these cuts aren't treated with ammonium hydroxide, but it's a safe bet that at least 90% of the carcasses processed at major packers receive some other form of "microbial intervention" to accomplish the same thing – it just happens before they are cut up in the first place.
Do you even know what a "primal" or "sub-primal" is? What do you think is the source of "beef trimmings"? You obviously don't know that all ground beef is made from "beef trimmings". Who – in their right mind – is going to take an intact top round, or bottom round, or sirloin, or chuck roll, or (enter your own sub-primal) and grind it for ground beef? Do you have a clue how much loss you take on a product like that?
You, sir, are spreading serious misinformation – or you're just out-and-out lying.
Tim,
Here is the problem, you are taking what CNN said as gospel and that just show how you have not dug deeper. But lets pick your reply apart 1) My porterhouse, sirloin, and T-bone do no require this treatment because they are considered whole muscle cuts, and whole muscle cuts are sterile within. Now when you grind a meat product, you expose the entire product to the outside environment. Once that has happened it is no longer sterile and since bacteria are ubiquitous there is a chance for contamination. No matter where you get your ground beef, at the grocery store, a local butcher, organic only or even if you grind the meat yourself, there is still a chance for contamination. Beef processor know this, so they have to take it upon themselves to try to eliminate and reduce bacterial counts. It is a precautionary procedure used to make the product safer. 2) Your statement of "trimmings that were once only suitable as dog food due to contamination reasons" is another assumption on you part because of what everyone else is saying. These trimming were sourced differently because the technology had not been invented to recover this meat source. It would be too expensive to have employees cut out all the lean from the trimmings, so it was more logical to source these trimmings elsewhere. But you have to remember that is was ages ago, and if you want to go down that route, years ago we had to hunt and gather our own food in the wild. That is no longer case because we have evolved into more modern and safer procedures. 3) I am not getting my facts from any beef industry representatives, I have done the research myself ( Journal of Meat Science, Journal of Food Protection, Principles of Meat Science and The Meat We Eat.) I know the truth because it is my field of study, and have seen the processes plus every other aspect of the beef, lamb and pork industry for myself. Young meat scientist such as myself have so much educating to do in our lifetimes, but it is the only way people such as yourself will understand how food is produced. If you want to know anything else please ask.
Henry
Connective tissue and cuts near the hide itself are not desirable as either primal or sub-primal cuts. The major portion of what goes into the "pink slime" could be construed as "sub-primal" but it is not what your local butcher would use to make a package of ground beef. I won't argue the point here any longer because it's evident that the meat/beef industry has some shills here trying to make an unpalatable topic seem otherwise. Anyone who wishes to read unbiased reports should go to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and research for themselves as to how and why meat becomes contaminated with E. Coli in the slaughterhouse and what the industry does to alleviate/prevent those conditions as well as what parts of a carcass are more susceptible and why.
If "cuts near the hide" aren't desirable, then you must immediatley mark 1) ribeyes, 2) New York strips, 3)Kansas City strips, 4) porterhouses, 5) T-bones, 6) Delmonicos, and any other steak from the "middle meats" subprimals – the rib and the loin – off your list, because they are all "near the hide". You are so blinded by your ignorance of the true nature of things that you can't see the "truth" when it's in front of you – only your distorted image of it.
"Floor sweepings" aren't used. And this stuff more than likely isn't "loaded" with E. coli as you claim. Once again, it "may" be contaminated. Every animal slaughtered in decent-sized commercial operations today are subjected to a 'general' microbial intervention step after the hide is removed. This usually consists of a rinse or wash with a relatively weak acid of some kind. Steam has also been used. "Feces" happens. Every effort is made to minimize the possible exposure of the carcass to sources that may contain feces. If you think this never happens in a small, custom slaughterhouse, you're out of your flipping mind. The "incident rate" is probably much higher in the small places, because the employees typically haven't received the same training as those in the large operations.
You really don't have a clue what a 'primal' and a 'sub-primal' are, do you? But you're on here talking as if you're quite the expert on the subject.
At the "What" –
Feces happens - followed by - death happens.
You're the clueless one here. If you want to take a chance on children dieing due to a product made from inherently risky trimmings (contaminated) that's your morality. Not mine.
Other than that, I don't normally converse with "whats." Ta-ta.
And I'm not usually this tolerant with obstinate people who can't see past the end of their own collective noses.
Unless the rules have changed, it is MANDATED than any visible fecal contamination on the surface of a carcass is trimmed off and discarded. That's not knocked off, or swept off, or rinsed off, but physically excised (cut out) and placed in INEDIBLE OFFAL. This "inedible offal" cannot, under any circumstances, be used to make any product that will be used for human consumption. Of course, you knew this, too, didn't you? Oh (snap), no you didn't, or you would have known that "contaminated floor sweepings" – which are also INEDIBLE OFFAL – weren't really used to make BPI's product, or any other product for that matter.
There is the possibility of "non-visible" contamination – pieces are too small, have been liquified and diluted until colorless, etc. – and this is why the surface acid treatments are used on the carcass. That is also why the ammonia is used in the BPI process.
Nobody respectable intentionally uses material that is knowingly contaminated with pathogenic bacteria. Think about it – if you do this and cause an outbreak of foodborne illness, particularly with deaths involved, you're essentially driving the nails in your coffin, businesswise. A little different twist here this time . . . don't let common sense get in your way.
I am sorry to say but the biggest culprit here is the FDA. I cannot wait to see a Class Action lawsuit against the FDA for; in first place allowing the use of this "horrible" product for human consumption and secondly covering up the use of this product by not requiring disclosure of its use in food for human consumption. I hope to see heads roll at the FDA... this abuse by imbecile government employees needs to come to an end!
Nice Post. The combination of bureaucratic corruption and pressure from Congress and the White House is intolerable. Remember when G W Bush wouldn't let a company test all its carcasses for mad cow disease because it would force competitors to do the same and raise the price of beef? It would raise the price 3/100 of cent per pound!
Agreed – companies should be required to list everything on the label and let the consumer decide if they want to eat it. I don't care if the FDA says it's "safe".
The proposal to label such products is a reasonable solution. The marketplace is remarkably efficient at correcting itself, as long as it's given full, transparent information to work with. Government's primary job should be to ensure that such information is accurate and readily available.
Accurate labels = let the people decide. That would be a giant step in the right direction.
We had nitrates (a form of "ammonia") discovered in our well water, that was an indicator that our water supply had been degraded from leakage from a nearby closed dump (closed prior to 1970, so that makes it a "dump" not a "landfill"). The county comdemned our original well and replaced it with a much deeper well. If nitrates (ammonia) were ok to drink,, our well water should have been ok with the original well. We do not drink or cook with our tap water regardless, it has too much sodium in it from the water softener, anyway.
I don't eat beef either, I do not know what they have done to it, but something changed in the taste of it maybe 20 years ago, I just can't eat the stuff. I suspect a switch from grass-fed to grain-fed made the difference. The bottom of the heap are those chopped, pressed, frozen beef hockey-puck patties that are ubiquitous at cookouts. I have no problem saying no thanks to those things.
Better than eating the alive. They get angry.
You're correct that a switch to grain diets has affected the flavor of beef. Also, an emphasis on producing lean meat has removed much of the flavor that's there, because the flavor of meat resides mostly in the fat. Finally, it used to be common to dry age beef, which concentrates its flavor; this is rare nowadays, and dry-aged beef sells at a premium over the wet-aged, vacu-packed products that are widely available.
Grain-fed beef has been around a lot longer than the past 20 years, though. I suspect that very few Americans under the age of 60 or so grew up on grass-fed beef, unless they grew up on a farm.
Eating the dead is just wrong in so many ways. How can people continue to do this?
Your Soylent Green weekly supply will be delivered tomorrow.
Seriously – this story totally reminds me of that movie. Nasty stuff!
Everything we eat is dead, excluding raw vegetables.
No, your vegetables are dead too. That's what happens to them when you pull them out of the ground. And that's what I don't like about vegans. They kill so many more vegetables than the rest of us! Veggies is murder.
Well, no; most vegetables are very much alive when you buy them, and remain so if you eat them raw. You can easily sprout most carrots, for instance, along with many other fruits and vegetables, and their seeds can usually be sprouted as well. Not something you want to think about when you swallow, maybe, cut it's true.
I would not be entirely surprised to find that some fruits we eat contain seeds that would still be able to germinate after being passed through our digestive system. It's actually one of the methods plants use to disperse seeds in the wild.
Humans are Carnivores as designed by nature. That is why they have canine teeth. If you do not eat meat, what other acts do you do that are considered unnatural or against nature?
I think you mean omnivores. We can survive perfectly fine without meat and actually our molars are meant more for veggies than meat.
Actually, there are several proteins that we naturally-omnivorous humans need in order to be healthy that cannot be gleaned from any source other than animal flesh. If we were meant to graze we'd have digestive systems that could actually break down the cellulose. Then, of course, we'd all fart a lot more and the Earth would ALREADY be 20 or 30 degrees warmer........
Your lettuce must hate you.
Vegetarian, people! The only intelligent way to go...
Apples contain about 11PPM Ammonia naturally.
Broccoli is about 62PPM Ammonia naturally.
Brussels Sprouts are 110PPM Ammonia.
Potatos are almost 100PPM ammonia naturally.
Olives are upwards of 100PPM ammonia.
Tomatoes are 37PPM Ammonia naturally.
If you drink natural orange juice, you're drinking ammonia, about 35PPM.
Onions are almost 270PPM Ammonia which is more ammonia than a hamburger patty made with this processed beef product.
Understood . So if we eat them we have no worries about E-Coli and salmonella . Sorry it does not apply to the subject.
Actually, most - and the worst - of the food-borne disease outbreaks we've had in recent times have been linked to vegitables.
Just to add: most cheese contain at least 10 times as much ammonia as any of the foods listed. Brie and Camembert often have a noticeable ammonia odor, their levels are so high.
All the same, it doesn't hurt to provide labels so people know what they're buying.
But no one eats a hamburger's amount of brie cheese in one sitting!!
Humans are evolved to be omnivores.
Vegetables have been recorded screaming when they are pulled from the ground. Why do you kill? Just do not eat any meat or vegetables for about 3 weeks and then all of your problems will be solved.
Congratulations USDA... When I eat a burger, I picture a Windex bottle.
Then don't eat the bun or put an catsup on because there's more ammonia in those than in a patty made with the product in question.
I really don't have a problem with it. Just because you wouldn't want a plate full of those "scraps" doesn't mean they're inedible – they're just unpalatable in their current form. Why not use them?
If you think this is gross, don't even think about what goes into your hot dogs.
Ann,
Not sure, but I'm thinking it has to be more than just a few scraps if fast food restaurants are actually bowing to pressure to quit using it. And I'm not okay with it - I want to know what the heck's in my food. If I buy a hamburger, I don't want to pay for a mix of meat and fillers.
See Matt's posting below - he's making some good sense.
I live in Michigan, where we are fortunate enough to have laws on the books preventing the use of "scraps" in our hotdogs, sausages, and lunch meats (like bologna, old-fashioned loaf, football loaf, salami, etc,). Of course we never eat any of those products when we go across the border to Ohio, where such things are well-known to be made from "lips & @$$h0les".
Jerry,
I assure you that lips and @$$hole are not used in the production of processed meats. Lips, eyelids, and @SSholes have to be condemded, since the have been exposed to the outside environment. I hate to ruin you party, but the hotdogs in Ohio and Michigan are produced the same.
There's a YouTube clip of "How It's Made" of hot dogs being manufactured – at one point they're basically a rather icky pink paste.
Pink sllime? Must be that stuff from Ghostbusters 2
That probably explains why the music in McDonalds is never very up-beat. They don't want their burgers to start dancing.
I certainly hope no Tea Party or GOP folks are complaining here. Certainly don't want all that "government intervention" in the way now, do we?
Invested on a grinder and make our own hamburger and buns. Taste delicious.
I started grinding my own hamburger about 5 years ago. Not because I knew about the pink slime but because the hamburger in the grocery stores was an odd color to me and the taste was poor. My own ground hamburger has much better flavor (buy something like a chuck roast with decent marbling/fat). However, I learned about pink slime from a stage show with Anthony Bourdain (TV chef/food trips) in October 2010. After I looked into pink slime more, neither myself or any member of my family has since eaten a hamburger from a fast food joint. It is not an issue of ammonia in the food. Ammonia is in other foods. The issue is that they are taking something that is unfit for human consumption because it contains pathogens, e-coli or salmonella and treating it with enough ammonia so that it can be used as a filler in hamburger to increase the profit margin. I am all for not wasting any part of the animal – but this is not why they did this. This product used to go to animals. This was not done to improve the flavor of hamburger. This was not done to improve the quality of hamburger for the consumer. Ever wonder why there have been cases where people have gotten very sick or died from eating hamburgers from fast food restaurants? Hamburger that has spoiled is very noticeable to the nose and you would not eat it. Hamburger that may have picked up pathogens, e-coli or salmonella during processing would go unnoticed. I now buy many more food items from local farmers and my family eats minimal processed foods.
Newt,
You're dead wrong. The trimmings – just like the entire carcasses they came from – "may" contain pathogens, so they are treated this way to eliminate any possibility of 'bac actors' being present. I don't necessarily agree with what they are doing, and it may not be completely "above board" (in terms of disclosure) but that doesn't give a bunch of you who don't know what you are talking about the right to get on here and just flat out tell lies about the product.
Or we could raise our livestock in their natural environments instead of cramming them into feedlots while they wade in their own excrement and where sick cows and healthy cows are confined to tight spaces together. How about we stop feeding cows corn and soy and we allow them to eat what they evolved to eat? Then they wouldn't need the antibiotics we hop them up on. Or perhaps we reduce the amount of meat we eat annually and only buy from local and honest farmers. Well, that would completely make the ammonia non necessary, wouldn't it? The ammonia argument is akin to arguing over which color band-aid you want to use for a sucking chest wound.
So this would make them microbiologically 'sterile', and there would be NO POSSIBILITY of getting sick from eating them, right? It must be nice to live in Eutopia, or Shangri-la, or wherever you come from, where REALITY doesn't actually happen.
The ammonia isn't "necessary". It's a safeguard, pure and simple. The ground beef that is ground in the back room of your favorite supermarket is – for all practical intents and purposes – the same stuff. But don't let the fact of the matter get in your way.
Just like you will always survive a car wreck if you wear a seatbelt. No, man. I didn't give any hint that it will be 100% safe. There is nothing on this planet that is 100% safe. There is however, a direct correlation between healthy cows/pigs/chickens and greatly reduced chances of sickness vs. sick animals hovering around 80% bacterial contamination. Take a look at Sweden. They outlawed the cooping of chickens in massive and unsanitary "warehouses" when test showed that 80% of the chickens slaughtered showed Salmonella infection. Once they had established a morally and ethically superior free range system (the real one, not the crap we say is free range here in the good ole US of A), the percentage of sick chickens plummeted to less than 10%. My point is, instead of demanding the consumer to nuke their food or pass it through a chemical bath to sanitize it, the consumer should demand clean and sanitary conditions for the animals in which to be raised. So, take your flippant attitude and read a book or 2. Perhaps look deeper into the story rather than sit on the comment boards making ridiculous and hyperbolic replies.
Pink Slime is nothing new it simply is placed in your beef and chicken products under the name of mechanically
separated beef or chicken.. I have seen it on labels of frozen dinner,,,,Anytime you read the label mechanically
sepaprated ii comes the scraps... Only difference is it must say so on label MECHANICALLY SEPARATED.. Look
for these words that are more common than you think. Its slime hidden under a differnt guise.
No, not at all. "Mechanically Separated" means that the meat has been separated FROM THE BONE by a purpose-designed piece of equipment instead of by a human butcher. The main problem with mechanically separated processed meat products is that there are often bits of bone to bite down on because the machines are not perfect. The increased (by several hundred percent) likelihood of of "bone bits" and a number of lawsuits spawned by damaged teeth and/or damaged dental work resulted in the labeling.
MS meat does not undergo the ammonia treatment used by BPI, period.
My worry is that the meat that is processed this way will increase the risk of prions in my food supply. I don't mind a little ammonia, but if they mistakenly introduce central nervous system tissue then hello to mad cow disease.
Incidence of prion-related disease in America is quite low, but you're right... If there was a mad cow disease outbreak, then we could have a serious problem.
Mmmm, think I'll get myself a tasty burger and fries for lunch. Yum!
The fries might actually be more dangerous... but that's a different story.
Is fro-yo some kind of Soul Glo like product?
Frozen yogurt...
Here are some resources that seperate fact from fiction:
I see that you are covering this issue of lean finely textured beef. I wanted to offer additional resources.
http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/myths/myth-ordinary-household-ammonia-is-used-to-make-some-hamburgers.html
http://www.meatami.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/76184
Let's hear it for the industry party line!
I guess that's what you could say if you have no factual reply to make.
The deception in the food industry makes Wall Street look petty when you consider how basic a need our food is.
Why shouldn't consumers know via labeling if there is beef filler or GM products in our food? Because the industry thinks there is no danger or significant difference is irrelevant. The consumer should get the info on the label and decide for him or herself.
Why has the industry tried to restrict photographing feed lots if for no other reason than to keep the public from seeing where their meat comes from?
If a large bank deposited money in your bank account without your knowledge, and then sued you for theft of that money from them, and did it time and time again, would that become part of the national and political discussion? Then why aren't more people aware of and fretting about Monsanto suing farmers for patent infringement when their fields get contaminated with GMO seed, and thereby forcing them to buy Monsanto seed in the future.
We need politicians and regulators that are beholden to "the people" and the health and nutrition of their food instead of to the corporations and the almighty $.
So grow some of your own food, even a little bit, go visit a local farm and buy from them, grind or have ground your own beef, etc. Nobody else may be looking out for your food so you may have to.
Thank you, Matt. Great post and so true!
Why not show people that information? Because people are idiots. The vast, vast majority wouldn't have the ability to make a proper judgement based on information provided to them, and will screw things up for everyone. If you tried to leave it up to individuals to somehow acquire their own food, you'd have people starving in the streets in days. Most people are just not equipped to make sound judgements, period. So unless you're of the opinion that the population of humans should be reduced by, oh, 75%, your suggestions are just not realistic.
Living in a democracy must be pure hell for you.
The Daily did a follow-up story today featuring former BPI employee-turned-whistleblower Kit Foshee, who raised concerns about the company's ammoniated beef years ago. Learn more at foodwhistleblower.org.
It's not so much the ammonia which is, as others have said, naturally occuring. What is disgusting is that thye 'create" a so called hamburger product out of non-meat scraps and use some form of coloring to make it look like real hamburger. Surely we should know what we and our kids are eating. I only buy grass fed beef myself from reputable farmers, but it's scary what they serve at schools. Doesn't anyone care? They can certainly try to sell us products made from these scraps, but tell us and don't lie and tell us it's ground beef (muscle tissue). Like that "mock" crab meat is labelled as such. The meat industry in this country is a disgrace. The abbatoirs filthy and inhumane. And then they scrape off connective tisse, gristel etc and call it hamburger.
I don't see the problem of using every part of the animal. If you're going to eat meat, atleast be respectful enough to consume the whole animal. If you don't like it go vegan.
We torture animals so that we can make their flesh more delicous, I dno't see the harm in pink slime.
I have no problem if you want to put this stuff in your body, but don't you think I have the right to decide if I don't want to put it in mine. Right now I don't have that choice because I don't know what beef products contain it.
Eaten any bone or eyeballs lately?
Just because you eat one part of something doesn't mean you eat 100%.
Not eating 100% of something doesn't mean it's wasted. Uneaten portions of animals have been used for pet foods and fertilizers for decades. Pink slime is nothing more than a way for the food industry to convert such things into more profitable product included as human food – while introducing practices that increase the risk of your food causing you to have health problems.
I grew up in the country, where we butchered our own animals. We didn't eat every last molecule of the animal. We didn't waste the animal. And we sure didn't make pink slime and mix it into the good stuff.
Nothing makes it okay to torture animals for our eating pleasure. Let's not say it's okay to use pink slime because we torture animals. Let's say, "Let's try to put in place what we can so animals don't have to suffer if/when we eat meat. If we do choose to eat meat, let's make sure the meat companies are honest about what they're putting in there."
I hate it when CNN puts up a headline like this one. It asked Is there pink slime in your beef", and then failed to answer the question. It only repeated the same news reported weeks ago. So much for journalism.
I am typing something mean. I am mad, and want you to feel upset at what im typing so i can have a better day and check on the comments from this message every other hour
Somebody needs a nap or a time out.
How 'bout a clock on the squash?
I wish that my job had nap time!
Thank you, Eatocracy, for sharing the Change.org petition started on The Lunch Tray. In less than 4 days we are closing in on 20,000 signatures. If you care about getting this substance out of meat destined for school lunch trays, please take a second to sign and share it with others. http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-usda-to-stop-using-pink-slime-in-school-food
But why do I care?
Why should I care?
Because it's a - gasp! - "chemical?"
No. You're going to have to come up with a better reason than that.
An emotion-appeal is not reason enough.
Of course, the words that everyone focuses on here is ammonia and ammonium hydroxide, chemicals! These people are putting CHEMICALS in our food! Oh, the inhumanity of it!
But, all of our foods are made of chemicals.
Salt also goes by the ominous name of Sodium Chloride; it's sodium and chlorine (one explosive and the other a deadly poison). And those dangerous chemicals are in our food!
And then there's (2R,3R,4S,5S,6R)-2-[(2S,3S,4S,5R)-3,4-dihydroxy-2,5-bis(hydroxymethyl)oxolan-2-yl]oxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)oxane-3,4,5-triol. Wow! With a name like that, that stuff has to be bad. One wouldn't want any of that in one's food. Unless you know that it's common sugar.
Chemicals are not necessarily bad.
Ammonia is a strong chemical, yes. But the bun of a typical hamburger contains about 440PPM of Ammonia (that's parts per million, 440 pounds of Ammonia in a million pounds of hamburger buns). It's naturally occuring.
The cheese in a cheese burger is a huge offender. It's about 800-1100PPM of Ammonia.
The Catsup is 350PPM Ammonia. Mayo is over 400PPM Ammonia.
A beef patty containing this processed beef filler product? It's about 200PPM Ammonia.
Yes, the chemicals are worrisome. For me, though, the real issue is the fact that they're taking basically inedible parts of beef and manipulating it for human consumption to save the beef industry a buck or two. Who pays the price in the end? And then, they don't have to label it to boot. We have the right to know what we're eating.
"... they're taking basically inedible parts of beef and manipulating it for human consumption..."
Man has been doing this since time immemorial. The idea that some parts of a cow are "inedible" is actually very modern. A cow is a very expensive thing. The idea that you'd just throw parts of it away is actually very modern. In the past, man has found ways to use practically every bit of a cow.
Sure, but not as something you eat. Cow bones are great for helping plants, for instance, but humans don't eat them.
Um, sorry, no desire to live like "in the past," just because that's what was possibly done THEN.
Wrong and misleading.
Just because you don't eat some part of an animal doesn't mean you throw it away. It can be used for other purposes than food. People of centuries past didn't eat 100% of an animal. Indeed there are certain parts of an animal that they used to eat regularly which modern Americans would find disgusting. That is most definitely *not* what we are talking about here and you are being deceptive in implying so.
I grew up in the country. We butchered our own animals. I've eaten many bits of animals that would turn the stomachs of many readers. We didn't waste them. And we sure didn't put pink slime in our burger.
Nice info!!! Kind of like organic fruits and veggies. All fruits and veggies that have chemicals added to them are organic as well. The chemicals used are organic compounds....
You're confusing the two definitiosn of "organic"...one definition generally refers to a compound containing carbon, which is what you are referring to, and the other, organic farming, describes produce and meat products that does not contain any artificial or even natural antibiotics, chemicals, or preservatives.
You do not understand what they are doing to American beef. Here it is: The added Pink Slime has NO nutritional value and it occupies at least 15% of your burger. If nothing is done about it, watch that percentage double in a few years. That's what the American beef crooks want, so we shut our mouths and the beef crooks take advantage. My question to you is why add more chemicals, ammonia, and dogfood? You will say, "If my doggie eats it, it's good enough for me". You left your brain on the grocery meat counter.
In some respects, reducing the nutritional content of our burgers might not be a bad idea.
I hate it when they put Dihydrogen monoxide in everything.
Water you talking about? :-)
I thought it was hydrogen hydroxide.
*You* are focusing on the chemicals.
Others are focusing on the disgusting things that are there that are being disguised by the addition of the chemicals.
I only eat grass fed and finished beef that is locally raised. Problem solved. Tastes better than anything at the supermarket.
I would like to test your claim in a blind sensory panel.
I think I'll become a vegetarian. This is disgusting!
Ok, but know this:
Apples contain about 11PPM Ammonia naturally.
Broccoli is about 62PPM Ammonia naturally.
Brussels Sprouts are 110PPM Ammonia.
Potatos are almost 100PPM ammonia naturally.
Olives are upwards of 100PPM ammonia.
Tomatoes are 37PPM Ammonia naturally.
If you drink natural orange juice, you're drinking ammonia, about 35PPM.
Onions are almost 270PPM Ammonia which is more ammonia than a hamburger patty made with this processed beef product.
You still don't understand. After the butchers in the slaughterhouse get done slicing and dicing the beef, there is a lot of crap on the concrete floor. The butchers sweep this crap into tubs, treat it with ammonia, and voila – -Pink Slime in our burgers. I bet dollars to donuts your work for pink slime (AKA BPI).
Mr. Smukers says, "I bet dollars to donuts your work for pink slime (AKA BPI)."
Then you owe me dollars because I do not. I do not work in the food industry at all and I have no relationship to BPI at all.
if we lived in the year 1880, you would be correct, smukers. However, we do not, and you are wrong.
Do they use the scraps? YES. Is it mildly unpleasant to think about? Absolutely. I can not, on the other hand, stress enough that they do not use dirty walked on scraps off of the floor (or, at the very least if a company does, they get shut down at the next health inspection.
Since the pure food and drug act of the Progressive Era, sanitation laws have to be followed in all food processing facilities. If your meat been approved by the FDA then it has been prepared in sanitary conditions.
To be fair, the rest of what you said is pretty true. There are indeed chemicals used, but come on now, do some research or read a book. And PLEASE, for the love of God, don't tell someone "they don't understand" when you so clearly don't.
Oh, fast typing grammar errors, you got me again. If your meat HAS been approved, sorry.
Thanks, Smukers. "Oh, Please," re your comment, if you trust the FDA to ensure that our food supply is safe, then your trust is misplaced. Especially because the FDA doesn't inspect meat packaging plants. That's the USDA and believe me, their inspectors are stretched pretty thin.
You have no idea of what you are talking about, this product is produced from wholesome beef trimmings. The problem is you hear something and you just jump on the bandwagon, without knowing the facts. Do some research, andNO, I do not for work BPI, and I am a student.
This response completely misses the point. It's not a question of whether there is ammonia there. It's a question of what was there in the first place that they had to use ammonia on it in order to make it remotely edible.
Thank you, Nunya. You said it better than I did, below.
SherwoodOR, I don't think you understand what people are saying. They prefer not to have chemicals added to their meat. They prefer not to pay for filler. They prefer that companies be more upfront about additives in their food. Chemicals exist, yes. Making salt may take a chemical process. But do we eat grains of salt the size of hamburgers? Not really, I hope, anyway, LOL.
Sounds like a bunch of neoluddites to me.
So creating pink slime in a technological innovation? You obviously don't understand the definition of that word.
Oh it very much is a technological innovation. That doesn't mean that it is one we want. Chemical warfare was a technological innovation, too...
mmmmm BSE, it's what's for dinner