What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef" • Hacker News Board

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#51

Post by Pharmakon » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 2:22 AM UTC

Zarel wrote: post #45

Pharmakon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanically_separated_meat#... Concerns were raised again when the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) epidemic, commonly known as "mad cow disease", occurred in the United Kingdom in 1986. Since bits of the spinal cord (the part most likely to be carrying the BSE prion)[4][5] often got mixed in with the rest of the meat, products using mechanically separated meat taken from the ca…

Your link also says that, as of 2004, the USDA considers mechanically separated beef prohibited for use in human food. So I'm guessing that means the "pink slime" this article is talking about is something else?

No, it’s the same product that has undergone additional steps to make it legal to serve to humans. The critical step is typically the application of ammonia, and less often, citric acid. Often the product is defatted prior to this step, but the only legal distinction is the use of a germicidal agent.

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#52

Post by tootie » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 2:22 AM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #28

jeffdavis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Sincere question. Is it unhealthy or not nutritious?

I'm not sure why the EU bans it, but Canada bans it because of the ammonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime (see some of the references)

Surely it can be sanitized with something else. Radiation or whatever.

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#53

Post by contravariant » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 2:23 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #3

Why is this supposed to upset me? If we're going to keep eating animals (and that sure is my plan), we shouldn't give ourselves the luxury of getting squicked out over using the whole animal. If you're picky about what's in your ground beef, find a butcher you trust, or grind your own.

Well, using the whole animal isn't really the controversial part. In fact that's more or less why ground meat exists.

However you can't just ground pure trimmings as that wouldn't be particularly nice to eat, you need some good meat in there as well. The 'pink slime' described here seems to be some process that separates out additional fat using centrifuges in order to make something that fits the official standards for ground beef without the need to add any good meat. It's highly debatable meat that's been that extensively processed should still be considered ground meat.

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#54

Post by tootie » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 2:23 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #3

Why is this supposed to upset me? If we're going to keep eating animals (and that sure is my plan), we shouldn't give ourselves the luxury of getting squicked out over using the whole animal. If you're picky about what's in your ground beef, find a butcher you trust, or grind your own.

We should applaud it really. It means more meat from fewer animals. Beef production is a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#55

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 2:24 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #3

Why is this supposed to upset me? If we're going to keep eating animals (and that sure is my plan), we shouldn't give ourselves the luxury of getting squicked out over using the whole animal. If you're picky about what's in your ground beef, find a butcher you trust, or grind your own.

[deleted]

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#56

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 2:25 AM UTC

rgbrenner wrote: post #46

zdragnar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's what this is. In fact, the particular product in question is leaner than ground beef, and added to ground beef to get it qualified as "lean". If it's not in the posted article, it's in the linked article (which I cited in my original comment).

No, it's the same thing. The beef trimmings they're referring to in the article are those left on the carcass after the meat has been removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_meat_recovery

I realize the HackerNews guidelines disallow comments that begin with "Did you even read the article?!", but I have to wonder if that prohibition applies to comments that themselves post a link that directly contradicts what is being argued.

That exact link you posted states:

> USDA regulations for procurement of frozen fresh ground beef products state that "Beef that is mechanically separated from bone with automatic deboning systems, advanced lean (meat) recovery (AMR) systems or powered knives, will not be allowed".

Mechanically separated meat is NOT the same thing as "pink slime", and the specific reasons that MSM is not allowed for humans (danger of mad cow disease) does not apply to "pink slime".

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#57

Post by cageface » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 2:25 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #39

tptacek wrote: post #3

Why is this supposed to upset me? If we're going to keep eating animals (and that sure is my plan), we shouldn't give ourselves the luxury of getting squicked out over using the whole animal. If you're picky about what's in your ground beef, find a butcher you trust, or grind your own.

>Why is this supposed to upset me? The factor that dominates our conversations about food - social class. We have a set of reflexive attitudes about food that are largely uncorrelated with health, nutrition or the environment, but are strongly correlated with the social class of who eats what. Advanced meat recovery is the ultimate in nose-to-tail eating, allowing us to make use of almost every gram of edible meat on…

We have a set of reflexive attitudes about food that are largely uncorrelated with health, nutrition or the environment, but are strongly correlated with the social class of who eats what.

I wish this point was brought up more in nutrition discussions. Most of these recent fad diets like keto, paleo, and carnivore are beyond the means of most people in the world. So even if we accept, for the sake of argument (which I don't), that they have nutritional advantages there should be a giant asterisk at the end of the argument.

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#58

Post by adrr » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 2:27 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #3

Why is this supposed to upset me? If we're going to keep eating animals (and that sure is my plan), we shouldn't give ourselves the luxury of getting squicked out over using the whole animal. If you're picky about what's in your ground beef, find a butcher you trust, or grind your own.

Because when I buy ground beef, I want ground beef. I don't want mechanically separated slime. It is false advertising to call it ground beef. It is as dishonest as putting horse meat into ground beef and calling it 100% ground beef even if people couldn't tell the difference.

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#59

Post by nightski » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 2:27 AM UTC

cageface wrote: post #57

jdietrich wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is this supposed to upset me? The factor that dominates our conversations about food - social class. We have a set of reflexive attitudes about food that are largely uncorrelated with health, nutrition or the environment, but are strongly correlated with the social class of who eats what. Advanced meat recovery is the ultimate in nose-to-tail eating, allowing us to make use of almost every gram of edible meat on…

We have a set of reflexive attitudes about food that are largely uncorrelated with health, nutrition or the environment, but are strongly correlated with the social class of who eats what. I wish this point was brought up more in nutrition discussions. Most of these recent fad diets like keto, paleo, and carnivore are beyond the means of most people in the world. So even if we accept, for the sake of argument (which…

keto a fad diet? It's been around since the 1920s...

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#60

Post by Zarel » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 2:28 AM UTC

Pharmakon wrote: post #51

Zarel wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link also says that, as of 2004, the USDA considers mechanically separated beef prohibited for use in human food. So I'm guessing that means the "pink slime" this article is talking about is something else?

No, it’s the same product that has undergone additional steps to make it legal to serve to humans. The critical step is typically the application of ammonia, and less often, citric acid. Often the product is defatted prior to this step, but the only legal distinction is the use of a germicidal agent.

As far as I can tell, "mechanically separated meat" is meat that's been mechanically separated from bones by a grinding process. The prion fears are because some of the bone gets in, and some of the bone contains nerve tissue.

The article says that pink slime is instead made from beef trimmings, which does not involve that grinding process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_meat_recovery

> The meat produced in this manner can contain no more than 150(±30) milligrams of calcium per 200 grams product, as calcium in such high concentrations in the product would be indicative of bone being mixed with the meat. Products that exceed the calcium content limit must instead be labeled "mechanically separated beef or pork" in the ingredients statement.