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"

#121

Post by alexandercrohde » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 3:39 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #105

deogeo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> We still have no real evidence that LFTB is materially less nutritious or less safe than conventionally recovered scraps used in minced beef

Except you're flipping the burden of proof. Food product experiments aren't default-safe until proven otherwise.

Class is a red-herring. Wealthy people eat pesticide-free, grass-fed, organic, bpa-free, healthier, or low-preservative fresh food not to signal, but because they are risk-averse.

All food labels should contain exact information on what the product is in these respects, next to the ingredients and nutrition information.

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

#122

Post by ubercow13 » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 3:41 AM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #112

cageface wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For treating epileptics yes, not as a diet recommended for general use. https://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-epileps...

“Not a diet recommended for general use” can be legitimately said of many defined diets and can DEFINITELY be said of the actual eating habits of most western people. Keto (i.e. any diet that triggers ketones) is a compelling option for numerous reasons, not just epileptics. It’s definitely not a good default for the wider population. And it is of course environmentally and economically inefficient. But ketogenisis i…

'Protein is more filling' is also a part of our biochemistry but I'd still be ok with carnivore diet being called a fad diet

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

#123

Post by cc439 » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 3:45 AM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #87

Ironic that this comes as beef & milk suppliers are complaining about "impossible burgers" simulated meat and almond "milk" stealing their precious terminology.

Ironic that this comment comes in response to an article about a slightly-more-than-normal processed meat product in support of hyper processed replacements for generally lightly processed meat and dairy products.

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

#124

Post by jdietrich » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 3:48 AM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #96

dang wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, we've changed the URL to that from https://qz.com/1552580/the-us-government-has-redefined-pink-... . Thanks!

I'm sorry, the languaging in this re-linking sounds like so much like industry shilling. "That product is then sterilized with a strong puff of ammonia gas to kill pathogens, as beef trimmings are especially susceptible to contamination." With an elaborate explanation for each "terrible sounding" detail (what is this "puff" exactly, etc). ... except the sum total of the "terrible sounding" stuff is actually distinctl…

>Basically, pink slime is highly processed leavings of beef that cannot be used except by putting it through more or less a blender and a chemistry lab.

After butchering a carcass, you're left with a lot of fatty trimmings with small amounts of meat attached that are uneconomical to recover by hand. If you gently heat the fat trimmings and spin them in a centrifuge, you cleanly separate the lean meat from the fat. That process weakens the cell walls of the muscle fibres, which increases the risk of bacterial growth; to kill the bacteria, ammonium hydroxide gas is used to raise the pH. The FDA deems ammonium hydroxide to be safe, so it is widely used in US food manufacturing as an acidity regulator and antimicrobial agent. Other regulators disagree on the safety of ammonium hydroxide, in which case citric acid is used.

The production of LFTB is no weirder than any number of other food processes. It's a simple, efficient method for separating meat from fat. The media have made a mountain out of a molehill by sensationally revealing a "shocking secret" that is neither shocking nor secret. Personally, I think that a lot of consumers just prefer not to think about how meat ends up on their plate and recoil at any discussion of the process that turns live animals into hamburger patties.

We really need to be talking about the use of antibiotics as a growth promoter, which is a slow-motion catastrophe that the US regulators are largely ignoring.

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

#125

Post by cc439 » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 3:48 AM UTC

warent wrote: post #77

brandonmenc wrote: post #47

Pretty sure I saw this quote here a while back: "When indigenous peoples work to make use of all of an animal we call it respect. Do it in a factory and all of the sudden it is gross."

It's not surprising that we can make anything sound however we want by stripping away the context. Let's try adding it back in. "When indigenous peoples work to make use of all of an animal we call it respect. Do it in a factory [producing a collagen/cartilage slurry cleansed with ammonia; to maximize profits], and all of the sudden it is gross."

Producing a collagen/cartilage slurry is also known as making a broth or a stew.

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

#126

Post by cageface » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 3:53 AM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #112

cageface wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For treating epileptics yes, not as a diet recommended for general use. https://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-epileps...

“Not a diet recommended for general use” can be legitimately said of many defined diets and can DEFINITELY be said of the actual eating habits of most western people. Keto (i.e. any diet that triggers ketones) is a compelling option for numerous reasons, not just epileptics. It’s definitely not a good default for the wider population. And it is of course environmentally and economically inefficient. But ketogenisis i…

Replace the word fad with popular if that works better for you. There has definitely been a lot of buzz around it lately.

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

#127

Post by jdietrich » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 4:01 AM UTC

doctorpangloss wrote: post #113

coldtea wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "pink slime" story is mostly fake news. ABC News coined the term, and later paid $177 million to settle a lawsuit over it. It was the largest defamation settlement in the history of the United States. I'd say this "beef" is fake meat -- whether some court agrees or not (that depends on who has the best lawyers and deeper pockets, not on who has the best food). I'd be OK with companies being allowed to sell all…

People have had so much trouble getting over words we use to describe food. Clearly, when a normal person says "real" or "natural" or "doesn't have chemicals", they mean foods that are (1) made only with ingredients or processes endogenous to living organisms without human intervention or (2) when harvested industrially, the harvest is only mechanical. This seems reasonable to me! That's why it's okay to eat beef tha…

>Nothing in nature produces food by treating in with ammonia!

We are the only thing in nature that "produces" food - every other species photosynthesises, hunts or grazes. We're the only species that can cook. Is cooking unnatural?

>made only with ingredients or processes endogenous to living organisms without human intervention

Where do you draw the line? Is wheat flour "unnatural" because we winnow off the chaff and grind the grains? Does a chicken leg become "unnatural" if you pluck it and skin it? Does milk become unnatural if you churn it into butter? Does butter become unnatural if you clarify it into ghee?

The whole distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" is meaningless in any practical sense. Either everything we do is "natural" because we're animals, or everything that we do that apes can't is "unnatural". Either only a raw food diet is natural, or everything is natural. There's no logical distinction between the complex chemistry we perform in our kitchens every day and the complex chemistry that occurs in industrial food production, just a vague squeamishness.

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

#128

Post by joe_the_user » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 4:03 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #124

joe_the_user wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, the languaging in this re-linking sounds like so much like industry shilling. "That product is then sterilized with a strong puff of ammonia gas to kill pathogens, as beef trimmings are especially susceptible to contamination." With an elaborate explanation for each "terrible sounding" detail (what is this "puff" exactly, etc). ... except the sum total of the "terrible sounding" stuff is actually distinctl…

>Basically, pink slime is highly processed leavings of beef that cannot be used except by putting it through more or less a blender and a chemistry lab. After butchering a carcass, you're left with a lot of fatty trimmings with small amounts of meat attached that are uneconomical to recover by hand. If you gently heat the fat trimmings and spin them in a centrifuge, you cleanly separate the lean meat from the fat. Th…

After butchering a carcass, you're left with a lot of fatty trimmings with small amounts of meat attached that are uneconomical to recover by hand. If you gently heat the fat trimmings and spin them in a centrifuge, you cleanly separate the lean meat from the fat. That process weakens the cell walls of the muscle fibres, which increases the risk of bacterial growth; to kill the bacteria, ammonium hydroxide gas is used to raise the pH. The FDA deems ammonium hydroxide to be safe, so it is widely used in US food manufacturing as an acidity regulator and antimicrobial agent. Other regulators disagree on the safety of ammonium hydroxide, in which case citric acid is used.

That's a fine sell. Now sell me on, "this is so OK that we should have a statutory right not to ever mention this fact.

Which is to repeat the point that this tug-of-war isn't about "can you do it?" or "is it safe" but "do you even have to say anything?".

The problem is indeed how little consumers can determine about safety once it becomes obvious industry is throwing things all in a giant food processor and then mixing up things that appear simple. It makes people nervous even if, let's say, in this case everything is fine.

Because, suppose, in the case of antibiotics, everything is not fine at all? Do you want the precedent that "hey, once the expert decide everything is OK, then it's decided that things are sooo OK that you aren't allowed to talk about it at all". Which is to say, safe or not, problem or not, it's pink slime. That was what it was called before ABC and that's rather clearly an appropriate term.

And pink slime is shocking because consumers don't know anything. Keep the situation where the real processes of food production are shocking and hidden? Good idea? I believe not.

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

#129

Post by adrr » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 4:03 AM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #119

adrr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then call centrifugal separated beef. It isn’t ground beef.

Ok, but it's only separated from the fat. They're not sorting out bone or nerve tissue from the meat. It's like centrifugally-trimmed beef.

You do agree it shouldn’t be called be ground beef?

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

#130

Post by tantalor » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 4:10 AM UTC

cc439 wrote: post #123

tantalor wrote: post #87

Ironic that this comes as beef & milk suppliers are complaining about "impossible burgers" simulated meat and almond "milk" stealing their precious terminology.

Ironic that this comment comes in response to an article about a slightly-more-than-normal processed meat product in support of hyper processed replacements for generally lightly processed meat and dairy products.

Almond milk is not hyper processed. You can make it by hand.