4 ms·

American markets will not accept lab meat. I say this based on the reaction to what was dubbed "pink slime" and about which the media and the public flipped ou

by crikli 14y ago

American markets will not accept lab meat. I say this based on the reaction to what was dubbed "pink slime" and about which the media and the public flipped out. The result is that a completely safe and efficient process to increase yield came under fire because of hysteria grounded in not a whit of logic. People are also whipping themselves into a frenzy about genetically modified organisms. They're also convincing themselves that organic food is what they should have been eating in lieu of food treated with chemicals(1). So if a public that is generally ignorant about food production is (over)reacting to existing scientific enhancements it follows that the reaction to a completely scientificly generated product would not be met with acceptance. Disclaimer: I'm part of a fifth generation farm family. We farm corn, soybeans, and milo. No livestock. (1)Certified organic food is often treated with chemicals, sometimes the same chemicals as non-organic, but at different dilutions and with different application methods.

sp332 14y ago
I don't understand the pink slime thing. I'm pretty sure the only reason people freaked out was because of Jamie Oliver's campaign against it.
- DanBC2 14y ago
  People want to eat meat. Pink slime is a small amount of meat with large amounts of the bits you'd normally leave behind. I'm not against mechanically recovered meat. But I'd prefer children to get chunks of real meat cooked well than a squirt of slime and salt and flavourings in a crumb coating which is then fried and served with a sugary sauce. (ketchup, bbq, etc.) That combination of fat, salt, and sugar makes food "hyper palatable"[1] and, while much cheaper than "real" food contains little in the way of useful nutrition. [1] Not my term. It's used to describe food where the balance of salt, sweet, and fat have been carefully balanced, and where the food is very easy to eat, because it's small or soft and easy to chew. See the progression from roast chicken, to deep fried chicken, to deep fried chicken with a salty coating and sauces, to "popcorn chicken" which are small chunks of meat, with a lot of fat-soaked salty coating.
  - ericb 14y ago
    Also a big part of the objection is that pink slime is soaked in an ammonia bath. I don't think it is ignorant to question whether an ammonia bath might have consequences health-wise.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      1. There is no soaking. The product is exposed to ammonia gas. 2. If we don't trust the FDA to regulate based on health consequences, what the hell do we pay them for? 3. It is, in strict terms, ignorant to not know that ammonia is a component of animal metabolism which we produce and excrete naturally. Ground beef always has ammonia in it (albeit about a quarter as much as in treated meat).
      - ericb 14y ago
        1 - source? Honest question--is "bath" the term for something other than soaking? http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/safety/story/2012-03-27/Beef-industry-braces-for-loss-of-pink-slime-filler/53802154/1 http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/safety/story/2012-... 2 - Straw man. We pay them for being better than the alternative. I don't trust them because, like most of our government, they are ultimately beholden to lobbying and special interest money. 3 - 4x the ammonia is not really a selling point, and in fact makes the case that rejecting this food out of caution is not ignorant. Further, I don't think you can call it ignorant for people to reject eating foods that make them go "ick!" I could eat maggots. Is it ignorance that makes me choose not to, or personal taste?
        Cushman 14y ago
        1. I imagine USA Today uses the term "bath" to refer to any number of things. Here's the Washington Post: "...the lean beef passes through a tube the size of a pencil, where it is exposed for less than a second to a tiny amount of ammonia gas."[0] 2. Be that as it may, they are the people in charge of telling us whether or not food is safe to eat, and they said this was safe to eat. They also happen to know a lot more about this stuff than we do, which brings us to... 3. It is quite literal ignorance to say "Ammonia? I have a bottle of that under my sink! And they feed this to children?!" while ignorant of the fact that you exhale ammonia with every breath, and could eat the same amount of ammonia by simply making a bigger burger. Not that that gives it an automatic pass, but it sets the bar for someone saying, "Yeah, we tested this and it's completely safe to eat" a hell of a lot lower. [0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103656_2.html?sid=ST2008061200002 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06...
- Cushman 14y ago
  I think it was two things mainly: 1) Pictures of mechanically-separated meat (the pink soft-serve) misattributed as LFTB. 2) Hysteria around the use of ammonia, which people read as "poison" rather than "food-safe antimicrobial agent". It was a dark day for reasoned discourse.
johnchristopher 14y ago
> Certified organic food is often treated with chemicals, sometimes the same chemicals as non-organic, but at different dilutions and with different application methods. This would be considered non-sense where I live (Belgium). Could you provide american examples of well-known certified organic food that is often treated with chemicals ?
- geon 14y ago
  "Chemicals" make no sense. Water is a chemical. The potassium, nitrogen and oxygen found in organic fertilizer can't be distinguised from their non-organic counterparts.
  - johnchristopher 14y ago
    Chemicals is rarely used by the media or in casual conversation with its original and intended meaning (chemistry lexical field) but I believe nonetheless it always refers to "synthetic" pesticides. So for the sake of the conversation: I am curious about american certified organic food known for being often treated with synthetic pesticides. Note: is there really some confusion with the word "chemicals" in this context ? Wouldn't anybody understand it in its intended meaning (synthetic) or is it an american thing ? I think organic food has even a worse reputation in the US than in WE.
    - geon 14y ago
      > Wouldn't anybody understand it in its intended meaning (synthetic) My point was that there isn't necessarily any difference between "synthetic" and natural. This organic vs. synthetic is largely a media/propaganda driven misconception. What is important is caring for the plants and animals, and not abusing pesticides, fertilizers and medication. It's the same thing in herbal medicine and health food. Just because a product comes from a plant it isn't necessarily good for you or risk free. Aside from that, I feel "chemicals" in farming more often refer to fertilizers than pesticides, here in Sweden.
justsee 14y ago
You falsely portray all opposition to industrial food production / GMO as unscientific / irrational / illogical? It certainly seems to be a favoured industry angle (esp. in regards to Genetically Modified Organisms): portray opposition as ignorant, anti-progress, unscientifc, luddite etc Some cursory examination into any of these issues uncovers reasoned, rational, scientific concern behind much opposition. The 'pink slime' issue originated with a US Department of Agriculture microbiologist who was disgusted that the USDA approved it for human consumption. Hardly 'hysteria grounded in not a whit of logic'.
ealloc 14y ago
Pink slime is gross. A once-bacteria-laden mush of animal leftovers? No thanks. I don't eat food purely for nutrition (it's easy to get enough nutrition) but because it is appetizing too. Pink slime sounds tasteless and textureless. Health wise am not too worried about the ammonia itself, but by the implication that the meat is so full of bacteria that it requires a relatively large dose of ammonia to make it edible. On the other hand, I have no problem eating lab meat, 'chemically treated' and genetically modified food in principle, depending on the exact chemicals used. For example, I would like to avoid food coated with dangerous pesticides (including if the plant was GM'd to produce the pesticide). Benign pesticides are fine. I imagine lab meat could be even cleaner and more appetizing than normal meat, once the process has developed enough.

by crikli 14y ago

sp332 14y ago

I don't understand the pink slime thing. I'm pretty sure the only reason people freaked out was because of Jamie Oliver's campaign against it.

DanBC2 14y ago
People want to eat meat. Pink slime is a small amount of meat with large amounts of the bits you'd normally leave behind. I'm not against mechanically recovered meat. But I'd prefer children to get chunks of real meat cooked well than a squirt of slime and salt and flavourings in a crumb coating which is then fried and served with a sugary sauce. (ketchup, bbq, etc.) That combination of fat, salt, and sugar makes food "hyper palatable"[1] and, while much cheaper than "real" food contains little in the way of useful nutrition. [1] Not my term. It's used to describe food where the balance of salt, sweet, and fat have been carefully balanced, and where the food is very easy to eat, because it's small or soft and easy to chew. See the progression from roast chicken, to deep fried chicken, to deep fried chicken with a salty coating and sauces, to "popcorn chicken" which are small chunks of meat, with a lot of fat-soaked salty coating.
- ericb 14y ago
  Also a big part of the objection is that pink slime is soaked in an ammonia bath. I don't think it is ignorant to question whether an ammonia bath might have consequences health-wise.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    1. There is no soaking. The product is exposed to ammonia gas. 2. If we don't trust the FDA to regulate based on health consequences, what the hell do we pay them for? 3. It is, in strict terms, ignorant to not know that ammonia is a component of animal metabolism which we produce and excrete naturally. Ground beef always has ammonia in it (albeit about a quarter as much as in treated meat).
    - ericb 14y ago
      1 - source? Honest question--is "bath" the term for something other than soaking? http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/safety/story/2012-03-27/Beef-industry-braces-for-loss-of-pink-slime-filler/53802154/1 http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/safety/story/2012-... 2 - Straw man. We pay them for being better than the alternative. I don't trust them because, like most of our government, they are ultimately beholden to lobbying and special interest money. 3 - 4x the ammonia is not really a selling point, and in fact makes the case that rejecting this food out of caution is not ignorant. Further, I don't think you can call it ignorant for people to reject eating foods that make them go "ick!" I could eat maggots. Is it ignorance that makes me choose not to, or personal taste?
      - Cushman 14y ago
        1. I imagine USA Today uses the term "bath" to refer to any number of things. Here's the Washington Post: "...the lean beef passes through a tube the size of a pencil, where it is exposed for less than a second to a tiny amount of ammonia gas."[0] 2. Be that as it may, they are the people in charge of telling us whether or not food is safe to eat, and they said this was safe to eat. They also happen to know a lot more about this stuff than we do, which brings us to... 3. It is quite literal ignorance to say "Ammonia? I have a bottle of that under my sink! And they feed this to children?!" while ignorant of the fact that you exhale ammonia with every breath, and could eat the same amount of ammonia by simply making a bigger burger. Not that that gives it an automatic pass, but it sets the bar for someone saying, "Yeah, we tested this and it's completely safe to eat" a hell of a lot lower. [0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103656_2.html?sid=ST2008061200002 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06...
Cushman 14y ago
I think it was two things mainly: 1) Pictures of mechanically-separated meat (the pink soft-serve) misattributed as LFTB. 2) Hysteria around the use of ammonia, which people read as "poison" rather than "food-safe antimicrobial agent". It was a dark day for reasoned discourse.

johnchristopher 14y ago

> Certified organic food is often treated with chemicals, sometimes the same chemicals as non-organic, but at different dilutions and with different application methods. This would be considered non-sense where I live (Belgium). Could you provide american examples of well-known certified organic food that is often treated with chemicals ?

geon 14y ago
"Chemicals" make no sense. Water is a chemical. The potassium, nitrogen and oxygen found in organic fertilizer can't be distinguised from their non-organic counterparts.
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  Chemicals is rarely used by the media or in casual conversation with its original and intended meaning (chemistry lexical field) but I believe nonetheless it always refers to "synthetic" pesticides. So for the sake of the conversation: I am curious about american certified organic food known for being often treated with synthetic pesticides. Note: is there really some confusion with the word "chemicals" in this context ? Wouldn't anybody understand it in its intended meaning (synthetic) or is it an american thing ? I think organic food has even a worse reputation in the US than in WE.
  - geon 14y ago
    > Wouldn't anybody understand it in its intended meaning (synthetic) My point was that there isn't necessarily any difference between "synthetic" and natural. This organic vs. synthetic is largely a media/propaganda driven misconception. What is important is caring for the plants and animals, and not abusing pesticides, fertilizers and medication. It's the same thing in herbal medicine and health food. Just because a product comes from a plant it isn't necessarily good for you or risk free. Aside from that, I feel "chemicals" in farming more often refer to fertilizers than pesticides, here in Sweden.

justsee 14y ago

You falsely portray all opposition to industrial food production / GMO as unscientific / irrational / illogical? It certainly seems to be a favoured industry angle (esp. in regards to Genetically Modified Organisms): portray opposition as ignorant, anti-progress, unscientifc, luddite etc Some cursory examination into any of these issues uncovers reasoned, rational, scientific concern behind much opposition. The 'pink slime' issue originated with a US Department of Agriculture microbiologist who was disgusted that the USDA approved it for human consumption. Hardly 'hysteria grounded in not a whit of logic'.

ealloc 14y ago

Pink slime is gross. A once-bacteria-laden mush of animal leftovers? No thanks. I don't eat food purely for nutrition (it's easy to get enough nutrition) but because it is appetizing too. Pink slime sounds tasteless and textureless. Health wise am not too worried about the ammonia itself, but by the implication that the meat is so full of bacteria that it requires a relatively large dose of ammonia to make it edible. On the other hand, I have no problem eating lab meat, 'chemically treated' and genetically modified food in principle, depending on the exact chemicals used. For example, I would like to avoid food coated with dangerous pesticides (including if the plant was GM'd to produce the pesticide). Benign pesticides are fine. I imagine lab meat could be even cleaner and more appetizing than normal meat, once the process has developed enough.