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

131–140 of 320 posts

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

#131

Post by jdietrich »

joe_the_user wrote: post #128
jdietrich wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 use…

>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.

Food production is really, really complex. If an organic burrito was labelled with every process involved in its production, it would come with a label the size of a telephone directory. Over-labelling is just as problematic as under-labelling, as we have seen with Prop 65; adding more words to a label often actively impedes the ability of a consumer to make meaningful choices. We rely on the regulators to determine what processes and ingredients are sufficiently safe for the food chain and to highlight issues of particular concern.

Some people think that FTLB is unsafe, but they have no real evidence for that claim. It has attracted a vastly disproportionate amount of attention, seemingly only for reasons of squeamishness.

Regulators are not infallible or incorruptible, which is why it is important that they are held to account. If we're quibbling over the labelling of something that's demonstrably fine, we're not talking about the hundred other glaring issues in the US food system that need to be addressed much more urgently.

FTLB is simply irrelevant. It's broadly beneficial, but it's neither good or bad enough to warrant our attention. The grossly disproportionate amount of attention it has attracted is symptomatic of a faddish, panic-driven and deeply irrational approach to food that is entirely unproductive.

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

#132

Post by jdietrich »

jeffdavis wrote: post #23
hskaw wrote: post #17

Pink slime is banned from human consumption in the European Union.

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

Centrifugally reclaiming meat from fat is perfectly legal in the EU, because it's a safe process. The EU does restrict the use of ammonium hydroxide, which is widely used in the US as an antimicrobial and acidity regulating food additive.

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

#133

Post by rsynnott »

jeffdavis wrote: post #23
hskaw wrote: post #17

Pink slime is banned from human consumption in the European Union.

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

BSE and other prion disease concerns. It's only banned for ruminants; it's legal for chicken, though it must be disclosed.

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

#134

Post by joe_the_user »

jdietrich wrote: post #131
joe_the_user wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 use…

>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. Food production is really, really complex. If an organic burrito was labelled with every process involved in its production, it would come with a label the size of a telephone directory. Over-labelling is just as problematic as under-labelling, as we have seen with Prop 65; adding more words to a l…

Food production is really, really complex. If an organic burrito was labelled with every process involved in its production, it would come with a label the size of a telephone directory.

What I am talking about is "doing you have the right know what's happening?" What that is printed on the back of a given label is a different matter, you think?

Some people think that FTLB is unsafe, but they have no evidence for that claim. It has attracted a vastly disproportionate amount of attention, seemingly only for reasons of squeamishness.

Sure, for reasons of squeemishness. Industrial scale food production is complex. Some of the details make people squeemish even if they're safe. Other details make people squeemish and are in fact things to worry about.

The relevant question is should light be able to be shed everywhere. Should industrial be forced to openly defend unappealing but safe practices or should industry have a giant hammer to shut up any mention of things with "bad visuals"?

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

#135

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

sjwright wrote: post #99
chii wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does the end product contain ammonia? If it does, then it's an ingredient.

If you let your steak dry before cooking, do you list the airborne dust and bacteria as ingredients?

The whole issue here isn’t the outside of the meat. The outside is supposed to have bacteria, and be cooked off.

It’s that re-shaped meat is done with meat product that is made up of a lot of outside surface (the part that has all the bacteria) now being smashed to the inside of the product where it won’t get hot enough to kill.

The inside of beef is quite clean, that’s why it’s safe to eat rare. The inside of reshaped meat isn’t safe to eat rare. But consumers don’t know the difference.

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

#136

Post by jdietrich »

joe_the_user wrote: post #134
jdietrich wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Food production is really, really complex. If an organic burrito was labelled with every process involved in its production, it would come with a label the size of a telephone directory. Over-labelling is just as problematic as under-labelling, as we have seen with Prop 65; adding more words to a l…

Food production is really, really complex. If an organic burrito was labelled with every process involved in its production, it would come with a label the size of a telephone directory. What I am talking about is "doing you have the right know what's happening?" What that is printed on the back of a given label is a different matter, you think? Some people think that FTLB is unsafe, but they have no evidence for tha…

>What I am talking about is "doing you have the right know what's happening?" What that is printed on the back of a given label is a different matter, you think?

The article we're discussing is about a change in USDA labelling requirements. I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

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

#137

Post by homero »

Meekro wrote: post #14

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. The story took on a life of its own, though. This image[1] became synonymous with "pink slime" (and still appears in a Google image search for the term) even though nobody knows where the image came from. Didn't sto…

Pink slime is usually shown as chicken which is really called mechanically separated chicken

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

#138

Post by pmarreck »

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.

Also sounds less captive-bolt-pistol’y to me. And less greenhouse-gassy https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/04/11/301794415/ga... I’ll take the negatives to have the positives, in this case, and I don’t see how anyone else ethically, rationally, wouldn’t.

And I kinda already know they will succeed, so there’s that

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

#139

Post by pmarreck »

heyjudy wrote: post #110
x43b wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I cannot fathom our downvotes either

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

#140

Post by ramphastidae »

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…

You seem quite informed on the subject — do you have an opinion as to whether meats labeled 'raised without antibiotics' or 'no hormones added' are any better or worse than conventional?
Post reply on HN