Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

newfoodeconomy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 320 posts

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

#101

Post by coldtea »

nightski wrote: post #59
cageface wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Fad not as in "something that will go out of fashion quickly", but as "of questionable value, that people pick out of peer suggestions/fashion". Whether the latter is recurring and long term doesn't mean much.

All kinds of non-diet fads come and go too, even bellbottoms made a couple of comebacks in the decades since the late 60s.

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

#102

Post by lifeformed »

supportlocal4h wrote: post #61

For those who don't have a personal butcher, you might be interested to know... Many state and county fairs include a livestock show. Often the exhibited animals are auctioned off at the end of the show. The animals are raised and exhibited by youth (4H, FFA, etc). The proceeds go to the (child) owner of the animal. At our county fair, bidding starts at about $3/# on the hoof. They generally weigh between 1100# and 1…

Interesting. Do you know what percentage of the animal is edible meat?

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

#103

Post by x43b »

pmarreck wrote: post #93
newnewpdro wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More heavily-processed industrial food products, yum!

FFS, this gives the people what they want without imprisoning and killing cows for food. Maybe have some evidence that it’s unhealthy before you bullshit a negativity next time

Significant number of carbs and has added sugar, sounds less nutritious than hamburger to me.

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

#104

Post by sjwright »

deogeo wrote: post #81
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…

Is this what it has come to? Accusing of classism the people upset that food labeling regulations are getting slowly dismantled? Please consider that using the whole animal is a different thing to labeling the resulting product however they want.

Ground beef is such an ambiguous, broad-brush term that it couldn’t not include this.

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

#105

Post by jdietrich »

deogeo wrote: post #81
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…

Is this what it has come to? Accusing of classism the people upset that food labeling regulations are getting slowly dismantled? Please consider that using the whole animal is a different thing to labeling the resulting product however they want.

A lot of people decided that LFTB was horrible stuff, based on no real evidence other than the fact that it's cheap. We still have no real evidence that LFTB is materially less nutritious or less safe than conventionally recovered scraps used in minced beef. I'm not convinced that LFTB is sufficiently different to conventional minced beef to warrant specific labelling; we don't expect every ingredient to come with a precise description of how it was processed, despite the very substantial transformations that occur during e.g. flour processing.

Classism in food is absolutely endemic. A slightly facile but still important example is this paper from the BMJ in 2012. It analysed the nutritional content of 100 supermarket packaged meals and 100 recipes by popular British TV chefs. It found that the ready-made meals contained significantly fewer calories, less fat and more fibre than the recipes. We judge people for living on a diet of microwaveable meals, but switching to home-cooked meals might actually be a retrograde step in terms of nutrition if they follow the recipes of Jamie Oliver or Nigella Lawson.

Something feels intuitively wrong about that conclusion; that feeling is implicit classism.

https://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7607

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

#106

Post by bsanr2 »

deogeo wrote: post #81
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…

Is this what it has come to? Accusing of classism the people upset that food labeling regulations are getting slowly dismantled? Please consider that using the whole animal is a different thing to labeling the resulting product however they want.

It's projection. The real class conflict in play here is that the meat that is well-established as safe and healthy for consumption - as far as meat goes - is only affordable for the affluent. Everyone else has to eat meat that is processed so as to obscure its origins and make it more primarily amenable to storage, transportation, and, ultimately, sale. And not primarily, you know, health.

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

#107

Post by heyjudy »

Wow.

About 30 years ago, my now departed grandmother was at her favorite Italian grocery store comparing sirloin to ground sirloin and noticed a price difference. She asked the butcher about the truth of what was in the ground sirloin. "We couldn't sell it at that price without adding things to it." From then on, she bought only sirloin steaks and ground her own at home.

In the absence of sensible government regulations and enforcement, cut-throat capitalism drives individuals and corporations to cut corners and keep cutting more corners until Bhopal or Mad Cow Disease happen.

Disclaimer: I don't eat animals.

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

#109

Post by yesenadam »

hskaw wrote: post #64
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…

This is very dishonest. Pink slime contains connective tissue and muscle. There's no way it's equivalent in terms of nutritional value to actual meat. And don't forget it's treated with ammonia , which is the reason it's banned in the first world.

Um, you know 'meat' = muscle, right?

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

#110

Post by heyjudy »

x43b wrote: post #103
pmarreck wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FFS, this gives the people what they want without imprisoning and killing cows for food. Maybe have some evidence that it’s unhealthy before you bullshit a negativity next time

Significant number of carbs and has added sugar, sounds less nutritious than hamburger to me.

Upton Sinclair effect right here. Let's keep supporting a major source of climate change, obesity, antibiotic resistance, animal cruelty and heart disease because you want a hamburger... nothing else is good enough for you, focus on the negatives, discard all of the positives.
Post reply on HN