8 ms·
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 recover
by 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 agoAlso 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 ago1. 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 ago1 - 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 ago1. 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...
- justsee 14y agoThe unwitting coiner of the term was a US Department of Agriculture microbiologist who was disgusted the USDA approved the product for human consumption, stating: "Nobody did anything (about pink slime). USDA dropped the ball again. The meat industry soft sold it,"[1] I don't doubt a sizable chunk of public opinion originated 'from the gut' but characterising all concern over the product as illogical / irrational is completely disingenuous. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/25/us-food-slime-scientist-idUSBRE82N0AG20120325 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/25/us-food-slime-scie...
- Cushman 14y agoEven assuming that allowing the unlabeled sale of ground beef containing some quantity of LFTB was an inside deal, ammonium hydroxide in general is classified as GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe)[0]. In the opinion of the FDA, it's as safe to put on food as anything else. > characterising all concern over the product as illogical / irrational is completely disingenuous. Frankly... no, I don't think it is. In absence of any documented health issues, in absence of any reason to suspect danger, what is the logical, rational reason for concern? You may not like it[1], and if enough people don't like the idea that may be cause to stop selling it, but calling it unsafe is definitely both ignorant and irrational. [0] http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnDetailNavigation.cfm?rpt=scogsListing&id=27 http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnDetailNavigatio... [1] Which is also pretty irrational, because it's pretty much the same thing as ground beef, just slightly more so... but no accounting for taste.
- justsee 14y agoWell if that's your position there's not much chance of reasoned debate really. I simply highlighted that concern over the product originated from a USDA microbiologist. That fact refutes your characterisation of all opposition as entirely 'hysterical'. At no point have I said ammonium hydroxide is unsafe, or that the product is unsafe. I simply pointed out that a qualified scientist raised concerns very early on with the product being approved for human consumption.
- 14y ago
- protomyth 14y agoIf you have a problem with ammonia used in food preparation, then don't eat ice cream either. http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Ammonia-leak-at-ice-cream-plant-closes-Rainier-1090798.php http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Ammonia-leak-at-ice-cr...
- ericb 14y agoI don't per se. I have a problem with classifying the objection to pink slime as strictly born out of ignorance.
- Cushman 14y ago> ...fat, salt, and sugar ... contains little in the way of useful nutrition You're making a good point here, but I'd watch out for this weasely use of "nutrition". Fats and sugars are where energy comes from. Food is made of nutrition. (Otherwise we call it fiber... or Olestra.) What you mean, I think, is that these foods are designed for their macronutrient content, with a poor selection of micronutrients[0], which could lead to a deficiency if it were all you ate. Which is definitely still a big issue with pre-prepared foods, but it's a lot easier to talk about in an intellectually honest way. [0] Of which salt is one.