4 ms·

Cry me a freakin’ river. People are right to be grossed out and offended that this was being fed to their kids across the nation. And we’re supposed to ignore a

by alanh 15y ago

Cry me a freakin’ river. People are right to be grossed out and offended that this was being fed to their kids across the nation. And we’re supposed to ignore any potential concerns over quality just because some poor, rich “innovator” is struggling now that the truth is out? Please. This article reeks of PR — even using much of the same language that BPI does on its own website, pinkslimeisamyth.com / beefisbeef.com. For example, “puffs of ammonia hydroxide.” Puffs? Does that sound like a very technical or descriptive term an actual journalist would independently come up with?

mc32 15y ago
I have no sympathy for them either. People have the right to know what they are getting in a package. If they are ok with scraps so be it. Just label things properly. Besides, these scraps used to be sold to pet food manufacturers. It's not as though there is no market for it. So maybe a pound of ground meat goes up by 2% to recoup the 2% scraps they can't put in (altho it should be less than 2% increase since the scraps weren't free). What we actually need is better USDA truth in labeling laws. Such that natural should actually mean something and such that Kobe beef actually means something. As much as these MFGs have a right to sell this to people, consumers have the equivalent right to know what they are being sold without having to deal with obfuscation and deceit. If dairy producers watered down their milk, they would be sued for fraud. In the wine industry blending can be illegal, for example if you blend a cheap grape with an expensive grape and pretend it's all the dear grape. You have to label properly. That's all people ask for. Proper labeling --which I think should also include provenance information, but that's another matter.
- alanh 15y ago
  > What we actually need is better USDA truth in labeling laws. Such that natural should actually mean something and such that Kobe beef actually means something. Agreed. Personal pet peeve (this one is FDA, not USDA): Drinks can be labeled as “with no artificial colors or flavors” and yet contain any amount of artificial sweeteners. Only to Uncle Sam is it obvious ‘sweet’ is not a flavor, I suppose.
  - mc32 15y ago
    I feel as though they are upset that they got away with obfuscation (fraud) so long that they are (incredulously) calling foul when people want them to come correct. Meanwhile it was they who all along had been fraudulent -in my estimation.
    - alttab 15y ago
      I would agree with you. If we all labeled our food, we might live in a "brave new world" where eating pink slime is fine - but only because we are used to it. Health effects aside - if the meat had been labeled for the last 20 years there wouldn't have been such a "surprise" and a "reaction" when they found out.
      - mc32 15y ago
        I think I'm ok with that. We tell people smoking cigarettes are bad for their health, yet people continue smoking. Sometimes one has to take responsibility for one's choices. I prefer clear (truthful) labeling over the alternative presented which is relying on surprise (and shock) to effect change, or at least disseminate information. As information becomes available and becomes more attainable (searchable), people are better equipped to make nutritional decisions. All we can hope is to supply the information and let people decide. So long as people can be sure than words like "natural", "free range", "fresh", all mean what common usage would suppose they meant, I'd be ok. In this case, for example, in common usage, beef means cow flesh. It's not equivalent to "cow". It's a subset of cow, in English. Cartilage, sinew and bone are not flesh. That's how I see it.
        AndyNemmity 15y ago
        Before cigarette companies didn't say smoking was bad for your health, and more people smoked. Once it was labeled and clear, less people smoked. Clearly labeling allows people the information to make choices, which is why labeling is such an issue of contention with corporations who profit off additions that customers might avoid.
- dubya 15y ago
  There's a precedent with "Wyngz" (http://askfsis.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1450 http://askfsis.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1450), which are chicken wing shaped but contain no actual wing. They just need a name catchier than "Pink Slime".
Zikes 15y ago
The fact is that there is currently no actual health or safety concern about this "pink slime", and the only reason for the outcry is an emotional reaction to what it looks like before it's mixed with the ground beef. I would wager that many of them would have an equally emotionally charged reaction to seeing the butchering and separation process for the rest of the beef they eat, but would forego campaigning against it because it's the same beef they've always eaten, and that makes it more "real" or "authentic". When it comes down to it, any process for turning an animal into edible meat is gross and offensive.
- AndyNemmity 15y ago
  "the only reason for the outcry is an emotional reaction to what it looks like before it's mixed with the ground beef." Not true. The reason for a lot of people is the expectation that food is minimally processed. When I buy I steak, I have an expectation that it is literally a cut out of a cow. This expectation is far larger in Europe than in the US, however it's the same expectation. I buy a meat product, I am getting a natural thing. The only reason it wasn't an issue before is no one knew. There was no proper labeling. So simply label things as they are with all the processed parts. Then you will know if there is a real issue with the public. The refusal to label things is because there will be an outrage, and if people want to refuse to eat pink slime out of their own concerns, that is there choice. I don't get the minimization of this. You act like this isn't a reasonable choice, it is. You can choose a different direction, but there should be explicit labeling so we all have that choice.
  - jmj42 15y ago
    Then your (and their) expectation is uninformed. There is relatively little food that is "minimally processed" anywhere in the industrialized world, and expectation to the contrary is willful blindness or lack of information. Zikes is right. The sudden outrage is nothing more than knee jerk reaction based on an emotional response rather than based in science.
    - morestuff 15y ago

by alanh 15y ago

mc32 15y ago

I have no sympathy for them either. People have the right to know what they are getting in a package. If they are ok with scraps so be it. Just label things properly. Besides, these scraps used to be sold to pet food manufacturers. It's not as though there is no market for it. So maybe a pound of ground meat goes up by 2% to recoup the 2% scraps they can't put in (altho it should be less than 2% increase since the scraps weren't free). What we actually need is better USDA truth in labeling laws. Such that natural should actually mean something and such that Kobe beef actually means something. As much as these MFGs have a right to sell this to people, consumers have the equivalent right to know what they are being sold without having to deal with obfuscation and deceit. If dairy producers watered down their milk, they would be sued for fraud. In the wine industry blending can be illegal, for example if you blend a cheap grape with an expensive grape and pretend it's all the dear grape. You have to label properly. That's all people ask for. Proper labeling --which I think should also include provenance information, but that's another matter.

alanh 15y ago
> What we actually need is better USDA truth in labeling laws. Such that natural should actually mean something and such that Kobe beef actually means something. Agreed. Personal pet peeve (this one is FDA, not USDA): Drinks can be labeled as “with no artificial colors or flavors” and yet contain any amount of artificial sweeteners. Only to Uncle Sam is it obvious ‘sweet’ is not a flavor, I suppose.
- mc32 15y ago
  I feel as though they are upset that they got away with obfuscation (fraud) so long that they are (incredulously) calling foul when people want them to come correct. Meanwhile it was they who all along had been fraudulent -in my estimation.
  - alttab 15y ago
    I would agree with you. If we all labeled our food, we might live in a "brave new world" where eating pink slime is fine - but only because we are used to it. Health effects aside - if the meat had been labeled for the last 20 years there wouldn't have been such a "surprise" and a "reaction" when they found out.
    - mc32 15y ago
      I think I'm ok with that. We tell people smoking cigarettes are bad for their health, yet people continue smoking. Sometimes one has to take responsibility for one's choices. I prefer clear (truthful) labeling over the alternative presented which is relying on surprise (and shock) to effect change, or at least disseminate information. As information becomes available and becomes more attainable (searchable), people are better equipped to make nutritional decisions. All we can hope is to supply the information and let people decide. So long as people can be sure than words like "natural", "free range", "fresh", all mean what common usage would suppose they meant, I'd be ok. In this case, for example, in common usage, beef means cow flesh. It's not equivalent to "cow". It's a subset of cow, in English. Cartilage, sinew and bone are not flesh. That's how I see it.
      - AndyNemmity 15y ago
        Before cigarette companies didn't say smoking was bad for your health, and more people smoked. Once it was labeled and clear, less people smoked. Clearly labeling allows people the information to make choices, which is why labeling is such an issue of contention with corporations who profit off additions that customers might avoid.
dubya 15y ago
There's a precedent with "Wyngz" (http://askfsis.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1450 http://askfsis.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1450), which are chicken wing shaped but contain no actual wing. They just need a name catchier than "Pink Slime".

Zikes 15y ago

The fact is that there is currently no actual health or safety concern about this "pink slime", and the only reason for the outcry is an emotional reaction to what it looks like before it's mixed with the ground beef. I would wager that many of them would have an equally emotionally charged reaction to seeing the butchering and separation process for the rest of the beef they eat, but would forego campaigning against it because it's the same beef they've always eaten, and that makes it more "real" or "authentic". When it comes down to it, any process for turning an animal into edible meat is gross and offensive.

AndyNemmity 15y ago
"the only reason for the outcry is an emotional reaction to what it looks like before it's mixed with the ground beef." Not true. The reason for a lot of people is the expectation that food is minimally processed. When I buy I steak, I have an expectation that it is literally a cut out of a cow. This expectation is far larger in Europe than in the US, however it's the same expectation. I buy a meat product, I am getting a natural thing. The only reason it wasn't an issue before is no one knew. There was no proper labeling. So simply label things as they are with all the processed parts. Then you will know if there is a real issue with the public. The refusal to label things is because there will be an outrage, and if people want to refuse to eat pink slime out of their own concerns, that is there choice. I don't get the minimization of this. You act like this isn't a reasonable choice, it is. You can choose a different direction, but there should be explicit labeling so we all have that choice.
- jmj42 15y ago
  Then your (and their) expectation is uninformed. There is relatively little food that is "minimally processed" anywhere in the industrialized world, and expectation to the contrary is willful blindness or lack of information. Zikes is right. The sudden outrage is nothing more than knee jerk reaction based on an emotional response rather than based in science.
  - morestuff 15y ago