5 ms·

This piece is ridiculous! They repeatedly claim that the outrage against Pink Slime is undeserved, citing the fact that the substance hasn't been linked to any

This piece is ridiculous! They repeatedly claim that the outrage against Pink Slime is undeserved, citing the fact that the substance hasn't been linked to any reported cases of food-borne illness. Why does that matter? It's disgusting nonetheless. Once large numbers of consumers became very aware of this process, people quickly decided that they would rather not have something so disgusting in their food.

mistercow 15y ago
It is disgusting, but then, so is the concept of peeling off an animal's skin, grinding up its tissues, and eating the result. What's weird to me about the pink slime thing is the inconsistency. Meat is gross. You can ignore that and enjoy your hamburger, or accept it and become a vegetarian.
- debacle 15y ago
  As they say, there's no accounting for taste.
- joejohnson 15y ago
  I have seen a dead chicken or fish be prepared and cooked before me. This process is not that gross, and I still had an apetite to eat afterward. I think that a lot of people who consume meat are aware that they are eating dead animals, and they have an idea in their minds about how those animals look when they're killed. When the consumers start to learn that the actual meat-manufacturing processing is a lot more disgusting, they will probably revolt (at least some). Eventually, I predict many more people will demand better meat-handling standards, or more people will become vegetarians. It is clear that informed consumers dislike the current methods imposed by the meat industry.
- wpietri 15y ago
  One grossness doesn't justify another. Any 10-year-old can tell you how weird and gross sex is. But you're still allowed to say, "Honey, I'll pass on the scat play, thanks." That's especially true when the grossness is concealed from you via PR and corporate BS. Dog meat is probably not different nutritionally from hamburger. Heck, it could be better. But if McDonald's "fortified" their hamburgers with 5% Lassie, people would still be rightfully pissed.
  - mistercow 15y ago
    I agree that people have a right to know what is going into their food, and that the way this has sort of hidden (in a half-assed way) from the public is wrong. But I disagree that that's why people are upset about it. If McDonald's had a note on their ads that said "made of 5% dog meat", people would be just as angry. Actually, euthanized animals from shelters are often rendered down to turn into gelatin and other basic chemical components that then find their way into cosmetics and food products. This is, of course, a good thing by any measure other than "ick" factor (the alternative is raising and killing more animals, after all) so I do not long for the outrage that will eventually come when people find out they've probably eaten dog gelatin.
    - wpietri 15y ago
      I disagree. If McDonald's announced that they would be adding dog next month, there would be outrage. If it were to come out that they had been doing it for the last year but had tried to pass it off as a vitamin supplement, people would be burning shit down. Both "I ate what?" and "My trust has been betrayed!" are powerful motivators.
      - mistercow 15y ago
        Well we'll never know probably, but my guess would be that McDonald's would issue a statement apologizing and promising never to do it again, and people would get distracted by whatever inconsequential celebrity gossip caught their fancy within a week.
- sophacles 15y ago
  I think the parent is pushing an agenda for vegetarianism by presenting a false dilemma. There are all sorts of choices and places and ways of looking at things other than meat is gross so either be ignorant or a vegetarian. I have killed and eaten (and enjoyed) my own meat. It is not a big deal. I am not ignoring anything about some "fact of gross", I am aware of what is done, I just don't mind. The animal had a decent life, and I get a good meal in exchange (see below). However, knowing how most meat from the store is processed, how the animals are raised, and how many gross things they feed the animals and treat the product with, has drasitcally changed my meat habits. I still eat and enjoy meat where I know the animal in question, or at least know the animal in abstract (e.g. am aware that it's source is a humane farm), and it is processed in a skilled rather than industrial way. This leads to more meat expense, and less meat eating, but in no way means I will be a vegetarian.
sophacles 15y ago
You will like what they tell you to like for their profit. You are not a person, you are a consumer, and thus must consume what they can produce, because they are producers. When this system breaks down over trivialities like "human taste" and "personal preference", you destroy our democracy. Or I think that's how the argument goes.
- alttab 15y ago
  I'm here to assume you are being sarcastic!
rbanffy 15y ago
> It's disgusting nonetheless. Trust me. It's probably the least disgusting part of the process of killing a cow and putting parts of it on your plate. If people really became aware of how it happens, they'd not be mad about pink slimes - they'd become vegans. And cows would go extinct in 50 years.

mistercow 15y ago

It is disgusting, but then, so is the concept of peeling off an animal's skin, grinding up its tissues, and eating the result. What's weird to me about the pink slime thing is the inconsistency. Meat is gross. You can ignore that and enjoy your hamburger, or accept it and become a vegetarian.

debacle 15y ago
As they say, there's no accounting for taste.
joejohnson 15y ago
I have seen a dead chicken or fish be prepared and cooked before me. This process is not that gross, and I still had an apetite to eat afterward. I think that a lot of people who consume meat are aware that they are eating dead animals, and they have an idea in their minds about how those animals look when they're killed. When the consumers start to learn that the actual meat-manufacturing processing is a lot more disgusting, they will probably revolt (at least some). Eventually, I predict many more people will demand better meat-handling standards, or more people will become vegetarians. It is clear that informed consumers dislike the current methods imposed by the meat industry.
wpietri 15y ago
One grossness doesn't justify another. Any 10-year-old can tell you how weird and gross sex is. But you're still allowed to say, "Honey, I'll pass on the scat play, thanks." That's especially true when the grossness is concealed from you via PR and corporate BS. Dog meat is probably not different nutritionally from hamburger. Heck, it could be better. But if McDonald's "fortified" their hamburgers with 5% Lassie, people would still be rightfully pissed.
- mistercow 15y ago
  I agree that people have a right to know what is going into their food, and that the way this has sort of hidden (in a half-assed way) from the public is wrong. But I disagree that that's why people are upset about it. If McDonald's had a note on their ads that said "made of 5% dog meat", people would be just as angry. Actually, euthanized animals from shelters are often rendered down to turn into gelatin and other basic chemical components that then find their way into cosmetics and food products. This is, of course, a good thing by any measure other than "ick" factor (the alternative is raising and killing more animals, after all) so I do not long for the outrage that will eventually come when people find out they've probably eaten dog gelatin.
  - wpietri 15y ago
    I disagree. If McDonald's announced that they would be adding dog next month, there would be outrage. If it were to come out that they had been doing it for the last year but had tried to pass it off as a vitamin supplement, people would be burning shit down. Both "I ate what?" and "My trust has been betrayed!" are powerful motivators.
    - mistercow 15y ago
      Well we'll never know probably, but my guess would be that McDonald's would issue a statement apologizing and promising never to do it again, and people would get distracted by whatever inconsequential celebrity gossip caught their fancy within a week.
sophacles 15y ago
I think the parent is pushing an agenda for vegetarianism by presenting a false dilemma. There are all sorts of choices and places and ways of looking at things other than meat is gross so either be ignorant or a vegetarian. I have killed and eaten (and enjoyed) my own meat. It is not a big deal. I am not ignoring anything about some "fact of gross", I am aware of what is done, I just don't mind. The animal had a decent life, and I get a good meal in exchange (see below). However, knowing how most meat from the store is processed, how the animals are raised, and how many gross things they feed the animals and treat the product with, has drasitcally changed my meat habits. I still eat and enjoy meat where I know the animal in question, or at least know the animal in abstract (e.g. am aware that it's source is a humane farm), and it is processed in a skilled rather than industrial way. This leads to more meat expense, and less meat eating, but in no way means I will be a vegetarian.

sophacles 15y ago

You will like what they tell you to like for their profit. You are not a person, you are a consumer, and thus must consume what they can produce, because they are producers. When this system breaks down over trivialities like "human taste" and "personal preference", you destroy our democracy. Or I think that's how the argument goes.

alttab 15y ago
I'm here to assume you are being sarcastic!

rbanffy 15y ago

> It's disgusting nonetheless. Trust me. It's probably the least disgusting part of the process of killing a cow and putting parts of it on your plate. If people really became aware of how it happens, they'd not be mad about pink slimes - they'd become vegans. And cows would go extinct in 50 years.